Complementary Roles for Tissue- and Blood-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profiling for Detection of Actionable Driver Alterations in Advanced NSCLC.

Introduction: Whereas tumor biopsy is the reference standard for genomic profiling of advanced NSCLC, there are now multiple assays approved by the Food and Drug Administration for liquid biopsy testing of circulating tumor DNA. Here, we study the incremental value that liquid biopsy comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) adds to tissue molecular testing. Methods: Patients with metastatic NSCLC were enrolled in a prospective diagnostic study to receive circulating tumor DNA CGP; tissue CGP was optional in addition to their standard tissue testing. Focusing on nine genes listed per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, liquid CGP was compared with available tissue testing results across three subcohorts: tissue CGP, standard-of-care testing of up to five biomarkers, or no tissue testing. Results: A total of 515 patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC received liquid CGP. Among 131 with tissue CGP results, NCCN biomarkers were detected in 86 (66%) with tissue CGP and 56 (43%) with liquid CGP (p < 0.001). Adding liquid CGP to tissue CGP detected no additional patients with NCCN biomarkers, whereas tissue CGP detected NCCN biomarkers in 30 patients (23%) missed by liquid CGP. Studying 264 patients receiving tissue testing of up to five genes, 102 (39%) had NCCN biomarkers detected in tissue, with an additional 48 (18%) detected using liquid CGP, including 18 with RET, MET, or ERBB2 drivers not studied in tissue. Conclusions: For the detection of patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC harboring 9 NCCN biomarkers, liquid CGP increases detection in patients with limited tissue results, but does not increase detection in patients with tissue CGP results available. In contrast, tissue CGP can add meaningfully to liquid CGP for detection of NCCN biomarkers and should be considered as a follow-up when an oncogenic driver is not identified by liquid biopsy.

RESILIENCE: Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind Trial Comparing Sorafenib With Capecitabine Versus Placebo With Capecitabine in Locally Advanced or Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic/antiproliferative activity. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, we assessed first- or second-line capecitabine with sorafenib or placebo in patients with locally advanced/metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer resistant to a taxane and anthracycline and with known estrogen/progesterone receptor status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 537 patients were randomized to capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 orally twice per day for days 1 to 14 every 21 days with oral sorafenib 600 mg/d or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients were stratified according to hormone receptor status, previous chemotherapies for metastatic breast cancer, and geographic region. RESULTS: Treatment with sorafenib with capecitabine, compared with capecitabine with placebo, did not prolong median PFS (5.5 vs. 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.973; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.779-1.217; P = .811) or overall survival (OS; 18.9 vs. 20.3 months; HR, 1.195; 95% CI, 0.943-1.513; P = .140); or enhance overall response rate (ORR; 13.5% vs. 15.5%; P = .515). Any grade toxicities (sorafenib vs. placebo) included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES; 79.2% vs. 59.6%), diarrhea (47.3% vs. 37.8%), mucosal inflammation (15.4% vs. 6.7%), and hypertension (26.2% vs. 5.6%). Grade 3/4 toxicities included PPES (15.4% vs. 7.1%), diarrhea (4.2% vs. 6.4%), and vomiting (3.5% vs. 0.7%). CONCLUSION: The combination of sorafenib with capecitabine did not improve PFS, OS, or ORR in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Rates of Grade 3 toxicities were higher in the sorafenib arm.

A Randomized, Open-Label, Safety and Exploratory Efficacy Study of Kanglaite Injection (KLTi) plus Gemcitabine versus Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Background: This study was designed to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of KLTi plus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: In a randomized, open-label study, patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomized 2:1 to receive KLTi plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine monotherapy. Three sequential cohorts were tested at 30 g/day, 50 g/day, and 30 g/day. Gemcitabine was administered at 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28 day cycle. KLTi was administered on days 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 of each 28 day cycle. Patients received study treatment until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the ITT population. Safety evaluation was based on patients who received any study treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00733850. Results: Eighty-five patients were randomized including 41 (28:13) in Cohort 1, 18 (12:6) in Cohort 2, and 26 (17:9) in Cohort 3. Due to a different dose and/or shift in patient populations in Cohort 2 and 3, efficacy data for the 30 gm dose are presented in this manuscript for Cohort 1 alone, and for the combination of Cohort 1+3. The 30 gm KLTi + gemcitabine group had a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by blinded independent radiology review in the ITT population, with a median of 112 days, versus 58 days in the gemcitabine group (HR 0.50; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.92), p = 0.0240. The incidence rates of TEAEs, CTCAE Grade 3 or higher TEAEs, and SAEs were similar between the two arms. There were no deaths related to KLTi + gemcitabine treatment. Conclusion: Kanglaite Injection (30 g/day) plus a standard regimen of gemcitabine demonstrated encouraging clinical evidence of anti-neoplastic activity and a well-tolerated safety profile.

Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator in a Patient With Hormone-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Androgen receptors (ARs) are highly coexpressed in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers. Their role in breast tumorigenesis has been postulated, but the mechanism is not yet well-characterized. Steroidal androgens were previously used as an anticancer strategy but fell out of favor because of toxicity and the discovery of alternative therapies. Recent attempts to modulate androgen pathway signaling have focused on AR inhibitors. This report discusses a case using a well-tolerated selective AR modulator to treat a highly pretreated patient with ER-positive breast cancer, which resulted in a durable partial response.

A phase 3 tRial comparing capecitabinE in combination with SorafenIb or pLacebo for treatment of locally advanced or metastatIc HER2-Negative breast CancEr (the RESILIENCE study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic/antiproliferative activity. A randomized phase 2b screening trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when sorafenib was added to capecitabine versus placebo (median 6.4 versus 4.1 months; hazard ratio = 0.58; P = 0.001). Most drug-related adverse events were Grade 1/2 in severity with the exception of Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction/syndrome (44% versus 14%, respectively). These results suggest a role for the combination of sorafenib and capecitabine in breast cancer and supported a phase 3 confirmatory trial. Here we describe RESILIENCE - a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial - assessing the addition of sorafenib to first- or second-line capecitabine in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: Eligibility criteria include ≥18 years of age, ≤1 prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease, and resistant to/failed taxane and anthracycline or no indication for further anthracycline. Prior treatment with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor is not allowed. Patients with significant cardiovascular disease or active brain metastases are not eligible. Patients are stratified by hormone-receptor status, geographic region, and prior metastatic chemotherapy status and randomized (1:1) to capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily (BID), days 1 to 14 of 21) in combination with sorafenib (orally BID, days 1 to 21, total dose 600 mg/day) or matching placebo. Capecitabine and sorafenib/placebo doses can be escalated to 1250 mg/m2 BID and 400 mg BID, respectively, as tolerated, or reduced to manage toxicity. Dose re-escalation after a reduction is allowed for sorafenib/placebo but not for capecitabine. This dosing algorithm was designed to mitigate dermatologic and other toxicity, in addition to detailed guidelines for prophylactic and symptomatic treatment. Radiographic assessment is every 6 weeks for 36 weeks, and every 9 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint is PFS by blinded independent central review (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, time to progression, overall response rate, duration of response, and safety. Enrollment began in November 2010 with a target of approximately 519 patients. DISCUSSION: RESILIENCE will provide definitive PFS data for the combination of sorafenib and capecitabine in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer and better characterize the benefit-to-risk profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01234337.

Sorafenib or placebo with either gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with HER-2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during or after bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: We assessed adding the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib to gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase IIb study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00493636) enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer and prior bevacizumab treatment. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy with sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily) or matching placebo. Initially, chemotherapy was gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) i.v., days 1, 8/21), but later, capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1-14/21) was allowed as an alternative. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized. More patients received gemcitabine (82.5%) than capecitabine (17.5%). Sorafenib plus gemcitabine/capecitabine was associated with a statistically significant prolongation in PFS versus placebo plus gemcitabine/capecitabine [3.4 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.95; P = 0.02], time to progression was increased (median, 3.6 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93; P = 0.02), and overall response rate was 19.8% versus 12.7% (P = 0.23). Median survival was 13.4 versus 11.4 months for sorafenib versus placebo (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.71-1.44; P = 0.95). Addition of sorafenib versus placebo increased grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reaction (39% vs. 5%), stomatitis (10% vs. 0%), fatigue (18% vs. 9%), and dose reductions that were more frequent (51.9% vs. 7.8%). CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine/capecitabine provided a clinically small but statistically significant PFS benefit in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. Combination treatment was associated with manageable toxicities but frequently required dose reductions.

Phase II multicenter trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel and capecitabine in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine, a tumor-activated oral fluoropyrimidine, and albumin-bound paclitaxel (ab-paclitaxel) have substantial single-agent activity in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Taxane and antimetabolite doublets have improved efficacy compared with single agents. This phase II open-label trial was designed to test the safety and efficacy of capecitabine and ab-paclitaxel in previously untreated MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, approximately 12 hours apart, on days 1 to 15) and ab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle with no premedication) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall objective response rate (ORR), with evaluation performed after every 2 cycles. Entry criteria included measurable MBC, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negativity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2, no previous chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and > 6 months since adjuvant fluoropyrimidine or paclitaxel treatment. RESULTS: Fifty patients received at least 1 dose of study drug, with 46 patients evaluable for efficacy evaluation. Three hundred seventy-four cycles of therapy were delivered. Eighty percent of patients completed 8 cycles. The ORR was 61% (complete response [CR], 4%; partial response [PR], 57%), and 7 patients had sustained (≥ 24 weeks) stable disease for a clinical benefit rate of 76.1%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.6 months, and the median overall survival was 19.9 months. The most common adverse events (AEs) that were ≥ grade 3 were pain, hand-foot syndrome, and neutropenia. CONCLUSION: The combination of weekly ab-paclitaxel plus daily capecitabine orally at these doses and scheduling was well tolerated and showed substantial efficacy.

Clinical roundtable monograph. Treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a post-MASCC 2010 discussion.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and troubling side effects of treatment, and the side effect cancer patients tend to fear most. An improved understanding of the pathophysiology underlying CINV, together with a clear definition of the risk for nausea and vomiting associated with specific chemotherapeutic agents, has for allowed the development of specific and effective antiemetic regimens. Anti­emesis is most effective when used prophylactically, a principle shared among CINV management guidelines. Several antiemetic drug classes are available; among the most effective of these are serotonin (5HT3) receptor antagonists, neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonists, and steroids (primarily dexamethasone), although others are commonly used as well. When choosing an appropriate antiemetic regimen, clinicians should consider patient-specific factors such as sex and prior history of CINV, as well as treatment-specific factors such as the emetogenic potential of each chemotherapeutic agent. Using these factors, clinicians can follow the available algorithms included in guidelines from groups such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer. Ongoing and future clinical trials will be pivotal in helping to further delineate the optimal strategies to prevent and manage CINV in cancer patients.

Patient and practice impact of capecitabine compared to taxanes in first-/second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oral chemotherapy regimens have emerged as comparably effective to intravenous regimens with the potential for less resource utilization, fewer treatment side effects and a better quality-of-life outcome. The objective of this retrospective chart review was to examine these issues among patients who received single-agent taxane therapy vs. single-agent capecitabine for first- or second-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) METHODS: Data from the medical charts of 61 patients who received single-agent capecitabine, docetaxel, or paclitaxel therapy were supplemented with data from the 38-item Patient Care Monitor (PCM) survey of symptom burden and quality of life, prospectively collected during chemotherapy. The endpoints were PCM index scores, hospitalization during treatment, and the number of clinic visits during treatment. RESULTS: The sample was 75% Caucasian, 16% African-American, with a mean age of 59.4 years. Taxane-treated patients had more clinic visits than capecitabine patients, were more likely to have been hospitalized during treatment, and had worse treatment side effects. Controlling for depression, infusion-treated patients reported greater acute distress at the start of therapy than those on oral medication. CONCLUSION: Capecitabine for MBC was associated with a more favorable outcome regarding treatment side effects and quality of life, with reduced resource burden to patients and providers. Physicians may have differentially selected patients with greater depressive symptoms for capecitabine therapy.