Results of a Phase Ib Study Investigating Durvalumab in Combination with Eribulin in Patients with HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer and Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The release of tumor-associated antigens with cytotoxic chemotherapy treatment may enhance the response to immune checkpoint blockade. Eribulin is a microtubule inhibitor with proven overall survival (OS) benefit in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), which may also enhance intratumoral vascular remodeling. Durvalumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, targets the programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) receptor. This study sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of eribulin in combination with durvalumab, as well as the safety and preliminary antitumor activity of the combination in patients with previously treated HER2-negative (HER2-) MBC and recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). METHODS: Cohorts of 3-6 patients with HER2- MBC and ROC were treated in a modified 3+3 design. Eligible patients received escalating doses of eribulin (1.1 mg/m2 or 1.4 mg/m2 IV on day 1 and day 8) with durvalumab (1.12 g IV on day 1) in 21-day cycles until dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), intolerable adverse events (AEs), disease progression, or other reasons for withdrawal. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: the rate of DLTs during cycles 1 and 2 of therapy. Secondary endpoints: AE rate, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. RESULTS: Nine patients with a median of 4 prior therapies for advanced disease were treated: 5 patients with HER2- MBC (1 with triple-negative disease and 4 with hormone-positive disease) and 4 patients with ROC. The RP2D of eribulin was 1.4 mg/m2 in combination with durvalumab. There were no DLTs experienced during the first two cycles of therapy. The most common treatment-related AEs (>50%) were fatigue, neutropenia, decreased white blood cell count, anemia, AST and alkaline phosphatase elevation, hyperglycemia, and nausea; most were grade 1 or 2. There was one immune-related AE of grade 3 (hepatitis) after 5 cycles of treatment, for which patient came off study. Two other patients discontinued study drug related to toxicity (neutropenia [n = 1], hepatic toxicity [n = 1]). ORR was 55%, and 4 additional patients experienced stable disease. All MBC patients exhibited a response to therapy. Median PFS was 6.2 months. Median OS was 15.0 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of eribulin at a dose of 1.4 mg/m2 with standard dose durvalumab had a favorable AE profile in patients with previously treated HER2- MBC and ROC. The early antitumor activity observed in all MBC patients enrolled in the study suggests that further investigation of this combination is warranted.

Benefits of an Early Mobility Program for Hospitalized Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are often hospitalized with complications from cancer and cancer treatment. Many experience a decline in physical functioning, including loss of mobility, which likely contributes to increased length of stay (LOS) and increased readmissions. We aimed to determine whether a mobility program would improve quality of care and decrease health care utilization. METHODS: We implemented a mobility aide program on an oncology unit in a large academic medical center for all patients without bedrest orders between October 1, 2018, and February 28, 2021. The program consisted of nursing evaluation using the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AMPAC), an ordinal scale ranging from bed rest to ambulating ≥ 250 feet, to quantify mobility. Plan of care was determined in a multidisciplinary manner with physical therapy (PT), nursing, and a mobility aide, who is a medical assistant with enhanced rehabilitation training. Patients were then mobilized two times per day 7 days a week. Using descriptive statistics and mixed effects logistic regression, we evaluated the programs impact on LOS, readmissions, and changes in mobility during this time period compared with the 6-month interval before implementation. RESULTS: A total of 1,496 hospitalized patients were identified. The odds of hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge was significantly less for those who received the intervention (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.78; P = .001). The odds ratio (OR) of having a final AMPAC score at or above the median was significantly higher for those who received the intervention (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.45; P < .05). There was no significant difference in LOS. CONCLUSION: Use of this mobility program resulted in a significant decrease in readmissions and maintained or improved patients' mobility. This demonstrates that non-PT professionals can effectively mobilize hospitalized patients with cancer, thereby decreasing the burden on PT and nursing resources. Future work will evaluate the sustainability of the program and evaluate association with health care costs.

Life-Threatening Myositis in a Patient With EGFR-Mutated NSCLC on Osimertinib: Case Report.

Osimertinib is the standard of care for the first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated NSCLC. We report a case of a 52-year-old woman who developed life-threatening myopathy because of treatment with osimertinib. Limited instances of myositis have been previously reported in the literature; however, none have resulted in life-threatening oropharyngeal and respiratory muscle weakness as seen in this case. Care should be taken in administering osimertinib concurrently with other medications metabolized by the CYP3A4 system, and ongoing work to identify patients at risk for severe reactions is necessary. The use of routine creatinine phosphokinase monitoring should be considered as part of oncologic management.

Upgrading the Chemotherapy Consent: Trading in Paper for Tablet.

PURPOSE: Our institution participated in the Oncology Care Model, which required us to include many of the 13 elements of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) care plan into care pathways for our patients. We optimized our existing chemotherapy consent process to meet this need and maximized completion. METHODS: Our multidisciplinary committee developed a three-phase Plan-Do-Study-Act process in our breast cancer clinic: (1) update and educate providers on our paper chemotherapy form with multiple components of the NAM care plan including prognosis and treatment effects on quality of life; (2) piloted an electronic chemotherapy consent form to decrease the administrative burden; and (3) autopopulated fields within the electronic consent. We assessed feedback after cycle 1 and created a Pareto chart. The outcome measure was percent completion of chemotherapy consent documents. RESULTS: Baseline monthly random chart audit of 40 patients revealed 20% of paper chemotherapy consent forms were completed in their entirety among patients. When we re-educated clinicians about the new paper consent containing the NAM elements, compliance rose to nearly 30%. A Pareto chart confirmed that content redundancy and wordiness were leading to under-completion. After creating and piloting the electronic consent, compliance increased to 90%. Finally, autopopulation with drop-down selections increased and sustained completion to 100%. CONCLUSION: Incorporating regulatory requirements into an existing workflow using Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology can reduce administrative burden on clinicians. Additional use of innovative technology can further increase clinician compliance with regulatory requirements while delivering high-value quality care to patients with cancer.

A personalized platform identifies trametinib plus zoledronate for a patient with KRAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer remains a leading source of cancer mortality worldwide. Initial response is often followed by emergent resistance that is poorly responsive to targeted therapies, reflecting currently undruggable cancer drivers such as KRAS and overall genomic complexity. Here, we report a novel approach to developing a personalized therapy for a patient with treatment-resistant metastatic KRAS-mutant colorectal cancer. An extensive genomic analysis of the tumor's genomic landscape identified nine key drivers. A transgenic model that altered orthologs of these nine genes in the Drosophila hindgut was developed; a robotics-based screen using this platform identified trametinib plus zoledronate as a candidate treatment combination. Treating the patient led to a significant response: Target and nontarget lesions displayed a strong partial response and remained stable for 11 months. By addressing a disease's genomic complexity, this personalized approach may provide an alternative treatment option for recalcitrant disease such as KRAS-mutant colorectal cancer.

Management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever.

Fever occurs at high rates in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and is considered an oncologic emergency. Numerous algorithms have been developed to guide treatment decisions. Prompt care and the initiation of empiric antibiotic therapy are critically important universal aspects of these treatment-decision schemata. Fever may be the only sign of infection, as in patients with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy, the immune response is attenuated. In the majority of cases, no etiology for neutropenic fever is uncovered; nonetheless, a thorough workup is essential. The workup allows practitioners to risk stratify patients as being at low or high risk for infectious complications so that appropriate care can be administered. Although it is important to note that there are management algorithms to follow, every patient may present and respond differently. We generally start with broad-spectrum monotherapy for Gram-negative bacteria and then consider whether Gram-positive or antifungal coverage is necessary based on the clinical picture, including factors such as duration and degree of neutropenia. It is important for all practitioners to understand how to care for patients with neutropenic fever because it is a common and treatable condition.