Late versus early response and depth of response are associated with improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma enrolled in the TOURMALINE-MM2 trial.

Deeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0-4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE-MM2 receiving ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo-Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo-Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo-Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

A pooled analysis of outcomes according to cytogenetic abnormalities in patients receiving ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for multiple myeloma.

Some cytogenetic abnormalities (CAs) are associated with poorer prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM); proteasome inhibitors appear to benefit patients with high-risk CAs. We evaluated 2247 MM patients from the TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2/-MM3/-MM4 trials to assess the PFS benefit of ixazomib plus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) vs placebo-Rd (TOURMALINE-MM1/-MM2) or ixazomib vs placebo (TOURMALINE-MM3/-MM4) in specific high-risk CAs. After a pooled median follow-up of 25.6 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy for high-risk patients was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.93; median PFS [mPFS] 17.8 vs 13.2 months), and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80; mPFS 26.3 vs 17.6 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for expanded high-risk patients was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64-0.87; mPFS 18.1 vs 14.1 months), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85; mPFS 36.1 vs 21.4 months) for complementary standard-risk patients. The HR for PFS with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy was 0.68 in patients with t(4;14) (95% CI: 0.48-0.96; mPFS 22.4 vs 13.2 months), and 0.77 for patients with amp1q21 (95% CI: 0.63-0.93; mPFS 18.8 vs 14.5 months). A PFS benefit was demonstrated with ixazomib- vs placebo-based therapy regardless of cytogenetic status, with greatest benefit observed in patients with t(4;14) and amp1q21.

Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524.

SUPREME-HN: a retrospective biomarker study assessing the prognostic value of PD-L1 expression in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor cells (TCs) is associated with improved survival in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with immunotherapy, although its role as a prognostic factor is controversial. This study investigates whether tumoral expression of PD-L1 is a prognostic marker in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC treated with standard chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, noninterventional study assessed PD-L1 expression on archival R/M HNSCC tissue samples using the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay. PD-L1 high was defined as PD-L1 staining of ≥ 25% TC, with exploratory scoring at TC ≥ 10% and TC ≥ 50%. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the prognostic value of PD-L1 status in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients with R/M HNSCC. RESULTS: 412 patients (median age, 62.0 years; 79.9% male; 88.2% Caucasian) were included from 19 sites in seven countries. 132 patients (32.0%) had TC ≥ 25% PD-L1 expression; 199 patients (48.3%) and 85 patients (20.6%) had TC ≥ 10% and ≥ 50%, respectively. OS did not differ significantly across PD-L1 expression (at TC ≥ 25% cutoff median OS: 8.2 months vs TC < 25%, 10.1 months, P = 0.55) or the ≥ 10% and ≥ 50% cutoffs (at TC ≥ 10%, median OS: 9.6 months vs TC < 10%, 9.4 months, P = 0.32, and at TC ≥ 50%, median OS 7.9 vs TC < 50%, 10.0 months, P = 0.39, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 expression, assessed using the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay, was not prognostic of OS in patients with R/M HNSCC treated with standard of care chemotherapies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02543476. Registered September 4, 2015.

Glioblastoma and Increased Survival with Longer Chemotherapy Duration.

INTRODUCTION: The five-year survival rate for patients with glioblastoma (GBM) is low at approximately 4.7%. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) remains the standard of care. The optimal duration of therapy with TMZ is unknown. This study sought to evaluate the survival benefit of two years of treatment. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of all patients diagnosed with GBM and treated with TMZ for up to two years between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2011. The Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test was used to estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS). The results were compared to historical controls and data from previous clinical trials of patients treated up to one year. RESULTS: Data from 56 patients with confirmed GBM were evaluated. The OS probability was 54% (SE = 0.068) at one year, 28.3% (SE = 0.064) at two years, 17.8% (SE = 0.059) at three years, and 4% (SE = 0.041) at five years. Seven patients (12.5%) were treated with TMZ for two years. Their median time-to-progression was 28 months (95% CI = 5.0 - 28.0), and they had an increased survival probability at three years compared to other patients (log-rank test χ2 (1, N = 56) = 19.2, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There may be an advantage for a longer duration of TMZ therapy among patients with GBM, but the sample size was too small for generalization. A multicenter prospective study is needed to identify optimal duration of TMZ therapy.

Predictors of guideline treatment nonadherence and the impact on survival in patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the effect of comorbidity, age, health insurance payer status, and race on the risk of patient nonadherence to NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon and Rectal Cancers. In addition, the prognostic impact of NCCN treatment nonadherence on overall survival was assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CRC who received primary treatment at Memorial University Medical Center from 2003 to 2010 were eligible for this study. Modified Poisson regression was used to obtain risk ratios for the outcome of nonadherence with NCCN Guidelines. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the relative risk of death from all causes were obtained through Cox regression. RESULTS: Guideline-adherent treatment was received by 82.7% of patients. Moderate/severe comorbidity, being uninsured, having rectal cancer, older age, and increasing tumor stage were associated with increased risks of receiving nonadherent treatment. Treatment nonadherence was associated with 3.6 times the risk of death (HR, 3.55; 95% CI, 2.16-5.85) in the first year after diagnosis and an 80% increased risk of death (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.14-2.83) in years 2 to 5. The detrimental effect of nonadherence declined with increasing comorbidity and varied according to age. CONCLUSIONS: Although medically justifiable reasons exist for deviating from NCCN Guidelines when treating patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), those who received nonadherent treatment had much higher risks of death, especially in the first year after diagnosis. This study's results highlight the importance of cancer health services research to drive quality improvement efforts in cancer care for patients with CRC.

An analysis of the distress thermometer problem list and distress in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with a cancer diagnosis experience complex issues that can cause distress. The purpose of this study is to identify factors associated with overall distress for a diverse population of cancer survivors. METHODS: Researchers conducted a secondary data analysis of distress ratings (n = 1205) for people receiving outpatient care at a Midwestern US cancer center from 2005 to 2009 to describe the relationships between distress factors and need for assessment of distress. The screening tool was based on the distress thermometer (DT) scale and a modified problem list. Odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals from this multivariable model were computed. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that the items on the problem list that most contribute to being at risk for distress include financial, worry, nervousness, getting around, and sleep. The most highly associated risk factor for distress was worry. Those that were at risk for high distress were 5.57 times more likely to endorse problems related to worry. CONCLUSIONS: This research identifies which factors may be especially salient to the patient's perception of distress and help guide clinicians in developing targeted screening strategies and specific interventions based on patient response to the DT. It also points to the need for future research to more clearly characterize distress from the patient perspective and determine when interventions may be indicated.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of honey to protect from the effects of radiation-induced oral mucositis.

Recently, 4 separate human controlled trials reported that honey appeared to protect from the effects of radiation-induced oral mucositis formation, a complication of radiation therapy that is responsible for pain and overall reduction in quality of life. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors examined 3 of these controlled trials (n = 120) that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine whether honey had protective effects against radiation-induced oral mucositis. The meta-analysis demonstrated an overall relative risk reduction of 80% in the honey treatment group compared with the control. Although favorable, the data must be approached with caution because of lack of description of the method of randomization and potential bias in all 3 of the individual studies included in the meta-analysis. The results are promising, and further studies are needed to strengthen the current evidence prior to a firm clinical recommendation being given.

Randomized phase III trial of vinorelbine plus cisplatin compared with observation in completely resected stage IB and II non-small-cell lung cancer: updated survival analysis of JBR-10.

PURPOSE Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (ACT) is now an accepted standard for completely resected stage II and III A non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Long-term follow-up is important to document persistent benefit and late toxicity. We report here updated overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) data. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with completely resected stage IB (T2N0, n = 219) or II (T1-2N1, n = 263) NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive 4 cycles of vinorelbine/cisplatin or observation. All efficacy analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results Median follow-up was 9.3 years (range, 5.8 to 13.8; 33 lost to follow-up); there were 271 deaths in 482 randomly assigned patients. ACT continues to show a benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .04). There was a trend for interaction with disease stage (P = .09; HR for stage II, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.92; P = .01; stage IB, HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.52; P = .87). ACT resulted in significantly prolonged DSS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.97; P = .03). Observation was associated with significantly higher risk of death from lung cancer (P = .02), with no difference in rates of death from other causes or second primary malignancies between the arms. CONCLUSION Prolonged follow-up of patients from the JBR.10 trial continues to show a benefit in survival for adjuvant chemotherapy. This benefit appears to be confined to N1 patients. There was no increase in death from other causes in the chemotherapy arm.