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.

Genome-matched treatments and patient outcomes in the Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI).

Genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology aimed at identifying variants in tumors that can be targeted with genomically matched drugs. Due to limited resources, rural patients receiving care in community oncology settings may be less likely to benefit from GTT. We analyzed GTT results and observational clinical outcomes data from patients enrolled in the Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI), which provided access to GTTs; clinician educational resources; and genomic tumor boards in community practices in a predominantly rural state. 1603 adult cancer patients completed enrollment; 1258 had at least one potentially actionable variant identified. 206 (16.4%) patients received a total of 240 genome matched treatments, of those treatments, 64% were FDA-approved in the tumor type, 27% FDA-approved in a different tumor type and 9% were given on a clinical trial. Using Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting to adjust for baseline characteristics, a Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated that patients who received genome matched treatment were 31% less likely to die within 1 year compared to those who did not receive genome matched treatment (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.90; p-value: 0.006). Overall, GTT through this initiative resulted in levels of genome matched treatment that were similar to other initiatives, however, clinical trials represented a smaller share of treatments than previously reported, and "off-label" treatments represented a greater share. Although this was an observational study, we found evidence for a potential 1-year survival benefit for patients who received genome matched treatments. These findings suggest that when disseminated and implemented with a supportive infrastructure, GTT may benefit cancer patients in rural community oncology settings, with further work remaining on providing genome-matched clinical trials.

Improved Overall Survival of Patients with Pancreatic Cancer through Multiagent Chemotherapy and Increased Rates of Surgical Resection.

BACKGROUND: Seminal trials have demonstrated improved survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma with novel multiagent chemotherapy regimens. To understand the clinical ramifications of this paradigm shift, we reviewed our institutional experience. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized a prospective database at a single institution to study all patients diagnosed with and treated for pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2000 and 2020. RESULTS: 1,572 patients were included of which 36% were diagnosed before (Era 1) and 64% after (Era 2) 2011. Survival improved in Era 2 (Median survival 10 vs 8 months, HR .79; P < .001). The survival advantage for Era 2 was primarily seen in patients with high-risk disease (12 vs10 months, HR .71; P < .001). A similar trend was noted for patients undergoing surgical resection (26 vs 21 months, HR .80; P = .081) and with imminently resectable tumors (19 vs 15 months, HR .88; P = .4); however, this was not statistically significant. There was no survival advantage for patients with stage IV disease (4 vs 4 months). Patients in Era 2 were more likely to undergo surgery (OR 2.78; CI 2.00-3.92, P < .001). This increase was driven primarily by increased surgical resection for those with high-risk disease (42 vs 20%, OR 3.74; P < .001). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: This single institutional study showed improved survival after the shift to novel chemotherapy regimens. This was driven by improved survival for patients with high-risk disease and may be due to more effective eradication of microscopic metastatic disease with adjuvant chemotherapy and increased resection rates.

The Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative: Implementing a Community Cancer Genomics Program Across an Entire Rural State.

PURPOSE: The Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI) aimed to overcome patient- and provider-level barriers to using genomic tumor testing (GTT) in rural practices by providing genomic tumor boards (GTBs), clinician education, and access to comprehensive large-panel next-generation sequencing to all patients with cancer in Maine. This paper describes the successful implementation of the initiative and three key services made operative between 2016 and 2020. METHODS: A community-inclusive, hub-and-spoke approach was taken to implement the three program components: (1) a centralized GTB program; (2) a modular online education program, designed using an iterative approach with broad clinical stakeholders; and (3) GTT free of charge to clinicians and patients. Implementation timelines, participation metrics, and survey data were used to describe the rollout. RESULTS: The MCGI was launched over an 18-month period at all 19 oncology practices in the State. Seventy-nine physicians (66 medical oncologists, 5 gynecologic oncologists, 1 neuro-oncologist, and 7 pediatric oncologists) enrolled on the study, representing 100% of all practicing oncologists in Maine. Between July 2017 and September 2020, 1610 patients were enrolled. A total of 515 cases were discussed by 47 (73%) clinicians in 196 GTBs. Clinicians who participated in the GTBs enrolled significantly more patients on the study, stayed in Maine, and reported less time spent in clinical patient care. CONCLUSION: The MCGI was able to engage geographically and culturally disparate cancer care practices in a precision oncology program using a hub-and-spoke model. By facilitating access to GTT, structured education, and GTBs, we narrowed the gap in the implementation of precision oncology in one of the most rural states in the country.

A pilot study of adjuvant nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide, with trastuzumab in HER2-positive patients, in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer.

nab-Paclitaxel has shown favorable efficacy and toxicity profiles compared to other taxanes in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. In this pilot trial, we evaluated a nab-paclitaxel-containing adjuvant regimen in patients with early stage breast cancer. Patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative early-stage breast cancer were eligible following completion of standard primary therapy. All the patients received four cycles, at 21-day intervals, of nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 8, and 15) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m(2) IV day 1). HER2-positive patients also received trastuzumab 8 mg/kg IV on cycle 1 day 1, followed by 6 mg/kg every 21 days for a total of 52 weeks. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate feasibility and toxicity of this nab-paclitaxel-containing adjuvant regimen. 62 patients were treated between 2/08 and 11/08. The majority of the patients (87%) were HER2-negative. This adjuvant regimen was well tolerated, and full doses of all agents were administered in >90% of cycles. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 53% of the patients; however, only one episode of febrile neutropenia occurred in a total of 249 cycles administered. Other grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in less than 5% of patients. After short follow-up, all the patients remain alive and disease-free. The combination of nab-paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide, with or without trastuzumab, is feasible and well tolerated in patients with early stage breast cancer. Further investigation of the role of nab-paclitaxel in adjuvant breast cancer therapy is indicated, but definitive evaluation will require randomized phase III trials.

Sorafenib Plus Ixabepilone as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: A Sarah Cannon Research Institute Phase I/II Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purposes of the present phase I/II trial were (1) to define tolerable doses of ixabepilone and sorafenib when used in combination and (2) to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of this combination in the treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The eligible patients had human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative MBC and had not received previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. All patients received ixabepilone intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day treatment cycle; sorafenib was administered orally twice daily. Patients in phase II received the maximum doses identified in phase I. The patients were reevaluated after the completion of 3 treatment cycles; treatment continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. A total of 67 patients were required in phase II to demonstrate increased median progression-free survival from 4.2 to 6.2 months (90% power, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Ten patients entered the phase I portion; the maximum tolerated doses were ixabepilone 32 mg/m(2) and sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily. A total of 76 patients were treated at the phase II dose. The median progression-free survival was 4.8 months (95% confidence interval, 3.5-6.3 months). The overall response rate was 37%. The regimen was difficult to tolerate for many patients; 20 patients discontinued because of toxicity, and dose reductions were frequent. The common toxicities included neutropenia, fatigue, rash, and neuropathy. CONCLUSION: The combination of ixabepilone and sorafenib was poorly tolerated as first-line treatment of patients with MBC. The activity of the combination was similar to the activity previously reported with single-agent ixabepilone or taxanes. Further development of this combination is not recommended.

A phase II trial of dose-dense neoadjuvant gemcitabine, epirubicin, and albumin-bound paclitaxel with pegfilgrastim in the treatment of patients with locally advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant anthracycline/taxane combinations, with or without gemcitabine, produce pathologic complete responses (pCRs) in 15%-25% of patients. In this multicenter phase II study, we attempted to increase efficacy and decrease toxicity of a 3-drug gemcitabine-containing neoadjuvant regimen by administering dose-dense therapy with pegfilgrastim, and including albumin-bound paclitaxel as the taxane. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 123 patients with locally advanced breast cancer were enrolled. Patients were treated with 6 doses of neoadjuvant gemcitabine 2000 mg/m2, epirubicin 50 mg/m2, and albumin-bound paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 intravenously administered at 14-day intervals. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, patients underwent either mastectomy or breast conservation surgery; pathologic response to treatment was assessed. Postoperatively, patients received 4 doses of gemcitabine 2000 mg/m2 with albumin-bound paclitaxel 220 mg/m2 at 14-day intervals. Pegfilgrastim 6 mg was administered subcutaneously on day 2 following each dose of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients (95%) completed neoadjuvant chemotherapy and had subsequent surgical resection. Twenty-three patients (20%) had a pCR. The estimated 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rates were 48% and 86%, respectively. Neoadjuvant treatment was well tolerated; only 11% of the patients had grade 3/4 neutropenia, with 1 episode of neutropenic fever. Other grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in < 10% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant biweekly chemotherapy with gemcitabine/epirubicin/albumin-bound paclitaxel with pegfilgrastim is feasible and well tolerated. The pCR rate of 20% and the 3-year PFS rate of 48% are similar to results achieved with other commonly used neoadjuvant regimens.

Phase II study of cetuximab, docetaxel, and gemcitabine in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeting epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) has been a novel strategy in treating non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicenter, community-based trial was designed to examine the role of cetuximab in combination with a nonplatinum regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria were newly diagnosed unresectable stage III/IV NSCLC, all histologies, measurable disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2. Treatment premedication included dexamethasone 20 mg orally 12 and 6 hours before treatment, and 4 mg 12 hours following treatment; diphenhydramine 50 mg intravenously (I.V.) and cimetidine 300 mg I.V. before cetuximab. Treatment medication included docetaxel 30 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8; and cetuximab 400 mg/m2 I.V. day 1, then 250 mg/m2 I.V. weekly. Patients received up to 6 cycles with restaging every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was an overall response rate (ORR) > or = 25%. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients enrolled from July 2005 to October 2007. Patients had a median age of 69 years; 70% were male and 30% were female; ECOG PS was 0 in 42%, 1 in 51%, and 2 in 7%; patients had adenocarcinoma (42%), squamous cell (30%), large cell (6%), mixed (1%), and not otherwise specified (20%) disease. The ORR was 17% (95% CI, 9%-29%). Thirty-five patients (54%) had stable disease; 14 patients (22%) had progressive disease. With a median follow-up of 17.8 months, the median progression-free and overall survivals were 4 months and 9.4 months, respectively. The most common (> 10%) grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (25%), rash (22%), and fatigue (12%). Accrual in our middle Tennessee offices was temporarily suspended and ultimately stopped because of a higher-than-anticipated rate of cetuximab-related severe hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in 4 patients among the first 12 enrolled, including 1 fatal event. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab/docetaxel/gemcitabine was relatively well-tolerated and associated with efficacy similar to chemotherapy alone. Additional study with cetuximab/chemotherapy in NSCLC should focus on new potentially predictive biomarkers. Also, additional study is needed to better understand and prevent the severe HSRs that appear to be endemic to specific regions of the United States.