Fracture of a Broviac catheter in a low-birth-weight infant.

Central venous catheters are widely used in children, particularly in very-low-birth-weight infants in whom long-term access to the venous system is required. This may be achieved by using peripherally inserted central catheters or tunnelled central venous lines (eg Broviac or Hickman lines). Previous case reports of fractured central catheters in premature neonates have involved peripherally inserted silastic catheters. Fractures and embolisation of Broviac central venous fragments have not been previously reported in preterm neonates. We describe a premature neonate with this rare complication along with the retrieval technique used.

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy - assessment and management of toxicities.

Immunotherapy using T cells genetically engineered to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) is rapidly emerging as a promising new treatment for haematological and non-haematological malignancies. CAR-T-cell therapy can induce rapid and durable clinical responses, but is associated with unique acute toxicities, which can be severe or even fatal. Cytokine-release syndrome (CRS), the most commonly observed toxicity, can range in severity from low-grade constitutional symptoms to a high-grade syndrome associated with life-threatening multiorgan dysfunction; rarely, severe CRS can evolve into fulminant haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH). Neurotoxicity, termed CAR-T-cell-related encephalopathy syndrome (CRES), is the second most-common adverse event, and can occur concurrently with or after CRS. Intensive monitoring and prompt management of toxicities is essential to minimize the morbidity and mortality associated with this potentially curative therapeutic approach; however, algorithms for accurate and consistent grading and management of the toxicities are lacking. To address this unmet need, we formed a CAR-T-cell-therapy-associated TOXicity (CARTOX) Working Group, comprising investigators from multiple institutions and medical disciplines who have experience in treating patients with various CAR-T-cell therapy products. Herein, we describe the multidisciplinary approach adopted at our institutions, and provide recommendations for monitoring, grading, and managing the acute toxicities that can occur in patients treated with CAR-T-cell therapy.

Modifying the Clinical Research Infrastructure at a Dedicated Clinical Trials Unit: Assessment of Trial Development, Activation, and Participant Accrual.

Purpose: Information on processes for trials assessing investigational therapeutics is sparse. We assessed the trial development processes within the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics (ICT) at MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX) and analyzed their effects on the trial activation timeline and enrolment.Experimental Design: Data were from a prospectively maintained registry that tracks all clinical studies at MD Anderson. From this database, we identified 2,261 activated phase I-III trials; 221 were done at the ICT. ICT trials were matched to trials from other MD Anderson departments by phase, sponsorship, and submission year. Trial performance metrics were compared with paired Wilcoxon signed rank tests.Results: We identified three facets of the ICT research infrastructure: parallel processing of trial approval steps; a physician-led research team; and regular weekly meetings to foster research accountability. Separate analyses were conducted stratified by sponsorship [industry (133 ICT and 133 non-ICT trials) or institutional (68 ICT and 68 non-ICT trials)]. ICT trial development was faster from IRB approval to activation (median difference of 1.1 months for industry-sponsored trials vs. 2.3 months for institutional) and from activation to first enrolment (median difference of 0.3 months for industry vs. 1.2 months for institutional; all matched P < 0.05). ICT trials also accrued more patients (median difference of 8 participants for industry vs. 33.5 for institutional) quicker (median difference 4.8 participants/year for industry vs. 11.1 for institutional; all matched P < 0.05).Conclusions: Use of a clinical research-focused infrastructure within a large academic cancer center was associated with efficient trial development and participant accrual. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1407-13. ©2016 AACR.

Clinical Trial Characteristics and Barriers to Participant Accrual: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience over 30 years, a Historical Foundation for Trial Improvement.

Purpose: Slow-accruing clinical trials delay the translation of basic biomedical research, contribute to increasing health care costs, and may prohibit trials from reaching their original goals.Experimental Design: We analyzed a prospectively maintained institutional database that tracks all clinical studies at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX). Inclusion criteria were activated phase I-III trials, maximum projected accrual ≥10 participants, and activation prior to March 25, 2011. The primary outcome was slow accrual, defined as <2 participants per year. Correlations of trial characteristics with slow accrual were assessed with logistic regression.Results: A total of 4,269 clinical trials met inclusion criteria. Trials were activated between January 5, 1981, and March 25, 2011, with a total of 145,214 participants enrolled. Median total enrolment was 16 [interquartile range (IQR), 5-34], with an average enrolment rate of 8.7 participants per year (IQR, 3.3-17.7). There were 755 (18%) trials classified as slow accruing. On multivariable analysis, slow accrual exhibited robust associations with national cooperative group trials (OR = 4.16, P < 0.0001 vs. industry sponsored), time from trial activation to first enrolment (OR = 1.13 per month, P < 0.0001), and maximum targeted accrual (OR = 0.16 per log10 increase, P < 0.0001). Recursive partitioning analysis identified trials requiring more than 70 days (2.3 months) between activation and first participant enrolment as having higher odds of slow accrual (23% vs. 5%, OR = 5.56, P < 0.0001).Conclusions: We identified factors associated with slow trial accrual. Given the lack of data on clinical trials at the institutional level, these data will help build a foundation from which targeted initiatives may be developed to improve the clinical trial enterprise. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1414-21. ©2017 AACR.

Clinical and biomarker outcomes of the phase II vandetanib study from the BATTLE trial.

BACKGROUND: The Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination trial prospectively obtained serum and tumor core biopsies and randomized 255 chemorefractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients into four phase II trials: erlotinib, erlotinib-bexarotene, vandetanib, or sorafenib. Herein, we report the clinical and biomarker results of the phase II vandetanib trial. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients received vandetanib. The 8-week disease control rate was 33%, median progression-free survival (PFS) 1.81 months, and median overall survival (OS) 6.5 months. No demographic subgroups had PFS or OS benefit. Eight patients with EGFR mutations had a trend for higher 8-week disease control rate (63% versus 31%; p = 0.12) but worse OS (5.9 months versus 9 months; p = 0.8). Patients with EGFR gene amplification (n = 6) had a worse OS (3.9 months versus 9.5 months; p = 0.04). KRAS mutation patients (3.9 months versus 9.5 months; p = 0.23) also had a worse OS. For the serum biomarker analysis, patients with below the median serum expression of interleukin 9c (p = 0.019) and eotaxin (p = 0.007) had a shorter PFS. A trend toward a shorter PFS was also seen in patients with higher than the median neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (p = 0.079) and lower than the median TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (p = 0.087). CONCLUSION: Our trial results are largely consistent with the literature in unselected pretreated NSCLC patients. Although vandetanib improved median PFS in EGFR mutation patients with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor-resistance compared with EGFR wild-type, there was no OS advantage. Although vandetanib is no longer in development in NSCLC, identification of a molecular phenotype that responds to dual epidermal growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibition would contribute to the field.

Comprehensive biomarker analysis and final efficacy results of sorafenib in the BATTLE trial.

PURPOSE: To report the clinical efficacy of sorafenib and to evaluate biomarkers associated with sorafenib clinical benefit in the BATTLE (Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination) program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received sorafenib until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Eight-week disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Prespecified biomarkers included K-RAS, EGFR, and B-RAF mutations, and EGFR gene copy number. Gene expression profiles from NSCLC cell lines and patient tumor biopsies with wild-type EGFR were used to develop a sorafenib sensitivity signature (SSS). RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were eligible and randomized to receive sorafenib. Among 98 patients evaluable for eight-week DCR, the observed DCR was 58.2%. The median PFS and OS were 2.83 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.04-3.58] and 8.48 months (95% CI, 5.78-10.97), respectively. Eight-week DCR was higher in patients with wild-type EGFR than patients with EGFR mutation (P = 0.012), and in patients with EGFR gene copy number gain (FISH-positive) versus patients FISH-negative (P = 0.048). In wild-type EGFR tumors, the SSS was associated with improved PFS (median PFS 3.61 months in high SSS vs. 1.84 months in low SSS; P = 0.026) but not with eight-week DCR. Increased expression of fibroblast growth factor-1, NF-κB, and hypoxia pathways were identified potential drivers of sorafenib resistance. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib demonstrates clinical activity in NSCLC, especially with wild-type EGFR. SSS was associated with improved PFS. These data identify subgroups that may derive clinical benefit from sorafenib and merit investigation in future trials.

Clinical outcomes and biomarker profiles of elderly pretreated NSCLC patients from the BATTLE trial.

BACKGROUND: Treating elderly non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in the salvage setting is challenging because of concerns of intolerance to therapy. Here we report outcomes (survival and toxicity) of elderly patients on the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-five chemorefractory NSCLC patients received tumor molecular analysis, and were randomized to erlotinib, erlotinib-bexarotene, vandetanib, or sorafenib. Retrospective subgroup analyses were conducted comparing outcomes among age groups (< 65 versus ≥ 65 years; < 70 versus ≥ 70 years; < 75 versus ≥ 75 years), treatments, and sex. RESULTS: Median age was 62 years (range, 26-84); 38% were aged 65 years or more. No significant differences among age groups were seen in rates of biopsy-related pneumothorax, treatment-related death, compliance, grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities, response rate, nor overall survival. However, older women aged 65 years or more had more grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicities (p = 0.05). Elderly men aged 65 years or more (p = 0.008) had a higher disease-control rate at 8 weeks and a better progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.0068). Elderly women aged 70 years or more had a trend toward higher 8-week disease-control rate (p = 0.06). Older men aged 65 years or more treated with vandetanib had a better median PFS (p = 0.03) whereas PFS of older women aged 70 years or more was worse (p = 0.03) compared with younger patients. Elderly men aged 70 years or more treated with sorafenib had a higher overall survival compared with younger men (p = 0.04). Tumor tissue biomarkers show distinct differences by sex and age. CONCLUSION: Fit elderly NSCLC patients should be considered for salvage targeted therapy. In this subset of patients, older men seem to have significant clinical benefit from certain agents. Tumor biomarker analysis demonstrates sex and age variations, and is hypothesis-generating.

Methodological and practical challenges for personalized cancer therapies.

Many experts agree that personalized cancer medicine, defined here as treatment based on the molecular characteristics of a tumor from an individual patient, has great potential in the therapy of many types of cancer. Although targeted therapy agents are increasingly available for clinical applications, many of these promising drugs have produced disappointing results when tested in clinical trials, indicating that there are many challenges that must be addressed to advance this field. We propose that a new generation of clinical trials requiring biopsies to obtain relevant tumor specimens, as well as novel statistical designs, will be essential to improve treatment outcomes. However, these novel clinical trials will only be successful if appropriate biomarkers are identified to help guide the selection of the most beneficial treatments for the participating patients. Although biomarkers based on single gene mutations are the most commonly used in clinical applications today, gene-expression or protein-expression 'signatures' and new imaging technologies have the potential to play important roles as biomarkers in the future. Therefore, it is of crucial importance that we identify and resolve existing challenges that may impede the rapid identification and translation of validated biomarkers with acceptable sensitivity and specificity from the laboratory to the clinic. These challenges include limitations of current biomarker development methodologies and regulatory and reimbursement policies and practices.

The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer.

UNLABELLED: The Biomarker-integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial represents the first completed prospective, biopsy-mandated, biomarker-based, adaptively randomized study in 255 pretreated lung cancer patients. Following an initial equal randomization period, chemorefractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were adaptively randomized to erlotinib, vandetanib, erlotinib plus bexarotene, or sorafenib, based on relevant molecular biomarkers analyzed in fresh core needle biopsy specimens. Overall results include a 46% 8-week disease control rate (primary end point), confirm prespecified hypotheses, and show an impressive benefit from sorafenib among mutant-KRAS patients. BATTLE establishes the feasibility of a new paradigm for a personalized approach to lung cancer clinical trials. SIGNIFICANCE: The BATTLE study is the first completed prospective, adaptively randomized study in heavily pretreated NSCLC patients that mandated tumor profiling with "real-time" biopsies, taking a substantial step toward realizing personalized lung cancer therapy by integrating real-time molecular laboratory findings in delineating specific patient populations for individualized treatment.