Randomized Phase II Study of Ramucirumab or Icrucumab in Combination with Capecitabine in Patients with Previously Treated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Icrucumab (ICR) and ramucirumab (RAM) bind vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1 and 2 (VEGFR-1 and -2), respectively. This open-label, randomized phase II study evaluated their efficacy and safety in combination with capecitabine (CAP) in patients with previously treated unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive CAP (1,000 mg/m2 orally twice daily, days 1-14) alone or in combination with RAM (10 mg/kg intravenously [IV], days 1 and 8) (RAM + CAP) or ICR (12 mg/kg IV, days 1 and 8) (ICR + CAP) every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), tumor response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Of 153 patients randomized, 150 received treatment. Median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 22.1 (12.1-36.1) weeks on RAM + CAP, 7.3 (6.3-13.0) weeks on ICR + CAP, and 19.0 (12.1-24.3) weeks on CAP (hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.691, p = .1315, RAM + CAP versus CAP; 1.480, p = .0851, ICR + CAP versus CAP). Median OS was 67.4 weeks on RAM + CAP, 62.1 weeks on ICR + CAP, and 71.6 weeks on CAP (HRs: 1.833, p = .0283, RAM + CAP versus CAP; 1.468, p = .1550, ICR + CAP versus CAP). There was no statistically significant difference in PFS or OS between either combination arm and CAP. Treatment-related adverse events more frequent (by ≥10%) on RAM + CAP than on CAP were constipation, decreased appetite, headache, epistaxis, and hypertension. Those more frequent (by ≥10%) on ICR + CAP than CAP were anemia, increased lacrimation, periorbital edema, nausea, vomiting, peripheral edema, facial edema, dehydration, and dyspnea. CONCLUSION: Combining RAM or ICR with CAP did not improve PFS in the targeted study population. The Oncologist 2017;22:245-254 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Icrucumab and ramucirumab are recombinant human IgG1 monoclonal antibodies that bind vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1 and 2 (VEGFR-1 and -2), respectively. VEGFR-1 activation on endothelial and tumor cell surfaces increases tumor vascularization and growth and supports tumor growth via multiple mechanisms, including contributions to angiogenesis and direct promotion of cancer cell proliferation. Strong preclinical and clinical evidence suggests key roles for VEGF and angiogenesis in breast cancer growth, invasion, and metastasis. This randomized phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of each antibody in combination with capecitabine in patients with previously treated unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Effect of Longer-Interval vs Standard Dosing of Zoledronic Acid on Skeletal Events in Patients With Bone Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Zoledronic acid, a third-generation aminobisphosphonate, reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events and pain in patients with bone metastases. The optimal dosing interval for zoledronic acid is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether zoledronic acid administered every 12 weeks is noninferior to zoledronic acid administered every 4 weeks. Design, Setting, Participants: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted at 269 academic and community sites in the United States. Patients (n = 1822) with metastatic breast cancer, metastatic prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma who had at least 1 site of bone involvement were enrolled between May 2009 and April 2012; follow-up concluded in April 2014. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid administered intravenously every 4 weeks (n = 911) vs every 12 weeks (n = 911) for 2 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients having at least 1 skeletal-related event (defined as clinical fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation to bone, or surgery involving bone) within 2 years after randomization and a between-group absolute difference of 7% as the noninferiority margin. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients with at least 1 skeletal-related event by disease type, pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher scores indicate worse pain), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (range, 0-4; higher scores indicate worse disability), incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, kidney dysfunction, skeletal morbidity rate (mean number of skeletal-related events per year), and, in a subset of 553 patients, suppression of bone turnover (assessed by C-terminal telopeptide levels). Results: Among 1822 patients who were randomized (median age, 65 years; 980 [53.8%] women; 855 with breast cancer, 689 with prostate cancer, and 278 with multiple myeloma), 795 completed the study at 2 years. A total of 260 patients (29.5%) in the zoledronic acid every 4-week dosing group and 253 patients (28.6%) in the every 12-week dosing group experienced at least 1 skeletal-related event within 2 years of randomization (risk difference of -0.3% [1-sided 95% CI, -4% to ∞]; P < .001 for noninferiority). The proportions of skeletal-related events did not differ significantly between the every 4-week dosing group vs the every 12-week dosing group for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma. Pain scores, performance status scores, incidence of jaw osteonecrosis, and kidney dysfunction did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. Skeletal morbidity rates were numerically identical in both groups, but bone turnover was greater (C-terminal telopeptide levels were higher) among patients who received zoledronic acid every 12 weeks. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, the use of zoledronic acid every 12 weeks compared with the standard dosing interval of every 4 weeks did not result in an increased risk of skeletal events over 2 years. This longer interval may be an acceptable treatment option. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00869206.

A pilot trial of decision aids to give truthful prognostic and treatment information to chemotherapy patients with advanced cancer.

Most cancer patients do not have an explicit discussion about prognosis and treatment despite documented adverse outcomes. Few decision aids have been developed to assist the difficult discussions of palliative management. We developed decision aids for people with advanced in curable breast, colorectal, lung, and hormone-refractory prostate cancers facing first-, second-, third-, and fourth-line chemotherapy. We recruited patients from our urban oncology clinic after gaining the permission of their treating oncologist. We measured knowledge of curability and treatment benefit before and after the intervention. Twenty-six of 27 (96%) patients completed the aids, with ameanage of 63, 56% female, 56% married, 56% African American, and 67% with a high school education or more. Most patients (14/27, 52%) thought a person with their advanced cancer could be cured, which was reduced (to 8/26, 31%, P = 0.15) after the decision aid. Nearly all overestimated the effect of palliative chemotherapy. No distress was noted, and hope did not change. The majority (20/27, 74%) found the information helpful to them, and almost all (25/27, 93%) wanted to share the information with their family and physicians. It is possible to give incurable patients their prognosis, treatment options, and options for improving end-of-life care without causing distress or lack of hope. Almost all find the information helpful and want to share it with doctors and family. Research is needed to test the findings in a larger sample and measure the outcomes of truthful information on quality of life, quality of care, and costs.

Giving honest information to patients with advanced cancer maintains hope.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists often do not give honest prognostic and treatment-effect information to patients with advanced disease. One of the primary reasons stated for witholding this information is to "not take away hope." We could find no study that tested if hope was influenced by honest clinical information. METHODS: We tested decision-aids in 27 patients with advanced cancer who were facing first-, second-, third-, and fourth-line chemotherapy. These aids had printed estimates of treatment effect and the patient's chance of survival and being cured (always zero). We measured hope using the Herth Hope Index, which ranks patients' responses to 12 questions and yields a maximum score of 48. RESULTS: The scores on the Herth Hope Index did not change and the patients remained uniformly hopeful about their future. The pretest score was 44.2 (SD 3.9), and it increased to 44.8 (SD 3.86; P = .55 by paired Student's t-test). CONCLUSION: Hope is maintained when patients with advanced cancer are given truthful prognostic and treatment information, even when the news is bad.

Ovarian suppression in the management of premenopausal breast cancer: methods and efficacy in adjuvant and metastatic settings.

Ovarian suppression has been used to treat hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer in premenopausal women for over 100 years and is currently under continued evaluation for treatment in the adjuvant setting. In this article, ovarian suppression by surgery, radiation, and pharmacological therapy is discussed, including the risks, benefits, and efficacy of each strategy. The role of ovarian suppression in premenopausal women with early and advanced stages of breast cancer will be reviewed. It is hoped that this review will assist clinicians and their patients in selecting the appropriate therapy if ovarian suppression is indicated.

'Futile care': what to do when your patient insists on chemotherapy that likely won't help.

While there is no generally accepted medical definition of "futile care," many factors may play a role in the delivery of chemotherapy to patients who are unlikely to benefit. In this review, we consider the roles of both the patient and the physician in driving the provision of "futile care" and offer practical steps the oncologist can take to avoid it.

Breast cancer follow-up in the adjuvant setting.

Breast cancer may recur through 15 years and beyond after diagnosis; thus, breast cancer patients require long-term follow-up after adjuvant treatment to detect recurrent disease. History taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are still the foundation of appropriate breast cancer follow-up in the adjuvant setting. Clearly, breast MRI has a role in certain high-risk patients, but in moderate-risk patients, the decision to use MRI must be based on the complexity of the clinical scenario. Other routine imaging studies (CT, positron emission tomography, and bone scans) and laboratory testing--including tumor marker assessments--in asymptomatic patients have not demonstrated an improvement in survival, quality of life, toxicity, or cost-effectiveness. Survivorship issues are also an inherent part of breast cancer follow-up; physicians should make every effort to address supportive care issues unique to breast cancer survivors including hot flashes, bone health, neuropathy, and risk-reduction strategies.

Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations about endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor (HR) -positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of evidence from 2008 through 2015 to create recommendations informed by that evidence. Outcomes of interest included sequencing of hormonal agents, hormonal agents compared with chemotherapy, targeted biologic therapy, and treatment of premenopausal women. This guideline puts forth recommendations for endocrine therapy as treatment for women with HR-positive MBC. RECOMMENDATIONS: Sequential hormone therapy is the preferential treatment for most women with HR-positive MBC. Except in cases of immediately life-threatening disease, hormone therapy, alone or in combination, should be used as initial treatment. Patients whose tumors express any level of hormone receptors should be offered hormone therapy. Treatment recommendations should be based on type of adjuvant treatment, disease-free interval, and organ function. Tumor markers should not be the sole criteria for determining tumor progression; use of additional biomarkers remains experimental. Assessment of menopausal status is critical; ovarian suppression or ablation should be included in premenopausal women. For postmenopausal women, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the preferred first-line endocrine therapy, with or without the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor palbociclib. As second-line therapy, fulvestrant should be administered at 500 mg with a loading schedule and may be administered with palbociclib. The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus may be administered with exemestane to postmenopausal women with MBC whose disease progresses while receiving nonsteroidal AIs. Among patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive MBC, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-targeted therapy plus an AI can be effective for those who are not chemotherapy candidates.

Improving palliative and supportive care in cancer patients.

Twenty years of research in controlling symptoms such as pain and nausea have shown persistent suboptimal performance by the US oncology system. The data suggest that some of the tools of palliative care programs can improve physical symptoms of seriously ill patients at a cost society can afford. To fix these problems will require recognition of the symptoms or concerns, a system such as an algorithm or care plan for addressing each, measurement of the change, and accountability for the change. Symptom assessment scales such as the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale or Rotterdam Symptom Check List work to make symptoms manifest. Listing symptoms on a problem list is a necessary step in addressing them. Physical symptoms such as pain can be improved by use of computer prompts, algorithms, dedicated staff time, team management, or combinations of these strategies. Less concrete problems such as medically appropriate goal-setting, integrating palliative care into anticancer care sooner, and informing patients about the benefits and risks of chemotherapy near the end of life require more complex solutions. We review what is known about symptom control in oncology, how and why some programs do better, and make suggestions for practice. Finally, we suggest a practical plan for using symptom assessment scales, listing the problems, and managing them according to algorithms or other predetermined plans.

Recommendations for the Use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs). METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update Committee and conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews from October 2005 through September 2014. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by the Update Committee. RESULTS: Changes to previous recommendations include the addition of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, moderation of the recommendation regarding routine use of CSFs in older patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and addition of recommendations against routine dose-dense chemotherapy in lymphoma and in favor of high-dose-intensity chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. The Update Committee did not address recommendations regarding use of CSFs in acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in adults. RECOMMENDATIONS: Prophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and no other equally effective and safe regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on the basis of age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense regimens that require CSFs should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total-body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death as a result of injury to other organs, include the prompt administration of CSFs.

Pazopanib as second-line treatment after sunitinib or bevacizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: This phase II trial examined the activity and toxicity of second-line treatment with pazopanib after failure of first-line single-agent treatment with sunitinib or bevacizumab in patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-five patients with metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma who had previously received first-line treatment with sunitinib (39 patients) or bevacizumab (16 patients) were enrolled. Patients received pazopanib 800 mg orally daily and were evaluated for response after 8 weeks of treatment. Responses were measured using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.0, and confirmed with repeated scans after 8 weeks. Patients with objective response or stable disease continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Fifteen of 55 patients (27%) had objective response to pazopanib. An additional 27 patients (49%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 76%. After a median follow-up of 16.7 months, the median progression-free survival for the entire group was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval, 5.4-9.4 months). Similar progression-free survival was observed regardless of whether previous treatment was with sunitinib or bevacizumab. The estimated overall survival rate for the entire group at 24 months was 43%. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib is an active agent for the treatment of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma, even after failure of sunitinib or bevacizumab. Treatment with pazopanib should be considered early in the sequence of therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on the follow-up and management of patients with breast cancer who have completed primary therapy with curative intent. METHODS: To update the 2006 guideline of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through March 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed the evidence to determine whether the recommendations were in need of updating. RESULTS: There were 14 new publications that met inclusion criteria: nine systematic reviews (three included meta-analyses) and five randomized controlled trials. After its review and analysis of the evidence, the Update Committee concluded that no revisions to the existing ASCO recommendations were warranted. RECOMMENDATIONS: Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Physical examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. The use of complete blood counts, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, pelvic ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scans, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.

American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the cancer care Ontario practice guideline on adjuvant ovarian ablation in the treatment of premenopausal women with early-stage invasive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has policies and procedures for endorsing practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Guideline on Adjuvant Ovarian Ablation (OA) in the Treatment of Premenopausal Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ad hoc review panel of experts reviewed the content. RESULTS: The ASCO ad hoc OA guideline review panel concurred that the recommendations are clear, thorough, based on the most relevant scientific evidence in this content area, and present options that will be acceptable to patients. According to the CCO guideline: one, OA should not be routinely added to systemic therapy with chemotherapy, tamoxifen, or the combination of tamoxifen and chemotherapy; two, OA alone is not recommended as an alternative to any other form of systemic therapy, except in the specific case of patients who are candidates for other forms of systemic therapy but who, for some reason, will not receive any other systemic therapy (eg, patients who cannot tolerate other forms of systemic therapy or patients who choose no other form of systemic therapy); and three, when chemical suppression using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists is the chosen method of OA, in the opinion of the Breast Cancer Disease Site Group, monthly injection is the recommended mode of administration. The mode of administration in nearly all of the available trials has been monthly administration. CONCLUSION: The ASCO review panel agrees with the recommendations as stated in the CCO guideline, with the qualification that ongoing research studies may alter the recommendations of the panel.

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting.

PURPOSE: To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on breast cancer follow-up and management in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: An ASCO Expert Panel reviewed pertinent information from the literature through March 2006. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design. RESULTS: The evidence supports regular history, physical examination, and mammography as the cornerstone of appropriate breast cancer follow-up. All patients should have a careful history and physical examination performed by a physician experienced in the surveillance of cancer patients and in breast examination. Examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For those who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. Patients at high risk for familial breast cancer syndromes should be referred for genetic counseling. The use of CBCs, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scanning, magnetic resonance imaging, or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine breast cancer follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination. CONCLUSION: Careful history taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are recommended for appropriate detection of breast cancer recurrence.

2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSF). UPDATE METHODOLOGY: The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of pertinent data published from 1999 through September 2005. Guided by the 1996 ASCO clinical outcomes criteria, the Update Committee formulated recommendations based on improvements in survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction and cost-effectiveness. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2005 Update Committee agreed unanimously that reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important clinical outcome that justifies the use of CSFs, regardless of impact on other factors, when the risk of FN is approximately 20% and no other equally effective regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of FN in patients who are at high risk based on age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. CSF use allows a modest to moderate increase in dose-density and/or dose-intensity of chemotherapy regimens. Dose-dense regimens should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Prophylactic CSF for patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma aged 65 years and older treated with curative chemotherapy (CHOP or more aggressive regimens) should be given to reduce the incidence of FN and infections. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death due to injury to other organs, includes the prompt administration of CSF or pegylated G-CSF.