No abstract

Purpose The standard of care for second-line therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine-based therapy is not clearly defined. The CONKO-003 phase III study reported a survival benefit with second-line fluorouracil (FU) and oxaliplatin using the oxaliplatin, folinic acid, and FU (OFF) regimen. PANCREOX was a phase III multicenter trial to evaluate the benefit of FU and oxaliplatin administered as modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6; infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) versus infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) in this setting. Patients and Methods Patients with confirmed advanced pancreatic cancer who were previously treated with gemcitabine therapy and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were eligible. A total of 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive biweekly mFOLFOX6 or infusional FU/LV until progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Results Baseline patient characteristics were similar in both arms. No difference was observed in PFS (median, 3.1 months v 2.9 months; P = .99). Overall survival (OS) was inferior in patients assigned to mFOLFOX6 (median, 6.1 months v 9.9 months; P = .02). Increased toxicity was observed with the addition of oxaliplatin, with grade 3/4 adverse events occurring in 63% of patients who received mFOLFOX6 and 11% of those who received FU/LV. More patients in the mFOLFOX6 arm withdrew from study due to adverse events than in the FU/LV arm (20% v 2%), whereas the use of postprogression therapy was significantly higher in the FU/LV arm (25% v 7%; P = .015). No significant differences were observed in time to deterioration on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 global health scale. Conclusion No benefit was observed with the addition of oxaliplatin, administered as mFOLFOX6, versus infusional FU/LV in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with first-line gemcitabine.

All arms provide similar relapse-free survival and OS, with different toxicity profiles and central catheter requirements. LRF with postoperative therapy is low, justifying initial resection for T1-2, N0-2 and T3, and N0-2 anterior resection candidates.

Chemoradiation is the current standard of care for patients with locally advanced HNSCC, and to date, there is no evidence that compares cetuximab plus radiotherapy with chemoradiation, or that examines whether the addition of cetuximab to chemoradiation is of benefit in these patients. However, five ongoing trials are investigating the effect of the addition of EGFR inhibitors concurrently with, before, or after chemoradiotherapy; those trials should provide direction about the best integration of cetuximab into standard treatment. In patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who experience progressive disease despite, or who are unsuitable for, first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, gefitinib at doses of 250 mg or 500 mg daily, compared with weekly methotrexate, did not increase median overall survival [hazard ratio (hr): 1.22; 96% confidence interval (ci): 0.95 to 1.57; p = 0.12 (for 250 mg daily vs. weekly methotrexate); hr: 1.12; 95% ci: 0.87 to 1.43; p = 0.39 (for 500 mg daily vs. weekly methotrexate)] or objective response rate (2.7% for 250 mg and 7.6% for 500 mg daily vs. 3.9% for weekly methotrexate, p > 0.05). As compared with methotrexate, gefitinib was associated with an increased incidence of tumour hemorrhage (8.9% for 250 mg and 11.4% for 500 mg daily vs. 1.9% for weekly methotrexate).