1.
Arsenic trioxide replacing or reducing chemotherapy in consolidation therapy for acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL2012 trial).
Chen, L, Zhu, HM, Li, Y, Liu, QF, Hu, Y, Zhou, JF, Jin, J, Hu, JD, Liu, T, Wu, DP, et al
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2021;(6)
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
As all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) are widely accepted in treating acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), deescalating toxicity becomes a research hotspot. Here, we evaluated whether chemotherapy could be replaced or reduced by ATO in APL patients at different risks. After achieving complete remission with ATRA-ATO-based induction therapy, patients were randomized (1:1) into ATO and non-ATO groups for consolidation: ATRA-ATO versus ATRA-anthracycline for low-/intermediate-risk patients, or ATRA-ATO-anthracycline versus ATRA-anthracycline-cytarabine for high-risk patients. The primary end point was to assess disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 y by a noninferiority margin of -5%; 855 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 54.9 mo, and 658 of 755 patients could be evaluated at 3 y. In the ATO group, 96.1% (319/332) achieved 3-y DFS, compared to 92.6% (302/326) in the non-ATO group. The difference was 3.45% (95% CI -0.07 to 6.97), confirming noninferiority (P < 0.001). Using the Kaplan-Meier method, the estimated 7-y DFS was 95.7% (95% CI 93.6 to 97.9) in ATO and 92.6% (95% CI 89.8 to 95.4) in non-ATO groups (P = 0.066). Concerning secondary end points, the 7-y cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was significantly lower in ATO (2.2% [95% CI 1.1 to 4.2]) than in non-ATO group (6.1% [95% CI 3.9 to 9.5], P = 0.011). In addition, grade 3 to 4 hematological toxicities were significantly reduced in the ATO group during consolidation. Hence, ATRA-ATO in both chemotherapy-replacing and -reducing settings in consolidation is not inferior to ATRA-chemotherapy (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT01987297).
2.
Eribulin mesilate versus vinorelbine in women with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: A randomised clinical trial.
Yuan, P, Hu, X, Sun, T, Li, W, Zhang, Q, Cui, S, Cheng, Y, Ouyang, Q, Wang, X, Chen, Z, et al
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2019;:57-65
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eribulin monotherapy, relative to vinorelbine, in Chinese women with locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS This phase III open-label, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre clinical trial enrolled patients with locally recurrent or MBC who had had 2-5 prior chemotherapy regimens, including an anthracycline and taxane) from September 26, 2013, to May 19, 2015. Women were randomised 1:1 to receive eribulin (1.4 mg/m2, intravenously, on day 1 and day 8) or vinorelbine (25 mg/m2, intravenously, on day 1, day 8 and day 15) every 21 days. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Five hundred thirty women were randomised to receive eribulin (n = 264) or vinorelbine (n = 266). Improvement in PFS was observed with eribulin compared with vinorelbine (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.98, P = 0.036); median PFS was 2.8 months in both treatment arms. The median OS was 13.4 months with eribulin and 12.5 months with vinorelbine (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.80-1.31, P = 0.838). The ORR was 30.7% (95% CI: 25.2%-36.6%) with eribulin and 16.9% (95% CI: 12.6%-22.0%) with vinorelbine (P < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were less frequent with eribulin (7.2%) than with vinorelbine (14.0%). CONCLUSIONS Eribulin achieved statistically significantly superior PFS (and response rate) compared with vinorelbine in previously treated women with locally recurrent or MBC. Eribulin appeared to be better tolerated than vinorelbine, with no new safety signals observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov registry, NCT02225470. Registered 05 August 2014- Retrospectively registered. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02225470?term=NCT02225470&rank=1.