Phase II Study of Cabozantinib in Patients With Bone Metastasis.

Bone metastases are often difficult to manage as they can be symptomatic and skeletal-related events (SREs) can contribute to significant morbidity and declines in performance status. We sought to identify a novel medical treatment for bone metastasis by testing the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in patients with bone metastasis arising from non-breast, non-prostate, malignant solid tumors. Patients were administered cabozantinib as an oral drug starting at 60 mg per day and radiologic measurements were performed at baseline and every 8 weeks. Thirty-seven patients were enrolled. No SREs were observed throughout the study. Twenty patients had disease measurable by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Four of 20 had a partial response by RECIST. An additional 12 patients had some decrease in tumor burden with nine of these having a decrease in tumor burden of at least 10% by RECIST. Six of the patients with at least a minor response had sarcoma. Sixteen patients had biomarkers of bone turnover measured before and after treatment. Most of these patients demonstrated decrease in urine and serum N-telopeptide and serum C-telopeptide. However, these changes in biomarkers of bone turnover did not correlate with radiographic changes measured by RECIST. This study demonstrates clinical activity and safety for cabozantinib in heavily pretreated patients with bone metastasis and shows activity for cabozantinib in patients with metastatic sarcoma.

Occult primary, version 3.2014.

The NCCN Guidelines for Occult Primary tumors provide recommendations for the evaluation, workup, management, and follow-up of patients with occult primary tumors (cancers of unknown primary). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2014 NCCN Occult Primary panel meeting. The panel discussed gene expression profiling (GEP) for the identification of the tissue of origin and concluded that, although GEP has a diagnostic benefit, a clinical benefit has not been demonstrated. The panel recommends against GEP as standard management, although 20% of the panel believes the diagnostic benefit of GEP warrants its routine use. In addition, the panel discussed testing for actionable mutations (eg, ALK) to help guide choice of therapy, but declined to add this recommendation.

Preoperative cetuximab, irinotecan, cisplatin, and radiation therapy for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of weekly neoadjuvant cetuximab combined with irinotecan, cisplatin, and radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with stage IIA-IVA esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer were enrolled in a Simon's two-stage phase II study. Patients received weekly cetuximab on weeks 0-8 and irinotecan and cisplatin on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5, with concurrent radiotherapy (50.4 Gy on weeks 1-6), followed by surgical resection. RESULTS: In the first stage, 17 patients were enrolled, 16 of whom had adenocarcinoma. Because of a low pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in this cohort, the trial was discontinued for patients with adenocarcinoma but squamous cell carcinoma patients continued to be enrolled; two additional patients were enrolled before the study was closed as a result of poor accrual. Of the 19 patients enrolled, 18 patients proceeded to surgery, and 16 patients underwent an R0 resection. Three patients (16%) had a pCR. The median progression-free survival interval was 10 months, and the median overall survival duration was 31 months. Severe neutropenia occurred in 47% of patients, and severe diarrhea occurred in 47% of patients. One patient died preoperatively from sepsis, and one patient died prior to hospital discharge following surgical resection. CONCLUSIONS: This schedule of cetuximab in combination with irinotecan, cisplatin, and radiation therapy was toxic and did not achieve a sufficient pCR rate in patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma to undergo further evaluation.

Activity and safety of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: updated results from a phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: ALK fusion genes occur in a subset of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). We assessed the tolerability and activity of crizotinib in patients with NSCLC who were prospectively identified to have an ALK fusion within the first-in-man phase 1 crizotinib study. METHODS: In this phase 1 study, patients with ALK-positive stage III or IV NSCLC received oral crizotinib 250 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. Endpoints included tumour responses, duration of response, time to tumour response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival at 6 and 12 months, and determination of the safety and tolerability and characterisation of the plasma pharmacokinetic profile of crizotinib after oral administration. Responses were analysed in evaluable patients and PFS and safety were analysed in all patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00585195. FINDINGS: Between Aug 27, 2008, and June 1, 2011, 149 ALK-positive patients were enrolled, 143 of whom were included in the response-evaluable population. 87 of 143 patients had an objective response (60·8%, 95% CI 52·3-68·9), including three complete responses and 84 partial responses. Median time to first documented objective response was 7·9 weeks (range 2·1-39·6) and median duration of response was 49·1 weeks (95% CI 39·3-75·4). The response rate seemed to be largely independent of age, sex, performance status, or line of treatment. Median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 7·7-12·8). Median overall survival data are not yet mature, but estimated overall survival at 6 and 12 months was 87·9% (95% CI 81·3-92·3) and 74·8% (66·4-81·5), respectively. 39 patients continued to receive crizotinib for more than 2 weeks after progression because of perceived ongoing clinical benefit from the drug (12 for at least 6 months from the time of their initial investigator-defined disease progression). Overall, 144 (97%) of 149 patients experienced treatment-related adverse events, which were mostly grade 1 or 2. The most common adverse events were visual effects, nausea, diarrhoea, constipation, vomiting, and peripheral oedema. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (n=9), raised alanine aminotransferase (n=6), hypophosphataemia (n=6), and lymphopenia (n=6). INTERPRETATION: Crizotinib is well tolerated with rapid, durable responses in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. There seems to be potential for ongoing benefit after initial disease progression in this population, but a more formal definition of ongoing benefit in this context is needed.

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines Occult primary.

Occult primary tumors, or cancers of unknown primary (CUPs), are defined as histologically proven metastatic malignant tumors whose primary site cannot be identified during pretreatment evaluation. They have a wide variety of clinical presentations and a poor prognosis in most patients. Patients with occult primary tumors often present with general complaints, such as anorexia and weight loss. Clinical absence of primary tumor, early dissemination, aggressiveness, and unpredictability of metastatic pattern are characteristic of these tumors. Life expectancy is very short, with a median survival of 6 to 9 months. In most patients, occult primary tumors are refractory to systemic treatments, and chemotherapy is only palliative and does not significantly improve long-term survival. However, certain clinical presentations of these tumors are associated with a better prognosis. Special pathologic studies can identify subsets of patients with tumor types that are more responsive to chemotherapy. Treatment options should be individualized for this selected group of patients to achieve improved response and survival rates.

Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether docetaxel plus platinum regimens improve survival and affect quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with vinorelbine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1,218) with stage IIIB to IV NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (DC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the curve of 6 mg/mL * min every 3 weeks (DCb); or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (VC). RESULTS: Patients treated with DC had a median survival of 11.3 v 10.1 months for VC-treated patients (P =.044; hazard ratio, 1.183 [97.2% confidence interval, 0.989 to 1.416]). The 2-year survival rate was 21% for DC-treated patients and 14% for VC-treated patients. Overall response rate was 31.6% for DC-treated patients v 24.5% for VC-treated patients (P =.029). Median survival (9.4 v 9.9 months [for VC]; P =.657; hazard ratio, 1.048 [97.2 confidence interval, 0.877 to 1.253]) and response (23.9%) with DCb were similar to those results for VC. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar with all three regimens. Grade 3 to 4 anemia, nausea, and vomiting were more common (P <.01) with VC than with DC or DCb. Patients treated with either docetaxel regimen had consistently improved QoL compared with VC-treated patients, who experienced deterioration in QoL. CONCLUSION: DC resulted in a more favorable overall response and survival rate than VC. Both DC and DCb were better tolerated and provided patients with consistently improved QoL compared with VC. These findings demonstrate that a docetaxel plus platinum combination is an effective treatment option with a favorable therapeutic index for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

DNA repair biomarkers predict response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: The addition of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy prior to surgical resection for esophageal cancer has improved clinical outcomes in some trials. Pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy is associated with better clinical outcome in these patients, but only 22% to 40% of patients achieve pCR. Because both chemotherapy and radiotherapy act by inducing DNA damage, we analyzed proteins selected from multiple DNA repair pathways, using quantitative immunohistochemistry coupled with a digital pathology platform, as possible biomarkers of treatment response and clinical outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 79 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer between October 1994 and September 2002, with biopsy tissue available, who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital and used their archived, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded biopsy samples to create tissue microarrays (TMA). TMA sections were stained using antibodies against proteins in various DNA repair pathways including XPF, FANCD2, PAR, MLH1, PARP1, and phosphorylated MAPKAP kinase 2 (pMK2). Stained TMA slides were evaluated using machine-based image analysis, and scoring incorporated both the intensity and the quantity of positive tumor nuclei. Biomarker scores and clinical data were assessed for correlations with clinical outcome. RESULTS: Higher scores for MLH1 (p = 0.018) and lower scores for FANCD2 (p = 0.037) were associated with pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation on multivariable analysis. Staining of MLH1, PARP1, XPF, and PAR was associated with recurrence-free survival, and staining of PARP1 and FANCD2 was associated with overall survival on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: DNA repair proteins analyzed by immunohistochemistry may be useful as predictive markers for response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer. These results are hypothesis generating and need confirmation in an independent data set.

Maintenance treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of an international expert panel meeting of the Italian association of thoracic oncology.

Several randomized trials have recently investigated the role of maintenance treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with responding or stable disease after completion of first-line chemotherapy. Maintenance strategy has relevant implications in terms of potential toxicity, logistics and costs, and all of these aspects should be taken into account, together with the magnitude of benefit for the patient. In order to assess the strengths and limitations of available evidence, to help clinical practice, and to suggest priorities for future clinical research, the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) organized an International Experts Panel Meeting on maintenance treatment of advanced NSCLC, which took place in Sperlonga (Italy) in May 2011. Based on the available evidence, panelists agreed that maintenance therapy represents a treatment option in advanced NSCLC. Maintenance should be discussed with patients not progressed after 4-6 cycles of first-line chemotherapy, who are fit (performance status 0-1) and without persistent chemotherapy-induced toxicity. Patients need to be well informed about potential advantages and disadvantages of accepting additional therapy without a "treatment-free period". Two different strategies, switch or continuation maintenance, are supported by available evidence. At the moment, there is no direct comparison between switch maintenance and continuation maintenance. For future trials, the panel recommends the use of overall survival as the primary endpoint, with pre-defined second-line treatment. Translational research is essential to identify predictive factors, and should be performed, whenever feasible, in order to achieve treatment optimization with proper patient selection.

Phase I clinical trial of bortezomib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib is the first proteasome inhibitor to show preliminary evidence of activity against solid tumors. Findings from preclinical studies prompted a Phase I trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of bortezomib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with recurring/refractory advanced solid tumors. The effect of gemcitabine on proteasome inhibition by bortezomib in whole blood was also investigated. METHODS: Bortezomib was administered as an intravenous bolus injection on Days 1, 4, 8, and 11, with gemcitabine (30-minute infusion) on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Groups of > or =3 patients were evaluated at each dose level. Escalating doses of gemcitabine 500 mg/m(2) to 1000 mg/m(2) with bortezomib 1.0 mg/m(2) to 1.5 mg/m(2) were planned. RESULTS: There were no DLTs in patients receiving bortezomib 1.0 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 500 mg/m(2) to 1000 mg/m(2) in the first 3 dose levels. Dose-limiting nausea, vomiting, gastrointestinal obstruction, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 4 of 5 evaluable patients in dose level 4 (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2), gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2)), establishing bortezomib 1.0 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) as the MTD. Most common Grade > or =3 toxicities were neutropenia (6 patients), thrombocytopenia (5 patients), gastrointestinal disorders (6 patients), and general disorders (4 patients) such as fatigue. One patient with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma achieved a partial response and 7 achieved stable disease. Inhibition of 20S proteasome activity by bortezomib was unaffected by gemcitabine coadministration. CONCLUSION: Dosages of bortezomib and gemcitabine suitable for further evaluation of antitumor activity have been established.

Phase I dose-escalation study of tezacitabine in combination with 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Tezacitabine [(E)-2'-deoxy-2'-(fluoromethylene) cytidine; FMdC] is a novel nucleoside analog with potent antiproliferative and antitumor activity in preclinical studies. A tolerable safety profile and clinical activity have been shown in Phase I and Phase II clinical studies. The purpose of the current open-label, Phase I dose-escalation trial was to evaluate the combination of tezacitabine and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with a variety of advanced solid tumors for which there was no curative therapy were enrolled. Bolus infusion tezacitabine was administered on Day 1 of a 14-day cycle at escalating doses of 150-350 mg/m(2), with continuous infusion 5-FU (CI 5-FU) given on Days 1-7 at a fixed dose of 200 mg/m(2) per day. Patients underwent objective tumor evaluation by radiologic methods or clinical examination at baseline and after every fourth treatment cycle. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose of the combination therapy was determined to be tezacitabine, 200 mg/m(2), with CI 5-FU, 200 mg/m(2) per day. The toxicities were manageable, the most notable being transient severe (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria Grade 3 or 4) neutropenia in 23 patients (96%). Eleven (55%) of the 20 assessable patients had partial responses or stabilization of disease. The highest response rate was in patients with primary tumors of esophageal origin. CONCLUSIONS: Tezacitabine at a dose of 200 mg/m(2) in combination with CI 5-FU at a dose of 200 mg/m(2) per day was relatively well tolerated and had clinical activity in patients with advanced solid tumors, particularly in patients with esophageal and other gastrointestinal carcinomas.