Shifting Sociodemographic Characteristics of a Phase I Clinical Trial Population at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the Southeast.

Racial and ethnic minority populations are consistently under-represented in oncology clinical trials despite comprising a disproportionate share of a cancer burden. Phase I oncology clinical trials pose a unique challenge and opportunity for minority inclusion. Here we compared the sociodemographic characteristics of patients participating in phase 1 clinical trials a National Cancer Institute ( NCI)-designated comprehensive center to all patients at the center, patients with new cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Atlanta and patients with new cancer diagnoses in the state of Georgia. From 2015 to 2020, 2325 patients (43.4% female, 56.6% male) consented to participate in a phase I trial. Grouped self-reported race distribution was 70.3% White, 26.2% Black, and 3.5% other. Of new patient registrations at Winship Cancer Institute (N = 107 497) (50% F, 50% M), grouped race distribution was 63.3% White, 32.0% Black, and 4.7% other. Patients with new cancer diagnoses in metro Atlanta from 2015 to 2016 (N = 31101) were 58.4% White, 37.2% Black, and 4.3% other. Race and sex distribution of phase I patients was significantly different than Winship patients (P < .001). Over time, percent of White patients decreased in both phase I and Winship groups (P = .009 and P < .001, respectively); percentage of females did not change in either group (P = .54 phase I, P = .063 Winship). Although phase I patients were more likely to be White, male, and privately ensured than the Winship cohort, from 2015 to 2020 the percentage of White patients in phase I trials and among all new patients treated at Winship decreased. The intent of characterizing existing disparities is to improve the representation of patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds in phase I clinical trials.

The Advanced Practice Role in Clinical Trials: Past, Present, and Future.

At JADPRO Live Virtual 2021, Colleen Lewis, MSN, ANP-BC, AOCNP®, discussed the trajectory of the advanced practitioner role in clinical research, including the historical experience, potential barriers to practice, and future possibilities to advance patient care and maximize the role of the advanced practitioner in research.

Therapeutic Misconception about Research Procedures: Does a Simple Information Chart Improve Understanding?

In phase I trials, some biospecimens are used both for research and patient care and some for research only. Some research participants have therapeutic misconception, assuming all biospecimens are for patient care. This study's aim was to test if a simple information chart would improve understanding of nontherapeutic research procedures. A two-arm study was conducted. Participants in the control group (C) were asked whether biospecimens were for their care, for research only, or for both. The experimental group (E) was asked the same questions but provided with a study-specific information chart labeling the purpose of each biospecimen. One hundred one patients were interviewed. In both arms, understanding that pretreatment blood draws were for patient care and research was moderate (49% for C and 62% for E). Understanding that posttreatment blood draws were for research only was significantly higher in the experimental arm (16% for C and 44% for E; p = 0.002). Providing a simple information chart may help alleviate this aspect of therapeutic misconception.

Phase 1 Trial Evaluating Vorinostat Plus Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRD) is a standard induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. Given preclinical and clinical data suggesting the synergistic activity of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat with both bortezomib and lenalidomide for the treatment of multiple myeloma, we hypothesized that adding vorinostat to VRD (R2V2) would increase the rate and the quality of responses to induction treatment. Here we report the results of a phase 1 trial (NCT01038388) evaluating R2V2 as up-front treatment for NDMM patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: R2V2 was tested as induction therapy in a dose-escalation phase 1 study in 30 NDMM patients deemed eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Treatment consisted of 4 induction cycles with R2V2, followed by either autologous stem-cell transplantation or 4 additional R2V2 cycles and lenalidomide maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose of vorinostat was 200 mg daily. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (87%), fatigue and peripheral neuropathy (60%), and thrombocytopenia (33%). R2V2 induced an objective response in 96% of patients, with 48% obtaining at least a complete remission. Median progression-free survival was 52 months, with 77% of patients alive at 5 years. CONCLUSION: R2V2 as induction treatment for NDMM patients resulted in remarkable response rates at the cost of increased toxicity.

Phase 1 safety and pharmacodynamic study of lenalidomide combined with everolimus in patients with advanced solid malignancies with efficacy signal in adenoid cystic carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Purpose: The combination of a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor and lenalidomide showed enhanced preclinical cytotoxicity. We conducted a phase 1 study in advanced solid tumour patients to assess safety, efficacy and pharmacodynamic (PD) outcomes. METHODS: We employed a 3+3 dose escalation design to establish the safety and recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) of daily everolimus and lenalidomide in patients with advanced solid tumours. The starting doses were 5 and 10 mg, respectively, with planned escalation to maximum single-agent doses of 10 and 25 mg in the absence of dose-limiting toxicity. PD endpoints of lymphocyte subsets and immune cytokines were assessed in peripheral blood using multiparameter flow cytometry and LUMINEX assay. Efficacy was evaluated by cross-sectional imaging after every two cycles of treatment. RESULTS: The study enrolled 44 patients, median age of 58 years and 28 males (63.6%). The RP2D was established as 10 and 25 mg daily continuously for everolimus and lenalidomide. Common (>5%) grade ≥3 adverse events included rash (19%), neutropenia (19%), hypokalaemia (11%) and fatigue (9%). Best efficacy outcomes in 36 evaluable patients were partial response in 5 (13.8%), stable disease in 24 (55.8%) and progressive disease in 7 (19.4%) patients. PD assessment revealed significant association of cytokine levels (interleukin-2 (IL2), IL21 and IL17), baseline activated and total CD8+ lymphocytes and change in B cell lymphocytes and activated NK cells with clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated the safety of everolimus and lenalidomide with promising efficacy signal in thyroid and adenoid cystic cancers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01218555.

Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. METHODS: In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57-76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53-2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07-2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03-2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33-15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11-7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77-9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79-4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07-0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28-0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. FUNDING: American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

Provider Recommendations for Phase I Clinical Trials Within a Shared Decision-Making Model in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trial Discussions.

PURPOSE: Debate continues over whether explicit recommendations for a clinical trial should be included as an element of shared decision making within oncology. We aimed to determine if and how providers make explicit recommendations in the setting of phase I cancer clinical trials. METHODS: Twenty-three patient/provider conversations about phase I trials were analyzed to determine how recommendations are made and how the conversations align with a shared decision-making framework. In addition, 19 providers (9 of whose patient encounters were observed) were interviewed about the factors they consider when deciding whether to recommend a phase I trial. RESULTS: We found that providers are comprehensive in the factors they consider when recommending clinical trials. The two most frequently stated factors were performance status (89%) and patient preferences (84%). Providers made explicit recommendations in 19 conversations (83%), with 12 of those being for a phase I trial (12 [63%] of 19). They made these recommendations in a manner consistent with a shared decision-making model; 18 (95%) of the 19 conversations during which a recommendation was made included all steps, or all but 1 step, of shared decision making, as did 11 of the 12 conversations during which a phase I trial was recommended. In 7 (58%) of these later conversations, providers also emphasized the importance of the patient's opinion. CONCLUSION: We suggest that providers not hesitate to make explicit recommendations for phase I clinical trials, because they are able to do so in a manner consistent with shared decision making. With further research, these results can be applied to other clinical trial settings.

Combined Effect of Sarcopenia and Systemic Inflammation on Survival in Patients with Advanced Stage Cancer Treated with Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia and inflammation have been associated with poor survival in patients with cancer. We explored the combined effects of these variables on survival in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 90 patients enrolled on immunotherapy-based phase I clinical trials at Emory University from 2009 to 2017. Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were used as surrogates of inflammation. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was derived from the skeletal muscle density calculated from baseline abdominal computed tomography images. Optimal cutoffs for continuous inflammation biomarkers and SMI were determined by bias-adjusted log-rank test. A four-level risk stratification was used to create low-risk (PLR <242 and nonsarcopenic), intermediate-risk (PLR <242 and sarcopenic), high-risk (PLR ≥242 and nonsarcopenic), and very-high-risk (PLR ≥242 and sarcopenic) groups with subsequent association with survival. RESULTS: Most patients (59%) were male, and the most common cancers were melanoma (33%) and gastrointestinal (22%). Very high-risk, high-risk, and intermediate-risk patients had significantly shorter overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 8.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.65-27.01; p < .001; HR, 5.32; CI, 1.96-14.43; p = .001; and HR, 4.01; CI, 1.66-9.68; p = .002, respectively) and progression-free survival (HR, 12.29; CI, 5.15-29.32; p < .001; HR, 3.51; CI, 1.37-9.02; p = .009; and HR, 2.14; CI, 1.12-4.10; p = .022, respectively) compared with low-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Baseline sarcopenia and elevated inflammatory biomarkers may have a combined effect on decreasing survival in immunotherapy-treated patients in phase I trials. These data may be immediately applicable for medical oncologists for the risk stratification of patients beginning immunotherapeutic agents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Sarcopenia and inflammation have been associated with poor survival in patients with cancer, but it is unclear how to apply this information to patient care. The authors created a risk-stratification system that combined sarcopenia and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as a marker of systemic inflammation. The presence of sarcopenia and systemic inflammation decreased progression-free survival and overall survival in our cohort of 90 patients who received immunotherapy in phase I clinical trials. The data presented in this study may be immediately applicable for medical oncologists as a way to risk-stratify patients who are beginning treatment with immunotherapy.

A Phase I Study of Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of Concurrent Everolimus and Buparlisib Treatment in Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Concurrent inhibition of mTOR and PI3K led to improved efficacy in preclinical models and provided the rationale for this phase I study of everolimus and buparlisib (BKM120) in patients with advanced solid tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Bayesian Escalation with Overdose Control design to test escalating doses of everolimus (5 or 10 mg) and buparlisib (20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 mg) in eligible patients. Pharmacokinetic assessment was conducted using blood samples collected on cycle 1, days 8 and 15. Pharmacodynamic impact on mTOR/PI3K pathway modulation evaluated in paired skin biopsies collected at baseline and end of cycle 1. RESULTS: We enrolled 43 patients, median age of 63 (range, 39-78) years; 25 (58.1%) females, 35 (81.4%) Caucasians, and 8 (18.6%) Blacks. The most frequent toxicities were hyperglycemia, diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and aspartate aminotransferase elevation. Dose-limiting toxicities observed in 7 patients were fatigue (3), hyperglycemia (2), mucositis (1), acute kidney injury (1), and urinary tract infection (1). The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for the combination was established as everolimus (5 mg) and buparlisib (60 mg). The best response in 27 evaluable patients was progressive disease and stable disease in 3 (11%) and 24 (89%), respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.7 (1.8-4.2) and 9 (6.4-13.2) months. Steady-state pharmacokinetic analysis showed dose-normalized maximum concentrations and AUC values for everolimus and buparlisib in combination to be comparable with single-agent pharmacokinetic. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of everolimus and buparlisib is safe and well-tolerated at the RP2D of 5 and 60 mg on a continuous daily schedule.

Precision Oncology Comes of Age: Tumor-Agnostic Approaches.

Colleen Lewis, MSN, ANP-BC, AOCNP®, and R. Donald Harvey, PharmD, BCOP, FCCP, FHOPA, presented on the new world of tumor-agnostic treatment approaches, including those aimed at managing patients with tumors that have high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase (NTRK) fusions. Learn about the clinical trial designs that enable development of these novel therapies, and discover how testing methodologies support precision medicine advances.

Adiposity may predict survival in patients with advanced stage cancer treated with immunotherapy in phase 1 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) is used to define obesity, but it is an imperfect measure of body composition. In the current study, the authors explored the association between types of fat and survival in patients treated with immunotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 90 patients who were treated with immunotherapy on phase 1 clinical trials at the Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, from 2009 through 2017 was performed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used to measure clinical outcomes. Baseline BMI and radiographic images at the middle of the third lumbar vertebrae were obtained. Fat densities were calculated and converted to indices (subcutaneous fat index [SFI], intermuscular fat index [IFI], and visceral fat index [VFI]) after dividing by height in meters squared. Risk groups were created using recursive partitioning and the regression trees method for SFI and IFI, which were selected by stepwise variable selection among all fat-related variables. The Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier method were used for the association with OS and PFS. RESULTS: The majority of patients (59%) were male and diagnosed with melanoma (33%) or gastrointestinal cancers (22%). The median BMI was 27.4 kg/m2 , the median SFI was 62.78, the median IFI was 4.06, and the median VFI was 40.53. Low-risk patients (those with an SFI ≥73) had a significantly longer OS (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09-0.46 [P < .001]) and PFS (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.72 [P = .003]) compared with patients at intermediate risk (those with an SFI <73 and IFI <3.4) and poor risk (those with an SFI <73 and IFI ≥3.4). The Uno concordance statistics were found to be higher for fat risk groups than BMI in predicting OS (0.603 vs 0.574; P = .581) and PFS (0.602 vs 0.586; P = .71). CONCLUSIONS: Increased BMI, increased SFI, and decreased IFI may be associated with prolonged survival in patients with cancer who are treated with immunotherapy. Further studies are needed to elucidate the effect of adiposity on the host immune response to immunotherapy.

Sites of metastasis and association with clinical outcome in advanced stage cancer patients treated with immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Selecting the appropriate patients to receive immunotherapy (IO) remains a challenge due to the lack of optimal biomarkers. The presence of liver metastases has been implicated as a poor prognostic factor in patients with metastatic cancer. We investigated the association between sites of metastatic disease and clinical outcomes in patients receiving IO. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 90 patients treated on IO-based phase 1 clinical trials at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University between 2009 and 2017. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the first dose of IO to date of death or hospice referral and clinical or radiographic progression, respectively. Clinical benefit (CB) was defined as a best response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD). Univariate analysis (UVA) and Multivariate analysis (MVA) were carried out using Cox proportional hazard model or logistic regression model. Covariates included age, whether IO is indicated for the patient's histology, ECOG performance status, Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) risk group, number of metastatic sites, and histology. RESULTS: The median age was 63 years and 53% of patients were men. The most common histologies were melanoma (33%) and gastrointestinal cancers (22%). Most patients (73.3%) had more than one site of distant metastasis. Sites of metastasis collected were lymph node (n = 58), liver (n = 40), lung (n = 37), bone (n = 24), and brain (n = 8). Most patients (80.7%) were RMH good risk. Most patients (n = 62) had received 2+ prior lines of systemic treatment before receiving IO on trial; 27 patients (30.0%) received prior ICB. Liver metastases were associated with significantly shorter OS (HR: 0.38, CI: 0.17-0.84, p = 0.017). Patients with liver metastasis also trended towards having shorter PFS (HR: 0.70, CI: 0.41-1.19, p = 0.188). The median OS was substantially longer for patients without liver metastases (21.9 vs. 8.1 months, p = 0.0048). CONCLUSIONS: Liver metastases may be a poor prognostic factor in patients receiving IO on phase 1 clinical trials. The presence of liver metastases may warrant consideration in updated prognostic models if these findings are validated in a larger prospective cohort.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Key Principles When Educating Patients.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is a fast-developing field within the spectrum of cancer care. ICIs are associated with distinctive immune-related adverse events (irAEs), reflecting their unique mechanisms of action. OBJECTIVES: Effective management of irAEs requires early recognition and prompt reporting of their signs and symptoms; appropriate patient education is critical to maximizing this opportunity. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the public domain concerning awareness, assessment, and management of irAEs associated with ICIs. FINDINGS: Educational resources should provide timely, consistent, and personalized information, using a variety of teaching strategies that consider individual patient needs. Patient education should be developed with interprofessional team input and regularly reviewed in response to emerging guidance. Key messages include timing of therapeutic response and corresponding irAEs, early identification of irAEs, and the unique ability of ICIs to influence immune responses after treatment discontinuation.

Clinical outcomes of advanced stage cancer patients treated with sequential immunotherapy in phase 1 clinical trials.

Background Given the increasing number of available immunotherapeutic agents, more patients are presenting after failing immunotherapy in need of new treatment options. In this study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of patients treated with sequential immunotherapy. Methods We performed a retrospective review of 90 advanced stage cancer patients treated on immunotherapy-based phase 1 clinical trials at Winship Cancer Institute from 2009 to 2017. We included 49 patients with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-indicated histology. Patients were analyzed based on whether they had received prior ICI. Clinical outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and clinical benefit (best response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease). Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA) were performed using Cox proportional hazard or logistic regression model. Covariates included age, liver metastases, number of prior lines of therapy, histology, and Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) risk group. Results The most common histologies were melanoma (61%) and lung/head and neck cancers (37%). More than half of patients (n = 27, 55%) received at least one ICI prior to trial enrollment: ten received anti-PD-1, two received anti-CTLA-4, five received anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 combination, and ten received multiple ICI. In MVA, ICI-naïve patients had significantly longer OS (HR: 0.22, CI: 0.07-0.70, p = 0.010) and trended towards higher chance of CB (HR: 2.52, CI: 0.49-12.97, p = 0.268). Patients who received prior ICI had substantially shorter median OS (10.9 vs 24.3 months, p = 0.046) and PFS (2.8 vs. 5.1 months, p = 0.380) than ICI-naïve patients per Kaplan-Meier estimation. Within the ICI-naïve group, 78% (7 of 9) of patients who received prior interleukin (IL-2) or interferon gamma (IFNγ) experienced disease control for at least 6 months, compared to a disease control rate of 15% (2 of 13) in patients who had received chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or no prior treatment. Conclusions ICI-naïve patients may experience improved clinical outcomes on immunotherapy-based phase 1 clinical trials than patients who have received prior ICI. This may be particularly true for patients who received prior IL-2 or IFNγ. Further development of immunotherapy combination therapies is needed to improve clinical outcomes of these patients. These results should be validated in a larger study.

Combining carfilzomib and panobinostat to treat relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: results of a Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium Phase I Study.

Proteasome (PIs) and hystone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) have previously shown synergistic activity in the treatment of relapesed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. In this phase 1 study, we combined carfilzomib, a second generation PI, with panobinostat, a HDACi, to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination (CarPan) and assess safety and efficacy among RRMM patients. Thirty-two patients (median of 4 prior lines of therapy) were enrolled. The MTD was carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 (on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) and panobinostat 20 mg (TIW, 3 weeks on/1 week off, every 28 days), administered until progression. At the MTD, the most common grade 3/4, treatment-related adverse events were thrombocytopenia (41%), fatigue (17%), and nausea/vomiting (12%). The objective response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate were 63% and 68%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire population were 8 and 23 months, respectively. No differences in terms of ORR (55% vs. 57%), median PFS (months 8 vs. 7 months) and OS (24 vs. 22 months) were observed between bortezomib-sensitive and -refractory patients. CarPan proved to be a safe and effective steroid-sparing regimen in a heavily pre-treated population of MM patients. (Trial registered at ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01549431).

The prognostic and predictive impact of inflammatory biomarkers in patients who have advanced-stage cancer treated with immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Optimal prognostic and predictive biomarkers for patients with advanced-stage cancer patients who received immunotherapy (IO) are lacking. Inflammatory markers, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), are readily available. The authors investigated the association between these markers and clinical outcomes of patients with advanced-stage cancer who received IO. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 90 patients with advanced cancer who received treatment on phase 1 clinical trials of IO-based treatment regimens. NLR, MLR, and PLR values were log-transformed and treated as continuous variables for each patient. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and clinical benefit were used to measure clinical outcomes. For univariate associations and multivariable analyses, Cox proportional-hazards models or logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: The median patient age was 63 years, and most were men (59%). The most common histologies were melanoma (33%) and gastrointestinal cancers (22%). High baseline NLR, MLR, and PLR values were associated significantly with worse OS and PFS (P < .05) and a lower chance of benefit (NLR and PLR; P < .05). Increased NLR, MLR, and PLR values 6 weeks after baseline were associated with shorter OS and PFS (P ≤ .052). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline and early changes in NLR, MLR, and PLR values were strongly associated with clinical outcomes in patients who received IO-based treatment regimens on phase 1 trials. Confirmation in a homogenous patient population treated on late-stage trials or outside of trial settings is warranted. These values may warrant consideration for inclusion when risk stratifying patients enrolled onto phase 1 clinical trials of IO agents.

Race-, Age-, and Gender-Based Characteristics and Toxicities of Targeted Therapies on Phase I Trials.

BACKGROUND: The impact of age-, gender-, and race-based differences on safety and efficacy in phase I clinical trials has not been well studied. METHODS: We analyzed data from phase I clinical trials evaluating targeted biologic agents in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Race and gender distribution of enrolled patients was compared to the referral population demographics at the city, metro, and state levels. The association between age, gender, and race with type, frequency, and severity of treatment-emergent toxicities and clinical benefit was assessed using univariate and multivariable models. RESULTS: Data from 117 eligible patients - Blacks/Caucasians/Others (27/85/5); male/female (66/51) - were obtained. Blacks were younger than Caucasian patients (median age of 56 vs. 62 years, p = 0.004). Nausea/vomiting was more frequent in female patients (43 vs. 24%, p = 0.03), while hematologic toxicity was more likely in Whites. While median time on treatment was comparable (113 vs. 91; p = 0.840), the median overall survival was significantly shorter for Blacks versus Caucasians (7.4 vs. 11.4 months; p = 0.0227). Black race (HR 2.11; 95% CI 1.24-3.60; p = 0.006) and older age (HR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00-1.06; p = 0.029) were associated with an increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Age-, gender-, and race-based disparities were observed with specific toxicity and survival outcomes on phase I clinical trials of anticancer agents.

Phase 1 and pharmacokinetic study of everolimus in combination with cetuximab and carboplatin for recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based therapy combined with cetuximab is standard first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (RMSCCHN). Preclinical studies have suggested that mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors may overcome resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor blockers and may augment cetuximab antitumor activity. We conducted a phase 1b trial of carboplatin, cetuximab, and everolimus for untreated RMSCCHN. METHODS: Patients received carboplatin (area under the curve = 2 mg/ml/min; 3 weeks on, 1 week off), cetuximab (with a loading dose of 400 mg/m(2) and then 250 mg/m(2) weekly), and dose-escalating everolimus (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10 mg/day) with a 3+3 design. After 4 cycles, patients without progression continued cetuximab/everolimus until progression or intolerable toxicity. Patients (age ≥ 18 years) had previously untreated, unresectable RMSCCHN not amenable to radiotherapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2. RESULTS: The study enrolled 20 patients (male/female = 18/2) with RMSCCHN; the median age was 65 years (44-75 years). Thirteen patients received everolimus (male/female = 92%). Two of 6 patients receiving 2.5 mg/day experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) with grade 3 hyponatremia and nausea. In 7 patients receiving de-escalated everolimus (2.5 mg every other day), grade 3 hyperglycemia produced DLT in 1 of 6 patients. The objective response rate (RR) was 61.5% (all partial responses). Progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.15 months. The pharmacokinetics of everolimus was described with a 2-compartment mixed-effects model. There was a significant correlation between tumor p-p44/42 staining and response (P = .044) and a marginally significant correlation between phosphorylated mammalian target of rapamycin and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum tolerated dose of everolimus with cetuximab and carboplatin was 2.5 mg every other day. The regimen was associated with an encouraging RR and PFS, and this suggested possible clinical efficacy in a select group of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.