A phase 2 trial of consolidation pembrolizumab following concurrent chemoradiation for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: Hoosier Cancer Research Network LUN 14-179.

BACKGROUND: Five-year overall survival (OS) for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poor. Until recently, a standard of care was concurrent chemoradiation alone. Patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with anti-programmed death 1 antibodies have demonstrated improved OS. This trial evaluated pembrolizumab as consolidation therapy after concurrent chemoradiation in patients with unresectable stage III disease. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC received concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin and etoposide, cisplatin and pemetrexed, or carboplatin and paclitaxel and 59.4 to 66.6 Gy of radiation. Patients with nonprogression of disease were enrolled and received pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 12 months). The primary endpoint was the time to metastatic disease or death (TMDD). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS: The median follow-up for 93 patients (92 for efficacy) was 32.2 months (range, 1.2-46.6 months). The median TMDD was 30.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.7 months to not reached), which was significantly longer than the historical control of 12 months (P < .0001). The median PFS was 18.7 months (95% CI, 12.4-33.8 months), and the median OS was 35.8 months (95% CI, 24.2 months to not reached). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS estimates were 81.2%, 62.0%, and 48.5%, respectively. Forty patients (43.5%) completed 12 months of treatment (median number of cycles, 13.5). Symptomatic pneumonitis (grade 2 or higher) was noted in 16 patients (17.2%); these cases included 4 grade 3 events (4.3%), 1 grade 4 event (1.1%), and 1 grade 5 event (1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Consolidation pembrolizumab after concurrent chemoradiation improves TMDD, PFS, and OS in comparison with historical controls of chemoradiation alone. Rates of grade 3 to 5 pneumonitis were similar to those reported with chemoradiation alone.

Phase I/II study of bevacizumab with BKM120, an oral PI3K inhibitor, in patients with refractory solid tumors (phase I) and relapsed/refractory glioblastoma (phase II).

BACKGROUND: Current bevacizumab-based regimens have failed to improve survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. To improve treatment efficacy, we evaluated bevacizumab + BKM120, an oral pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, in this patient population. METHODS: A brief phase I study established the optimal BKM120 dose to administer with standard-dose bevacizumab. BKM120 60 mg PO daily + bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks in 28-day cycles was then administered to patients with relapsed/refractory glioblastoma in the phase II portion. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients enrolled (phase I, 12; phase II, 76). In phase I, BKM120 80 mg PO daily produced dose limiting toxicity in 3 of 6 patients; a BKM120 dose of 60 mg PO daily was established as the maximum tolerated dose. In phase II, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.4, 5.4), PFS at 6 months was 36.5%, and the overall response rate was 26%. Forty-two patients (57%) experienced one or more serious treatment related toxicities. The most common CNS toxicities included mood alteration (17%) and confusion (12%); however, these were often difficult to classify as treatment- versus tumor-related. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy seen in this study is similar to the efficacy previously reported with single-agent bevacizumab. This regimen was poorly tolerated, despite the low daily dose of BKM120. Further development of this combination for the treatment of glioblastoma is not recommended.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) in combination with irinotecan and cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type KRAS who have received first-line systemic therapy.

Cetuximab in combination with an irinotecan-containing regimen is a standard treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type (KRAS WT), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We investigated the addition of the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib to cetuximab + irinotecan (CETIRI) based on preclinical evidence that activation of the MET pathway may confer resistance to anti-EGFR therapy. Previously treated patients with KRAS WT advanced or mCRC were enrolled. The phase 1, open-label 3 + 3, dose-escalation study evaluated the safety and maximally tolerated dose of tivantinib plus CETIRI. The phase 2, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of biweekly CETIRI plus tivantinib or placebo was restricted to patients who had received only one prior line of chemotherapy. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The recommended phase 2 dose was tivantinib (360 mg/m(2) twice daily) with biweekly cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)) and irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)). Among 117 patients evaluable for phase 2 analysis, no statistically significant PFS difference was observed: 8.3 months on tivantinib vs. 7.3 months on placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.33; P = 0.38). Subgroup analyses trended in favor of tivantinib in patients with MET-High tumors by immunohistochemistry, PTEN-Low tumors, or those pretreated with oxaliplatin, but subgroups were too small to draw conclusions. Neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea and rash were the most frequent severe adverse events in tivantinib-treated patients. The combination of tivantinib and CETIRI was well tolerated but did not significantly improve PFS in previously treated KRAS WT mCRC. Tivantinib may be more active in specific subgroups.

Hoosier Oncology Group randomized phase II study of docetaxel, vinorelbine, and estramustine in combination in hormone-refractory prostate cancer with pharmacogenetic survival analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of two docetaxel doublets in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients and to examine the prognostic role of polymorphisms in host genes important to docetaxel metabolism and transport. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sixty-four chemotherapy-naive patients with HRPC were randomized to docetaxel and vinorelbine (D, 20 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8; V, 25 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8) or docetaxel and estramustine phosphate (D, 60-70 mg/m2 i.v. day 1; E, 280 mg oral thrice daily days 1-5) administered q21d. Primary end point was clinically significant toxicity. A pharmacogenetic analysis of host genes was done in patients who received at least one cycle of docetaxel therapy. RESULTS: Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 15.6% of DV patients and in 28.6% DE patients. Neither arm exceeded the threshold of clinically significant toxicity. In the DV arm, objective response rate was 33%, prostate-specific antigen response rate was 20%, and median survival was 16.2 months. In the DE arm, objective response rate was 67%, prostate-specific antigen response rate was 43%, and median survival was 19.7 months. Pharmacogenetic analyses showed a significant association between survival beyond 15 months and the ABCG2 421 C > A (Q141K) polymorphism compared with the wild-type (C/C) genotype (66% versus 27%; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DV and DE doublets are active with a tolerable toxicity profile in patients with HRPC; however, efficacy does not seem superior to standard single-agent docetaxel. The ABCG2 421 C > A (Q141K) polymorphism may be an important predictor of response and survival in HRPC patients treated with docetaxel-based chemotherapy.

A Phase I/II Multicenter, Open-Label Study of the Oral Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor Abexinostat in Relapsed/Refractory Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Additional targeted therapeutics are needed for the treatment of lymphoma. Abexinostat is an oral pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) displaying potent activity in preclinical models. We conducted a multicenter phase I/II study (N = 55) with single-agent abexinostat in relapsed/refractory lymphoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In phase I, 25 heavily pretreated patients with any lymphoma subtype received oral abexinostat ranging from 30 to 60 mg/m(2) twice daily 5 days/week for 3 weeks or 7 days/week given every other week. Phase II evaluated abexinostat at the maximum tolerated dose in 30 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma or mantle cell lymphoma. RESULTS: The recommended phase II dose was 45 mg/m(2) twice daily (90 mg/m(2) total), 7 days/week given every other week. Of the 30 follicular lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma patients enrolled in phase II, 25 (14 follicular lymphoma, 11 mantle cell lymphoma) were response-evaluable. Tumor size was reduced in 86% of follicular lymphoma patients with an investigator-assessed ORR of 64.3% for evaluable patients [intent-to-treat (ITT) ORR 56.3%]. Median duration of response was not reached, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 20.5 months (1.2-22.3+). Of responding follicular lymphoma patients, 89% were on study/drug >8 months. In mantle cell lymphoma, the ORR was 27.3% for evaluable patients (ITT ORR 21.4%), and median PFS was 3.9 months (range, 0.1-11.5). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (phase II) with ≥ 10% incidence were thrombocytopenia (20%), fatigue (16.7%), and neutropenia (13.3%) with rare QTc prolongation and no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The pan-HDACi, abexinostat, was overall well tolerated and had significant clinical activity in follicular lymphoma, including highly durable responses in this multiply relapsed patient population.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care.

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.