Inequities in Alliance Acute Leukemia Clinical Trial and Biobank Participation: Defining Targets for Intervention.

PURPOSE: Representativeness in acute leukemia clinical research is essential for achieving health equity. The National Cancer Institute's mandate for Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) to define and assume responsibility for cancer control and treatment across a geographic catchment area provides an enforceable mechanism to target and potentially remediate participatory inequities. METHODS: We examined enrollee characteristics across 15 Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance cooperative group adult acute leukemia clinical trials (N = 3,734) from 1998 to 2013, including participation in optional companion biobanks. We determined enrollment odds by race-ethnicity for all participants adjusted for national incidence, and for those enrolled at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence. We modeled biobank participation by sociodemographics using logistic regression. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic (NH)-White patients were more likely to be enrolled than NH-Black, NH-Asian, or Hispanic patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.75, 0.48, and 0.44, respectively; all P < .001), but less likely than NH-Native American patients (OR, 1.91; P < .001), adjusted for national incidence. Enrollment odds were lower for NH-Black, NH-Asian, and Hispanic patients at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence (OR, 0.57, 0.26, and 0.32, respectively; P < .001); differences were driven by overenrollment of NH-White patients from outside self-defined catchment areas (18.1% v 12.3%; χ2 P = .01) and by CCCs with less absolute enrollee diversity (rank sum P = .03). Among all enrollees, NH-White race-ethnicity and lower neighborhood deprivation correlated with biobank participation (OR, 1.81 and 1.45, respectively; P = .01 and .03). For CCC enrollees, the correlation of race-ethnicity with biobank participation was attenuated by a measure accounting for their site's degree of enrollment disparity but not neighborhood deprivation. CONCLUSION: Acute leukemia clinical research disparities are substantial and driven by structural trial enrollment barriers at CCCs. Real-time CCC access and enrollment monitoring is needed to better align research participation with local populations.

Long-term safety and tolerability of sorafenib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a case-based review.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib, a small-molecule inhibitor of multiple kinases involved in tumor growth and progression, is approved for the treatment of advanced renal-cell carcinoma and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Encouraging activity and good tolerability of daily oral sorafenib, either as a single agent or in combination with gefitinib, have been demonstrated in phase I-II trials in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Currently, minimal data are available describing the long-term safety and tolerability of sorafenib in patients with NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe a series of 12 patients with advanced NSCLC (derived from 1 phase I and 2 phase II trials) who achieved long-term (ie, > 12 months) disease control and continued to receive sorafenib alone or in combination with gefitinib beyond the end of the study in which they were enrolled. RESULTS: The safety profile of sorafenib administered on a long-term basis did not differ significantly from that seen previously in the shorter term. The majority of adverse events (AEs) were Grade 1-2 in severity. Five of the 12 patients experienced no ≥ Grade 3 AEs. There was no evidence of increased frequency or severity of AEs over time, or of late AEs, and no patient in this series discontinued study treatment because of AEs. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced NSCLC who achieve a prolonged response or stable disease with sorafenib given as a single agent or as part of a combination regimen, sorafenib treatment could be continued until disease progression without major long-term safety or tolerability problems.

A front-line window of opportunity phase 2 study of sorafenib in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0326.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to assess the efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib as front-line therapy in patients with stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice daily by mouth continuously, and were evaluated every 2 weeks during the first 8 weeks. Patients who manifested clinical progression during this period proceeded to receive standard of care. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective tumor response. A 2-stage Fleming design was used such that if at most 1 confirmed partial response (PR) or complete response was observed in the first 20 patients (stage 1), the treatment would be considered ineffective, and further enrollment would be discontinued. RESULTS: Only 1 PR was observed in the first 20 patients. By the time of study closure, 5 additional patients who were already being screened for study inclusion were enrolled. Of the 25 patients (15 women, 10 men; 4 stage IIIB, 21 stage IV; median age, 67 years [range, 45-85 years]), there were 3 (12%) PRs and 6 (24%) cases with stable disease observed. The median time-to-progression and progression-free survival was 2.8 months. Seven (28%) patients remained progression-free at 24 weeks. No grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were observed. Thirteen (52%) patients had a grade 3 nonhematologic adverse event, with fatigue (20%), diarrhea (8%), and dyspnea (8%) being the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib is not effective as front-line therapy in the general unselected NSCLC population. The window of opportunity design is feasible for estimating the activity of novel compounds.

Phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with gefitinib in patients with refractory or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the combination of sorafenib and gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this dose-escalation trial, patients received oral sorafenib (200-400 mg) twice daily with gefitinib (250 mg orally) once daily to identify the recommended dose for phase II trials (RDP; part A). The pharmacokinetics of the RDP were characterized further in additional patients (part B) receiving single-agent gefitinib or sorafenib for 21 days followed by a 7-day washout with crossover to the other agent for an additional 21 days. Patients then received the combination of sorafenib plus gefitinib in 28-day cycles. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor efficacy were evaluated. Potential drug-drug interactions and the relationship between pharmacokinetics and toxicity were also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were treated (n=12, part A; n=19, part B). Most adverse events were grade 1/2. The most frequent grade 3/4 events included diarrhea and elevated alanine aminotransferase (both 9.7%). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred (part A: elevated alanine aminotransferase at 400 mg twice daily). Gefitinib had no effect on sorafenib pharmacokinetics. However, gefitinib C(max) (26%) and area under the curve (38%) were reduced by concomitant sorafenib. One patient had a partial response; 20 (65%; n=8, part A; n=12, part B) had stable disease >or=4 months. The RDP was sorafenib 400 mg twice daily with gefitinib 250 mg once daily. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib combined with gefitinib is well tolerated, with promising efficacy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Studies to further investigate the significance of the reduction in gefitinib exposure by sorafenib are warranted.

Complementary and alternative medicine use by patients enrolled onto phase I clinical trials.

PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and pattern of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients enrolled onto phase I trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were administered to 108 patients with advanced malignancies enrolled onto phase I chemotherapy trials at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (Rochester, MN). CAM was classified into two modalities, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic. Clinical and demographic data, including age, sex, and prior cancer treatment, were subsequently obtained from patient charts and examined for any correlation with CAM use, using chi2 analysis. RESULTS: One hundred two survey forms were returned. Among respondents, 88.2% (90 of 102) had used at least one CAM modality; 93.3% (84 of 90) and 53.3% (48 of 90) had used pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic CAM, respectively; and 46.7% (42 of 90) used both modalities. Vitamin and mineral preparations constituted 89.3% (75 of 84) of all pharmacologic CAM used. Intake was highest for vitamins E (48.8% [41 of 84]) and C (38.1% [32 of 84]), and 71.4% (60 of 84) of respondents took nonvitamin/mineral agents. Green tea (29.8% [25 of 84]), echinacea (13.1% [11 of 84]), and essiac (9.5% [8 of 84]) were the most popular. Prayer and spiritual practices were the most commonly used nonpharmacologic CAM, accounting for 52.1% (25 of 48). Chiropractors, the most frequently visited nontraditional medicine practitioners, were consulted by only 10% (9 of 90) of those who practiced CAM. Both CAM modalities were used more frequently by women (53.5% [23 of 43]) than men (40.4% [19 of 47]). CONCLUSION: CAM use is common among patients in phase I trials and should be ascertained by investigators, because some of the agents used may interact with investigational agents and affect adverse effects and/or efficacy.