Randomized Phase II Trial of Capecitabine and Lapatinib with or without IMC-A12 (Cituxumumab) in Patients with HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer Previously Treated with Trastuzumab and Chemotherapy: NCCTG N0733 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: To compare efficacy and safety of capecitabine and lapatinib with or without IMC-A12 (cituxumumab) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following an initial safety run-in cohort, patients were randomized 1:2 to Arm A (capecitabine and lapatinib) or to Arm B (capecitabine, lapatinib, and cituxumumab). Given the frequency of non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 adverse events in those receiving the three-drug combination in the safety cohort, lapatinib and capecitabine doses were reduced in Arm B only. The primary objective was to determine if the addition of cituxumumab to capecitabine and lapatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with capecitabine and lapatinib. Secondary objectives included a comparison between arms of other clinical endpoints, safety, change in overall quality of life (QOL) and self-assessed fatigue, rash, diarrhea, and hand-foot syndrome. RESULTS: From July 2008 to March 2012, 68 patients (out of 142 planned) were enrolled and 63 were evaluable, including 8 for the safety run-in and 55 for the randomized cohort. Study enrollment was stopped early due to slow accrual. The addition of cituxumumab to capecitabine and lapatinib did not improve PFS (HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.52-1.64). Furthermore, no difference in objective response rate or overall survival (OS) was observed. No difference between arms was observed in grade ≥ 3 adverse events, overall QOL change from baseline after 4 cycles of treatment. CONCLUSION: The addition of cituxumumab to lapatinib and capecitabine did not improve PFS or OS compared with lapatinib and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive MBC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00684983.

Phase I trial of infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide plus granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

PURPOSE: To determine the recommended phase II dose (RPTD) of a 96-h continuous intravenous infusion (CIVI) of cyclophosphamide (200, 300, or 400 mg/m2/d) and etoposide (60 or 90 mg/m2/d) when used in conjunction with doxorubicin (12.5 mg/m2/d) (CDE) given every 28 d plus granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in patients with poor prognosis non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (Group A), and the same regimen given every 21 d (Group B). METHODS: In Group A, infusional CDE was repeated every 28 d, GM-CSF (250 microg/m2) was given subcutaneously from d 6 until neutrophil recovery, with dose escalation in cohorts of three to six evaluable patients. The RPTD of cyclophosphamide and etoposide established in Group A was then used with CDE given every 3 wk (Group B) with GM-CSF given on d 6-20, and dose escalation was attempted again. RESULTS: In Group A, the RPTD of cyclophosphamide and etoposide were 300 mg/m2/d and 90 mg/m2/d, respectively; prolonged neutropenia was the dose-limiting toxicity. In Group B, use of GM-CSF on d 6-20 did not facilitate dose escalation above the RPTD established in Group A. Complete response occurred in 13/26 patients (50%) with no prior chemotherapy, and in 4/16 patients (25%) who had relapsed after prior chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the increase in dose and dose-density afforded by the administration of GM-CSF, the relative dose intensity was increased by twofold for cyclophosphamide (400 vs 200 mg/m2/wk) and etoposide (120 vs 60 mg/m2/wk), and by 1.3-fold for doxorubicin (16.7 vs 12.5 mg/m2/wk).