Comparison of SP263 and 22C3 immunohistochemistry PD-L1 assays for clinical efficacy of adjuvant atezolizumab in non-small cell lung cancer: results from the randomized phase III IMpower010 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumor samples from the phase III IMpower010 study were used to compare two programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry assays (VENTANA SP263 and Dako 22C3) for identification of PD-L1 patient subgroups (negative, positive, low, and high expression) and their predictive value for adjuvant atezolizumab compared with best supportive care (BSC) in resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: PD-L1 expression was assessed by the SP263 assay, which measured the percentage of tumor cells with any membranous PD-L1 staining, and the 22C3 assay, which scored the percentage of viable tumor cells showing partial or complete membranous PD-L1 staining. RESULTS: When examining the concordance at the PD-L1-positive threshold (SP263: tumor cell (TC)≥1%; 22C3: tumor proportion score (TPS)≥1%), the results were concordant between assays for 83% of the samples. Similarly, at the PD-L1-high cut-off (SP263: TC≥50%; 22C3: TPS≥50%), the results were concordant between assays for 92% of samples. The disease-free survival benefit of atezolizumab over BSC was comparable between assays for PD-L1-positive (TC≥1% by SP263: HR, 0.58 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.85) vs TPS≥1% by 22C3: HR, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.95)) and PD-L1-high (TC≥50% by SP263: HR, 0.27 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.53) vs TPS≥50% by 22C3: HR, 0.31 (95% CI: 0.16 to 0.60)) subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The SP263 and 22C3 assays showed high concordance and a comparable clinical predictive value of atezolizumab at validated PD-L1 thresholds, suggesting that both assays can identify patients with early-stage NSCLC most likely to experience benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02486718.

Erlotinib Plus Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and there have been no improvements in survival since the introduction of gemcitabine in 1996. Pancreatic tumors often overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor type 1 (HER1/EGFR) and this is associated with a worse prognosis. We studied the effects of adding the HER1/EGFR-targeted agent erlotinib to gemcitabine in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard gemcitabine plus erlotinib (100 or 150 mg/d orally) or gemcitabine plus placebo in a double-blind, international phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 569 patients were randomly assigned. Overall survival based on an intent-to-treat analysis was significantly prolonged on the erlotinib/gemcitabine arm with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .038, adjusted for stratification factors; median 6.24 months v 5.91 months). One-year survival was also greater with erlotinib plus gemcitabine (23% v 17%; P = .023). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with erlotinib plus gemcitabine with an estimated HR of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92; P = .004). Objective response rates were not significantly different between the arms, although more patients on erlotinib had disease stabilization. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with erlotinib plus gemcitabine, but most were grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this randomized phase III trial is the first to demonstrate statistically significantly improved survival in advanced pancreatic cancer by adding any agent to gemcitabine. The recommended dose of erlotinib with gemcitabine for this indication is 100 mg/d.

NRG Oncology/RTOG1205: A Randomized Phase II Trial of Concurrent Bevacizumab and Reirradiation Versus Bevacizumab Alone as Treatment for Recurrent Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: To assess whether reirradiation (re-RT) and concurrent bevacizumab (BEV) improve overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS), compared with BEV alone in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). The primary objective was OS, and secondary objectives included PFS, response rate, and treatment adverse events (AEs) including delayed CNS toxicities. METHODS: NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is a prospective, phase II, randomized trial of re-RT and BEV versus BEV alone. Stratification factors included age, resection, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS). Patients with recurrent GBM with imaging evidence of tumor progression ≥ 6 months from completion of prior chemo-RT were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to re-RT, 35 Gy in 10 fractions, with concurrent BEV IV 10 mg/kg once in every 2 weeks or BEV alone until progression. RESULTS: From December 2012 to April 2016, 182 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 170 were eligible. Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms. The median follow-up for censored patients was 12.8 months. There was no improvement in OS for BEV + RT, hazard ratio, 0.98; 80% CI, 0.79 to 1.23; P = .46; the median survival time was 10.1 versus 9.7 months for BEV + RT versus BEV alone. The median PFS for BEV + RT was 7.1 versus 3.8 months for BEV, hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.0; P = .05. The 6-month PFS rate improved from 29.1% (95% CI, 19.1 to 39.1) for BEV to 54.3% (95% CI, 43.5 to 65.1) for BEV + RT, P = .001. Treatment was well tolerated. There were a 5% rate of acute grade 3+ treatment-related AEs and no delayed high-grade AEs. Most patients died of recurrent GBM. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is the first prospective, randomized multi-institutional study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of re-RT in recurrent GBM using modern RT techniques. Overall, re-RT was shown to be safe and well tolerated. BEV + RT demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, specifically the 6-month PFS rate but no difference in OS.

Phase 1/2 study of epacadostat in combination with durvalumab in patients with metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO1) pathways is an appealing option for cancer treatment. METHODS: The open-label, phase 1/2 ECHO-203 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the IDO1 inhibitor epacadostat in combination with durvalumab, a human anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. RESULTS: The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (30.7%), nausea (21.0%), decreased appetite (13.1%), pruritus (12.5%), maculopapular rash (10.8%), and diarrhea (10.2%). Objective response rate (ORR) in the overall phase 2 population was 12.0%. Higher ORR was observed in immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-naïve patients (16.1%) compared with patients who had received previous CPI (4.1%). Epacadostat pharmacodynamics were evaluated by comparing baseline kynurenine levels with those on therapy at various time points. Only the 300-mg epacadostat dose showed evidence of kynurenine modulation, albeit unsustained. CONCLUSIONS: Epacadostat plus durvalumab was generally well tolerated in patients with advanced solid tumors. ORR was low, and evaluation of kynurenine concentration from baseline to cycle 2, day 1, and cycle 5, day 1, suggested >300 mg epacadostat twice daily is needed to ensure sufficient drug effect. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: A study of epacadostat (INCB024360) in combination with durvalumab (MEDI4736) in subjects with selected advanced solid tumors (ECHO-203) (NCT02318277).

Definitive results of a phase III adjuvant trial comparing six cycles of FEC-100 to four cycles of AC in women with operable node-negative breast cancer: the NSABP B-36 trial (NRG Oncology).

PURPOSE: Results from adjuvant trials evaluating 6 cycles of epirubicin-based chemotherapy regimens suggested these programs may be more effective than 4 cycles of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. METHOD: NSABP B-36 was a phase III clinical trial originally designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study comparing 6 cycles of 5-FU, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-100) to 4 cycles of conventional doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with celecoxib or placebo. Shortly after activation, concerns regarding increased cardiovascular risks among selective COX-2 inhibitors resulted in a decision to remove the celecoxib/placebo from the trial. Women with histologically node-negative invasive breast cancer who had undergone primary surgery with a lumpectomy or total mastectomy were eligible. Primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Between May 2004 and July 2008, 2722 patients were enrolled. Administration of FEC-100 did not result in improvement in DFS compared to AC (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.92-1.29, p value = 0.31). The effect of FEC-100 compared to AC on DFS was significantly different for receptor-positive (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66) compared to receptor-negative patients (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66-1.11) (treatment-by-receptor status interaction p value = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in the effect of treatment on overall survival (OS) with FEC-100 compared to AC (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.84-1.35, p value = 0.61). Overall, Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more frequent in the FEC-100 group. CONCLUSION: The results of B-36 do not support use of six-cycle anthracycline-based regimens in node-negative breast cancer. Prolongation of anthracycline-based therapy with FEC-100 does not improve DFS or OS, relative to AC for 4 cycles, and was associated with expected increases in toxicity. A statistically significant interaction between treatment and hormone receptor status favoring AC in hormone-receptor-positive breast cancers is consistent with the hypothesis that optimal duration of chemotherapy may be four cycles in these patients. Late cardiac events and deaths prior to recurrence or second cancer were infrequent on both arms, but slightly higher with FEC-100. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00087178.

Behavioral and health outcomes from the NRG Oncology/NSABP B-36 trial comparing two different adjuvant therapy regimens for early-stage node-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The NSABP B-36 compared four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with six cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-100) in node-negative early-stage breast cancer. A sub-study within B-36, focusing on symptoms, quality of life (QOL), menstrual history (MH), and cardiac function (CF) was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients completed the QOL questionnaire at baseline, during treatment, and every 6 months through 36 months. FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (TOI), symptom severity, and SF-36 Vitality and Physical Functioning (PF) scales scores were compared between the two groups using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis. MH was collected at baseline and subsequently assessed if menstrual bleeding occurred within 12 months prior to randomization. Post-chemotherapy amenorrhea outcome was examined at 18 months and was defined as lack of menses in the preceding year. Logistic regression was used to test for association of amenorrhea and treatment. CF assessment was done at baseline and 12 months. Correlation analysis was used to address associations between changes in baseline and 12-month PF and concurrent CF changes measured by LVEF. RESULTS: FEC-100 patients had statistically significantly lower TOI scores during chemotherapy (P = 0.02) and at 6 months (P < 0.001); lower Vitality score at 6 months (P < 0.01), and lower PF score during the first year than AC patients. There were no statistically significant QOL score differences between the two groups beyond 12 months. No significant differences in symptom severity between the two groups were observed. Rates of amenorrhea were significantly different between FEC-100 and AC (67.4% vs. 59.1%, P < 0.001). There was no association between changes in LVEF and PF (P = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant QOL differences between the two groups favored AC; however, the magnitude was small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. There was a clinical and statistically significant difference in risk for amenorrhea, favoring AC. TRIAL REGISTRY: NCT00087178; Date of registration: 07/08/2004.

A phase 1b trial of concurrent immunotherapy and irreversible electroporation in the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Combining immune checkpoint blockade therapy with operative disruptive immunomodulation using irreversible electroporation may overcome the resistance to systemic therapy found in patients with locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer. We describe the safety profile and efficacy of IRE with nivolumab. METHODS: In the preclinical phase of study, human pancreatic cell lines were cultured with interferon-γ (10 ng/mL) and murine models of pancreatic cancer were treated with irreversible electroporation and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression was measured. In this phase 1b clinical trial (NCT03080974), surgical ablative irreversible electroporation was performed followed by nivolumab. The primary end point was dose-limiting toxicity. RESULTS: Human pancreatic cells express PD-L1 when cultured with interferon-γ: quantitative polymerase chain reaction MiaPaca (15.2 rel. fold ± 0.5; P < .01) and S20-13 (31.0 rel. fold ± 4.4; P < .01). Murine orthotopic tumors treated by irreversible electroporation had an increase in signal intensity score for the expression of PD-L1 in residual tumor (P < .01). Ten patients were included in the safety analysis with a 12-month median follow-up (interquartile range 6.0, 15.8). No dose-limiting toxicities occurred. Seven patients developed grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events; none required a dose modification of nivolumab; nivolumab-related adverse events occurred in 1 patient. Mean time to progression was 6.3 months (confidence interval 3.5-10.0) with current median overall survival of 18.0 months (confidence interval 9.2-26.8). CONCLUSION: Irreversible electroporation induces expression of PD-L1 in vitro. Combination therapy with concurrent nivolumab is well tolerated. A multicenter, phase 2 adjuvant trial is underway using irreversible electroporation and nivolumab in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Phase II Trial of Carfilzomib Plus Irinotecan in Patients With Small-cell Lung Cancer Who Have Progressed on Prior Platinum-based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of carfilzomib plus irinotecan (C/I) in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with SCLC who progressed after 1 platinum-containing regimen for recurrent or metastatic disease were eligible. Patients were stratified as: sensitive (SS) (progressive disease > 90 days after chemotherapy) or refractory (RS) (progressive disease 30 to 90 days after chemotherapy) and received up to 6 cycles of C/I; imaging was performed every 2 cycles. The primary endpoint was 6-month overall survival (OS). RESULTS: All 62 patients enrolled were evaluable for efficacy and adverse events. 6-month OS was 59% in the platinum SS and 54% in the platinum RS. The overall response rate was 21.6% (2.7% complete response, 18.9% partial response) in SS (n = 37) and 12.5% (all partial response) in RS (n = 25). The disease control rate was 68% (SS) and 56% (RS). Progression-free survival and OS were 3.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-4.6 months) and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3-12.3 months) in SS, and 3.3 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.9 months) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 4.1-11 months) in RS. Twenty-nine (47%) patients experienced ≥ grade 3 adverse events; 8 (12.9%) subjects had grade 4 toxicities. Three treatment-related deaths occurred: myocardial infarction (possible), lung infection (possible), and sepsis (probable). CONCLUSION: In patients with relapsed SCLC, C/I was effective in the treatment of SS and RS. With 4.8% grade 5 toxicity, C/I is a viable option for relapsed patients with SCLC with performance status 0 to 1, particularly in platinum-resistant patients, or subjects who cannot receive immunotherapy.

The Correlative Strength of Objective Physical Assessment Against the ECOG Performance Status Assessment in Individuals Diagnosed With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with cancer experience loss of function and disability due to disease and cancer-related treatments. Physical fitness and frailty influence treatment plans and may predict cancer outcomes. Outcome measures currently used may not provide sufficiently comprehensive assessment of physical performance. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to: (1) describe the development of a functional measure, the Bellarmine Norton Assessment Tool (BNAT), for individuals with cancer; and (2) assess the relationship between the BNAT and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status, a commonly used classification system by oncologists. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort correlation study. METHODS: The BNAT encompasses 1 self-reported physical activity question and 4 objective tests: 2-Minute Step Test, 30-Second Sit to Stand, Timed Arm Curl, and Timed Up and Go. The BNAT score and its components were compared with ECOG Performance Status scores assigned by oncologists and analyzed for correlation and agreement. RESULTS: A total of 103 male and female individuals (ages 33-87 years) with various cancer diagnoses participated. The mean (SD) ECOG Performance Status score was 0.95 (0.87), range 0 to 3, and the mean BNAT score was 14.9 (4.3), range 5 to 24. Spearman agreement association of BNAT and ECOG Performance Status scores revealed a significant moderate negative relationship (r = -0.568). LIMITATIONS: The BNAT was compared with the ECOG Performance Status, a commonly used but subjective measure. Additionally, a common data set was used for both deriving and evaluating the BNAT performance scale. CONCLUSIONS: There was a moderate negative linear relationship of BNAT to ECOG Performance Status scores across all participants. Utilization of the BNAT may reflect overall physical performance and provide comprehensive and meaningful detail to influence therapeutic decisions.

Multidisciplinary approach to low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in a metropolitan community.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the primary cause of cancer death in men and women in the USA, led by Kentucky. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services initiated annual lung cancer screening with a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan. This observational cohort study evaluated the multidisciplinary approach to this screening in our metropolitan community. METHODS: We present the prospective findings of patients who underwent a screening lung LDCT scan over a 2-year period at our institution in Kentucky. Patients who fulfilled the screening criteria were identified during an office visit with their primary care provider. RESULTS: Of the 4170 patients who underwent a screening lung LDCT scan, a total of 838 (20.9%) patients had nodules >4 mm. Of the 70 patients diagnosed with lung cancer, Stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer was most commonly detected [38 cases (54.3%)]. A follow-up lung LDCT scan (n = 897), pulmonary function test (n = 157), positron emission tomography scan (n = 12) and a lung biopsy (n = 53) were performed for certain individuals who had anomalies observed on the screening lung LDCT scan. A total of 42% of patients enrolled in group tobacco cessation classes quit smoking. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a unique perspective of a lung LDCT scan screening program driven by primary care providers in a state plagued by cigarette smoking and lung cancer deaths and offers a valuable message into the prevention, high-risk screening and diagnosis of lung cancer.

Identifying Health Information Technology Needs of Oncologists to Facilitate the Adoption of Genomic Medicine: Recommendations From the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology Omics and Precision Oncology Workshop.

At the ASCO Data Standards and Interoperability Summit held in May 2016, it was unanimously decided that four areas of current oncology clinical practice have serious, unmet health information technology needs. The following areas of need were identified: 1) omics and precision oncology, 2) advancing interoperability, 3) patient engagement, and 4) value-based oncology. To begin to address these issues, ASCO convened two complementary workshops: the Omics and Precision Oncology Workshop in October 2016 and the Advancing Interoperability Workshop in December 2016. A common goal was to address the complexity, enormity, and rapidly changing nature of genomic information, which existing electronic health records are ill equipped to manage. The subject matter experts invited to the Omics and Precision Oncology Workgroup were tasked with the responsibility of determining a specific, limited need that could be addressed by a software application (app) in the short-term future, using currently available genomic knowledge bases. Hence, the scope of this workshop was to determine the basic functionality of one app that could serve as a test case for app development. The goal of the second workshop, described separately, was to identify the specifications for such an app. This approach was chosen both to facilitate the development of a useful app and to help ASCO and oncologists better understand the mechanics, difficulties, and gaps in genomic clinical decision support tool development. In this article, we discuss the key challenges and recommendations identified by the workshop participants. Our hope is to narrow the gap between the practicing oncologist and ongoing national efforts to provide precision oncology and value-based care to cancer patients.

Phase 1b trial of proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib with irinotecan in lung cancer and other irinotecan-sensitive malignancies that have progressed on prior therapy (Onyx IST reference number: CAR-IST-553).

Introduction Proteasome inhibition is an established therapy for many malignancies. Carfilzomib, a novel proteasome inhibitor, was combined with irinotecan to provide a synergistic approach in relapsed, irinotecan-sensitive cancers. Materials and Methods Patients with relapsed irinotecan-sensitive cancers received carfilzomib (Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) at three dose levels (20/27 mg/m2, 20/36 mg/m2 and 20/45 mg/m2/day) in combination with irinotecan (Days 1, 8 and 15) at 125 mg/m2/day. Key eligibility criteria included measurable disease, a Zubrod PS of 0 or 1, and acceptable organ function. Patients with stable asymptomatic brain metastases were eligible. Dose escalation utilized a standard 3 + 3 design. Results Overall, 16 patients were enrolled to three dose levels, with four patients replaced. Three patients experienced dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was exceeded in Cohort 3. The RP2 dose was carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2 (given on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) and irinotecan 125 mg/m2 (Days 1, 8 and 15). Common Grade (Gr) 3 and 4 toxicities included fatigue (19%), thrombocytopenia (19%), and diarrhea (13%). Conclusions Irinotecan and carfilzomib were well tolerated, with common toxicities of fatigue, thrombocytopenia and neutropenic fever. Objective clinical response was 19% (one confirmed partial response (PR) in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and two unconfirmed); stable disease (SD) was 6% for a disease control rate (DCR) of 25%. The recommended phase II dose was carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2 and irinotecan125 mg/m2. The phase II evaluation is ongoing in relapsed small cell lung cancer.

Two schedules of etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102) in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer: a randomised phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic options are needed for patients with heavily pretreated breast cancer. Etirinotecan pegol is a long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor designed to provide prolonged tumour-cell exposure to SN38, the active metabolite. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two etirinotecan pegol dosing schedules in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer to determine an optimum dosing schedule for phase 3 trials. METHODS: In this randomised, two-stage, open-label phase 2 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older who had received taxane therapy and undergone two or fewer previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from 18 sites in three countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to etirinotecan pegol 145 mg/m(2) every 14 days or every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. FINDINGS: 70 patients (35 in each group) were randomly assigned to treatment between Feb 17, 2009 and April 13, 2010. Of the 70 patients, 20 (29%; 95% CI 18·4-40·6) achieved an objective response (two [3%] had a complete response and 18 [26%] had a partial response). Ten patients on the 14-day schedule achieved an objective response (29%; 95% CI 14·6-46·3; eight partial responses, two complete responses) as did ten on the 21-day schedule (29%; 95% CI 14·6-46·3; all partial responses). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were delayed diarrhoea (seven [20%] of 35 patients on the 14-day schedule vs eight [23%] of 35 patients on the 21-day schedule), fatigue (five [14%] vs three [9%]), neutropenia (four [11%] vs four [11%]), and dehydration (three [9%] vs four [11%]); 14 [20%] patients discontinued treatment because of drug-related toxicity. There were two possible drug-related deaths (acute renal failure and septic shock) in the 14-day group; other drug-related serious adverse events reported by more than one patient included ten [14%] patients with diarrhoea (six [17%] patients on the 14-day schedule vs four [11%] on the 21-day schedule), six [9%] with dehydration (two [6%] vs four [11%]), two [3%] with nausea (two [6%] vs none), and two [3%] with vomiting (two [6%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: On the basis of the overall clinical data, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability profile, etirinotecan pegol 145 mg/m(2) every 21 days has been selected for a phase 3 trial against treatment of physician's choice in patients with advanced breast cancer.

Axitinib and/or bevacizumab with modified FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial, the authors evaluated the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor axitinib, bevacizumab, or both in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous axitinib 5 mg twice daily, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or axitinib 5 mg twice daily plus bevacizumab 2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, each in combination with modified 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In all, 126 patients were enrolled from August 2007 to September 2008. The ORR was numerically inferior in the axitinib arm (n = 42) versus the bevacizumab arm (n = 43; 28.6% vs 48.8%; 1-sided P = .97). Progression-free survival (PFS) (11.0 months vs 15.9 months; 1-sided P = .57) and overall survival (OS) (18.1 months vs 21.6 months; 1-sided P = .69) also were numerically inferior in the axitinib arm. Similarly, efficacy endpoints for the axitinib/bevacizumab arm (n = 41) were numerically inferior (ORR, 39%; PFS, 12.5 months; OS, 19.7 months). The patients who received axitinib had fewer treatment cycles compared with other arms. Common all-grade adverse events across all 3 treatment arms were fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea (all ≥49%). Hypertension and headache were more frequent in the patients who received axitinib. Patients in the bevacizumab arm had the longest treatment exposures and the highest rates of peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the addition of continuous axitinib nor the axitinib/bevacizumab combination to FOLFOX-6 improved ORR, PFS, or OS compared with bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC.

A multicenter, phase I, dose-escalation study to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of etirinotecan pegol in patients with refractory solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and to evaluate tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of etirinotecan pegol. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with refractory solid malignancies were enrolled and assigned to escalating-dose cohorts. Patients received 1 infusion of etirinotecan pegol weekly 3 times every 4 weeks (w × 3q4w), or every 14 days (q14d), or every 21 days (q21d), with MTD as the primary end point using a standard 3 + 3 design. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were entered onto 3 dosing schedules (58-245 mg/m(2)). The MTD was 115 mg/m(2) for the w × 3q4w schedule and 145 mg/m(2) for both the q14d and q21d schedules. Most adverse events related to study drug were gastrointestinal disorders and were more frequent at higher doses of etirinotecan pegol. Late onset diarrhea was observed in some patients, the frequency of which generally correlated with dose density. Cholinergic diarrhea commonly seen with irinotecan treatment did not occur in patients treated with etirinotecan pegol. Etirinotecan pegol administration resulted in sustained and controlled systemic exposure to SN-38, which had a mean half-life of approximately 50 days. Overall, the pharmacokinetics of etirinotecan pegol are predictable and do not require complex dosing adjustments. Confirmed partial responses were observed in 8 patients with breast, colon, lung (small and squamous cell), bladder, cervical, and neuroendocrine cancer. CONCLUSION: Etirinotecan pegol showed substantial antitumor activity in patients with various solid tumors and a somewhat different safety profile compared with the irinotecan historical profile. The MTD recommended for phase II clinical trials is 145 mg/m(2) q14d or q21d.

Phase II study of sunitinib as maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

This open-label, phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of sunitinib monotherapy as maintenance treatment following first-line chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Following treatment with standard doublet chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin), patients received oral sunitinib (starting dose 50mg/day) in 6-week cycles (Schedule 4/2: 4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off treatment) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was probability of survival at 1 year ≥55%. Of 84 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 66 (79%) received sunitinib maintenance therapy (median sunitinib cycles started: 2 [range 1-20]). Probability of survival at 1 year was 40.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.8, 51.0). Median overall survival was 10.4 months (95% CI: 8.0, 12.2). The objective response rate was 27.4% (95% CI: 18.2, 38.2). The most frequently reported all-causality adverse events of any grade during sunitinib maintenance therapy were fatigue/asthenia (55%), diarrhea (36%), and nausea (32%). These data suggest that maintenance therapy may have value in NSCLC, although the primary endpoint of the study was not met.

A phase 2 trial of glufosfamide in combination with gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naive pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: A dose-escalation study of glufosfamide plus gemcitabine showed that the combination could be administered safely at full doses. The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this combination in chemotherapy-naive pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic and/or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, Karnofsky performance status >or=70, creatinine clearance (CrCL) >or=60 mL/min, and acceptable organ function. Patients received glufosfamide 4500 mg/m intravenous on day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m intravenous on Days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle. The primary end point was response rate. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled; 14 male, median age 58 years. Twenty-three (79%) patients had distant metastases. Median cycles on treatment was 4 (range: 1-18+). Of 28, 5 (18%; 95% CI: 6%-37%) patients had a confirmed partial response (median duration: 8.4 months) and 1 had an unconfirmed partial response. Eleven patients (39%) had stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, median overall survival was 6 months, and 1-year survival was 32%. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 23 (79%) patients and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 10 (34%) patients. The CrCL fell below 60 mL/min in 10 of 27 (37%) patients. Renal failure occurred in 4 patients. Decrease in CrCL was correlated with glufosfamide and isophosphoramide mustard pharmacokinetic area under the curve. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of glufosfamide plus gemcitabine is active in pancreatic cancer; however, hematologic and renal toxicity were pronounced. Alternative dosing of glufosfamide plus gemcitabine should be explored.