Selinexor in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with metastatic solid tumors: Results of an open label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study with expansion phase in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Selinexor is a first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound which blocks Exportin-1 (XPO1). Our objective was to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of selinexor and weekly paclitaxel. METHODS: This was an open label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study utilizing a "3 + 3" design and a "basket-type" expansion in recurrent solid tumors. Selinexor (60 mg or 80 mg twice weekly orally) and weekly paclitaxel (80 mg IV 2 week on, 1 week off) were one of 13 parallel arms. Efficacy was evaluated using RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: All 35 patients treated were evaluable for toxicity and 31 (88%) were evaluable for response. Patient diagnoses included platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian (n = 28), breast (n = 4), prostate (n = 2), and cervical (n = 1) cancer. Patients had a median of four prior therapies (range 1-10), and 47% had a prior taxane in the recurrent setting. There were no DLTs and 60 mg was chosen as the RP2D due to long-term tolerability. Ninety-seven percent of patients had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and the most common grade ≥ 3 TEAE were neutropenia (46%), anemia (31%), and nausea (21%). Among 24 evaluable patients with ovarian cancer, response rate was 17%, CBR was 58%, and median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI 3.7, not reached (NR)). CONCLUSIONS: Oral selinexor in combination with weekly paclitaxel demonstrated promising clinical activity with manageable toxicity. This combination should be considered for further exploration in a randomized study, especially in ovarian malignancies.

Selinexor in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors: Results of a single-center, multi-arm phase Ib study.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT) is one of the standard chemotherapy regimens used in various tumor types. Preclinical models have suggested that selinexor, a first-in-class oral potent selective inhibitor of nuclear export Exportin-1, and CT exerts antitumor activity in multiple malignancies. METHODS: This was a single-center, multi-arm phase Ib study utilizing a "basket type" expansion. CT and selinexor was employed as one of the 13 parallel arms. Advanced relapsed/refractory solid tumors following standard therapy or where the addition of selinexor to standard regimens deemed appropriate, were eligible. RESULTS: Of 13 patients treated, 12 patients were evaluable for response. The most common cancers were breast (n = 4), esophageal (n = 2), ovarian (n = 2) and non-small cell lung cancers (n = 2). All 13 patients had at least one treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and the most common were neutropenia (85%), leukopenia (85%), thrombocytopenia (85%), anemia (69%), nausea (54%), vomiting (46%), and fatigue (46%). One patient at 60 mg QW experienced DLT with grade 3 nausea and vomiting lasting 3 days. Unconfirmed partial response (uPR) was observed in 3 patients; one patient each with esophageal, breast, and ovarian cancer. One patient with esophageal adenocarcinoma had confirmed PR, however, was discontinued from the study due to clinical progression. Five patients achieved stable disease (SD). Disease control rate was 8%. Majority of patients (77%), including two patients who had uPR, had prior exposure to carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. Time-to-treatment failure (TTF) ranged from 1 to 153 weeks. CONCLUSION: The RP2D of selinexor was 60 mg QW in combination with CT. The combination conferred viable clinical activity with durable objective responses which should further be explored in tumor types for which CT is used as standard of care. Trial information. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT02419495. Sponsor(s): Karyopharm Therapeutics. (Trial registration: NCT02419495. Registered 14 April 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02419495 ).

Effects of glutamine for prevention of radiation-induced esophagitis: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Purpose Acute radiation-induced esophagitis (ARIE) leads to treatment delays, decreased quality of life (QOL), and secondary adverse events such as weight loss. Grade 3 ARIE occurs in 15%-30% of patients undergoing radiotherapy to the esophagus, leading to disruption or discontinuation of treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of glutamine, a common nutritional supplement, on ARIE in patients with thoracic malignancies. Patients and methods This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled patients with advanced thoracic malignancies receiving concurrent chemotherapy/radiotherapy or radiotherapy alone, with radiation doses to the esophagus ≥45 Gy. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive 4 g of glutamine or glycine placebo twice daily. The primary objective was to determine whether glutamine decreases the severity of ARIE in these patients. Secondary objectives included assessment of the effects of glutamine on other measures of ARIE, weight, symptom burden measure assessed by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-HN) questionnaire and the toxicity profile of glutamine. Results At the time of interim analysis, 53 patients were enrolled: 27 in the glutamine arm and 26 in the placebo arm. There was no difference in the incidence of esophagitis in the first 6 weeks of radiotherapy between the glutamine and placebo arms (74% versus 68%; P = 1.00). There were no significant differences between the two arms for time to onset of esophagitis. The duration of ARIE was shorter (6.3 versus 7.1 weeks; P = 0.54) and median weight loss was lower (0.9 kg versus 2.8 kg; p = 0.83) in the glutamine arm versus the placebo arm. The groups differ significantly in core symptom severity (2.1 vs 1.5, p < .03) but not in head and neck specific symptom severity (1.2 vs 1.1, p < .60) nor in symptom interference (2.1 vs 1.7, p < .22). There was no grade 3 or higher adverse event at least possibly related to glutamine. The study was terminated for futility following interim analysis. Conclusion Oral glutamine was not associated with significant improvement in severity of ARIE, weight loss, head and neck specific symptoms or symptom interference compared with placebo in patients with advanced thoracic malignancies receiving radiotherapy to the esophagus.Clinical trial information. NCT01952847, and date of registration is September 30, 2013.

Selinexor in combination with topotecan in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors: Results of an open-label, single-center, multi-arm phase Ib study.

Background Selinexor, a first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound inhibits Exportin-1(XPO1), had demonstrated synergistic activity with many chemotherapies and conferred in vivo antitumor efficacy in hematologic as well as solid tumors. Methods This open-label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study used a standard 3 + 3 design and a "basket type" expansion. Selinexor with intravenous topotecan was given in one of the 13 parallel arms. Patients with advanced or metastatic relapsed/refractory solid tumors following prior systemic therapy, or in whom the addition of selinexor to standard chemotherapy deemed appropriate, were eligible. Results Fourteen patients with the median age of 61 years (range, 22-68years) were treated, and the most common cancer types were gynecological cancers; ovarian (n = 5), endometrial (n = 2), and 1 each with fallopian tube and vaginal cancers. Of the 14 patients treated, 12 (86 %) had at least one treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). The most common TRAEs were anemia (71 %), thrombocytopenia (57 %), hyponatremia (57 %), vomiting (57 %), fatigue (50 %), nausea (50 %), and neutropenia (36 %). Two patients had dose limiting toxicities. One patient dosed at selinexor 80 mg had grade 3 nausea and vomiting and one patient dosed at selinexor 60 mg experienced grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Of the 13 efficacy evaluable patients, one (8 %) with endometrial cancer achieved unconfirmed partial response (uPR) and the time-to-treatment failure (TTF) was 48 weeks, whereas 6 of the 13 (46 %) patients had stable disease (SD) contributing to the clinical benefit rate of 46 %. The median TTF for all patients was 9 weeks (range, 2-48weeks). Conclusions Once weekly selinexor in combination with topotecan was viable and showed some preliminary tumor efficacy. The recommend phase 2 dose of selinexor was 60 mg once weekly in combination with IV topotecan.Trial registration: NCT02419495. Registered 14 April 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02419495.

Evaluation of a novel blood pressure scoring method and its association with clinical response in cancer patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.

BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to establish a novel blood pressure (BP) scoring method and to correlate it with clinical response in advanced cancer patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data for 368 patients from 23 clinical trials that included at least one anti-VEGF agent. We determined BP scores using the traditional Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 and our novel method that considers both BP readings and number of anti-hypertensive medications the patient received. BP scores were categorized at baseline and four months. Logistic regression analysis correlated elevated scores with clinical response. Agreement between the CTCAE and the new method was assessed. RESULTS: Under the new BP scoring method, partial response rates were 20 % in patients with an elevated score at four months versus 6 % in patients without elevated score (P < 0.001). When adjusted for tumor type, age, sex, history of anti-VEGF treatment, and number of anti-VEGF treatments, elevated BP under the new scoring method had an odds ratio of 3.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 8.2; P < 0.001). The kappa statistic for agreement between the CTCAE and new scoring methods was 0.57 (95 % CI: 0.47, 0.67; P < 0.001), indicating significant concordance. CONCLUSION: Using the novel scoring method, an increase in BP scores was a marker for favorable clinical response in patients who received anti-VEGF treatment. This new method ultimately provides information with regard to clinical tumor response over and above that provided by the CTCAE scoring method.

Barriers to study enrollment in patients with advanced cancer referred to a phase I clinical trials unit.

UNLABELLED: We conducted this retrospective study to identify reasons that patients referred to a phase I clinical trial failed to enroll or delayed enrollment onto the trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcome analyses were conducted independently on data collected from electronic medical records of two sets of consecutive patients referred to a phase I clinical trial facility at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Data from the first set of 300 patients were used to determine relevant variables affecting enrollment; data from the second set of 957 patients were then analyzed for these variables. RESULTS: Results from the two sets of patients were similar. Approximately 55% of patients were enrolled in a phase I trial. Patients referred from within MD Anderson were more likely to be enrolled than patients seen originally outside the institution (p = .006); black patients were more likely than white patients to enroll (69% vs. 43%; p = .04). The median interval from the initial visit to initiation of treatments was 19 days. Major reasons for failure to enroll included failure to return to the clinic (36%), opting for treatment in another clinic (17%), hospice referral (11%), early death (10%), and lack of financial clearance (5%). Treatment was delayed for three weeks or more in 250 patients; in 85 patients (34%), the delay was caused by financial and insurance issues. CONCLUSION: Failure to return to the clinic, pursuit of other therapy, and rapid deterioration were the major reasons for failure to enroll; lengthy financial clearance was the most common reason for delayed enrollment onto a phase I trial.

Preoperative factors predicting survival after secondary cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated preoperative data that may predict benefit from secondary cytoreductive surgery (CRS) to assist in selecting therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria included recurrent epithelial or primary peritoneal carcinoma with an initial disease-free interval more than 6 months after chemotherapy, evidence of disease on imaging studies and indication for surgery being to debulk residual disease. Preoperative CA125 values, computed tomographic findings, and time to progression were evaluated as predictors of survival in addition to postoperative information and perioperative morbidity. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. In the 35.5% of patients debulked to no visible disease, median survival was significantly longer than in those with less than 1 cm of visible residual disease (5.95 vs 2.73 years, P=0.004), but debulking to less than 1 cm visible disease was not better than those with less than 1 cm residual disease (2.02 years). Mean preoperative CA125 levels were significantly lower in the patients who could be debulked to no visible residual disease compared to less than 1 cm or more than 1 cm residual disease (69.1 vs 290.7 vs 1978.4, P=0.001). Generation of a receiver operating characteristic curve determined that a CA125 cutoff of 250 U/mL best predicted successful cytoreduction to no visible disease. CONCLUSIONS: Only patients cytoreduced to no visible disease achieved a survival advantage, and the only preoperative factor that could predict surgical success regarding prolonging survival was a CA125 less than 250 U/mL. These data can guide physicians and patients in deciding whether or not to undergo secondary cytoreduction for first recurrence of ovarian cancer.

Selinexor in combination with standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

Selinexor, an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE), was demonstrated to hinder the DNA damage repair (DDR) system by reducing DDR proteins while enhancing the killing of cancer cells by DDR-based therapeutics in vivo studies. In this single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study, selinexor with carboplatin, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (DC), irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFIRI), irinotecan, and capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX), were employed as separate parallel arms. Eligible patients have relapsed/ metastatic refractory solid tumors following standard therapy or addition of selinexor to systemic therapy was appropriate. Nineteen patients were treated in the 5 arms. Tumor types included were colorectal (n = 3), breast (n = 3), neuroendocrine (n = 2), ovarian (n = 2), and pancreas cancers (n = 2). All patients developed one treatment-related adverse events (TRAE). The most prevalent TRAE were thrombocytopenia (84%), nausea (68%), leukopenia (68%), neutropenia (63%), and fatigue (58%). The common grade 3/4 TRAE were neutropenia (42%), leukopenia (26%), and hyponatremia (21%). Three patients had dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) in 3 separate arms. Fourteen patients were evaluable for response. Although no patients achieved complete or partial response (CR or PR), seven patients attained stable disease (SD). Disease control rate (DCR) was 14%. The combination of oral selinexor with different standard chemotherapies showed limited clinical activity despite toxicity and DLT prevented further dose escalation. Optimizing supportive care, the utility of growth factors, and aggressive measures on antiemetics strategies remain tangible.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02419495. Registered 14 April 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02419495 ). Sponsor(s): Karyopharm Therapeutics.

Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Immunotherapy module of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory.

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapies have revolutionized the treatment of various cancers, but little is known about their symptomatic toxicity. Assessing these symptoms is best accomplished by asking the patients themselves. However, such reports are subjective and may face challenges as bonafide scientific data. Demonstrating the validity of symptom assessment tools, mainly through the reduction of measurement errors, has the potential to improve patient care if these tools are widely adopted. To that end, we present herein the psychometric properties of the Immunotherapy for Early-Phase Trials module of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT) in patients receiving various immunotherapies in early phase trials at a major cancer center. METHODS: One hundred forty-five patients completed the inventory at baseline, with 85 of them also doing so after 9 weeks of treatment. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 57.0±12.9 years. Also, 56% of the patients were women, 79% identified as white, and 49% had at least some college education. RESULTS: The internal consistency reliability of the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT was excellent, as the Cronbach's alphas for all of its subscales were at least 0.88 (range 0.88-0.95). Known-group validity based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status groupings was excellent at 9 weeks after the start of an immunotherapy trial for the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT severity (effect size, 0.96) and interference (effect size, 0.82) subscales. We found substantial changes in the symptom items difficulty remembering (effect size, -0.85), fever and/or chills (effect size, -0.63), disturbed sleep (effect size, -0.52), diarrhea (effect size, -0.42), and swelling of hands, legs, or feet (effect size, -0.39). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the MDASI-Immunotherapy EPT is a valid, reliable, and sensitive tool for measuring symptomatic toxicity.

Phase 2 study of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced rare cancers.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced rare cancers have poor prognosis and few treatment options. As immunotherapy is effective across multiple cancer types, we aimed to assess pembrolizumab (programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor) in patients with advanced rare cancers. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 trial, patients with advanced rare cancers whose tumors had progressed on standard therapies, if available, within the previous 6 months were enrolled in nine tumor-specific cohorts and a 10th cohort for other rare histologies. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was administered intravenously every 21 days. The primary endpoint was non-progression rate (NPR) at 27 weeks; secondary endpoints were safety and tolerability, objective response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR). RESULTS: A total of 127 patients treated between August 15, 2016 and July 27, 2018 were included in this analysis. At the time of data cut-off, the NPR at 27 weeks was 28% (95% CI, 19% to 37%). A confirmed objective response (OR) was seen in 15 of 110 (14%) evaluable patients (complete response in one and partial response in 14). CBR, defined as the percentage of patients with an OR or stable disease ≥4 months, was 38% (n=42). Treatment was ongoing in 11 of 15 patients with OR at last follow-up. In the cohort with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the skin, the NPR at 27 weeks was 36%, ORR 31%, and CBR 38%. In patients with adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC), NPR at 27 weeks was 31%, ORR 15%, and CBR 54%. In the patients with carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP), NPR at 27 weeks was 33%, ORR 23%, and CBR 54%. In the paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma cohort, NPR at 27 weeks was 43%, ORR 0%, and CBR 75%. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 66 of 127 (52%) patients, and 12 (9%) had grade ≥3 TRAEs. The most common TRAEs were fatigue (n=25) and rash (n=17). There were six deaths, all of which were unrelated to the study drug. CONCLUSIONS: The favorable toxicity profile and antitumor activity seen in patients with SCC of skin, ACC, CUP, and paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma supports further evaluation of pembrolizumab in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02721732.

Prevalence of Complementary Medicine Use in Patients With Cancer: A Turkish Comprehensive Cancer Center Experience.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been popular among patients with cancer for several decades. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of CAM use and to identify the factors affecting CAM use in a large patient cohort seen at a comprehensive cancer center in Turkey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An investigator-designed survey was completed by volunteer patients who visited the outpatient clinic in the medical oncology department. CAM use encompassed pharmacologic agents including vitamins, dietary supplements, and herbal products or nonpharmacologic methods like prayer, meditation, hypnosis, massage, or acupuncture. RESULTS: Of 1,499 patients who answered the survey, 1,433 (96%) used nonpharmacologic CAM and 60 (4%) used pharmacologic CAM (pCAM). The most frequent types of CAM used were prayer (n = 1,433) followed by herbal products (n = 42). pCAM use was not significantly associated with age ( P = .63), sex ( P = .15), diagnosis ( P = .15), or income level ( P = .09). However, it was significantly associated with the level of education ( P = .0067) and employment status ( P < .001). Patients with higher education levels used more pCAM products ( P = .025). Among 60 pCAM users, six patients (10%) used pCAM for more than 2 years and 22 (36%) did not consult their physicians about their pCAM use. Only nine patients (15%) reported unpleasant adverse effects related to pCAM. CONCLUSION: Although CAM use was high among our patients, prevalence of pCAM use was lower than expected. Patients with higher education levels tended to use more pCAM.

Phase I dose escalation study of temsirolimus in combination with metformin in patients with advanced/refractory cancers.

PURPOSE: Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors like temsirolimus may result in undesirable AKT upregulation. Metformin inhibits mTOR through different mechanisms and may enhance temsirolimus's antitumor activity. We conducted an open-label phase I dose escalation trial of this drug combination in patients with advanced/refractory cancers. METHODS: Temsirolimus, 25 mg weekly, was combined with an escalating daily dose of metformin (level 1: 500; level 2: 1000; level 3: 1500; level 4: 2000 mg) by utilizing a standard 3 + 3 trial design. Treatment was administered in 28-day cycles following initial 2-week metformin titration during the first cycle. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (median age, 56 years) with sarcoma (n = 8), colorectal (n = 3), endometrial (n = 4), uterine carcinosarcoma (n = 2), ovarian (n = 2), and other (n = 2) cancers were enrolled. Patients had received median of four prior systemic treatments. Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed (grade 3 mucositis, grade 3 renal failure); both patients continued treatment after dose modification. Fifty-six percent patients had stable disease as best response; clinical benefit rate was 22 %. Patients continued treatment for median of 11 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Combination temsirolimus/metformin was well tolerated with modestly promising effectiveness among this heavily pretreated patient cohort. We recommend a dose of temsirolimus 25 mg weekly and metformin 2000 mg daily for phase II study.

Role of appendectomy at the time of primary surgery in patients with early-stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether appendectomy is warranted in patients with apparent early-stage ovarian cancer who undergo surgery for staging and cytoreduction and to determine the complication rate associated with appendectomy in such patients. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent appendectomy at the time of primary surgery for ovarian cancer at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between January 1992 and December 2004 and who did not meet any of the following exclusion criteria: stage III or IV ovarian cancer, appendectomy as part of a second-look procedure or secondary tumor-reductive surgery, primary appendiceal cancer, primary gastrointestinal malignancy with metastasis to the appendix, incomplete clinicopathologic data, appendicitis as a preoperative diagnosis, primary fallopian tube cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or documented dual primary tumors. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included in this analysis. The median age was 47 years (range, 13-75). Median follow-up was 53 months (range, 3-147). Histologic diagnoses were as follows: invasive epithelial carcinoma, 35 patients (61%); tumor of low malignant potential, 15 patients (26%); malignant germ cell tumor, 4 patients (7%); and other, 3 patients (5%). Twenty-three patients (40%) had pure mucinous tumors. Forty-six patients (81%) had stage I and 11 patients (19%) had stage II disease. The median CA-125 level was 36.2 U/mL (range, 7-7900). No patient had evidence of appendiceal involvement. No patient suffered an intraoperative or postoperative complication directly related to appendectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Appendectomy at the time of surgery for apparent early-stage ovarian cancer is not associated with complications but should not be routinely recommended.