Sven Gogov

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

BACKGROUND: The hedgehog pathway inhibitor sonidegib demonstrated meaningful tumor shrinkage in more than 90% of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or metastatic BCC in the BCC Outcomes with LDE225 Treatment study. OBJECTIVE: This report provides long-term follow-up data collected up to 12 months after the last patient was randomized. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase II study, patients were randomized 1:2 to sonidegib 200 or 800 mg. The primary end point was objective response rate assessed by central review. RESULTS: Objective response rates in the 200- and 800-mg arms were 57.6% and 43.8% in locally advanced BCC and 7.7% and 17.4% in metastatic BCC, respectively. Among the 94 patients with locally advanced BCC who responded, only 18 progressed or died and more than 50% had responses lasting longer than 6 months. In addition, 4 of 5 responders with metastatic BCC maintained an objective response. Grade 3/4 adverse events and those leading to discontinuation were less frequent with sonidegib 200 versus 800 mg (38.0% vs 59.3%; 27.8% vs 37.3%, respectively). LIMITATIONS: No placebo or comparator arms were used because sonidegib demonstrated efficacy in advanced BCC in a phase I study, and the hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib was not yet approved. CONCLUSION: With longer follow-up, sonidegib demonstrated sustained tumor responses in patients with advanced BCC.

OBJECTIVE: Low-intensity laser therapy (LILT) has been advocated for treatment of chronic pain disorders. Although the mechanism of pain relief is uncertain, this therapy has been suggested for relief of painful symptoms of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP). The objective of this study was to determine whether LILT relieves the pain of DSP. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-masked, sham therapy-controlled clinical trial in 50 patients with painful DSP diagnosed with the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score. All patients received sham therapy over a 2-week baseline period and were then randomized to receive biweekly sessions of either sham or LILT for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy parameter was the difference in the weekly mean pain scores on a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: The patients had similar baseline characteristics for pain intensity, HbA(1c), and duration of DSP. Both groups noted a decrease in weekly mean pain scores during sham treatment. After the 4-week intervention, the LILT group had an additional reduction in weekly mean pain scores of -1.0 +/- 0.4 compared with -0.0 +/- 0.4 for the sham group (P = 0.07). LILT had no effect on the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score, nerve conduction studies, sympathetic skin response, or quantitative sensory testing. CONCLUSIONS: Although an encouraging trend was observed with LILT, the study results do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend this treatment for painful symptoms of DSP.