Bendamustine, bortezomib and rituximab produces durable complete remissions in patients with previously untreated, low grade lymphoma.

This Phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of bendamustine, bortezomib and rituximab in patients with previously untreated low-grade lymphoma. Eligible patients had low grade lymphoma with no previous systemic disease treatment. Treatment for all patients was given in 28-day cycles for a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients received rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on days 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2-6; bendamustine 90 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 2; and bortezomib 1·6 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 8 and 15. Patients were permitted to begin maintenance treatment with rituximab 6 months after completion of study treatment and after 6-month follow-up assessments had been conducted. Fifty-four eligible patients were enrolled. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were leucopenia (28%), neutropenia (30%) and lymphopenia (17%). There were no treatment-related deaths and 1 unrelated death on study (embolic stroke). The overall response rate was 94% for all patients. The median follow-up was 54 months. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival and overall survival at 36 months were 75% and 88%, respectively. The treatment regimen was well tolerated and produced high response rates. Further study of this regimen in patients with previously untreated lymphoma is warranted.

A Phase II Study of the Combination of Bevacizumab, Pertuzumab, and Octreotide LAR for Patients with Advanced Neuroendocrine Cancers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of bevacizumab, pertuzumab, and octreotide depot for advanced neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: Patients received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg and pertuzumab 420 mg IV q21 days with octreotide depot 30 mg IM q28 days. RESULTS: Toxicities in 43 patients included diarrhea (63%), fatigue (63%), hypertension (44%), and nausea (44%). Reversible G3 hypertension (26%) and LVEF decline (9%) occurred. 7/43 patients achieved objective response (typical carcinoid, 5; pancreatic NET, 2). Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 26.4 months, respectively. DISCUSSION: Bevacizumab, pertuzumab, and octreotide depot was well-tolerated with a 16% ORR. Results in the well-differentiated carcinoid tumors are thought provoking.

Open-label, single-arm, phase II study of enzastaurin in patients with follicular lymphoma.

This open-label, phase II study investigated whether enzastaurin, a protein kinase C-beta (PKCß) inhibitor, had activity in patients with grade 1 or 2 follicular lymphoma (FL). Adults with grade 1 or 2 FL who had no more than one prior treatment received oral enzastaurin continuously for up to 3 years. Of the 66 patients who received enzastaurin, 53 were evaluable for response. Overall response rate (ORR, primary efficacy endpoint) was 26.4% (3.8% complete response). Median (95% confidence interval) progression-free survival, time to response, and duration of response were 18.1 (11.5-28.3), 4.9 (2.8-8.1), and 22.3 (8.8-not applicable) months, respectively. In patients with tumour tissue available for biomarker analysis, ORRs in low versus high PKCß2 expression groups were 41.7% and 8.3%, respectively (P = 0.041). The most common, mainly low-grade drug-related adverse events were fatigue (25.8%), diarrhoea (25.8%), nausea (18.2%), and chromaturia (18.2%). Four (6.1%) patients had Grade 3 toxicity and one (1.5%) patient had Grade 4 toxicity. Enzastaurin demonstrated limited clinical activity in grade 1 or 2 FL. Patients with low PKCß2 expression in tumours had higher ORR than those with high PKCß2 expression. Enzastaurin was well tolerated with mostly grade 1 or 2 toxicities. Further studies may be warranted in select patient populations.

Social Distancing to Avoid SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Cancer and Noncancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Social distancing has been recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2 ( Epidemiol Prev 2020;44:353-362).Cancer patients on or after active therapy seem to be more prone to COVID being symptomatic and life-threatening. When evaluating cancer patients' risk of acquiring COVID, it is essential to know the behavior of cancer patients that will affect their risk of exposure. However, it is not known to what degree social distancing is practiced by cancer patients compared with noncancer patients and what factors lead to the decision to distance oneself. METHOD: After a pilot phase using patients' MyChart messaging, links to the electronic questionnaires were texted to patients using Twillio. Responses were stored on REDCap (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN). Six questions about their social distancing behavior and mask wearing were posed and responses were compared between cancer and noncancer patients. Demographics, comorbidities, and a questionnaire about anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale) were recorded. To assess differences between cancer and noncancer groups, Bonferroni-corrected χ 2 tests and proportions confidence intervals were used. RESULTS: The pilot survey was sent in mid-2020 and the full survey followed in January 2021 during a high community COVID incidence. Three hundred eighty-seven cancer patients (32.4% responded) and 503 noncancer patients (22.9% responded) completed the survey. Questions about leaving their houses, driving, shopping, friends, and family indicated that patients with cancer are more cautious ( P < 0.001). Cancer patients were up to 20% more likely to distance themselves. No difference was seen in wearing a mask-both groups wore approximately 90% of the time. Most respondents were female (63% versus 71%). Cancer patients were older (>60 y, 69% versus 45%) and less likely to work (52% versus 31%) or less likely to be White collar workers (21% versus 38%). In both groups, 54% marked "not at all anxious." CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients' responses revealed a distancing behavior that would likely lower the risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2. It is unclear which of the demographic differences would account for this behavior, although remarkably anxiety was not a clear motivating factor. The high acceptance of masks is encouraging. Early publications during the pandemic and patient education suggesting a higher COVID risk for cancer patients may have reduced risk prone behavior. Considering COVID's impact on the vulnerable cancer population and uncertainty in immunosuppressed patients about clearing the virus or adequately responding to a vaccine, further studies about health behavior and health promotion during the pandemic are needed.