Missing data strategies for the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Alliance A091105 and COMET-2.

PURPOSE: Missing scores complicate analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) because patients with and without missing scores may systematically differ. We focus on optimal analysis methods for incomplete PRO-CTCAE items, with application to two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials. METHODS: In Alliance A091105 and COMET-2, patients completed PRO-CTCAE items before randomization and several times post-randomization (N = 64 and 107, respectively). For each trial, we conducted between-arm comparisons on the PRO-CTCAE via complete-case two-sample t-tests, mixed modeling with contrast, and multiple imputation followed by two-sample t-tests. Because interest lies in whether CTCAE grades can inform missing PRO-CTCAE scores, we performed multiple imputation with and without CTCAE grades as auxiliary variables to assess the added benefit of including them in the imputation model relative to only including PRO-CTCAE scores across all cycles. RESULTS: PRO-CTCAE completion rates ranged from 100.0 to 71.4% and 100.0 to 77.1% across time in A091105 and COMET-2, respectively. In both trials, mixed modeling and multiple imputation provided the most similar estimates of the average treatment effects. Including CTCAE grades in the imputation model did not consistently narrow confidence intervals of the average treatment effects because correlations for the same PRO-CTCAE item between different cycles were generally stronger than correlations between each PRO-CTCAE item and its corresponding CTCAE grade at the same cycle. CONCLUSION: For between-arm comparisons, mixed modeling and multiple imputation are informative techniques for handling missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CTCAE grades do not provide added benefit for informing missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifiers: NCT02066181 (Alliance A091105); NCT01522443 (COMET-2).

Sorafenib for Advanced and Refractory Desmoid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Desmoid tumors (also referred to as aggressive fibromatosis) are connective tissue neoplasms that can arise in any anatomical location and infiltrate the mesentery, neurovascular structures, and visceral organs. There is no standard of care. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 87 patients with progressive, symptomatic, or recurrent desmoid tumors to receive either sorafenib (400-mg tablet once daily) or matching placebo. Crossover to the sorafenib group was permitted for patients in the placebo group who had disease progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; rates of objective response and adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 27.2 months, the 2-year progression-free survival rate was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69 to 96) in the sorafenib group and 36% (95% CI, 22 to 57) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.31; P<0.001). Before crossover, the objective response rate was 33% (95% CI, 20 to 48) in the sorafenib group and 20% (95% CI, 8 to 38) in the placebo group. The median time to an objective response among patients who had a response was 9.6 months (interquartile range, 6.6 to 16.7) in the sorafenib group and 13.3 months (interquartile range, 11.2 to 31.1) in the placebo group. The objective responses are ongoing. Among patients who received sorafenib, the most frequently reported adverse events were grade 1 or 2 events of rash (73%), fatigue (67%), hypertension (55%), and diarrhea (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with progressive, refractory, or symptomatic desmoid tumors, sorafenib significantly prolonged progression-free survival and induced durable responses. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02066181 .).

Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. METHODS: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). RESULTS: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. CONCLUSION: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab treatment for metastatic sarcoma (Alliance A091401): two open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic sarcoma have limited treatment options. Nivolumab and ipilimumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4, respectively. We investigated the activity and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic sarcoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 study that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older and had central pathology confirmation of sarcoma with at least one measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, evidence of metastatic, locally advanced or unresectable disease, an ECOG performance status of 0-1, and received at least one previous line of systemic therapy. Patients were assigned to treatment in an unblinded manner, as this trial was conducted as two independent, non-comparative phase 2 trials. Enrolled patients were assigned (1:1) via a dynamic allocation algorithm to intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. Thereafter, all patients received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma achieving a confirmed objective response. Analysis was per protocol. This study is ongoing although enrolment is closed. It is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02500797. FINDINGS: Between Aug 13, 2015, and March 17, 2016, 96 patients from 15 sites in the USA underwent central pathology review for eligibility and 85 eligible patients, including planned over-enrolment, were allocated to receive either nivolumab monotherapy (43 patients) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (42 patients). The primary endpoint analysis was done according to protocol specifications in the first 76 eligible patients (38 patients per group). The number of confirmed responses was two (5% [92% CI 1-16] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab group and six (16% [7-30] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (four [10%] patients), decreased lymphocyte count (three [7%]), and dehydration, increased lipase, pain, pleural effusion, respiratory failure, secondary benign neoplasm, and urinary tract obstruction (two [5%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab group and anaemia (eight [19%] patients), hypotension (four [10%] patients), and pain and urinary tract infection (three [7%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in eight (19%) of 42 patients receiving monotherapy and 11 (26%) of 42 patients receiving combination therapy, and included anaemia, anorexia, dehydration, decreased platelet count, diarrhoea, fatigue, fever, increased creatinine, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased aspartate aminotransferase, hyponatraemia, pain, pleural effusion, and pruritus. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab alone does not warrant further study in an unselected sarcoma population given the limited efficacy. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab demonstrated promising efficacy in certain sarcoma subtypes, with a manageable safety profile comparable to current available treatment options. The combination therapy met its predefined primary study endpoint; further evaluation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in a randomised study is warranted. FUNDING: Alliance Clinical Trials in Oncology, National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cycle for Survival.

North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0543 (Alliance): A phase 2 trial of pharmacogenetic-based dosing of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced small bowel adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin in combination with either 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine is commonly used as first-line therapy for patients with small bowel adenocarcinoma. The addition of irinotecan improves survival in other gastrointestinal tumors but at the cost of hematologic toxicity. The authors performed a phase 2 cooperative group study (North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0543, Alliance) using genotype-dosed capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (gCAPIRINOX), with dosing assigned based on UDP glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 (UGT1A1) genotype to test: 1) whether the addition of irinotecan would improve outcomes; and 2) whether UGT1A1 genotype-based dosing could optimize tolerability. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with advanced small bowel adenocarcinoma received irinotecan (day 1), oxaliplatin (day 1), and capecitabine (days 2-15) in a 21-day cycle and were dosed with gCAPIRINOX according to UGT1A1*28 genotypes (6/6, 6/7, and 7/7). RESULTS: A total of 33 patients (17 with the 6/6 genotype, 10 with the 6/7 genotype, and 6 with the 7/7 genotype) were enrolled from October 2007 to November 2013; 73% were male, with a mean age of 64 years (range, 41-77 years). Location of the primary tumor included the duodenum (58%), jejunum (30%), and ileum (9%). The regimen yielded a confirmed response rate of 37.5% (95% confidence interval, 21%-56%), with a median progression-free survival of 8.9 months and a median overall survival of 13.4 months. Neither hematologic toxicity (grade ≥3 in 52.9%, 30.0%, and 33.3%, respectively, of the 6/6, 6/7, and 7/7 genotype groups) nor tumor response rate (41.2%, 33%, and 33%, respectively) were found to differ significantly by UGT1A1 genotype. CONCLUSIONS: UGT1A1 genotype-directed dosing (gCAPIRINOX) appears to be feasible with favorable rates of hematologic toxicity compared with prior 3-drug studies in unselected patients. Larger studies would be needed to determine the regimen's comparability to oxaliplatin and capecitabine (CapeOx) alone or if response/toxicity differs among patients with different UGT1A1 genotypes. Cancer 2017;123:3494-501. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Phase 2 study of bevacizumab plus erlotinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are rational targets for therapy in hepatocellular cancer (HCC). METHODS: Patients with histologically proven HCC and not amenable to curative or liver directed therapy were included in this 2-stage phase 2 trial. Eligibility included an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 and Child's Pugh score of A or B, and 1 prior systemic therapy. Patients received erlotinib 150 mg daily and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 every 28 days. Objective tumor response was the primary end point. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with advanced HCC (median age, 60 years) were enrolled in this multi-institutional study. The proportion of patients with Child's A classification was 74%. One patient had a confirmed partial response and 11 (48%) achieved stable disease. Median time to disease progression was 3.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-7.1). Median survival time was 9.5 months (95% CI, 7.1-17.1). Grade 3 toxicities included rash, hypertension, fatigue, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, erlotinib combined with bevacizumab had minimal activity in patients with advanced HCC based on objective response and progression-free survival. The role of targeting EGFR and VEGF in HCC needs further evaluation in molecularly selected patients.

An international, multicenter phase II trial of bortezomib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: Bortezomib (PS-341, VELCADE®) is a selective inhibitor of the 26S proteasome, an integral component of the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. This phase II study evaluated the activity and tolerability of bortezomib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. METHODS: The primary endpoint was confirmed tumor response rate (RR) with secondary endpoints including duration of response, time to disease progression, survival and toxicity. Treatment consisted of bortezomib, 1.3 mg/m2 IV bolus on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each 21-day treatment cycle. Eligibility included: no prior systemic chemotherapy, ECOG PS 0-2, Child-Pugh A or B, preserved hematologic, hepatic and neurologic function; prior liver-directed therapy was permitted. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients enrolled and received a median of 2 cycles of treatment (range 1-12). Overall, 24 and 4 patients had a maximum severity of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), respectively. No treatment related deaths occurred. Only thrombocytopenia (11%) was seen in greater than 10% of patients. One patient achieved a partial response, lasting 13 weeks during treatment and progressed 11.6 months later; two patients received treatment for greater than 6 months. Median time-to-progression was 1.6 months and median survival was 6.0 months. CONCLUSIONS: This international, multicenter trial evaluated bortezomib as monotherapy in unresectable HCC patients. And, despite the lack of significant activity, this report serves as a baseline clinical experience for the development of future dual biologic approaches including bortezomib.

Effect of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab on survival among patients with resected stage III colon cancer: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is the standard adjuvant therapy for resected stage III colon cancer. Adding cetuximab to FOLFOX benefits patients with metastatic wild-type KRAS but not mutated KRAS colon cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential benefit of cetuximab added to the modified sixth version of the FOLFOX regimen (mFOLFOX6) in patients with resected stage III wild-type KRAS colon cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized trial of 2686 patients aged 18 years or older at multiple institutions across North America enrolled following resection and informed consent between February 10, 2004, and November 25, 2009. The primary randomized comparison was 12 biweekly cycles of mFOLFOX6 with and without cetuximab. KRAS mutation status was centrally determined. The trial was halted after a planned interim analysis of 48% of predicted events (246/515) occurring in 1863 (of 2070 planned) patients with tumors having wild-type KRAS. A total of 717 patients with mutated KRAS and 106 with indeterminate KRAS were accrued. The 2070 patients with wild-type KRAS provided 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 (2-sided α = .05), with planned interim efficacy analyses after 25%, 50%, and 75% of expected relapses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease-free survival in patients with wild-type KRAS mutations. Secondary end points included overall survival and toxicity. RESULTS: Median (range) follow-up was 28 (0-68) months. The trial demonstrated no benefit when adding cetuximab. Three-year disease-free survival for mFOLFOX6 alone was 74.6% vs 71.5% with the addition of cetuximab (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.98-1.49; P = .08) in patients with wild-type KRAS, and 67.1% vs 65.0% (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.46; P = .38) in patients with mutated KRAS, with no significant benefit in any subgroups assessed. Among all patients, grade 3 or higher adverse events (72.5% vs 52.3%; odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1-2.8; P < .001) and failure to complete 12 cycles (33% vs 23%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4-1.9; P < .001) were significantly higher with cetuximab. Increased toxicity and greater detrimental differences in all outcomes were observed in patients aged 70 years or older. CONCLUSION: Among patients with stage III resected colon cancer, the use of cetuximab with adjuvant mFOLFOX6 compared with mFOLFOX6 alone did not result in improved disease-free survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00079274.

A phase 2 study of temsirolimus (CCI-779) in patients with soft tissue sarcomas: a study of the Mayo phase 2 consortium (P2C).

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of this trial was to evaluate the confirmed response rate of temsirolimus (CCI-779), a mammalian target of rapamycin in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS). METHODS: Patients ≥18 years with measurable advanced STS, no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease (adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy allowed), adequate organ function, and performance status of ≤2 were eligible. After premedication with an antihistamine, CCI-779 was given intravenously at 25 mg over 30 minutes on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22, repeated every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. RESULTS: Between June 2004 and November 2005, a total of 41 patients were enrolled and began treatment; 40 patients are evaluable for response and adverse events. The median age was 62 years (range, 28-72 years) with 56% women. Eighty percent had high-grade STS, and 22% had prior adjuvant chemotherapy. There were 2 patients (5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-17) (undifferentiated fibrosarcoma and uterine leiomyosarcoma) who achieved a confirmed partial response lasting 3 and 17 months, respectively. Thirty-nine (95%) patients have progressed, with a median time to progression of 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.5). The median overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI, 6.1-15.9). Forty-three percent experienced grade 3+ adverse events that were possibly related to therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Temsirolimus in this patient population of STS had limited clinical activity and had moderate toxicities.

Adverse Event Burden Score-A Versatile Summary Measure for Cancer Clinical Trials.

This article introduces the adverse event (AE) burden score. The AE burden by treatment cycle is a weighted sum of all grades and AEs that the patient experienced in a cycle. The overall AE burden score is the total AE burden the patient experienced across all treatment cycles. AE data from two completed Alliance multi-center randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, with different AE profiles (NCCTG 97-24-51: 176 patients, and A091105: 83 patients), were utilized for illustration. Results of the AE burden score analyses corroborated the trials' primary results. In 97-24-51, the overall AE burden for patients on the treatment arm was 2.2 points higher than those on the placebo arm, with a higher AE burden for patients who went off treatment early due to AE. Similarly, in A091105, the overall AE burden was 1.6 points higher on the treatment arm. On the placebo arms, the AE burden in 97-24-51 remained constant over time; and increased in later cycles in A091105, likely attributable to the increase in disease morbidity. The AE burden score enables statistical comparisons analogous to other quantitative endpoints in clinical trials, and can readily accommodate different trial settings, diseases, and treatments, with diverse AE profiles.

RasGRP1 is a potential biomarker to stratify anti-EGFR therapy response in colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent neoplastic disorder and is a main cause of tumor-related mortality as many patients progress to stage IV metastatic CRC. Standard care consists of combination chemotherapy (FOLFIRI or FOLFOX). Patients with WT KRAS typing are eligible to receive anti-EGFR therapy combined with chemotherapy. Unfortunately, predicting efficacy of CRC anti-EGFR therapy has remained challenging. Here we uncover that the EGFR-pathway component RasGRP1 acts as CRC tumor suppressor in the context of aberrant Wnt signaling. We find that RasGRP1 suppresses EGF-driven proliferation of colonic epithelial organoids. Having established that RasGRP1 dosage levels impacts biology, we focused on CRC patients next. Mining five different data platforms, we establish that RasGRP1 expression levels decrease with CRC progression and predict poor clinical outcome of patients. Lastly, deletion of one or two Rasgrp1 alleles makes CRC spheroids more susceptible to EGFR inhibition. Retrospective analysis of the CALGB80203 clinical trial shows that addition of anti-EGFR therapy to chemotherapy significantly improves outcome for CRC patients when tumors express low RasGRP1 suppressor levels. In sum, RasGRP1 is a unique biomarker positioned in the EGFR pathway and of potential relevance to anti-EGFR therapy for CRC patients.

Challenges of conducting a prospective clinical trial for older patients: Lessons learned from NCCTG N0949 (alliance).

OBJECTIVES: While the risk of developing colorectal cancer increases with age, there are limited prospective data regarding best treatment in the older adult population. We launched a phase III trial to evaluate difference in treatment outcome for older adults (aged ≥70years) with advanced colorectal cancer. Here we review the challenges faced and reasons for poor accrual to N0949. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe the conceptualization, development and limited results of N0949, a randomized phase III study of fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab with or without oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX7 or XELOX) as first line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Fluoropyrimidine was physician choice (e.g., 5-FU/LV or capecitabine). RESULTS: Of the projected 380 patients, only 32 patients were enrolled between the study activation in January 2011 until its closure in September 2012. Reasons for poor accrual included eligibility criteria that were too stringent, discomfort with randomizing older patients to regimens of varying intensity without considering their physical fitness, and discomfort with the use of bevacizumab in the older patient population. Several efforts were mounted to design a rationale and age-appropriate study, consider toxicities and varying study practices, and be responsive to stakeholder feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges were experienced in conducting the first prospective phase III study evaluating progression-free survival of older adults with advanced colorectal cancer receiving palliative chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab with or without oxaliplatin in the USA. Future efforts to evaluate treatment outcomes in the older adult population should reflect on lessons learned in this large national effort.

Pemetrexed and oxaliplatin for metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a phase I Mayo Cancer Center Research Consortium trial, MC0248.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed, an antifolate involved in purine and pyrimidine formation, is a potential alternative to fluoropyrimidines in the treatment of colorectal cancer. A phase I trial was performed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pemetrexed and oxaliplatin when B(12) and folate supplementation is used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer received folate (> 350 microg) daily and vitamin B(12) (1000 microg) every 9 weeks starting 7 days before chemotherapy. Pemetrexed over 10 minutes and oxaliplatin over 2 hours were given every 3 weeks in escalating dose cohorts. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were entered on 6 dose levels. The MTD was established at the highest dose level, pemetrexed 900 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2). Toxicities related to treatment at the MTD included grade 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. For all dose levels combined, grade 3/4 toxicities included hematologic, neurologic, and gastrointestinal. Nine of 21 evaluable patients responded overall (response rate, 43%). The time to tumor progression was 11.9 months. CONCLUSION: The MTD was determined to be pemetrexed 900 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) every 21 days when folate and B (12) supplementation are used. Because of the observed tolerability and activity of this regimen, further evaluation is warranted.

Phase I/II Randomized Trial of Sorafenib and Bevacizumab as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial N0745 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis has been a major target of novel drug development in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is hypothesized that the combination of two antiangiogenic agents, sorafenib and bevacizumab, will provide greater blockade of angiogenesis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal dose, safety, and effectiveness of dual anti-angiogenic therapy with sorafenib and bevacizumab in patients with advanced HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic HCC not amenable for surgery or liver transplant were eligible. The phase I starting dose level was bevacizumab 1.25 mg/kg day 1 and 15 plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (BID) days 1-28. In the phase II portion, patients were randomized to receive bevacizumab and sorafenib at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or sorafenib 400 mg BID. RESULTS: Seventen patients were enrolled in the phase I component. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 hand/foot skin reaction, fatigue, hypertension, alanine/aspartate aminotransferase increase, dehydration, hypophosphatemia, creatinine increase, hypoglycemia, nausea/vomiting, and grade 4 hyponatremia. Seven patients were enrolled in the phase II component at the MTD: sorafenib 200 mg BID days 1-28 and bevacizumab 2.5 mg/kg every other week; 57% (4/7) had grade 3 AEs at least possibly related to treatment. No responses were observed in the phase II portion. Estimated median time to progression and survival were 8.6 months (95% CI: 0.4-16.3) and 13.3 months (95% CI 4.4 - not estimable), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of the combination is sorafenib 200 mg twice daily on days 1-28 plus bevacizumab 2.5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In the phase II portion of the trial, concerns regarding excessive toxicity, low efficacy, and slow enrollment led to discontinuation of the trial. (Clinical Trials ID: NCT00867321.).

Dealing with a deluge of data: an assessment of adverse event data on North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials.

PURPOSE: Adverse events (AEs) are monitored in clinical trials for patient safety, to satisfy reporting requirements, and develop safety profiles. Recently, much attention has been placed on the reporting of serious AEs (SAEs) that are either life threatening or lethal in clinical trials. However, SAEs comprise a small subset of all AE data collected for trials; the majority of AE data collected are routine AEs (RAEs) regarding non-life-threatening events. We assessed the utility of the RAE data collected, relative to the volume. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We surveyed the RAE data from 26 North Central Cancer Treatment Group coordinated trials. RESULTS: A total of 8,318 (11%) of 75,598 of RAEs required queries. Of these, 86% were protocol-required RAEs, 83% of RAEs required per protocol were within normal limits (eg, platelets) or not present, and 61% of extra AEs were mild. One fifth of RAEs were considered unlikely to be related or unrelated to treatment. Overall, 3% of events were severe, life threatening, or caused death. Only 1% of RAE data reported required expedited reporting (eg, via Adverse Event Expedited Reporting System). Results indicate that 72% of RAEs would be eliminated if only the maximum severity per patient and type were required. These results were validated in a large phase III trial. CONCLUSION: The majority of RAEs identified, transcribed, and entered are not clinically important. Our data suggest that reducing the number of AEs monitored will affect substantially neither overall patient safety nor compromise evaluation of regimens undergoing testing. We present several considerations for such a reduction in data collection, as well as a policy that we have used to address the deluge of RAE data.

Phase II study of Erlotinib (OSI-774) in patients with advanced hepatocellular cancer.

PURPOSE: Epidermal growth factor receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 1 (EGFR/HER1) and ligand expression is frequently seen in hepatocellular cancers (HCCs). Erlotinib (Tarceva, OSI-774; OSI Pharmaceuticals, Melville, NY) is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with specificity for the EGFR/HER1. METHODS: The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients with advanced HCC who were progression-free at 6 months. Patients with either unresectable or metastatic disease were studied. Only one prior systemic or locoregional therapy was allowed. Erlotinib was given continuously at a dose of 150 mg per day orally. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients with HCC were enrolled. Median age of the patients was 69 years (range, 27 to 83 years). A majority of patients (63%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1. Forty-seven percent of patients had received prior chemotherapy for advanced HCC. EGFR/HER1 expression was detected in 88% of the patients. Median number of cycles per patient was two (range, 1 to 26). Twelve (32%; CI 95%, 18 to 49) of the 38 patients with HCC were progression-free at 6 months. Three patients had partial radiologic responses of duration of 2, 10, and 11 months, respectively. Disease control was seen in 59% of the patients. Median overall survival time was 13 months. Ten patients (26%) had toxicity-related dose reductions of erlotinib. Grade 3/4 skin toxicity or diarrhea was encountered in five and three patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results of this trial suggest a benefit for EGFR/HER1 blockade with erlotinib in patients with HCC manifested by disease control. Additional studies with erlotinib as a single agent or in combination with other agents are warranted.

Evaluation of epothilone B analog in advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a phase II study of the phase II consortium.

PURPOSE: Epothilones are a new class of nontaxane tubulin polymerization agents that have activity in taxane-resistant tumors. Epothilone B (BMS-247550) is a semisynthetic analog of the natural product epothilone B. This study was performed to determine the activity of BMS-247550 in patients with soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) who had not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable, advanced, or metastatic STS with no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were treated with BMS-2457550 50 mg/m(2) intravenously during 1 hour every 21 days. All responses were confirmed 4 weeks later. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (median age, 54 years; range, 19 to 78 years; 48% female) were entered onto the trial and were assessable for response. All but one patient had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0% or 1%, and 39% had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy. Mean follow-up was 22 months, with a confirmed response rate of 6% (95% CI, 0% to 17%). Median time to progression was 4.5 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 8.3 months), and 1 year progression-free survival was 17% (95% CI, 8% to 38%). Median survival was 16.4 months, with a 1-year survival of 61% (95% CI, 46% to 81%). Toxicity was mainly hematologic, with eight of 31 (26%) patients experiencing grade 3 to 4 leukopenia; 15 of 31 patients (48%) experienced grade 3 to 4 neutropenia. The grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicities included neuropathies (26%), myalgia (13%), and fatigue (10%). CONCLUSION: BMS-247550 has limited activity against STSs when given in this dose and schedule. The clinical toxicity is similar to that of taxanes.

Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for patients with unresectable liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase II study.

PURPOSE: Surgical resection of liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer has undergone extensive evaluation and review. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to improve the likelihood of resection in disease that is not optimally resectable has not been as well studied. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer deemed not optimally resectable by a surgeon with expertise in liver surgery received fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4). Patients were periodically reassessed for resectability. Surgical response was classified as completely resectable (S-CR), partially resectable (S-PR), or unresectable (S-UR). Study design specified the accrual of 39 patients, with two or more S-CRs considered evidence of promising activity with respect to increasing the S-CR rate. RESULTS: Forty-two of 44 patients were assessable for this analysis. Twenty-five patients (60%) had tumor reduction by serial imaging. Seventeen patients (40%) underwent surgery (S-CR, n = 14; S-PR, n = 1; and S-UR, n = 2) after a median of 6 months of chemotherapy. With a median postsurgical follow-up of 22 months (range, 13 to 32 months), 11 recurrences have occurred in the 15 S-CR and S-PR patients. Median survival time was 26 months. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that FOLFOX4 has a high response rate (complete response, partial response, or reduction) in patients with liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer, allowing for successful resection of disease in a portion of patients initially not judged to be optimally resectable. However, a high recurrence rate after surgery was observed, which, in 73% of patients, involved the liver. Further trials are indicated based on the promising results observed in this trial.

Randomized clinical trial of high-dose levamisole combined with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin as surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Levamisole combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was previously shown to significantly reduce tumor relapses and improve patient survival when given postoperatively in patients with resected stage III colon cancer. Laboratory investigations subsequently documented a direct dose-dependent enhancement of 5-FU cytotoxicity with increasing concentrations of levamisole against human cancer cell lines. A clinical trial was designed to test the value of levamisole given at its maximum tolerated dose in combination with 5-FU-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight hundred seventy-eight patients who had undergone complete surgical resection of high-risk stage II/III colon cancer were stratified by known prognostic factors and randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatment regimens: standard-dose levamisole combined with 5-FU and leucovorin; or high-dose levamisole combined with the same chemotherapy. Serum neopterin was monitored in a cohort of patients to evaluate immune function. RESULTS: Severe vomiting and neurologic side effects required reduction in the dose of levamisole that could be safely administered on the high-dose levamisole regimen. There were no significant differences in disease-free survival, overall survival, or levels of serum neopterin between the treatment regimens. CONCLUSION: It was not possible to improve the efficacy of surgical adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk colon cancer by giving levamisole at its maximum tolerated dose in combination with 5-FU and leucovorin. High rates of severe gastrointestinal and neurologic side effects were observed with the high-dose levamisole regimen.