R. McMenemin

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): An open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial

Summary Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Methods The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin–etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. Findings Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35–58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24–34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21–31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95–1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50–62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45–57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI −3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3–4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3–4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). Interpretation Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. Funding Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).

Chemical- and radiation-induced haemorrhagic cystitis: current treatments and challenges

To review the published data on predisposing risk factors for cancer treatment‐induced haemorrhagic cystitis (HC) and the evidence for the different preventive and therapeutic measures that have been used in order to help clinicians optimally define and manage this potentially serious condition. Despite recognition that HC can be a significant complication of cancer treatment, there is currently a lack of UK‐led guidelines available on how it should optimally be defined and managed. A systematic literature review was undertaken to evaluate the evidence for preventative measures and treatment options in the management of cancer treatment‐induced HC. There is a wide range of reported incidence due to several factors including variability in study design and quality, the type of causal agent, the grading of bleeding, and discrepancies in definition criteria. The most frequently reported causal factors are radiotherapy to the pelvic area, where HC has been reported in up to 20% of patients, and treatment with cyclophosphamide and bacillus Calmette‐Guérin, where the incidence has been reported as up to 30%. Mesna (2‐mercaptoethane sodium sulphonate), hyperhydration and bladder irrigation have been the most frequently used prophylactic measures to prevent treatment‐related cystitis, but are not always effective. Cranberry juice is widely cited as a preventative measure and sodium pentosanpolysulphate as a treatment, although the evidence for both is very limited. The best evidence exists for intravesical hyaluronic acid as an effective preventative and active treatment, and for hyperbaric oxygen as an equally effective treatment option. The lack of robust data and variability in treatment strategies used highlights the need for further research, as well as best practice guidance and consensus on the management of HC.

Recent Advances and Future Directions in the Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

A better understanding of the molecular biology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and the emergence of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionized the treatment for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). Multikinase inhibitors (sunitinib and sorafenib) and the inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (temsirolimus and everolimus) have recently shown superiority over IFN-alpha or placebo; and bevacizumab + IFN-alpha have demonstrated improved activity when compared to IFN-alpha alone in patients with mRCC. Newer anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents such as axitinib, pazopanib and cediranib are currently under investigation to expand and elucidate future treatment options. Several studies have investigated the synergistic potential of TKIs with a view to blocking multiple signalling pathways simultaneously, but this approach has resulted in a significant increase in toxicity. Sequential TKI administration has demonstrated encouraging results but the optimal sequence of TKIs is yet to be determined. Studies combining TKIs with immunotherapy have resulted in varying degrees of success; with bevacizumab + IFN-alpha being the only studies with positive outcomes. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current evidence supporting the role of TKIs and to discuss potential future directions in the management of mRCC. The role of TKIs as monotherapy, in combination with immunotherapy or other TKIs (combined or sequential approach) will be discussed.

VICTOR: Vinflunine in advanced metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium: A retrospective analysis of the use of vinflunine in multi-centre real life setting as second line chemotherapy through Free of Charge Programme for patients in the UK and Ireland

There is no standard of care in the UK or Ireland for second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma (TCCU). Vinflunine is approved for TCCU patients who have failed a platinum-based regimen, and is standard of care in Europe but is not routinely available in the UK. Data were collected retrospectively on patients who received vinfluine as a second-line treatment. The aims were to document the toxicity and efficacy in a real life setting. Data were collected on 49 patients from 9 sites across the UK and Ireland [median age, 64 (IQR, 57–70) years, 33 males]. All patients had advanced metastatic TCCU. Thirteen patients had bone or liver metastases, 4 patients had PS 2 and 11 patients had HB <10. Median vinflunine administration was 3.5 cycles (range 1–18). Most common grade 3–4 toxicities were constipation (4 patients) and fatigue (3 patients). Partial response rate was 29% (14 PR, 11 SD, 19 PD, 4 NE, 1 not available). Median OS was 9.1 (6.0, 12.7) months. Results are consistent with real life data from Europe. Toxicity is further reduced with prophylactic laxative and oral antibiotics. Vinflunine is an efficient and tolerable second line treatment in advanced TCCU.