Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy proton radiotherapy in the USA (MC1631): a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Proton therapy is under investigation in breast cancer as a strategy to reduce radiation exposure to the heart and lungs. So far, studies investigating proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) have used conventional fractionation over 25-28 days, but whether hypofractionated proton PMRT is feasible is unclear. We aimed to compare conventional fractionation and hypofractionation in patients with indications for PMRT, including those with immediate breast reconstruction. METHODS: We did a randomised phase 2 trial (MC1631) at Mayo Clinic in Rochester (MN, USA) and Mayo Clinic in Arizona (Phoenix, AZ, USA) comparing conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) and hypofractionated (40·05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2·67 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) proton PMRT. All patients were treated with pencil-beam scanning. Eligibility criteria included age 18 years or older, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and breast cancer resected by mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction with indications for PMRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either conventional fractionation or hypofractionation, with presence of immediate reconstruction (yes vs no) as a stratification factor, using a biased-coin minimisation algorithm. Any patient who received at least one fraction of protocol treatment was evaluable for the primary endpoint and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was 24-month complication rate from the date of first radiotherapy, defined as grade 3 or worse adverse events occurring from 90 days after last radiotherapy or unplanned surgical interventions in patients with immediate reconstruction. The inferiority of hypofractionation would not be ruled out if the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in 24-month complication rate between the two groups was greater than 10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02783690, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2016, and Aug 23, 2018, 88 patients were randomly assigned (44 to each group), of whom 82 received protocol treatment (41 in the conventional fractionation group and 41 in the hypofractionation group; median age of 52 years [IQR 44-64], 79 [96%] patients were White, two [2%] were Black or African American, one [1%] was Asian, and 79 [96%] were not of Hispanic ethnicity). As of data cutoff (Jan 30, 2023), the median follow-up was 39·3 months (IQR 37·5-61·2). The median mean heart dose was 0·54 Gy (IQR 0·30-0·72) for the conventional fractionation group and 0·49 Gy (0·25-0·64) for the hypofractionation group. Within 24 months of first radiotherapy, 14 protocol-defined complications occurred in six (15%) patients in the conventional fractionation group and in eight (20%) patients in the hypofractionation group (absolute difference 4·9% [one-sided 95% CI 18·5], p=0·27). The complications in the conventionally fractionated group were contracture (five [12%] of 41 patients]) and fat necrosis (one [2%] patient) requiring surgical intervention. All eight protocol-defined complications in the hypofractionation group were due to infections, three of which were acute infections that required surgical intervention, and five were late infections, four of which required surgical intervention. All 14 complications were in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction. INTERPRETATION: After a median follow-up of 39·3 months, non-inferiority of the hypofractionation group could not be established. However, given similar tolerability, hypofractionated proton PMRT appears to be worthy of further study in patients with and without immediate reconstruction. FUNDING: The Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA, and the US National Cancer Institute.

A phase II study of bevacizumab and temsirolimus in advanced extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

We assessed the efficacy and safety of combining bevacizumab with temsirolimus in patients with advanced extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. This NCI-sponsored multicenter, open-label, phase II study (NCT01010126) enrolled patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients were treated with temsirolimus and bevacizumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Temsirolimus 25 mg was administered i.v. on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle. Discontinuation of temsirolimus or bevacizumab did not require discontinuation of the other agent. The primary endpoints were objective response rate and 6-month progression-free survival rate. Fifty-nine patients were enrolled in this study, and 54 were evaluated for efficacy and adverse events. While median progression-free survival was 7.1 months, the median duration of treatment with temsirolimus was 3.9 months and that with bevacizumab was 3.5 months. The objective response rate of combination therapy was 2%, and 6-month progression-free survival was 48%. The most frequently reported grade 3-4 adverse events included fatigue (13%), hypertension (13%), and bleeding (13%). Close to 54% of the patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events, refusal of further treatment, or treatment delays. Three deaths occurred in the study, of which two were due to treatment-related bowel perforations. Given the minimal efficacy and increased toxicity seen with the combination of bevacizumab and temsirolimus, we do not recommend the use of this regimen in patients with advanced extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Phase II Trial of Trifluridine/Tipiracil Plus Irinotecan in Patients with Advanced, Refractory Biliary Tract Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with irinotecan in a phase II trial setting for refractory, advanced unresectable biliary tract carcinoma (BTC). METHODS: A total of 28 patients (27 were evaluable) with advanced BTCs who progressed on at least one prior systemic therapy were enrolled and were treated with trifluridine/tipiracil 25 mg/m2 (days 1-5 of 14-day cycle) and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (day 1 of the 14-day cycle). The primary endpoint for the study was 16-week progression-free survival (PFS16) rate. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were pre-specified secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Of 27 patients, PFS16 rate was 37% (10/27; 95% CI: 19%-58%), thereby meeting the criteria for success for the primary endpoint. The median PFS and OS of the entire cohort were 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.5-7.4) and 9.1 months (95% CI: 8.0-14.3), respectively. In the patients evaluable for tumor response (n = 20), the ORR and DCR were 10% and 50%, respectively. Twenty patients (74.1%) had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event (AE), and 4 patients (14.8%) had grade 4 AEs. A total of 37% (n = 10/27) and 51.9% (n = 14/27) experienced dose reductions in trifluridine/tipiracil and irinotecan, respectively. Delay in therapy was noted in 56% of the patients while 1 patient discontinued the therapy, primarily due to hematologic AEs. CONCLUSION: The combination of trifluridine/tipiracil plus irinotecan is a potential treatment option for patients with advanced, refractory BTCs with good functional status and no targetable mutations. A larger randomized trial is needed to confirm these results. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04072445).

Patient-reported Adverse Events During Neoadjuvant Therapy in a Phase 2 Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Clinical Trial (Alliance A021501).

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate symptomatic adverse event (AE) rates among patients with pancreatic cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy on clinical trial (A021501) using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). BACKGROUND: To date, pancreatic cancer clinical trials have measured AEs using standard physician reporting [Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)]. Patient-reported symptomatic AEs have been incompletely characterized. METHODS: A021501 (December 31, 2016-January 1, 2019) randomized patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to 8 doses of mFOLFIRINOX (Arm 1) or 7 doses of mFOLFIRINOX+hypofractionated radiotherapy (Arm 2), followed by pancreatectomy and adjuvant FOLFOX6. Patients completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at baseline, on day 1 of each chemotherapy cycle, and daily during radiotherapy. RESULTS: Of 126 patients, 96 (76%) initiated treatment and completed a baseline plus at least 1 postbaseline PRO-CTCAE assessment. Diarrhea and fatigue were the only symptomatic grade 3 or higher AEs identified in at least 10% of patients using CTCAE. At least 10% of all patients reported an adjusted PRO-CTCAE composite grade 3 AE during neoadjuvant treatment for 10 of 15 items: anxiety (10%), bloating of abdomen (16%), decreased appetite (18%), diarrhea (13%), dry mouth (21%), fatigue (36%), nausea (18%), generalized pain (16%), abdominal pain (21%), and problems tasting (32%). Decreased appetite was higher in Arm 2 than in Arm 1 ( P =0.0497); no other differences between study arms were observed. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic AEs during neoadjuvant therapy were common and were reported more frequently by patients using PRO-CTCAE than were recorded by clinicians using standard CTCAE.

A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology.

Background: Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL). Patients and methods: This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a "was it worth it" survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups. Results: Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31-87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0-10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow. Conclusions: Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.

Pembrolizumab in Combination with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with Resectable Adenocarcinoma of the Gastroesophageal Junction.

PURPOSE: This phase Ib/2 trial investigated pembrolizumab-containing trimodality therapy in patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with GEJ adenocarcinoma (cT1-3NanyM0) received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab-containing chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by surgical resection and adjuvant pembrolizumab. The primary endpoints were tolerability in the first 16 patients and pathologic complete response [pCR (ypT0N0)]. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An independent propensity-score-matched cohort (treated with CROSS without immunotherapy) was used for comparison. Exploratory analyses included immune biomarkers in the tumor microenvironment (TME) and plasma. RESULTS: We enrolled 31 eligible patients, of whom 29 received all expected doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab and 28 underwent R0 resection. Safety endpoints were met. The primary efficacy endpoint was not met [7/31 (22.6%) achieved pCR]. Patients with high [i.e., combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10] baseline expression of programmed death (PD)-L1 in the TME had a significantly higher pCR rate than those with low expression [50.0% (4/8) vs. 13.6% (3/22); P = 0.046]. Patients with high PD-L1 expression also experienced longer PFS and OS than propensity-score-matched patients. Among trial patients with PD-L1 CPS < 10, unprespecified analysis explored whether extracellular vesicles (EV) could identify further responders: an elevated plasma level of PD-L1-expressing EVs was significantly associated with higher pCR. CONCLUSIONS: Adding pembrolizumab to trimodality therapy showed acceptable tolerability but did not meet the pre-specified pCR endpoint. Exploratory analyses suggested that high PD-L1 expression in the TME and/or on EVs may identify patients most likely to achieve tumor response.

Randomized Phase II Study of PET Response-Adapted Combined Modality Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Mature Results of the CALGB 80803 (Alliance) Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of early assessment of chemotherapy responsiveness by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to tailor therapy in patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS: After baseline PET, patients were randomly assigned to an induction chemotherapy regimen: modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). Repeat PET was performed after induction; change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) from baseline was assessed. PET nonresponders (< 35% decrease in SUV) crossed over to the alternative chemotherapy during chemoradiation (50.4 Gy/28 fractions). PET responders (≥ 35% decrease in SUV) continued on the same chemotherapy during chemoradiation. Patients underwent surgery at 6 weeks postchemoradiation. Primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in nonresponders after switching chemotherapy. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one eligible patients received Protocol treatment, of whom 225 had an evaluable repeat PET. The pCR rates for PET nonresponders after induction FOLFOX who crossed over to CP (n = 39) or after induction CP who changed to FOLFOX (n = 50) was 18.0% (95% CI, 7.5 to 33.5) and 20% (95% CI, 10 to 33.7), respectively. The pCR rate in responders who received induction FOLFOX was 40.3% (95% CI, 28.9 to 52.5) and 14.1% (95% CI, 6.6 to 25.0) in responders to CP. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, median overall survival was 48.8 months (95% CI, 33.2 months to not estimable) for PET responders and 27.4 months (95% CI, 19.4 months to not estimable) for nonresponders. For induction FOLFOX patients who were PET responders, median survival was not reached. CONCLUSION: Early response assessment using PET imaging as a biomarker to individualize therapy for patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma was effective, improving pCR rates in PET nonresponders. PET responders to induction FOLFOX who continued on FOLFOX during chemoradiation achieved a promising 5-year overall survival of 53%.

How much time do we have? Longitudinal perception of prognosis in newly-diagnosed high grade glioma patients and caregivers compared to clinicians.

PURPOSE: Discordant prognostic awareness (PA) can cause distress, impact goals of care and future planning, especially in patients with high grade glioma (pwHGG) who have limited survival. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of assessing PA of pwHGG, caregivers and clinicians using a single question and to evaluate these responses for discord, alignment and fluctuation over time. METHODS: This is a sub-study of an IRB-approved pilot study evaluating early palliative care and longitudinal symptom monitoring via a smart-device tool in 16 pwHGG and their caregivers receiving treatment at the Mayo Clinic Arizona (United States). Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years, English-speaking, newly-diagnosed, and had a willing caregiver. Participants answered a multiple-choice question asking for an estimate of their own or their loved one's survival on a monthly basis. RESULTS: All except one patient/caregiver dyad answered the question each time it was asked. The question did not appear to cause discomfort or increase conversations with clinicians around prognosis. PA of patients and caregivers fluctuated monthly, ranging from dismal to overtly optimistic, with a discordance frequency of 68%. Patients tended to be more optimistic than caregivers, and a higher QOL correlated to a more optimistic response. Clinicians' were more hopeful; their prediction tended to fluctuate less than those of patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: PA may be assessed in pwHGG and caregivers with a single, frank question. There is clear discordance between PA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians. Understanding fluctuates longitudinally through disease and treatment course. Additional studies on timing and ways of discussing prognosis in this population are needed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04630379.

Phase II Trial of Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Patients with Advanced, Refractory Biliary Tract Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) shows promising antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma, including patients with 5-fluorouracil refractory tumors. FTD/TPI has an acceptable safety profile and should be studied further in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma after progression on standard first-line therapy. BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) refractory to first-line therapy lack an established second-line option. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has activity in both fluoropyrimidine-sensitive and -resistant tumors, which led us to conduct a single arm phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FTD/TPI for patients previously treated for advanced BTC. METHODS: Patients with advanced BTC previously treated with at least one line of chemotherapy were enrolled and treated with FTD/TPI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint target was to have at least 6 patients who were progression free and alive at 16 weeks among 25 evaluable patients. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 27 evaluable patients, 59.3% received at least three prior lines of therapy, and 81.5% had previous exposure to fluoropyrimidine. Eight (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9%-53.5%) patients were progression free at 16 weeks in the primary analysis population (n = 25), which met the predefined efficacy criteria. Median PFS and OS were 3.8 (95% CI, 2-5.8 months) and 6.1 (95% CI, 4.4-11.4 months) months, respectively. No objective responses were seen. There were no unexpected safety signals noted. CONCLUSION: FTD/TPI demonstrated promising antitumor activity, with acceptable toxicity, in heavily pretreated patients with advanced BTC.

A Case Management System for Integrating Patient-reported Outcome Assessment in Clinical Practice: The Beacon Tool.

INTRODUCTION: What if you could only ask one question of the patient during a clinic visit? Further, suppose the patient's biggest concern can pragmatically be incorporated into routine clinical care and clinical pathways that can address the patient's single biggest concern can be identified. If the principal concern can be dealt with efficiently at each visit through key stakeholder case management, positive outcomes should result. Therefore, motivated by the need for patient-centered health care visits, the Beacon electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) quality of life (QOL) tool was developed. METHODS: Central to the tool is that at each health care visit, the patient's biggest concern is electronically communicated to the health care team. Therefore, the tool can help catalyze important discussions between the health care team and the patient, perhaps on topics that would not have been discussed otherwise at a routine visit. In recognition of the community of resources needed to provide comprehensive care, the tool generates clinical pathways or actions that can be pursued to address the patient's biggest concern. The concern is efficiently triaged such that members of the health care community with appropriate expertise and resources are identified to address and manage that single biggest concern signaled by the patient. A report, which can be uploaded into the patient's medical chart, is created and provides a list of resources for a case manager to assist the patient and contains graphical presentations of the patient's QOL and a history of prior concerns. The report also labels potentially significant changes in QOL. DISCUSSION: The tool, which has been applied successfully in several health conditions, acts as a beacon to health care providers so that a patient's self-reported concern can be consistently and effectively integrated into their care. KEY POINTS: It is impractical to try to deal with every patient concern in every visit. The key to the Beacon tool is that at each visit the patient's biggest concern is identified, clinical pathways indicated, and resources efficiently matched to address the patient's biggest concern.

Ibrutinib Regimens versus Chemoimmunotherapy in Older Patients with Untreated CLL.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) since 2016 but has not been compared with chemoimmunotherapy. We conducted a phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of ibrutinib, either alone or in combination with rituximab, relative to chemoimmunotherapy. METHODS: Patients 65 years of age or older who had untreated CLL were randomly assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, ibrutinib, or ibrutinib plus rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board made the decision to release the data after the protocol-specified efficacy threshold had been met. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients were assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, 182 to receive ibrutinib, and 182 to receive ibrutinib plus rituximab. Median progression-free survival was reached only with bendamustine plus rituximab. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 2 years was 74% with bendamustine plus rituximab and was higher with ibrutinib alone (87%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.58; P<0.001) and with ibrutinib plus rituximab (88%; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.59; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group and the ibrutinib group with regard to progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.62; P=0.49). With a median follow-up of 38 months, there was no significant difference among the three treatment groups with regard to overall survival. The rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 hematologic adverse events was higher with bendamustine plus rituximab (61%) than with ibrutinib or ibrutinib plus rituximab (41% and 39%, respectively), whereas the rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 nonhematologic adverse events was lower with bendamustine plus rituximab (63%) than with the ibrutinib-containing regimens (74% with each regimen). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with untreated CLL, treatment with ibrutinib was superior to treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. There was no significant difference between ibrutinib and ibrutinib plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01886872 .).

Effect of First-Line Chemotherapy Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab on Overall Survival in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Combining biologic monoclonal antibodies with chemotherapeutic cytotoxic drugs provides clinical benefit to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, but the optimal choice of the initial biologic therapy in previously untreated patients is unknown. Objective: To determine if the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) regimen or the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen is superior as first-line therapy in advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type (wt) colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients (≥18 years) enrolled at community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network in the United States and Canada (November 2005-March 2012) with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors were KRAS wt chose to take either the mFOLFOX6 regimen or the FOLFIRI regimen as chemotherapy and were randomized to receive either cetuximab (n = 578) or bevacizumab (n = 559). The last date of follow-up was December 15, 2015. Interventions: Cetuximab vs bevacizumab combined with either mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen chosen by the treating physician and patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival and overall response rate, site-reported confirmed or unconfirmed complete or partial response. Results: Among 1137 patients (median age, 59 years; 440 [39%] women), 1074 (94%) of patients met eligibility criteria. As of December 15, 2015, median follow-up for 263 surviving patients was 47.4 months (range, 0-110.7 months), and 82% of patients (938 of 1137) experienced disease progression. The median overall survival was 30.0 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 29.0 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08). The median progression-free survival was 10.5 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 10.6 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified HR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Response rates were not significantly different, 59.6% vs 55.2% for cetuximab and bevacizumab, respectively (difference, 4.4%, 95% CI, 1.0%-9.0%, P = .13). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with KRAS wt untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to chemotherapy as initial biologic treatment. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00265850.

A pilot study of minocycline for the prevention of paclitaxel-associated neuropathy: ACCRU study RU221408I.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is associated with both an acute pain syndrome (P-APS) and chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Given that extensive animal data suggest that minocycline may prevent chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity, the purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the efficacy of minocycline for the prevention of CIPN and the P-APS. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer were enrolled prior to initiating neoadjuvant or adjuvant weekly paclitaxel for 12 weeks and were randomized to receive minocycline 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily or a matching placebo. Patients completed (1) an acute pain syndrome questionnaire daily during chemotherapy to measure P-APS and (2) the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire at baseline, prior to each dose of paclitaxel, and monthly for 6 months post treatment, to measure CIPN. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were randomized. There were no remarkable differences noted between the minocycline and placebo groups for the overall sensory neuropathy score of the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 or its individual components, which evaluate tingling, numbness and shooting/burning pain in hands and feet. However, patients taking minocycline had a significant reduction in the daily average pain score attributed to P-APS (p = 0.02). Not only were no increased toxicities reported with minocycline, but there was a significant reduction in fatigue (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this pilot study do not support the use of minocycline to prevent CIPN, but suggest that it may reduce P-APS and decrease fatigue; further study of the impact of this agent on those endpoints may be warranted.

Safety and activity of temsirolimus and bevacizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma previously treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a phase 2 consortium study.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab or temsirolimus regimens have clinical activity in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This phase I/II trial was conducted to determine the safety of combining both agents and its efficacy in RCC patients who progressed on at least one prior anti-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (RTKI) agent. METHODS: In the phase I portion, eligible patients were treated with temsirolimus (25 mg IV weekly) and escalating doses of IV bevacizumab (level 1 = 5 mg/kg; level 2 = 10 mg/kg) every other week. The primary endpoint for the phase II portion (RTKI resistant patients) was the 6-month progression-free rate. Secondary endpoints were response rate, toxicity evaluation, and PFS and OS. RESULTS: Maximum tolerated dose was not reached at the maximum dose administered in 12 phase I patients. Forty evaluable patients were treated with the phase II recommended dose (temsirolimus 25 mg IV weekly and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks). The 6-month progression-free rate was 40 % (16/40 pts). Median PFS was 5.9 (4-7.8) months, and median OS was 20.6 (11.5-23.7) months. Partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease were seen in 23, 63, and 14 % of patients, respectively. Most common grade 3-4 AEs included fatigue (17.8 %), hypertriglyceridemia (11.1 %), stomatitis (8.9 %), proteinuria (8.9 %), abdominal pain (6.7 %), and anemia (6.7 %). Baseline levels of serum sFLT-1 and VEGF-A were inversely correlated with PFS and OS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Temsirolimus and bevacizumab is a feasible combination in patients with advanced RCC previously exposed to oral anti-VEGF agents. The safety and efficacy results warrant further confirmatory studies in this patient population.

Dinaciclib, a novel CDK inhibitor, demonstrates encouraging single-agent activity in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.

Dysregulation of cyclin-dependent kinases is a hallmark of myeloma, and specifically, cdk5 inhibition can enhance the activity of proteasome inhibitors in vitro. Dinaciclib is a novel potent small molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK)1, CDK2, CDK5, and CDK9. Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and ≤5 prior lines of therapy, with measurable disease, were enrolled. Dinaciclib was administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle at doses of 30 to 50 mg/m(2). Overall, 27 evaluable patients were accrued; the median number of prior therapies was 4. The dose level of 50 mg/m(2) was determined to be the maximally tolerated dose. The overall confirmed partial response rate (PR) was 3 of 27 (11%), including 1 patient at the 30 mg/m(2) dose (1 very good PR [VGPR]) and 2 patients at the 40 mg/m(2) dose (1 VGPR and 1 PR). In addition, 2 patients at the 50 mg/mg(2) dose achieved a minimal response (clinical benefit rate, 19%). Leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, gastrointestinal symptoms, alopecia, and fatigue were the most common adverse events. The current study demonstrates single agent activity of dinaciclib in relapsed myeloma, with 2 patients achieving a deep response (VGPR) and 10 patients obtaining some degree of M protein stabilization or decrease. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01096342.