Cetuximab and Irinotecan With or Without Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: BOND-3, an ACCRU Network Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). CONCLUSION: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758.

Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) after adjuvant ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) compared to paclitaxel in combination with trastuzumab (TH) (TBCRC033: ATEMPT Trial).

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) is a surrogate for ovarian toxicity and associated risk of infertility and premature menopause. Here, we compare CRA rate with paclitaxel (T)-trastuzumab (H) to that with ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). METHODS: Patients with T1N0 HER2 + early-stage breast cancer (eBC) enrolled on the ATEMPT trial and were randomized 3:1 to T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every (q) 3 weeks (w) × 17 vs. T 80 mg/m2 with H IV qw × 12 (4 mg/kg load → 2 mg/kg), followed by H (6 mg/kg IV q3w × 13). Enrollees who self-reported as premenopausal were asked to complete menstrual surveys at baseline and every 6-12 months for 60 months. 18-month CRA (no periods reported during prior 6 months on 18-month survey) was the primary endpoint of this analysis. RESULTS: Of 512 ATEMPT enrollees, 123 who began protocol therapy and answered baseline and at least one follow-up menstrual survey were premenopausal at enrollment. 76 had menstrual data available at 18 months without having received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or undergone hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy. Median age was 45 (range 23-53) among 18 who had received TH and 46 (range 34-54) among 58 who had received T-DM1. The 18-month rate of CRA was 50% after TH and 24% after T-DM1 (p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Amenorrhea at 18 months was less likely in recipients of adjuvant T-DM1 than TH. Future studies are needed to understand how T-DM1 impacts risk of infertility and permanent menopause, and to assess amenorrhea rates when T-DM1 is administered after standard HER2-directed chemotherapy regimens.

Effect of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Body Composition among Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial.

Skeletal muscle and adipose tissue express the vitamin D receptor and may be a mechanism through which vitamin D supplementation slows cancer progression and reduces cancer death. In this exploratory analysis of a double-blind, multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial, 105 patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who were receiving chemotherapy were randomized to either high-dose vitamin D3 (4000 IU) or standard-dose (400 IU) vitamin D3. Body composition was measured with abdominal computed tomography at enrollment (baseline) and after cycle 8 of chemotherapy (16 weeks). As compared with standard-dose vitamin D3, high-dose vitamin D3 did not significantly change body weight [-0.7 kg; (95% CI: -3.5, 2.0)], body mass index [-0.2 kg/m2; (95% CI: -1.2, 0.7)], muscle area [-1.7 cm2; (95% CI: -9.6, 6.3)], muscle attenuation [-0.4 HU; (95% CI: -4.2, 3.2)], visceral adipose tissue area [-7.5 cm2; (95% CI: -24.5, 9.6)], or subcutaneous adipose tissue area [-8.3 cm2; (95% CI: -35.5, 18.9)] over the first 8 cycles of chemotherapy. Among patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, the addition of high-dose vitamin D3, vs standard-dose vitamin D3, to standard chemotherapy did not result in any changes in body composition.

Effect of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Progression-Free Survival Among Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The SUNSHINE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In observational studies, higher plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels have been associated with improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Objective: To determine if high-dose vitamin D3 added to standard chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic CRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind phase 2 randomized clinical trial of 139 patients with advanced or metastatic CRC conducted at 11 US academic and community cancer centers from March 2012 through November 2016 (database lock: September 2018). Interventions: mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab chemotherapy every 2 weeks and either high-dose vitamin D3 (n = 69) or standard-dose vitamin D3 (n = 70) daily until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by the log-rank test and a supportive Cox proportional hazards model. Testing was 1-sided. Secondary end points included tumor objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and change in plasma 25(OH)D level. Results: Among 139 patients (mean age, 56 years; 60 [43%] women) who completed or discontinued chemotherapy and vitamin D3 (median follow-up, 22.9 months), the median PFS for high-dose vitamin D3 was 13.0 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 14.7; 49 PFS events) vs 11.0 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 14.0; 62 PFS events) for standard-dose vitamin D3 (log-rank P = .07); multivariable hazard ratio for PFS or death was 0.64 (1-sided 95% CI, 0 to 0.90; P = .02). There were no significant differences between high-dose and standard-dose vitamin D3 for tumor ORR (58% vs 63%, respectively; difference, -5% [95% CI, -20% to 100%], P = .27) or OS (median, 24.3 months vs 24.3 months; log-rank P = .43). The median 25(OH)D level at baseline for high-dose vitamin D3 was 16.1 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL for standard-dose vitamin D3 (difference, -2.6 ng/mL [95% CI, -6.6 to 1.4], P = .30); at first restaging, 32.0 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL (difference, 12.8 ng/mL [95% CI, 9.0 to 16.6], P < .001); at second restaging, 35.2 ng/mL vs 18.5 ng/mL (difference, 16.7 ng/mL [95% CI, 10.9 to 22.5], P < .001); and at treatment discontinuation, 34.8 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL (difference, 16.2 ng/mL [95% CI, 9.9 to 22.4], P < .001). The most common grade 3 and higher adverse events for chemotherapy plus high-dose vs standard-dose vitamin D3 were neutropenia (n = 24 [35%] vs n = 21 [31%], respectively) and hypertension (n = 9 [13%] vs n = 11 [16%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with metastatic CRC, addition of high-dose vitamin D3, vs standard-dose vitamin D3, to standard chemotherapy resulted in a difference in median PFS that was not statistically significant, but with a significantly improved supportive hazard ratio. These findings warrant further evaluation in a larger multicenter randomized clinical trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01516216.

Feasibility Assessment of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

Molecular Heterogeneity and Response to Neoadjuvant Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Targeting in CALGB 40601, a Randomized Phase III Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Trastuzumab With or Without Lapatinib.

PURPOSE: Dual human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting can increase pathologic complete response rates (pCRs) to neoadjuvant therapy and improve progression-free survival in metastatic disease. CALGB 40601 examined the impact of dual HER2 blockade consisting of trastuzumab and lapatinib added to paclitaxel, considering tumor and microenvironment molecular features. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage II to III HER2-positive breast cancer underwent tumor biopsy followed by random assignment to paclitaxel plus trastuzumab alone (TH) or with the addition of lapatinib (THL) for 16 weeks before surgery. An investigational arm of paclitaxel plus lapatinib (TL) was closed early. The primary end point was pCR in the breast; correlative end points focused on molecular features identified by gene expression-based assays. RESULTS: Among 305 randomly assigned patients (THL, n = 118; TH, n = 120; TL, n = 67), the pCR rate was 56% (95% CI, 47% to 65%) with THL and 46% (95% CI, 37% to 55%) with TH (P = .13), with no effect of dual therapy in the hormone receptor-positive subset but a significant increase in pCR with dual therapy in those with hormone receptor-negative disease (P = .01). The tumors were molecularly heterogeneous by gene expression analysis using mRNA sequencing (mRNAseq). pCR rates significantly differed by intrinsic subtype (HER2 enriched, 70%; luminal A, 34%; luminal B, 36%; P < .001). In multivariable analysis treatment arm, intrinsic subtype, HER2 amplicon gene expression, p53 mutation signature, and immune cell signatures were independently associated with pCR. Post-treatment residual disease was largely luminal A (69%). CONCLUSION: pCR to dual HER2-targeted therapy was not significantly higher than single HER2 targeting. Tissue analysis demonstrated a high degree of intertumoral heterogeneity with respect to both tumor genomics and tumor microenvironment that significantly affected pCR rates. These factors should be considered when interpreting and designing trials in HER2-positive disease.

Assessment of perceived cost to the patient and other barriers to clinical trial participation.

PURPOSE: Less than 5% of patients with cancer participate in trials. Few studies have specifically addressed the role of cost to the patient as an influence on trial participation. Our main purpose was to determine the importance of added cost as a barrier to clinical trial participation in the community setting. Our secondary goal was to determine the most prevalent barriers to trial participation for patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four community practices in New England issued surveys to consecutive cohorts of patients with cancer. Patients were assessed for eligibility for clinical trials at their practice site. Trial-eligible patients who declined participation were asked to select reasons that contributed to their decision. RESULTS: Surveys were issued to 1,755 patients. Seventy-one percent of all trial-eligible patients returned surveys. Forty-four percent of nonparticipating trial-eligible patients did not recall hearing about clinical trials from their provider. The most common reasons cited by trial-eligible patients for declining trial participation were fear of adverse effects (50%) and discomfort with random assignment (44%). Twenty-eight percent cited concerns about added cost, and 12% noted cost as the most important factor in their decision. CONCLUSION: Concerns about adverse effects and random assignment were the most common reasons cited by patients declining trial participation in four community oncology practices in New England. Cost considerations were important for a significant proportion of these patients. Many patients eligible for trial participation were not informed by their provider about the availability of research trials.