Randomized Phase II Trial of Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus or Placebo in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: Results of PrE0102.

Purpose The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus targets aberrant signaling through the PI3K/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, a mechanism of resistance to anti-estrogen therapy in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. We hypothesized that everolimus plus the selective ER downregulator fulvestrant would be more efficacious than fulvestrant alone in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study included 131 postmenopausal women with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, AI-resistant metastatic breast cancer randomly assigned to fulvestrant (500 mg days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, then day 1 of cycles 2 and beyond) plus everolimus or placebo. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a 70% improvement in median progression-free survival from 5.4 months to 9.2 months. Secondary end points included objective response and clinical benefit rate (response or stable disease for at least 24 weeks). Prophylactic corticosteroid mouth rinses were not used. Results The addition of everolimus to fulvestrant improved the median progression-free survival from 5.1 to 10.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.92]; stratified log-rank P = .02), indicating that the primary trial end point was met. Objective response rates were similar (18.2% v 12.3%; P = .47), but the clinical benefit rate was significantly higher in the everolimus arm (63.6% v 41.5%; P = .01). Adverse events of all grades occurred more often in the everolimus arm, including oral mucositis (53% v 12%), fatigue (42% v 22%), rash (38% v 5%), anemia (31% v. 6%), diarrhea (23% v 8%), hyperglycemia (19% v 5%), hypertriglyceridemia (17% v 3%), and pneumonitis (17% v 0%), although grade 3 to 4 events were uncommon. Conclusion Everolimus enhances the efficacy of fulvestrant in AI-resistant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

The value of combined-modality therapy in elderly patients with stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the value of combined-modality therapy in elderly patients by comparing the differences in outcome between patients who received radiotherapy (RT) alone and patients who received RT plus chemotherapy for stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The North Central Cancer Treatment Group performed 2 recent Phase III trials for stage III NSCLC. The first trial, NCCTG 90-24-51, included 3 arms: once-daily RT (QDRT) alone, twice-daily RT (BIDRT) alone, and concurrent chemotherapy plus BIDRT. The second trial, NCCTG 94-24-52, included 2 arms and compared concurrent chemotherapy with either QDRT or BIDRT. The chemotherapy arms of both trials included etoposide and cisplatin administered concurrently with RT. Only the patients aged >/=65 years (elderly) who participated in those trials were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Of the 166 elderly patients who were included in this analysis, 37 patients received RT alone, and 129 patients received concurrent chemotherapy plus RT. The median and 5-year survival rates were 10.5 months and 5.4% for the RT alone group compared with 13.7 months and 14.7% for the RT plus chemotherapy group (log-rank P = .05). Patients who received RT plus chemotherapy experienced significantly greater severe toxicity (grade >/=3) compared with patients who received RT alone (89.9% vs 32.4%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients who participated in these trials appeared to gain a survival advantage from RT and chemotherapy compared with RT alone. As is the case with younger patients, this benefit came at the cost of additional toxicity.

Smoking behavior of 226 patients with diagnosis of stage IIIA/IIIB non-small cell lung cancer.

There is limited research of smoking cessation following diagnosis of lung cancer. This prospective study assessed cigarette smoking behavior among 226 patients (142 males, 84 females) prior to, at the time of, and after the diagnosis of unresectable stage IIIA/IIIB non-small cell lung cancer and entry into a phase III trial examining combined thoracic radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Their mean +/-S.D. age was 62.7+/-9.4 years and 95.6% were Caucasian. Of 215 patients with a history of cigarette smoking, 69% (148/215) stopped smoking prior to entry in the trial, 9% (20/215) stopped smoking at some point during the course of the trial, 11% (24/215) continued smoking throughout the trial, 7% (16/215) were smoking at baseline but did not report subsequent smoking status, and smoking status at study entry was missing for the remaining patients. The majority of lung cancer patients were able to stop smoking. A notable subset of patients continued smoking despite diagnosis of lung cancer, enrollment in a clinical trial, treatment-related toxicity, and encouragement from clinicians to stop smoking. Smoking cessation interventions are needed for lung cancer patients who continue to smoke.

Phase III evaluation of fluoxetine for treatment of hot flashes.

PURPOSE: Hot flashes can be a prominent problem in women with a history of breast cancer. Given concerns regarding the use of hormonal therapies in such patients, other nonhormonal means for treating hot flashes are required. Based on anecdotal information regarding the efficacy of fluoxetine and other newer antidepressants for treating hot flashes, the present trial was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial used a double-blinded, randomized, two-period (4 weeks per period), cross-over methodology to study the efficacy of fluoxetine (20 mg/d) for treating hot flashes in women with a history of breast cancer or a concern regarding the use of estrogen (because of breast cancer risk). Eligible patients had to have reported that they averaged at least 14 hot flashes per week; they could have received tamoxifen or raloxifene as long as they were on a stable dose. The major outcome measure was a bivariate construct representing hot flash frequency and hot flash score, analyzed by a classic sums and differences cross-over analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one randomized women began protocol therapy. By the end of the first treatment period, hot flash scores (frequency x average severity) decreased 50% in the fluoxetine arm versus 36% in the placebo arm. Cross-over analysis demonstrated a significantly greater marked hot flash score improvement with fluoxetine than placebo (P =.02). The results were not adjusted for potential confounding influences, including age and tamoxifen use. The fluoxetine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This dose of fluoxetine resulted in a modest improvement in hot flashes.