Effect of Longer-Interval vs Standard Dosing of Zoledronic Acid on Skeletal Events in Patients With Bone Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Zoledronic acid, a third-generation aminobisphosphonate, reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events and pain in patients with bone metastases. The optimal dosing interval for zoledronic acid is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether zoledronic acid administered every 12 weeks is noninferior to zoledronic acid administered every 4 weeks. Design, Setting, Participants: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted at 269 academic and community sites in the United States. Patients (n = 1822) with metastatic breast cancer, metastatic prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma who had at least 1 site of bone involvement were enrolled between May 2009 and April 2012; follow-up concluded in April 2014. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid administered intravenously every 4 weeks (n = 911) vs every 12 weeks (n = 911) for 2 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients having at least 1 skeletal-related event (defined as clinical fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation to bone, or surgery involving bone) within 2 years after randomization and a between-group absolute difference of 7% as the noninferiority margin. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients with at least 1 skeletal-related event by disease type, pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher scores indicate worse pain), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (range, 0-4; higher scores indicate worse disability), incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, kidney dysfunction, skeletal morbidity rate (mean number of skeletal-related events per year), and, in a subset of 553 patients, suppression of bone turnover (assessed by C-terminal telopeptide levels). Results: Among 1822 patients who were randomized (median age, 65 years; 980 [53.8%] women; 855 with breast cancer, 689 with prostate cancer, and 278 with multiple myeloma), 795 completed the study at 2 years. A total of 260 patients (29.5%) in the zoledronic acid every 4-week dosing group and 253 patients (28.6%) in the every 12-week dosing group experienced at least 1 skeletal-related event within 2 years of randomization (risk difference of -0.3% [1-sided 95% CI, -4% to ∞]; P < .001 for noninferiority). The proportions of skeletal-related events did not differ significantly between the every 4-week dosing group vs the every 12-week dosing group for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma. Pain scores, performance status scores, incidence of jaw osteonecrosis, and kidney dysfunction did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. Skeletal morbidity rates were numerically identical in both groups, but bone turnover was greater (C-terminal telopeptide levels were higher) among patients who received zoledronic acid every 12 weeks. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, the use of zoledronic acid every 12 weeks compared with the standard dosing interval of every 4 weeks did not result in an increased risk of skeletal events over 2 years. This longer interval may be an acceptable treatment option. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00869206.

Vismodegib or cixutumumab in combination with standard chemotherapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1508).

BACKGROUND: Preclinical targeting of the hedgehog pathway by vismodegib and of insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor by cixutumumab enhances the efficacy of chemotherapy and also demonstrates activity against the tumor cell fraction responsible for disease recurrence in small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC-ED) were randomized to receive four 21-day cycles of cisplatin and etoposide alone (cisplatin at 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and etoposide at 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3; arm A) or in combination with either vismodegib (150 mg/d by mouth; arm B) or cixutumumab (6 mg/kg/wk intravenously on day 1; arm C). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were isolated/enumerated with the Veridex CellSearch platform at the baseline. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two eligible patients were treated. Patient demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced between the 3 arms except for the higher rate with a performance status of 0 in arm B (P = .03). The median PFS times in arms A, B, and C were 4.4, 4.4, and 4.6 months, respectively; the median overall survival (OS) times were 8.8, 9.8, and 10.1 months, respectively; and the response rates were 48%, 56%, and 50%, respectively. None of the comparisons of these outcomes were statistically significant. The median OS was 10.5 months for those with low CTC counts (≤100/7.5 mL) at baseline and 7.2 months for those with high CTC counts (hazard ratio, 1.74; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant improvement in PFS or OS with the addition of either vismodegib or cixutumumab to chemotherapy in patients with SCLC-ED. A low baseline CTC count was associated with a favorable prognosis. Cancer 2016;122:2371-2378. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

A prospective study to validate the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI)-induced dermatologic toxicities FACT-EGFRI 18 questionnaire: SWOG S1013.

BACKGROUND: Papulopustular rash is a common class effect of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) that can affect patients' health-related quality of life and cause disruptions to treatment. SWOG S1013 (NCT01416688) is a multi-center study designed to validate the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy EGFRI 18 (FACT-EGFRI 18) using 7-items from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 to assess EGFRI-induced skin-related toxicities and their impact on functional status. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of colorectal or lung cancer to receive EGFRI therapies for at least 6 weeks were enrolled. Patient self-assessments using the FACT-EGFRI 18 were completed prior to undergoing CTCAE assessment by trained clinicians at baseline, weekly × 6, and then monthly × 3. The psychometric properties of the FACT-EGFRI 14 (skin toxicity items only) and 18 (plus 2 nail and 2 hair items) were established based on criterion validity, known groups validity, internal consistency reliability, and responsiveness to change. RESULTS: Of the 146 registered patients, 124 were evaluable. High Cronbach's alpha (> 0.70) for both FACT-EGFRI 14 and FACT-EGFRI 18 scores across assessment times were observed. Although agreement (i.e. criterion validity) between individual and summary scales of the FACT-EGFRI 18 for assessing skin toxicity was good, agreement with the clinician-reported CTCAE was only fair. The minimal important difference was determined to be 3 points. The results also demonstrated responsiveness to symptom change. DISCUSSION: Based on the results of this multi-center validation study, the FACT-EGFRI 18 patient-reported outcome instrument provided data from the patient's perspective yielding unique information as well as complementing clinician-rated CTCAE grades, especially for the symptoms of pain, pruritus, and paronychia. CONCLUSIONS: Good to excellent psychometric properties for the FACT-EGFRI 18 were demonstrated, supporting further use of this patient-reported outcomes measure. Additional validation with a more diverse group of patients should be conducted.

Marginal zone variant of mantle cell lymphoma: CD5-negative cyclin D1-positive variant posing a diagnostic dilemma.

Described herein is an unusual case of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) histologically mimicking marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). An 83-year-old man presented with multiple adenopathies and a hilar mass encroaching on the right lung. A transbronchial biopsy showed small blue cells suspicious for small cell carcinoma. On further analysis the cells were predominantly small cleaved and CD20 positive, suggesting follicular lymphoma, grade 2. An axillary lymph node biopsy showed germinal centers surrounded by monocytoid B cells. Flow cytometry was negative for CD5 and CD23 and the diagnosis of MZL was considered. Because of the aggressive clinical behavior, including extensive necrosis on imaging studies, immunohistochemistry for cyclin D-1 was performed and was positive. Bone marrow was extensively involved and it showed t(11;14), in addition to other complex cytogenetic abnormalities. Differentiating MCL from MZL has prognostic and therapeutic implications, particularly when considering the potential role of targeted therapy and cell cycle modulators.

Phase II Trial of Cediranib in Combination With Cisplatin and Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naïve Patients With Unresectable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (SWOG S0905).

PURPOSE: Antiangiogenic agents combined with chemotherapy have efficacy in the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Cediranib (AstraZeneca, Cheshire, United Kingdom), a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibitor, demonstrated therapeutic potential in a prior phase I trial. We evaluated a phase II trial for efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: SWOG S0905 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01064648) randomly assigned cediranib or placebo with platinum-pemetrexed for six cycles followed by maintenance cediranib or placebo in unresectable chemotherapy-naïve patients with MPM of any histologic subtype. Primary end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, PFS by modified RECIST v1.1, response (modified RECIST and RECIST v1.1), disease control, and safety/toxicity. The trial was designed to detect a difference in RECIST v1.1 PFS at the one-sided 0.1 level using a stratified log-rank test. RESULTS: Ninety-two eligible patients were enrolled (75% epithelioid and 25% biphasic or sarcomatoid). The cediranib arm had more grade 3 and 4 diarrhea, dehydration, hypertension, and weight loss. Cediranib improved PFS by RECIST v1.1 (hazard ratio, 0.71; 80% CI, 0.54 to 0.95; P = .062; 7.2 months v 5.6 months) and increased modified RECIST v1.1 response (50% v 20%; P = .006). By modified RECIST v1.1, cediranib numerically increased PFS (hazard ratio, 0.77; 80% CI, 0.59 to 1.02; P = .12; median, 6.9 months v 5.6 months). No significant difference in overall survival was observed. CONCLUSION: The addition of cediranib to platinum-pemetrexed improved PFS by RECIST v1.1 and response rate by modified RECIST in patients with unresectable MPM. Whereas adding antiangiogenics to chemotherapy has been a successful strategy for some patients, the cediranib toxicity profile and small incremental survival benefit precludes additional development in MPM.

Cetuximab Combined With Induction Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine, Followed by Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: SWOG 0713.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) is standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Pathologic complete response (pCR) has associated with improved survival. In modern phase III trials of NCRT, pCR ranges from 10% to 20%. Cetuximab improves response in KRAS (KRAS proto-oncogene) wild type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer. S0713 was designed to assess improvement in pCR with additional use of cetuximab with induction chemotherapy and NCRT for locally advanced, KRAS-wt rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient eligibility: stage II to III biopsy-proven, KRAS-wt rectal adenocarcinoma; no bowel obstruction; adequate hematologic, hepatic and renal function; performance status of 0 to 2. Target enrollment: 80 patients. TREATMENT: induction chemotherapy with wCAPOX (weekly capecitabine and oxaliplatin) and cetuximab followed by the same regimen concurrent with radiation (omitting day 15 oxaliplatin). If fewer than 7 pCRs were observed at planned interim analysis after 40 patients received all therapy, the study would close. Eighty eligible patients would provide 90% power given a true pCR rate > 35% at a significance of 0.04. The regimen would lack future interest if pCR probability was ≤ 20%. RESULTS: Between February 2009 and April 2013, 83 patients registered. Four were ineligible and 4 not treated, leaving 75 evaluable for clinical outcomes and toxicity, of whom 65 had surgery. Of 75 patients, 20 had pCR (27%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-38%); 19 (25%) had microscopic cancer; 36 (48%) had minor/no response (including 10 without surgery). Three-year disease-free survival was 73% (95% CI, 63%-83%). CONCLUSION: Our trial did not meet the pCR target of 35%. Toxicity was generally acceptable. This regimen cannot be recommended outside the clinical trial setting.

Randomized Phase II Study of Azacitidine Alone or in Combination With Lenalidomide or With Vorinostat in Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia: North American Intergroup Study SWOG S1117.

Purpose Azacitidine is standard, first-line therapy in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Whether azacitidine-based combinations with lenalidomide or vorinostat produce superior overall response rates (ORRs) to azacitidine is not known. Patients and Methods North American Intergroup Study S1117 is a phase II/III trial that randomly assigned patients with higher-risk MDS and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) 1:1:1 to azacitidine (75 mg/m2/day on days 1 to 7 of a 28-day cycle); azacitidine plus lenalidomide (10 mg/day on days 1 to 21); or azacitidine plus vorinostat (300 mg twice daily on days 3 to 9). The primary phase II end point was improved ORR. Results Of 277 patients from 90 centers, 92 received azacitidine, 93 received azacitidine plus lenalidomide, and 92 received azacitidine plus vorinostat. Median age was 70 years (range, 28 to 93 years), 85 patients (31%) were female, and 53 patients (19%) had CMML. Serious adverse events were similar across arms, although combination-arm patients were more likely to undergo nonprotocol-defined dose modifications ( P < .001).With a median follow-up of 23 months (range, 1 to 43 months), the ORR was 38% for patients receiving azacitidine, 49% for azacitidine plus lenalidomide ( P = .14 v azacitidine), and 27% for azacitidine plus vorinostat ( P = .16 v azacitidine). For patients with CMML, ORR was higher for azacitidine plus lenalidomide versus azacitidine (68% v 28%, P = .02) but similar for all arms across cytogenetic subgroups, as was remission duration and overall survival. ORR was higher with mutations in DNMT3A and lower for SRSF2, whereas ORR duration improved with fewer mutations. Lenalidomide dose reduction was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.30; P = .05). Conclusion Patients with higher-risk MDS treated with azacitidine-based combinations had similar ORR to azacitidine monotherapy, although patients with CMML benefitted from azacitidine plus lenalidomide. The efficacy of combination regimens may have been affected by dose modifications.

Phase II trial of carboplatin, paclitaxel, cetuximab, and bevacizumab followed by cetuximab and bevacizumab in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: SWOG S0536.

INTRODUCTION: Cetuximab and bevacizumab have each been demonstrated to prolong survival when added to chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the potential benefit of combining cetuximab and bevacizumab together with a platinum-based doublet had not been explored. We designed this phase II trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the combination of carboplatin, paclitaxel, cetuximab, and bevacizumab in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced, nonsquamous NSCLC. METHODS: Patients received with up to six cycles of carboplatin (area under curve 6), paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)), cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) day 1 then 250 mg/m(2) weekly), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) every 21 days. Patients with an objective response or stable disease received maintenance cetuximab (250 mg/m(2) weekly) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 21 days) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was safety as defined by the frequency and severity of hemorrhagic toxicities. Secondary endpoints included response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. Molecular biomarkers were assessed in an exploratory manner. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of grade 4 or higher hemorrhage of 2% (95% confidence interval: 0%-7%) met prespecified criteria for safety. One hundred ten patients were enrolled. There were four treatment-related deaths including lung hemorrhage (2), infection (1), and unknown (1). Median progression-free survival was 7 months and median overall survival was 15 months. The response rate was 56% with an overall disease control rate of 77%. CONCLUSION: This regimen was safe, feasible, and effective as a frontline treatment of advanced NSCLC, providing the basis for the ongoing phase III trial S0819.

Cetuximab for the treatment of advanced bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC): an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group phase II study (ECOG 1504).

PURPOSE: Inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase have demonstrated modest anticancer activity in advanced bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC). We conducted a phase II study to evaluate cetuximab for the treatment of advanced BAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced-stage pure BAC or adenocarcinoma with BAC features, fewer than two prior chemotherapy regimens, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2 were eligible. Those with prior EGFR inhibitor therapy were excluded. Cetuximab was given as a weekly intravenous infusion at 250 mg/m(2) after an initial loading dose of 400 mg/m(2) in week 1. The primary end point was determination of response rate. EGFR and KRAS mutations were evaluated by pyrosequencing. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were enrolled and 68 met eligibility requirements. Characteristics of patients included median age, 71 years; sex, 57% females; PS 0 or 1, 88% of patients; and smoking status, 19% never-smokers. Central pathology review confirmed the diagnosis in 45 of 49 available specimens. Approximately 50% of patients received more than two cycles of therapy (> 8 weeks). Skin rash was the most common toxicity (grade 3, 15%). The confirmed response rate was 7%, and stable disease was observed in 35%. The median survival and progression-free survival were 13 and 3.3 months, respectively. Only one of the six patients with an EGFR mutation and one of the seven patients with a KRAS mutation had a partial response. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab was associated with modest efficacy in patients with advanced BAC, despite a low response rate. EGFR and KRAS mutations were not predictive of response to cetuximab.