Critical Aspects of a Sustainable Clinical Research Program in the Community-Based Oncology Practice.

Increasing enrollment into clinical trials is a top priority across the field of oncology. Because the vast majority of those afflicted with cancer receive their care in the community, creating strong clinical research programs in the community-based setting is important. This article comprehensively outlines the most important elements of creating and sustaining a successful community-based research program. Establishing a clear mission and defining the scope of the research program in collaboration with key physicians and administrative leadership are critical to success. Standard operating procedures should detail operational processes. Ensuring sound financial planning and protected physician time are crucial for a healthy program. Providing mentorship opportunities to investigators and other team members will provide necessary guidance for junior investigators and long-term program stability. Prioritizing provider and patient volunteer engagement through education and awareness will potentially improve enrollment and research ownership. Incorporating administrative and clinical research staff and health care providers, including physicians, advanced practice providers, and pharmacists, will result in a multidisciplinary and unified approach and may also promote research as a routine part of patient care. Regular safety and scientific meetings will reduce regulatory complications and, most importantly, improve patient care. Other keys to a successful program include establishing a diverse trial portfolio, collaboration between different institutions, and ensuring appropriate technological infrastructure. Serial programmatic review provides opportunities to refine suboptimal practices and recognize successful strategies. Community-based research programs are critical to improve access to optimal cancer care. Implementation of successful programs is possible with a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach.

A Randomized, Open-Label, Safety and Exploratory Efficacy Study of Kanglaite Injection (KLTi) plus Gemcitabine versus Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Background: This study was designed to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of KLTi plus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: In a randomized, open-label study, patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomized 2:1 to receive KLTi plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine monotherapy. Three sequential cohorts were tested at 30 g/day, 50 g/day, and 30 g/day. Gemcitabine was administered at 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28 day cycle. KLTi was administered on days 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 of each 28 day cycle. Patients received study treatment until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the ITT population. Safety evaluation was based on patients who received any study treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00733850. Results: Eighty-five patients were randomized including 41 (28:13) in Cohort 1, 18 (12:6) in Cohort 2, and 26 (17:9) in Cohort 3. Due to a different dose and/or shift in patient populations in Cohort 2 and 3, efficacy data for the 30 gm dose are presented in this manuscript for Cohort 1 alone, and for the combination of Cohort 1+3. The 30 gm KLTi + gemcitabine group had a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by blinded independent radiology review in the ITT population, with a median of 112 days, versus 58 days in the gemcitabine group (HR 0.50; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.92), p = 0.0240. The incidence rates of TEAEs, CTCAE Grade 3 or higher TEAEs, and SAEs were similar between the two arms. There were no deaths related to KLTi + gemcitabine treatment. Conclusion: Kanglaite Injection (30 g/day) plus a standard regimen of gemcitabine demonstrated encouraging clinical evidence of anti-neoplastic activity and a well-tolerated safety profile.

Interactions Between Inflammatory Bowel Disease Drugs and Chemotherapy.

OPINION STATEMENT: As new and effective novel therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) become available, patients are living longer with advancing age and are at increased risk for malignancy. The management of IBD and malignancy involves multiple combinations of chemotherapy agents and IBD drugs, with the potential for interactions between these therapies. Interactions may either potentiate the effectiveness of drug class or exacerbate their common side effects. In this review article, we present a guide on studied interactions between IBD therapies and chemotherapy agents, specifically those of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and melanoma. The pharmacology and pharmocokinetics of each IBD drug will be discussed. Then, the IBD drug and chemotherapy interactions are summarized in table format. This guide will provide a quick reference to guide clinicians with this challenging management of two disease processes.

EMERGE: A Randomized Phase II Study of the Antibody-Drug Conjugate Glembatumumab Vedotin in Advanced Glycoprotein NMB-Expressing Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Glycoprotein NMB (gpNMB), a negative prognostic marker, is overexpressed in multiple tumor types. Glembatumumab vedotin is a gpNMB-specific monoclonal antibody conjugated to the potent cytotoxin monomethyl auristatin E. This phase II study investigated the activity of glembatumumab vedotin in advanced breast cancer by gpNMB expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 124) with refractory breast cancer that expressed gpNMB in ≥ 5% of epithelial or stromal cells by central immunohistochemistry were stratified by gpNMB expression (tumor, low stromal intensity, high stromal intensity) and were randomly assigned 2:1 to glembatumumab vedotin (n = 83) or investigator's choice (IC) chemotherapy (n = 41). The study was powered to detect overall objective response rate (ORR) in the glembatumumab vedotin arm between 10% (null) and 22.5% (alternative hypothesis) with preplanned investigation of activity by gpNMB distribution and/or intensity (Stratum 1 to Stratum 3). RESULTS: Glembatumumab vedotin was well tolerated as compared with IC chemotherapy (less hematologic toxicity; more rash, pruritus, neuropathy, and alopecia). ORR was 6% (five of 83) for glembatumumab vedotin versus 7% (three of 41) for IC, without significant intertreatment differences for predefined strata. Secondary end point revealed ORR of 12% (10 of 83) versus 12% (five of 41) overall, and 30% (seven of 23) versus 9% (one of 11) for gpNMB overexpression (≥ 25% of tumor cells). Unplanned analysis showed ORR of 18% (five of 28) versus 0% (0 of 11) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), and 40% (four of 10) versus 0% (zero of six) in gpNMB-overexpressing TNBC. CONCLUSION: Glembatumumab vedotin is well tolerated in heavily pretreated patients with breast cancer. Although the primary end point in advanced gpNMB-expressing breast cancer was not met for all enrolled patients (median tumor gpNMB expression, 5%), activity may be enhanced in patients with gpNMB-overexpressing tumors and/or TNBC. A pivotal phase II trial (METRIC [Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer]) is underway.

Clinical implications of recent studies using mTOR inhibitors to treat advanced hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Approximately 75% of breast cancer is hormone receptor-positive (HR(+)) and is managed with endocrine therapies. However, relapse or disease progression caused by primary or acquired endocrine resistance is frequent. Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)-mediated signaling is one of the molecular mechanisms leading to endocrine resistance. mTOR inhibitors that target the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway are the first of the targeted therapies to be evaluated in clinical trials to overcome endocrine resistance. Although the clinical trial with temsirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, did not show any benefit when compared with endocrine therapy alone, a Phase II clinical trial with sirolimus has been promising. Recently, everolimus was approved in combination with exemestane by the US Food and Drug Administration for treating postmenopausal women with advanced HR(+) breast cancer, based on the results of a Phase III trial. Therefore, everolimus represents the first and only targeted agent approved for combating endocrine resistance.

Everolimus for women with trastuzumab-resistant, HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer (BOLERO-3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Disease progression in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer receiving trastuzumab might be associated with activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR intracellular signalling pathway. We aimed to assess whether the addition of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus to trastuzumab might restore sensitivity to trastuzumab. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited women with HER2-positive, trastuzumab-resistant, advanced breast carcinoma who had previously received taxane therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a central patient screening and randomisation system to daily everolimus (5 mg/day) plus weekly trastuzumab (2 mg/kg) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2)) or to placebo plus trastuzumab plus vinorelbine, in 3-week cycles, stratified by previous lapatinib use. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by local assessment in the intention-to-treat population. We report the final analysis for PFS; overall survival follow-up is still in progress. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01007942. FINDINGS: Between Oct 26, 2009, and May 23, 2012, 569 patients were randomly assigned to everolimus (n=284) or placebo (n=285). Median follow-up at the time of analysis was 20.2 months (IQR 15.0-27.1). Median PFS was 7.00 months (95% CI 6.74-8.18) with everolimus and 5.78 months (5.49-6.90) with placebo (hazard ratio 0.78 [95% CI 0.65-0.95]; p=0.0067). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (204 [73%] of 280 patients in the everolimus group vs 175 [62%] of 282 patients in the placebo group), leucopenia (106 [38%] vs 82 [29%]), anaemia (53 [19%] vs 17 [6%]), febrile neutropenia (44 [16%] vs ten [4%]), stomatitis (37 [13%] vs four [1%]), and fatigue (34 [12%] vs 11 [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 117 (42%) patients in the everolimus group and 55 (20%) in the placebo group; two on-treatment deaths due to adverse events occurred in each group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of everolimus to trastuzumab plus vinorelbine significantly prolongs PFS in patients with trastuzumab-resistant and taxane-pretreated, HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer. The clinical benefit should be considered in the context of the adverse event profile in this population.

Everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal patients with HR(+) breast cancer: BOLERO-2 final progression-free survival analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatments for hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer (BC) following relapse/progression on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) therapy are needed. Initial Breast Cancer Trials of OraL EveROlimus-2 (BOLERO-2) trial data demonstrated that everolimus and exemestane significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus exemestane alone in this patient population. METHODS: BOLERO-2 is a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, international trial comparing everolimus (10 mg/day) plus exemestane (25 mg/day) versus placebo plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR(+) advanced BC with recurrence/progression during or after NSAIs. The primary endpoint was PFS by local investigator review, and was confirmed by independent central radiology review. Overall survival, response rate, and clinical benefit rate were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Final study results with median 18-month follow-up show that median PFS remained significantly longer with everolimus plus exemestane versus placebo plus exemestane [investigator review: 7.8 versus 3.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38-0.54); log-rank P < 0.0001; central review: 11.0 versus 4.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.31-0.48); log-rank P < 0.0001] in the overall population and in all prospectively defined subgroups, including patients with visceral metastases, [corrected] and irrespective of age. The incidence and severity of adverse events were consistent with those reported at the interim analysis and in other everolimus trials. CONCLUSION: The addition of everolimus to exemestane markedly prolonged PFS in patients with HR(+) advanced BC with disease recurrence/progression following prior NSAIs. These results further support the use of everolimus plus exemestane in this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00863655.

Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1-2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate. RESULTS: A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.).

Effect of visceral metastases on the efficacy and safety of everolimus in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: subgroup analysis from the BOLERO-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus (EVE; an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR]) enhances treatment options for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2(-)) advanced breast cancer (ABC) who progress on a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). This is especially true for patients with visceral disease, which is associated with poor prognosis. The BOLERO-2 (Breast cancer trial of OraLEveROlimus-2) trial showed that combination treatment with EVE and exemestane (EXE) versus placebo (PBO)+EXE prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) by both investigator (7.8 versus 3.2 months, respectively) and independent (11.0 versus 4.1 months, respectively) central assessment in postmenopausal women with HR(+), HER2(-) ABC recurring/progressing during/after NSAI therapy. The BOLERO-2 trial included a substantial proportion of patients with visceral metastases (56%). METHODS: Prespecified exploratory subgroup analysis conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EVE+EXE versus PBO+EXE in a prospectively defined subgroup of patients with visceral metastases. FINDINGS: At a median follow-up of 18 months, EVE+EXE significantly prolonged median PFS compared with PBO+EXE both in patients with visceral metastases (N=406; 6.8 versus 2.8 months) and in those without visceral metastases (N=318; 9.9 versus 4.2 months). Improvements in PFS with EVE+EXE versus PBO+EXE were also observed in patients with visceral metastases regardless of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS). Patients with visceral metastases and ECOG PS 0 had a median PFS of 6.8 months with EVE+EXE versus 2.8 months with PBO+EXE. Among patients with visceral metastases and ECOG PS ≥1, EVE+EXE treatment more than tripled median PFS compared with PBO+EXE (6.8 versus 1.5 months). INTERPRETATION: Adding EVE to EXE markedly extended PFS by ≥4 months among patients with HR(+) HER2(-) ABC regardless of the presence of visceral metastases.

Phase II multicenter trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel and capecitabine in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine, a tumor-activated oral fluoropyrimidine, and albumin-bound paclitaxel (ab-paclitaxel) have substantial single-agent activity in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Taxane and antimetabolite doublets have improved efficacy compared with single agents. This phase II open-label trial was designed to test the safety and efficacy of capecitabine and ab-paclitaxel in previously untreated MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, approximately 12 hours apart, on days 1 to 15) and ab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle with no premedication) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall objective response rate (ORR), with evaluation performed after every 2 cycles. Entry criteria included measurable MBC, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negativity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2, no previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and > 6 months since adjuvant fluoropyrimidine or paclitaxel treatment. RESULTS: Fifty patients received at least 1 dose of study drug, with 46 patients evaluable for efficacy evaluation. Three hundred seventy-four cycles of therapy were delivered. Eighty percent of patients completed 8 cycles. The ORR was 61% (complete response [CR], 4%; partial response [PR], 57%), and 7 patients had sustained (≥ 24 weeks) stable disease for a clinical benefit rate of 76.1%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.6 months, and the median overall survival was 19.9 months. The most common adverse events (AEs) that were ≥ grade 3 were pain, hand-foot syndrome, and neutropenia. CONCLUSION: The combination of weekly ab-paclitaxel plus daily capecitabine orally at these doses and scheduling was well tolerated and showed substantial efficacy.

Phase II, randomized trial to compare anastrozole combined with gefitinib or placebo in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase II randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole combined with gefitinib or anastrozole with placebo in women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive measurable or evaluable MBC who had not received prior endocrine therapy for this disease stage or who developed metastatic disease during/after adjuvant tamoxifen were eligible. The primary response variable was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary response variables included clinical benefit rate, objective response rate, overall survival, safety and tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. Tumor biomarker evaluation was an exploratory objective. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were randomized to anastrozole plus gefitinib and 50 patients were randomized to anastrozole plus placebo of a planned total of 174 patients (enrollment was prematurely discontinued due to slow recruitment). PFS for patients receiving the combination of anastrozole and gefitinib was longer than for patients receiving anastrozole plus placebo [hazard ratio (gefitinib/placebo), 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.94; median PFS, 14.7 versus 8.4 months]. The clinical benefit rate was 49% versus 34%, and the objective response rate was 2% versus 12% with anastrozole plus gefitinib and anastrozole plus placebo, respectively. No evidence of interaction between baseline biomarker levels and relative treatment effect was found. No unexpected adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: This small randomized study showed that anastrozole in combination with gefitinib is associated with a marked advantage in PFS compared with anastrozole plus placebo, and that the combination was tolerated in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive MBC. Further investigation of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition in combination with endocrine therapy may be warranted.

Severe pulmonary complications in African-American patient after bortezomib therapy.

Bortezomib is a proteosome inhibitor with good clinical activity in multiple myeloma. Frequently described side effects are gastrointestinal symptoms, neuropathy, and thrombocytopenia. Even though pneumonia is listed as an infrequent toxicity, severe pneumonitis leading to respiratory distress had not been described until recently. This report was from a single institution in Japan. All these patients had received bone marrow transplant before therapy with bortezomib. To the authors knowledge, this is the first report of life-threatening pulmonary toxicity after bortezomib in a non-Japanese patient and without history of prior autologous peripheral stem cell transplant.

A randomized controlled trial of darbepoetin alfa administered as a fixed or weight-based dose using a front-loading schedule in patients with anemia who have nonmyeloid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The effect of using fixed versus weight-based doses for erythropoietic agents has not been reported previously. To investigate this issue, the authors conducted a randomized Phase II study of darbepoetin alfa administered as either a fixed dose or a weight-based dose using an accelerated correction and maintenance dosing regimen (front-loading). METHODS: During the correction phase, patients with anemia (hemoglobin < 11.0 g/dL) who had nonmyeloid malignancies and who were receiving chemotherapy were given darbepoetin alfa at a fixed dose of 325 microg (n = 122) or at a weight-based dose of 4.5 microg/kg (n = 120) once weekly until they achieved a hemoglobin concentration > or = 12.0 g/dL. Patients then received darbepoetin alfa (325 microg or 4.5 microg/kg) once every 3 weeks for the remainder of the 16-week treatment period (maintenance phase). RESULTS: Darbepoetin alfa resulted in high Kaplan-Meier rates of hematopoietic response (> or = 2 g/dL increase from the baseline level or a hemoglobin level > or = 12 g/dL) in both the fixed-dose group (86%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 78- 94%) and the weight-based dose group (84%; 95% CI, 76-92%). The median time to hematopoietic response was 34 days (95% CI, 28-44 days) for the fixed-dose group and 36 days (95% CI, 30-45 days) for the weight-based dose group. Hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at target levels for up to 16 weeks in both groups. Darbepoetin alfa was well tolerated, and no clinically significant differences between fixed doses and weight-based doses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Darbepoetin alfa was effective when administered as either a fixed dose or a weight-based dose using a front-loading approach to rapidly correct anemia and effectively maintain hemoglobin levels in patients with anemia who had malignant disease.

Multimodality data fusion aids early detection of breast cancer using conventional technology and advanced digital infrared imaging.

The fusion of data from the various screening modalities will lead to a cost effective breast cancer detection system that is certain to improve the early part of early breast cancer detection methods. We explore the integration of data from mammography, ultrasound, clinical evaluation, and CAD, with noninvasive digital infrared imaging data from the BreastScan IR system, to improve early diagnosis. This will address a new solution to the screening of young women and women with dense breasts.

Comparative study of antimicrobial resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains isolated from patients of Caracas and Asunción in a 4-year-period.

The antimicrobial resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to beta-lactams, aminoglycosides and ciprofloxacin was investigated in two Latin American hospitals, one in Venezuela and the other in Paraguay. The resistance of P. aeruginosa was investigated in 1,481 clinically isolated strains, 988 from Asunción and 493 from Caracas, collected between 1996 and 1999. Susceptibility was assessed by the disk diffusion method according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 11.4% were resistant to cefoperazone, 11.4% to ceftazidime, 12.8% to piperacillin, 13.6% to amikacin, 18.2% to gentamicin, 11.1% to ciprofloxacin, and 6.7% to imipenem. There were significant differences in resistance patterns between isolates from Asunción and Caracas. Resistance was higher in Caracas. Despite similar antibiotic usage policies and other measures, differences in the resistance patterns of P. aeruginosa are evident in this study. The clinical and therapeutic implications of this resistance suggest the need to maintain surveillance in local settings, especially in developing countries such as Venezuela and Paraguay.