Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: phase 2 results from a multicentre, randomised, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The hypomethylating drugs azacitidine and decitabine have shown efficacy in myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukaemia, but complete tumour responses are infrequent and of short duration, possibly because of the short half-lives and suboptimal bone marrow exposure of the drugs. Guadecitabine, a next-generation hypomethylating drug, has a longer half-life and exposure than its active metabolite decitabine. A phase 1 study established 60 mg/m2 guadecitabine for 5 days as an effective treatment schedule. In this phase 2 study, we aimed to assess the safety and activity of two doses and schedules of guadecitabine in older (≥65 years) patients with treatment-naive acute myeloid leukaemia who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 1/2 study of guadecitabine in cohorts of patients with treatment-naive acute myeloid leukaemia, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes; here we report the phase 2 results from the cohort of treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. We included patients aged at least 65 years from 14 US medical centres (hospitals and specialist cancer clinics) who were not candidates for intensive chemotherapy and randomly assigned them (1:1) using a computer algorithm (for dynamic randomisation) to guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/m2 on days 1-5 (5-day schedule) of a 28-day treatment cycle. Treatment allocation was not masked. We also assigned additional patients to guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 in a 10-day schedule in a 28-day treatment cycle after a protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was composite complete response (complete response, complete response with incomplete platelet recovery, or complete response with incomplete neutrophil recovery regardless of platelets). Response was assessed in all patients (as-treated) who received at least one dose of guadecitabine. We present the final analysis, although at the time of the database lock, 15 patients were still in follow-up for overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01261312. FINDINGS: Between Aug 24, 2012, and Sept 15, 2014, 107 patients were enrolled: 54 on the 5-day schedule (26 randomly assigned to 60 mg/m2 and 28 to 90 mg/m2) and 53 were assigned to the 10-day schedule. Median age was 77 years (range 62-92), and median follow-up was 953 days (IQR 721-1040). All treated patients were assessable for a response. The number of patients who achieved a composite complete response did not differ between dose groups or schedules (13 [54%, 95% CI 32·8-74·4] with 60 mg/m2 on the 5-day schedule; 16 [59%; 38·8-77·6] with 90 mg/m2 on the 5-day schedule; and 26 [50%, 35·8-64·2] with 60 mg/m2 on the 10-day schedule). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events, regardless of relationship to treatment, were febrile neutropenia (31 [61%] of 51 patients on the 5-day schedule vs 36 [69%] of 52 patients on the 10-day schedule), thrombocytopenia (25 [49%] vs 22 [42%]), neutropenia (20 [39%] vs 18 [35%]), pneumonia (15 [29%] vs 19 [37%]), anaemia (15 [29%] vs 12 [23%]), and sepsis (eight [16%] vs 14 [27%]). The most common serious adverse events, regardless of relationship to treatment, for the 5-day and 10-day schedules, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (27 [53%] vs 25 [48%]), pneumonia (14 [27%] vs 16 [31%]), and sepsis (eight [16%] vs 14 [27%]). 23 (22%) patients died because of adverse events (mainly from sepsis, eight [8%]; and pneumonia, five [5%]); four deaths were from adverse events deemed treatment-related (pneumonia, two [2%]; multiorgan failure, one [1%]; and sepsis, one [1%], all in the 10-day cohort). INTERPRETATION: More than half of older treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia achieved a composite complete response with guadecitabine at all drug doses and schedules investigated, with tolerable toxicity. The recommended guadecitabine regimen for this population is 60 mg/m2 in a 5-day schedule. A phase 3 study in this patient population is ongoing (NCT02348489) to assess guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 in a 5-day schedule versus standard of care. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals and Stand Up To Cancer.

Utility of monocyte HLA-DR and rationale for therapeutic GM-CSF in sepsis immunoparalysis.

Sepsis, a heterogeneous clinical syndrome, features a systemic inflammatory response to tissue injury or infection, followed by a state of reduced immune responsiveness. Measurable alterations occur in both the innate and adaptive immune systems. Immunoparalysis, an immunosuppressed state, associates with worsened outcomes, including multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, secondary infections, and increased mortality. Multiple immune markers to identify sepsis immunoparalysis have been proposed, and some might offer clinical utility. Sepsis immunoparalysis is characterized by reduced lymphocyte numbers and downregulation of class II human leukocyte antigens (HLA) on innate immune monocytes. Class II HLA proteins present peptide antigens for recognition by and activation of antigen-specific T lymphocytes. One monocyte class II protein, mHLA-DR, can be measured by flow cytometry. Downregulated mHLA-DR indicates reduced monocyte responsiveness, as measured by ex-vivo cytokine production in response to endotoxin stimulation. Our literature survey reveals low mHLA-DR expression on peripheral blood monocytes correlates with increased risks for infection and death. For mHLA-DR, 15,000 antibodies/cell appears clinically acceptable as the lower limit of immunocompetence. Values less than 15,000 antibodies/cell are correlated with sepsis severity; and values at or less than 8000 antibodies/cell are identified as severe immunoparalysis. Several experimental immunotherapies have been evaluated for reversal of sepsis immunoparalysis. In particular, sargramostim, a recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhu GM-CSF), has demonstrated clinical benefit by reducing hospitalization duration and lowering secondary infection risk. Lowered infection risk correlates with increased mHLA-DR expression on peripheral blood monocytes in these patients. Although mHLA-DR has shown promising utility for identifying sepsis immunoparalysis, absence of a standardized, analytically validated method has thus far prevented widespread adoption. A clinically useful approach for patient inclusion and identification of clinically correlated output parameters could address the persistent high unmet medical need for effective targeted therapies in sepsis.

Real-world outcomes of 18,186 metastatic solid tumor outpatients: Baseline blood cell counts correlate with survival after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patient survival in advanced/metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Biomarkers' role in prognosis and treatment has been limited by conflicting trial results. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study analyzed baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data versus outcomes of The US Oncology Network adult outpatients. Patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC treated between January 1, 2015 and November 30, 2020 were given ICI monotherapy or combination therapy with ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab. Treatment outcomes (overall survival [OS], time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment) were followed longitudinally until May 31, 2021, last patient record, or date of death. Baseline blood cell counts, including absolute monocyte count (AMC), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), absolute neutrophil count (ANC), and eosinophil count, were subdivided into quintiles for univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Data from 18,186 patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma (n = 3314), NSCLC (n = 12,416), and RCC (n = 2456) were analyzed. Better OS correlated with increased baseline serum albumin concentration, increased eosinophil and lymphocyte counts, and Western United States physician practice location. Decreased OS correlated with increased AMC, MLR, ANC, age, and worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to associate baseline survival indicators and outcomes in outpatients with advanced/metastatic melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC and receiving ICIs. Results may inform disease-specific prognostic models and help providers identify patients most likely to benefit from ICI therapy.

Refining endpoints in brain tumor clinical trials.

As targeted therapies advance treatment for brain tumors, standard clinical trial endpoints of survival, progression free survival and radiographic response have become insufficient to capture clinical benefit. Brain cancer is a malignancy with neurodegenerative features. In this setting prolongation of life and/or radiographic stability are less clinically meaningful if neurocognitive function substantially declines. Hence evaluation of new therapeutic strategies should routinely include periodic assessment of neurocognitive function.

Role of Fcγ receptors in HER2-targeted breast cancer therapy.

Several therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), including those targeting epidermal growth factor receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and CD20, mediate fragment crystallizable gamma receptor (FcγR)-dependent activities as part of their mechanism of action. These activities include induction of antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP), which are innate immune mechanisms of cancer cell elimination. FcγRs are distinguished by their affinity for the Fc fragment, cell distribution, and type of immune response they induce. Activating FcγRIIIa (CD16A) on natural killer cells plays a crucial role in mediating ADCC, and activating FcγRIIa (CD32A) and FcγRIIIa on macrophages are important for mediating ADCP. Polymorphisms in FcγRIIIa and FcγRIIa generate variants that bind to the Fc portion of antibodies with different affinities. This results in differential FcγR-mediated activities associated with differential therapeutic outcomes across multiple clinical settings, from early stage to metastatic disease, in patients with HER2+ breast cancer treated with the anti-HER2 mAb trastuzumab. Trastuzumab has, nonetheless, revolutionized HER2+ breast cancer treatment, and several HER2-directed mAbs have been developed using Fc glyco-engineering or Fc protein-engineering to enhance FcγR-mediated functions. An example of an approved anti-HER2 Fc-engineered chimeric mAb is margetuximab, which targets the same epitope as trastuzumab, but features five amino acid substitutions in the IgG 1 Fc domain that were deliberately introduced to increase binding to activating FcγRIIIa and decrease binding to inhibitory FcγRIIb (CD32B). Margetuximab enhances Fc-dependent ADCC in vitro more potently than the combination of pertuzumab (another approved mAb directed against an alternate HER2 epitope) and trastuzumab. Margetuximab administration also enhances HER2-specific B cell and T cell-mediated responses ex vivo in samples from patients treated with prior lines of HER2 antibody-based therapies. Stemming from these observations, a worthwhile future goal in the treatment of HER2+ breast cancer is to promote combinatorial approaches that better eradicate HER2+ cancer cells via enhanced immunological mechanisms.

Recombinant GM-CSF for diseases of GM-CSF insufficiency: Correcting dysfunctional mononuclear phagocyte disorders.

Introduction: Endogenous granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), identified by its ability to support differentiation of hematopoietic cells into several types of myeloid cells, is now known to support maturation and maintain the metabolic capacity of mononuclear phagocytes including monocytes, macrophages, and dendritic cells. These cells sense and attack potential pathogens, present antigens to adaptive immune cells, and recruit other immune cells. Recombinant human (rhu) GM-CSF (e.g., sargramostim [glycosylated, yeast-derived rhu GM-CSF]) has immune modulating properties and can restore the normal function of mononuclear phagocytes rendered dysfunctional by deficient or insufficient endogenous GM-CSF. Methods: We reviewed the emerging biologic and cellular effects of GM-CSF. Experts in clinical disease areas caused by deficient or insufficient endogenous GM-CSF examined the role of GM-CSF in mononuclear phagocyte disorders including autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (aPAP), diverse infections (including COVID-19), wound healing, and anti-cancer immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Results: We discuss emerging data for GM-CSF biology including the positive effects on mitochondrial function and cell metabolism, augmentation of phagocytosis and efferocytosis, and immune cell modulation. We further address how giving exogenous rhu GM-CSF may control or treat mononuclear phagocyte dysfunction disorders caused or exacerbated by GM-CSF deficiency or insufficiency. We discuss how rhu GM-CSF may augment the anti-cancer effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy as well as ameliorate immune-related adverse events. Discussion: We identify research gaps, opportunities, and the concept that rhu GM-CSF, by supporting and restoring the metabolic capacity and function of mononuclear phagocytes, can have significant therapeutic effects. rhu GM-CSF (e.g., sargramostim) might ameliorate multiple diseases of GM-CSF deficiency or insufficiency and address a high unmet medical need.

Efficacy of Margetuximab vs Trastuzumab in Patients With Pretreated ERBB2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: ERRB2 (formerly HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC) remains typically incurable with optimal treatment undefined in later lines of therapy. The chimeric antibody margetuximab shares ERBB2 specificity with trastuzumab but incorporates an engineered Fc region to increase immune activation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of margetuximab vs trastuzumab, each with chemotherapy, in patients with pretreated ERBB2-positive ABC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The SOPHIA phase 3 randomized open-label trial of margetuximab plus chemotherapy vs trastuzumab plus chemotherapy enrolled 536 patients from August 26, 2015, to October 10, 2018, at 166 sites in 17 countries. Eligible patients had disease progression on 2 or more prior anti-ERBB2 therapies and 1 to 3 lines of therapy for metastatic disease. Data were analyzed from February 2019 to October 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Investigators selected chemotherapy before 1:1 randomization to margetuximab, 15 mg/kg, or trastuzumab, 6 mg/kg (loading dose, 8 mg/kg), each in 3-week cycles. Stratification factors were metastatic sites (≤2, >2), lines of therapy (≤2, >2), and chemotherapy choice. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Sequential primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) by central blinded analysis and overall survival (OS). All α was allocated to PFS, followed by OS. Secondary end points were investigator-assessed PFS and objective response rate by central blinded analysis. RESULTS: A total of 536 patients were randomized to receive margetuximab (n = 266) or trastuzumab (n = 270). The median age was 56 (27-86) years; 266 (100%) women were in the margetuximab group, while 267 (98.9%) women were in the trastuzumab group. Groups were balanced. All but 1 patient had received prior pertuzumab, and 489 (91.2%) had received prior ado-trastuzumab emtansine. Margetuximab improved primary PFS over trastuzumab with 24% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P = .03; median, 5.8 [95% CI, 5.5-7.0] months vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.2-5.6] months; October 10, 2018). After the second planned interim analysis of 270 deaths, median OS was 21.6 months with margetuximab vs 19.8 months with trastuzumab (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.13; P = .33; September 10, 2019), and investigator-assessed PFS showed 29% relative risk reduction favoring margetuximab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001; median, 5.7 vs 4.4 months; September 10, 2019). Margetuximab improved objective response rate over trastuzumab: 22% vs 16% (P = .06; October 10, 2018), and 25% vs 14% (P < .001; September 10, 2019). Incidence of infusion-related reactions, mostly in cycle 1, was higher with margetuximab (35 [13.3%] vs 9 [3.4%]); otherwise, safety was comparable. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, margetuximab plus chemotherapy had acceptable safety and a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in ERBB2-positive ABC after progression on 2 or more prior anti-ERBB2 therapies. Final OS analysis is expected in 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02492711.

Assessing proarrhythmic potential of drugs when optimal studies are infeasible.

Assessing the potential for a new drug to cause life-threatening arrhythmias is now an integral component of premarketing safety assessment. International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Guideline (ICH) E14 recommends the "Thorough QT Study" (TQT) to assess clinical QT risk. Such a study calls for careful evaluation of drug effects on the electrocardiographic QT interval at multiples of therapeutic exposure and with a positive control to confirm assay sensitivity. Yet for some drugs and diseases, elements of the TQT Study may be impractical or unethical. In these instances, alternative approaches to QT risk assessment must be considered. This article presents points to consider for evaluation of QT risk when alternative approaches are needed.

Approval summary: sunitinib for the treatment of imatinib refractory or intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumors and advanced renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To describe the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and approval of sunitinib malate (Sutent). Sunitinib received regular approval for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after disease progression or intolerance to imatinib mesylate (Gleevec). Additionally, sunitinib received accelerated approval for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: For the GIST indication, FDA reviewed data from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with supportive evidence from a single-arm study. For the advanced renal cell carcinoma indication, FDA reviewed data from two single-arm studies of patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: In patients with imatinib refractory or intolerant GIST, time-to-tumor progression of sunitinib-treated patients was superior to that of placebo-treated patients. Median time-to-tumor progression of sunitinib-treated patients was 27.3 weeks, compared with 6.4 weeks for placebo-treated patients (P < 0.0001). Partial responses were observed in 6.8% of sunitinib-treated patients. In patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, partial responses were observed in 25.5% (95% confidence interval, 17.5, 34.9) and 36.5% (95% confidence interval, 24.7, 49.6) of patients treated with sunitinib. Median response durations were 27.1 and 54 weeks. The most common adverse events attributed to sunitinib included diarrhea, mucositis, skin abnormalities, and altered taste. Reductions in left ventricular ejection fraction and severe hypertension were also more common in sunitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: On January 26, 2006, the FDA approved sunitinib for the treatment of patients with imatinib refractory or intolerant GIST. Accelerated approval was granted for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Challenges to use of health-related quality of life for Food and Drug Administration approval of anticancer products.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves labeling claims of drug efficacy based on substantial evidence of clinical benefit demonstrated in adequate and well-controlled investigations. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may support marketing claims of clinical benefit, either alone or with other study endpoints. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a PRO that comprehensively measures patients' reported health status. We present an overview of why HRQL-based efficacy claims have not to date been accepted by the FDA for inclusion in anticancer product labels. Persistent challenges to allowance of such claims include shortcomings in randomization and blinding of clinical trials, missing data, statistical multiplicity, and unclear intrinsic meaning of selected HRQL findings.

Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective.

This article concerns development and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials to evaluate medical products. A PRO is any report coming directly from patients, without interpretation by physicians or others, about how they function or feel in relation to a health condition and its therapy. PRO instruments are used to measure these patient reports. PROs provide a unique perspective on medical therapy, because some effects of a health condition and its therapy are known only to patients. Properly developed and evaluated PRO instruments also have the potential to provide more sensitive and specific measurements of the effects of medical therapies, thereby increasing the efficiency of clinical trials that attempt to measure the meaningful treatment benefits of those therapies. Poorly developed and evaluated instruments may provide misleading conclusions or data that cannot be used to support product labeling claims. We review selected major challenges from Food and Drug Administration's perspective in using PRO instruments, measures, and end points to support treatment benefit claims in product labeling. These challenges highlight the need for sponsors to formulate desired labeling claim(s) prospectively, to acquire and document information needed to support these claim(s), and to identify existing instruments or develop new and more appropriate PRO instruments for evaluating treatment benefit in the defined population in which they will seek claims.

Phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation, and pharmacokinetic study of STAT3 inhibitor OPB-31121 in subjects with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and biologic activity of OPB-31121, an oral inhibitor of STAT3, administered twice daily (BID) to subjects with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Subjects received escalating doses of OPB-31121 BID for the first 21 days of each 28-day cycle in a standard 3 + 3 design. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty subjects were treated twice daily with OPB-31121 at 6 dose levels: 50 mg (n = 4); 70 mg (n = 3); 140 mg (n = 3); 200 mg (n = 4); 300 mg (n = 9); 350 mg (n = 7). There were no DLTs observed until 300 mg BID (Grade 3 lactic acidosis). At the next dose level (350 mg BID), two subjects had DLTs (Grade 3 vomiting and Grade 3 diarrhea). Thus, 300 mg BID was declared the MTD. OPB-31121-related adverse events included nausea (80 %), vomiting (73 %), diarrhea (63 %), and fatigue (33 %), all of which were primarily grade 1/2. Pharmacokinetics demonstrated high inter-subject variability with exposures 146- to 4,788-fold lower than target concentrations from tumor-bearing mouse models. No objective responses were observed, and all subjects who completed two cycles of treatment had disease progression at their first assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily administration of OPB-31121 was feasible up to doses of 300 mg. The pharmacokinetic profile was unfavorable, and no objective responses were observed.

GCP data quality for early clinical development.

Good Clinical Practice (GCP) provides an internationally accepted standard to ensure subject safety and data quality in clinical trials. Much of GCP parallels ethical considerations that have accumulated in successive versions of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki. This document advocates for preservation of rights, safety, and well-being of human study participants. By contrast, GCP data quality provisions follow from evolution in the United States drug regulatory system during the 1960s. Evidence of fraudulent or otherwise biased data-gathering ultimately led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data integrity regulations that were subsequently embraced as GCP principles in the Declaration of Helsinki. This manuscript summarizes GCP data quality provisions and describes practices that clinical site investigators can adopt to comply with these principles and to prevent adverse audit findings in the event of a regulatory inspection.

Patient-reported outcomes supporting anticancer product approvals.

In 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published draft guidance to provide recommendations for development, validation, implementation, and interpretation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that can support treatment benefit claims in product labeling. Here, we summarize and discuss FDA approvals of anticancer products in the context of the draft guidance. We identified anticancer product approvals having efficacy claim(s) based at least in part on a PRO. In addition, we collated limitations of PRO instruments commonly submitted for regulatory review over the period from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2006. From 1995 onward, nine indications were approved for seven anticancer products based at least in part on a PRO. In eight of nine approvals, PRO data supplemented other evidence of clinical benefit. In seven approvals, the PRO measured a single symptom or functional domain that was directly attributable to the treatment benefit observed in the disease. The FDA's draft PRO guidance describes principles that have been used in anticancer product approvals for more than a decade. PRO end points typically support treatment benefit claims that refer to a patient's symptoms or ability to function. Single-item PROs may be acceptable. PRO data should be both internally consistent and aligned with other evidence of clinical benefit. The FDA encourages sponsors to consult with the FDA early in the process of PRO development.

Food and Drug Administration drug approval summary: Sunitinib malate for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor and advanced renal cell carcinoma.

On January 26, 2006, sunitinib (Sutent) received regular approval as monotherapy for the treatment of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor after disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib mesylate (Gleevec). Time-to-tumor progression (TTP) of sunitinib-treated patients was superior to that of placebo-treated patients. Median TTP of sunitinib-treated patients was 27.3 weeks, compared with 6.4 weeks for placebo-treated patients (p < .0001). Partial responses were observed in 6.8% of sunitinib-treated patients and no placebo-treated patients. Sunitinib also received accelerated approval on January 26, 2006, as monotherapy for treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In two single-arm trials of sunitinib in patients with metastatic RCC, partial responses were observed in 25.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.5, 34.9) and 36.5% (95% CI, 24.7, 49.6) of patients. Median response durations in the two trials were 27.1 weeks (95% CI, 24.4, incalculable) and 54 weeks (95% CI, 34.3, 70.1). Treatment-emergent adverse events in sunitinib-treated patients included diarrhea, mucositis, skin abnormalities, altered taste, electrolyte abnormalities, hypertension, and diminution in left ventricular ejection fraction. Cardiac safety of sunitinib in patients with preexisting cardiac abnormalities remains unknown. Based on nonclinical findings, physicians prescribing sunitinib should monitor for adrenal insufficiency in patients who undergo stressors such as surgery, trauma, or severe infection. Caution should be exercised when administering sunitinib in combination with known CYP3A4 inducers or inhibitors.

Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: taking stock, moving forward.

To evaluate and improve the use of cancer trial end points that reflect the patient's own perspective, the National Cancer Institute organized an international conference, Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials (PROACT), in 2006. The 13 preceding articles in this special issue of the Journal were commissioned in preparation for or in response to the PROACT conference, which was cosponsored by the American Cancer Society. Drawing from these articles and also commentary from the conference itself, this concluding report takes stock of what has been learned to date about the successes and challenges in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in phase III, phase II, and symptom management trials in cancer and identifies ways to improve the scientific soundness, feasibility, and policy relevance of PROs in trials. Building on this synthesis of lessons learned, this article discusses specific administrative policies and management procedures to improve PRO data collection, analysis, and dissemination of findings; opportunities afforded by recent methodologic and technologic advances in PRO data collection and analysis to enhance the scientific soundness and cost efficiency of PRO use in trials; and the importance of better understanding the usefulness of PRO data to the full spectrum of cancer decision makers, including patients and families, health providers, public and private payers, regulatory agencies, and standards-setting organizations.