Patient-reported tolerability of adjuvant ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) versus high-dose interferon alfa-2b for resected high-risk stage III-IV melanoma in phase III trial E1609.

PURPOSE: Trial E1609 demonstrated superior overall survival with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) for patients with resected high-risk melanoma. To inform treatment tolerability, we compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL), gastrointestinal (GI), and treatment-specific physical and cognitive/emotional symptoms. We also compared treatment-specific concerns between all arms. METHODS: We assessed HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, physical and cognitive/emotional concerns using the FACT-Biologic Response Modifier subscale, and GI symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Diarrhea subscale pre-treatment and every 3 months. The primary outcome was the difference in HRQoL at 3 months between ipi3/ipi10 vs. HDI. RESULTS: 549 patients (n = 158 ipi3; n = 191 ipi10; n = 200 HDI) were analyzed. 3-month completion was 58.7%. Compared to HDI, ipilimumab patients reported better HRQoL (ipi3 = 87.5 ± 14.6 vs. HDI = 74.7 ± 15.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 84.9 ± 16.5 vs. HDI, p < .001) and fewer physical (ipi3 = 22.3 ± 4.6 vs. HDI = 17.1 ± 5.4, p < .001; ipi10 = 21.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI p < .001) and cognitive/emotional (ipi3 = 18.6 ± 4.4 vs. HDI = 15.0 ± 5.3, p < .001; ipi10 = 17.7 ± 4.8 vs. HDI p < .001) concerns, but worse GI symptoms (ipi3 = 40.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI = 42.2 ± 2.9, p = .011; ipi10 = 39.5 ± 7.0 vs. HDI, p < .001). Fewer ipilimumab patients reported worsening treatment-specific concerns (e.g., 52% of ipi3 and 58% of ipi10 reported worsening fatigue vs. 82% HDI, p's < .001). CONCLUSION: PROs demonstrated less toxicity of ipi3 compared to HDI and ipi10. Priorities for symptom management among patients receiving ipilimumab include GI toxicities, fatigue, weakness, appetite loss, arthralgia, and depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01274338, January 11, 2011 (first posted date) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01274338?term=NCT01274338&draw=2&rank=1 .

N064A (Alliance): Phase II Study of Panitumumab, Chemotherapy, and External Beam Radiation in Patients with Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N064A (Alliance) phase II trial evaluated upfront chemoradiotherapy incorporating the EGFR inhibitor panitumumab, followed by gemcitabine and panitumumab for unresectable, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: The treatment consisted of fluoropyrimidine and panitumumab given concurrently with radiotherapy followed by gemcitabine and panitumumab for 3 cycles followed by maintenance panitumumab. The primary endpoint was the 12-month overall survival (OS) rate and secondary endpoints included confirmed response rate (RR), OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events. Enrollment of 50 patients was planned and the study fully accrued. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled, but only 51 were treated and included in the analysis. The median age of patients was 65 years and 54.9% were women. Twenty-two patients received at least 1 cycle of systemic therapy following radiotherapy, but 29 patients received chemoradiotherapy only without receiving subsequent chemotherapy after completion of chemoradiotherapy. The overall RR was 5.9% (95% CI: 1.2%-16.2%). The 12-month OS rate was 50% (95% CI: 38%-67%) which fell short of the per-protocol goal for success (51.1%). The median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI: 4.5-8.6) and the median OS was 12.1 months (95% CI 7.9-15.9). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported by 88%. CONCLUSION: The combination of panitumumab, chemotherapy, and external beam radiation therapy was associated with very high rates of grades 3-4 toxicities and survival results did not meet the trial's goal for success. This regimen is not recommended for further study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00601627).

Liquid Biopsy-based Precision Therapy in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: A Real-world Experience from a Community-based Oncology Practice.

BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy testing offers a significant potential in selecting signal-matched therapies for advanced solid malignancies. The feasibility of liquid biopsy testing in a community-based oncology practice, and its actual impact on selecting signal-matched therapies, and subsequent survival effects have not previously been reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on adult patients with advanced solid cancer tested with a liquid-biopsy assay between December 2018 and 2019, in a community oncology practice. The impact of testing on treatment assignment and survival was assessed at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients underwent testing. A positive test was reported in 140/178 patients (78.7%), of whom 75% had an actionable mutation. The actual overall signal-based matching rate was 17.8%. While 85.7% of patients with no actionable mutation had a signal-based clinical trial opportunity, only 10% were referred to a trial. Survival analysis of lung, breast, and colorectal cancer patients with actionable mutations who received any therapy (n = 66) revealed a survival advantage for target-matched (n = 22) compared to unmatched therapy (n = 44): patients who received matched therapy had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (mPFS: 12 months; 95%CI, 10.6-13.4 vs. 5.0 months; 95%CI, 3.4-6.6; P = .029), with a tendency towards longer overall survival (OS) (mOS: 15 months; 95%CI, 13.5-16.5 vs. 13 months; 95%CI: 11.3-14.7; P = .087). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of liquid biopsy testing is feasible in a US community practice and impacts therapeutic choices in patients with advanced malignancies. Receipt of liquid biopsy-generated signal-matched therapies conferred added survival benefits.

Cetuximab and Irinotecan With or Without Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: BOND-3, an ACCRU Network Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). CONCLUSION: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758.

Overall Survival with Fulvestrant plus Anastrozole in Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported prolonged progression-free survival and marginally prolonged overall survival among postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer who had been randomly assigned to receive the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole plus the selective estrogen-receptor down-regulator fulvestrant, as compared with anastrozole alone, as first-line therapy. We now report final survival outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to receive either anastrozole or fulvestrant plus anastrozole. Randomization was stratified according to adjuvant tamoxifen use. Analysis of survival was performed by means of two-sided stratified log-rank tests and Cox regression. Efficacy and safety were compared between the two groups, both overall and in subgroups. RESULTS: Of 707 patients who had undergone randomization, 694 had data available for analysis. The combination-therapy group had 247 deaths among 349 women (71%) and a median overall survival of 49.8 months, as compared with 261 deaths among 345 women (76%) and a median overall survival of 42.0 months in the anastrozole-alone group, a significant difference (hazard ratio for death, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.98; P = 0.03 by the log-rank test). In a subgroup analysis of the two strata, overall survival among women who had not received tamoxifen previously was longer with the combination therapy than with anastrozole alone (median, 52.2 months and 40.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92); among women who had received tamoxifen previously, overall survival was similar in the two groups (median, 48.2 months and 43.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.27) (P = 0.09 for interaction). The incidence of long-term toxic effects of grade 3 to 5 was similar in the two groups. Approximately 45% of the patients in the anastrozole-alone group crossed over to receive fulvestrant. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole was associated with increased long-term survival as compared with anastrozole alone, despite substantial crossover to fulvestrant after progression during therapy with anastrozole alone. The results suggest that the benefit was particularly notable in patients without previous exposure to adjuvant endocrine therapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00075764.).

Fatigue, anxiety, and quality of life in breast cancer patients compared to non-cancer controls: a nationwide longitudinal analysis.

PURPOSE: Fatigue and anxiety are common and significant symptoms reported by cancer patients. Few studies have examined the trajectory of multidimensional fatigue and anxiety, the relationships between them and with quality of life. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (n = 580) from community oncology clinics and age-matched controls (n = 364) completed fatigue and anxiety questionnaires prior to chemotherapy (A1), at chemotherapy completion (A2), and six months post-chemotherapy (A3). Linear mixed models (LMM) compared trajectories of fatigue /anxiety over time in patients and controls and estimated their relationship with quality of life. Models adjusted for age, education, race, BMI, marital status, menopausal status, and sleep symptoms. RESULTS: Patients reported greater fatigue and anxiety compared to controls at all time points (p's < 0.001, 35% clinically meaningful anxiety at baseline). From A1 to A2 patients experienced a significant increase in fatigue (ß = 8.3 95%CI 6.6,10.0) which returned to A1 values at A3 but remained greater than controls' (p < 0.001). General, mental, and physical fatigue subscales increased from A1 to A2 remaining significantly higher than A1 at A3 (p < 0.001). Anxiety improved over time (A1 to A3 ß = - 4.3 95%CI -2.6,-3.3) but remained higher than controls at A3 (p < 0.001). Among patients, fatigue and anxiety significantly predicted one another and quality of life. Menopausal status, higher BMI, mastectomy, and sleep problems also significantly predicted change in fatigue. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients experience significant fatigue and anxiety up to six months post-chemotherapy that is associated with worse quality of life. Future interventions should simultaneously address anxiety and fatigue, focusing on mental and physical fatigue subdomains.

A randomized phase II trial evaluating two non-pharmacologic interventions in cancer survivors for the treatment of sleep-wake disturbances: NCCTG N07C4 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: Sleep disturbance is a prevalent problem for cancer survivors and effective behavioral treatments are not widely used for this population. This study evaluated home-based sleep interventions based on cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). METHODS: This phase II randomized controlled trial evaluated two manualized interventions over 7 weeks. The intervention group received sleep hygiene information, stimulus control, sleep restriction, and a bedtime imagery audio recording. The control group was similar, but without sleep restriction and used audio recordings of bedtime short stories instead of imagery. Eligibility included adult cancer survivors who had trouble falling asleep or falling back to sleep on 3 of 7 days. Patients with diagnoses of sleep or mental health disorders were excluded. The primary endpoint was change in time to fall asleep or falling back to sleep after awakening, from baseline to week 7. Two-sample T tests evaluated differences between arms for this endpoint. RESULTS: Ninety-three of 168 planned participants were enrolled from 20 institutions. The study closed early for poor accrual. Baseline time to sleep was 45 min and 52 min for the intervention and control group, respectively. At 7 weeks, both groups improved, the intervention group to 26 min and control group to 30 min, a non-significant difference between groups (p = 0.85). Secondary outcomes improved in both groups with no significant differences between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in sleep outcomes in both arms was consistent with other CBT-I interventions delivered through alternative approaches to provider-delivered therapy. More research on optimal scalable delivery of CBT-I is needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study supports the effectiveness of CBT-I based behavioral interventions for sleep but also the need for better delivery methods to improve uptake and effect size. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00993928.

Use of letrozole after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer (NRG Oncology/NSABP B-42): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of extended therapy with aromatase inhibitors in patients with postmenopausal breast cancer is unknown. In the NSABP B-42 study, we aimed to determine whether extended letrozole treatment improves disease-free survival after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor-based therapy in women with postmenopausal breast cancer. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 158 centres in the USA, Canada, and Ireland. Postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIA hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, who were disease-free after about 5 years of treatment with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen followed by an aromatase inhibitor, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 years of letrozole (2·5 mg orally per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by pathological node status, previous tamoxifen use, and lowest bone mineral density T score in the lumbosacral spine, total hip, or femoral neck. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, defined as time from randomisation to breast cancer recurrence, second primary malignancy, or death, and was analysed by intention to treat. To adjust for previous interim analyses, the two-sided statistical significance level for disease-free survival was set at 0·0418. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00382070, is active, and is no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2006, and Jan 6, 2010, 3966 patients were randomly assigned to receive letrozole (n=1983) or placebo (n=1983). Follow-up information was available for 3903 patients for the analyses of disease-free survival. Median follow-up was 6·9 years (IQR 6·1-7·5). Letrozole treatment did not significantly improve disease-free survival (339 disease-free survival events were reported in the placebo group and 292 disease-free survival events were reported in the letrozole group; hazard ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·73-0·999; p=0·048). 7-year disease-free survival estimate was 81·3% (95% CI 79·3-83·1) in the placebo group and 84·7% (82·9-86·4) in the letrozole group. The most common grade 3 adverse events were arthralgia (47 [2%] of 1933 patients in the placebo group vs 50 [3%] of 1941 patients in the letrozole group) and back pain (44 [2%] vs 38 [2%]). The most common grade 4 adverse event in the placebo group was thromboembolic event (eight [<1%]) and the most common grade 4 adverse events in the letrozole group were urinary tract infection, hypokalaemia, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (four [<1%] each). INTERPRETATION: After 5 years of aromatase inhibitor-based therapy, 5 years of letrozole therapy did not significantly prolong disease-free survival compared with placebo. Careful assessment of potential risks and benefits is required before recommending extended letrozole therapy to patients with early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, Korea Health Technology R&D Project, Novartis.

Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Untreated Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma of Intermediate or Poor Risk: Subgroup Analysis of the Alliance A031203 CABOSUN trial.

Cabozantinib treatment prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and improved objective response rate (ORR) compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of intermediate or poor risk by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria in the phase II CABOSUN trial (NCT01835158). In the trial, 157 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or sunitinib, stratified by IMDC risk group and presence of bone metastases. Here, PFS and ORR, both determined by independent radiology committee (IRC), were analyzed by subgroups of baseline characteristics. Cabozantinib treatment was generally associated with improved PFS and ORR versus sunitinib across subgroups, including in groups defined by IMDC risk group, bone metastases, age, and tumor burden. Clinical trial identification number NCT01835158.

Goserelin for ovarian protection during breast-cancer adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian failure is a common toxic effect of chemotherapy. Studies of the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to protect ovarian function have shown mixed results and lack data on pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned 257 premenopausal women with operable hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer to receive standard chemotherapy with the GnRH agonist goserelin (goserelin group) or standard chemotherapy without goserelin (chemotherapy-alone group). The primary study end point was the rate of ovarian failure at 2 years, with ovarian failure defined as the absence of menses in the preceding 6 months and levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in the postmenopausal range. Rates were compared with the use of conditional logistic regression. Secondary end points included pregnancy outcomes and disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS: At baseline, 218 patients were eligible and could be evaluated. Among 135 with complete primary end-point data, the ovarian failure rate was 8% in the goserelin group and 22% in the chemotherapy-alone group (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.97; two-sided P=0.04). Owing to missing primary end-point data, sensitivity analyses were performed, and the results were consistent with the main findings. Missing data did not differ according to treatment group or according to the stratification factors of age and planned chemotherapy regimen. Among the 218 patients who could be evaluated, pregnancy occurred in more women in the goserelin group than in the chemotherapy-alone group (21% vs. 11%, P=0.03); women in the goserelin group also had improved disease-free survival (P=0.04) and overall survival (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although missing data weaken interpretation of the findings, administration of goserelin with chemotherapy appeared to protect against ovarian failure, reducing the risk of early menopause and improving prospects for fertility. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; POEMS/S0230 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00068601.).

Omega-3 fatty acid use for obese breast cancer patients with aromatase inhibitor-related arthralgia (SWOG S0927).

PURPOSE: Although aromatase inhibitors (AIs) prolong survival in post-menopausal breast cancer (BC) patients, AI-associated arthralgia can lead to discontinuation. Obese patients have higher rates of AI arthralgia than non-obese patients, but treatment options are limited. Omega-3 fatty acid (O3-FA) treatment for AI arthralgia has produced mixed results. METHODS: We performed an exploratory analysis of SWOG S0927, a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial of O3-FA use for AI arthralgia. Post-menopausal women with stage I-III BC taking an AI were randomized to 24 weeks of O3-FAs or placebo. Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaires and fasting serum were collected at baseline, 12, and 24 weeks. The BPI assessment included worst pain, average pain, and pain interference scores (range 0-10). RESULTS: Among the 249 participants, 139 had BMI < 30 kg/m2 (56%) and 110 had BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 (44%). Among obese patients, O3-FA use was associated with significantly lower BPI worst pain scores at 24 weeks compared with placebo (4.36 vs. 5.70, p = 0.02), whereas among non-obese patients, there was no significant difference in scores between treatment arms (5.27 vs. 4.58, p = 0.28; interaction p = 0.05). Similarly, O3-FA use was associated with lower BPI average pain and pain interference scores at 24 weeks compared with placebo among obese patients, but no significant difference between treatment arms in non-obese patients (interaction p = 0.005 and p = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In obese BC patients, O3-FA use was associated with significantly reduced AI arthralgia compared to placebo.

Modafinil Moderates the Relationship Between Cancer-Related Fatigue and Depression in 541 Patients Receiving Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of modafinil on depression via a secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial of modafinil for fatigue in cancer patients. The primary aim is to elucidate factors that contributed to the effectiveness of modafinil in the parent trial. METHODS: Five hundred forty-one cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and experiencing fatigue (Brief Fatigue Inventory [BFI] item 3 of ≥3) were randomized to receive 200 mg modafinil (n = 260) or placebo (n = 281) daily from baseline (cycle 2) to posttest (cycle 4). Patients completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) and Profile of Mood States depression-dejection subscale at baseline and posttest. We used linear regression to address the hypothesis that modafinil would be associated with reduced depression, particularly in those experiencing severe fatigue (BFI ≥7). RESULTS: Modafinil did not have a significant effect on depression, even for those patients with severe fatigue. However, for subjects with severe fatigue (BFI ≥7), those receiving modafinil had lower depression scores than did control subjects. Modafinil significantly moderated the relationship between baseline fatigue and CES-D total scores (P = 0.04) and was marginally significant as a moderator for the relationship between baseline fatigue and Profile of Mood States depression-dejection subscale scores (P = 0.07). Modafinil also significantly moderated the relationship between baseline fatigue and CES-D positive affect subscale scores (P = 0.003), but not CES-D somatic, negative affect, or interpersonal subscale scores. CONCLUSIONS: Modafinil differentially impacts depression based on a patient's level of fatigue and reduced depressive symptoms only in those with extreme fatigue. This effect may be driven by increases in positive affective symptoms. These results have significant implications for intervention; in patients with high levels of fatigue, modafinil might also reduce depression. Future randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.

Fulvestrant decreases anastrozole drug concentrations when taken concurrently by patients with metastatic breast cancer treated on SWOG study S0226.

AIMS: In the SWOG S0226 trial the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant (n = 349) was superior to anastrozole alone (n = 345) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer. Here we report a pharmacokinetic subset analysis investigating a possible drug interaction between anastrozole and fulvestrant. METHODS: Post-menopausal patients with HR-positive metastatic breast cancer were randomized to anastrozole with or without concurrent fulvestrant. Blood samples were collected at 2, 4, 6 and 8 months, just prior to receiving the next dose of anastrozole and fulvestrant. Drug concentrations were measured via LC/MS-MS. Anastrozole concentration was compared in patients on anastrozole alone vs. patients on concomitant fulvestrant. Comparisons were made at each time point using parametric tests and over time using a linear mixed effects model. RESULTS: A total of 483 anastrozole concentration measurements were included, 224 samples from 64 patients on the anastrozole alone arm and 259 from 73 patients on the combination arm. The mean anastrozole concentration in the combination arm was significantly lower than that in the anastrozole alone arm at each sample collection time (all P < 0.01) and in the mixed effects model (an estimated difference of 9.85 ng ml(-1) (95% CI 5.69, 14.00 ng ml(-1) ), P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A significant pharmacokinetic drug interaction was detected, in which the addition of fulvestrant to anastrozole treatment decreased the trough anastrozole concentration. Further research is needed to verify whether this interaction affects treatment efficacy and to determine the pharmacological mechanism by which this interaction occurs.

Pixantrone-rituximab versus gemcitabine-rituximab in relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

UNLABELLED: We describe the rationale and design of the ongoing randomized, active-controlled, multicenter, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy of pixantrone and rituximab versus gemcitabine and rituximab in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular grade 3 lymphoma, who are ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation, and who failed front-line regimens containing rituximab. The administration schedule is pixantrone 50 mg/m(2) intravenously (iv.) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) iv. on days 1, 8 and 15, combined with rituximab 375 mg/m(2) iv. on day 1, up to six cycles. Pixantrone has a conditional European marketing approval for monotherapy in adults with multiple relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Our trial explores the efficacy of combining pixantrone with rituximab and completes postauthorization measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01321541.

"Enjoy glass of wine before eating:" a randomized trial to test the orexigenic effects of this advice in advanced cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Because the extant literature suggests wine increases appetite, this study sought to determine whether this effect could be observed in advanced cancer patients with appetite loss. METHODS: Advanced cancer patients with self-reported loss of appetite were randomly assigned to white wine with ≤15 % alcohol content twice a day for 3-4 weeks versus a nutritional supplement, such as Boost® or Ensure®. Patients assigned to wine were encouraged to also take a nutritional supplement, whereas patients assigned to the nutritional supplement arm were told to abstain completely from alcohol. Patient-reported outcomes were captured with a validated questionnaire to assess the primary endpoint of appetite improvement. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients (118 evaluable) were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients (48 %) in the wine arm reported an improvement in appetite at some point during the treatment period, whereas 22 patients (37 %) assigned to the nutritional supplement arm also reported improvement (p = 0.35). Other appetite-related questions and questionnaire items showed no statistically significant differences between treatment arms. In both arms, approximately 9 % of patients achieved weight stability (p = 0.98); median survival was not statistically different. Both interventions were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: As prescribed in this trial, wine does not improve appetite or weight in advanced cancer patients.

MC11C4: a pilot randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of venlafaxine to prevent oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy.

PURPOSE: Previous pilot data suggested that venlafaxine could prevent acute and chronic oxaliplatin-related neuropathy. The purpose of this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded pilot study was to obtain additional data to support conducting a phase III trial to test the use of venlafaxine to prevent oxaliplatin neurotoxicity. METHODS: Fifty patients, scheduled to undergo oxaliplatin-based therapy (FOLFOX) for stages II-III (67%) or stage IV (33%) colon cancer, were randomized to receive venlafaxine extended release (37.5 mg) or placebo, twice daily, through their last dose of oxaliplatin and then titrated off. Neurotoxicity was evaluated via several patient- and physician-reported measures, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20) instrument. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were equivalent for the two arms, with a median age of 60 years. There was a trend toward benefit for the venlafaxine arm, when evaluated by the oxaliplatin-specific neuropathy scale and by acute neuropathy measures of throat discomfort and discomfort swallowing cold liquids, the latter only for the first two oxaliplatin doses. These trends were outweighed by a lack of any such trends in all other measurements including the following: (1) the CIPN20 sensory subscale (P = 0.55, primary endpoint), physician-completed NCI CTCAE assessment, or cumulative administered oxaliplatin doses (median 716 vs 631 mg for placebo and venlafaxine, respectively, P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: The present study neither supports the use of venlafaxine for preventing oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy in clinical practice nor the initiation of a phase III trial to investigate venlafaxine in this setting.

Zoledronic acid for treatment of osteopenia and osteoporosis in women with primary breast cancer undergoing adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy: a 5-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to explore whether zoledronic acid could prevent expected loss of bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with pre-existing osteopenia or osteoporosis who were initiating adjuvant letrozole therapy for primary breast cancer. METHODS: Between June 2006 and July 2007, 60 postmenopausal women with estrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer and a BMD T-score ≤-2.0 were enrolled. Participants received letrozole 2.5 mg and vitamin D 400 IU daily, calcium 500 mg twice daily, and zoledronic acid 4 mg every 6 months for a maximum of 5 years or until disease progression. BMD at the lumbar spine and femoral neck was recorded at the start of the study and annually for 5 years. Patients were evaluated for fractures every 6 months for the duration of the trial. RESULTS: After 5 years, mean BMD increased significantly by 11.6% (p = 0.01) at the lumbar spine and by 8.8% (p = 0.01) at combined sites. Femoral neck BMD increased by 4.2%, although this was not significant (p = 0.23). At the end of the trial, BMDs were consistent with osteoporosis in 7 % and osteopenia in 36% of the patients. A total of six fractures were reported after 417 individual assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Zoledronic acid appears to prevent further bone loss in postmenopausal breast cancer patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis starting treatment with letrozole. These findings were maintained at 5 years and support concurrent initiation of bisphosphonate and aromatase inhibitor therapy in this high-risk population.

Buspirone for management of dyspnea in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a randomized placebo-controlled URCC CCOP study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related dyspnea is a common, distressing, and difficult-to-manage symptom in cancer patients, resulting in diminished quality of life and poor prognosis. Buspirone, a non-benzodiazepine anxiolytic which does not suppress respiration and has proven efficacy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, has been suggested to relieve the sensation of dyspnea in patients with COPD. The main objective of our study was to evaluate whether buspirone alleviates dyspnea in cancer patients. METHODS: We report on a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 432 patients (mean age 64, female 51%, lung cancer 62%) from 16 participating Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) sites with grade 2 or higher dyspnea, as assessed by the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. Dyspnea was assessed by the Oxygen Cost Diagram (OCD; higher scores are better) and anxiety by the state subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S; lower scores are better) at baseline and after the 4-week intervention (post-intervention). RESULTS: Mean scores from baseline to post-intervention for buspirone were OCD 8.7 to 9.0 and STAI-S 40.5 to 40.1 and for placebo were OCD 8.4 to 9.3 and STAI-S 40.9 to 38.6 with raw improvements over time on both measures being greater in the placebo group. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for baseline scores showed no statistically significant difference between groups for OCD (P = 0.052) or STAI-S (P = 0.062). CONCLUSION: Buspirone did not result in significant improvement in dyspnea or anxiety in cancer patients. Thus, buspirone should not be recommended as a pharmacological option for dyspnea in cancer patients.

5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of immediate versus delayed zoledronic acid for the prevention of bone loss in postmenopausal women with breast cancer starting letrozole after tamoxifen: N03CC (Alliance) trial.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors are at an increased risk of bone loss. The current study was undertaken to determine whether upfront versus delayed treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA) impacted bone loss. This report described the 5-year follow-up results. METHODS: A total of 551 postmenopausal women with breast cancer who completed tamoxifen treatment and were undergoing daily letrozole treatment were randomized to either upfront (274 patients) or delayed (277 patients) ZA at a dose of 4 mg intravenously every 6 months. In the patients on the delayed treatment arm, ZA was initiated for a postbaseline bone mineral density T-score of <-2.0 or fracture. RESULTS: The incidence of a 5% decrease in the total lumbar spine bone mineral density at 5 years was 10.2% in the upfront treatment arm versus 41.2% in the delayed treatment arm (P<.0001). A total of 41 patients in the delayed treatment arm were eventually started on ZA. With the exception of increased NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 1/2 elevated creatinine and fever in the patients treated on the upfront arm and cerebrovascular ischemia among those in the delayed treatment arm, there were no significant differences observed between arms with respect to the most common adverse events of arthralgia and back pain. Osteoporosis occurred less frequently in the upfront treatment arm (2 vs 8 cumulative cases), although this difference was not found to be statistically significant. Bone fractures occurred in 24 patients in the upfront treatment arm versus 25 patients in the delayed treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate treatment with ZA prevented bone loss compared with delayed treatment in postmenopausal women receiving letrozole and these differences were maintained at 5 years. The incidence of osteoporosis or fractures was not found to be significantly different between treatment arms.

REVEAL-1, a phase 2 dose regimen optimization study of vosaroxin in older poor-risk patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukaemia.

This phase 2 study (N = 116) evaluated single-agent vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer quinolone derivative, in patients ≥60 years of age with previously untreated unfavourable prognosis acute myeloid leukaemia. Dose regimen optimization was explored in sequential cohorts (A: 72 mg/m(2)  d 1, 8, 15; B: 72 mg/m(2)  d 1, 8; C: 72 mg/m(2) or 90 mg/m(2)  d 1, 4). The primary endpoint was combined complete remission rate (complete remission [CR] plus CR with incomplete platelet recovery [CRp]). Common (>20%) grade ≥3 adverse events were thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, anaemia, neutropenia, sepsis, pneumonia, stomatitis and hypokalaemia. Overall CR and CR/CRp rates were 29% and 32%; median overall survival (OS) was 7·0 months; 1-year OS was 34%. Schedule C (72 mg/m(2) ) had the most favourable safety and efficacy profile, with faster haematological recovery (median 27 d) and lowest incidence of aggregate sepsis (24%) and 30-d (7%) and 60-d (17%) all-cause mortality; at this dose and schedule, CR and CR/CRp rates were 31% and 35%, median OS was 7·7 months and 1-year OS was 38%. Overall, vosaroxin resulted in low early mortality and an encouraging response rate; vosaroxin 72 mg/m(2)  d 1, 4 is recommended for further study in this population. Registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: #NCT00607997.