Patient-reported tolerability of adjuvant ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) versus high-dose interferon alfa-2b for resected high-risk stage III-IV melanoma in phase III trial E1609.

PURPOSE: Trial E1609 demonstrated superior overall survival with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) for patients with resected high-risk melanoma. To inform treatment tolerability, we compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL), gastrointestinal (GI), and treatment-specific physical and cognitive/emotional symptoms. We also compared treatment-specific concerns between all arms. METHODS: We assessed HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, physical and cognitive/emotional concerns using the FACT-Biologic Response Modifier subscale, and GI symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Diarrhea subscale pre-treatment and every 3 months. The primary outcome was the difference in HRQoL at 3 months between ipi3/ipi10 vs. HDI. RESULTS: 549 patients (n = 158 ipi3; n = 191 ipi10; n = 200 HDI) were analyzed. 3-month completion was 58.7%. Compared to HDI, ipilimumab patients reported better HRQoL (ipi3 = 87.5 ± 14.6 vs. HDI = 74.7 ± 15.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 84.9 ± 16.5 vs. HDI, p < .001) and fewer physical (ipi3 = 22.3 ± 4.6 vs. HDI = 17.1 ± 5.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 21.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI p < .001) and cognitive/emotional (ipi3 = 18.6 ± 4.4 vs. HDI = 15.0 ± 5.3, p < .001; ipi10 = 17.7 ± 4.8 vs. HDI p < .001) concerns, but worse GI symptoms (ipi3 = 40.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI = 42.2 ± 2.9, p = .011; ipi10 = 39.5 ± 7.0 vs. HDI, p < .001). Fewer ipilimumab patients reported worsening treatment-specific concerns (e.g., 52% of ipi3 and 58% of ipi10 reported worsening fatigue vs. 82% HDI, p's < .001). CONCLUSION: PROs demonstrated less toxicity of ipi3 compared to HDI and ipi10. Priorities for symptom management among patients receiving ipilimumab include GI toxicities, fatigue, weakness, appetite loss, arthralgia, and depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01274338, January 11, 2011 (first posted date) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01274338?term=NCT01274338&draw=2&rank=1 .

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.

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.

The impact of weight loss on physical function and symptoms in overweight or obese breast cancer survivors: results from POWER-remote.

PURPOSE: In pre-planned observational analysis of the POWER-remote trial, we examined the impact of weight loss on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesized a priori that survivors with ≥ 5% weight loss would have improved physical function (PF) at 6 months vs. those who did not. METHODS: Patients with stage 0-III breast cancer who completed local therapy and chemotherapy with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 were randomized to POWER-remote (telephone coaching; diet/activity tracking) or self-directed weight loss (booklet). Participants completed PROs at baseline, 6, and 12 months: PROMIS PF, pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep; FACT-endocrine symptoms; MOS-sexual function. Changes in PROs among those with ≥ 5% weight loss vs. those with < 5% were tested with multivariable mixed effect models, across randomized groups. RESULTS: Of 94 women who completed PROs, 84 and 69 participants were evaluable at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Regardless of intervention, PF improved in those with ≥ 5% weight loss vs. those with < 5% at 6 months (4.4 vs. 0.3 points; p = 0.02) and 12 months (3.6 vs. 0 points; p = 0.04). While endocrine symptoms, fatigue, and anxiety improved at 6 months in those who lost ≥ 5%, differences were not significant vs. those who lost < 5%. There was no significant change within or between groups in sexual function, depression, or sleep. Findings at 12 months were similar, except pain improved in those losing ≥ 5%. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the benefits of weight loss in overweight/obese breast cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Weight management in breast cancer survivors may improve PF.

Pixantrone dimaleate in combination with fludarabine, dexamethasone, and rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: phase 1 study with a dose-expansion cohort.

BACKGROUND: Pixantrone dimaleate (pixantrone) has been shown to have antitumor activity in leukemia and lymphoma in vitro models and to lack delayed cardiotoxicity associated with mitoxantrone in animal models. FND-R, a combination regimen of fludarabine, mitoxantrone, dexamethasone, and rituximab, has been shown to be an effective regimen for low-grade lymphomas. METHODS: This dose-escalation study, with an expansion cohort, was conducted to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of FPD-R, in which pixantrone was substituted for mitoxantrone in the FND-R regimen, in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Escalated doses of pixantrone were administered to newly enrolled patients on day 2 of each 28-day cycle of FPD-R. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 29 enrolled patients received at least 1 cycle of FPD-R (median, 5 cycles). Pixantrone 120 mg/m(2) was identified as the recommended dose in this regimen. Grade 3-4 adverse events were primarily hematologic; grade 3-4 lymphopenia occurred in 89% of patients and leukopenia in 79%. No patients developed congestive heart failure or grade 3-4 cardiac adverse events. Left ventricular ejection fraction decreases occurred in 8 (29%) patients, and most were grade 1 or 2, transient, and asymptomatic. The overall response rate was 89%. Estimated survival was 96% after 1 year and 92% after 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The FPD-R regimen was well-tolerated and highly active in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent NHL.

Immune adverse events (irAEs) with adjuvant ipilimumab in melanoma, use of immunosuppressants and association with outcome: ECOG-ACRIN E1609 study analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occurring from adjuvant use of immunotherapy and of their management on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes is currently not well understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E1609 enrolled 1673 patients with resected high-risk melanoma and evaluated adjuvant ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and 10 mg/kg (ipi10) versus interferon-α. We investigated the association of irAEs and of use of immunosuppressants with RFS and OS for patients treated with ipilimumab (n=1034). RESULTS: Occurrence of grades 1-2 irAEs was associated with RFS (5 years: 52% (95% CI 47% to 56%) vs 41% (95% CI 31% to 50%) with no AE; p=0.006) and a trend toward improved OS (5 years: 75% (95% CI 71% to 79%) compared with 67% (95% CI 56% to 75%) with no AE; p=0.064). Among specific irAEs, grades 1-2 rash was most significantly associated with RFS (p=0.002) and OS (p=0.003). In multivariate models adjusting for prognostic factors, the most significant associations were seen for grades 1-2 rash with RFS (p<0.001, HR=0.70) and OS (p=0.01, HR=0.71) and for grades 1-2 endocrine+rash with RFS (p<0.001, HR=0.66) and OS (p=0.008, HR=0.7). Overall, grades 1-2 irAEs had the best prognosis in terms of RFS and OS and those with grades 3-4 had less RFS benefits and no OS advantage over no irAE. Patients experiencing grades 3-4 irAE had significantly higher exposure to corticosteroids and immunosuppressants than those with grades 1-2 (92% vs 60%; p<0.001), but no significant associations were found between corticosteroid and immunosuppressant use and RFS or OS. In investigating the impact of non-corticosteroid immunosuppressants, although there were trends toward better RFS and OS favoring cases who were not exposed, no significant associations were found. CONCLUSIONS: Rash and endocrine irAEs were independent prognostic factors of RFS and OS in patients treated with adjuvant ipilimumab. Patients experiencing lower grade irAEs derived the most benefit, but we found no significant evidence supporting a negative impact of high dose corticosteroids and immunosuppressants more commonly used to manage grades 3-4 irAEs.

The Effects of a Remote-based Weight Loss Program on Adipocytokines, Metabolic Markers, and Telomere Length in Breast Cancer Survivors: the POWER-Remote Trial.

PURPOSE: We initiated a clinical trial to determine the proportion of breast cancer survivors achieving ≥5% weight loss using a remotely delivered weight loss intervention (POWER-remote) or a self-directed approach, and to determine the effects of the intervention on biomarkers of cancer risk including metabolism, inflammation, and telomere length. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Women with stage 0-III breast cancer, who completed local therapy and chemotherapy, with a body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 were randomized to a 12-month intervention (POWER-remote) versus a self-directed approach. The primary objective was to determine the number of women who achieved at least 5% weight loss at 6 months. We assessed baseline and 6-month change in a panel of adipocytokines (adiponectin, leptin, resistin, HGF, NGF, PAI1, TNFα, MCP1, IL1ß, IL6, and IL8), metabolic factors (insulin, glucose, lipids, hs-CRP), and telomere length in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2015, 96 women were enrolled, and 87 were evaluable for the primary analysis; 45 to POWER-remote and 42 to self-directed. At 6 months, 51% of women randomized to POWER-remote lost ≥5% of their baseline body weight, compared with 12% in the self-directed arm [OR, 7.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6-23.9; P = 0.0003]; proportion were similar at 12 months (51% vs 17%, respectively, P = 0.003). Weight loss correlated with significant decreases in leptin, and favorable modulation of inflammatory cytokines and lipid profiles. There was no significant change in telomere length at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: A remotely delivered weight loss intervention resulted in significant weight loss in breast cancer survivors, and favorable effects on several biomarkers.

Phase III Study of Adjuvant Ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) Versus High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b for Resected High-Risk Melanoma: North American Intergroup E1609.

PURPOSE: Phase III adjuvant trials have reported significant benefits in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for high-dose interferon alfa (HDI) and ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (ipi10). E1609 evaluated the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and ipi10 versus HDI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: E1609 was a phase III trial in patients with resected cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition stage IIIB, IIIC, M1a, or M1b). It had 2 coprimary end points: OS and RFS. A 2-step hierarchic approach first evaluated ipi3 versus HDI followed by ipi10 versus HDI. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and August 2014, 1,670 adult patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to ipi3 (n = 523), HDI (n = 636), or ipi10 (n = 511). Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 3 occurred in 37% of patients receiving ipi3, 79% receiving HDI, and 58% receiving ipi10, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 35%, 20%, and 54%, respectively. Comparison of ipi3 versus HDI used an intent-to-treat analysis of concurrently randomly assigned patient cases (n = 1,051) and showed significant OS difference in favor of ipi3 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95.6% repeated CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .044; RFS: HR, 0.85; 99.4% CI, 0.66 to 1.09; P = .065). In the second step, for ipi10 versus HDI (n = 989), trends in favor of ipi10 did not achieve statistical significance. Salvage patterns after melanoma relapse showed significantly higher rates of ipilimumab and ipilimumab/anti-programmed death 1 use in the HDI arm versus ipi3 and ipi10 (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with ipi3 benefits survival versus HDI; for the first time to our knowledge in melanoma adjuvant therapy, E1609 has demonstrated a significant improvement in OS against an active control regimen. The currently approved adjuvant ipilimumab dose (ipi10) was more toxic and not superior in efficacy to HDI.

Immune Correlates of GM-CSF and Melanoma Peptide Vaccination in a Randomized Trial for the Adjuvant Therapy of Resected High-Risk Melanoma (E4697).

Purpose: E4697 was a multicenter intergroup randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial of adjuvant GM-CSF and/or a multiepitope melanoma peptide vaccine for patients with completely resected, high-risk stage III/IV melanoma.Experimental Design: A total of 815 patients were enrolled from December 1999 to October 2006 into this six-arm study. GM-CSF was chosen to promote the numbers and functions of dendritic cells (DC). The melanoma antigen peptide vaccine (Tyrosinase368-376 (370D), gp100209-217 (210M), MART-127-35) in montanide was designed to promote melanoma-specific CD8+ T-cell responses.Results: Although the overall RFS and OS were not significantly improved with the vaccine or GM-CSF when compared with placebo, immunomodulatory effects were observed in peripheral blood and served as important correlates to this therapeutic study. Peripheral blood was examined to evaluate the impact of GM-CSF and/or the peptide vaccine on peripheral blood immunity and to investigate potential predictive or prognostic biomarkers. A total of 11.3% of unvaccinated patients and 27.1% of vaccinated patients developed peptide-specific CD8+ T-cell responses. HLA-A2+ patients who had any peptide-specific CD8+ T-cell response at day +43 tended to have poorer OS in univariate analysis. Patients receiving GM-CSF had significant reduction in percentages of circulating myeloid dendritic cells (mDC) and plasmacytoid DC (pDC) at day +43. In a subset of patients who received GM-CSF, circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC), and anti-GM-CSF-neutralizing antibodies (Nabs) were also modulated. The majority of patients developed anti-GM-CSF Nabs, which correlated with improved RFS and OS.Conclusions: The assessment of cellular and humoral responses identified counterintuitive immune system changes correlating with clinical outcome. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5034-43. ©2017 AACR.

Phase III Randomized Study of 4 Weeks of High-Dose Interferon-α-2b in Stage T2bNO, T3a-bNO, T4a-bNO, and T1-4N1a-2a (microscopic) Melanoma: A Trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group (E1697).

Purpose To test the efficacy of 4 weeks of intravenous (IV) induction with high-dose interferon (IFN) as part of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group regimen compared with observation (OBS) in patients with surgically resected intermediate-risk melanoma. Patients and Methods In this intergroup international trial, eligible patients had surgically resected cutaneous melanoma in the following categories: (1) T2bN0, (2) T3a-bN0, (3) T4a-bN0, and (4) T1-4N1a-2a (microscopic). Patients were randomly assigned to receive IFN α-2b at 20 MU/m2/d IV for 5 days (Monday to Friday) every week for 4 weeks (IFN) or OBS. Stratification factors were pathologic lymph node status, lymph node staging procedure, Breslow depth, ulceration of the primary lesion, and disease stage. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, toxicity, and quality of life. Results A total of 1,150 patients were randomly assigned. At a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year relapse-free survival rate was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.74) for OBS and 0.70, (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.74) for IFN ( P = .964). The 5-year overall survival rate was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.86) for OBS and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.86) for IFN ( P = .558). Treatment-related grade 3 and higher toxicity was 4.6% versus 57.9% for OBS and IFN, respectively ( P < .001). Quality of life was worse for the treated group. Conclusion Four weeks of IV induction as part of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group high-dose IFN regimen is not better than OBS alone for patients with intermediate-risk melanoma as defined in this trial.

Phase I trial of intravenous administration of PV701, an oncolytic virus, in patients with advanced solid cancers.

PURPOSE: PV701, a replication-competent strain of Newcastle disease virus, causes regression of tumor xenografts after intravenous administration. This phase I study was designed to define the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and safety of single and multiple intravenous doses of PV701 as a single agent in patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with advanced solid cancers that were unresponsive to standard therapy were enrolled. Four PV701 intravenous dosing regimens were evaluated: (1) single dose: one dose every 28 days; (2) repeat dose: three doses in 1 week every 28 days; (3) desensitizing: one lower dose followed by two higher doses in 1 week every 28 days; and (4) two week: one lower dose followed by five higher doses over 2 weeks every 21 days. RESULTS: A 100-fold dose intensification was achieved over 195 cycles. A first-dose MTD of 12 x 10(9) plaque-forming units (PFU)/m(2) was established for outpatient dosing. After an initial dose of 12 x 10(9) PFU/m(2), patients tolerated an MTD for subsequent doses of 120 x 10(9) PFU/m(2). The most common adverse events were flu-like symptoms that occurred principally after the first dose and were decreased in number and severity with each subsequent dose. Tumor site-specific adverse events and acute dosing reactions were also observed but not cumulative toxicity. Objective responses occurred at higher dose levels, and progression-free survival ranged from 4 to 31 months. Tumor tissue from one patient was obtained after 11 months of therapy and showed evidence of PV701 particles budding from the tumor cell membrane by electron microscopy and a pronounced lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate by histologic examination. CONCLUSION: PV701 warrants further study as a novel therapeutic agent for cancer patients.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Yeast-Derived Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor (GM-CSF) Versus Peptide Vaccination Versus GM-CSF Plus Peptide Vaccination Versus Placebo in Patients With No Evidence of Disease After Complete Surgical Resection of Locally Advanced and/or Stage IV Melanoma: A Trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network Cancer Research Group (E4697).

PURPOSE: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effect of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and peptide vaccination (PV) on relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with resected high-risk melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with completely resected stage IV or high-risk stage III melanoma were grouped by human leukocyte antigen (HLA) -A2 status. HLA-A2-positive patients were randomly assigned to receive GM-CSF, PV, both, or placebo; HLA-A2-negative patients, GM-CSF or placebo. Treatment lasted for 1 year or until recurrence. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 815 patients were enrolled. There were no significant improvements in OS (stratified log-rank P = .528; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% repeated CI, 0.77 to 1.15) or RFS (P = .131; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.04) in the patients assigned to GM-CSF (n = 408) versus those assigned to placebo (n = 407). The median OS times with GM-CSF versus placebo treatments were 69.6 months (95% CI, 53.4 to 83.5 months) versus 59.3 months (95% CI, 44.4 to 77.3 months); the 5-year OS probability rates were 52.3% (95% CI, 47.3% to 57.1%) versus 49.4% (95% CI, 44.3% to 54.3%), respectively. The median RFS times with GM-CSF versus placebo were 11.4 months (95% CI, 9.4 to 14.8 months) versus 8.8 months (95% CI, 7.5 to 11.2 months); the 5-year RFS probability rates were 31.2% (95% CI, 26.7% to 35.9%) versus 27.0% (95% CI, 22.7% to 31.5%), respectively. Exploratory analyses showed a trend toward improved OS in GM-CSF-treated patients with resected visceral metastases. When survival in HLA-A2-positive patients who received PV versus placebo was compared, RFS and OS were not significantly different. Treatment-related grade 3 or greater adverse events were similar between GM-CSF and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: Neither adjuvant GM-CSF nor PV significantly improved RFS or OS in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Exploratory analyses suggest that GM-CSF may be beneficial in patients with resected visceral metastases; this observation requires prospective validation.

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2008 clinical practice guideline update: use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy protectants.

PURPOSE: To update a clinical practice guideline on the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy protectants for patients with cancer. METHODS: An update committee reviewed literature published since the last guideline update in 2002. RESULTS: Thirty-nine reports met the inclusion criteria: palifermin and dexrazoxane, three reports (two studies) each; amifostine, 33 reports (31 studies); and mesna, no published randomized trials identified since 2002. RECOMMENDATIONS: Dexrazoxane is not recommended for routine use in breast cancer (BC) in adjuvant setting, or metastatic setting with initial doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. Consider use with metastatic BC and other malignancies, for patients who have received more than 300 mg/m(2) doxorubicin who may benefit from continued doxorubicin-containing therapy. Cardiac monitoring should continue in patients receiving doxorubicin. Amifostine may be considered for prevention of cisplatin-associated nephrotoxicity, reduction of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (alternative strategies are reasonable), and to decrease acute and late xerostomia with fractionated radiation therapy alone for head and neck cancer. It is not recommended for protection against thrombocytopenia, prevention of platinum-associated neurotoxicity or ototoxicity or paclitaxel-associated neuropathy, prevention of radiation therapy-associated mucositis in head and neck cancer, or prevention of esophagitis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Palifermin is recommended to decrease severe mucositis in autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT) for hematologic malignancies with total-body irradiation (TBI) conditioning regimens, and considered for patients undergoing myeloablative allogeneic SCT with TBI-based conditioning regimens. Data are insufficient to recommend use in the non-SCT setting.

Phase III trial comparing concurrent biochemotherapy with cisplatin, vinblastine, dacarbazine, interleukin-2, and interferon alfa-2b with cisplatin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine alone in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma (E3695): a trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Phase II trials with biochemotherapy (BCT) have shown encouraging response rates in metastatic melanoma, and meta-analyses and one phase III trial have suggested a survival benefit. In an effort to determine the relative efficacy of BCT compared with chemotherapy alone, a phase III trial was performed within the United States Intergroup. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (CVD) either alone or concurrent with interleukin-2 and interferon alfa-2b (BCT). Treatment cycles were repeated at 21-day intervals for a maximum of four cycles. Tumor response was assessed after cycles 2 and 4, then every 3 months. RESULTS: Four hundred fifteen patients were enrolled, and 395 patients (CVD, n = 195; BCT, n = 200) were deemed eligible and assessable. The two study arms were well balanced for stratification factors and other prognostic factors. Response rate was 19.5% for BCT and 13.8% for CVD (P = .140). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer for BCT than for CVD (4.8 v 2.9 months; P = .015), although this did not translate into an advantage in either median overall survival (9.0 v 8.7 months) or the percentage of patients alive at 1 year (41% v 36.9%). More patients experienced grade 3 or worse toxic events with BCT than CVD (95% v 73%; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Although BCT produced slightly higher response rates and longer median progression-free survival than CVD alone, this was not associated with either improved overall survival or durable responses. Considering the extra toxicity and complexity, this concurrent BCT regimen cannot be recommended for patients with metastatic melanoma.

Clinical research by community oncologists.

Practicing and hospital-based community oncologists are increasingly recognized as sources for clinical research activity. Although surveys have documented patients' and physicians' willingness to consider participation in clinical research studies, accrual to clinical trials by adults in cancer research studies remains embarrassingly low. This may be due in part to a lack of knowledge about available studies by community oncologists, a lack of time or interest, or a lack of resources to support the cost of performing clinical trials. This article addresses these issues as an instructional module for community physicians interested in increasing their activity in clinical trials or improving their abilities to facilitate patient accrual to cancer research studies.