Lasofoxifene versus fulvestrant for ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation: results from the randomized, phase II ELAINE 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Acquired estrogen receptor alpha (ER/ESR1) mutations commonly cause endocrine resistance in ER+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene, a novel selective ER modulator, stabilizes an antagonist conformation of wild-type and ESR1-mutated ER-ligand binding domains, and has antitumor activity in ESR1-mutated xenografts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, phase II, multicenter, ELAINE 1 study (NCT03781063), we randomized women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) mBC that had progressed on an aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) to oral lasofoxifene 5 mg daily or IM fulvestrant 500 mg (days 1, 15, and 29, and then every 4 weeks) until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients received lasofoxifene (n = 52) or fulvestrant (n = 51). The most current efficacy analysis showed that lasofoxifene did not significantly prolong median PFS compared with fulvestrant: 24.2 weeks (∼5.6 months) versus 16.2 weeks (∼3.7 months; P = 0.138); hazard ratio 0.699 (95% confidence interval 0.434-1.125). However, PFS and other clinical endpoints numerically favored lasofoxifene: clinical benefit rate (36.5% versus 21.6%; P = 0.117), objective response rate [13.2% (including a complete response in one lasofoxifene-treated patient) versus 2.9%; P = 0.124], and 6-month (53.4% versus 37.9%) and 12-month (30.7% versus 14.1%) PFS rates. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasofoxifene were nausea, fatigue, arthralgia, and hot flushes. One death occurred in the fulvestrant arm. Circulating tumor DNA ESR1 mutant allele fraction (MAF) decreased from baseline to week 8 in 82.9% of evaluable lasofoxifene-treated versus 61.5% of fulvestrant-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lasofoxifene demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity versus fulvestrant and was well tolerated in patients with ESR1-mutated, endocrine-resistant mBC following progression on AI plus CDK4/6i. Consistent with target engagement, lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, and to a greater extent than fulvestrant. Lasofoxifene may be a promising targeted treatment for patients with ESR1-mutated mBC and warrants further investigation.

Phase III safety study of intravenous NEPA: a novel fixed antiemetic combination of fosnetupitant and palonosetron in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Background: NEPA, an oral fixed combination of the NK1RA netupitant (300 mg) and clinically/pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA palonosetron (PALO, 0.50 mg), is the first fixed antiemetic combination to have been approved. A single oral NEPA capsule plus dexamethasone (DEX) given before anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) showed superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over PALO plus DEX for 5 days postchemotherapy. The safety of NEPA was well-established in the phase II/III clinical program in 1169 NEPA-treated patients. An intravenous (i.v.) formulation of the NEPA combination (fosnetupitant 235 mg plus PALO 0.25 mg) has been developed. Patients and methods: This randomized, multinational, double-blind, stratified (by sex and country) phase III study (NCT02517021) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors assessed the safety of a single dose of i.v. NEPA infused over 30 min before initial and repeated cycles of HEC. Patients received either i.v. NEPA or oral NEPA, both with oral DEX on days 1-4. Safety was assessed primarily by treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and electrocardiograms. Results: A total of 404 patients completed 1312 cycles. The incidence and type of treatment-emergent AEs were similar for both treatment groups with the majority of AEs as mild/moderate in intensity. There was no increased incidence of AEs in subsequent cycles in either group. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was similar and relatively low in both groups (12.8% i.v. NEPA and 11.4% oral NEPA during the entire study), with constipation being the most common (6.4% i.v. NEPA, 6.0% oral NEPA). No serious treatment-related AEs occurred in either group. No infusion site or anaphylactic reactions related to i.v. NEPA occurred. No clinically relevant changes in QTc and no cardiac safety concerns were observed. Conclusions: Intravenous NEPA was well-tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA in patients with various solid tumors receiving HEC.

The development of a prediction tool to identify cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective antiemetics and evidence-based guidelines, up to 40% of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy fail to achieve complete nausea and vomiting control. In addition to type of chemotherapy, several patient-related risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified. To incorporate these factors into the optimal selection of prophylactic antiemetics, a repeated measures cycle-based model to predict the risk of ≥ grade 2 CINV (≥2 vomiting episodes or a decrease in oral intake due to nausea) from days 0 to 5 post-chemotherapy was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1198 patients enrolled in one of the five non-interventional CINV prospective studies were pooled. Generalized estimating equations were used in a backwards elimination process with the P-value set at <0.05 to identify the relevant predictive factors. A risk scoring algorithm (range 0-32) was then derived from the final model coefficients. Finally, a receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROCC) analysis was done to measure the predictive accuracy of the scoring algorithm. RESULTS: Over 4197 chemotherapy cycles, 42.2% of patients experienced ≥grade 2 CINV. Eight risk factors were identified: patient age <60 years, the first two cycles of chemotherapy, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, history of morning sickness, hours of sleep the night before chemotherapy, CINV in the prior cycle, patient self-medication with non-prescribed treatments, and the use of platinum or anthracycline-based regimens. The ROC analysis indicated good predictive accuracy with an area-under-the-curve of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.67-0.70). Before to each cycle of therapy, patients with risk scores ≥16 units would be considered at high risk for developing ≥grade 2 CINV. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical application of this prediction tool will be an important source of individual patient risk information for the oncology clinician and may enhance patient care by optimizing the use of the antiemetics in a proactive manner.

Safety and immunogenicity of neoadjuvant treatment using WT1-immunotherapeutic in combination with standard therapy in patients with WT1-positive Stage II/III breast cancer: a randomized Phase I study.

PURPOSE: This Phase I, multicenter, randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01220128) evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of recombinant Wilms' tumor 1 (WT1) protein combined with the immunostimulant AS15 (WT1-immunotherapeutic) as neoadjuvant therapy administered concurrently with standard treatments in WT1-positive breast cancer patients. METHODS: Patients were treated in 4 cohorts according to neoadjuvant treatment (A: post-menopausal, hormone receptor [HR]-positive patients receiving aromatase inhibitors; B: patients receiving chemotherapy; C: HER2-overexpressing patients on trastuzumab-chemotherapy combination; D: HR-positive/HER2-negative patients on chemotherapy). Patients (cohorts A-C) were randomized (2:1) to receive 6 or 8 doses of WT1-immunotherapeutic or placebo together with standard neoadjuvant treatment in a double-blind manner; cohort D patients received WT1-immunotherapeutic in an open manner. Safety was assessed throughout the study. WT1-specific antibodies were assessed pre- and post-vaccination. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized; 60 received ≥ one dose of WT1-immunotherapeutic. Two severe toxicities were reported: diarrhea (cohort C; also reported as a grade 3 serious adverse event) and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (cohort B; also reported as a grade 2 adverse event). Post-dose 4 of WT1-immunotherapeutic, 10/10 patients from cohort A, 0/8 patients from cohort B, 6/11 patients from cohort C, and 2/3 patients from cohort D were humoral responders. The sponsor elected to close the trial prematurely. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent administration of WT1-immunotherapeutic and standard neoadjuvant therapy was well tolerated and induced WT1-specific antibodies in patients receiving neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitors. In patients on neoadjuvant chemotherapy or trastuzumab-chemotherapy combination, the humoral response was impaired or blunted, likely due to either co-administration of corticosteroids and/or the chemotherapies themselves.

A randomized phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic guidelines recommend co-administration of agents that target multiple molecular pathways involved in emesis to maximize prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). NEPA is a new oral fixed-dose combination of 300 mg netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) and 0.50 mg palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA, which targets dual antiemetic pathways. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel group phase III study (NCT01339260) in 1455 chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving moderately emetogenic (anthracycline-cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of NEPA versus a single oral dose (0.50 mg) of PALO. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1 only (12 mg in the NEPA arm and 20 mg in the PALO arm). The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the delayed (25-120 h) phase in cycle 1. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with CR during the delayed phase was significantly higher in the NEPA group compared with the PALO group (76.9% versus 69.5%; P = 0.001), as were the percentages in the overall (0-120 h) (74.3% versus 66.6%; P = 0.001) and acute (0-24 h) (88.4% versus 85.0%; P = 0.047) phases. NEPA was also superior to PALO during the delayed and overall phases for all secondary efficacy end points of no emesis, no significant nausea and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea). NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile as PALO. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA plus a single dose of DEX was superior to PALO plus DEX in preventing CINV following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in acute, delayed and overall phases of observation. As a fixed-dose antiemetic drug combination, NEPA along with a single dose of DEX on day 1 offers guideline-based prophylaxis with a convenient, single-day treatment.

A phase II, multicenter, open-label randomized study of motesanib or bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study estimated the difference in objective response rate (ORR) among patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving paclitaxel-carboplatin (CP) plus motesanib or bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients (N = 186) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive CP plus motesanib 125 mg once daily (qd) (arm A), motesanib 75 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) 5 days on/2 days off (arm B), or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) (arm C). The primary end point was ORR (per RECIST). Other end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), motesanib pharmacokinetics, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: ORRs in the three arms were as follows: arm A, 30% (95% confidence interval 18% to 43%); arm B, 23% (13% to 36%); and arm C, 37% (25% to 50%). Median PFS in arm A was 7.7 months, arm B 5.8 months, and arm C 8.3 months; median OS for arm A was 14.0 months, arm B 12.8 months, and arm C 14.0 months. Incidence of AEs was greater in arms A and B than in arm C. More grade 5 AEs not attributable to disease progression occurred in arm B (n = 10) than in arms A (n = 4) and C (n = 4). Motesanib plasma C(max) and C(min) values were consistent with its pharmacokinetic properties observed in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of 125 mg qd motesanib or bevacizumab plus CP was estimated to be comparable. Toxicity was higher but manageable in both motesanib arms. Efficacy and tolerability of motesanib 125 mg qd plus CP in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC are being further investigated in a phase III study.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus capecitabine plus docetaxel with planned crossover to the alternate single agent in metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus docetaxel (GD) and capecitabine plus docetaxel (CD) were compared in patients with metastatic breast cancer, where the alternate crossover monotherapy (GD→C or CD→G) was predetermined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to 3-week cycles of either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1. Upon progression, patients received crossover monotherapy. Primary end point was time to progression (TtP). Secondary end points evaluated overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Despite over-accrual of 475 patients, the trial matured with only 324 of 385 planned TtP events due to patient discontinuations. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was not captured in this study. More CD patients (28%) discontinued due to AEs than GD patients (18.0%, P = 0.009). TtP [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.101, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.885-1.370, P = 0.387] and OS (HR = 1.031, 95% CI 0.830-1.280, P = 0.785) were not significantly different comparing GD and CD. ORR was not statistically different (P = 0.239) comparing GD (72 of 207, 34.8%) and CD (78 of 191, 40.8%). TtP, OS, and ORR were not significantly different comparing crossover groups. GD caused greater fatigue, hepatotoxicity, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia but not febrile neutropenia; CD caused more hand-foot syndrome, gastrointestinal toxicity, and mucositis. CONCLUSIONS: GD and CD produced similar efficacy and toxicity profiles consistent with prior clinical experience.

A systematic review of dermatologic manifestations among adult patients with COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Infection with COVID-19 is characterized by respiratory, gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms. However, limited evidence exists of the involvement of the integumentary system among COVID-19 patients and evidence suggests that these symptoms may even be the first presenting sign. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the literature published on dermatologic signs of COVID-19 in order to educate doctors about the dermatologic signs of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Lit COVID, World Health Organization COVID-19 database and PubMed were searched using terminology to identify adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and dermatologic manifestations of disease. The last search was completed on 13 July 2020. RESULTS: There were 802 reports found. After exclusion, 20 articles were found with 347 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Within these articles, 27 different skin signs were reported. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this review include the recency of COVID-19 infection; so, there are limited published reports and that many reports are not by dermatologists, and so, the cutaneous signs may be misdiagnosed or misdescribed. CONCLUSION: Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 may be the first presenting sign of infection; so, dermatologists and doctors examining the skin should be aware of the virus's influence on the integumentary system in order to promptly diagnose and treat the infected patients.

Single-agent lapatinib for HER2-overexpressing advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed on first- or second-line trastuzumab-containing regimens.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lapatinib in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed during prior trastuzumab therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with stage IIIB/IV HER2-overexpressing breast cancer were treated with single-agent lapatinib 1250 or 1500 mg once daily after protocol amendment. Tumor response according to RECIST was assessed every 8 weeks. HER2 expression was assessed in tumor tissue by immunohistochemistry and FISH. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Investigator and independent review response rates [complete response (CR) or partial response (PR)] were 7.7% and 5.1%, and clinical benefit rates (CR, PR, or stable disease for >or=24 weeks) were 14.1% and 9.0%, respectively. Median time to progression was 15.3 weeks by independent review, and median overall survival was 79 weeks. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash (47%), diarrhea (46%), nausea (31%), and fatigue (18%). CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent lapatinib has clinical activity with manageable toxic effects in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer that progressed on trastuzumab-containing therapy. Studies of lapatinib-based combination regimens with chemotherapy and other targeted therapies in metastatic and earlier stages of breast cancer are warranted.

Treatment of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia with humanized anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody HuM195.

HuM195 is a humanized, unconjugated, anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody. Fifty adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML were randomized to receive HuM195 at a dose of 12 or 36 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion over 4 h on days 1-4 and 15-18. Patients with stable or responding disease received two additional cycles on days 29-32 and 43-46. HuM195 was given as first salvage therapy in 24 patients and as second or subsequent salvage therapy in 26 patients. Pretreatment blast percentage in the marrow was between 5 and 30% in 20 patients with the others having blast counts greater than 30%. The median age of patients was 62 years (range 26-86) and CD33 was detected in 95% of patients for whom immunophenotyping was available. Of 49 evaluable patients, two complete and one partial remission were observed. All three responses were in patients treated at the 12 mg/m(2) dose level and all had baseline blast percentages less than 30%. Decreases in blast counts ranging from 30 to 74% were seen in nine additional patients. Infusion-related events of fever and chills occurred in the majority of patients and were generally mild and primarily related to the first dose of antibody. No hepatic, renal or cardiac toxicities were observed and other adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, mucositis and diarrhea were uncommon or felt to be unrelated to HuM195. In addition, anti-HuM195 responses were not detected. HuM195 as a single agent has minimal, but observable, anti-leukemic activity in patients with relapsed or refractory AML and activity is confined to patients with low burden disease. No significant differences in clinical efficacy or toxicity were seen between the two dose levels of antibody. HuM195 was well tolerated with infusion-related fevers and chills the predominant toxicities seen. Meaningful clinical efficacy of this unconjugated monoclonal antibody may be realized only in patients with minimal residual disease, or in combination with chemotherapy.

Immunocytochemical analysis of tumor cells in pre- and post-culture peripheral blood progenitor cell collections from breast cancer patients.

We examined peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) collections and CD(34+)-selected fractions cultured in PIXY321, a fusion protein comprising analog interleukin-3 (IL-3) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) domains, for the presence of contaminating tumor cells from 14 patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. Five of the 14 (36%) pre-culture PBPC specimens contained immunocyto-chemically (ICC)-detectable tumor cells using two different cocktails of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). After 10 days in culture with PIXY321, the CD(34+)-selected fractions showed a median 23.6-fold expansion of hematopoietic cells. No ICC-positive tumor cells were detected in any post-culture specimens. We conclude that in vitro expansion of CD(34+)-selected PBPCs with PIXY321 can expand hematopoietic cell populations apparently without risk of expanding contaminating breast cancer cell populations.

Clinical experience with edrecolomab: a monoclonal antibody therapy for colorectal carcinoma.

Edrecolomab (monoclonal antibody 17-1A) is a murine monoclonal antibody that recognizes the human tumor-associated antigen Ep-CAM (otherwise known as 17-1A). It is being developed for the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer. In a study of 189 patients with resected stage III colorectal cancer, treatment with edrecolomab resulted in a 32% increase in overall survival compared with no treatment (P<0.01) and decreased the tumor recurrence rate by 23% (P<0.04). In terms of safety, edrecolomab was well tolerated. Based on these study results, edrecolomab is currently under investigation in large multicenter phase III studies both as monotherapy and in combination with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the treatment of stage III colon cancer. Although these studies are still ongoing, an interim analysis of safety data indicated that the combination of edrecolomab with chemotherapy is well tolerated. In addition, edrecolomab monotherapy demonstrated a favorable safety profile compared with chemotherapy. Edrecolomab is also currently being tested in large multicenter adjuvant phase III studies in stage II/III rectal cancer and stage II colon cancer. Edrecolomab represents a novel therapeutic approach and has the potential to become a treatment of choice as monotherapy in stage II colon cancer and in combination with chemotherapy in stage II/III rectal and stage III colon cancer.

Short-term autologous tumor cell lines for the active specific immunotherapy of patients with metastatic melanoma.

We established short-term cell lines for 108/170 (64%) patients with metastatic melanoma. Tumor cell numbers were expanded to 10(8), then cells were irradiated, aliquoted, and cryopreserved for clinical use. Vaccines have been used to treat 69 patients with clinical follow up for 33 who had measurable metastatic disease at the time vaccine therapy was initiated (METS), and 33 who had no evidence of disease (NED) at the time of vaccine therapy following surgical resection of metastases. The protocol called for a baseline test of delayed tumor hypersensitivity (DTH), three weekly injections, a repeat of the DTH test, then monthly injections for an additional 5 months. Objective tumor responses were noted in 3/26 (12%) patients who received a minimum of three vaccinations, one complete, and two partial, with survivals of 36, 46+, and 78+ months. Only 6/64 (9.4%) had a positive DTH (>10 mm) at baseline, including three METS, all of whom progressed within 4 months and died within a year, and three who are still NED after more than 5 years. Conversion of DTH from negative to positive was documented in 18/44 (41%) patients who were tested at week 0 and 4. At a median follow up of greater than 5 years, the median overall survival (OS) was 40 months for "NED" with a 5-year survival rate of 39%, and 8.6 months with a 5-year survival rate of 10% for "METS" The 18 patients who had conversion of their DTH had a median event-free survival (EFS) of 15.8 months and 5-year EFS of 32% compared to 4.2 months and 9% for the 26 non-converters (P=0.012, two-tailed, log-rank test). Among patients who were NED when treatment started, the 12 patients whose DTH converted had a median overall survival of 61.4 months with 5-year survival of 63% compared to 9.7 months and 0% for the 13 non-converters (P=0.0026). This treatment approach is feasible, produces minimal toxicity, and is associated with long-term survival in a significant subset of patients.

The Rationale for Performing Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplants in Community Cancer Centers.

There is debate over whether or not the technology of peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) should be disseminated to practicing oncologists or continue to be administered only in academic referral centers. High-dose therapy with stem cell support is now the standard of care for selected patients with lymphoma, multiple myeloma and possibly breast cancer. Such therapies, delivered in a clinical trials setting, need to be more widely available to eligible patients. This manuscript presents the rationale for performing HDC with PBSC support in community cancer centers. The availability of PBSC has made the delivery of well-established HDC regimens safe and effective in an outpatient setting. Delivery of such therapy where the patient lives has many economic and social advantages to the patient compared to referral to a transplant center. In addition, more patients can be treated more cost effectively if such therapy is administered locally where the patient lives. From the scientific point of view, improved access to HDC in the community should increase accrual to clinical trials, allowing the generation of outcome data more rapidly.

Breakthrough cancer pain: a randomized trial comparing oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR).

Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC); Actiq) is a drug delivery formulation used for management of breakthrough cancer pain. Previous studies with open-label comparisons indicated OTFC was more effective than patients' usual opioid for breakthrough pain. The objective of this study was to compare OTFC and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR) for management of breakthrough pain in patients receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen. This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, multiple crossover study was conducted at 19 US university- and community-based hospitals and clinics and comprised 134 adult ambulatory cancer patients. Patients were receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen equivalent to 60-1000 mg/day oral morphine or 50-300 microg/h transdermal fentanyl, were using a 'successful' MSIR dose (15-60 mg) as defined by entry criteria, and were experiencing 1-4 episodes of breakthrough pain per day. In open-label fashion, OTFC was titrated such that a single unit (200-1600 microg) provided adequate pain relief with acceptable side effects. Successfully titrated patients entered the double-blind phase of the study and received ten prenumbered sets of randomized capsules and oral transmucosal units. Five sets were the successful OTFC dose paired with placebo capsules, and five sets were placebo OTFC paired with capsules containing the successful MSIR dose. Patients took one set of study medication for each episode of target breakthrough pain. Pain intensity (PI), pain relief (PR) and global performance of medication (GP) scores were recorded. Pain intensity differences (PID) were calculated and 15-min PID was the primary efficacy variable. Adverse events were recorded. Sixty-nine percent of patients (93/134) found a successful dose of OTFC. OTFC yielded outcomes (PI, PID, and PR) at all time points that were significantly better than MSIR. GP also favored OTFC and more patients opted to continue with OTFC than MSIR following the study. Somnolence, nausea, constipation, and dizziness were the most common drug-associated side effects. In conclusion, OTFC was more effective than MSIR in treating breakthrough cancer pain.

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplant for the treatment of Hodgkin's disease.

This paper evaluates a comprehensive strategy of chemotherapy mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPCs) followed by high-dose chemotherapy for the treatment of refractory or relapsed Hodgkin's disease (HD). Patients with relapsed or refractory HD were enrolled to receive cyclophosphamide, etoposide +/- cisplatin (CE +/- P) and rhG-CSF mobilization of PBPCs. Patients achieving < or = 2.5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg following initial mobilization were eligible to receive a second course of CE +/- P. Unmanipulated PBPCs alone were infused following administration of high-dose carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine arabinoside and cyclophosphamide (BEAC). Thirty-eight consecutive patients with relapsed or refractory HD were initially enrolled to receive CE +/- P. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. A median of 6.4 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg (range 0.66-62.3) were collected with a median of 3 (range 2-9) leukaphereses. Twenty-eight of 38 (74%) patients achieved > or = 2.5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg. Analysis of variables potentially effecting mobilization of CD34+ cells revealed that only the amount of prior chemotherapy statistically influenced collecting CD34+ cells (P = 0.005). Two of six patients undergoing a second mobilization procedure achieved > or = 2.5 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg for a total of 30 patients eligible to proceed with high-dose BEAC. The 3-year Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for all 38 patients is 65 and 53%, respectively. The 3-year OS and PFS for the 28 patients receiving BEAC is 77 and 64% respectively vs 33 and 30% for the 10 patients not receiving BEAC. The strategy of CE +/- P and BEAC was well tolerated with a 100-day treatment-related mortality of 3.6%. All patients experienced rapid and sustained hematologic recovery with PBPCs alone. The median time to an ANC > or = 5 x 10(9)/1 and platelet transfusion independence was 10 days. Although development of better strategies to mobilize PBPCs may benefit additional patients, currently the best strategy to collect PBPCs is early before patients have received extensive chemotherapy treatment. Collection of PBPCs immediately following initial relapse or induction failure using CE +/- P for PBPC mobilization allows sufficient PBPCs to be collected in greater than 90% of patients. Treatment of refractory or relapsed HD utilizing a strategy of CE +/- P PBPC mobilization for hematopoietic reconstitution following high-dose BEAC is associated with acceptable toxicity and rapid engraftment. A 3-year PFS greater than 60% can be achieved in the community hospital setting.

Rapid and sustained hematopoietic reconstitution by peripheral blood stem cell infusion alone following high-dose chemotherapy.

We utilized mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) as sole support for hematologic reconstitution following high-dose chemotherapy in 52 patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphoma. PBSC were collected by large scale leukapheresis after mobilization with chemotherapy. Each apheresis product was analysed for total nucleated cells, CFU-GM and CD34+ content. Disease-specific high-dose chemotherapy regimens were administered followed by thawed PBSC. Colony-stimulating factors were not administered. The median time to an absolute neutrophil count > 0.5 x 10(9)/l was 13 days (range 9-26 days) and median time to a sustained platelet count > 20 x 10(9)/l without transfusion support was 10 days (range 5-43 + days). There was no difference in time to recovery by dose-intensive regimen or underlying disease. The times to recover ANC and platelets both correlated significantly with increasing doses of PBSC as assayed by CD34+ cells and CFU-GM. All four patients with prolonged platelet recovery times received < 20 x 10(4) CFU-GM/kg, establishing this as a threshold value for PBSC infusion. There were no late transient or sustained graft failures. For 26 patients alive 1 year after infusion, the mean total leukocyte count is 6.3 x 10(9)/l, mean hematocrit 35.5% and mean platelet count 182 x 10(9)/l. Thirteen patients followed at least 24 months after PBSC infusion have essentially normal blood counts. Mobilized peripheral blood progenitors are an effective source of stem cells which afford rapid and complete hematopoietic engraftment after myelo-suppressive chemotherapy regimens. Engraftment appears sustained with no late failures.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Treatment-related mortality in 1000 consecutive patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in community cancer centers.

High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) is being increasingly utilized as a therapeutic modality for patients with chemotherapy-sensitive disease. Several published HDC regimens have become relatively widely used. The purpose of this analysis was to determine treatment-related mortality (TRM) following administration of five different HDC regimens in community cancer centers. A retrospective evaluation of 1000 consecutive patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, sarcoma, ovarian cancer, or breast cancer who received one of five published HDC regimens followed by PBPC infusion over a 5-year period in community cancer centers was performed to determine TRM. Fifty-nine patients (5.9%) died within 100 days of PBPC infusion. Twenty-five patients (2.5%) died predominantly of causes related to disease progression. Thirty-four patients (3.4%) died of TRM, 15 patients (1.5%) died from infection and 19 (1.9%) died from regimen-related toxicities (RRT). In a logistic model, increasing age (P = 0.001) and lower numbers of CD34+ cells/kg (P = 0.003) were associated with an increased risk of 100-day TRM. High-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin was associated with a lower risk of mortality than other regimens (P = 0.0001). High-dose chemotherapy and autologous PBPC support can be performed in community cancer centers with relative safety. Patient age, the type of preparative regimen and the number of CD34+ cells infused were important determinates of mortality.

High-dose chemotherapy with BUCY or BEAC and unpurged peripheral blood stem cell infusion in patients with low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Forty-nine patients with low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) received high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with busulfan and cyclophosphamide (BUCY) or carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine and CY (BEAC) followed by unpurged autologous peripheral blood stem (PBSC) infusion. All patients had failed initial chemotherapy or progressed after an initial remission. Peripheral blood stem cells were mobilized with CY alone (n = 1), CY, etoposide (n = 19), or CY, etoposide and cisplatin (n = 29) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Twenty-two patients received BU, 16 mg/kg, and CY, 120 mg/kg. Twenty-seven patients received carmustine 300 mg/m2, etoposide 600 mg/m2, cytarabine 600 mg/m2, and CY 140 mg/kg. Four patients (8%) died of non-relapse causes, two (9%) in the BUCY group and two (7%) in the BEAC group. Twenty-seven patients (55%) relapsed or progressed at a median of 9.4 months (2-38) from PBSC infusion. Ten patients who relapsed are alive a median of 31 months (range, 6-47) after relapse. The probabilities of relapse at 3.6 years for patients receiving BUCY or BEAC were 0.57 and 0.70, respectively (P = 0.92). Twenty-seven patients (55%) are alive at a median of 3.6 years (range, 1-5). The probabilities of survival at 3.6 years for patients receiving BUCY or BEAC were 0.58 and 0.55, respectively (P = 0.72). The probabilities of EFS at 3.6 years for patients receiving BUCY or BEAC were 0.36 and 0.28, respectively (P = 0.82). It was concluded that BUCY is an active regimen for the treatment of patients with low-grade NHL.