Francesco Ferraù

BACKGROUND: Vinorelbine prolongs survival and improves quality of life in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Some studies have also suggested that gemcitabine is well tolerated and effective in such patients. We compared the effectiveness and toxicity of the combination of vinorelbine plus gemcitabine with those of each drug given alone in an open-label, randomized phase III trial in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Patients aged 70 years and older, enrolled between December 1997 and November 2000, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) of body surface area), gemcitabine (1200 mg/m(2)), or vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2)) plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)). All treatments were delivered on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. The primary endpoint was survival. Survival curves were drawn using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel test. Secondary endpoints were quality of life and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 698 patients available for intention-to-treat analysis, 233 were assigned to receive vinorelbine, 233 to gemcitabine, and 232 to vinorelbine plus gemcitabine. Compared with each single drug, the combination treatment did not improve survival. The hazard ratio of death for patients receiving the combination treatment was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.44) that of patients receiving vinorelbine and 1.06 (95% CI = 0.86 to 1.29) that of patients receiving gemcitabine. Although quality of life was similar across the three treatment arms, the combination treatment was more toxic than the two drugs given singly. CONCLUSION: The combination of vinorelbine plus gemcitabine is not more effective than single-agent vinorelbine or gemcitabine in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

•The phase III IMpassion131 trial evaluated atezolizumab combined with paclitaxel as first-line therapy for aTNBC.•The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically in the PD-L1+ and then ITT populations.•Neither PFS nor OS was improved with the combination of atezolizumab plus paclitaxel in either population.•These findings may result from imbalances in prognostic features or chance findings in a relatively small trial.•IMpassion131 results highlight the need for further research into immunotherapy for TNBC. BackgroundIn the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-bound-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive populations, and a clinically meaningful overall survival (OS) effect in PD-L1-positive aTNBC. The phase III KEYNOTE-355 trial adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy for aTNBC showed similar PFS effects. IMpassion131 evaluated first-line atezolizumab–paclitaxel in aTNBC.Patients and methodsEligible patients [no prior systemic therapy or ≥12 months since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy] were randomised 2:1 to atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo (days 1, 15), both with paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were tumour PD-L1 status, prior taxane, liver metastases and geographical region. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically first in the PD-L1-positive [immune cell expression ≥1%, VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay] population, and then in the ITT population. OS was a secondary endpoint.ResultsOf 651 randomised patients, 45% had PD-L1-positive aTNBC. At the primary PFS analysis, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve investigator-assessed PFS in the PD-L1-positive population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-1.12; P = 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placebo–paclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumab–paclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placebo–paclitaxel) and median duration of response (7.2 versus 5.5 months, respectively). Final OS results showed no difference between arms (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.64; median 22.1 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placebo–paclitaxel in the PD-L1-positive population). Results in the ITT population were consistent with the PD-L1-positive population. The safety profile was consistent with known effects of each study drug.ConclusionCombining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone.ClinicalTrials.govNCT03125902. In the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-bound-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive populations, and a clinically meaningful overall survival (OS) effect in PD-L1-positive aTNBC. The phase III KEYNOTE-355 trial adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy for aTNBC showed similar PFS effects. IMpassion131 evaluated first-line atezolizumab–paclitaxel in aTNBC. Eligible patients [no prior systemic therapy or ≥12 months since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy] were randomised 2:1 to atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo (days 1, 15), both with paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were tumour PD-L1 status, prior taxane, liver metastases and geographical region. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically first in the PD-L1-positive [immune cell expression ≥1%, VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay] population, and then in the ITT population. OS was a secondary endpoint. Of 651 randomised patients, 45% had PD-L1-positive aTNBC. At the primary PFS analysis, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve investigator-assessed PFS in the PD-L1-positive population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-1.12; P = 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placebo–paclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumab–paclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placebo–paclitaxel) and median duration of response (7.2 versus 5.5 months, respectively). Final OS results showed no difference between arms (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.64; median 22.1 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placebo–paclitaxel in the PD-L1-positive population). Results in the ITT population were consistent with the PD-L1-positive population. The safety profile was consistent with known effects of each study drug. Combining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone.

PURPOSE: To study the prognostic value for overall survival of baseline assessment of functional status, comorbidity, and quality of life (QoL) in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 566 patients enrolled onto the phase III randomized Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) study were analyzed. Functional status was measured as activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). The presence of comorbidity was assessed with a checklist of 33 items; items 29 and 30 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) were used to estimate QoL. ADL was dichotomized as none versus one or more dependency. For IADL and QoL, three categories were defined using first and third quartiles as cut points. Comorbidity was summarized using the Charlson scale. Analysis was performed by Cox model, and stratified by treatment arm. RESULTS: Better values of baseline QoL (P = .0003) and IADL (P = .04) were significantly associated with better prognosis, whereas ADL (P = .44) and Charlson score (P = .66) had no prognostic value. Performance status 2 (P = .006) and a higher number of metastatic sites (P = .02) also predicted shorter overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment global QoL and IADL scores, but not ADL and comorbidity, have significant prognostic value for survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who were treated with chemotherapy. Using these scores in clinical practice might improve prognostic prediction for treatment planning.

Abstract Purpose: Inflammation indexes and body mass index (BMI) are easily evaluated, predict survival, and are potentially modifiable. We evaluated the potential association of inflammatory indexes and BMI with the clinical outcome of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Experimental Design: A prospective cohort of patients with metastatic RCC treated with nivolumab enrolled in the Italian Expanded Access Program from July 2015 through April 2016 was examined. Reference measures of inflammation were identified for neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) </≥ 3, systemic immune inflammation index (SII) </≥ 1,375, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) </≥ 232. Patients were classified as high BMI (≥25 kg/m2) versus normal BMI (<25 kg/m2). Results: Among 313 evaluable patients, 235 (75.1%) were male, and median age was 65 years (range, 40–84 years), with 105 (33.69%) ≥70 years. In univariate analysis, age, performance status, BMI, SII, NLR, and PLR were able to predict outcome. In multivariate analyses, SII ≥1,375, BMI <25 kg/m2, and age ≥70 years independently predicted overall survival [OS; HR = 2.96, 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.05–4.27; HR = 1.59, 95% CI, 1.10–2.30; and HR = 1.65, 95% CI, 1.07–2.55, respectively). A patient with both SII ≥1,375 and BMI <25 kg/m2 was estimated to have much worse OS (HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.29–4.95; P <0.0001) than a patient with neither or only one risk factor. SII changes at 3 months predicted OS (P <0.0001). Conclusions: Normal BMI combined with inflammation tripled the risk of death, suggesting that these biomarkers are critical prognostic factors for OS in patients with RCC treated with nivolumab.