A phase Ib trial of pembrolizumab plus paclitaxel or flat-dose capecitabine in 1st/2nd line metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Chemoimmunotherapy with anti-programmed cell death 1/ligand 1 and cytotoxic chemotherapy is a promising therapeutic modality for women with triple-negative breast cancer, but questions remain regarding optimal chemotherapy backbone and biomarkers for patient selection. We report final outcomes from a phase Ib trial evaluating pembrolizumab (200 mg IV every 3 weeks) with either weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 weekly) or flat-dose capecitabine (2000 mg orally twice daily for 7 days of every 14-day cycle) in the 1st/2nd line setting. The primary endpoint is safety (receipt of 2 cycles without grade III/IV toxicities requiring discontinuation or ≥21-day delays). The secondary endpoint is efficacy (week 12 objective response). Exploratory aims are to characterize immunologic effects of treatment over time, and to evaluate novel biomarkers. The trial demonstrates that both regimens meet the pre-specified safety endpoint (paclitaxel: 87%; capecitabine: 100%). Objective response rate is 29% for pembrolizumab/paclitaxel (n = 4/13, 95% CI: 10-61%) and 43% for pembrolizumab/capecitabine (n = 6/14, 95% CI: 18-71%). Partial responses are observed in two subjects with chemo-refractory metaplastic carcinoma (both in capecitabine arm). Both regimens are associated with significant peripheral leukocyte contraction over time. Response is associated with clinical PD-L1 score, non-receipt of prior chemotherapy, and the H&E stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte score, but also by a novel 27 gene IO score and spatial biomarkers (lymphocyte spatial skewness). In conclusion, pembrolizumab with paclitaxel or capecitabine is safe and clinically active. Both regimens are lymphodepleting, highlighting the competing immunostimulatory versus lymphotoxic effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Further exploration of the IO score and spatial TIL biomarkers is warranted. The clinical trial registration is NCT02734290.

A Phase Ib Study of Preoperative, Locoregional IRX-2 Cytokine Immunotherapy to Prime Immune Responses in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of preoperative locoregional cytokine therapy (IRX-2 regimen) in early-stage breast cancer, and to evaluate for intratumoral and peripheral immunomodulatory activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with stage I-III early-stage breast cancer (any histology type) indicated for surgical lumpectomy or mastectomy were enrolled to receive preoperative locoregional immunotherapy with the IRX-2 cytokine biological (2 mL subcutaneous × 10 days to periareolar skin). The regimen also included single-dose cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) on day 1 to deplete T-regulatory cells and oral indomethacin to modulate suppressive myeloid subpopulations. The primary objective was to evaluate feasibility (i.e., receipt of therapy without surgical delays or grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events). The secondary objective was to evaluate changes in stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte score. The exploratory objective was to identify candidate pharmacodynamic changes for future study using a variety of assays, including flow cytometry, RNA and T-cell receptor DNA sequencing, and multispectral immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Preoperative locoregional cytokine administration was feasible in 100% (n = 16/16) of subjects and associated with increases in stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (P < 0.001). Programmed death ligand 1 (CD274) was upregulated at the RNA (P < 0.01) and protein level [by Ventana PD-L1 (SP142) and immunofluorescence]. Other immunomodulatory effects included upregulation of RNA signatures of T-cell activation and recruitment and cyclophosphamide-related peripheral T-regulatory cell depletion. CONCLUSIONS: IRX-2 is safe in early-stage breast cancer. Potentially favorable immunomodulatory changes were observed, supporting further study of IRX-2 in early-stage breast cancer and other malignancies.

Radiation recall myelitis following paclitaxel chemotherapy: The first reported case.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of the spine has become an increasingly utilized modality in the United States, most commonly for metastatic disease (McClelland et al., 2017). Spinal SBRT in patients with spinal instrumentation has been sparsely examined. We report a patient who developed myelitis following spinal SBRT to a region with existing hardware. METHODS: A 55-year-old woman with Stage IV breast cancer developed a T4 vertebral body metastasis and underwent tumor debulking with posteriorly instrumented T3-T5 fusion. Postoperatively she proceeded with SBRT to the T3-T5 vertebral bodies, receiving 30 Gy in 6 Gy/fraction. Seven months later, she required paclitaxel chemotherapy (80 mg/m2 per cycle) for new liver metastases. RESULTS: Eight months following spine SBRT, four weeks after having started chemotherapy she developed intractable back pain and right lower extremity numbness which improved upon receiving steroids for weekly chemotherapy; the numbness subsequently spread to her left leg. Thoracic spine MRI revealed a 1.7 cm ovoid focus of T4-T5 spinal cord enhancement with extensive surrounding cord edema extending superiorly to C6-C7, consistent with radiation myelitis. Hyperbaric oxygen moderately improved her symptoms; fortunately, she never developed motor symptomatology or bowel/bladder dysfunction. Thorough re-evaluation of the original thoracic spine SBRT plan revealed no deviations from the standard of care, nor did re-planning with alternate treatment planning software demonstrate any significant difference in maximum cord dosage than the original plan. CONCLUSIONS: The timing of symptomatology related to chemotherapy administration is consistent with radiation recall myelitis, which has yet to be reported following SBRT. Given the potentially disastrous consequences of myelitis, patients with metastatic disease previously treated with spine SBRT may be susceptible to developing myelitis if treated with paclitaxel chemotherapy.

A pilot study of an autologous tumor-derived autophagosome vaccine with docetaxel in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tumor-derived autophagosome vaccines (DRibbles) have the potential to broaden immune response to poorly immunogenic tumors. METHODS: Autologous vaccine generated from tumor cells harvested from pleural effusions was administered to patients with advanced NSCLC with the objectives of assessing safety and immune response. Four patients were vaccinated and evaluable for immune response; each received two to four doses of vaccine. Study therapy included two cycles of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29 to treat the tumor, release hidden antigens and produce lymphopenia. DRibbles were to be administered intradermally on days 14, 43, 57, 71, and 85, together with GM-CSF (50 µg/d x 6d, administered via SQ mini pump). Peripheral blood was tested for immune parameters at baseline and at each vaccination. RESULTS: Three of four patients had tumor cells available for testing. Autologous tumor-specific immune response was seen in two of the three, manifested by IL-5 (1 patient after 3 doses), and IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-5, IL-10 (after 4 doses in one patient). All 4 patients had evidence of specific antibody responses against potential tumor antigens. All patients came off study after 4 or fewer vaccine treatments due to progression of disease. No significant immune toxicities were seen during the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: DRibble vaccine given with GM-CSF appeared safe and capable of inducing an immune response against tumor cells in this small, pilot study. There was no evidence of efficacy in this small poor-prognosis patient population, with treatment not feasible. Trial registration NCT00850785, initial registration date February 23, 2009.

Risk of Neutropenia-Related Hospitalization in Patients Who Received Colony-Stimulating Factors With Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

Purpose To describe outcomes after granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy regimens with low-to-intermediate risk of induction of neutropenia-related hospitalization. Patients and Methods We identified 8,745 patients age ≥ 18 years from a medical and pharmacy claims database for 14 commercial US health plans. This retrospective analysis included patients with breast cancer who began first-cycle chemotherapy from 2008 to 2013 using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC); docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH); or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (conventional-dose AC) regimens. Primary prophylaxis (PP) was defined as G-CSF administration within 5 days of beginning chemotherapy. Outcome was neutropenia, fever, or infection-related hospitalization within 21 days of initiating chemotherapy. Multivariable regressions and number-needed-to-treat analyses were used. Results A total of 4,815 patients received TC (2,849 PP; 1,966 no PP); 2,292 patients received TCH (1,444 PP; 848 no PP); and 1,638 patients received AC (857 PP; 781 no PP) regimen. PP was associated with reduced risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization for TC (2.0% PP; 7.1% no PP; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.39) and TCH (1.3% PP; 7.1% no PP; AOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.30), but not AC (4.7% PP; 3.8% no PP; AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.93) regimens. For the TC regimen, 20 patients (95% CI, 16 to 26) would have to be treated for 21 days to avoid one neutropenia-related hospitalization; with the TCH regimen, 18 patients (95% CI, 13 to 25) would have to be treated. Conclusion Primary G-CSF prophylaxis was associated with low-to-modest benefit in lowering neutropenia-related hospitalization in patients with breast cancer who received TC and TCH regimens. Further evaluation is needed to better understand which patients benefit most from G-CSF prophylaxis in this setting.

Defining High-Quality Palliative Care in Oncology Practice: An American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Guidance Statement.

PURPOSE: Integrated into routine oncology care, palliative care can improve symptom burden, quality of life, and patient and caregiver satisfaction. However, not all oncology practices have access to specialist palliative medicine. This project endeavored to define what constitutes high-quality primary palliative care as delivered by medical oncology practices. METHODS: An expert steering committee outlined 966 palliative care service items, in nine domains, each describing a candidate element of primary palliative care delivery for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden. Using modified Delphi methodology, 31 multidisciplinary panelists rated each service item on three constructs: importance, feasibility, and scope within medical oncology practice. RESULTS: Panelists endorsed the highest proportion of palliative care service items in the domains of End-of-Life Care (81%); Communication and Shared Decision Making (79%); and Advance Care Planning (78%). The lowest proportions were in Spiritual and Cultural Assessment and Management (35%) and Psychosocial Assessment and Management (39%). In the largest domain, Symptom Assessment and Management, there was consensus that all symptoms should be assessed and managed at a basic level, with more comprehensive management for common symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dyspnea, and pain. Within the Appropriate Palliative Care and Hospice Referral domain, there was consensus that oncology practices should be able to describe the difference between palliative care and hospice to patients and refer patients appropriately. CONCLUSION: This statement describes the elements comprising high-quality primary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden, as delivered by oncology practices. Oncology providers wishing to enhance palliative care delivery may find this information useful to inform operational changes and quality improvement efforts.

Clinical oncology practice 2015: preparing for the future.

The clinical practice of oncology has become increasingly complex. An explosion of medical knowledge, increased demands on provider time, and involved patients have changed the way many oncologists practice. What was an acceptable practice model in the past may now be relatively inefficient. This review covers three areas that address these changes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census defines who the U.S. oncology community is, and their perceptions of how practice patterns may be changing. The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-ASCO Teams in Cancer Care Project explores how best to employ team science to improve the efficiency and quality of cancer care in the United States. Finally, how physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) might be best integrated into team-based care in oncology and the barriers to integration are reviewed.

Results of the 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology National Oncology Census.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census (Census) provides a mechanism for ASCO to systematically gather and analyze information about current practice structures and potential changes at a time when practices are working to adapt to increasing administrative and financial pressures. The Census is conducted annually and reports on new and trending data. METHODS: The 2013 Census was launched on May 30, 2013, as a national survey of oncology practices. The survey required practices to answer 11 questions and provided additional optional questions. RESULTS: The Census collected 530 useable responses in 2013 compared with 632 respondents in 2012. Practices reporting in 2013, however, represented a total of 8,011 physicians compared with only 5,018 in 2012. CONCLUSION: The pace of policy change in oncology practice is changing the landscape of how practices are organized. A greater number of practices with more than seven physicians responded in 2013, which could indicate overall growth in the size of oncology practice. Practices reported increased affiliations with hospitals through a variety of contractual mechanisms. In subsequent census efforts, ASCO will have the capability to match 2013 respondents to future respondents, allowing for increased precision in comparison of longitudinal data.