Oligometastatic Breast Cancer Patients Treated with High-Dose Chemotherapy and Targeted Radiation: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with oligometastatic breast cancer (oMBC) may benefit from aggressive local therapy. We sought to assess the effects of consolidative radiation therapy (RT) on outcomes in oMBC patients treated on a prospective phase II trial of high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). METHODS: Between 2005 and 2009, 12 patients with oMBC (≤3 metastatic sites) cancer were treated on protocol. Patients were to receive tandem HDCT supported by hematopoietic cell rescue (HCR). All radiographically identifiable oligometastatic sites received targeted radiation. RESULTS: HDCT was initiated at a median of 6.7 (3.5-12.7) months after diagnosis of oMBC. Hormone receptors (HR) were positive in 91.6% of patients, and HER2 was overexpressed in 25% of patients. Median radiation dose (EQD2) was 41.2 (37.9-48.7) Gy. Median follow-up was 13.1 (6.8-15.1) years for living patients. Ten-year PFS and OS were 33% (95%CI, 10-59%) and 55% (95%CI, 22-79%), respectively. Durable local control of treated lesions was 87.5%. At the last follow up, two patients remained progression free and two more were without evidence of disease following additional salvage treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although modern systemic therapies have obviated the use of HDC, aggressive local therapy warrants further evaluation and fractionated radiotherapy is a viable alternative if SBRT is not available.

Phase I/II Trial of Anticarcinoembryonic Antigen Radioimmunotherapy, Gemcitabine, and Hepatic Arterial Infusion of Fluorodeoxyuridine Postresection of Liver Metastasis for Colorectal Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Report the feasibility, toxicities, and long-term results of a Phase I/II trial of 90Y-labeled anticarcinoembryonic antigen (anti-CEA) (cT84.66) radioimmunotherapy (RIT), gemcitabine, and hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of fluorodeoxyuridine (FUdR) after maximal hepatic resection of metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver. METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver postresection or ablation to minimum disease were eligible. Each cohort received HAI of FUdR for 14 days on a dose escalation schedule. The maximum HAI FUdR dose level planned was 0.2 mg/kg/day, which is the standard dose for HAI FUdR alone. On day 9, 90Y-cT84.66 anti-CEA at 16.6 mCi/m2 as an i.v. bolus infusion and on days 9-11 i.v. gemcitabine at 105 mg/m2 were given. Patients could receive up to three cycles every 6 weeks of protocol therapy. Four additional cycles of HAI FUdR were allowed after RIT. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were treated on this study. A maximum tolerated dose of 0.20 mg/kg/day of HAI FUdR combined with RIT at 16.6 mCi/m2 and gemcitabine at 105 mg/m2 was achieved with only 1 patient experiencing grade 3 reversible toxicity (mucositis). After surgery, 10 patients had no evidence of visible disease and remained without evidence of disease after completion of protocol therapy. The remaining 6 patients demonstrated radiological visible disease after surgery and after protocol therapy 2 patients had a CR, 1 patient had PR, 2 had stable disease, and 1 had progression. With a median follow-up of 41.8 months (18.7-114.6), median progression free survival was 9.6 months. Two patients demonstrated long-term disease control out to 45+ and 113+ months. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the safety, feasibility, and potential utility of HAI FUdR, RIT, and systemic gemcitabine. The trimodality approach does not have higher hematologic toxicities than seen in prior RIT-alone studies. Future efforts evaluating RIT in colorectal cancer should integrate RIT with systemic and regional therapies in the minimal tumor burden setting.

Randomized Multicenter Phase II Study of Modified Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil (DCF) Versus DCF Plus Growth Factor Support in Patients With Metastatic Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Study of the US Gastric Cancer Consortium.

PURPOSE: Docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF) is a standard first-line three-drug chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma and is associated with significant toxicity. We examined the safety and efficacy of a modified DCF (mDCF) regimen in a randomized multicenter phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either mDCF (fluorouracil 2,000 mg/m2 intravenously [IV] over 48 hours, docetaxel 40 mg/m2 IV on day 1, cisplatin 40 mg/m2 IV on day 3, every 2 weeks) or parent DCF (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, cisplatin 75 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 750 mg/m2 IV over 5 days with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, every 3 weeks). The study had 90% power to differentiate between 6-month progression-free survival of 26% and 43%, with type I and II error rates of 10% each. An early stopping rule for toxicity was included, defined as grade 3 to 4 adverse event rate > 70% in the first 3 months. RESULTS: From November 2006 to June 2010, 85 evaluable patients were enrolled (male, n = 61; female, n = 24; median age, 58 years; Karnofsky performance status, 90%; GEJ, n = 28; gastric, 57). mDCF (n = 54) toxicity rates included 54% grade 3 to 4 toxicity (22% hospitalized) within the first 3 months and 76% grade 3 to 4 toxicity over the course of treatment. The DCF arm (n = 31) closed early because of toxicity, with rates of 71% grade 3 to 4 toxicity (52% hospitalized) within 3 months and 90% grade 3 to 4 toxicity over the course of treatment. Six-month PFS was 63% (95% CI, 48% to 75%) for mDCF and 53% (95% CI, 34% to 69%) for DCF. Median overall survival was improved for mDCF (18.8 v 12.6 months; P = .007). CONCLUSION: mDCF is less toxic than parent DCF, even when supported with growth factors, and is associated with improved efficacy. mDCF should be considered a standard first-line option for patients with metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Systemic therapy for advanced appendiceal adenocarcinoma: an analysis from the NCCN Oncology Outcomes Database for colorectal cancer.

Appendiceal malignancies are rare and represent 1% of intestinal tumors in the United States. The role and efficacy of modern systemic therapy in advanced appendiceal adenocarcinoma has not been established. This study analyzed patients with recurrent or metastatic appendiceal adenocarcinoma in the database for Colorectal Cancer (CRC; 2005-2012). This database tracks longitudinal care for patients treated at 8 specialty centers across the Unites States. Study objectives were to describe and evaluate the efficacy of systemic therapy and investigate relationships with clinicopathologic features. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Of 248 patients with advanced appendiceal carcinoma, 112 (45%) received systemic therapy for measurable disease and are the focus of this report. The most common chemotherapy regimens included FOLFOX with or without bevacizumab (n=39 and n=37, respectively), FOLFIRI (n=15), and single-agent fluoro-pyrimidine (n=10). Among 99 patients evaluable for best response, 39 experienced a response (response rate [RR], 39%) and 36 (36%) had stable disease. The median PFS was 1.2 years (95% CI, 1.0-1.8) and median OS was 2.1 years (95% CI, 1.6-2.3). Patients with non-mucinous histology or high-grade tumors and those who underwent nondebulking surgery had worse PFS and OS. Treatment of advanced appendiceal adenocarcinoma at NCCN Member Institutions commonly incorporates agents used for CRC. RR, PFS, and OS are comparable to those achieved in the treatment of metastatic CRC. Poor prognostic factors include nonmucinous histology or high-grade tumors and history of nondebulking surgery.

Panitumumab following disease progression on cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective review.

Despite advances in treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer over the past decade, the number of chemotherapy agents available remains limited. We report here a retrospective review of 11 patients who were treated with panitumumab following documented disease progression on cetuximab. Two patients demonstrated minor radiographic responses, albeit only for a short period of time. We conclude that the use of one epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor following failure on the other may be of benefit to patients who would otherwise have no other treatment options. However, studies to help identify the subset of patients who might benefit from this strategy are needed.

Ribonucleotide reductase large subunit M1 predicts poor survival due to modulation of proliferative and invasive ability of gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of RRM1 in GC patients. METHODS: A total of assessable 389 GC patients with clinicopathological and survival information were enrolled from City of Hope (COH, n = 67) and Zhejiang University (ZJU, n = 322). RRM1 protein expression was determined by immunohistochemistry on FFPE tissue samples. Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses were used to measure survival. Ras/Raf activity and invasion assays were used to evaluate the role of RRM1 in GC cell lines. RESULTS: In vitro experiments demonstrated RRM1 activated Ras/Raf/MAPK signal transduction and promoted GC cell proliferation. Meanwhile, RRM1 expression was significantly associated with lymph node involvement, tumor size, Ki67 expression, histological subtype and histological grade in the GC tissue samples (p<0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis illustrated that high RRM1 expression predicted poor survival in GC patients in the COH and ZJU cohorts (log-rank p<0.01). In multivariate Cox analysis, the hazard ratios of RRM1 for overall survival were 2.55 (95% CI 1.27-5.15) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.07-2.13) in the COH and ZJU sets, respectively. In particular, RRM1 specifically predicted the outcome of advanced GCs with poor differentiation and high proliferative ability. Furthermore, inhibition of RRM1 by siRNA significantly reduced the dNTP pool, Ras/Raf and MMP-9 activities and the levels of p-MEK, p-ERK and NF-κB, resulting in growth retardation and reduced invasion in AGS and NCI-N87 cells. CONCLUSIONS: RRM1 overexpression predicts poor survival in GC patients with advanced TNM stage. RRM1 could potentially serve as prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target for GCs.

A phase I trial of oxaliplatin in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

The primary objective of this trial was to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² preceded by escalating doses of docetaxel 60 mg/m² (75, 90, 100 mg/m²) administered every 3 weeks. A total of 11 patients were entered; 10 evaluable for response: 4 stable disease (liver, ovary and esophagus) and 1 partial remission (esophagus). At dose level 1, there was 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (grade 3 allergic reaction). At dose level 2, there were 3 DLTs (3 grade 4 neutropenia, grade 3 gastritis, diarrhea, hypophosphatemia, neuro-mood). The MTD is docetaxel 60 mg/m² with oxaliplatin 130 mg/m².

Phase I study of pazopanib in patients with advanced solid tumors and hepatic dysfunction: a National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group study.

PURPOSE: Pazopanib is a potent, multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor; however, there is limited information regarding the effects of liver function on pazopanib metabolism and pharmacokinetics. The objective of this study was to establish the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetic profile of pazopanib in patients with varying degrees of hepatic dysfunction. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with any solid tumors or lymphoma were stratified into four groups based on the degree of hepatic dysfunction according to the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group (NCI-ODWG) criteria. Pazopanib was given orally once a day on a 21-day cycle. A modified 3+3 design was used. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled. Patients in the mild group tolerated 800 mg per day. The moderate and severe groups tolerated 200 mg per day. Pharmacokinetic data in the mild group were similar to the data in the normal group. Comparison of the median Cmax and area under the curve [AUC(0-24)] in the moderate or severe groups at 200 mg per day to the values in the normal and mild groups at 800 mg per day indicated less than dose-proportional systemic exposures in patients with moderate and severe hepatic impairment. This suggests that the lower maximum-tolerated dose in the moderate and severe group is not due to a decrease in drug clearance or alteration in the proportion of metabolites. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild liver dysfunction, pazopanib is well tolerated at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose of 800 mg per day. Patients with moderate and severe liver dysfunction tolerated 200 mg per day.

Predicting acute and persistent neuropathy associated with oxaliplatin.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to predict oxaliplatin-associated peripheral neuropathy during modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) therapy. METHODS: Equal numbers of male and female patients with previously untreated, primary or recurrent colorectal cancer were followed through a first course of mFOLFOX6 with 85 mg/m² oxaliplatin every 2 weeks. Accounting for correlation among a subject's cycle, logistic regression estimated per cycle risk of acute (under 14 d) and persistent (14 d or more) neuropathy. Proportional hazards regression predicted time to persistent neuropathy. RESULTS: Among mFOLFOX6 recipients (n = 50, age 58.9 ± 10.1 y), 36% received concomitant bevacizumab. Of the total number of cycles, 94.2% (422/448) were evaluable. Most (84%) subjects reported neuropathy at least once; 74% reported acute and 48% reported persistent symptoms. On multivariate analysis, risk factors shared by acute and persistent neuropathy were body surface area >2.0, acute neuropathy in a past cycle, and lower body weight. In addition, risk of acute neuropathy decreased with age (adjusted for renal function and winter season), whereas risk of persistent neuropathy increased with cumulative dose of oxaliplatin and persistent neuropathy in a past cycle. Concomitant bevacizumab was not a risk factor when administered in stage IV disease but was associated with persistent neuropathy when administered experimentally in stage III. Females had no increased risk of either form of neuropathy. After 3 cycles, weight, body surface area, and prior acute neuropathy predicted time to persistent neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely available clinical factors predict acute and persistent neuropathy associated with oxaliplatin. When validated, the proposed prognostic score for persistent neuropathy can help clinicians counsel patients about chemotherapy.

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy use in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy: a national comprehensive cancer network analysis.

PURPOSE: Practice guidelines recommend that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation for locally advanced rectal cancer complete postoperative adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, irrespective of tumor downstaging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Colorectal Cancer Database tracks longitudinal care for patients treated at eight specialty cancer centers across the United States and was used to evaluate how frequently patients with rectal cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy also received postoperative systemic chemotherapy. Patient and tumor characteristics were examined in a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: Between September 2005 and December 2010, 2,073 patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were enrolled in the database. Of these, 1,193 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were in the analysis, including 203 patients not receiving any adjuvant chemotherapy. For those seen by a medical oncologist, the most frequent reason chemotherapy was not recommended was comorbid illness (25 of 50, 50%); the most frequent reason chemotherapy was not received even though it was recommended or discussed was patient refusal (54 of 74, 73%). After controlling for NCCN Cancer Center and clinical TNM stage in a multivariable logistic model, factors significantly associated with not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1, on Medicaid or indigent compared with private insurance, complete pathologic response, presence of re-operation/wound infection, and no closure of ileostomy/colostomy. CONCLUSION: Even at specialty cancer centers, a sizeable minority of patients with rectal cancer treated with curative-intent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy do not complete postoperative chemotherapy. Strategies to facilitate the ability to complete this third and final component of curative intent treatment are necessary.

Neuroendocrine tumors.

Neuroendocrine tumors comprise a broad family of tumors, the most common of which are carcinoid and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. The NCCN Neuroendocrine Tumors Guidelines discuss the diagnosis and management of both sporadic and hereditary neuroendocrine tumors. Most of the recommendations pertain to well-differentiated, low- to intermediate-grade tumors. This updated version of the NCCN Guidelines includes a new section on pathology for diagnosis and reporting and revised recommendations for the surgical management of neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of bortezomib in patients with advanced malignancies and varying degrees of liver dysfunction: phase I NCI Organ Dysfunction Working Group Study NCI-6432.

PURPOSE: The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib undergoes oxidative hepatic metabolism. This study (NCI-6432; NCT00091117) was conducted to evaluate bortezomib pharmacokinetics and safety in patients with varying degrees of hepatic impairment, to inform dosing recommendations in these special populations. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients received bortezomib on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of 21-day cycles. Patients were assigned to four hepatic function groups based on the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group classification. Those with normal function received bortezomib at the 1.3 mg/m(2) standard dose. Patients with severe, moderate, and mild impairment received escalating doses from 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 mg/m(2), respectively, up to a 1.3 mg/m(2) maximum. Serial blood samples were collected for 24 hours postdose on days 1 and 8, cycle 1, for bortezomib plasma concentration measurements. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were treated, including 14 with normal hepatic function and 17, 12, and 18 with mild, moderate, and severe impairment, respectively. Mild hepatic impairment did not alter dose-normalized bortezomib exposure (AUC(0-tlast)) or C(max) compared with patients with normal function. Mean dose-normalized AUC(0-tlast) was increased by approximately 60% on day 8 in patients with moderate or severe impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mild hepatic impairment do not require a starting dose adjustment of bortezomib. Patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment should be started at a reduced dose of 0.7 mg/m(2).

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of oral 3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (3-AP, NSC #663249) in the treatment of advanced-stage solid cancers: a California Cancer Consortium Study.

BACKGROUND: 3-Aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (3-AP) is a novel small-molecule ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor. This study was designed to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and oral bioavailability of 3-AP in patients with advanced-stage solid tumors. METHODS: Twenty patients received one dose of intravenous and subsequent cycles of oral 3-AP following a 3 + 3 patient dose escalation. Intravenous 3-AP was administered to every patient at a fixed dose of 100 mg over a 2-h infusion 1 week prior to the first oral cycle. Oral 3-AP was administered every 12 h for 5 consecutive doses on days 1-3, days 8-10, and days 15-17 of every 28-day cycle. 3-AP was started at 50 mg with a planned dose escalation to 100, 150, and 200 mg. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and bioavailability were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled. For dose level 1 (50 mg), the second of three treated patients had a DLT of grade 3 hypertension. In the dose level 1 expansion cohort, three patients had no DLTs. No further DLTs were encountered during escalation until the 200-mg dose was reached. At the 200 mg 3-AP dose level, two treated patients had DLTs of grade 3 hypoxia. One additional DLT of grade 4 febrile neutropenia was subsequently observed at the de-escalated 150 mg dose. One DLT in 6 evaluable patients established the MTD as 150 mg per dose on this dosing schedule. Responses in the form of stable disease occurred in 5 (25%) of 20 patients. The oral bioavailability of 3-AP was 67 ± 29% and was consistent with the finding that the MTD by the oral route was 33% higher than by the intravenous route. CONCLUSIONS: Oral 3-AP is well tolerated and has an MTD similar to its intravenous form after accounting for the oral bioavailability. Oral 3-AP is associated with a modest clinical benefit rate of 25% in our treated patient population with advanced solid tumors.

Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage II colon cancer. METHODS: The authors used the State of California Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) to assess patients ages 18 to 80 years with AJCC stage II colon cancer (ie, T3 or T4 and N0) who underwent surgical resection during 1991 and 2006. Patients who had rectal and rectosigmoid cancers were excluded. The cohort was stratified according to the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, and clinical and pathologic characteristics and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: From the CSP data, 3716 patients were identified who underwent curative-intent surgical resection for stage II colon cancer. When the 2 treatment groups (surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy [n = 916] and surgery alone [n = 2800]) were compared, patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to be younger and to have left-sided lesions with ≥ 12 lymph nodes examined. There was no difference in sex or tumor differentiation between the 2 groups. According to a Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy had improved overall survival compared with patients who underwent surgery alone (median survival, 12 years vs 9.2 years, respectively; P < .001). In multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy was identified as an independent predictor of improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99; P = .031). CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first population-based analysis to identify a survival advantage for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with AJCC stage II colon cancer. On the basis of the current findings, the authors concluded that the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in select patients with stage II disease.

Dose-escalating and pharmacological study of bortezomib in adult cancer patients with impaired renal function: a National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group Study.

PURPOSE: To determine the toxicities, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and maximum tolerated dose of bortezomib in patients with renal impairment and to develop dosing guidelines for such a patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two adult cancer patients received intravenous bortezomib at 0.7-1.5 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified by 24-h creatinine clearance (CrCl) normalized to body surface area (BSA) 1.73 m(2) into five cohorts: normal renal function (≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); mild dysfunction (40-59 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); moderate dysfunction (20-39 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); severe dysfunction (<20 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); and dialysis. Dose escalation was planned for the four cohorts with renal dysfunction. Plasma bortezomib concentrations and blood 20S proteasome inhibition were assayed. RESULTS: Bortezomib escalation to the standard 1.3 mg/m(2) dose was well tolerated in all patients with CrCl ≥ 20 ml/min/1.73 m(2); 0.7 mg/m(2) was tolerated in three patients with severe renal dysfunction (<20 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Bortezomib dose escalation was well tolerated in nine dialysis patients, including to 1.3 mg/m(2) in four patients. Decreased CrCl did not affect bortezomib pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics. Bortezomib-related side-effects were neither more common nor severe in patients with renal dysfunction versus those with normal renal function. CONCLUSION: Bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) is well tolerated, and dose reductions are not necessary in patients with renal dysfunction. Extrapolation from clinical and pharmacologic data suggests patients with severe renal dysfunction, including dialysis patients, can receive bortezomib at the full dose established to be clinically effective in the general patient population.

Improved outcomes in the management of esophageal cancer with the addition of surgical resection to chemoradiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, prospective randomized clinical trials have reported no added value of surgical resection to chemoradiation alone. Using a large regional cancer registry, our objective was to determine whether curative-intent esophageal resection provided a survival advantage in the multimodality management of esophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP), we identified all patients with local and regional (i.e., AJCC Stages I-III) esophageal cancer during the years 1988-2006. Clinical and pathologic data included patient demographics, tumor information, indication for surgery, lymph node status, and timing of therapy. Overall survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariate Cox-regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: From CSP, 2233 patients with esophageal cancer were identified. Median survival (MS) of the entire cohort was 13.1 months. We stratified this cohort into patients who received chemoradiation alone (n = 645) and patients who received trimodality therapy (n = 286) (i.e., chemoradiation and surgery). Patients had significantly improved survival with trimodality therapy compared with chemoradiation alone (MS 25.2 vs. 12.3 months, respectively; P < 0.001). The survival advantage with trimodality therapy was observed for patients with squamous cell carcinoma (MS 24.5 vs. 12.8 months, respectively; P < 0.001) and adenocarcinoma (MS 25.9 vs. 10.6 months, respectively; P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, trimodality therapy was a significant prognostic factor for improved survival in patients with esophageal cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.56-0.77, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that surgical resection remains an important component of the multimodality management of esophageal cancer.

Phase I study of vorinostat in patients with advanced solid tumors and hepatic dysfunction: a National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group study.

PURPOSE: Vorinostat is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved histone deacetylase inhibitor and is indicated for the treatment of refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. We conducted a phase I study to determine the maximum-tolerated dose and pharmacokinetics of vorinostat in patients with hepatic dysfunction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had solid malignancies and acceptable bone marrow and renal function. Hepatic dysfunction was categorized as mild, moderate, or severe by the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group criteria. Fifteen patients with normal liver function were enrolled as controls. All patients received a single 400-mg dose of vorinostat for pharmacokinetic studies. One week later, daily vorinostat dosing was begun and continued until toxicity or disease progression occurred. The daily vorinostat dose was escalated within each hepatic dysfunction category. Vorinostat plasma concentrations were quantitated by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay and modeled noncompartmentally. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were enrolled (median age, 59 years; females, n = 24); 42 patients had hepatic dysfunction (16 mild, 15 moderate, and 11 severe). Eight of nine patients with dose-limiting toxicity had grade 4 thrombocytopenia. The recommended vorinostat doses in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic dysfunction were 300, 200, and 100 mg, respectively, on the daily continuous schedule. There were no significant differences in vorinostat pharmacokinetic parameters among the normal or hepatic dysfunction categories. Disease stabilization was noted in 12 patients. Of five patients with adenoid cystic carcinoma, one patient had a partial response, and four patients had stable disease. A patient with papillary thyroid carcinoma had stable disease for more than 2 years. CONCLUSION: Patients with varying degrees of hepatic dysfunction require appropriate dose reduction even though vorinostat pharmacokinetics are unaltered.

Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid pharmacokinetics of topotecan in a phase I trial of topotecan, tamoxifen, and carboplatin, in the treatment of recurrent or refractory brain or spinal cord tumors.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to ascertain the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and maximally tolerated doses of the combination of fixed-dose tamoxifen and carboplatin, with escalating doses of topotecan, and to determine the pharmacokinetics of topotecan in the plasma and cerebrospinal fluid. METHODS: Tamoxifen 100 mg po bid, topotecan 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, or 1.0 mg/m(2)/d IV, administered as a 72 h continuous infusion on days 1-3, followed by carboplatin AUC = 3, IV on day 3. Cycles were repeated every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Seventeen patients received 39 cycles of treatment: median 2, (range 1-5). The tumors included glioblastoma (6), anaplastic astrocytoma (2), metastatic non-small cell (3), small cell lung (2), and one each with medulloblastoma, ependymoma, and metastatic breast or colon carcinoma. The median Karnofsky performance status was 70% (range 60-90%) and age: 52 (range 24-75). Eleven patients were female and six male. Toxicities included thrombocytopenia (2), neutropenia without fever lasting 6 days (1), DVT (2), and emesis (1). Topotecan levels, total and lactone, were measured prior to the end of infusion in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). At 1.0 mg/m(2)/d, the median CSF/plasma ratio was 19.4% (range 15.1-59.1%). The total plasma topotecan in two pts with DLTs was 4.63 and 5.87 ng/ml, in three without DLTs at the same dose level the mean total plasma topotecan was 3.4 ng/ml (range 3.02-3.83). Plasma lactone levels were 33% of the total; CSF penetration was 20% of the total plasma levels. 4/8 pts with high-grade gliomas had stable disease (median: 3 cycles (range 2-5)). Two had minor responses. One patient with metastatic non-small cell and one with small cell lung cancer had objective PRs. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended phase II doses are: tamoxifen 100 mg po bid, topotecan 0.75 mg/m(2)/d IV continuous infusion for 72 h, followed by carboplatin AUC = 3 IV on day 3. Measurable topotecan levels, both total and lactone, are observed in the CSF.