Discordant attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation between physicians, research staff, and cancer patients.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Essential to bringing innovative cancer treatments to patients is voluntary participation in clinical trials but approximately 8% of American cancer patients are enrolled onto a trial. We used a domain-oriented framework to assess barriers to cancer clinical trial enrollment. METHODS: Physicians (MD, DO, fellows, residents) and research staff (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, staff and research nurses, clinical assistants, and program coordinators) involved in clinical research at a comprehensive cancer center completed an online survey in 2017; adult cancer patients not currently enrolled in a trial were interviewed in 2018. To inform the construct of our physician/staff and patient surveys and to assess barriers to clinical trial enrollment, we first conducted in-depth interviews among 14 key informants representing medical, hematologic, gynecologic, neurologic, radiation oncology, as well as members of the clinical research team (one clinical research coordinator, one research nurse practitioner). Perceived structural, provider- and patient-level barriers to clinical trial enrollment were assessed. Differences in perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward clinical trial enrollment between (1) physicians and staff, (2) patients by ethnicity, and (3) physicians/staff and patients were examined. RESULTS: In total, 120 physicians/staff involved in clinical research (39.2% physicians, 60.8% staff; 48.0% overall response rate) and 150 cancer patients completed surveys. Nearly three-quarters of physician/staff respondents reported difficulty in keeping track of the eligibility criteria for open studies but was more often cited by physicians than staff (84.4% vs 64.3%, p = 0.02). Physicians more often reported lack of time to present clinical trial information than did staff(p < 0.001); 44.0% of staff versus 18.2% of physicians reported patient family interaction as a clinical trial enrollment barrier (p = 0.007). Hispanic patients more often stated they would join a trial, even if standard therapy was an option compared to non-Hispanic patients (47.7% vs 20.8%, p = 0.002). Comparing the beliefs and perceptions of physicians/staff to those of patients, patients more often reported negative beliefs about clinical trial enrollment (e.g. being in a trial does not help patients personally, 32.9% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001) but less often felt they had no other options when agreeing to join (38.1% vs 85.6%, p < 0.001), and less often refused clinical trial enrollment due to lack of understanding (9.1% vs 63.3%, p = 0.001) than reported by physicians/staff. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate a wide gap between physician/staff and patient attitudes and beliefs about clinical trial enrollment and highlight the importance of focusing future initiatives to raise awareness of this incongruency. Reconciling these differences will require tailored education to reduce implicit biases and dispel misperceptions. Strategies to improve the quality of patient-provider communication and address infrastructure and resource issues are also needed to improve patient enrollment onto cancer clinical trials.

Sorafenib for Advanced and Refractory Desmoid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Desmoid tumors (also referred to as aggressive fibromatosis) are connective tissue neoplasms that can arise in any anatomical location and infiltrate the mesentery, neurovascular structures, and visceral organs. There is no standard of care. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 87 patients with progressive, symptomatic, or recurrent desmoid tumors to receive either sorafenib (400-mg tablet once daily) or matching placebo. Crossover to the sorafenib group was permitted for patients in the placebo group who had disease progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; rates of objective response and adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 27.2 months, the 2-year progression-free survival rate was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69 to 96) in the sorafenib group and 36% (95% CI, 22 to 57) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.31; P<0.001). Before crossover, the objective response rate was 33% (95% CI, 20 to 48) in the sorafenib group and 20% (95% CI, 8 to 38) in the placebo group. The median time to an objective response among patients who had a response was 9.6 months (interquartile range, 6.6 to 16.7) in the sorafenib group and 13.3 months (interquartile range, 11.2 to 31.1) in the placebo group. The objective responses are ongoing. Among patients who received sorafenib, the most frequently reported adverse events were grade 1 or 2 events of rash (73%), fatigue (67%), hypertension (55%), and diarrhea (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with progressive, refractory, or symptomatic desmoid tumors, sorafenib significantly prolonged progression-free survival and induced durable responses. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02066181 .).

PDGF receptor alpha is an alternative mediator of rapamycin-induced Akt activation: implications for combination targeted therapy of synovial sarcoma.

Akt activation by the IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R) has been posited to be a mechanism of intrinsic resistance to mTORC1 inhibitors (rapalogues) for sarcomas. Here we show that rapamycin-induced phosphorylation of Akt can occur in an IGF-1R-independent manner. Analysis of synovial sarcoma cell lines showed that either IGF-1R or the PDGF receptor alpha (PDGFRA) can mediate intrinsic resistance to rapamycin. Repressing expression of PDGFRA or inhibiting its kinase activity in synovial sarcoma cells blocked rapamycin-induced phosphorylation of Akt and decreased tumor cell viability. Expression profiling of clinical tumor samples revealed that PDGFRA was the most highly expressed kinase gene among several sarcoma disease subtypes, suggesting that PDGFRA may be uniquely significant for synovial sarcomas. Tumor biopsy analyses from a synovial sarcoma patient treated with the mTORC1 inhibitor everolimus and PDGFRA inhibitor imatinib mesylate confirmed that this drug combination can impact both mTORC1 and Akt signals in vivo. Together, our findings define mechanistic variations in the intrinsic resistance of synovial sarcomas to rapamycin and suggest therapeutic strategies to address them.

The cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor flavopiridol potentiates doxorubicin efficacy in advanced sarcomas: preclinical investigations and results of a phase I dose-escalation clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Dysregulated cyclin-dependent kinases are important to the growth of some sarcomas. Flavopiridol is a pan-CDK inhibitor that has been shown to potentiate chemotherapy. As such, we explored the potentiation of doxorubicin by flavopiridol in sarcoma, in vitro and in vivo, and conducted a phase I trial of flavopiridol with doxorubicin in patients with advanced sarcomas. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sarcoma cell lines and xenografts were treated with flavopiridol alone and in combination with doxorubicin. In the phase I study, doxorubicin and flavopiridol were administered on two flavopiridol schedules; a 1-hour bolus and split dosing as a 30-minute bolus followed by a 4-hour infusion. RESULTS: Preclinically, flavopiridol potentiated doxorubicin. In vivo, doxorubicin administered 1 hour before flavopiridol was more active than doxorubicin alone. Clinically, 31 patients were enrolled on protocol and flavopiridol was escalated to target dose in two schedules (90 mg/m(2) bolus; 50 mg/m(2) bolus + 40 mg/m(2) infusion) both in combination with doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)). Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenia, leukopenia, and febrile neutropenia but no maximum tolerated dose was defined. Flavopiridol pharmacokinetics showed increasing C(max) with increasing dose. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) responses included two partial responses, however, stable disease was seen in 16 patients. Of 12 evaluable patients with progressive well- and dedifferentiated liposarcoma, eight had stable disease greater than 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The sequential combination of doxorubicin followed by flavopiridol is well tolerated on both schedules. Disease control was observed in well- and dedifferentiated liposarcoma specifically, a disease in which CDK4 is known to be amplified.

Preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models to predict synergistic effects of co-administered anti-cancer agents.

PURPOSE: Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models have been shown to be useful in predicting tumor growth rates in mouse xenografts. We applied novel PK/PD models to the published anticancer combination therapies of tumor growth inhibition to simulate synergistic changes in tumor growth rates. The parameters from the PK/PD model were further used to estimate clinical doses of the combination. METHODS: A PK/PD model was built that linked the dosing regimen of a compound to the inhibition of tumor growth in mouse xenograft models. Two subsequent PK/PD models were developed to simulate the published tumor growth profiles of combination treatments. Model I predicts the tumor growth curve assuming that the effect of two anticancer drugs, AZD7762 and irinotecan, is synergistic when given in combination. Model II predicts the tumor growth curve assuming that the effect of co-administering flavopiridol and irinotecan is maximally synergistic when dosed at an optimal interval. RESULTS: Model I was able to account for the synergistic effects of AZD7762 following the administration of irinotecan. When Model II was applied to the antitumor activity of irinotecan and flavopiridol combination therapy, the modeling was able to reproduce the optimal dosing interval between administrations of the compounds. Furthermore, Model II was able to estimate the biologically active dose of flavopiridol recommended for phase II studies. CONCLUSIONS: The timing of clinical combination therapy doses is often selected empirically. PK/PD models provide a theoretical structure useful in the design of the optimal clinical dose, frequency of administration and the optimal timing of administration between anticancer agents to maximize tumor suppression.

Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with metastatic or recurrent sarcomas.

PURPOSE Since activity of sorafenib was observed in sarcoma patients in a phase I study, we performed a multicenter phase II study of daily oral sorafenib in patients with recurrent or metastatic sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS We employed a multiarm study design, each representing a sarcoma subtype with its own Simon optimal two-stage design. In each arm, 12 patients who received 0 to 1 prior lines of therapy were treated (0 to 3 for angiosarcoma and malignant peripheral-nerve sheath tumor). If at least one Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was observed, 25 further patients with that sarcoma subtype were accrued. Results Between October 2005 and November 2007, 145 patients were treated; 144 were eligible for toxicity and 122 for response. Median age was 55 years; female-male ratio was 1.8:1. The median number of cycles was 3. Five of 37 patients with angiosarcoma had a partial response (response rate, 14%). This was the only arm to meet the RECIST response rate primary end point. Median progression-free survival was 3.2 months; median overall survival was 14.3 months. Adverse events (typically dermatological) necessitated dose reduction for 61% of patients. Statistical modeling in this limited patient cohort indicated sorafenib toxicity was correlated inversely to patient height. There was no correlation between phosphorylated extracellular signal regulated kinase expression and response in six patients with angiosarcoma with paired pre- and post-therapy biopsies. CONCLUSION As a single agent, sorafenib has activity against angiosarcoma and minimal activity against other sarcomas. Further evaluation of sorafenib in these and possibly other sarcoma subtypes appears warranted, presumably in combination with cytotoxic or kinase-specific agents.

Drg1 expression in 131 colorectal liver metastases: correlation with clinical variables and patient outcomes.

PURPOSE: The differentiation-related gene-1 (Drg1) is a recently identified gene down-regulated in malignancy and a putative suppressor of colorectal cancer metastases. Its expression is associated with improved survival in patients with prostate or breast cancer. Drg1 expression is also associated with resistance to irinotecan therapy in preclinical colorectal cancer models. The clinical evaluation of Drg1 in colorectal cancer has been limited. We performed this study to evaluate the role of Drg1 in a large cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were irinotecan naive. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We examined Drg1 expression by immunohistochemistry in 131 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in a clinical trial of adjuvant fluorouracil-based therapy from 1991 to 1995. We correlated expression of Drg1 to numerous clinical and tumor related variables and to patient outcomes, including a subset of patients who recurred and received irinotecan-based therapy. RESULTS: Drg1 expression was identified in all metastatic tissue samples. There was a trend for unilobar metastases with high Drg1 expression (P = 0.07) and a suggestion of improved 2-year survival (82.4% versus 69.6%, P = 0.148). High Drg1 expression suggested irinotecan resistance (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal cancer, Drg1 expression may be associated with a less aggressive, indolent colorectal cancer. High Drg1 may also be associated with relative resistance to irinotecan. The role of Drg1 in malignancy continues to be defined.