The safety, feasibility, and efficacy of an 18-week exercise intervention for adults with primary brain cancer - the BRACE study.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety, feasibility, and potential effect of an 18-week exercise intervention for adults with primary brain cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were 12-26-weeks post-radiotherapy for brain cancer. The individually-prescribed weekly exercise was ≥150-minutes of moderate-intensity exercise, including two resistance-training sessions. The intervention was deemed "safe" if exercise-related, serious adverse events (SAE) were experienced by <10% of participants, and feasible if recruitment, retention, and adherence rates were ≥75%, and ≥75% compliance rates were achieved in ≥75% of weeks. Patient-reported and objectively-measured outcomes were assessed at baseline, mid-intervention, end-intervention, and 6-month follow-up, using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Twelve participants enrolled (51 ± 19.5 years, 5 females). There were no exercise-related SAEs. The intervention was feasible (recruitment:80%, retention:92%, adherence:83%). Participants completed a median of 172.8 (min:77.5, max:560.8) minutes of physical activity per week. 17% met the compliance outcome threshold for ≥75% of the intervention. Improvements in quality of life (mean change (95% CI): 7.9 units (1.9, 13.8)), functional well-being (4.3 units (1.4, 7.2)), depression (-2.0 units (-3.8, -0.2)), activity (112.8 min (42.1, 183.4)), fitness (56.4 meters (20.4, 92.5)), balance (4.9 s (0.9, 9.0)), and lower-body strength (15.2 kg (9.3, 21.1)) were observed end-intervention. CONCLUSION: Preliminary evidence support that exercise is safe and beneficial to the quality of life and functional outcomes for people with brain cancer.Registration: ACTRN12617001577303.

The BRAin Cancer and Exercise (BRACE) study highlights the need for regular monitoring of disease- and treatment-related side effects which may present as barriers to exercise.Exercise prescription should be modified according to the presence and severity of disease- and treatment-related barriers.Adverse events observed, such as dizziness, highlight the importance of supervised exercise for people with brain cancer.If supervision is not possible, then exercise modes with low risk of harm from falls are recommended (e.g., walking, machine-based resistance training).

Concurrent ibrutinib plus venetoclax in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: the safety run-in of the phase 3 SYMPATICO study.

Ibrutinib plus venetoclax, given with an ibrutinib lead-in, has shown encouraging clinical activity in early phase studies in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The ongoing phase 3 SYMPATICO study evaluates the safety and efficacy of concurrently administered, once-daily, all-oral ibrutinib plus venetoclax in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. A safety run-in (SRI) cohort was conducted to inform whether an ibrutinib lead-in should be implemented for the randomized portion. Patients received concurrent ibrutinib 560 mg continuously plus venetoclax in a 5-week ramp-up to venetoclax 400 mg for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was occurrence of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The SRI cohort enrolled 21 patients; six and 15 were in low- or increased-risk categories for TLS, respectively. During the 5-week venetoclax ramp-up, three patients had DLTs, and one patient at increased risk for TLS had a laboratory TLS; no additional TLS events occurred during follow-up. With a median follow-up of 31 months, the overall response rate was 81% (17/21); 62% (13/21) of patients had a complete response. SRI data informed that the randomized portion should proceed with concurrent ibrutinib plus venetoclax, with no ibrutinib lead-in. Ibrutinib plus venetoclax demonstrated promising efficacy; no new safety signals were observed.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03112174. Registered 13 April 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03112174 .

SIRFLOX: Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing First-Line mFOLFOX6 (Plus or Minus Bevacizumab) Versus mFOLFOX6 (Plus or Minus Bevacizumab) Plus Selective Internal Radiation Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: SIRFLOX was a randomized, multicenter trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres to standard fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with liver metastases plus or minus limited extrahepatic metastases were randomly assigned to receive either modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX6; control) or mFOLFOX6 plus SIRT (SIRT) plus or minus bevacizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at any site as assessed by independent centralized radiology review blinded to study arm. RESULTS: Between October 2006 and April 2013, 530 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (control, 263; SIRT, 267). Median PFS at any site was 10.2 v 10.7 months in control versus SIRT (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.12; P = .43). Median PFS in the liver by competing risk analysis was 12.6 v 20.5 months in control versus SIRT (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.90; P = .002). Objective response rates (ORRs) at any site were similar (68.1% v 76.4% in control v SIRT; P = .113). ORR in the liver was improved with the addition of SIRT (68.8% v 78.7% in control v SIRT; P = .042). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events, including recognized SIRT-related effects, were reported in 73.4% and 85.4% of patients in control versus SIRT. CONCLUSION: The addition of SIRT to FOLFOX-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with liver-dominant or liver-only metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve PFS at any site but significantly delayed disease progression in the liver. The safety profile was as expected and was consistent with previous studies.

A multicenter, open-label, noncomparative screening study of enzastaurin in adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

PURPOSE: To assess the antitumor activity of enzastaurin in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas: T-cell lymphoma (n = 23): cutaneous and peripheral T-cell lymphoma; indolent B-cell lymphomas (n = 19): small lymphocytic, follicular grade 1 or 2, marginal zone lymphomas; and aggressive B-cell lymphomas (n = 15): follicular lymphomas grade 3, aggressive lymphoma with a clinical history. The primary objective was to determine overall tumor response. Secondary objectives included duration of response and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, noncomparative, screening study conducted between December 2007 and February 2009, patients (≥ 18 years) who relapsed after ≥ 1 prior systemic treatment or who were intolerant to standard systemic therapy received 250 mg oral enzastaurin (125 mg tablets twice a day; a 1125-mg loading dose on day 1), in 28-day cycles for up to 2 years unless unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease occurred. RESULTS: Responses were seen in follicular lymphomas grade 3 (1/5, 20.0%), cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (2/11, 18.2%), small lymphocytic lymphomas (1/7, 14.3%), and aggressive lymphoma with a clinical history (1/10, 10.0%) in this heavily pretreated patient population (median prior therapies range from 4 to 10). Most drug-related toxicities were grade 1/2, the most common being diarrhea, peripheral edema, and pruritus. CONCLUSIONS: Enzastaurin was well tolerated but demonstrated modest responses across subgroups in this heavily pretreated patient population.

A randomized trial of high-versus conventional-dose cytarabine in consolidation chemotherapy for adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia in first remission after induction therapy containing high-dose cytarabine.

The value of administering sequential courses of chemotherapy containing high-dose cytarabine in both induction and consolidation therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has not been assessed in a prospective randomized trial. Two hundred ninety-two AML patients aged 15 to 60 years were enrolled in the Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG) AML trial number 7 (M7) protocol to evaluate this question. All received induction therapy with the ICE protocol (idarubicin 9 mg/m2 x 3; cytarabine 3 g/m2 twice a day on days 1, 3, 5, 7; etoposide 75 mg/m2 x 7). Complete remission was achieved in 234 (80%) patients. Two hundred two patients in remission were then randomized to either a further identical cycle of ICE or 2 attenuated courses (cytarabine 100 mg/m2 daily x 5, idarubicin x 2, etoposide x 5 [IcE]). ICE consolidation therapy was more toxic than IcE, however, the treatment-related death rate was not significantly different. There was no difference between the 2 consolidation arms for relapse-free survival at 3 years (49% for ICE vs 46% for IcE; P = .66), survival following randomization (61% vs 62%; P = .91), or the cumulative incidence of relapse (43% vs 51%; P = .31), and there was no difference within cytogenetic risk groups. Intensive induction chemotherapy incorporating high-dose cytarabine results in high complete remission rates, but further intensive consolidation treatment does not appear to confer additional benefit.