A phase II study of temsirolimus added to low-dose weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel for patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

Background: Activating events along the PI3K/mTOR pathway are common in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC), and preclinical studies suggest additive or synergistic effects when combining mTORC1 inhibitors with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. Patients and methods: In this single-institution phase II study, the combination of temsirolimus 25 mg, carboplatin AUC 1.5, and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 administered on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle was evaluated in 36 patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC. The primary end point was objective response rate after two cycles of treatment. Secondary end points include the safety and tolerability profile and overall survival. Correlative studies with exome mutational analysis were performed in pre-treatment biopsy samples from 21 patients. Results: Fifteen (41.7%) patients had an objective response, which were all partial responses, and 19 (52.3%) patients had stable disease as best response. The two patients who were designated as 'non-responders' were removed from study prior to two cycles of treatment, but are included in the efficacy and safety analyses. The median duration on study was 5.3 months and the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.9 months (95% confidence interval, 4.8-7.1) and 12.8 months (95% confidence interval, 9.8-15.8), respectively. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were hematologic toxicities. Three (3.8%) patients developed neutropenic fever on study. Three of four patients with PIK3CA mutations experienced tumor regressions, and responses were also seen in patients with other genetic alterations in the PI3K/mTOR pathway. Conclusion: The combination of temsirolimus with low-dose weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel appears to have meaningful clinical efficacy in the treatment of R/M HNSCC. This regimen has a relatively high response rate compared to other treatments evaluated in R/M HNSCC, and potential associations with genetic alterations in the PI3K/mTOR pathway should be further explored.

A phase II study of axitinib (AG-013736) in patients with incurable adenoid cystic carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent/metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is an incurable disease with no standard treatments. The majority of ACCs express the oncogenic transcription factor MYB (also c-myb), often in the context of a MYB gene rearrangement. This phase II trial of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib (Pfizer) tested the hypothesis that targeting pathways activated by MYB can be therapeutically effective for ACC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a minimax two-stage, phase II trial that enrolled patients with incurable ACC of any primary site. Progressive or symptomatic disease was required. Patients were treated with axitinib 5 mg oral twice daily; dose escalation was allowed. The primary end point was best overall response (BOR). An exploratory analysis correlating biomarkers to drug benefit was conducted, including next-generation sequencing (NGS) in 11 patients. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were registered and evaluable for response. Fifteen patients had the axitinib dose increased. Tumor shrinkage was achieved in 22 (66.7%); 3 (9.1%) had confirmed partial responses. Twenty-five (75.8%) patients had stable disease, 10 of whom had disease stability for >6 months. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months (range 0.92-21.8 months). Grade 3 axitinib-related toxicities included hypertension, oral pain and fatigue. A trend toward superior PFS was noted with the MYB/NFIB rearrangement, although this was not statistically significant. NGS revealed three tumors with 4q12 amplification, producing increased copies of axitinib-targeted genes PDGFR/KDR/KIT. Two 4q12 amplified patients achieved stable disease for >6 months, including one with significant tumor reduction and the longest PFS on study (21.8 months). CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary end point was not met, axitinib exhibited clinical activity with tumor shrinkage achieved in the majority of patients with progressive disease before trial enrollment. Analysis of MYB biomarkers and genomic profiling suggests the hypothesis that 4q12 amplified ACCs are a disease subset that benefit from TKI therapy.

Phase I study of weekly nab-paclitaxel + weekly cetuximab + intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with stage III-IVB head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need to improve the efficacy of standard cetuximab + concurrent intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with locally and/or regionally advanced HNSCC. Taxanes have radiosensitizing activity against HNSCC, and nab-paclitaxel may offer therapeutic advantage in comparison with other taxanes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-institution phase I study with a modified 3 + 3 design. Four dose levels (DLs) of weekly nab-paclitaxel were explored (30, 45, 60, and 80 mg/m(2)), given with standard weekly cetuximab (450 mg/m(2) loading dose followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly) and concurrent IMRT (total dose, 70 Gy). RESULTS: Twenty-five eligible patients (20 M, 5 F) enrolled, with median age 58 years (range, 46-84 years). Primary tumor sites were oropharynx, 19 (10 human papillomavirus [HPV] pos, 8 HPV neg, 1 not done); neck node with unknown primary, 2; larynx 2; and oral cavity and maxillary sinus, 1 each. Seven patients had received prior induction chemotherapy. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was exceeded at DL4 (nab-paclitaxel, 80 mg/m(2)) with three dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (grade 3 neuropathy, grade 3 dehydration, with grade 3 mucositis grade 3 anemia) among five assessable patients. There was only one DLT (grade 3 supraventricular tachycardia) among six patients at DL3 (nab-paclitaxel, 60 mg/m(2)), and this was deemed the MTD. Among 23 assessable patients, the most common ≥ g3 AEs were lymphopenia 100%, functional mucositis 65%, and pain in throat/oral cavity 52%. At a median follow-up of 33 months, 2-year failure-free survival (FFS) is 65% [95% confidence interval (CI) 42% to 81%] and 2-year overall survival (OS) is 91% (95% CI 69-97). CONCLUSION: The recommended phase II dose for nab-paclitaxel is 60 mg/m(2) weekly when given standard weekly cetuximab and concurrent IMRT. This regimen merits further study as a nonplatinum alternative to IMRT + cetuximab alone. CLINICALTRIALSGOV ID: NCT00736619.

Genetic analysis as an aid in diagnosis for patients with midline carcinomas of uncertain histologies.

The tumors of nine patients with carcinomas of uncertain histogenesis (eight with poorly differentiated carcinomas involving primarily midline structures and one with a diagnosis of seminoma and atypical clinical features) were studied by cytogenetic and Southern blot analyses. Four of the eight patients with poorly differentiated carcinomas had abnormalities of chromosome 12 consistent with a diagnosis of germ cell tumor. These abnormalities comprised an i(12p) in two patients and a del(12q) in a third patient detected by cytogenetic analysis and multiple copies of 12p detected by Southern blot analysis in a fourth patient. Three of these four patients with a diagnosis of germ cell tumor established by genetic analysis achieved a complete response to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The tumor biopsy of one patient showed a t(11;22) (q24;q12), and this patient had chemotherapy directed to neuroepithelioma. Cytogenetic analysis was unsuccessful for the tumors of three patients; these tumors did not have multiple copies of 12p detected by Southern blot analysis. These patients did not respond to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. One patient with a diagnosis of extragonadal seminoma failed to respond to cisplatin-based chemotherapy and had a second tumor biopsy performed that demonstrated a t(8;14) (q24;q32). This patient's diagnosis was changed to a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Thus, genetic analysis provided a diagnosis in six of nine patients. Cytogenetic and molecular analyses are useful clinical tools for the determination of histogenesis in some patients with poorly differentiated carcinomas of uncertain histology.

Classifying clinical severity to help solve problems of stage migration in nonconcurrent comparisons of lung cancer therapy.

To compare the effects of stage migration in the "traditional" 3-stage TNM (tumor, node, metastasis) system with those in a new "expanded" 5-stage system, which has two additional stages for the poor prognostic groups, we used both systems to classify a cohort of 178 patients with primary lung cancer. To check for migrations, the stages in both systems were first assigned using only "old" technological information and were then reassigned using all the available "new" as well as old technological data. Although the 5-stage system had more migrations than the 3-stage system, survival rates were relatively unaffected for patients in the two new stages with poor prognosis. In both TNM staging patterns, the effects of stage migration on survival statistics were most impressive in the prognostically better (TNM I and II) stages. A solution to the migration problem is offered by the "clinical severity" (CS) staging system. Like the expanded TNM system, the CS system has 5 stages and a sharp prognostic gradient among stages. The CS system, however, had fewer technology-induced stage migrations than either TNM system, and the migrations had no substantial impact on stage-specific survival results. The excellent prognostic discrimination and secular stability of the CS system make it superior to the TNM system for comparing treatment results from different eras, especially for patients with stage I and II disease.

American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on breast cancer risk reduction strategies: tamoxifen and raloxifene.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an evidence-based technology assessment to determine whether tamoxifen and raloxifene as breast cancer risk-reduction strategies are appropriate for broad-based conventional use in clinical practice. POTENTIAL INTERVENTION: Tamoxifen and raloxifene. OUTCOME: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefits. EVIDENCE: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for tamoxifen and raloxifene on the following topics: breast cancer risk reduction; tamoxifen side effects and toxicity, including endometrial cancer risk; tamoxifen influences on nonmalignant diseases, including coronary heart disease and osteoporosis; and decision making by women at risk for breast cancer. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. VALUES: More weight was given to publications that described randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS/COSTS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Working Group acknowledges that a woman's decision regarding breast cancer risk-reduction strategies will depend on the importance and weight attributed to the information provided regarding both cancer and non-cancer-related risks. CONCLUSIONS: For women with a defined 5-year projected risk of breast cancer of >/= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for up to 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. It is premature to recommend raloxifene use to lower the risk of developing breast cancer outside of a clinical trial setting. On the basis of available information, use of raloxifene should currently be reserved for its approved indication to prevent bone loss in postmenopausal women. Conclusions are based on single-agent use of the drugs. At the present time, the effect of using tamoxifen or raloxifene with other medications (such as hormone replacement therapy), or using tamoxifen and raloxifene in combination or sequentially, has not been studied adequately. The continuing use of placebo-controlled trials in other risk-reduction trials highlights the current unanswered issues concerning the use of such interventions, especially when the influence on net health benefit remains to be determined. Breast cancer risk reduction is a rapidly evolving area. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process with existing plans to monitor and review data and to update recommendations in a timely matter. (See VALIDATION: The conclusions of the Working Group were evaluated by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and by the ASCO Board of Directors. SPONSOR: American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Larynx preservation with combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy in advanced but resectable head and neck cancer.

Forty patients with advanced, resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx, oropharynx, or hypopharynx whose surgery would have required total laryngectomy (TL), were treated with one to three cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy before local therapy with the goal of larynx preservation. Clinical complete responses (CRs) or partial responses (PRs) to chemotherapy were seen in 26 of 40 patients (65%). Three patients with primary-site disease unresponsive to chemotherapy underwent resection of the primary lesion and neck dissection followed by radiation therapy (RT). Thirty-seven patients were referred after chemotherapy for RT +/- neck dissection. Thirty-one of 40 patient (78%) were rendered disease-free (no evidence of disease [NED]). With a median follow-up of 49 months (range, 31 to 76), the overall actuarial survival rate for the group was 58% at 2 years and 33% at 5 years. The failure-free survival rate was 42% and 33% at 2 and 5 years, respectively. Seven patients refused recommended TL throughout their course. This may have adversely affected survival results. A greater proportion of patients who achieved a CR or PR to chemotherapy remained disease-free compared with those who achieved less than a PR (P less than .001). Sixteen patients relapsed, 10 with locoregional disease. Six patients underwent TL, either for initial induction failure or at relapse, for an actual larynx-preservation rate of 34 of 40 patients (85%). If the seven patients who refused TL are included, the anticipated preservation rate is 27 of 40 patients (68%). Larynx preservation with combined chemotherapy and radiation is feasible and effective in patients with advanced, resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCHN). This treatment approach requires a motivated patient, careful patient monitoring, and close interdisciplinary cooperation among oncologists.

Randomized trial of etoposide and cisplatin versus etoposide and carboplatin in patients with good-risk germ cell tumors: a multiinstitutional study.

PURPOSE: This multicenter, randomized phase III clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of etoposide plus carboplatin (EC) versus etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) in good-risk germ cell tumor (GCT) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1986 and December 1990, 270 patients with good-risk GCTs were randomized to receive four cycles of either EP or EC. The etoposide dose in all patients was 100 mg/m2 on days 1 through 5. EP patients received cisplatin at 20 mg/m2 on days 1 through 5 and therapy was recycled at 21-day intervals. For EC patients, the carboplatin dose was 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle and the EC recycling interval was 28 days. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-five patients were assessable: 131 patients treated with EC and 134 treated with EP. One hundred fifteen of 131 assessable patients (88%) treated with EC achieved a complete response (CR) versus 121 of 134 patients (90%) treated with EP (P = .32). Sixteen patients (12%) treated with EC relapsed from CR versus four patients (3%) treated with EP. Therefore, 32 patients (24%) who received carboplatin experienced an event (incomplete response [IR] or relapse) compared with 17 of 134 patients (13%) who received cisplatin (P = .02). At a median follow-up of 22.4 months, event-free and relapse-free survival were inferior for patients treated with EC (P = .02 and P = .005, respectively). No difference in overall survival was evident (P = .52). CONCLUSION: Two-drug therapy with EC using this dose and schedule was inferior to therapy with EP. Cisplatin remains as the standard platinum analog in the treatment of patients with good-risk GCTs. Carboplatin should be restricted to investigational trials in GCT.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) present a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 143 patients with previously treated HNSCC who underwent 181 PET scans at our institution from May 1996 through April 2001 to detect recurrent disease. Disease recurrence within 6 months was used as the gold standard for assessing true disease status at PET. RESULTS: With equivocal sites considered positive, the sensitivity and specificity of PET for detecting recurrence overall were 96% and 72%, respectively. PET was highly sensitive and specific at regional and distant sites. At local sites, sensitivity was high, but specificity was lower because of false-positive findings. One fifth of all false-positive PET scans occurred at sites of known inflammation or infection. The area under the curve for a receiver operator characteristic curve on the basis of standardized uptake value (SUV) was 0.882 +/- 0.025. PET interpretation, SUV, and physical examination were independent predictors of relapse-free and overall survival in a time-dependent, multivariate proportional hazards model. An increase in SUV by one unit increased the relative risk (RR) of relapse by 11% and the RR of death by 14%. A positive PET interpretation increased the RR of relapse by four-fold and the RR of death by seven-fold. CONCLUSION: PET was a highly sensitive method of detecting recurrent HNSCC and provided important prognostic information for relapse-free and overall survival.

Organ-function preservation in advanced oropharynx cancer: results with induction chemotherapy and radiation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a strategy using induction chemotherapy followed by radiation therapy (RT) as a means of organ-function preservation in patients with advanced oropharynx cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 1983 to December 1990, 33 patients with advanced squamous cell oropharynx cancer whose appropriate surgical management would have required a tongue procedure and potential total laryngectomy were treated with one to three cycles of cisplatin (CDDP)-based induction chemotherapy. Patients with a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) at the primary site then received definitive external-beam RT with or without interstitial implant with or without neck dissection with surgery to the primary tumor site reserved for disease persistence or relapse; patients with less than a PR after chemotherapy had appropriate surgery and postoperative RT recommended. RESULTS: With a median follow-up period of 6.2 years, actuarial overall and failure-free survival rates at 5 years are 41% and 42%, respectively. Chemotherapy toxicity contributed to the death of two patients and was possibly a factor in two others. Local control was achieved in 14 patients (42%) without any surgery to the larynx or tongue. Among 13 patients currently alive, all had a preserved larynx and only one required tongue surgery; 12 of 13 have speech subjectively described as always understandable; and nine of 13 have no significant restrictions in their diet. CONCLUSION: This treatment program is feasible and effective in patients with advanced oropharynx cancer and produces an excellent functional outcome in most long-term survivors. Modifications to optimize patient selection, minimize toxicity, and improve local control are indicated. The relative toxicity, efficacy, and functional outcome provided by this and other chemotherapy and RT programs versus either standard surgery and/or RT options can only be addressed in a randomized comparison of these therapies.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology Bisphosphonates Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical practice guidelines for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone metastases in breast cancer and their role relative to other therapies for this condition. METHODS: An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature and meeting abstracts through May 1999. Additional data collected as part of randomized trials and submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration were also reviewed, and investigators were contacted for more recent information. Values for levels of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned by expert reviewers and approved by the panel. Expert consensus was used if there were insufficient published data. The panel addressed which patients to treat and when in their course of disease, specific drug delivery issues, duration of therapy, management of bony metastases with other therapies, and the public policy implications. The guideline underwent external review by selected physicians, members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS: Bisphosphonates have not had an impact on the most reliable cancer end point: overall survival. The benefits have been reductions in skeletal complications, ie, pathologic fractures, surgery for fracture or impending fracture, radiation, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia. Intravenous (IV) pamidronate 90 mg delivered over 1 to 2 hours every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have imaging evidence of lytic destruction of bone and who are concurrently receiving systemic therapy with hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. For women with only an abnormal bone scan but without bony destruction by imaging studies or localized pain, there is insufficient evidence to suggest starting bisphosphonates. Starting bisphosphonates in patients without evidence of bony metastasis, even in the presence of other extraskeletal metastases, is not recommended. Studies of bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting have yielded inconsistent results. Starting bisphosphonates in patients at any stage of their nonosseous disease, outside of clinical trials, despite a high risk for future bone metastasis, is currently not recommended. Oral bisphosphonates are one of several options which can be used for preservation of bone density in premenopausal patients with treatment-induced menopause. The panel suggests that, once initiated, IV bisphosphonates be continued until evidence of substantial decline in a patient's general performance status. The panel stresses that clinical judgment must guide what is a substantial decline. There is no evidence addressing the consequences of stopping bisphosphonates after one or more adverse skeletal events. Symptoms in the spine, pelvis, or femur require careful evaluation for spinal cord compression and pathologic fracture before bisphosphonate use and if symptoms recur, persist, or worsen during therapy. The panel recommends that current standards of care for cancer pain, analgesics and local radiation therapy, not be displaced by bisphosphonates. IV pamidronate is recommended in women with pain caused by osteolytic metastasis to relieve pain when used concurrently with systemic chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy, since it was associated with a modest pain control benefit in controlled trials. CONCLUSION: Bisphosphonates provide a meaningful supportive but not life-prolonging benefit to many patients with bone metastases from cancer. Further research is warranted to identify clinical predictors of when to start and stop therapy, to integrate their use with other treatments for bone metastases, to identify their role in the adjuvant setting in preventing bone metastases, and to better determine their cost-benefit consequences.

Recommended colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective, evidence-based, postoperative surveillance strategy for the detection of recurrent colon and rectal cancer. Tests are to be recommended only if they have an impact on the outcomes listed below. POTENTIAL INTERVENTION: All tests described in the literature for postoperative monitoring were considered. In addition, the data were critically evaluated to determine the optimal frequency of monitoring. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest included overall and disease-free survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction, and cost-effectiveness. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Expert Panel was guided by the principle of cost minimization, ie, when two strategies were believed to be equally effective, the least expensive test was recommended. EVIDENCE: A complete MEDLINE search was performed of the past 20 years of the medical literature. Keywords included colorectal cancer, follow-up, and carcinoembryonic antigen, as well as the names of the specific tests. The search was broadened by articles from the tumor marker ASCO panel literature search, as well as from bibliographies of selected articles. VALUES: Levels of evidence and guideline grades were rated by a standard process. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design. BENEFITS/HARMS/COSTS: The possible consequences of false-positive and false-negative tests were considered in evaluating a preference for one of two tests that provide similar information. Cost alone was not a determining factor. RECOMMENDATIONS: The expert panel's recommended postoperative monitoring schema is discussed in this article. VALIDATION: Five outside reviewers, the ASCO Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors examined this document. SPONSOR: American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Accelerated concomitant boost radiotherapy and chemotherapy for advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of concomitant boost radiotherapy (RT) plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy compared with standard fractionation RT for patients with advanced nasopharyngeal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1988 through 1999, 50 patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II-IVb nasopharyngeal carcinoma were treated with 70-Gy concomitant boost RT (1.8 Gy/d, weeks 1 through 6; 1.6 Gy second daily fraction, weeks 5 through 6) and two cycles of concurrent cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) days 1 and 22. Thirty-seven patients also received three cycles of cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. These 50 patients were compared with a nonrandomized cohort of 51 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer treated with 70-Gy standard fractionation RT (1.8 Gy/d) without chemotherapy from 1988 through 1995. The groups were well matched for prognostic factors except stage, for which the concomitant boost RT/chemotherapy group was more advanced (54%, T3-4; 54%, N2-3; 44%, stage IV) compared with the standard RT group (31%, T3-4, P =.03; 22%, N2-3, P <.001; 20%, stage IV, P <.01). RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 42 months (range, 12 to 129 months), the 3-year actuarial local control, progression-free survival, and survival rates were 89% v 74% (P <.01), 66% v 54% (P =.01), and 84% v 71% (P =.04) for the concomitant boost RT/chemotherapy group and the standard RT patients, respectively. Acute grade 3 mucositis was more prevalent with combined therapy, 84% v 43% (P <.001), resulting in a higher rate of temporary gastrostomy tube placement, 46% v 20% (P <.01). CONCLUSION: Concomitant boost RT with cisplatin-based chemotherapy is feasible and improves local-regional control as well as survival for patients with advanced nasopharyngeal cancer compared with standard RT alone.

Initial clinical trial of a selective retinoid X receptor ligand, LGD1069.

PURPOSE: The retinoid response is mediated by nuclear receptors, including retinoic acid receptors (RARs) and retinoid "X" receptors (RXRs). All-trans retinoic acid (RA) binds only RARs, while 9-cis RA is an agonist for both RARs and RXRs. Recently, LGD1069 was identified as a highly selective RXR agonist with low affinity for RARs. We undertook a dose-ranging study to examine the safety, clinical tolerance, and pharmacokinetics of LGD1069 in patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients received. LGD1069 administered orally once daily at doses that ranged from 5 to 500 mg/m2 for 1 to 41 weeks. Treatment proceeded from a starting dose of 5 mg/m2. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on selected patients on days 1, 15, and 29. RESULTS: Reversible, asymptomatic increases in liver biochemical tests were the most common dose-limiting adverse effect. Less prominent reactions included leukopenia, hypertriglyceridemia, and hypercalcemia. Characteristic retinoid toxicities, such as cheilitis, headache, and myalgias/arthralgias, were mild or absent. Two patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma experienced major antitumor responses. Pharmacokinetic studies obtained in 27 patients at eight dose levels showed that the day 1 area under the plasma concentration-times-time curves (AUCs) were proportional to dose. At all doses studied, the day 1 AUCs were similar to those on days 15 and 29, indicating a lack of induced metabolism. CONCLUSION: LGD1069 is a unique compound that exploits a newly identified pathway of retinoid receptor biology that may be relevant to tumor-cell proliferation and apoptosis. Further investigation of this drug is warranted. Based on the results of this study, a dose of 300 mg/m2 is recommended for single-agent trials.

American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines for the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy protectants.

PURPOSE: Because toxicities associated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy can adversely affect short- and long-term patient quality of life, can limit the dose and duration of treatment, and may be life-threatening, specific agents designed to ameliorate or eliminate certain chemotherapy and radiotherapy toxicities have been developed. Variability in interpretation of the available data pertaining to the efficacy of the three United States Food and Drug Administration-approved agents that have potential chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-protectant activity-dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine-and questions about the role of these protectant agents in cancer care led to concern about the appropriate use of these agents. The American Society of Clinical Oncology sought to establish evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines for the use of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine in patients who are not enrolled on clinical treatment trials. METHODS: A multidisciplinary Expert Panel reviewed the clinical data regarding the activity of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine. A computerized literature search was performed using MEDLINE. In addition to reports collected by individual Panel members, all articles published in the English-speaking literature from June 1997 through December 1998 were collected for review by the Panel chairpersons, and appropriate articles were distributed to the entire Panel for review. Guidelines for use, levels of evidence, and grades of recommendation were reviewed and approved by the Panel. Outcomes considered in evaluating the benefit of a chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-protectant agent included amelioration of short- and long-term chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related toxicities, risk of tumor protection by the agent, toxicity of the protectant agent itself, quality of life, and economic impact. To the extent that these data were available, the Panel placed the greatest value on lesser toxicity that did not carry a concomitant risk of tumor protection. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Mesna: (1) Mesna, dosed as detailed in these guidelines, is recommended to decrease the incidence of standard-dose ifosfamide-associated urothelial toxicity. (2) There is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of mesna to prevent urothelial toxicity with ifosfamide doses that exceed 2.5 g/m(2)/d. (3) Either mesna or forced saline diuresis is recommended to decrease the incidence of urothelial toxicity associated with high-dose cyclophosphamide use in the stem-cell transplantation setting. Dexrazoxane: (1) The use of dexrazoxane is not routinely recommended for patients with metastatic breast cancer who receive initial doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. (2) The use of dexrazoxane may be considered for patients with metastatic breast cancer who have received a cumulative dosage of 300 mg/m(2) or greater of doxorubicin in the metastatic setting and who may benefit from continued doxorubicin-containing therapy. (3) The use of dexrazoxane in the adjuvant setting is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. (4) The use of dexrazoxane can be considered in adult patients who have received more than 300 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin-based therapy for tumors other than breast cancer, although caution should be used in settings in which doxorubicin-based therapy has been shown to improve survival because of concerns of tumor protection by dexrazoxane. (5) There is insufficient evidence to make a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in the treatment of pediatric malignancies, with epirubicin-based regimens, or with high-dose anthracycline-containing regimens. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in patients with cardiac risk factors or underlying cardiac disease. (6) Patients receiving dexrazoxane should continue to be monitored for cardiac toxicity. Amifostine: (1) Amifostine may be considered for the reduction of nephrotoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemoth

Postmastectomy radiotherapy: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To determine indications for the use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for patients with invasive breast cancer with involved axillary lymph nodes or locally advanced disease who receive systemic therapy. These guidelines are intended for use in the care of patients outside of clinical trials. POTENTIAL INTERVENTION: The benefits and risks of PMRT in such patients, as well as subgroups of these patients, were considered. The details of the PMRT technique were also evaluated. OUTCOMES: The outcomes considered included freedom from local-regional recurrence, survival (disease-free and overall), and long-term toxicity. EVIDENCE: An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature through July 2000; certain investigators were contacted for more recent and, in some cases, unpublished information. A computerized search was performed of MEDLINE data; directed searches based on the bibliographies of primary articles were also performed. VALUES: Levels of evidence and guideline grades were assigned by the Panel using standard criteria. A "recommendation" was made when level I or II evidence was available and there was consensus as to its meaning. A "suggestion" was made based on level III, IV, or V evidence and there was consensus as to its meaning. Areas of clinical importance were pointed out where guidelines could not be formulated due to insufficient evidence or lack of consensus. RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations, suggestions, and expert opinions of the Panel are described in this article. VALIDATION: Seven outside reviewers, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee members, and the ASCO Board of Directors reviewed this document.

Initial clinical trial of a high-affinity retinoic acid receptor ligand (LGD1550).

Retinoids mediate their biological response by binding to specific nuclear receptors, including retinoic acid receptors and/or retinoid X receptors. LGD1550 is a high-affinity ligand for all three retinoic acid receptors (alpha, beta, and gamma isoforms) and a potent inhibitor of AP-1, a protein that is closely linked with trophic responses and malignant transformation. We conducted a dose ranging study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, clinical tolerance, and potential efficacy of this drug in patients with advanced cancer. Twenty-seven patients received oral doses of LGD1550 once per day at doses ranging from 20-400 microg/m2. Skin toxicity was the dose-limiting reaction at the 400 microg/m2 daily dose level. Less prominent reactions included nausea and headache. No major antitumor effects were observed. Pharmacokinetic studies in 15 patients at five dose levels showed that the peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and areas under the plasma concentration-time curve on day 1 were dose-proportional and were similar to values obtained on days 15, 29, and 84. Unlike other retinoids, LGD1550 did not induce its own metabolism, and there was little evidence of drug accumulation. The t1/2 was approximately 5 h after both the initial and repeated doses. We conclude that once-daily doses of LGD1550 of up to 300 microg/m2 are relatively well tolerated. Additional clinical explorations are warranted, especially in patients with cancers of the prostate, thyroid, head and neck, and cervix.

Phase I and pharmacological study of two schedules of the antifolate edatrexate in combination with cisplatin.

The antifolate edatrexate has shown moderate activity against cancers of the head and neck and non-small cell lung cancer, as has cisplatin. Edatrexate demonstrates synergy with cisplatin in transplanted tumor models. This Phase I study was designed to evaluate two schedules of administration of cisplatin in combination with escalating doses of edatrexate, in a population consisting mainly of patients with these two cancers. The starting dose of edatrexate was 40 mg/m2. Dose escalation was to occur in 10-mg/m2 increments; the planned maximum dose level for study was 80 mg/m2. A total of 39 patients were registered. Eleven were treated on schedule A: cisplatin 120 mg/m2 every 4 weeks, and edatrexate weekly. Twenty-eight patients were assigned to schedule B: cisplatin 60 mg/m2 and edatrexate, both given every 2 weeks. On schedule A, the maximum tolerated dose of weekly edatrexate was 40 mg/m2, with dose-limiting toxicities of leukopenia, mucositis, and renal insufficiency. On schedule B, the maximum tolerated dose of biweekly edatrexate was 80 mg/m2, with leukopenia and mucositis as dose limiting. For schedule A, pharmacokinetic studies suggested a possible effect of cisplatin on the day 8 clearance of edatrexate. Studies on patients on schedule B did not show a clear effect of cisplatin on the day 15 edatrexate clearance. On schedule A, 5 of 9 evaluable patients had major responses (1 complete); whereas on schedule B, 8 of 25 patients had major responses (1 complete). Responses were seen in both head and neck and non-small cell lung cancer patients. For Phase II studies, use of cisplatin 60 mg/m2 and edatrexate 80 mg/m2, both given biweekly, is recommended.

High-dose edatrexate with oral leucovorin rescue: a phase I and clinical pharmacological study in adults with advanced cancer.

Our objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and toxicity of i.v. edatrexate with p.o. leucovorin. Thirty-one adults with advanced solid tumors received edatrexate as a 2-h infusion, once a week for 3 weeks, recycled every 28 days. p.o. leucovorin (10 mg/m2, every 6 h for 10 doses) began 24 h later. All had urinary alkalinization and p.o. hydration. Nine dosage levels ranging from 120 to 3750 mg/m2 were explored. Fatigue, epistaxis, nausea/emesis, mucositis, rash, myalgias, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and transient elevations of serum aspartate transferase were observed. Leukoencephalopathy with clinical manifestations occurred in two patients (one had prior cranial irradiation). Pharmacokinetic studies carried out at the 120- and 1080-mg/m2 dose levels revealed no significant difference in the elimination half-life at the two dose levels studied and no significant intrapatient variability between day 1 and day 8 edatrexate administration. Serum edatrexate levels measured using a dihydrofolate reductase inhibition assay correlated with those by high-performance liquid chromatography. Three major and two minor antitumor responses occurred. The maximum tolerated dose was 3750 mg/m2, with grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (one patient), stomatitis (one patient), and leukoencephalopathy (one patient). Because of the occurrence of leukoencephalopathy, further study of high-dose edatrexate with leucovorin rescue is not recommended.