Adjuvant atezolizumab versus placebo for patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence following resection (IMmotion010): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for locoregional renal cell carcinoma is surgery, but many patients experience recurrence. The objective of the current study was to determine if adjuvant atezolizumab (vs placebo) delayed recurrence in patients with an increased risk of recurrence after resection. METHODS: IMmotion010 is a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial conducted in 215 centres in 28 countries. Eligible patients were patients aged 18 years or older with renal cell carcinoma with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component and increased risk of recurrence. After nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo (both intravenous) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice-web response system. Stratification factors were disease stage (T2 or T3a vs T3b-c or T4 or N+ vs M1 no evidence of disease), geographical region (north America [excluding Mexico] vs rest of the world), and PD-L1 status on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (<1% vs ≥1% expression). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were randomised, regardless of whether study treatment was received. The safety-evaluable population included all patients randomly assigned to treatment who received any amount of study drug (ie, atezolizumab or placebo), regardless of whether a full or partial dose was received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03024996, and is closed to further accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2017, and Feb 15, 2019, 778 patients were enrolled; 390 (50%) were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 388 (50%) to the placebo group. At data cutoff (May 3, 2022), the median follow-up duration was 44·7 months (IQR 39·1-51·0). Median investigator-assessed disease-free survival was 57·2 months (95% CI 44·6 to not evaluable) with atezolizumab and 49·5 months (47·4 to not evaluable) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·75-1·15, p=0·50). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (seven [2%] patients who received atezolizumab vs 15 [4%] patients who received placebo), hyperglycaemia (ten [3%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (two [1%] vs seven [2%]). 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo had a serious adverse event. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy after resection for patients with renal cell carcinoma with increased risk of recurrence showed no evidence of improved clinical outcomes versus placebo. These study results do not support adjuvant atezolizumab for treatment of renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, a member of the Roche group.

Rilotumumab in combination with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line treatment for gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: an open-label, dose de-escalation phase 1b study and a double-blind, randomised phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/MET pathway promotes tumour growth and metastasis. Rilotumumab is a fully human, monoclonal antibody that neutralises HGF. We aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, biomarkers, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) in patients with advanced gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer. METHODS: We recruited patients (≥18 years old) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, who had not received previous systemic therapy, from 43 sites worldwide. Phase 1b was an open-label, dose de-escalation study to identify a safe dose of rilotumumab (initial dose 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) plus ECX (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice a day orally on days 1-21, respectively), administered every 3 weeks. The phase 1b primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in all phase 1b patients who received at least one dose of rilotumumab and completed the dose-limiting toxicity assessment window (first cycle of therapy). Phase 2 was a double-blind study that randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, or placebo, plus ECX (doses as above), stratified by ECOG performance status and disease extent. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analysed by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719550. FINDINGS: Seven of the nine patients enrolled in the phase 1b study received at least one dose of rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, only two of whom had three dose-limiting toxicities: palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, cerebral ischaemia, and deep-vein thrombosis. In phase 2, 121 patients were randomly assigned (40 to rilotumumab 15 mg/kg; 42 to rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg; 39 to placebo). Median PFS was 5·1 months (95% CI 2·9-7·0) in the rilotumumab 15 mg/kg group, 6·8 months (4·5-7·5) in the rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg group, 5·7 months (4·5-7·0) in both rilotumumab groups combined, and 4·2 months (2·9-4·9) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for PFS events compared with placebo was 0·69 (80% CI 0·49-0·97; p=0·164) for rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, 0·53 (80% CI 0·38-0·73; p=0·009) for rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, and 0·60 (80% CI 0·45-0·79; p=0·016) for combined rilotumumab. Any grade adverse events more common in the combined rilotumumab group than in the placebo group included haematological adverse events (neutropenia in 44 [54%] of 81 patients vs 13 [33%] of 39 patients; anaemia in 32 [40%] vs 11 [28%]; and thrombocytopenia in nine [11%] vs none), peripheral oedema (22 [27%] vs three [8%]), and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs five [13%]). Grade 3-4 adverse events more common with rilotumumab included neutropenia (36 [44%] vs 11 [28%]) and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs four [10%]). Serious adverse events were balanced between groups except for anaemia, which occurred more frequently in the combined rilotumumab group (ten [12%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: Rilotumumab plus ECX had no unexpected safety signals and showed greater activity than placebo plus ECX. A phase 3 study of the combination in MET-positive gastric and oesophagogastric junction cancer is in progress. FUNDING: Amgen Inc.

Final Overall Survival and Molecular Analysis in IMmotion151, a Phase 3 Trial Comparing Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sunitinib in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

IMPORTANCE: Interim analyses of the IMmotion151 trial (A Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab Versus Sunitinib in Participants With Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma) reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab vs the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib. Overall survival (OS) results were immature at interim analyses. OBJECTIVE: To report the final OS results, safety, and exploratory biomarker analyses of the association of transcriptomic subgroups with OS in the IMmotion151 trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: IMmotion151 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial that compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with untreated mRCC. IMmotion151 included patients from 152 academic medical centers and community oncology practices in 21 countries. Adult patients with mRCC with components of clear cell or sarcomatoid histologic features, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), adequate performance status, hematologic and end organ function, and tumor tissue available for PD-L1 testing were included. IMmotion151 was initiated on May 20, 2015, and the study is ongoing. This final analysis was performed from May 20, 2015, to February 14, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Receipt of 1200 mg of intravenous (IV) atezolizumab every 3 weeks and 15 mg/kg of IV bevacizumab every 3 weeks or 50 mg orally once daily of sunitinib (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The coprimary end points were PFS (previously reported) in patients with PD-L1+ disease and OS in the intention-to-treat population. Additional exploratory outcomes included OS in the PD-L1+ population, association with transcriptomic subgroups, and safety. RESULTS: The IMmotion151 trial assessed 915 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Mean (IQR) age was 62 (56-69) years for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 60 (54-66) years for patients receiving sunitinib; 669 (73.1%) were male and 246 (26.9%) were female. The final analysis showed similar median OS in patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in the intention-to-treat (36.1 vs 35.3 months) and PD-L1+ (38.7 vs 31.6 months) populations. No new safety signals were reported. The additional exploratory outcome of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib showed improved median OS trends in patients whose tumors were characterized by T-effector/proliferative, proliferative, or small nucleolar RNA transcriptomic profiles (35.4 vs 21.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The primary end point of PFS was met at interim analyses, although no improvement in OS was observed with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab at the final analysis. Biomarker analyses provided insight into which patients with mRCC may benefit from combined anti-PD-L1 and anti-VEGF therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02420821.

Cabozantinib in Combination With Atezolizumab for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the COSMIC-021 Study.

PURPOSE: COSMIC-021 is evaluating cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in patients with solid tumors. We report results from patients with advanced clear cell (cc) and non-clear cell (ncc) renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: This phase Ib study (NCT03170960) enrolled patients age ≥ 18 years with advanced RCC. A dose-escalation stage was followed by expansion cohorts. For cohort expansion, prior systemic therapy was not permitted for ccRCC but allowed for nccRCC. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg once a day (ccRCC and nccRCC) or 60 mg once a day (ccRCC only) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg intravenously, once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1; the secondary end point was safety. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 25.8, 15.3, and 13.3 months for the 40-mg ccRCC, 60-mg ccRCC, and nccRCC groups, respectively. ORR was 53% (80% CI, 41 to 65) in the 40-mg ccRCC group (n = 34) and 58% (80% CI, 46 to 70) in the 60-mg ccRCC group (n = 36), 3% and 11%, respectively, with complete response; median progression-free survival (exploratory end point) was 19.5 and 15.1 months, respectively. In nccRCC (n = 32), ORR was 31% (80% CI, 20 to 44), all partial responses; median progression-free survival was 9.5 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported by 71% of patients in the 40-mg ccRCC group, 67% in the 60-mg ccRCC group, and 38% in the nccRCC group; TRAEs leading to discontinuation of both agents occurred in 15%, 6%, and 3% of patients, respectively. There were no grade 5 TRAEs. CONCLUSION: The novel combination of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity and acceptable tolerability in patients with advanced ccRCC and nccRCC. Disease control was observed across dose levels and histologic subtypes.

Smoking cessation: an integral part of lung cancer treatment.

UNLABELLED: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the US. About 50% of lung cancer patients are current smokers at the time of diagnosis and up to 83% continue to smoke after diagnosis. A recent study suggests that people who continue to smoke after a diagnosis of early-stage lung cancer almost double their risk of dying. Despite a growing body of evidence that continued smoking by patients after a lung cancer diagnosis is linked with less effective treatment and a poorer prognosis, the belief prevails that treating tobacco dependence is useless. With improved cancer treatments and survival rates, smoking cessation among lung cancer patients has become increasingly important. There is a pressing need to clarify the role of smoking cessation in the care of lung cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: This paper will report on the benefits of smoking cessation for lung cancer patients and the elements of smoking cessation treatment, with consideration of tailoring to the needs of lung cancer patients. RESULTS: Given the significant benefits of smoking cessation and that tobacco dependence remains a challenge for many lung cancer patients, cancer care providers need to offer full support and intensive treatment with a smoking cessation program that is tailored to lung cancer patients' specific needs. CONCLUSION: A tobacco dependence treatment plan for lung cancer patients is provided.

Pilot study of gefitinib and fulvestrant in the treatment of post-menopausal women with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Estrogen receptor beta (ERbeta) has been detected in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines and tumor specimens. The ER down-regulator, fulvestrant, blocked estradiol-stimulation of tumor growth and gene transcription in NSCLC preclinical models and showed additive effects with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor gefitinib. The safety and tolerability of combination therapy with the EGFR inhibitor, gefitinib, and fulvestrant was explored. METHODS: Post-menopausal women with advanced NSCLC received gefitinib 250 mg po daily and fulvestrant 250 mg IM monthly. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled. Eight patients had adenocarcinoma, six NSCLC-NOS, four squamous cell, and four BAC. Seven patients were never-smokers. Eight patients received > or =2 lines of prior chemotherapy, six received one prior chemotherapy, and eight were treatment-naïve. One patient experienced grade 4 dyspnea possibly related to treatment; all other grade 3/4 toxicities were unrelated to treatment. Twenty patients were evaluable for response: three partial responses (PRs) were confirmed (response rate of 15%, 95% CI: 5-36%). The median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and estimated 1-year OS were 12 weeks (3-112 weeks), 38.5 weeks (7-135 weeks), and 41% (95% CI: 20-62%), respectively. Survival outcomes did not differ by prior lines of therapy. A subset analysis revealed that OS in the eight patients whose tumors exhibited at least 60% ERbeta nuclear IHC staining measured 65.5 weeks, while that of the five patients with ERbeta staining of less than 60% was 21 weeks. One patient with bronchioalveolar carcinoma (BAC) and a PR had an EGFR L858R mutation in exon 21. There was no correlation between ERbeta IHC expression and histology or smoking history. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with gefitinib and fulvestrant in this population was well tolerated and demonstrated disease activity.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 1b/2 Study of Rilotumumab or Ganitumab in Combination With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b/2 study we assessed the efficacy/safety of rilotumumab or ganitumab combined with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase 1b study, patients received rilotumumab 15 mg/kg or ganitumab 18 mg/kg with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin. In the phase 2 study, patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive placebo, rilotumumab, or ganitumab with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin. Chemotherapy was administered for ≤ 6 cycles; rilotumumab, ganitumab, or placebo was then continued as maintenance therapy. The primary end points were incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; phase 1b) and overall survival (OS; phase 2). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: In the phase 1b study (n = 28), 1 patient treated with ganitumab experienced a DLT (Grade 4 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia lasting ≥ 7 days). In the phase 2 study, 185 patients were enrolled (placebo, n = 61; rilotumumab, n = 62; ganitumab, n = 62). Median OS was 10.8, 12.2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.25; P = .384), and 10.7 (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.63-1.41; P = .787) months, in placebo, rilotumumab, or ganitumumab arms, respectively. Median PFS was 5.4, 5.4 (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71-1.54; P = .797), and 5.5 (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.55; P = .780) months, respectively. Adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in 11 (19%), 10 (16%), and 7 (12%) patients, respectively. Serum biomarker analysis showed improved survival for patients with baseline hepatocyte growth factor levels below the median in the rilotumumab arm. CONCLUSION: Although the combination of rilotumumab or ganitumab with chemotherapy was tolerable, overall outcomes were not improved in patients with ES-SCLC.

Patient preferences in choosing chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

The major difference between cisplatin-based chemotherapy doublets for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not in the outcomes of their use--rather, it is in the side effects and toxicities that they cause. The degree to which oncologists involve lung cancer patients in discussions regarding the selection of chemotherapy is unknown. A questionnaire regarding patient concerns about chemotherapy and physician discussions was sent to patients registered in the Alliance for Lung Cancer Advocacy, Support, and Education (ALCASE) database from 2000--2002. About three-quarters of the respondents reported that if they were given the option, they would consider side effects important in choosing a particular regimen--and nausea was the most important side effect that would influence that decision. Female patients were more likely to worry about infection and hair loss resulting from therapy than were men. Further, about two-thirds of patients reported that they had discussed differences in chemotherapy side effects with their physicians, particularly if the physicians were female, although less than half of those patients recalled discussing the selection of a particular regimen based upon its side-effect profile. Different chemotherapy regimens with varied side-effect profiles have been developed, but medical oncologists do not present options for chemotherapy uniformly to their patients based on possible or probable adverse reactions. Better communication between physician and patient about the likelihood of side effects may reduce chemotherapy-related stress for patients.

Phase I trial of perillyl alcohol administered four times daily continuously.

PURPOSE: Previous experience with perillyl alcohol (POH) was with a formulation of 500-mg capsules each containing 250 mg POH and soybean oil. This formulation resulted in the ingestion of large amounts of soybean oil (>10 g/day). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were primarily gastrointestinal. Prior studies also showed no further increase in POH metabolite concentrations with doses of >1600 mg/m2. Therefore, a new formulation of POH was developed (700 mg containing 675 mg POH) in an effort to improve dose and metabolite concentrations delivered and toxicity encountered with chronic dosing. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients had refractory solid malignancies. Dose escalation occurred in cohorts of three at the dose levels/dose of 1350 mg, 2025 mg, 2700 mg, 3375 mg and 4050 mg, administered orally four times a day in a 28-day cycle. RESULTS: A group of 19 patients were enrolled. One DLT occurred at dose level 5. This cohort was expanded to six patients, and no further DLT occurred. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The predominant toxicity was gastrointestinal. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 63% of patients (12/19, grade 1 in 10). The same proportion of patients (12/19) experienced heartburn and indigestion, primarily grade 1. Although the side effects were mild in nature, three patients withdrew from treatment, citing intolerable gastrointestinal toxicity. The AUCs of POH metabolites did not appear to increase from level 1 to level 2 or change significantly from day 1 to day 29. Inter- and intrapatient variability in metabolite levels was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This reformulation of POH appears to be an improvement upon the prior formulation, by reducing the number of capsules ingested and the degree of gastrointestinal toxicity per dose. It does not appear to offer any metabolite pharmacokinetic advantage. A dose of 2050 mg administered four times daily was easily tolerated. Higher doses can be administered but with increasing gastrointestinal toxicity that limits compliance.

Chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis after it has advanced. Over the past several years, there has been slow but steady progress in treatment options. Chemotherapy results in a modest improvement in survival, improved quality of life, and decreased pulmonary symptoms. For first-line therapy, platinum-based regimens have generally been the standard of care, with no one regimen clearly superior to the others in terms of overall survival, although there may be differences in response rates, time to progression, toxicities, cost, and schedule. There does not appear to be such a uniform consensus for nonplatinum agents. Triplet regimens are not more effective than doublet regimens and are more toxic and expensive. Chemotherapy should be given for four cycles unless there is unaccepted toxicity or disease progression. Patients with poor PS generally experience increased toxicities and fewer benefits, although this finding needs further investigation to ascertain the appropriate treatment. In second-line setting, docetaxel is the agent that has been extensively studied and approved. Furthermore, molecularly targeted therapy holds a promising future and is discussed in articles elsewhere in this issue. Lung cancer is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis after it has advanced. Over the past several years, there has been slow but steady progress in treatment options. Chemotherapy results in a modest improvement in survival, improved quality of life, and decreased pulmonary symptoms. For first-line therapy, platinum-based regimens have generally been the standard of care, with no one regimen clearly superior to the others in terms of overall survival, although there may be differences in response rates, time to progression, toxicities, cost, and schedule. There does not appear to be such a uniform consensus for nonplatinum agents. Triplet regimens are not more effective than doublet regimens and are more toxic and expensive. Chemotherapy should be given for four cycles unless there is unaccepted toxicity or disease progression. Patients with poor PS generally experience increased toxicities and fewer benefits, although this finding needs further investigation to ascertain the appropriate treatment. In second-line setting, docetaxel is the agent that has been extensively studied and approved. Furthermore, molecularly targeted therapy holds a promising future and is discussed in articles elsewhere in this issue.

Targeted MET inhibition in castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomized phase II study and biomarker analysis with rilotumumab plus mitoxantrone and prednisone.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, biomarkers, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab, a fully human, monoclonal antibody against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/scatter factor, combined with mitoxantrone and prednisone (MP) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This double-blinded phase II study randomized (1:1:1) patients with progressive, taxane-refractory CRPC to receive MP (12 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, 5 mg twice a day orally days 1-21, respectively) plus 15 mg/kg rilotumumab, 7.5 mg/kg rilotumumab, or placebo (i.v. day 1) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred and forty-four patients were randomized. Median OS was 12.2 versus 11.1 months [HR, 1.10; 80% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-1.48] in the combined rilotumumab versus control arms. Median progression-free survival was 3.0 versus 2.9 months (HR, 1.02; 80% CI, 0.79-1.31). Treatment appeared well tolerated with peripheral edema (24% vs. 8%) being more common with rilotumumab. A trend toward unfavorable OS was observed in patients with high tumor MET expression regardless of treatment. Soluble MET levels increased in all treatment arms. Total HGF levels increased in the rilotumumab arms. Rilotumumab showed linear pharmacokinetics when co-administered with MP. CONCLUSIONS: Rilotumumab plus MP had manageable toxicities and showed no efficacy improvements in this estimation study. High tumor MET expression may identify patients with CRPC with poorer prognosis.

A phase II study of sorafenib in malignant mesothelioma: results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30307.

HYPOTHESIS: Malignant mesotheliomas (MMs) express vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and cKIT. Sorafenib is a potent inhibitor of the ras/raf/MEK pathway and also targets VEGFR and cKIT. We evaluated the activity of sorafenib in patients with unresectable mesothelioma. METHODS: MM patients who had received 0 to 1 prior chemotherapy regimens were treated with sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. The primary end point was objective response. ERK1/2 phosphorylation in archival tissues was correlated with response and survival. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were enrolled, 50 were evaluable and included in the analysis. Three patients had a partial response (6% [95% confidence interval = 1.3-16.6%]), and 27 (54% [95% confidence interval = 39.3-68.2%]) had stable disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival (OS) were 3.6 and 9.7 months, respectively. Median survival was superior in epithelioid histology versus other types (10.7 versus 3.7 months, p = 0.0179). The difference in median OS between pretreated and chemonaive patients was not statistically significant (13.2 versus 5 months, p = 0.3117). Low/negative baseline tumor phospho-ERK1/2 levels were associated with improved OS (13.9 versus 5.2 months, p = 0.0066). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib has limited activity in advanced MM patients, similar to that seen with other VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Additional studies of sorafenib in MM are not warranted.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® on Induction and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage N2 Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: expert panel on radiation oncology-lung.

"The American College of Radiology seeks and encourages collaboration with other organizations on the development of the ACR Appropriateness Criteria through society representation on expert panels. Participation by representatives from collaborating societies on the expert panel does not necessarily imply society endorsement of the final document."

ACR Appropriateness Criteria: nonsurgical treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer: good performance status/definitive intent.

The optimal strategy for the non-surgical definitive treatment of patients with good performance status non-small cell lung cancer (mostly with locally advanced disease) has dramatically evolved over time. This article presents evidence-based data to review this literature. Several decades ago, the standard treatment for most stage III inoperable NSCLC was definitive radiation therapy alone. Randomized trials have since shown superior results with sequential chemotherapy and radiation, and more recently with concurrent chemoradiation, the current standard of care. Studies suggest a limited role for induction or adjuvant systemic therapy in addition to concurrent chemoradiation. The role of altered radiation fractionation techniques, such as hyperfractionation for locally advanced disease or hypofractionation for early stage disease is also discussed. More recently, the application of more advanced radiation techniques has been explored, including intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam radiation. Finally, various case variants are presented as examples of state-of-the-art treatment approaches.

Vorinostat (NSC# 701852) in patients with relapsed non-small cell lung cancer: a Wisconsin Oncology Network phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Vorinostat is a small molecule inhibitor of histone deacetylase, and has shown preclinical activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with relapsed NSCLC were eligible. Patients received oral vorinostat, 400 mg daily. The primary objective was response rate, with the goal of at least one responder in the first 14 evaluable patients, according to the two-stage minimax design. Secondary objectives included time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Sixteen patients enrolled from January 2006 to April 2007. The median age was 59.5 years. Thirteen patients were female. Two patients were not evaluable for response due to progressive disease within Cycle 1. No objective antitumor responses were seen in the 14 evaluable patients. Eight patients experienced stable disease (median 3.7 months, range 1.4-19.4). Median TTP was 2.3 months (range 0.9-19.4 months), median OS was 7.1 months (range 1.4-30.0+ months), and estimated 1 year OS rate was 19% (SE 10%). One patient died on study from an acute ischemic stroke; this event was deemed possibly related to treatment. Grade 3/4 adverse events possibly related to vorinostat included neutropenia, lymphopenia, fatigue, pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis, dehydration, elevated alkaline phosphatase, and hypokalemia. CONCLUSIONS: No objective antitumor activity was detected with single agent vorinostat in this setting; however, it yields TTP in relapsed NSCLC similar to that of other targeted agents. Further studies in NSCLC should focus on combining vorinostat with other antitumor agents.

A phase I study of a 2-day lapatinib chemosensitization pulse preceding nanoparticle albumin-bound Paclitaxel for advanced solid malignancies.

PURPOSE: Systemic chemotherapy fails to access much of the tumor burden in patients with advanced cancer, significantly limiting its efficacy. In preclinical studies, brief high doses of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) targeting the human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) family can prime tumor vasculature for optimal chemotherapeutic delivery and efficacy. This study investigates the clinical relevance of this approach. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A phase I clinical study of escalating doses of the HER TKI lapatinib given as a 2-day pulse before a weekly infusion of nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m(2)) was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were treated. Treatment was associated with grade 1 to 2 toxicities including diarrhea, nausea, rash, neutropenia, neuropathy, fatigue, alopecia, and anemia. The two dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 vomiting and grade 4 neutropenia, and the maximum tolerated dose of lapatinib was defined as 5250 mg/day in divided doses. Lapatinib concentrations increased with increasing dose. Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging studies in a subset of patients confirmed a decrease in tumor vascular permeability immediately following a lapatinib pulse. Sixty-five percent of evaluable patients experienced a partial or stable response on this therapy, 72% of whom were previously taxane-refractory. CONCLUSION: A 2-day pulse of high-dose lapatinib given before weekly nab-paclitaxel is a feasible and tolerable clinical regimen, suitable for testing this novel vascular-priming chemosensitization hypothesis developed in preclinical models.

Optimal adjuvant therapy for non-small cell lung cancer--how to handle stage I disease.

The standard of care for resected stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) now includes adjuvant chemotherapy based on the results of three phase III studies using cisplatin-based regimens--the International Adjuvant Lung Trial, the National Cancer Institute of Canada JBR.10 trial, and the Adjuvant Navelbine International Trialist Association trial. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I disease remains controversial. A recent meta-analysis (the Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation) showed potential harm with the addition of adjuvant cisplatin for stage IA disease and no survival benefit for this modality in stage IB disease. Updated results from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9633 trial, the only trial to focus exclusively on stage IB patients, no longer show a statistically significant survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in this population, except for the subgroup of patients with larger tumors. It may be that trials have been underpowered to detect a small benefit for patients with stage IB disease, or there may really not be benefit to adding adjuvant therapy for this stage of disease. Additional markers, such as tumor size or the presence or absence of certain tumor proteins like ERCC1, may help to determine which patients with resected stage I NSCLC may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Strategies such as inhibition of angiogenesis pathways and the epidermal growth factor receptor are under exploration.

Non-small-cell lung cancer and breast carcinoma: chemotherapy and beyond.

Early screening, adjuvant and sequential systemic treatment, and hormonal therapy have benefits in treatment of breast cancer. Management of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is progressing and will hopefully follow in the same footsteps as that of breast cancer. Only recently have clinical trials established adjuvant treatment as the standard of care in lung cancer. A growing number of effective cytotoxic and targeted agents have resulted in increased survival when used as sequential treatment in both breast cancer and NSCLC. The interaction between oestrogen receptors (ER) in the lung and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) suggests a potential role for endocrine manipulation in the treatment of NSCLC. This complex interaction involves several types of ER receptors and different signalling pathways. Interactions between tobacco and oestrogen confound the effects of exogenous oestrogens on risk of lung cancer, but not on that of breast cancer. The optimum application of hormonal manipulation to prevent or treat lung cancer will depend on a more-complete understanding of lung-specific ER signalling. Early trials have assessed the interaction between the ER and EGFR signalling.