Recent randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiation plus surgery or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery with surgery alone showed significant survival benefits for combined modality treatment of patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, head-to-head comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and perioperative chemotherapy applying contemporary treatment protocols are lacking. The present trial was initiated to obtain valid information whether neoadjuvant chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy yields better survival in the treatment of localized esophageal adenocarcinoma. The ESOPEC trial is an investigator-initiated multicenter prospective randomized controlled two-arm trial, comparing the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CROSS protocol: 41.4Gy plus carboplatin/paclitaxel) followed by surgery versus perioperative chemotherapy and surgery (FLOT protocol: 5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/docetaxel) for the curative treatment of localized esophageal adenocarcinoma. Patients with cT1cN + cM0 and cT2-4acNxcM0 esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma are eligible. The trial aims to include 438 participants who are centrally randomized to one of the two treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio stratified by N-stage and study site. The primary endpoint of the trial is overall survival assessed with a minimum follow-up of 36 months. Secondary objectives are progression-free survival, recurrence-free survival, site of failure, postoperative morbidity and mortality, duration of hospitalization as well as quality of life. The ESOPEC trial compares perioperative chemotherapy according to the FLOT protocol to neoadjuvant chemoradiation according to the CROSS protocol in multimodal treatment of non-metastasized recectable adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and the gastroesophageal junction. The goal of the trial is identify the superior protocol with regard to patient survival, treatment morbidity and quality of life. NCT02509286 (July 22, 2015)

The best multimodal approach for resectable locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is unclear. An important question is whether perioperative chemotherapy is preferable to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma to receive perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) plus surgery or preoperative chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy at a dose of 41.4 Gy and carboplatin and paclitaxel) plus surgery. Eligibility criteria included a primary tumor with a clinical stage of cT1 cN+, cT2-4a cN+, or cT2-4a cN0 disease, in which T indicates the size and extent of the tumor (higher numbers indicate a more advanced tumor), and N indicates the presence (N+) or absence (N0) of cancer spread to the lymph nodes, without evidence of metastatic spread. The primary end point was overall survival. From February 2016 through April 2020, we assigned 221 patients to the FLOT group and 217 patients to the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. With a median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival at 3 years was 57.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.1 to 64.0) in the FLOT group and 50.7% (95% CI, 43.5 to 57.5) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92; P = 0.01). Progression-free survival at 3 years was 51.6% (95% CI, 44.3 to 58.4) in the FLOT group and 35.0% (95% CI, 28.4 to 41.7) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.85). Among the patients who started the assigned treatment, grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 120 of 207 patients (58.0%) in the FLOT group and in 98 of 196 patients (50.0%) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Serious adverse events were observed in 98 of 207 patients (47.3%) in the FLOT group and in 82 of 196 patients (41.8%) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Mortality at 90 days after surgery was 3.1% in the FLOT group and 5.6% in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT led to improved survival among patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma as compared with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; ESOPEC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02509286.).

Complex clinical endpoints are present in studies in cancer. Especially in studies on hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), various risks exist after HSCT. Patients can experience acute and chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) or need to undergo immunosuppressive therapy (IST), a relapse can occur, or patients can die after relapse or without former relapse (nonrelapse mortality, NRM). Sometimes, endpoints can be reasonably combined in a composite endpoint, as, for example, relapse and NRM are combined into disease-free survival (DFS). In this case, standard survival techniques, as Kaplan–Meier estimation of the DFS probability, can be applied. Often, interest focuses on endpoints for which competing risks are present, as, for example, GVHD, with death without prior GVHD as competing risk. This results in a competing risks model, a special case of a multistate model. A more complex multistate model is required when the effects of events occurring in the course of the study on further disease process shall be investigated, as, for example, the effect of GVHD on relapse and NRM. Another endpoint of interest is time under IST. As patients usually experience multiple episodes of IST, thus switching back and forth between “IST” and “no IST” during follow-up, the multistate model used for analysis must be adapted for this event structure. The aim of this nontechnical report is to explain use and interpretation of Cox-type regression models suitable for the different situations in a randomized trial on the effects of anti-T-cell globulin as GVHD prophylaxis. Clin Cancer Res; 19(1); 12–21. ©2012 AACR.

Although high-intensity non-invasive ventilation has been shown to improve outcomes in stable COPD, it may adversely affect cardiac performance. Therefore, the aims of the present pilot study were to compare cardiac and pulmonary effects of 6 weeks of low-intensity non-invasive ventilation and 6 weeks of high-intensity non-invasive ventilation in stable COPD patients. In a randomised crossover pilot feasibility study, the change in cardiac output after 6 weeks of each NIV mode compared to baseline was assessed with echocardiography in 14 severe stable COPD patients. Furthermore, CO during NIV, gas exchange, lung function, and health-related quality of life were investigated. Three patients dropped out: two deteriorated on low-intensity non-invasive ventilation, and one presented with decompensated heart failure while on high-intensity non-invasive ventilation. Eleven patients were included in the analysis. In general, cardiac output and NTproBNP did not change, although individual effects were noticed, depending on the pressures applied and/or the co-existence of heart failure. High-intensity non-invasive ventilation tended to be more effective in improving gas exchange, but both modes improved lung function and the health-related quality of life. Long-term non-invasive ventilation with adequate pressure to improve gas exchange and health-related quality of life did not have an overall adverse effect on cardiac performance. Nevertheless, in patients with pre-existing heart failure, the application of very high inspiratory pressures might reduce cardiac output. The trial was registered in the Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS-ID: DRKS00007977 ).

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is predominantly a disease of older patients with a poor long-term survival. Approval of decitabine (DAC) in the European Union (EU) in 2012 for the treatment of patients with AML ≥65 years marks the potential for hypomethylating agents in elderly AML. Nevertheless the situation is dissatisfactory and the quest for novel treatment approaches, including combination epigenetic therapy is actively ongoing. The given randomized trial should be helpful in investigating the question whether combinations of DAC with the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor valproic acid (VPA) and/or all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), which in vitro show a very promising synergism, are superior to the DAC monotherapy. The accompanying translational research project will contribute to find surrogate molecular end points for drug efficacy and better tailor epigenetic therapy. An additional aim of the study is to investigate the prognostic value of geriatric assessments for elderly AML patients treated non-intensively. DECIDER is a prospective, randomized, observer blind, parallel group, multicenter, Phase II study with a 2x2 factorial design. The primary endpoint is objective best overall response (complete remission (CR) and partial remission (PR)). The target population is AML patients aged 60 years or older and unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. Patients are randomized to one of the four treatment groups: DAC alone or in combination with VPA or ATRA or with both add-on drugs. One interim safety analysis was planned and carried out with the objective to stop early one or more of the treatment arms in case of an unacceptable death rate. This analysis showed that in all treatment arms the critical stopping rule was not reached. No important safety issues were observed. The Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) recommended continuing the study as planned. The first patient was included in December 2011. A total of 189 out of 200 planned patients were randomized since then (status 31.12.2014). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00867672 (registration date 23.03.2009); German clinical trials registry number: DRKS00000733 (registration date 19.04.2011).

The ESOPEC trial showed that perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/docetaxel (FLOT) improved survival in patients with nonmetastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma compared with preoperative chemoradiotherapy with CROSS (41.4Gy/carboplatin/paclitaxel). For this analysis, patients from the ESOPEC trial who underwent tumor resection were eligible. The reported end points here include cause-specific mortality, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and sites of recurrence. Of the 438 patients enrolled in ESOPEC, 192 of 221 (86.9%) FLOT patients and 179 of 217 (82.5%) CROSS patients underwent tumor resection. After a median follow-up of 56 months, 178 experienced disease recurrence (81 FLOT; 97 CROSS) and 28 died without recurrence (12 FLOT; 16 CROSS). The 3-year RFS rate was 54.5% in FLOT patients versus 39.0% in CROSS patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89]; P = .005). Locoregional recurrence occurred in 39 FLOT versus 32 CROSS patients (3-year cumulative incidences 20.2% v 17.4%, HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.61]; P = .99). Distant recurrence occurred in 64 FLOT versus 89 CROSS patients (3-year cumulative incidences 31.5% v 47.2%, HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.82]; P = .002). Compared with CROSS, perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT improved survival through better systemic tumor control with a reduction in distant tumor recurrences, while locoregional efficacy was similar.