BACKGROUNDNo adjuvant treatment has been established for patients who remain at high risk for recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. METHODSWe conducted CheckMate 577, a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial to evaluate a checkpoint inhibitor as adjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Adults with resected (R0) stage II or III esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or matching placebo. The maximum duration of the trial intervention period was 1 year. The primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTSThe median follow-up was 24.4 months. Among the 532 patients who received nivolumab, the median disease-free survival was 22.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.6 to 34.0), as compared with 11.0 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 14.3) among the 262 patients who received placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% CI, 0.56 to 0.86; P<0.001). Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple prespecified subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were considered by the investigators to be related to the active drug or placebo occurred in 71 of 532 patients (13%) in the nivolumab group and 15 of 260 patients (6%) in the placebo group. The trial regimen was discontinued because of adverse events related to the active drug or placebo in 9% of the patients in the nivolumab group and 3% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONSAmong patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, disease-free survival was significantly longer among those who received nivolumab adjuvant therapy than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 577 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02743494.

published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User

Until recently, intravenous cyclophosphamide pulses with oral corticosteroids were regarded standard therapy for proliferative lupus nephritis (LN). Azathioprine, a less toxic alternative, was never proven to be inferior. In the first Dutch lupus nephritis study (enrollment between 1995 and 2001), we randomized 87 proliferative LN patients to either cyclophosphamide pulses (750 mg/m(2), 13 pulses in 2 years) combined with oral prednisone (CY) or to azathioprine (2 mg/kg/day in 2 years) combined with intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone (3 x 3 pulses of 1000 mg) and oral prednisone (AZA). After a median follow-up of 5.7 years (interquartile range 4.1-7.2 years), doubling of serum creatinine was more frequent in the AZA group, although not statistically significant (relative risk (RR): 4.1, with 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.8-20.4). Relapses occurred more often in the AZA group (RR: 8.8, 95% CI: 1.5-31.8). Creatinine and proteinuria at last visit did not differ between the two treatment arms. Moreover, 88.4% of the patients in the AZA arm were still free of cyclophosphamide treatment. During the first 2 years, the frequency of remission was not different, but infections, especially herpes zoster virus infections (HZV) were more frequent in the AZA group. Parameters for ovarian function did not differ between the two groups. In conclusion, in this open-label randomized controlled trial, cyclophosphamide was superior to azathioprine with regard to renal relapses and HZV. At last follow-up, there were no differences in serum creatinine or proteinuria between the two groups. However, since our study lacked sufficient power, longer follow-up is needed to reveal putative differences.

No abstract

This study shows that, although definitions were agreed upon beforehand, even specialized on nephropathologists have difficulties with scoring histopathological characteristics of LN, particularly with SLE the classification systems.