Phase II trial of eribulin in patients who do not achieve pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Women with residual invasive breast cancer at the primary site or axillary lymph nodes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy have a high risk of recurrence. Eribulin improves survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer who progress after anthracycline and taxane therapy. This phase 2 trial assessed the efficacy of postoperative eribulin in breast cancer patients who did not achieve a pCR following standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Women with localized breast cancer who had residual invasive cancer following ≥ 4 cycles of standard anthracycline and/or taxane-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy received adjuvant eribulin treatment. HER2-positive patients also received trastuzumab for 1 year. Adjuvant hormonal therapy and locoregional radiotherapy were administered as per institutional guidelines. Primary endpoint was the 2-year DFS rate. Three patient cohorts were analyzed: TNBC (Cohort A), HR+/HER2- (Cohort B), and HER2+ (Cohort C). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six patients (Cohort A-53, Cohort B-42, and Cohort C-31) were enrolled. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy included a taxane and an anthracycline in 70%. Eribulin was well tolerated; 84% of patients received the planned 6 cycles. After a median follow-up of 28 months, the 24-month DFS rates were 56% (95% CI 42, 69), 83% (95% CI 67, 91), and 73% (95% CI 53, 86) for Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (26%), leukopenia (13%), and neuropathy (7%). CONCLUSION: Administration of adjuvant eribulin after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was feasible and well tolerated. The 24-month DFS rate did not reach the study target levels in any of the cohorts and was similar to DFS previously described in these cohorts following neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone.

A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Phase II Trial of Carboplatin and Pemetrexed with or without Apatorsen (OGX-427) in Patients with Previously Untreated Stage IV Non-Squamous-Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The SPRUCE Trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein (Hsp) 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus apatorsen) or Arm B (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus placebo). Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging every two cycles, until progression or intolerable toxicity. Serum Hsp27 levels were analyzed at baseline and during treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 155 patients (median age 66 years; 44% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0). Toxicities were similar in the 2 treatment arms; cytopenias, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. Median PFS and OS were 6.0 and 10.8 months, respectively, for Arm A, and 4.9 and 11.8 months for Arm B (differences not statistically significant). Overall response rates were 27% for Arm A and 32% for Arm B. Sixteen patients (12%) had high serum levels of Hsp27 at baseline. In this small group, patients who received apatorsen had median PFS of 10.8 months, and those who received placebo had median PFS 4.8 months. CONCLUSION: The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting.

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.

Randomized phase 2 trial of pemetrexed, pemetrexed/bevacizumab, and pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2.

BACKGROUND: The best treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a poor performance status is not well defined. In this phase 2 trial, patients were randomized to receive treatment with either single-agent pemetrexed or 1 of 2 combination regimens. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed nonsquamous NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 were stratified by age and serum albumin level and were randomized (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 regimens: pemetrexed (arm 1), pemetrexed and bevacizumab (arm 2), or pemetrexed, carboplatin, and bevacizumab (arm 3). The response to treatment was assessed every 2 cycles; responding and stable patients continued treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-two patients were randomized, 162 patients began the study treatment, and 146 patients completed 2 cycles and were evaluated for their response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months in arm 1, 4.0 months in arm 2, and 4.8 months in arm 3. The overall response rates were 15% in arm 1, 31% in arm 2, and 44% in arm 3. The overall survival was similar in the 3 treatment arms. All 3 regimens were relatively well tolerated. Patients receiving bevacizumab had an increased incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, and bleeding episodes, but most events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 regimens were feasible for patients with advanced NSCLC and an ECOG performance status of 2. The addition of bevacizumab to pemetrexed increased the overall response rate. The efficacy of pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab (median PFS, 4.8 months) approached the prespecified study PFS goal of 5 months. Larger studies will be necessary to define the role of bevacizumab in addition to standard pemetrexed and carboplatin in this population. Cancer 2018;124:1982-91. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Erlotinib plus either pazopanib or placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial with correlated serum proteomic signatures.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with progressive-stage IV NSCLC after either 1 or 2 previous chemotherapy regimens were randomized to receive erlotinib (150 mg by mouth daily) with either pazopanib (600 mg by mouth daily) or placebo. During treatment, patients were evaluated every 8 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After a study amendment, pretreatment serum specimens for the VeriStrat assay were collected. The predictive value of the VeriStrat score (good vs poor) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed in the overall population and in each treatment group. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two eligible patients were randomized between February 2010 and February 2011. PFS was prolonged with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo (median, 2.6 vs 1.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .001). There was no difference in the OS of the 2 groups. A good VeriStrat score predicted longer PFS and OS in the entire group and predicted longer PFS in the subgroup receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib. The addition of pazopanib increased toxicity, and this was consistent with the known toxicity profile. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pazopanib to erlotinib in an unselected group of patients with previously treated NSCLC improved PFS and increased treatment-related toxicity, but it had no influence on OS. The efficacy of both regimens was modest. Patients receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib had longer PFS if they had a good VeriStrat score versus a poor one. Cancer 2018;124:2355-64. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

A phase 2 study of the sphingosine-1-phosphate antibody sonepcizumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Upregulation of sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) may mediate resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-directed therapies and inhibit antitumor immunity. Antagonism of S1P in preclinical models appears to overcome this resistance. In this phase 2 study, the authors assessed the activity of sonepcizumab, a first-in-class inhibitor of S1P, in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with a history of prior VEGF-directed therapy. METHODS: Patients were required to have clear cell mRCC and to have received treatment with at least 1 prior VEGF-directed agent. Prior treatment with immunotherapeutic agents and ≤1 mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors was permitted. The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival. Additional endpoints included response rate and safety, and overall survival (OS) performed post hoc. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were enrolled with a median of 3 prior therapies (range, 1-5 prior therapies), 78% of whom had intermediate-risk disease by second-line International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. Although the current study did not achieve its primary endpoint based on the 2-month progression-free survival, a median OS of 21.7 months was observed. Four patients (10%) demonstrated a partial response, with a median duration of response of 5.9 months. No grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in >5% of patients (adverse events were graded and recorded for each patient using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]); the most frequent grade 1/2 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (30%), weight gain (18%), constipation (15%), and nausea (15%). Biomarker studies demonstrated an increase in S1P concentrations with therapy. Comprehensive genomic profiling of 3 patients with a clinical benefit of >24 months indicated von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) and polybromo-1 (PBRM1) alterations. CONCLUSIONS: The encouraging OS and favorable safety profile observed with sonepcizumab should prompt further investigation of the agent in combination with VEGF-directed agents or checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer 2017;123:576-582. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

TITAN: phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by ixabepilone or paclitaxel in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Ixabepilone is a microtubule stabilizer with activity in taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer and low susceptibility to taxane-resistance mechanisms including multidrug-resistant phenotypes and high ß-III tubulin expression. Since these resistance mechanisms are common in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ixabepilone may have particular advantages in this patient population. This study evaluated the substitution of ixabepilone for paclitaxel following doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage TNBC. METHODS: Patients with operable TNBC were eligible following definitive breast surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive four cycles of AC followed by either four cycles (12 weeks) of ixabepilone or 12 weekly doses of paclitaxel. RESULTS: 614 patients were randomized: 306 to AC/ixabepilone and 308 to AC/paclitaxel. At a median follow-up of 48 months, 59 patients had relapsed (AC/ixabepilone, 29; AC/paclitaxel, 30). The median time from diagnosis to relapse was 20.8 months. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of the two groups were similar [HR 0.92; ixabepilone 87.1% (95% CI 82.6-90.5) vs. paclitaxel 84.7% (95% CI 79.7-88.6)]. The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were also similar [HR 1.1; ixabepilone 89.7% (95% CI 85.5-92.7) vs. paclitaxel 89.6% (95% CI 85.0-92.9)]. Peripheral neuropathy was the most common grade 3/4 event. Dose reductions and treatment discontinuations occurred more frequently during paclitaxel treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with AC/ixabepilone provided similar DFS and OS in patients with operable TNBC when compared to treatment with AC/paclitaxel. The two regimens had similar toxicity, although treatment discontinuation, dose modifications, and overall peripheral neuropathy were more frequent with AC/paclitaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier, NCT00789581.

First-Line Carboplatin, Pemetrexed, and Panitumumab in Patients with Advanced Non-Squamous KRAS Wild Type (WT) Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: We added panitumumab to standard combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced KRAS WT non-squamous NSCLC. METHODS: Patients received panitumumab 9 mg/kg IV, pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 IV, and carboplatin AUC = 6 IV every 21 days. After 6 cycles, maintenance therapy with panitumumab and pemetrexed was administered every 21 days until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: 29 of 66 patients (44%) had objective responses. The median TTP was 6 months; median overall survival (OS) was 17 months. Panitumumab increased treatment-related toxicity, notably skin rash. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of panitumumab increased toxicity, and had no discernible impact on efficacy.

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. FUNDING: Novartis and Pfizer.

Use of a multiplexed immunoassay (PRO Onc assay) to detect HER2 abnormalities in circulating tumor cells of women with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: lack of response to HER2-targeted therapy.

PURPOSE: Determination of HER2 status by testing circulating tumor cells (CTCs), compared to sampling tumor biopsies, may improve patient management by allowing ongoing assessment of HER2 status during the disease course. The PRO Onc assay (Prometheus Laboratories; San Diego, CA) is a multiplexed immunoassay that measures the expression and activation of HER2 in CTCs. In this study, we screened patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer with the PRO Onc assay; patients with HER2 overexpression or activation received a trial of HER2-targeted therapy. METHODS: In Part 1 of the trial, patients with HER2-negative breast cancer were screened with the PRO Onc assay to confirm the presence of a cohort that tested HER2-positive. After this finding was confirmed, patients in Part 2 of the study with HER2 abnormalities received a trial of treatment with trastuzumab/pertuzumab. RESULTS: In Part 1, 31 of 57 specimens contained CTCs; of these, 12 (38 %) showed HER2 abnormalities by PRO Onc assay. In Part 2, 129 of 226 patients (57 %) had CTCs; 24 of these patients (19 %) had HER2 abnormalities detected. Fourteen patients were treated with HER2-targeted therapy. Twelve of 14 patients progressed within 6 weeks, one patient had a brief (12 weeks) partial response, and one patient was stable for 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: HER2 overexpression or activation was detected by the PRO Onc assay in 22 % of HER2-negative patients with CTCs. However, HER2-targeted therapy was not effective in such patients. FISH and IHC staining remain the standards for HER2 determination.

A phase II trial of bevacizumab and everolimus as treatment for patients with refractory, progressive intracranial meningioma.

Meningiomas that progress after standard therapies are challenging with limited effective chemotherapy options. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of everolimus plus bevacizumab in patients with recurrent, progressive meningioma after treatment with surgical resection and local radiotherapy when appropriate. Patients with recurrent meningioma (WHO grade I, II, or III) following standard treatments with surgical resection and radiotherapy received bevacizumab (10 mg/kg IV days 1 and 15) and everolimus (10 mg PO daily) each 28 day cycle. Evaluation of response occurred every 2 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included response rate, overall survival and safety. Seventeen patients with a median age of 59 years (29-84) received study treatment. WHO grades at study entry included: I, 5 (29 %); II, 7 (41 %); III, 4 (24 %); unknown, 1 (6 %). Patients received a median of 8 cycles (1-37); all patients are off study treatment. A best response of SD was observed in 15 patients (88 %), and 6 patients had SD for >12 months. Overall median PFS was 22 months (95 % CI 4.5-26.8) and was greater for patients with WHO grade II and III compared to grade I tumors (22.0 months vs 17.5 months). Four patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity (proteinuria, 2; colitis, 1, thrombocytopenia, 1). However, other grade 3 toxicity was uncommon, and no patient had grade 4 toxicity. The combination of everolimus and bevacizumab was well-tolerated, and produced stable disease in 88 % of patients; the median duration of disease stabilization of 10 months (2-29). The median PFS from this prospective trial was similar to previous retrospective reports of bevacizumab in the treatment of recurrent meningioma.

Paclitaxel/carboplatin with or without belinostat as empiric first-line treatment for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site: A randomized, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of belinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, when added to paclitaxel/carboplatin in the empiric first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP). METHODS: In this randomized phase 2 trial, previously untreated patients with CUP were randomized to receive belinostat plus paclitaxel/carboplatin (group A) or paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (group B) repeated every 21 days. Patients were re-evaluated every 2 cycles, and those without disease progression continued treatment for 6 cycles. Patients in group A then continued receiving single-agent belinostat, whereas patients in group B stopped treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS): The authors postulated that the addition of belinostat would improve PFS from 5 months (expected with paclitaxel/carboplatin) to 8 months. RESULTS: In total, 89 patients were randomized (group A, n = 44; group B, n = 45), and the demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. The addition of belinostat to paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve PFS (group A, 5.4 months [95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.0 months]; group B, 5.3 months [95% confidence interval, 2.8-6.6 months]; P = .85). Overall survival was 12.4 months for group A versus 9.1 months for group B (P = .20). The response rate favored the belinostat group (45% vs 21%; P = .02). Belinostat resulted in a modest increase in treatment toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of belinostat to paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve the PFS of patients with CUP who were receiving first-line therapy, although the patients who received belinostat had a higher investigator-assessed response rate. Future trials in CUP should focus on specific subsets, defined either by the predicted tissue of origin or by the identification of targetable molecular abnormalities.

Increased survival with enzalutamide in prostate cancer after chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide (formerly called MDV3100) targets multiple steps in the androgen-receptor-signaling pathway, the major driver of prostate-cancer growth. We aimed to evaluate whether enzalutamide prolongs survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. METHODS: In our phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we stratified 1199 men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score and pain intensity. We randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive oral enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg per day (800 patients) or placebo (399 patients). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis at the time of 520 deaths. The median overall survival was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3 to not yet reached) in the enzalutamide group versus 13.6 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 15.8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death in the enzalutamide group, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.75; P<0.001). The superiority of enzalutamide over placebo was shown with respect to all secondary end points: the proportion of patients with a reduction in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level by 50% or more (54% vs. 2%, P<0.001), the soft-tissue response rate (29% vs. 4%, P<0.001), the quality-of-life response rate (43% vs. 18%, P<0.001), the time to PSA progression (8.3 vs. 3.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.25; P<0.001), radiographic progression-free survival (8.3 vs. 2.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001), and the time to the first skeletal-related event (16.7 vs. 13.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69; P<0.001). Rates of fatigue, diarrhea, and hot flashes were higher in the enzalutamide group. Seizures were reported in five patients (0.6%) receiving enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide significantly prolonged the survival of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. (Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma Global Development; AFFIRM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00974311.).

Efficacy and safety of vismodegib in advanced basal-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Alterations in hedgehog signaling are implicated in the pathogenesis of basal-cell carcinoma. Although most basal-cell carcinomas are treated surgically, no effective therapy exists for locally advanced or metastatic basal-cell carcinoma. A phase 1 study of vismodegib (GDC-0449), a first-in-class, small-molecule inhibitor of the hedgehog pathway, showed a 58% response rate among patients with advanced basal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicenter, international, two-cohort, nonrandomized study, we enrolled patients with metastatic basal-cell carcinoma and those with locally advanced basal-cell carcinoma who had inoperable disease or for whom surgery was inappropriate (because of multiple recurrences and a low likelihood of surgical cure, or substantial anticipated disfigurement). All patients received 150 mg of oral vismodegib daily. The primary end point was the independently assessed objective response rate; the primary hypotheses were that the response rate would be greater than 20% for patients with locally advanced basal-cell carcinoma and greater than 10% for those with metastatic basal-cell carcinoma. RESULTS: In 33 patients with metastatic basal-cell carcinoma, the independently assessed response rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16 to 48; P=0.001). In 63 patients with locally advanced basal-cell carcinoma, the independently assessed response rate was 43% (95% CI, 31 to 56; P<0.001), with complete responses in 13 patients (21%). The median duration of response was 7.6 months in both cohorts. Adverse events occurring in more than 30% of patients were muscle spasms, alopecia, dysgeusia (taste disturbance), weight loss, and fatigue. Serious adverse events were reported in 25% of patients; seven deaths due to adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Vismodegib is associated with tumor responses in patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Genentech; Erivance BCC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00833417.).

A phase II trial of ixabepilone and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with HER2-negative breast cancer: correlation of pathologic complete response with the 21-gene recurrence score.

Ixabepilone and the taxanes have similar activity in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer, and ixabepilone is sometimes effective in taxane-refractory patients. We conducted a phase 2 trial to evaluate ixabepilone in combination with cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with locally advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. Response to neoadjuvant treatment was correlated with the baseline 21-gene Recurrence Score® (Oncotype DX; Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City, CA). Eligible women with HER2-negative locally advanced breast cancer received ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Following 6 cycles, patients underwent definitive surgery. Primary endpoint was rate of pathologic complete response (pCR). Breast biopsy tumor samples were obtained at pretreatment and at surgery in patients with residual disease. Tumor specimens were analyzed using the 21-gene assay. One hundred sixty-eight patients (median age 52 years; 45 % triple-negative) were enrolled; 161 (96 %) underwent definitive surgery following neoadjuvant ixabepilone/cyclophosphamide. Overall, 27 patients (17 %) achieved pCR, including 19 of 73 (26 %) triple-negative patients. The most frequently occurring grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (98 patients; 58 %). Recurrence Scores were highly correlated with achievement of pCR (0/36 with low or intermediate Recurrence Scores vs. 19/72 with high Recurrence Scores; p = 0.002). There was high concordance between baseline and post-treatment Recurrence Scores in the 72 patients with paired samples. The combination of ixabepilone and cyclophosphamide yielded a pCR rate of 17 %, similar to other neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Pathologic complete responses occurred only in patients with high-risk baseline Recurrence Scores.

Phase I/II trial of neoadjuvant sunitinib administered with weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin in patients with locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of adding sunitinib to paclitaxel/carboplatin in the neoadjuvant therapy of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients had histologically proven, previously untreated, triple-negative adenocarcinoma, with disease limited to the breast and axilla (clinical T1-T3, N0-N2, M0; T1N1M0 excluded). Following determination of the maximum tolerated doses in the phase I portion, patients in the phase II study received paclitaxel 70 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 8, and 15; carboplatin AUC 5.0 IV day 1; sunitinib 25 mg orally daily; treatment was administered for six 28-day cycles followed by definitive surgery. Sunitinib was resumed postoperatively to complete a 52-week course. Pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was the primary endpoint. Fifty-four patients enrolled; 41 received treatment in the phase II study. Sixteen patients (39 %) were able to complete six cycles of neoadjuvant therapy; 18 additional patients had surgery after completing 2-5 cycles of treatment. The pCR rate in these 34 evaluable patients was 35 %. The toxicity of the regimen was considerable, with myelosuppression resulting in numerous dose reductions and/or omissions of paclitaxel and carboplatin. Eleven patients (27 %) discontinued sunitinib during neoadjuvant therapy, and six patients (14 %) completed 52 weeks of single-agent sunitinib. In the neoadjuvant treatment of patients with TNBC, the combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and sunitinib was difficult to administer, and produced a pCR rate comparable to other less toxic regimens. This combination is not recommended for further evaluation. At present, sunitinib has no defined role in the treatment of breast cancer.

Paclitaxel, bevacizumab, and everolimus/placebo as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer: a randomized placebo-controlled phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute.

Amplified PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling is common in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The mTOR inhibitor everolimus improves progression-free survival (PFS) when added to steroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy. This randomized phase II trial compares the efficacy of paclitaxel/bevacizumab/everolimus and paclitaxel/bevacizumab/placebo as first-line treatment for MBC. Patients with untreated HER2-negative MBC were randomized (1:1) to receive 28-day cycles of paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) IV (days 1, 8, and 15) and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV (days 1, 15) with either everolimus 10 mg (Arm 1) or placebo (Arm 2) daily. Treatment continued (evaluation every 8 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Treatment of 110 patients allowed detection of an improvement in median PFS from 11 to 16 months (70 % power, α = 0.10). Between August 2009 and June 2011, 113 patients (median age 58 years; 88 % ER or PR positive) were randomized (Arm 1, 56; Arm 2, 57). Patients in both arms received a median of six treatment cycles. Median PFS (95 % CI) was 9.1 months (6.8-18.8) for Arm 1, and 7.1 months (5.6-10.8) for Arm 2 (p = 0.89). Comparisons of other efficacy endpoints were also similar in the two treatment arms. Patients receiving everolimus had more anemia, stomatitis, diarrhea, rash, and arthralgia/myalgia, although the overall incidence of severe (grade 3/4) toxicity was similar. The addition of everolimus did not improve the efficacy of weekly paclitaxel/bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative MBC. These results contrast with the demonstrated efficacy of adding everolimus to either hormonal or HER2-targeted therapy in previously treated patients.

Pazopanib and liposomal doxorubicin in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory epithelial ovarian cancer: a phase Ib study of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute.

PURPOSE: To investigate the combination of liposomal doxorubicin/pazopanib in advanced relapsed/refractory ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients received liposomal doxorubicin/pazopanib. Initial doses (liposomal doxorubicin, 40 mg/m2 monthly; pazopanib, 400 mg daily) were too toxic; three subsequent groups received lower doses/altered schedules. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated doses (MTD) were liposomal doxorubicin, 30 mg/m2, and pazopanib, 400 mg daily. Severe toxicity included neutropenia (18%), rash/desquamation (14%), hypertension (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%). Five of the eight patients treated with MTD had grade 3 toxicity during the first two cycles. Dose reductions were frequently required. CONCLUSIONS: Further development of the liposomal doxorubicin/pazopanib combination is not recommended.

Phase I/II study of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after at least one prior treatment were eligible to participate. In the dose escalation part of the study a standard 3+3 design was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose of four planned dose levels of the combination of carfilzomib and panobinostat. Panobinostat was administered on days 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, and 19. Carfilzomib was administered on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of each 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until progression or intolerable toxicity. Forty-four patients were accrued into the trial, 13 in the phase I part and 31 in the phase II part of the study. The median age of the patients was 66 years and the median number of prior therapies was five. The expansion dose was established as 30 mg panobinostat, 20/45 mg/m(2) carfilzomib. The overall response rate was 67% for all patients, 67% for patients refractory to prior proteasome inhibitor treatment and 75% for patients refractory to prior immune modulating drug treatment. At a median follow up of 17 months, median progression-free survival was 7.7 months, median time to progression was 7.7 months, and median overall survival had not been reached. The regimen was well tolerated, although there were several panobinostat dose reductions. In conclusion, the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib is feasible and effective in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. (Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01496118).

Impact of Previous Somatostatin Analogue Use on the Activity of Everolimus in Patients with Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors: Analysis from the Phase III RADIANT-2 Trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The phase III placebo-controlled RADIANT-2 trial investigated the efficacy of everolimus plus octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NET) associated with carcinoid syndrome. Here we report a secondary analysis based on the previous somatostatin analogue (SSA) exposure status of patients enrolled in RADIANT-2. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral everolimus 10 mg/day plus octreotide LAR 30 mg intramuscularly (i.m.) or to receive matching placebo plus octreotide LAR 30 mg i.m. every 28 days. SSA treatment before study enrollment was permitted. Patient characteristics and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed by treatment arm and previous SSA exposure status. RESULTS: Of the 429 patients enrolled in RADIANT-2, 339 were previously exposed to SSA (95% received octreotide); 173 of 339 patients were in the everolimus plus octreotide LAR arm. All patients had a protocol-specified history of secretory symptoms, but analysis by type showed that more patients who previously received SSA therapy had a history of flushing symptoms (77%), diarrhea (86%), or both (63%) compared with SSA-naive patients (62, 62, and 24%, respectively). Patients who received everolimus plus octreotide LAR had longer median PFS regardless of previous SSA exposure (with: PFS 14.3 months, 95% confidence interval, CI, 12.0-20.1; without: 25.2 months, 95% CI, 12.0-not reached) compared with patients who received placebo plus octreotide LAR (with: 11.1 months, 95% CI, 8.4-14.6; without: 13.6 months, 95% CI, 8.2-22.7). CONCLUSION: Everolimus in combination with octreotide improves PFS in patients with advanced NET associated with carcinoid syndrome, regardless of previous SSA exposure.