Response to degarelix after resistance to luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.

Androgen deprivation with a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) agonist is the standard treatment for patients with metastatic prostate cancer who prefer nonsurgical options. Therapy with these agents is usually successful in achieving and maintaining castrate levels (< 50 ng/dl) of serum testosterone, but failures have been reported in up to 10% of patients. Traditionally, these patients are offered surgical castration with bilateral orchiectomy. However, the novel LH-RH antagonists may offer a nonsurgical alternative. We describe two patients with advanced prostate cancer who failed to achieve castrate levels of testosterone while on an LH-RH agonist, but subsequently responded to the LH-RH antagonist, degarelix. The first patient is a 63-year-old man who was treated with leuprolide for metastatic prostate cancer. He initially responded with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) that fell to 0.6 ng/ml. However, after 15 months of therapy, his PSA rose to 18.3 ng/ml and his testosterone was noted to be 208 ng/dl. He was switched to degarelix, and 4 weeks later his testosterone was adequately suppressed at 16 ng/dl. The second patient is a 41-year-old man with metastatic prostate cancer who was started on leuprolide, but after 3 months of therapy, was found to have a rising PSA and a testosterone of 96 ng/dl. Four weeks after switching to degarelix, his testosterone was 18 ng/dl and his PSA decreased concordantly. With continued monthly injections of degarelix, his testosterone has consistently remained to be at less than 20 ng/dl over 7 months of follow-up.

A Phase II Study of Telisotuzumab Vedotin in Patients With c-MET-positive Stage IV or Recurrent Squamous Cell Lung Cancer (LUNG-MAP Sub-study S1400K, NCT03574753).

INTRODUCTION: Lung-MAP S1400K was designed to evaluate the response to telisotuzumab vedotin, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting c-MET, in patients with c-MET-positive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously treated SCC with c-MET-positive tumors (H score ≥ 150, Ventana SP44 assay) were enrolled into 2 cohorts: Cohort 1 (immune checkpoint inhibitor-naive) and Cohort 2 (immune checkpoint inhibitor refractory). Telisotuzumab vedotin 2.7 mg/kg was administered intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response assessments were performed every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, response within cohort, duration of response, and toxicities. Interim analysis was planned after 20 evaluable patients, with ≥ 3 responses needed to continue enrollment. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (14% of screened patients) were assigned to S1400K, 28 patients enrolled (15 in Cohort 1 and 13 in Cohort 2), and 23 were eligible. S1400K closed on December 21, 2018 owing to lack of efficacy. Two responses (response rate of 9%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-20%) were reported in cohort 1 (1 complete and 1 unconfirmed partial response), whereas 10 patients had stable disease, with a disease control rate of 52%. The median overall and progression-free survival was 5.6 and 2.4 months, respectively. There were 3 grade 5 events (2 pneumonitis, in Cohort 2, and 1 bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, in Cohort 1). CONCLUSION: Telisotuzumab vedotin failed to meet the pre-specified response needed to justify continuing enrollment to S1400K. Pneumonitis was an unanticipated toxicity observed in patients with SCC.

A pilot study to evaluate symptom-oriented selection of antidepressants in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common and debilitating illness in patients with cancer. However, the optimal treatment of depression in these patients remains uncertain, with limited evidence to support the use of pharmacologic therapy. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of an antidepressant clinical trial in the oncology population and the process of symptom-oriented selection of antidepressants (citalopram or mirtazapine) in patients with cancer and MDD. METHODS: This was a single center, two-arm, nonrandomized, open-label, nine-week pilot study of mirtazapine or citalopram in cancer patients with MDD. The primary endpoint was the feasibility to recruit and to retain patients. Secondary outcomes included changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (depression), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) (quality of life), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) (fatigue), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (sleep). We conducted descriptive statistics and responder analyses. RESULTS: Of 21 patients, 18 (86%) successfully completed the study. An average of 2.8 subjects were enrolled per month. Mean scores on the PHQ-9 improved overall by 6.4 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6-9.2). Additionally, mean FACT-G, FACIT-Fatigue, and PSQI scores improved in both study arms. CONCLUSION: Conducting antidepressant clinical trials is challenging in the oncology population. We approached but did not meet our feasibility goals. Depression and quality of life (QOL) scores improved with both mirtazapine and citalopram, but evidence-based pharmacologic treatments for depression in cancer patients are needed.

Conducting an antidepressant clinical trial in oncology: challenges and strategies to address them.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report is to discuss the design of an antidepressant clinical trial and discuss the challenges and potential solutions to these challenges to successful recruitment of oncology patients for psychopharmacology trials. METHOD: We utilize meeting minutes and investigator discussions to identify the modifiable and nonmodifiable variables that affected successful subject recruitment for this study. RESULTS: No subjects were enrolled in our placebo-controlled antidepressant trial. After study modification to remove the placebo arm, we enrolled 21 subjects with depression and cancer. We identified the following recruitment difficulties during the study: diagnostic ambiguity in patients with depression and cancer, lowered subject retention in a medically ill population, patient reluctance to enroll in placebo-controlled studies and lack of a standardized referral processes for antidepressant studies in oncology at our institution. CONCLUSION: Our experience provides guidance on specific factors that future clinicians and researchers can consider when implementing psychopharmacologic trials in the medically ill.