TP53 genomics predict higher clinical and pathologic tumor response in operable early-stage breast cancer treated with docetaxel-capecitabine ± trastuzumab.

To determine rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) and near-complete response (npCR) in operable early-stage breast cancer using neoadjuvant capecitabine plus docetaxel, with or without trastuzumab, and investigate biomarkers of pathologic response. Women with operable early-stage breast cancer were enrolled in a multicenter study of neoadjuvant therapy for four 21-day cycles with capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) if human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, and additionally, a standard trastuzumab dose if HER2-positive. Primary endpoint was rate of pCR and npCR. Secondary endpoints were potential associations between response and TP53 mutational analysis using the AmpliChip TP53 assay or immunohistochemical (IHC) staining, and genomic subtyping using the PAM50 assay. In patients who completed treatment and surgery, pCR and npCR rates were 15.8% in patients with HER2-negative and 50% in patients with HER2-positive tumors. Stratified by genomic subtype, patients of HER2-enriched subtype had the best response (72.2%), and luminal A (9.1%) and B (4.8%) subtypes, the poorest. Of 147 patients tested for TP53 mutations using the AmpliChip assay, 78 variants were detected; 55 were missense. Response rate among TP53-mutated patients was 30%, significantly higher than TP53 wild-type patients (10%; P = 0.0032). Concordance between AmpliChip mutation status versus TP53 IHC staining was 65%, with AmpliChip status predictive of response and IHC status not predictive. Capecitabine plus docetaxel in HER2-negative, and with trastuzumab in HER2-positive patients, provided a good response rate with four cycles of non-anthracycline-containing therapy. TP53 mutational analysis and genomic subtyping were predictive.

Pooled analysis of individual patient data from capecitabine monotherapy clinical trials in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

We assessed the efficacy and safety of capecitabine across treatment lines, and the impact of patient and disease characteristics on outcomes using data from phase II/III trials. Individual patient data were pooled from seven Roche/Genentech-led trials conducted from 1996 to 2008 where single-agent capecitabine was the test or control regimen for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Data were analyzed from 805 patients: 268 in the first-line metastatic setting and 537 in the second-line or later setting. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment lines. Patients receiving second-line or later versus first-line capecitabine had lower objective response rates (ORR: 19.0 vs. 25.0 %, respectively, odds ratio 0.70; 95 % CI: 0.5-1.0) and significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS: median 112.0 days [3.7 months] vs. 150.0 days [4.9 months]; p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS: median 396.0 days [13.0 months] vs. 666.0 days [21.9 months]; p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis by backward elimination, significantly improved ORR (p = 0.0036), PFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p < 0.0001) with capecitabine were demonstrated in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive versus both ER and PgR-negative tumors. Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was the most common adverse event (AE) in 63 % of patients. Overall, 7 % of patients discontinued and two patients (<1 %) died from treatment-related AEs. Significantly improved survival was observed in patients developing capecitabine-related HFS (p < 0.0001 PFS/OS) or diarrhea (p = 0.004 OS; p = 0.0045 PFS) versus patients without these events. In this pooled analysis of individual patient data, first-line capecitabine was associated with improved ORR, PFS, and OS versus second or later lines. Multivariate analyses identified greater ORR, PFS, and OS with capecitabine in patients with ER and/or PgR-positive versus ER/PgR-negative tumors. Safety was in-line with previous phase III trials in MBC.

Theragnostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and Ki67 in BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma (BRIM-3 trial).

We conducted a retrospective tumor tissue analysis as part of the BRIM3 trial to evaluate the theragnostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and melanoma cell proliferation. Using manual semi-quantitative analyses, we assessed the density of TILs by pathology review of tissue sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E TIL score) and by immunohistochemistry (IHC) with an anti-CD8 antibody (CD8 TIL score); also, the melanoma cell proliferation by IHC with an anti-Ki67 antibody. Three hundred and fifty-three, 280, and 172 patients' tumor tissue samples were available for H&E, CD8, and Ki67 IHC analysis, respectively. There was no association between high (2+, 3+) peritumoral and intratumoral H&E and/or TIL CD8 score or high Ki67 proliferation index (>15%) with serum LDH level and stage IV melanoma. Neither high Ki67 proliferation, nor high peritumoral and/or intratumoral TIL score was significantly associated with objective antitumor response in any treatment arm. High intratumoral and high peritumoral CD8 TIL score was significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS) only in DTIC-treated patients (P = 0.002 and 0.037, respectively); in vemurafenib-treated patients, high intratumoral and/or peritumoral CD8 TIL score was not significant (log-rank P = 0.053 and 0.062, respectively). Nevertheless, a high peritumoral CD8 TIL score was a significant predictor of PFS and overall survival after adjustment for age, sex, serum LDH, ECOG performance status, and treatment arm in a Cox regression model. Vemurafenib does not only benefit patients bearing brisk TILs; even vemurafenib-treated patients with absent and/or non-brisk TILs tend to have longer PFS compared to DTIC-treated patients with brisk TILs. High peritumoral CD8 TIL score is a favorable prognostic factor independent of well-established AJCC staging factors.

Survival outcomes in an older US population with advanced melanoma and central nervous system metastases: SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: Central nervous system (CNS) metastasis is common in advanced melanoma patients. New treatment options have improved overall prognosis, but information is lacking for patients with CNS metastases. We investigated treatment patterns and survival outcomes in older melanoma patients with and without CNS metastases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of SEER-Medicare, a population-based linked database, was undertaken in patients aged > 65 years with advanced melanoma diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 and followed until 2013. RESULTS: A total of 2522 patients were included. CNS metastases were present in 24.8% of patients at initial metastatic diagnosis; 16.5% developed CNS metastases during follow-up. Chemotherapy was the most common treatment regardless of CNS metastases. Overall survival (OS) was better for patients without CNS metastases (median, 9.5 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8-10.2) vs patients with CNS metastases (3.63 months; 95% CI, 3.4-3.9). Among patients with CNS metastases, median OS for targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy was 6 (95% CI, 2.5-9.6), 5.5 (95% CI, 3.8-7.5), and 4.5 (95% CI, 3.8-5.4) months, respectively, vs 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1-2.7) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) months for local radiotherapy and no treatment, respectively. Stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated higher OS vs whole-brain radiation therapy (median, 4.98 [95% CI, 3.5-7.5] vs 2.4 [95% CI, 2.1-2.7] months). CONCLUSION: Patients with CNS metastases from melanoma remain a population with high unmet medical need despite recent advances in treatment. Systemic treatments (eg, BRAF-targeted therapy and immunotherapy) and stereotactic radiosurgery demonstrated meaningful but modest improvements in OS. Further explorations of combinations of radiotherapy, BRAF-targeted therapies, and immunotherapies are needed.

XeNA: capecitabine plus docetaxel, with or without trastuzumab, as preoperative therapy for early breast cancer.

Combinations of capecitabine and a taxane are highly active in metastatic breast cancer, and synergy between capecitabine and docetaxel has also been demonstrated. Such combinations potentially would provide a promising non-anthracycline-based alternative for patients with early breast cancer. Non-anthracycline preoperative regimens are a particularly interesting proposition in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer, as they offer less cardiotoxicity and thus can be used concomitantly with preoperative trastuzumab therapy. Capecitabine plus docetaxel (XT) and trastuzumab with XT (HXT) are promising non-anthracycline regimens for the preoperative treatment of women with HER2-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer, respectively. The Xeloda in Neoadjuvant (XeNA) trial, an open-label, multicenter, phase II study, independently assesses the efficacy of preoperative XT in HER2-negative and HXT in HER2-positive breast cancer. A particularly important feature of the XeNA study is the use of pathologic complete response (pCR) plus near pCR (npCR) as the primary endpoint. pCR is associated with long-term survival, and although it is valuable as a surrogate marker, pCR has some limitations. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden (RCB) has been proposed as a more practical alternative to predict survival after preoperative chemotherapy. The combination of RCB-0 and RCB-I (npCR) expands the subset of patients shown to benefit from preoperative chemotherapy, and achievement of pCR or npCR is associated with long disease-free survival. In XeNA, the sum of pCR and npCR will facilitate correlative studies designed to identify patients most likely to benefit from XT and HXT and may expedite the clinical evaluation of these novel preoperative regimens.

Safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients aged ≥65 years with advanced basal cell carcinoma.

Because many patients with unresectable basal cell carcinoma (BCC) are aged ≥65 years, this study explores the efficacy and safety of vismodegib in these patients with locally advanced (la) or metastatic (m) basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in the ERIVANCE BCC trial and the expanded access study (EAS).We compared patients aged ≥65 years to patients aged <65 years taking vismodegib 150 mg/day, using descriptive statistics for response and safety. Patients aged ≥65 years (laBCC/mBCC) were enrolled in ERIVANCE BCC (33/14) and EAS (27/26). Investigator-assessed best overall response rate in patients ≥65 and <65 years was 46.7%/35.7% and 72.7%/52.6% (laBCC/mBCC), respectively, in ERIVANCE BCC and 45.8%/33.3% and 46.9%/28.6%, respectively, in EAS. These differences were not clinically meaningful. Safety was similar in both groups, although those aged ≥65 years had a higher percentage of grade 3-5 adverse events than those aged <65 years. Vismodegib demonstrated similar clinical activity and adverse events regardless of age.

Safety and efficacy of vismodegib in patients with basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome: pooled analysis of two trials.

BACKGROUND: Aberrant activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) pathway is a key driver in the pathogenesis of basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), including patients with BCC nevus syndrome (BCCNS). It is unclear whether BCCs arising in patients with BCCNS respond differently to vismodegib than in patients without BCCNS. We examined the best overall response rate (BORR) and adverse events (AEs) of vismodegib in patients with advanced BCC (aBCC) with and without BCCNS. METHODS: Patients were treated with vismodegib 150 mg/day in the ERIVANCE BCC trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00833417) and the expanded access study (EAS; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01160250). BCCNS diagnosis was based on medical history at the time of enrollment. Metastatic BCC response was evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.0 (RECIST v1.0) in both studies. Locally advanced BCC was evaluated by a novel composite end point in ERIVANCE BCC and by RECIST v1.0 in the EAS. Response assessments were performed every 8 weeks in ERIVANCE BCC and every 8-16 weeks in the EAS. Safety assessments (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0) were performed monthly in both trials. Because of described differences in response assessment/schedule, patients with BCCNS were not pooled across trials. Analytic cohorts for BCCNS and sporadic aBCC were created within each trial for comparison using descriptive statistical methods. RESULTS: Forty-one patients with BCCNS were included in the study: 22 from ERIVANCE BCC and 19 from the EAS. Investigator-assessed BORR in BCCNS groups ranged from 31 to 81 % in patients with locally advanced BCC (n = 33) and was 50 % in patients with metastatic BCC (n = 6). These results were comparable with the non-BCCNS groups. Incidence and severity of AEs were also comparable between the BCCNS and non-BCCNS groups. Amenorrhea was observed in both patient cohorts and was reversible in two patients who discontinued treatment. CONCLUSION: Vismodegib demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety against aBCC in patients with and without BCCNS.

Patients with locally advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer treated with capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil as monotherapy or combination therapy with oxaliplatin: a cost comparison.

INTRODUCTION: This study quantified the costs associated with the acquisition of chemotherapy, its administration, and the management of chemotherapy-related complications, and their effect on total patient expenditures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer treated with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as monotherapy or combination therapy with oxaliplatin from 2003-2006 were identified in the Thomson Reuters MarketScan® databases. Selection bias between treatment groups was addressed by propensity score matching, assessment of the risk of complications using Cox models, and an estimate of expenditures using general linear models. RESULTS: In respect to monotherapy, capecitabine users (n = 1272) were propensity score matched to 5-FU/LV users on a 1:1 ratio. The adjusted mean monthly cost was significantly lower for patients treated with capecitabine versus 5-FU/LV ($6683 vs. $9304, respectively; P < .0001). Although the cost of drug acquisition was significantly higher for capecitabine than for 5-FU/LV (unadjusted P < .0001), significantly lower costs of capecitabine administration (unadjusted P < .0001) and management of complications (adjusted costs, P < .0001) offset the difference, and drove a lower overall cost. In regard to combination therapy, capecitabine/oxaliplatin users (n = 263) were propensity score matched to 5-FU/LV/oxaliplatin users (n = 526) on a 1:2 ratio. The adjusted mean monthly cost was significantly lower for capecitabine/oxaliplatin than for 5-FU/LV/oxaliplatin ($11,436 vs. $14,320, respectively; P < .0001). The cost difference was driven by the significantly lower administration costs of capecitabine-based chemotherapy (unadjusted P < .0001) and management of complications (adjusted P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The monthly cost per patient during capecitabine or capecitabine/oxaliplatin treatment is significantly lower than during 5-FU/LV or 5-FU/LV/oxaliplatin treatment because of lower costs for the administration of chemotherapy and for the management of complications.