Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Gastrointestinal Malignancies Participating in Phase I Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Early-phase clinical trials play a pivotal role in drug development. However, limited data are available on outcomes of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients enrolled in phase I clinical trials. Here, we evaluated the characteristics associated with survival in GI cancer patients participating in phase I clinical trials and attempted to validate previously established prognostic models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients with advanced GI tumors who participated in phase I clinical trials at our institution from January 2007 to December 2013 and received at least 1 dose of the study drug were included. Cox regression models were used to estimate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: In 243 study patients (median age, 62 y [range, 26 to 82 y]; 55% male), treatment included chemotherapy only (14%), targeted therapy (41%), chemotherapy+targeted therapy (42%), and others (2%) for the following disease types: pancreatic (42%), colorectal (34%), gastroesophageal (10%), hepatobiliary (13%), and others (2%). Response rate was 4%, with 38% achieving stable disease and 42% having progressive disease. Median survival was 5.8 months (range, 0.2 to 52.4 mo). Our multivariable Cox regression analyses included the following as predictors of survival: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≥1 (HR=1.76), prior systemic therapies ≥2 (HR=1.63), lactate dehydrogenase >618 IU/L (HR=1.85), sodium >135 mmol/L (HR=0.46), and white blood count >6×10/L (HR=1.5). Our data set was consistent with previous prognostic scores. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to assess clinical outcomes in this patient population. Phase I trials provide clinical benefit to patients with advanced GI malignancies and should be recommended as a treatment option in appropriate patients.

Quality of Life after post-prostatectomy intensity modulated radiation therapy to the prostate bed with or without the use of gold fiducial markers for image guidance or higher total radiotherapy doses

ABSTRACT Purpose To evaluate quality of life (QoL) after post-prostatectomy intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the "adjuvant" setting starting within 4 months of radical prostatectomy for adverse features; and "salvage" setting for a PSA≥0.2ng/mL. Materials and Methods Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent IMRT to the prostate bed±gold fiducial marker placement for image guidance to 64.8-72.0Gy (median, 70.2Gy) between 2004 and 2013. Higher doses were defined as 70.2-72.0Gy and lower doses were defined as 64.8-68.4Gy. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was given to 4/48 (8%) adjuvant patients and 9/82 (11%) salvage patients. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26-bowel (EPIC-26-bowel) questionnaires were used to assess urinary, sexual, and bowel QoL, respectively. Results Median follow-up was 46 months. There were better urinary (p=0.03) and sexual (p=0.002) QoL scores with adjuvant IMRT relative to salvage IMRT. The use of prostate bed fiducial markers did not significantly affect urinary, sexual, or bowel QoL (p=0.39, p=0.49, and p=0.40, respectively). Higher total radiotherapy doses did not significantly affect urinary, sexual, or bowel QoL (p=0.21, p=0.61, and p=0.36, respectively). Conclusions There was no significant change in urinary, sexual, and bowel sexual QoL with post-prostatectomy IMRT regardless of whether prostate bed fiducial markers or higher total radiotherapy doses were used. QoL with IMRT in the present study compares favorably with prior reports for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy.

Quality of Life after post-prostatectomy intensity modulated radiation therapy to the prostate bed with or without the use of gold fiducial markers for image guidance or higher total radiotherapy doses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate quality of life (QoL) after post-prostatectomy intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the "adjuvant" setting starting within 4 months of radical prostatectomy for adverse features; and "salvage" setting for a PSA≥0.2ng/mL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent IMRT to the prostate bed±gold fiducial marker placement for image guidance to 64.8-72.0Gy (median, 70.2Gy) between 2004 and 2013. Higher doses were defined as 70.2-72.0Gy and lower doses were defined as 64.8-68.4Gy. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was given to 4/48 (8%) adjuvant patients and 9/82 (11%) salvage patients. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26-bowel (EPIC-26-bowel) questionnaires were used to assess urinary, sexual, and bowel QoL, respectively. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 46 months. There were better urinary (p=0.03) and sexual (p=0.002) QoL scores with adjuvant IMRT relative to salvage IMRT. The use of prostate bed fiducial markers did not significantly affect urinary, sexual, or bowel QoL (p=0.39, p=0.49, and p=0.40, respectively). Higher total radiotherapy doses did not significantly affect urinary, sexual, or bowel QoL (p=0.21, p=0.61, and p=0.36, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant change in urinary, sexual, and bowel sexual QoL with post-prostatectomy IMRT regardless of whether prostate bed fiducial markers or higher total radiotherapy doses were used. QoL with IMRT in the present study compares favorably with prior reports for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy.

The Role of Prolactin in Bone Metastasis and Breast Cancer Cell-Mediated Osteoclast Differentiation.

BACKGROUND: Metastasis to the bone is a deleterious aspect of breast cancer and is a preferred site that results in bone loss. Hormones such as prolactin (PRL) have not yet been studied for their role in modulating the secondary tumor bone microenvironment. METHODS: We used quantitative immunohistochemistry with 134 samples of human primary breast cancer and 17 matched primary breast cancers and bone metastases. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was fitted to evaluate the associations between high prolactin receptor (PRLR) expression and time to bone metastasis, adjusting for estrogen receptor status, lymph node status, and chemotherapy status. We assessed osteoclast differentiation, osteoclast size, and measured pit formation in dentine slices. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: High PRLR expression in the primary breast tumor was associated with a shorter time to metastasis that includes bone (PRLRAQUA Max-per 100 unit hazard ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval = 1.00 to 1.07, P = .03). We observed the PRLR in rare samples of bone metastases and matched primary breast cancer. PRL treatment of breast cancer cells induced osteoclast differentiation and bone lysis via secreted factors and was abrogated by a PRLR antagonist (delta1-9-G129R-hPRL). We demonstrated that sonic hedgehog is a PRL-regulated cytokine in breast cancer cells and part of the mechanism that induces osteoclast differentiation. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence indicates that PRL-PRLR can escalate the impact of breast cancer on bone metastasis and that the presence of the PRLR in the tumor microenvironment of breast cancer bone metastasis has the potential to modulate the microenvironment to induce lytic osteoclast formation.

Pediatric phase I trial of oral sorafenib and topotecan in refractory or recurrent pediatric solid malignancies.

Targeted kinase inhibitors and camptothecins have shown preclinical and clinical activity in several cancers. This trial evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities of sorafenib and topotecan administered orally in pediatric patients with relapsed solid tumors. Sorafenib was administered twice daily and topotecan once daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 of each 28-day course. The study utilized a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design. Three dose levels (DL) were evaluated: (1) sorafenib 150 mg/m(2) and topotecan 1 mg/m(2) ; (2) sorafenib 150 mg/m(2) and topotecan 1.4 mg/m(2) ; and (3) sorafenib 200 mg/m(2) and topotecan 1.4 mg/m(2) . Pharmacokinetics were ascertained and treatment response assessed. Thirteen patients were enrolled. DL2 was the determined MTD. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia delaying therapy for >7 days was observed in one of six patients on DL2, and grade 4 neutropenia that delayed therapy in two of three patients on DL3. A patient with preexisting cardiac failure controlled with medication developed a transient drop in the left ventricular ejection fraction that improved when sorafenib was withheld. Sorafenib exposure with or without topotecan was comparable, and the concentration-time profiles for topotecan alone and in combination with sorafenib were similar. One objective response was noted in a patient with fibromatosis. We determined MTD to be sorafenib 150 mg/m(2) twice daily orally on days 1-28 combined with topotecan 1.4 mg/m(2) once daily on days 1-5 and 8-12. While these doses are 1 DL below the MTD of the agents individually, pharmacokinetic studies suggested adequate drug exposure without drug interactions. The combination had limited activity in the population studied.

Potential role for LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of 5 or more radioresistant melanoma brain metastases.

OBJECT: Linear accelerator (LINAC)-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a treatment option for patients with melanoma in whom brain metastases have developed. Very limited data are available on treating patients with ≥5 lesions. The authors sought to determine the effectiveness of SRS in patients with ≥5 melanoma brain metastases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of metastatic melanoma treated with SRS in a single treatment session for ≥5 lesions was performed. Magnetic resonance imaging studies were reviewed post-SRS to evaluate local control (LC). Disease progression on imaging was defined using the 2009 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Survival curves were calculated from the date of brain metastases diagnosis or the date of SRS by using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Univariate and multivariate analysis (UVA and MVA, respectively) were performed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: The authors identified 149 metastatic brain lesions treated in 28 patients. The median patient age was 60.5 years (range 38-83 years), and the majority of patients (24 [85.7%]) had extracranial metastases. Four patients (14.3%) had received previous whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), and 11 (39.3%) had undergone previous SRS. The median planning target volume (PTV) was 0.34 cm3 (range 0.01-12.5 cm3). Median follow-up was 6.3 months (range 1-46 months). At the time of treatment, 7% of patients were categorized as recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class I, 89% as RPA Class II, and 4% as RPA Class III. The rate of local failure was 11.4%. Kaplan-Meier LC estimates at 6 and 12 months were 91.3% and 82.2%, respectively. A PTV volume≥0.34 cm3 was a significant predictor of local failure on UVA (HR 16.1, 95% CI 3.2-292.6, p<0.0001) and MVA (HR 14.8, 95% CI 3.0-268.5, p=0.0002). Sixteen patients (57.1%) were noted to have distant failure in the brain with a median time to failure of 3 months (range 1-15 months). Nine patients with distant failures received WBRT, and 7 received additional SRS. Median overall survival (OS) was 9.4 and 7.6 months from the date of brain metastases diagnosis and the date of SRS, respectively. The KM OS estimates at 6 and 12 months were 57.8% and 28.2%, respectively, from the time of SRS treatment. The RPA class was a significant predictor of KM OS estimates from the date of treatment (p=0.02). Patients who did not receive WBRT after SRS treatment had decreased OS on MVA (HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-12.0, p=0.03), and patients who did not receive WBRT prior to SRS had improved OS (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02-0.53, p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic radiosurgery for ≥5 lesions appears to be effective for selected patients with metastatic melanoma, offering excellent LC. This is particularly important for patients as new targeted systemic agents are improving outcomes but still have limited efficacy within the central nervous system.

Effect of Age on Clinical Outcomes in Phase 1 Trial Participants.

BACKGROUND: Most persons with cancer living in the United States are older than 65 years of age; however, in general, elderly persons are under-represented in clinical trials and outcomes data are lacking. METHODS: Outcomes data were analyzed of elderly participants (≥65 years of age) enrolled in phase 1 clinical trials and the results compared with those of younger patients. All consecutive, single-center, phase 1 oncology trials initiated and completed at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute between 1997 and 2007 were included. Patient data (including survival, response, and toxicity rates) were extracted from a cancer registry database and electronic medical records at Moffitt Cancer Center. RESULTS: After excluding multi-institution trials, we analyzed 39 trials for a total of 1,162 enrolled study participants, 32.7% of whom were elderly. Among patients who underwent transplantation, median survival rates were worse in those who were elderly compared with those who were younger (44.9 vs 32.9 months; P = .0037). However, in the no-transplantation setting, participants who were elderly had a median survival rate of 10.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.9-13.1) compared with 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.9-10.3) in those who were younger (P = .15). Both groups had similar overall response rates (15.2% vs 13.1%) and similar treatment-related mortality rates (1% vs 0.9%, respectively). Adverse events occurring among the elderly and younger participants were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Survival, response, toxicity, and treatment-related mortality rates were not significantly different between the elderly and younger phase 1 trial participants in the no-transplantation setting. Regardless of the complex pharmacological profiles and logistical issues involved in treating the elderly population, our data imply that elderly study participants do at least as well as their younger counterparts, contributing to the justification of increasing the phase 1 trial enrollment of elderly patients.