A phase 2 trial of dasatinib in patients with locally advanced or stage IV mucosal, acral, or vulvovaginal melanoma: A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E2607).

BACKGROUND: KIT-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib have demonstrated benefits in KIT-mutant (KIT+) mucosal, acral, vulvovaginal, and chronically sun-damaged (CSD) melanoma. Dasatinib has superior preclinical activity in comparison with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors against cells with the most common KIT mutation, exon 11L576P . The ECOG-ACRIN E2607 trial assessed dasatinib in patients with these melanoma subtypes. METHODS: Patients received 70 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily. The primary objective for this 2-stage phase 2 trial was response rate. Stage I was open to KIT+ and wild-type KIT (KIT-) mucosal, acral, and CSD melanoma (n = 57). Stage II accrued only KIT+ tumors (n = 30). To enrich the trial for KIT+ tumors, vulvovaginal melanoma was added, and CSD melanoma was removed from eligibility. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: From May 2009 to December 2010, the first stage enrolled 57 patients. Among the evaluable patients, 3 of 51 (5.9%) achieved a partial response: all were KIT-. Stage II closed early because of slow accrual (November 2011 to December 2015). In stage II, 4 of 22 evaluable patients (18.2%) had a partial response; the median duration was 4.2 months. The median PFS was 2.1 months (n = 73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.9 months). The median OS was 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.0-11.9 months). In exploratory analyses, no differences were seen in PFS or OS with the KIT status or subtype. Dasatinib was discontinued because of adverse events in 9 of 75 patients (12%). CONCLUSIONS: The dasatinib response rate among KIT+ melanoma patients was low. In view of its clinical activity, it is recommended that imatinib remain the KIT tyrosine kinase inhibitor of choice for unresectable KIT+ melanoma. Cancer 2017;123:2688-97. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled study of gabapentin for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, NCCTG N08C3 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Despite targeted antiemetics, data support an unmet need related to the management of delayed nausea and vomiting (NV). Promising pilot data informed this phase III trial evaluating gabapentin for delayed NV from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive prophylactic treatment with 20 mg of dexamethasone and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) on the day of chemotherapy, followed by gabapentin 300 mg twice a day and dexamethasone (dex) or placebo and dex after HEC. Gabapentin/placebo was started the day of chemotherapy and continued through day 5 for the first chemotherapy cycle, whereas dex was titrated down on days 2-4. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medications on days 2-6, using an NV diary. The percentages of those in each group with a CR were compared by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty patients were enrolled in this study. Forty-seven percent of patients in the gabapentin arm and 41% in the placebo arm had a CR (P = .23). Mean number of emesis episodes was <0.5 daily, and mean nausea severity was < 2 (mild). In both arms, patient satisfaction with NV control was greater than 8 (with 10 being perfectly satisfied). There were no significant differences in unwanted side effects. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, gabapentin did not significantly improve delayed NV. Patients were satisfied with the control of their nausea and vomiting irrespective of arm. The use of a 5HT3 RA and dexamethasone provided good control of nausea and vomiting for most patients.

A randomized phase 2 study of temozolomide and bevacizumab or nab-paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab in patients with unresectable stage IV melanoma : a North Central Cancer Treatment Group study, N0775.

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence shows chemotherapy in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition is a clinically active therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). METHODS: A phase 2 trial was conducted in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage IV MM who were randomized to temozolomide (200 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 5) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15) every 28 days (Regimen TB) or nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m(2) , or 80 mg/m(2) post-addendum 5 secondary to toxicity, on days 1, 8, and 15), bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15), and carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 6 on day 1, or AUC 5 post-addendum 5) every 28 days (Regimen ABC). Accrual goal was 41 patients per regimen. The primary aim of this study was to estimate progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6) in each regimen. A regimen would be considered promising if its PFS6 rate was > 60%. RESULTS: Ninety-three eligible patients (42 TB and 51 ABC) were enrolled. The majority of patients had M1c disease (20 TB and 26 ABC). The median PFS and overall survival times with ABC were 6.7 months and 13.9 months, respectively. Median PFS time and median overall survival with TB were 3.8 months and 12.3 months, respectively. The most common severe toxicities (≥ grade 3) in both regimens were cytopenias, fatigue, and thrombosis. Among the first 41 patients enrolled onto each regimen, PFS6 rate was 32.8% (95% confidence interval: 21.1%-51.2%) for TB and 56.1% (90% confidence interval: 44.7%-70.4%) for ABC. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin shows promising activity despite tolerability issues.

Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

Further data supporting that paclitaxel-associated acute pain syndrome is associated with development of peripheral neuropathy: North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial N08C1.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel causes an acute pain syndrome (P-APS), occurring within days after each dose and usually abating within days. Paclitaxel also causes a more classic peripheral neuropathy, which steadily increases in severity with increasing paclitaxel total doses. Little detail is available regarding the natural history of these 2 syndromes, or any relationship between them, although a recent publication does provide natural history data about weekly paclitaxel, supporting an association between the severity of P-APS and eventual peripheral neuropathy symptoms. METHODS: Patients entering this study were about to receive paclitaxel and carboplatin every 3 weeks. Daily questionnaires were completed for the first week after every chemotherapy dose, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire, Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20-item instruments were completed weekly. RESULTS: The P-APS severity peaked on day 4 after the initial chemotherapy dose, with 12%, 29%, 23%, and 36% of patients having maximal pain scores of 0, 1 to 4, 5 or 6, or 7 to 10 during the first week after the first dose of therapy, respectively. Patients with P-APS scores of 0 to 4 with the first dose of chemotherapy had less eventual sensory neuropathy than did patients with P-APS scores of 5 to 10 (P = 0.001). With regard to the more peripheral neuropathy, sensory neuropathy was more problematic than was either motor or autonomic neuropathy. Numbness and tingling were more common components of the sensory neuropathy than was pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with worse P-APS severities appear to have more eventual chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. This provides support for the concept that P-APS is a form of nerve pathology.

A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of pilocarpine for vaginal dryness: North Central Cancer Treatment group study N04CA.

Vaginal dryness is a common problem for which effective and safe nonestrogenic treatments are needed. Based on preliminary promising data that pilocarpine attenuated vaginal dryness, the current trial was conducted. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial design was used to compare pilocarpine, at target doses of 5 mg twice daily and 5 mg four times daily, with a placebo. Vaginal dryness was recorded by patient-completed questionnaires at baseline and weekly for 6 weeks after study initiation. The primary endpoint for this study was the area under the curve summary statistic composed of the longitudinal responses obtained at baseline and through the 6 weeks of treatment to a numerical analogue scale asking patients to rate their perceived amount of vaginal dryness. The primary analysis was carried out by a single t test using a two-side alternative to compare the collective pilocarpine treatment arms with the collective placebo arms. A total of 201 patients enrolled in this trial. The primary analysis, comparing vaginal dryness symptoms in the collective pilocarpine arms against the placebo arm, did not reveal any benefit for the pilocarpine treatment. This finding was confirmed by other secondary analyses. Toxicity evaluation revealed more nausea, sweating, rigors, and urinary frequency with the pilocarpine arms compared with the placebo arm.

Effect of Erlotinib Plus Bevacizumab vs Erlotinib Alone on Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Advanced EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Erlotinib is a standard first-line therapy for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Median progression-free survival (PFS) with erlotinib is approximately 10 months. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adding bevacizumab to erlotinib treatment results in superior progression-free survival compared with erlotinib alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 2 randomized clinical trial compared erlotinib plus bevacizumab with erlotinib alone in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. The trial was conducted in 17 US academic and community medical centers among 88 patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation based on local testing and stage 4 NSCLC who were eligible for bevacizumab. Patients were enrolled between November 2, 2012, and August 22, 2016, and followed up for a median (range) of 33 (0.7-62.5) months. Data were analyzed on August 28, 2018, and included data from November 2, 2012, to August 20, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized with equal allocation to 150 mg of oral erlotinib daily alone or with 15 mg/kg of intravenous bevacizumab every 3 weeks. Study therapy continued until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or withdrawal of consent. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was PFS as assessed by the investigator; secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and overall survival (OS). Analysis was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.667 for PFS (an improvement from a median PFS of 10 to 15 months). RESULTS: Among 88 patients enrolled, the median (range) age was 63 (31-84) years; 62 patients (70%) were female; 75 (85%) were white, 8 (9%) were African American, 3 (3%) were Asian, and for 2 (2%), data on race were not available. Forty-eight patients (55%) were never smokers, 45 patients (51%) were of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1, and 59 patients (67%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion. Compared with erlotinib, the combination did not result in a significant difference in PFS (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.50-1.31; P = .39; median PFS 17.9 [combination] and 13.5 months [erlotinib]), ORR (81% vs 83%; P = .81), and OS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.71-2.81; P = .33; median OS, 32.4 months [combination] and 50.6 months [erlotinib]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher observed in 5 or more patients in the combination and erlotinib arms were skin eruption in 11 (26%) vs 7 (16%) patients, diarrhea in 4 (9%) vs 6 (13%) patients, hypertension in 17 (40%) vs 9 (20%) patients, and proteinuria in 5 (12%) vs 0 (0%) patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Erlotinib plus bevacizumab compared with erlotinib did not result in a significant improvement in PFS in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01532089.

Safety and tolerability of idelalisib, lenalidomide, and rituximab in relapsed and refractory lymphoma: the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A051201 and A051202 phase 1 trials.

BACKGROUND: A new generation of biological and targeted agents might potentially replace traditional cytotoxic agents in lymphoma. Lenalidomide plus rituximab was felt to be a safe and promising backbone based on available data. Idelalisib is an oral phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase delta (PI3Kδ) inhibitor that has promising activity as a monotherapy in refractory indolent lymphomas. The primary objective of these two trials was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab and idelalisib in relapsed follicular and mantle cell lymphoma. METHODS: A051201 (mantle cell lymphoma) and A051202 (follicular lymphoma) were phase 1 trials. Patients with histologically documented relapsed mantle cell lymphoma who had not received previous lenalidomide or idelalisib (A051201) were started with oral lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1-21 in a 28 day cycle, oral idelalisib 150 mg twice a day with continuous 28-day cycles, and intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 weekly during cycle 1. Patients with histologically documented relapsed follicular lymphoma and time to progression 6 months or longer from last rituximab-containing regimen (A051202) were started with oral lenalidomide 10 mg on days 1-21 every 28 days and oral idelalisib 150 mg twice a day with continuous 28-day cycles, and intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on cycle 1, day 8, day 15, day 22, and cycle 2, day 1. The primary endpoints of the studies were safety and tolerability of combining idelalisib with lenalidomide and rituximab in patients with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (A051201) and relapsed follicular lymphoma (A051202). All analyses were by intention to treat. The trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01838434 (A051201) and number NCT01644799 (A051202). FINDINGS: Between July 9, 2013, and Sept 30, 2014, 11 patients (three with mantle cell lymphoma and eight with follicular lymphoma) were enrolled. Among the first eight patients, four experienced unexpected dose-limiting toxicities: grade 4 sepsis syndrome, grade 4 hypotension with grade 3 rash and fevers, grade 4 aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation with fevers, and grade 3 pulmonary infection with grade 3 maculopapular rash. Symptom onset was 9-20 days after treatment initiation, coinciding with rituximab infusions. Both studies were amended to remove rituximab, but two of three additional patients had grade 3 rashes and one had grade 3 AST elevation. Both trials were permanently closed. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were ALT elevation (two [67%] of three) and rash (two [67%] of three) for patients with mantle cell lymphoma and neutropenia (five [63%] of eight) and rash (four [50%] of eight) for patients with follicular lymphoma. The primary endpoint of safety and tolerability was not met. INTERPRETATION: The combination of idelalisib, lenalidomide, and rituximab in these trials is excessively toxic, and these trials serve as cautionary notes as new combinations are proposed. Off-target effects, drug-drug interactions, and emerging toxicities should be carefully assessed when investigating biological agents in combination and should never be done outside of a clinical trial setting. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

N0436 (Alliance): A Phase II Trial of Irinotecan With Cetuximab in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Exposed to Anthracycline and/or Taxane-Containing Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Irinotecan has a 20% to 25% response rate (RR) in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in some MBC, especially in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody against EGFR with additive preclinical activity with irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report a 1-stage phase II study on MBC, measurable disease, and previous anthracycline and/or taxane therapy. Patients received cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) on day 1 cycle 1 then 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter and irinotecan 80 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall RR (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (version 1.1). RESULTS: Of 19 eligible patients enrolled from February to September 2006, 14 patients (74%) had visceral disease, seven patients (37%) were hormone receptor-positive, two patients (11%) HER2-positive, and 11 patients (58%) were triple-negative. Patients received a median of 2 cycles (range, 1-37). Confirmed ORR was 11% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1%-33%), with 1 partial response and 1 complete response. One patient had stable disease for 8 months. RR for TNBC versus non-TNBC was 18% versus 0% (P = .49). Median time to progression was 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.0-2.2) and median overall survival was 9.4 months (95% CI, 2.8-16.1). Twelve patients had disease progression within 2 cycles during therapy. Because of a low RR and rapid disease progression, the study leadership decided to close the trial early. CONCLUSION: The tolerability of the combination of cetuximab and irinotecan is acceptable but demonstrated low overall activity. Potentially promising results were noted in patients with TNBC and further studies of these patients might be considered.

Phase II study of second-line gemcitabine in sensitive or refractory small cell lung cancer.

UNLABELLED: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is highly sensitive to chemotherapy. Despite a dramatic initial response, however, most patients relapse. Given the activity of gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and early clinical trials suggesting activity of gemcitabine in chemo-naive SCLC patients, we conducted a phase II study to determine the efficacy and toxicities of gemcitabine in SCLC patients who have failed first-line chemotherapy. Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) was given intravenously on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Eligibility criteria included prior treatment with only one chemotherapy regimen and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. Patients with brain metastases were eligible. RESULTS: Between April 1998 and October 2001, 27 patients were enrolled: 15 patients with sensitive (S) disease (recurred>3 months after first-line chemotherapy) and 12 patients with refractory (R) disease (failed<3 months after first-line chemotherapy). Median age was 61 (range 45-74). All patients had received prior platinum-based therapy involving etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin. There were one early death and two early withdrawals because of toxicity. No responses were observed. Of 24 patients who received at least two cycles of gemcitabine, only three achieved stable disease after six cycles while 21 progressed. The median time to progression (TTP) was 6 weeks in S group, 5.6 weeks in R group, and 6 weeks overall. After a minimum potential follow-up of almost 1 year for all patients, the median survival was 8.8 months in S group, 4.2 months in R group, and 6.4 months for the whole group. One-year survival rate was 33.3% in S group, 16.7% in R group, and 25.4% for all patients. Myelosuppression was the most commonly observed adverse effect, with grade 3/4 neutropenia in 30%, and grade 3 thrombocytopenia in 30%. One patient (3.7%) developed neutropenic fever. Respiratory failure and death, possibly related to pulmonary toxicity, was observed in one patient (3.7%). CONCLUSION: monotherapy gemcitabine as second-line agent has limited activity in previously treated SCLC.

A phase II trial of nab-paclitaxel (ABI-007) and carboplatin in patients with unresectable stage IV melanoma : a North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study, N057E(1).

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that paclitaxel and carboplatin are clinically active in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM). ABI-007 is an albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel that has demonstrated single-agent activity against metastatic melanoma. METHODS: A parallel phase II trial was conducted in patients with unresectable stage IV melanoma who were either chemotherapy naive (CN) or previously treated (PT). The treatment regimen consisted of ABI-007 (100 mg/m(2) ) and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC2) administered on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. The primary aim of this study was objective response rate (RECIST). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (41 CN and 35 PT) were enrolled between November 2006 and July 2007. Three patients withdrew consent prior to starting treatment. The median number of treatment cycles was 4. There were 10 (25.6%) responses (1 complete response [CR] and 9 partial responses [PRs]) in the CN cohort (90% CI, 16.7%-42.3%) and 3 (8.8%) responses (3 PRs) in the PT cohort (90% CI, 2.5%-21.3%). Median progression-free survival was 4.5 months in the CN cohort and 4.1 months in the PT cohort. Median overall survival (OS) was 11.1 months in the CN group and 10.9 months in the PT group. Severe toxicities in both groups (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects v.3.0 ≥grade 3) included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, neurosensory problems, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: The weekly combination of ABI-007 and carboplatin appears to be moderately well tolerated, with promising clinical activity as therapy in patients who are chemotherapy naive and with modest antitumor activity in those previously treated.

Natural history of paclitaxel-associated acute pain syndrome: prospective cohort study NCCTG N08C1.

PURPOSE: The characteristics and natural history of the paclitaxel-acute pain syndrome (P-APS) and paclitaxel's more chronic neuropathy have not been well delineated. METHODS: Patients receiving weekly paclitaxel (70 to 90 mg/m(2)) completed daily questionnaires and weekly European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN) -20 instruments during the entire course of therapy. RESULTS: P-APS symptoms peaked 3 days after chemotherapy. Twenty percent of patients had pain scores of 5 to 10 of 10 with the first dose of paclitaxel. Sensory neuropathy symptoms were more prominent than were motor or autonomic neuropathy symptoms. Of the sensory neuropathy symptoms, numbness and tingling were more prominent than was shooting or burning pain. Patients with higher P-APS pain scores with the first dose of paclitaxel appeared to have more chronic neuropathy. CONCLUSION: These data support that the P-APS is related to nerve pathology as opposed to being arthralgias and/or myalgias. Numbness and tingling are more prominent chronic neuropathic symptoms than is shooting or burning pain.

Bortezomib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin as a first-line regimen for patients with metastatic esophageal, gastric, and gastroesophageal cancer: phase II results from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (N044B).

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to explore the response rate of a first-line, three-drug regimen that consisted of bortezomib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin in patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, or gastric cardia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with the above diagnosis and acceptable organ function were treated intravenously on a 21-day cycle with the following: bortezomib 1.2 mg/m on days 1, 4, and 8; paclitaxel 175 mg/m on day 2; and carboplatin with an area under the curve of 6 on day 2. Patients received indefinite treatment unless they manifested tumor progression or severe adverse events. All were monitored for tumor response as well as other clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The cohort included 35 eligible patients with a median age of 59 years (range, 36-78) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0, 1, and 2 in 60%, 34%, and 6% of patients, respectively. Although this regimen was well tolerated, the tumor response rate was lower than that anticipated at 23% (95% confidence interval: 10%, 40%), thereby prompting premature study closure. There were no complete responses. The median survival for the cohort was 8.9 months (95% confidence interval: 5.9, 12.8). CONCLUSION: As prescribed in this trial and for this indication, this regimen does not merit further testing.

Pemetrexed and gemcitabine for biliary tract and gallbladder carcinomas: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) phase I and II Trial, N9943.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and efficacy of pemetrexed and gemcitabine in patients with either biliary tract or gallbladder carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable previously untreated biliary tract cancers were eligible for participation. An initial phase I trial was performed to determine the MTD using an every-2-weeks schedule. The MTD was then used in the phase II portion of the trial. The primary end point for the phase II portion was 6-month survival with a planned accrual of 59 patients. RESULTS: Overall, 63 eligible patients were enrolled. The MTD was established as pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 IV over 10 min and gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 IV at 10 mg/m2 per minute on days 1 and 15 of an every-4-weeks schedule with vitamin B12 and folate supplementation. Fifty-eight patients were included in the phase II portion. Median age was 61 and median follow-up was 18.2 months. A median of three cycles of treatment was given. Six-month survival was 55% and the median survival was 6.6 months (95% confidence interval 5.4-8.7 months) with a median time to progression of 3.8 months (2.4-5.4). Forty-seven (81%) experienced at least one grade 3+ adverse event, and 28 patients (48%) experienced at least one grade 4 adverse event, most of which were due to grade 4 neutropenia. CONCLUSION: The addition of pemetrexed to fixed-dose-rate gemcitabine, in a biweekly schedule, did not enhance the activity of gemcitabine in patients with biliary tract or gallbladder carcinoma.

Phase III trial of gabapentin alone or in conjunction with an antidepressant in the management of hot flashes in women who have inadequate control with an antidepressant alone: NCCTG N03C5.

PURPOSE: Despite the utility of newer antidepressants for alleviating hot flashes, antidepressants do not work adequately enough in many patients. Gabapentin is a nonhormonal agent that also can reduce hot flashes. No data have been available to address whether the combination of both agents would more effectively alleviate hot flashes, compared with gabapentin alone, in patients with inadequate hot flash control with an antidepressant alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized trial in which 118 patients with inadequate hot flash control on an antidepressant were randomly assigned to receive both an antidepressant and gabapentin versus being weaned off the antidepressant and receiving gabapentin alone. Patients were observed for 5 weeks (including a baseline week in which patients continued on their current antidepressant without gabapentin) during which time they completed validated daily hot flash diaries. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients provided complete data at the 5-week assessment. Regardless of whether or not the antidepressant was continued when gabapentin was started, there was an approximately 50% median reduction in hot flash frequencies (54%; 95% CI, 34% to 70% for combined treatment v 49%; 95% CI, 26% to 58% for gabapentin alone) and scores (56%; 95% CI, 26% to 71% for combined treatment v 60%; 95% CI, 33% to 73% for gabapentin alone). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin seems to decrease hot flashes by approximately 50% in women with inadequate hot flash control who were using an antidepressant. This study saw no significant additional hot flash reduction from continuation of the antidepressant.