A phase II study to assess the safety and efficacy of the dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor vistusertib in relapsed, refractory DLBCL.

Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are unfit for or relapsed postautologous stem-cell transplantation have poor outcomes. Historically, mTORC1 inhibitors have produced responses in approximately 30% of patients in this setting. mTORC1 inhibitor efficacy may be limited by resistance mechanisms including AKT activation by mTORC2. To date, dual mTORC1/2 inhibitors targeting both the TORC1 and TORC2 complexes have not been investigated in DLBCL. This phase II trial investigated the oral dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor vistusertib in an intermittent dosing schedule of 125 mg b.d. for 2 days per week. Thirty patients received vistusertib and six received vistusertib-rituximab for up to six cycles (28-day cycles). Two partial responses were achieved on monotherapy. Durations of response were 57 and 62 days, respectively, for these patients. 19% had stable disease within six cycles. In the monotherapy arm, the median progression-free survival was1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61-2.14) months and median overall survival was 6.58 (95% CI 3.81-not reached) months, respectively. The median duration of response or stable disease across the trial duration was 153 days (95% CI 112-not reached). Tumour responses according to positron emission tomography/computed tomography versus computed tomography were concordant. There were no differences noted in tumour volume response according to cell of origin by either gene expression profiling or immunohistochemistry. Vistusertib ± rituximab was well tolerated; across 36 patients 86% of adverse events were grade (G) 1-2. Common vistusertib-related adverse events were similar to those described with mTORC1 inhibitors: nausea (47% G1-2), diarrhoea (27% G1-2, 6% G3), fatigue (30% G1-2, 3% G3), mucositis (25% G1-2, 6% G3), vomiting (17% G1-2), and dyspepsia (14% G1-2). Dual mTORC1/2 inhibitors do not clearly confer an advantage over mTORC1 inhibitors in relapsed or refractory DLBCL. Potential resistance mechanisms are discussed within.

PEPtalk2: results of a pilot randomised controlled trial to compare VZIG and aciclovir as postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) against chickenpox in children with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the likely rate of patient randomisation and to facilitate sample size calculation for a full-scale phase III trial of varicella zoster immunoglobulin (VZIG) and aciclovir as postexposure prophylaxis against chickenpox in children with cancer. DESIGN: Multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of VZIG and oral aciclovir. SETTING: England, UK. PATIENTS: Children under 16 years of age with a diagnosis of cancer: currently or within 6 months of receiving cancer treatment and with negative varicella zoster virus (VZV) serostatus at diagnosis or within the last 3 months. INTERVENTIONS: Study participants who have a significant VZV exposure were randomised to receive PEP in the form of VZIG or aciclovir after the exposure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of patients registered and randomised within 12 months of the trial opening to recruitment and incidence of breakthrough varicella. RESULTS: The study opened in six sites over a 13-month period. 482 patients were screened for eligibility, 32 patients were registered and 3 patients were randomised following VZV exposure. All three were randomised to receive aciclovir and there were no cases of breakthrough varicella. CONCLUSIONS: Given the limited recruitment to the PEPtalk2 pilot, it is unlikely that the necessary sample size would be achievable using this strategy in a full-scale trial. The study identified factors that could be used to modify the design of a definitive trial but other options for defining the best means to protect such children against VZV should be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN48257441, EudraCT number: 2013-001332-22, sponsor: University of Birmingham.

Ruxolitinib vs best available therapy for ET intolerant or resistant to hydroxycarbamide.

Treatments for high-risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) address thrombocytosis, disease-related symptoms, as well as risks of thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation to myelofibrosis, and leukemia. Patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC) have a poor outlook. MAJIC (ISRCTN61925716) is a randomized phase 2 trial of ruxolitinib (JAK1/2 inhibitor) vs best available therapy (BAT) in ET and polycythemia vera patients resistant or intolerant to HC. Here, findings of MAJIC-ET are reported, where the modified intention-to-treat population included 58 and 52 patients randomized to receive ruxolitinib or BAT, respectively. There was no evidence of improvement in complete response within 1 year reported in 27 (46.6%) patients treated with ruxolitinib vs 23 (44.2%) with BAT (P = .40). At 2 years, rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, and transformation were not significantly different; however, some disease-related symptoms improved in patients receiving ruxolitinib relative to BAT. Molecular responses were uncommon; there were 2 complete molecular responses (CMR) and 1 partial molecular response in CALR-positive ruxolitinib-treated patients. Transformation to myelofibrosis occurred in 1 CMR patient, presumably because of the emergence of a different clone, raising questions about the relevance of CMR in ET patients. Grade 3 and 4 anemia occurred in 19% and 0% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) in the BAT arm, and grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 5.2% and 1.7% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) of BAT-treated patients. Rates of discontinuation or treatment switching did not differ between the 2 trial arms. The MAJIC-ET trial suggests that ruxolitinib is not superior to current second-line treatments for ET. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN61925716.

Outcome of Azacitidine Therapy in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Is not Improved by Concurrent Vorinostat Therapy but Is Predicted by a Diagnostic Molecular Signature.

Purpose: Azacitidine (AZA) is a novel therapeutic option in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but its rational utilization is compromised by the fact that neither the determinants of clinical response nor its mechanism of action are defined. Co-administration of histone deacetylase inhibitors, such as vorinostat (VOR), is reported to improve the clinical activity of AZA, but this has not been prospectively studied in patients with AML.Experimental Design: We compared outcomes in 259 adults with AML (n = 217) and MDS (n = 42) randomized to receive either AZA monotherapy (75 mg/m2 × 7 days every 28 days) or AZA combined with VOR 300 mg twice a day on days 3 to 9 orally. Next-generation sequencing was performed in 250 patients on 41 genes commonly mutated in AML. Serial immunophenotyping of progenitor cells was performed in 47 patients.Results: Co-administration of VOR did not increase the overall response rate (P = 0.84) or overall survival (OS; P = 0.32). Specifically, no benefit was identified in either de novo or relapsed AML. Mutations in the genes CDKN2A (P = 0.0001), IDH1 (P = 0.004), and TP53 (P = 0.003) were associated with reduced OS. Lymphoid multipotential progenitor populations were greatly expanded at diagnosis and although reduced in size in responding patients remained detectable throughout treatment.Conclusions: This study demonstrates no benefit of concurrent administration of VOR with AZA but identifies a mutational signature predictive of outcome after AZA-based therapy. The correlation between heterozygous loss of function CDKN2A mutations and decreased OS implicates induction of cell-cycle arrest as a mechanism by which AZA exerts its clinical activity. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6430-40. ©2017 AACR.

The role of high-dose myeloablative chemotherapy with haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in children with central nervous system (CNS) tumours: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to conduct a systematic review to compare the effects of high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) with autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) versus standard-dose chemotherapy (SDCT) in children with malignant central nervous system (CNS) tumours. METHODS: Standard systematic review methods aimed at minimising bias will be employed for study identification, selection and data extraction. Ten electronic databases will be searched, along with citation searching and reference checking. Studies assessing the effects of HDCT with HSCT in children with CNS tumours will be included. The outcomes are survival (overall, progression-free, event-free, disease-free), response rates, short- and long-term adverse events and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Two reviewers will independently screen and select randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and controlled and uncontrolled observational studies for inclusion. Quality assessment will be tailored to the different study designs. Where possible data will be summarised using combined estimates of effect for the hazard ratio for survival outcomes and the risk ratio for response rates. A fixed effect model will be used; sub-group analyses and meta-regression will be used to explore potential sources of heterogeneity between studies. DISCUSSION: Given the poor prognosis of malignant brain tumours in children in terms of survival and quality of life, this review will help guide clinical practice by summarising the current evidence on the use of high-dose myeloblative chemotherapy with stem cell support in children with CNS tumours.

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Extensive (Ultraradical) Surgery for Ovarian Cancer: Results From a Prospective Longitudinal Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Extensive (ultraradical) surgery may facilitate complete cytoreduction in ovarian cancer with potential survival benefit but with greater morbidity. Currently, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from such surgery are unknown. We conducted the Surgery in Ovarian Cancer Quality of life Evaluation Research study (SOCQER 1), a prospective study investigating the feasibility of collection of serial PROs in patients who had extensive surgery and standard surgery for ovarian cancer. METHODS: Ninety-three patients were recruited for 33 months to complete serial PRO assessments using the validated EORTC QLQ-C30 and the ovarian cancer-specific QLQ-OV28 questionnaires preoperatively, at 6 weeks, and at 3, 6, and 9 months postoperatively. Aletti Surgical Complexity Score of 3 or lower was considered standard surgery; a Surgical Complexity Score of 4 or higher was considered extensive surgery. Prospective data collection was obtained from the hospital electronic database, including patient demographics, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade, preoperative serum CA125 and albumin levels, chemotherapy regimen, and surgical morbidity. RESULTS: Three cohorts of patients--32 benign, 32 undergoing standard surgery, and 24 undergoing extensive surgery--completed the questionnaires. Median questionnaire completion rate in this study was 64%, demonstrating the feasibility of longitudinal quality of life (QoL) assessment after surgery. Patient-reported outcomes revealed a falling trend in QoL in the short-term (6 weeks-3 months) after surgery, which gradually returned to baseline at 6 to 9 months; this trend was more marked after extensive surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides useful insight into the impact of extensive surgery on patients. Further multicenter studies are needed to evaluate the impact of extensive surgery on patient's QoL and survival.