Hôpital Claude Huriez

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS: We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

BACKGROUND: Infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody directed against tumor necrosis factor alpha, is an established treatment for Crohn's disease but not ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies--the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials 1 and 2 (ACT 1 and ACT 2, respectively)--evaluated the efficacy of infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. In each study, 364 patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis despite treatment with concurrent medications received placebo or infliximab (5 mg or 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every eight weeks through week 46 (in ACT 1) or week 22 (in ACT 2). Patients were followed for 54 weeks in ACT 1 and 30 weeks in ACT 2. RESULTS: In ACT 1, 69 percent of patients who received 5 mg of infliximab and 61 percent of those who received 10 mg had a clinical response at week 8, as compared with 37 percent of those who received placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). A response was defined as a decrease in the Mayo score of at least 3 points and at least 30 percent, with an accompanying decrease in the subscore for rectal bleeding of at least 1 point or an absolute rectal-bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. In ACT 2, 64 percent of patients who received 5 mg of infliximab and 69 percent of those who received 10 mg had a clinical response at week 8, as compared with 29 percent of those who received placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). In both studies, patients who received infliximab were more likely to have a clinical response at week 30 (P< or =0.002 for all comparisons). In ACT 1, more patients who received 5 mg or 10 mg of infliximab had a clinical response at week 54 (45 percent and 44 percent, respectively) than did those who received placebo (20 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and every eight weeks thereafter were more likely to have a clinical response at weeks 8, 30, and 54 than were those receiving placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00036439 and NCT00096655.)

The discovery of a series of genetic and serological markers associated with disease susceptibility and phenotype in inflammatory bowel disease has led to the prospect of an integrated classification system involving clinical, serological and genetic parameters. The Working Party has reviewed current clinical classification systems in Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and indeterminate colitis, and provided recommendations for clinical classification in practice. Progress with respect to integrating serological and genetic markers has been examined in detail, and the implications are discussed. While an integrated system is not proposed for clinical use at present, the introduction of a widely acceptable clinical subclassification is strongly advocated, which would allow detailed correlations among serotype, genotype and clinical phenotype to be examined and confirmed in independent cohorts of patients and, thereby, provide a vital foundation for future work.

In recent years, investigators have readdressed the complex issues involved in the classification of inflammatory bowel diseases. In 2003, a Working Party of investigators with an interest in the issues involved in disease subclassification was formed with the aim of summarising recent developments in disease classification and establishing an integrated clinical, molecular, and serological classification of inflammatory bowel disease. The results of the Working Party were reported at the 2005 Montreal World Congress of Gastroenterology. Here we highlight the key issues that have emerged from discussions of the Montreal Working Party and the relevance to clinical practice and research activities.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and safety of infliximab and azathioprine therapy alone or in combination for Crohn's disease are unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we evaluated the efficacy of infliximab monotherapy, azathioprine monotherapy, and the two drugs combined in 508 adults with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease who had not undergone previous immunosuppressive or biologic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of 5 mg of infliximab per kilogram of body weight at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every 8 weeks plus daily oral placebo capsules; 2.5 mg of oral azathioprine per kilogram daily plus a placebo infusion on the standard schedule; or combination therapy with the two drugs. Patients received study medication through week 30 and could continue in a blinded study extension through week 50. RESULTS: Of the 169 patients receiving combination therapy, 96 (56.8%) were in corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 26 (the primary end point), as compared with 75 of 169 patients (44.4%) receiving infliximab alone (P=0.02) and 51 of 170 patients (30.0%) receiving azathioprine alone (P<0.001 for the comparison with combination therapy and P=0.006 for the comparison with infliximab). Similar numerical trends were found at week 50. At week 26, mucosal healing had occurred in 47 of 107 patients (43.9%) receiving combination therapy, as compared with 28 of 93 patients (30.1%) receiving infliximab (P=0.06) and 18 of 109 patients (16.5%) receiving azathioprine (P<0.001 for the comparison with combination therapy and P=0.02 for the comparison with infliximab). Serious infections developed in 3.9% of patients in the combination-therapy group, 4.9% of those in the infliximab group, and 5.6% of those in the azathioprine group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease who were treated with infliximab plus azathioprine or infliximab monotherapy were more likely to have a corticosteroid-free clinical remission than those receiving azathioprine monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094458.)

BACKGROUND: Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by R&D Unicancer and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

BACKGROUND: The BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown efficacy as monotherapies in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Combining dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, enhanced antitumor activity in this population of patients. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) or vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At the preplanned interim overall survival analysis, which was performed after 77% of the total number of expected events occurred, the overall survival rate at 12 months was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67 to 77) in the combination-therapy group and 65% (95% CI, 59 to 70) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89; P=0.005). The prespecified interim stopping boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped for efficacy in July 2014. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the combination-therapy group and 7.3 months in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-therapy group and 51% in the vemurafenib group (P<0.001). Rates of severe adverse events and study-drug discontinuations were similar in the two groups. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma occurred in 1% of patients in the combination-therapy group and 18% of those in the vemurafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

BACKGROUND: The median survival of patients with myeloma after conventional chemotherapy is three years or less. Promising results have been reported with high-dose therapy supported by autologous bone marrow transplantation. We conducted a randomized study comparing conventional chemotherapy and high-dose therapy. METHODS: Two hundred previously untreated patients under the age of 65 years who had myeloma were randomly assigned at the time of diagnosis to receive either conventional chemotherapy or high-dose therapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. RESULTS: The response rate among the patients who received high-dose therapy was 81 percent (including complete responses in 22 percent and very good partial responses in 16 percent), whereas it was 57 percent (complete responses in 5 percent and very good partial responses in 9 percent) in the group treated with conventional chemotherapy (P < 0.001). The probability of event-free survival for five years was 28 percent in the high-dose group and 10 percent in the conventional-dose group (P = 0.01); the overall estimated rate of survival for five years was 52 percent in the high-dose group and 12 percent in the conventional-dose group (P = 0.03). Treatment-related mortality was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose therapy combined with transplantation improves the response rate, eventfree survival, and overall survival in patients with myeloma.

BACKGROUND: This study compared bortezomib with high-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who had received one to three previous therapies. METHODS: We randomly assigned 669 patients with relapsed myeloma to receive either an intravenous bolus of bortezomib (1.3 mg per square meter of body-surface area) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for eight three-week cycles, followed by treatment on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 for three five-week cycles, or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg orally) on days 1 through 4, 9 through 12, and 17 through 20 for four five-week cycles, followed by treatment on days 1 through 4 for five four-week cycles. Patients who were assigned to receive dexamethasone were permitted to cross over to receive bortezomib in a companion study after disease progression. RESULTS: Patients treated with bortezomib had higher response rates, a longer time to progression (the primary end point), and a longer survival than patients treated with dexamethasone. The combined complete and partial response rates were 38 percent for bortezomib and 18 percent for dexamethasone (P<0.001), and the complete response rates were 6 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively (P<0.001). Median times to progression in the bortezomib and dexamethasone groups were 6.22 months (189 days) and 3.49 months (106 days), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; P<0.001). The one-year survival rate was 80 percent among patients taking bortezomib and 66 percent among patients taking dexamethasone (P=0.003), and the hazard ratio for overall survival with bortezomib was 0.57 (P=0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 75 percent of patients treated with bortezomib and in 60 percent of those treated with dexamethasone. CONCLUSIONS: Bortezomib is superior to high-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who have had a relapse after one to three previous therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical and immunologic manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in a large cohort of patients and to define patterns of disease expression. METHODS: The clinical and serologic features of APS (Sapporo preliminary criteria) in 1,000 patients from 13 European countries were analyzed using a computerized database. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 820 female patients (82.0%) and 180 male patients (18.0%) with a mean +/- SD age of 42 +/- 14 years at study entry. "Primary" APS was present in 53.1% of the patients; APS was associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 36.2%, with lupus-like syndrome in 5.0%, and with other diseases in 5.9%. A variety of thrombotic manifestations affecting the majority of organs were recorded. A catastrophic APS occurred in 0.8% of the patients. Patients with APS associated with SLE had more episodes of arthritis and livedo reticularis, and more frequently exhibited thrombocytopenia and leukopenia. Female patients had a higher frequency of arthritis, livedo reticularis, and migraine. Male patients had a higher frequency of myocardial infarction, epilepsy, and arterial thrombosis in the lower legs and feet. In 28 patients (2.8%), disease onset occurred before age 15; these patients had more episodes of chorea and jugular vein thrombosis than the remaining patients. In 127 patients (12.7%), disease onset occurred after age 50; most of these patients were men. These patients had a higher frequency of stroke and angina pectoris, but a lower frequency of livedo reticularis, than the remaining patients. CONCLUSION: APS may affect any organ of the body and display a broad spectrum of manifestations. An association with SLE, the patient's sex, and the patient's age at disease onset can modify the disease expression and define specific subsets of APS.

OBJECTIVES: The Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) program was initiated by the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IOIBD). It examined potential treatment targets for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to be used for a "treat-to-target" clinical management strategy using an evidence-based expert consensus process. METHODS: A Steering Committee of 28 IBD specialists developed recommendations based on a systematic literature review and expert opinion. Consensus was gained if ≥75% of participants scored the recommendation as 7-10 on a 10-point rating scale (where 10=agree completely). RESULTS: The group agreed upon 12 recommendations for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). The agreed target for UC was clinical/patient-reported outcome (PRO) remission (defined as resolution of rectal bleeding and diarrhea/altered bowel habit) and endoscopic remission (defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0-1). Histological remission was considered as an adjunctive goal. Clinical/PRO remission was also agreed upon as a target for CD and defined as resolution of abdominal pain and diarrhea/altered bowel habit; and endoscopic remission, defined as resolution of ulceration at ileocolonoscopy, or resolution of findings of inflammation on cross-sectional imaging in patients who cannot be adequately assessed with ileocolonoscopy. Biomarker remission (normal C-reactive protein (CRP) and calprotectin) was considered as an adjunctive target. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for selecting the goals for treat-to-target strategies in patients with IBD are made available. Prospective studies are needed to determine how these targets will change disease course and patients' quality of life.

Ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody to the p40 subunit of interleukin-12 and interleukin-23, was evaluated as an intravenous induction therapy in two populations with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. Ustekinumab was also evaluated as subcutaneous maintenance therapy.

Among 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.).

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) offers a survival benefit to patients with intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A widely accepted TACE regimen includes administration of doxorubicin-oil emulsion followed by gelatine sponge-conventional TACE. Recently, a drug-eluting bead (DC Bead) has been developed to enhance tumor drug delivery and reduce systemic availability. This randomized trial compares conventional TACE (cTACE) with TACE with DC Bead for the treatment of cirrhotic patients with HCC. Two hundred twelve patients with Child-Pugh A/B cirrhosis and large and/or multinodular, unresectable, N0, M0 HCCs were randomized to receive TACE with DC Bead loaded with doxorubicin or cTACE with doxorubicin. Randomization was stratified according to Child-Pugh status (A/B), performance status (ECOG 0/1), bilobar disease (yes/no), and prior curative treatment (yes/no). The primary endpoint was tumor response (EASL) at 6 months following independent, blinded review of MRI studies. The drug-eluting bead group showed higher rates of complete response, objective response, and disease control compared with the cTACE group (27% vs. 22%, 52% vs. 44%, and 63% vs. 52%, respectively). The hypothesis of superiority was not met (one-sided P = 0.11). However, patients with Child-Pugh B, ECOG 1, bilobar disease, and recurrent disease showed a significant increase in objective response (P = 0.038) compared to cTACE. DC Bead was associated with improved tolerability, with a significant reduction in serious liver toxicity (P < 0.001) and a significantly lower rate of doxorubicin-related side effects (P = 0.0001). TACE with DC Bead and doxorubicin is safe and effective in the treatment of HCC and offers a benefit to patients with more advanced disease.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide is a structural analogue of thalidomide with similar but more potent biologic activity. This phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: Of 351 patients who had received at least one previous antimyeloma therapy, 176 were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg of oral lenalidomide and 175 to receive placebo on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle. In addition, all patients received 40 mg of oral dexamethasone on days 1 to 4, 9 to 12, and 17 to 20 for the first four cycles and subsequently, after the fourth cycle, only on days 1 to 4. Patients continued in the study until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was time to progression. RESULTS: The time to progression was significantly longer in the patients who received lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (lenalidomide group) than in those who received placebo plus dexamethasone (placebo group) (median, 11.3 months vs. 4.7 months; P<0.001). A complete or partial response occurred in 106 patients in the lenalidomide group (60.2%) and in 42 patients in the placebo group (24.0%, P<0.001), with a complete response in 15.9% and 3.4% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). Overall survival was significantly improved in the lenalidomide group (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; P=0.03). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of patients in the lenalidomide group were neutropenia (29.5%, vs. 2.3% in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (11.4% vs. 5.7%), and venous thromboembolism (11.4% vs. 4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is more effective than high-dose dexamethasone alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00424047 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

BACKGROUND: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to compare preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone in patients with stage I and II squamous-cell cancer of the esophagus. METHODS: The preoperative combined therapy consisted of two one-week courses; each involved radiotherapy, in a dose of 18.5 Gy delivered in five fractions of 3.7 Gy each, and 80 mg of cisplatin per square meter of body-surface area, administered 0 to 2 days before the first day of radiotherapy. The surgical plan included one-stage en bloc esophagectomy and proximal gastrectomy by the abdominal and right thoracic routes, to be performed immediately after randomization in the group assigned to surgery alone and two to four weeks after the completion of preoperative chemoradiotherapy in the group assigned to combined therapy. RESULTS: A total of 297 patients entered the study; 11 were found to be ineligible, and 4 were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 282, 139 were assigned to surgery alone and 143 to combined therapy. After a median follow-up of 55.2 months, no significant difference in overall survival was observed; the median survival was 18.6 months for both groups. As compared with the group treated with surgery alone, the group treated preoperatively had longer disease-free survival (P=0.003), a longer interval free of local disease (P=0.01), a lower rate of cancer-related deaths (P=0.002), and a higher frequency of curative resection (P=0.017). However, there were more postoperative deaths (P=0.012) in the group treated preoperatively with chemoradiotherapy. Three prognostic factors were found to influence survival in a multivariate analysis: the disease stage, based on computed tomography; the location of the tumor; and whether the surgical resection was curative. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with squamous-cell esophageal cancer, preoperative chemoradiotherapy did not improve overall survival, but it did prolong disease-free survival and survival free of local disease.

BACKGROUND: As a general rule, surgery whenever possible, followed by irradiation is considered to be the standard treatment for cancer of the hypopharynx, thus sacrificing natural speech. In most patients, surgery includes removal of the larynx. PURPOSE: A prospective, randomized phase III study was conducted by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) starting in 1990 to compare a larynx-preserving treatment (induction chemotherapy plus definitive, radiation therapy in patients who showed a complete response or surgery in those who did not respond) with conventional treatment (total laryngectomy with partial pharyngectomy, radical neck dissection, and postoperative irradiation) in previously untreated and operable patients with histologically proven squamous cell carcinomas of the pyriform sinus or aryepiglottic fold, but free of other cancers. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: 1) immediate surgery with postoperative radiotherapy (50-70 Gy) or 2) induction chemotherapy (cisplatin [100 mg/m2] given as a bolus intravenous injection on day 1, followed by infusion of fluorouracil [1000 mg/m2 per day] on days 1-5). An endoscopic evaluation was performed after each cycle of chemotherapy. After two cycles, only partial and complete responders received a third cycle. Patients with a complete response after two or three cycles of chemotherapy were treated thereafter by irradiation (70 Gy); nonresponding patients underwent conventional surgery with postoperative radiation (50-70 Gy). Salvage surgery was also performed when patients relapsed after chemotherapy and irradiation. The trial was designed to test the equivalence of the two treatment arms; i.e., the induction chemotherapy treatment would be judged equivalent to immediate surgery if the relative risk of death for induction chemotherapy compared with immediate surgery was significantly less than 1.43 using a one-sided hypothesis test at the .05 level of significance. RESULTS: Two hundred two patients entered the trial and were randomly assigned; only 194 were eligible for treatment (94 in the immediate-surgery arm and 100 in the induction-chemotherapy arm). In the induction-chemotherapy arm, complete response was seen in 52 (54%) of 97 patients with local disease (primary tumor) and in 31 (51%) of 61 patients with regional disease (involvement of the neck). Treatment failures at local, regional, and second primary sites occurred at approximately the same frequencies in the immediate-surgery arm (12%, 19%, and 16%, respectively) and in the induction-chemotherapy arm (17%, 23%, and 13%, respectively). In contrast, there were fewer failures at distant sites in the induction-chemotherapy arm than in the immediate-surgery arm (25% versus 36%, respectively; P = .041). The median duration of survival was 25 months in the immediate-surgery arm and 44 months in the induction-chemotherapy arm and, since the observed hazard ratio was 0.86 (logrank test, P = .006), which was significantly less than 1.43, the two treatments were judged to be equivalent. The 3- and 5-year estimates of retaining a functional larynx in patients treated in the induction-chemotherapy arm were 42% (95% confidence interval = 31%-53%) and 35% (95% confidence interval = 22%-48%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Larynx preservation without jeopardizing survival appears feasible in patients with cancer of the hypopharynx. On the basis of these observations, the EORTC has now accepted the use of induction chemotherapy followed by radiation as the new standard treatment in its future phase III larynx preservation trials.

BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation has been the standard treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in adults up to 65 years of age. However, promising data on the use of combination therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) in this population have raised questions about the role and timing of transplantation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 700 patients with multiple myeloma to receive induction therapy with three cycles of RVD and then consolidation therapy with either five additional cycles of RVD (350 patients) or high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation followed by two additional cycles of RVD (350 patients). Patients in both groups received maintenance therapy with lenalidomide for 1 year. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the group that underwent transplantation than in the group that received RVD alone (50 months vs. 36 months; adjusted hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.65; P<0.001). This benefit was observed across all patient subgroups, including those stratified according to International Staging System stage and cytogenetic risk. The percentage of patients with a complete response was higher in the transplantation group than in the RVD-alone group (59% vs. 48%, P=0.03), as was the percentage of patients in whom minimal residual disease was not detected (79% vs. 65%, P<0.001). Overall survival at 4 years did not differ significantly between the transplantation group and the RVD-alone group (81% and 82%, respectively). The rate of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was significantly higher in the transplantation group than in the RVD-alone group (92% vs. 47%), as were the rates of grade 3 or 4 gastrointestinal disorders (28% vs. 7%) and infections (20% vs. 9%). No significant between-group differences were observed in the rates of treatment-related deaths, second primary cancers, thromboembolic events, and peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with multiple myeloma, RVD therapy plus transplantation was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than RVD therapy alone, but overall survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches. (Supported by Celgene and others; IFM 2009 Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01191060 .).

BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation is a standard treatment for young patients with multiple myeloma. Residual disease is almost always present after transplantation and is responsible for relapse. This phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy of lenalidomide maintenance therapy after transplantation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 614 patients younger than 65 years of age who had nonprogressive disease after first-line transplantation to maintenance treatment with either lenalidomide (10 mg per day for the first 3 months, increased to 15 mg if tolerated) or placebo until relapse. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Lenalidomide maintenance therapy improved median progression-free survival (41 months, vs. 23 months with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.50; P<0.001). This benefit was observed across all patient subgroups, including those based on the β(2)-microglobulin level, cytogenetic profile, and response after transplantation. With a median follow-up period of 45 months, more than 70% of patients in both groups were alive at 4 years. The rates of grade 3 or 4 peripheral neuropathy were similar in the two groups. The incidence of second primary cancers was 3.1 per 100 patient-years in the lenalidomide group versus 1.2 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (P=0.002). Median event-free survival (with events that included second primary cancers) was significantly improved with lenalidomide (40 months, vs. 23 months with placebo; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lenalidomide maintenance after transplantation significantly prolonged progression-free and event-free survival among patients with multiple myeloma. Four years after randomization, overall survival was similar in the two study groups. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00430365.).

BACKGROUND: The combination of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids leads to remission in most patients with antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides. However, even when patients receive maintenance treatment with azathioprine or methotrexate, the relapse rate remains high. Rituximab may help to maintain remission. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing granulomatosis with polyangiitis, microscopic polyangiitis, or renal-limited ANCA-associated vasculitis in complete remission after a cyclophosphamide-glucocorticoid regimen were randomly assigned to receive either 500 mg of rituximab on days 0 and 14 and at months 6, 12, and 18 after study entry or daily azathioprine until month 22. The primary end point at month 28 was the rate of major relapse (the reappearance of disease activity or worsening, with a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score >0, and involvement of one or more major organs, disease-related life-threatening events, or both). RESULTS: The 115 enrolled patients (87 with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, 23 with microscopic polyangiitis, and 5 with renal-limited ANCA-associated vasculitis) received azathioprine (58 patients) or rituximab (57 patients). At month 28, major relapse had occurred in 17 patients in the azathioprine group (29%) and in 3 patients in the rituximab group (5%) (hazard ratio for relapse, 6.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 27.96; P=0.002). The frequencies of severe adverse events were similar in the two groups. Twenty-five patients in each group (P=0.92) had severe adverse events; there were 44 events in the azathioprine group and 45 in the rituximab group. Eight patients in the azathioprine group and 11 in the rituximab group had severe infections, and cancer developed in 2 patients in the azathioprine group and 1 in the rituximab group. Two patients in the azathioprine group died (1 from sepsis and 1 from pancreatic cancer). CONCLUSIONS: More patients with ANCA-associated vasculitides had sustained remission at month 28 with rituximab than with azathioprine. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; MAINRITSAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00748644; EudraCT number, 2008-002846-51.).