Phase II, 2-stage, 2-arm, PIK3CA mutation stratified trial of MK-2206 in recurrent endometrial cancer.

Endometrial cancers have high rates of phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway alterations. MK-2206 is an allosteric inhibitor of AKT, an effector kinase of PI3K signals. We hypothesized patients with tumors harboring PIK3CA mutations would be more likely to benefit from MK-2206 than those without PIK3CA mutation. A Phase II study was performed in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer; all histologies except carcinosarcoma were eligible. Up to two prior chemotherapy lines were permitted, excluding prior treatment with PI3K pathway inhibitors. The first 18 patients were treated with MK-2206 200 mg weekly. Due to unacceptable toxicity, dose was reduced to 135 mg. Co-primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival at 6 months (6moPFS). Thirty-seven patients were enrolled (one ineligible). By somatic PIK3CA mutation analysis, nine patients were mutant (MT) [one with partial response (PR)/6moPFS, two with 6moPFS]. Twenty-seven patients were wild-type (WT) (one PR and four 6moPFS). Most common toxicities were rash (44%), fatigue (41%), nausea (42%) and hyperglycemia (31%). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities occurred in 25 and 17% of patients, respectively. Exploratory analysis found serous histology had greater 6moPFS as compared to all other histologies (5/8 vs. 2/28, p = 0.003). PTEN expression was associated with median time to progression (p = 0.04). No other significant associations with PI3K pathway alterations were identified. There is limited single agent activity of MK-2206 in PIK3CA MT and PIK3CA WT endometrial cancer populations. Activity was detected in patients with serous histology and due to their poor outcomes warrants further study (NCT01307631).

Correction: Quality of life under extended continuous versus intermittent adjuvant letrozole in lymph node-positive, early breast cancer patients: the SOLE randomised phase 3 trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Treatment-induced symptoms, depression and age as predictors of sexual problems in premenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy.

PURPOSE: Sexual dysfunction is an important concern of premenopausal women with early breast cancer. We investigated predictors of sexual problems in two randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A subset of patients enrolled in TEXT and SOFT completed global and symptom-specific quality-of-life indicators, CES-Depression and MOS-Sexual Problems measures at baseline, six, 12 and 24 months. Mixed models tested the association of changes in treatment-induced symptoms (baseline to 6 months), depression at 6 months, and age at randomization with changes in sexual problems over 2 years. RESULTS: Sexual problems increased by 6 months and persisted at this level. Overall, patients with more severe worsening of vaginal dryness, sleep disturbances and bone or joint pain at 6 months reported a greater increase in sexual problems at all time-points. Depression scores were significantly associated with sexual problems in the short-term. All other symptoms had a smaller impact on sexual problems. Age was not associated with sexual problems at any time-point. CONCLUSION: Among several key symptoms, vaginal dryness, sleep disturbance, and bone and joint pain significantly predicted sexual problems during the first 2 years. Early identification of these symptoms may contribute to timely and tailored interventions.

Olaparib and α-specific PI3K inhibitor alpelisib for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on preclinical work, we found that combination of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors with drugs that inhibit the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway (such as PI3K inhibitors) might sensitise HRR-proficient epithelial ovarian cancers to PARP inhibitors. We aimed to assess the safety and identify the recommended phase 2 dose of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial following a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with the following key eligibility criteria: confirmed diagnosis of either recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer of high-grade serous histology; confirmed diagnosis of either recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer of any histology with known germline BRCA mutations; confirmed diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer of triple-negative histology; or confirmed diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer of any histology with known germline BRCA mutations. Additional patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were enrolled in a dose-expansion cohort. Four dose levels were planned: the starting dose level of alpelisib 250 mg once a day plus olaparib 100 mg twice a day (dose level 0); alpelisib 250 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 1); alpelisib 300 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 2); and alpelisib 200 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 3). Both drugs were administered orally, in tablet formulation. The primary objective was to identify the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase 2 dose of the combination of alpelisib and olaparib for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer. Analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The trial is active, but closed to enrolment; follow-up for patients who completed treatment is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623349. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2014, and Dec 21, 2016, we enrolled 34 patients (28 in the dose-escalation cohort and six in the dose-expansion cohort); two in the dose-escalation cohort were ineligible at the day of scheduled study initiation. Maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose were identified as alpelisib 200 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 3). Considering all dose levels, the most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hyperglycaemia (five [16%] of 32 patients), nausea (three [9%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [9%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Dose-limiting toxic effects included hyperglycaemia and fever with decreased neutrophil count. Of the 28 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, ten (36%) achieved a partial response and 14 (50%) had stable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. INTERPRETATION: Combining alpelisib and olaparib is feasible with no unexpected toxic effects. The observed activity provides preliminary clinical evidence of synergism between olaparib and alpelisib, particularly in epithelial ovarian cancer, and warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Ovarian Cancer Dream Team (Stand Up To Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, National Ovarian Cancer Coalition), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Novartis.

Quality of life under extended continuous versus intermittent adjuvant letrozole in lymph node-positive, early breast cancer patients: the SOLE randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III SOLE trial, the extended use of intermittent versus continuous letrozole for 5 years did not improve disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Intermittent therapy with 3-month breaks may be beneficial for patients' quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In the SOLE QoL sub-study, 956 patients completed the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) symptom and further QoL scales up to 24 months after randomisation. Differences in change of QoL from baseline between the two administration schedules were tested at 12 and 24 months using repeated measures mixed-models. The primary outcome was change in hot flushes at 12 months. RESULTS: There was no difference in hot flushes at 12 months between the two schedules, but patients receiving intermittent letrozole reported significantly more improvement at 24 months. They also indicated less worsening in vaginal problems, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, physical well-being and mood at 12 months. Overall, 25-30% of patients reported a clinically relevant worsening in key symptoms and global QoL. CONCLUSION: Less symptom worsening was observed during the first year of extended treatment with the intermittent administration. For women experiencing an increased symptom burden of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, an intermittent administration is a safe alternative. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: Clinical trial information: NCT00651456.

Extended adjuvant intermittent letrozole versus continuous letrozole in postmenopausal women with breast cancer (SOLE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In animal models of breast cancer, resistance to continuous use of letrozole can be reversed by withdrawal and reintroduction of letrozole. We therefore hypothesised that extended intermittent use of adjuvant letrozole would improve breast cancer outcome compared with continuous use of letrozole in postmenopausal women. METHODS: We did the multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel, phase 3 SOLE trial in 240 centres (academic, primary, secondary, and tertiary care centres) in 22 countries. We enrolled postmenopausal women of any age with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-positive, and operable breast cancer for which they had undergone local treatment (surgery with or without radiotherapy) and had completed 4-6 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. They had to be clinically free of breast cancer at enrolment and without evidence of recurrent disease at any time before randomisation. We randomly assigned women (1:1) to treatment groups of either continuous use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 5 years) or intermittent use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 9 months followed by a 3-month break in years 1-4 and then 2·5 mg/day during all 12 months of year 5). Randomisation was done by principal investigators or designee at respective centres through the internet-based system of the International Breast Cancer Study Group, was stratified by type of previous endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors only vs selective oestrogen receptor modulators only vs both therapies), and used permuted block sizes of four and institutional balancing. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle using a stratified log-rank test. All patients in the intention-to-treat population who initiated protocol treatment during their period of trial participation were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00553410, and EudraCT, number 2007-001370-88; and long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2007, and Oct 8, 2012, 4884 women were enrolled and randomised after exclusion of patients at a non-adherent centre, found to have inadequate documentation of informed consent, immediately withdrew consent, or randomly assigned to intervention groups in error. 4851 women comprised the intention-to-treat population that compared extended intermittent letrozole use (n=2425) with continuous letrozole use (n=2426). After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 53-72), disease-free survival was 85·8% (95% CI 84·2-87·2) in the intermittent letrozole group compared with 87·5% (86·0-88·8) in the continuous letrozole group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·93-1·26; p=0·31). Adverse events were reported as expected and were similar between the two groups. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were hypertension (584 [24%] of 2417 in the intermittent letrozole group vs 517 [21%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group) and arthralgia (136 [6%] vs 151 [6%]). 54 patients (24 [1%] in the intermittent letrozole group and 30 [1%] in the continuous letrozole group) had grade 3-5 CNS cerebrovascular ischaemia, 16 (nine [<1%] vs seven [<1%]) had grade 3-5 CNS haemorrhage, and 40 (19 [1%] vs 21 [1%]) had grade 3-5 cardiac ischaemia. In total, 23 (<1%) of 4851 patients died while on trial treatment (13 [<1%] of 2417 patients in the intermittent letrozole group vs ten [<1%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group). INTERPRETATION: In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, extended use of intermittent letrozole did not improve disease-free survival compared with continuous use of letrozole. An alternative schedule of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole, including intermittent administration, might be feasible and the results of the SOLE trial support the safety of temporary treatment breaks in selected patients who might require them. FUNDING: Novartis and the International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).

Patient-reported outcomes with adjuvant exemestane versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with early breast cancer undergoing ovarian suppression (TEXT and SOFT): a combined analysis of two phase 3 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The combined efficacy analysis of the TEXT and SOFT trials showed a significant disease-free survival benefit with exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) compared with tamoxifen plus OFS. We present patient-reported outcomes from these trials. METHODS: Between Nov 7, 2003, and April 7, 2011, 4717 premenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer were enrolled in TEXT or SOFT to receive unmasked adjuvant treatment with 5 years of exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin, bilateral oophorectomy, or bilateral ovarian irradiation were used to achieve OFS. Chemotherapy use was optional. Randomisation with permuted blocks was done with the International Breast Cancer Study Group's internet-based system and was stratified by chemotherapy use and status of lymph nodes. Patients completed a quality of life (QoL) form comprising several global and symptom indicators at baseline, every 6 months for 24 months, and then every year during years 3 to 6. Differences in the change of QoL from baseline between the two treatments were tested at 6 months, 24 months, and 60 months with mixed-models for repeated measures for each trial with and without chemotherapy and overall. The analysis was by intention to treat. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up was 5·7 years (IQR 3·7-6·9); treatment and follow-up of patients continue. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, as NCT00066703 (TEXT) and NCT00066690 (SOFT). FINDINGS: Patients on tamoxifen plus OFS were more affected by hot flushes and sweats over 5 years than were those on exemestane plus OFS, although these symptoms improved. Patients on exemestane plus OFS reported more vaginal dryness, greater loss of sexual interest, and difficulties becoming aroused than did patients on tamoxifen plus OFS; these differences persisted over time. An increase in bone or joint pain was more pronounced, particularly in the short term, in patients on exemestane plus OFS than patients on tamoxifen plus OFS. Changes in global QoL indicators from baseline were small and similar between treatments over the 5 years. INTERPRETATION: Overall, from a QoL perspective, there is no strong indication to favour either exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. The distinct effects of the two treatments on the burden of endocrine symptoms need to be addressed with patients individually. FUNDING: Pfizer, International Breast Cancer Study Group, and US National Cancer Institute.

Combination cediranib and olaparib versus olaparib alone for women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an anti-angiogenic agent with activity against VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3. Both oral agents have antitumour activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and their combination was active and had manageable toxicities in a phase 1 trial. We investigated whether this combination could improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. METHODS: In our randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, we recruited women (aged ≥18 years) who had measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, or those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutations from nine participating US academic medical centres. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to permuted blocks, stratified by germline BRCA status and previous anti-angiogenic therapy, to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The phase 2 trial is no longer accruing patients. An interim analysis was conducted in November, 2013, after 50% of expected events had occurred and efficacy results were unmasked. The primary analysis was performed on March 31, 2014, after 47 events (66% of those expected). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01116648. FINDINGS: Between Oct 26, 2011, and June 3, 2013, we randomly allocated 46 women to receive olaparib alone and 44 to receive the combination of olaparib and cediranib. Median PFS was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·7-not reached) for the women treated with cediranib plus olaparib compared with 9·0 months (95% CI 5·7-16·5) for those treated with olaparib monotherapy (hazard ratio 0·42, 95% CI 0·23-0·76; p=0·005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with combination therapy than with monotherapy, including fatigue (12 patients in the cediranib plus olaparib group vs five patients in the olaparib monotherapy group), diarrhoea (ten vs none), and hypertension (18 vs none). INTERPRETATION: Cediranib plus olaparib seems to improve PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, and warrants study in a phase 3 trial. The side-effect profile suggests such investigations should include assessments of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of a continuing oral regimen with that of intermittent chemotherapy. FUNDING: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (3 U01 CA062490-16S2); Intramural Program of the Center for Cancer Research; and the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, NIH.

Emerging Adult and Caregiver Psychosocial Experiences with Severe Hypoglycemic Events and the Perceived Impact of Nasal Glucagon: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Severe hypoglycemic events are distressing. Although past studies have shown that young adulthood is a potentially distressing time, few studies have explored distress about severe hypoglycemia in this age group. The real-world psychosocial experiences of potential severe hypoglycemic events and the perceived impact of glucagon treatments like nasal glucagon are currently unknown. We explored perceptions of severe hypoglycemic events and impact of nasal glucagon on psychosocial experiences with these events in emerging adults with type 1 diabetes and caregivers of emerging adults and children/teens. Further, we compared perceptions of preparedness and protection in handling severe hypoglycemic events with nasal glucagon versus the emergency glucagon kit that requires reconstitution (e-kit). METHODS: This observational, cross-sectional study enrolled emerging adults (aged 18-26; N = 364) with type 1 diabetes, caregivers of emerging adults (aged 18-26; N = 138) with type 1 diabetes, and caregivers of children/teens (aged 4-17; N = 315) with type 1 diabetes. Participants completed an online survey about their experiences with severe hypoglycemia, perceptions of nasal glucagon impact on psychosocial experiences, and perceptions of feeling prepared and protected with nasal glucagon and the e-kit. RESULTS: Many emerging adults (63.7%) agreed that the experience of severe hypoglycemic events was distressing; 33.3% and 46.7% of caregivers of emerging adults and children/teens, respectively, reported distress. Participants reported positive perceptions of nasal glucagon impact, particularly improved confidence in other people's ability to help during severe hypoglycemic events: emerging adults, 81.4%; caregivers of emerging adults, 77.6%; caregivers of children/teens, 75.5%. Participants demonstrated higher perceptions of preparedness and protection for nasal glucagon than for the e-kit (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported improved confidence in other people's ability to help during severe hypoglycemic events since having nasal glucagon available. This suggests that nasal glucagon may help broaden the support network for young people with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers.

Assessment of Combined Nivolumab and Bevacizumab in Relapsed Ovarian Cancer: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

Importance: To date, single-agent programmed cell death 1 protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint blockade has shown limited activity in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Combination strategies of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition with antiangiogenic therapy have the potential for synergistic activity through modulation of the microenvironment and represent a potential therapeutic opportunity in this disease. Objective: To evaluate the activity of combined nivolumab and bevacizumab in women with relapsed ovarian cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single-arm, phase 2 study enrolled patients between February 8, 2017, and December 29, 2017, at 2 sites in the United States; the primary data analysis was completed July 27, 2018. Thirty-eight women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer were enrolled in this study. Participants had disease recurrence within 12 months of their last platinum-based therapy and had received between 1 and 3 lines of prior therapy. Interventions: Participants received intravenous nivolumab and intravenous bevacizumab once every 2 weeks. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary end points included evaluation of the ORR by platinum sensitivity, assessment of progression-free survival, assessment of safety data, and investigation of the association of tumor PD-L1 with response to therapy. Results: Of the 38 women enrolled, 18 had platinum-resistant and 20 had platinum-sensitive disease; mean (SD) age was 63.0 (9.1) years. Eleven patients experienced a confirmed response to nivolumab with bevacizumab (ORR, 28.9%; 95% exact binomial CI, 15.4%-45.9%), with 1 additional unconfirmed response. The ORR was 40.0% (19.1%-64.0%) in platinum-sensitive and 16.7% (95% CI 3.6%-41.4%) in platinum-resistant participants. Thirty-four participants (89.5%) experienced at least 1 treatment-related adverse event; 9 participants (23.7%) experienced a grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse event. Median progression-free survival was 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.3-14.7 months). In 36 histologic samples for which PD-L1 testing could be performed, 22 samples (61.1%) had a PD-L1 tumoral percentage less than 1, and 14 samples (38.9%) had a PD-L1 tumoral percentage of 1 or greater. Ten responses occurred in patients with PD-L1 tumor percentage less than 1, and 2 in patients with PD-L1 tumor percentages of 1 or greater. Conclusions and Relevance: The nivolumab with bevacizumab combination appeared to show activity in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer, with greater activity in the platinum-sensitive setting. Alternative combinational strategies may be necessary in the platinum-resistant setting.

Phase II Study of Avelumab in Patients With Mismatch Repair Deficient and Mismatch Repair Proficient Recurrent/Persistent Endometrial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite the tissue-agnostic approval of pembrolizumab in mismatch repair deficient (MMRD) solid tumors, important unanswered questions remain about the role of immune checkpoint blockade in mismatch repair-proficient (MMRP) and -deficient endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: This phase II study evaluated the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab in two cohorts of patients with EC: (1) MMRD/POLE (polymerase ε) cohort, as defined by immunohistochemical (IHC) loss of expression of one or more mismatch repair (MMR) proteins and/or documented mutation in the exonuclease domain of POLE; and (2) MMRP cohort with normal IHC expression of all MMR proteins. Coprimary end points were objective response (OR) and progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6). Avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously was administered every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled. No patient with POLE-mutated tumor was enrolled in the MMRD cohort, and all MMRP tumors were not POLE-mutated. The MMRP cohort was closed at the first stage because of futility: Only one of 16 patients exhibited both OR and PFS6 responses. The MMRD cohort met the predefined primary end point of four ORs after accrual of only 17 patients; of 15 patients who initiated avelumab, four exhibited OR (one complete response, three partial responses; OR rate, 26.7%; 95% CI, 7.8% to 55.1%) and six (including all four ORs) PFS6 responses (PFS6, 40.0%; 95% CI, 16.3% to 66.7%), four of which are ongoing as of data cutoff date. Responses were observed in the absence of PD-L1 expression. IHC captured all cases of MMRD subsequently determined by polymerase chain reaction or genomically via targeted sequencing. CONCLUSION: Avelumab exhibited promising activity in MMRD EC regardless of PD-L1 status. IHC for MMR assessment is a useful tool for patient selection. The activity of avelumab in MMRP/non-POLE-mutated ECs was low.

Adherence to guidelines for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia: results of a retrospective study of an electronic medical-records database in the United States, 2002-2006.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) commonly occurs in cancer patients receiving conventional myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Two national guidelines regarding the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in CIA were released in 2002. Because of poorer disease outcomes and increased risk of adverse events associated with ESAs in recent studies, the use of ESAs has been increasingly restricted in practice guidelines in the years 2007 and 2008. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide a baseline for adherence to national guidelines in the use of ESAs for CIA between 2002 and 2006. METHODS: This retrospective study used the Varian Medical Oncology database (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, California) of electronic medical records, representing 17 outpatient oncology organizations at 71 clinic locations in the United States. Adults diagnosed with any malignant neoplasm who started conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy between January 1, 2002, and September 30, 2006, were included. The proportion of patients receiving an ESA was calculated by hemoglobin (Hb) level during each chemotherapy cycle, stratified by line of chemotherapy and year. Logistic regression modeling identified predictors of ESA use in anemic patients during the first chemotherapy cycle. RESULTS: The records of 17,731 cancer patients were evaluated. Median (SD) age was 61 (13) years, and 58.9% were female. Most patients (84.1%) had a solid tumor. Many patients (41.3%) received platinum containing chemotherapy and 74.4% received combination chemotherapy. During the first 5 cycles of first-line chemotherapy among patients with CIA (Hb <11 g/dL), ESAs were used by 55.8% of patients at cycle 1 and 68.9% at cycle 5. ESA use in CIA patients increased across lines of chemotherapy and time. Few patients (2.8%) received an ESA at Hb >13 g/dL. The statistically significant predictors of ESA use included age >65 years, eastern US residence, private health insurance, community-based care, and solid tumors, especially lung cancer. CONCLUSION: The patterns we observed were generally consistent with prevailing ESA labels and national guidelines during 2002 through 2006. Although ESA use in patients with CIA increased over chemotherapy cycles, lines of chemotherapy, and time, <70% of CIA episodes were treated with ESAs during the initial 5 chemotherapy cycles.

Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents among chemotherapy patients with hemoglobin exceeding 12 grams per deciliter.

BACKGROUND: Prior to 2007, the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa were indicated for use in chemotherapyinduced anemia to achieve target hemoglobin (Hb) levels of approximately 12 grams per deciliter (gm per dL), and treatment was to be withheld if Hb exceeded 13 gm per dL. In March 2007, the FDA changed the labeling of the ESAs to add boxed warnings, updated in November 2007, to include the following key points: (a) ESAs should be used only to treat anemia that occurs in patients with cancer while they are undergoing chemotherapy; (b) treatment with ESAs should be stopped when chemotherapy ends; and (c) dosing ESAs to an Hb target of 12 gm per dL or greater has resulted in more rapid cancer progression or shortened overall survival in patients with breast, head and neck, lymphoid, cervical, and non-small cell lung malignancies. In January 2008, the FDA specified that the increased risk of more rapid tumor growth or shortened survival was associated with ESAs when "administered in an attempt to achieve a Hb level of 12 gm per dL or greater, although many patients did not reach that level." A new black-box warning regarding this association was added to the labels of the ESAs in March 2008, and the FDA mandated further label changes on July 30, 2008, that ESA therapy should not be initiated in patients receiving chemotherapy at Hb levels of 10 gm per dL or higher. OBJECTIVE: To (a) assess the prevalence and predictors of ESA administrations at Hb levels above 12 gm per dL among patients with a diagnosis of solid or hematologic cancer or myelodysplastic syndrome who began their first regimen of conventional myelosuppressive chemotherapy between 2002 and 2006, and (b) describe patterns of ESA treatment subsequent to the first ESA administration at Hb above 12 gm per dL. METHODS: Using the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant Varian Medical Oncology database of de-identified electronic medical records from 17 U.S. outpatient oncology practices, adults (aged 18 years or older) with any cancer diagnosis who began chemotherapy between January 1, 2002, and September 30, 2006, were identified. The Hb value associated with each ESA administration was defined as the closest Hb measurement within 7 days prior to the ESA administration. A first ESAHb > 12 was defined as the first time an ESA, either epoetin or darbepoetin, was given with an associated Hb greater than 12 gm per dL during the first chemotherapy regimen recorded in the database for each patient. Hb levels and ESA administrations after the first ESAHb > 12 were determined. Logistic regression models identified predictors of initial receipt of an ESAHb > 12, and of receiving further ESA treatment following the first such administration. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2002, and September 30, 2006, there were 17,731 patients on chemotherapy, the mean (SD) age was 60 (13.2) years; 58.9% were female; 24.6% had breast cancer, 22.2% had lung cancer, 15.8% had colorectal cancer, 11.8% had hematologic cancer, and 25.6% had other or multiple cancers. Of these, 8,086 (45.6%) received an ESA at any time during the regimen, and 7,606 (42.9%) received an ESA at a known Hb level (i.e., Hb measurement within 7 days prior to ESA administration). During the first recorded chemotherapy regimen, 1,844 patients (10.4% of the chemotherapy cohort, 24.2% of ESA users with a known Hb; n = 1,226 epoetin, n = 618 darbepoetin) received an ESAHb > 12. Among patients receiving ESA treatment at a known Hb level, significant predictors of receiving an ESAHb > 12 included treatment in a community-based clinic rather than a hospital-affiliated clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.40-3.65), location of practice in the eastern United States (OR for Midwest = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.57- 0.78; OR for West = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.22-0.34), hematologic cancer rather than solid tumor (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.21-1.71), private health insurance (OR for public health insurance = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.70-0.93; OR for other/ unknown insurance = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.47-0.62), and year of regimen 2002- 2003 (ORs = 0.75, 0.74, and 0.71 for 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively). Following the first ESAHb > 12, 276 (22.5%) of the patients on epoetin and 276 (44.7%) on darbepoetin received no further ESA treatment during the next 6 weeks (Pearson chi-square = 96.1, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of outpatient oncology practices between 2002 and 2006 revealed that 24% of ESA users with a known Hb level received ESAHb > 12. Dose withholding subsequently occurred in 23%- 45% of those patients. A higher proportion of patients on epoetin than darbepoetin continued ESA treatment after the first administration of ESAHb > 12.

Variability among breast radiation oncologists in delineation of the postsurgical lumpectomy cavity.

PURPOSE: Partial breast irradiation (PBI) is becoming more widely used. Accurate determination of the surgical lumpectomy cavity volume is more critical with PBI than with whole breast radiation therapy. We examined the interobserver variability in delineation of the lumpectomy cavity among four academic radiation oncologists who specialize in the treatment of breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-four lumpectomy cavities in 33 consecutive patients were evaluated. Each physician contoured the cavity and a 1.5-cm margin was added to define the planning target volume (PTV). A cavity visualization score (CVS) was assigned (1-5). To eliminate bias, the physician of record was eliminated from the analysis in all cases. Three measures of variability of the PTV were developed: average shift of the center of mass (COM), average percent overlap between the PTV of two physicians (PVO), and standard deviation of the PTV. RESULTS: Of variables examined, pathologic resection volume was significantly correlated with CVS, with larger volumes more easily visualized. Shift of the COM decreased and PVO increased significantly as CVS increased. For CVS 4 and 5 cases, the average COM shift was 3 mm and 2 mm, respectively, and PVO was 77% and 87%, respectively. In multiple linear regression, pathologic diameter >4 cm and CVS > or =3 were significantly associated with smaller COM shift. When CVS was omitted from analysis, PVO was significantly larger with pathologic diameter > or =5 cm, days to planning <36, and older age. CONCLUSIONS: Even among radiation oncologists who specialize in breast radiotherapy, there can be substantial differences in delineation of the postsurgical radiotherapy target volume. Large treatment margins may be prudent if the cavity is not clearly defined.

Treatment Efficacy, Adherence, and Quality of Life Among Women Younger Than 35 Years in the International Breast Cancer Study Group TEXT and SOFT Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Trials.

Purpose To describe benefits and toxicities of adjuvant endocrine therapies in women younger than 35 years with breast cancer (n = 582) enrolled in the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) and Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT). Methods In SOFT, women still premenopausal after surgery with or without chemotherapy were randomly assigned to tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (OFS), or exemestane plus OFS. In TEXT, all received OFS with or without concomitant chemotherapy and were randomly assigned to exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. We summarize treatment efficacy, quality of life, and adherence of the cohort of women younger than 35 years in SOFT and TEXT, alongside data from the cohort of older premenopausal women. Results For 240 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative patients younger than 35 years enrolled in SOFT after receiving chemotherapy, the 5-year breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) was 67.1% (95% CI, 54.6% to 76.9%) with tamoxifen alone, 75.9% with tamoxifen plus OFS (95% CI, 64.0% to 84.4%), and 83.2% with exemestane plus OFS (95% CI, 72.7% to 90.0%). For 145 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative patients younger than 35 years in TEXT, 5-year BCFI was 79.2% (95% CI, 66.2% to 87.7%) with tamoxifen plus OFS and 81.6% (95% CI, 69.8% to 89.2%) with exemestane plus OFS. The most prominent quality of life symptom for patients younger than 35 years receiving OFS was vasomotor symptoms, with the greatest worsening from baseline at 6 months (on the order of 30 to 40 points), but loss of sexual interest and difficulties in becoming aroused were also clinically meaningful (≥ 8-point change). The level of symptom burden was similar in older premenopausal women. A total of 19.8% of women younger than 35 years stopped all protocol-assigned endocrine therapy early. Conclusion In women younger than 35 years with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, adjuvant OFS combined with tamoxifen or exemestane produces large improvements in BCFI compared with tamoxifen alone. Menopausal symptoms are significant but are not worse than those seen in older premenopausal women.

Adjuvant Tamoxifen Plus Ovarian Function Suppression Versus Tamoxifen Alone in Premenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer: Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial.

PURPOSE: The Suppression of Ovarian Function trial showed improved disease control for tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) compared with tamoxifen alone for the cohort of premenopausal patients who received prior chemotherapy. We present the patient-reported outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The quality-of-life (QoL) analysis includes 1,722 of 2,045 premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer randomly assigned to receive adjuvant treatment with 5 years of tamoxifen plus OFS or tamoxifen alone. Chemotherapy use before enrollment was optional. Patients completed a QoL form consisting of global and symptom indicators at baseline, every 6 months for 24 months, and annually during years 3 to 6. Differences in the change of QoL from baseline between the two treatments were tested at 6, 24, and 60 months with mixed models for repeated measures with and without chemotherapy and overall. RESULTS: Patients on tamoxifen plus OFS were more affected than patients on tamoxifen alone by hot flushes at 6 and 24 months, by loss of sexual interest and sleep disturbance at 6 months, and by vaginal dryness up to 60 months. Without prior chemotherapy, patients on tamoxifen alone reported more vaginal discharge over the 5 years than patients on tamoxifen plus OFS. Symptom-specific treatment differences at 6 months were less pronounced in patients with prior chemotherapy. Changes in global QoL indicators from baseline were small and similar between treatments over the whole treatment period. CONCLUSION: Overall, OFS added to tamoxifen resulted in worse endocrine symptoms and sexual functioning during the first 2 years of treatment, with variable magnitudes of treatment differences. Short-term differences in symptom-specific QoL, treatment burden, and coping effort between treatment groups were less pronounced for patients with prior chemotherapy, the cohort that benefited most from OFS in terms of disease control.

Incidence of new-onset hypertension in cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.

This retrospective cohort study was conducted to estimate incidence rates of new-onset hypertension in adult cancer patients identified from the Varian Medical Oncology outpatient database. Incidence rates of increasing levels of hypertension severity were calculated overall and for periods of chemotherapy exposure and nonexposure. Cox models sought predictors of new-onset hypertension severity among baseline and chemotherapy exposure variables. New-onset hypertension was observed in about one-third of 25,090 patients with various cancer types. The incidence rates (IR) of severe and crisis-level hypertension, respectively, were the highest in patients with gastric (18.5 cases per 100 person-years (PY), 5.6 per 100 PY) and ovarian cancer (20.2 per 100 PY, 4.8 per 100 PY). The highest IR of moderate hypertension was observed in patients with renal cancer (46.7 per 100 PY). Across all cancers, chemotherapy exposure was associated with a 2-3.5-fold increase in risk of any degree of hypertension compared to periods of no chemotherapy; higher hypertension levels showed greater variability in relative risks by type and line of therapy but indicated an overall increase associated with chemotherapy exposure. These results help to elucidate the factors influencing HTN among cancer patients and the incidence of HTN relative to chemotherapy exposure.

Presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and a dominant nodule within primary melanoma are prognostic factors for relapse-free survival of patients with thick (t4) primary melanoma: pathologic analysis of the e1690 and e1694 intergroup trials.

Lymphocytic infiltration of primary cutaneous melanoma has been demonstrated to be of prognostic significance. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were evaluated on histologic sections of pT4 primary cutaneous melanoma from 293 patients, accrued in protocols 1690 and 1694 of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Data for the 60-month follow-up were available. Statistical analysis of the pathologic data evaluated the correlation of regional lymph node metastasis and response to interferon therapy, overall survival, and relapse-free survival. In multivariate analysis, there was significant correlation of the presence of TILs and improved survival. The presence of TILs did not affect the survival of patients treated with interferon alfa-2b. Presence of a localized dominant tumor nodule within the primary tumor had an adverse effect on relapse-free survival (P = .044) that was also marginally present for overall survival (P = .112). The presence of TILs has prognostic but not predictive value, and the presence of a dominant nodule in the primary lesion represents a new adverse prognostic factor that should be incorporated in the evaluation of primary melanoma. This study confirmed the importance of tumor ulceration and the number of positive lymph nodes on outcome.