Cetuximab and Irinotecan With or Without Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: BOND-3, an ACCRU Network Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). CONCLUSION: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758.

Behavioral and health outcomes from the NRG Oncology/NSABP B-36 trial comparing two different adjuvant therapy regimens for early-stage node-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The NSABP B-36 compared four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with six cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-100) in node-negative early-stage breast cancer. A sub-study within B-36, focusing on symptoms, quality of life (QOL), menstrual history (MH), and cardiac function (CF) was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients completed the QOL questionnaire at baseline, during treatment, and every 6 months through 36 months. FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (TOI), symptom severity, and SF-36 Vitality and Physical Functioning (PF) scales scores were compared between the two groups using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis. MH was collected at baseline and subsequently assessed if menstrual bleeding occurred within 12 months prior to randomization. Post-chemotherapy amenorrhea outcome was examined at 18 months and was defined as lack of menses in the preceding year. Logistic regression was used to test for association of amenorrhea and treatment. CF assessment was done at baseline and 12 months. Correlation analysis was used to address associations between changes in baseline and 12-month PF and concurrent CF changes measured by LVEF. RESULTS: FEC-100 patients had statistically significantly lower TOI scores during chemotherapy (P = 0.02) and at 6 months (P < 0.001); lower Vitality score at 6 months (P < 0.01), and lower PF score during the first year than AC patients. There were no statistically significant QOL score differences between the two groups beyond 12 months. No significant differences in symptom severity between the two groups were observed. Rates of amenorrhea were significantly different between FEC-100 and AC (67.4% vs. 59.1%, P < 0.001). There was no association between changes in LVEF and PF (P = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant QOL differences between the two groups favored AC; however, the magnitude was small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. There was a clinical and statistically significant difference in risk for amenorrhea, favoring AC. TRIAL REGISTRY: NCT00087178; Date of registration: 07/08/2004.

Phase II, Multicenter, Randomized Trial of Docetaxel plus Prednisone with or Without Cediranib in Men with Chemotherapy-Naive Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: The negative results are consistent with the negative results of large phase III trials in which docetaxel plus antiangiogenic agents were used in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).The negative data underscore that, despite a sound biological rationale and supportive early-phase clinical results, adding antiangiogenic agents to docetaxel for mCRPC is a great challenge. BACKGROUND: Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling abrogates tumor-induced angiogenesis to constrain tumor growth, and can be exploited therapeutically by using cediranib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGF receptor signaling. Our preliminary phase I trial data showed that adding cediranib to docetaxel plus prednisone (DP) was safe and feasible, with early evidence for efficacy in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: This multicenter phase II trial assessed whether adding cediranib to DP improves efficacy of DP in patients with mCRPC. Chemotherapy-naive patients with mCRPC were randomly assigned to receive either docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks) with prednisone (5 mg twice daily) plus cediranib (30 mg once daily; the DP+C arm) or DP only (the DP arm). The primary endpoint was to compare 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate between the two arms. Secondary endpoints included 6-month overall survival (OS), objective tumor and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates, biomarkers, and adverse events. RESULTS: The 6-month PFS rate in a total of 58 patients was only numerically higher in the DP+C arm (61%) compared with the DP arm (57%). Similarly, the 6-month OS rate, objective tumor and PSA response rates, and biomarkers were not significantly different between the two arms. Increased baseline levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), however, were significantly associated with increased risk of progression. Neutropenia was the only grade 4 toxicity (38% in the DP+C arm vs. 18% in the DP arm). CONCLUSION: Combining cediranib with docetaxel + prednisone failed to demonstrate superior efficacy, compared with docetaxel + prednisone, and added toxicity. Our data do not support pursuing the combination further in patients with mCRPC.

E4206: AMG 706 and Octreotide in Patients with Low-Grade Neuroendocrine Tumors.

LESSONS LEARNED: Rate of progression-free survival at a particular point in time, i.e., a landmark analysis, is a difficult endpoint for a heterogenous malignancy such as neuroendocrine cancer.Landmark analyses can also be complicated by evolution in the standard of care during the conduct of a clinical trial.Improvements in biomarker development would be useful in developing future clinical trials in NET to better tailor individualized therapies and assess for possible efficacy endpoints. BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare malignancies of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract that are highly vascularized and overexpress vascular-endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Sunitinib has demonstrated efficacy in the pancreatic subset of NET. This study explored the activity of another oral VEGF inhibitor, AMG 706 or motesanib, a multikinase inhibitor that targets receptor tyrosine kinases, including VEGFR1, VEGFR2, VEGFR3, KIT, RET, and PDGFR (IC50s = 2, 3, 6, 8, 59, and 84 nM, respectively). METHODS: This was a single-arm, first-line, phase II study run through the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Patients with low-grade NET (as defined by central confirmation of Ki-67 of 0%-2%) were administered a flat dose of 125 mg per day orally combined with octreotide long acting-repeatable (LAR) for patients who had been on a stable dose. The primary objective was to determine the 4-month progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Forty-four patients were evaluated per protocol. The 4-month PFS was 78.5%. The partial response rate was 13.6% (6/44), stable disease was 54.5% (24/44), 9.1% (4/44) had progressive disease, and 10/44 were not evaluable for response. Common toxicities included fatigue, hypertension, nausea, and headache, and most were grade 1-2. Median PFS was 8.7 months, and overall survival was 27.5 months. CONCLUSION: Motesanib (AMG 706) demonstrated a 4-month PFS that met the per-protocol definition of efficacy. Fatigue and hypertension were the most common toxicities, and few grade 3-4 toxicities were encountered. The progression-free survival of 8.7 months in all NETs merits further study.

A phase II study to evaluate LY2603618 in combination with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether checkpoint kinase 1 inihibitor (CHK1), LY2603618, and gemcitabine prolong overall survival (OS) compared to gemcitabine alone in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients with Stage II-IV locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomized (2:1) to either 230 mg of LY2603618/1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine combined or 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine alone. OS was assessed using both a Bayesian augment control model and traditional frequentist analysis for inference. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [AEs] v 3.0) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (n = 65, LY2603618/gemcitabine; n = 34, gemcitabine) were randomized (intent-to-treat population). The median OS (months) was 7.8 (range, 0.3-18.9) with LY2603618/gemcitabine and 8.3 (range, 0.8-19.1+) with gemcitabine. Similarly, in a Bayesian analysis, the study was not positive since the posterior probability that LY2603618/gemcitabine was superior to gemcitabine in improving OS was 0.3, which did not exceed the prespecified threshold of 0.8. No significant improvements in PFS, ORR, or duration of response were observed. Drug-related treatment-emergent AEs in both arms included nausea, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and neutropenia. The severity of AEs with LY2603618/gemcitabine was comparable to gemcitabine. The LY2603618 exposure targets (AUC(0-∞) ≥21,000 ng∙hr/mL and Cmax ≥2000 ng/mL) predicted for maximum pharmacodynamic response were achieved after 230 mg of LY2603618. CONCLUSIONS: LY2603618/gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00839332 . Clinicaltrials.gov. Date of registration: 6 February 2009.

Erlotinib, cabozantinib, or erlotinib plus cabozantinib as second-line or third-line treatment of patients with EGFR wild-type advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ECOG-ACRIN 1512): a randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Erlotinib is approved for the treatment of all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but is most active in the treatment of EGFR mutant NSCLC. Cabozantinib, a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targets MET, VEGFR, RET, ROS1, and AXL, which are implicated in lung cancer tumorigenesis. We compared the efficacy of cabozantinib alone or in combination with erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC. METHODS: This three group, randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial was done in 37 academic and community oncology practices in the USA. Patients were eligible if they had received one or two previous treatments for advanced non-squamous, EGFR wild-type, NSCLC. Patients were stratified by performance status and line of therapy, and randomly assigned using permuted blocks within strata to receive open-label oral daily dosing of erlotinib (150 mg), cabozantinib (60 mg), or erlotinib (150 mg) and cabozantinib (40 mg). Imaging was done every 8 weeks. At the time of radiographic progression, there was optional crossover for patients in either single-drug group to receive combination treatment. The primary endpoint was to compare progression-free survival in patients given erlotinib alone versus cabozantinib alone, and in patients given erlotinib alone versus the combination of erlotinib plus cabozantinib. We assessed the primary endpoint in the per-protocol population, which was defined as all patients who were eligible, randomly assigned, and received at least one dose of treatment. The safety analysis population included all patients who received study treatment irrespective of eligibility. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01708954. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2013, and July 1, 2014, we enrolled and randomly assigned 42 patients to erlotinib treatment, 40 patients to cabozantinib treatment, and 43 patients to erlotinib plus cabozantinib treatment, of whom 111 (89%) in total were included in the primary analysis (erlotinib [n=38], cabozantinib [n=38], erlotinib plus cabozantinib [n=35]). Compared with erlotinib alone (median 1·8 months [95% CI 1·7-2·2]), progression-free survival was significantly improved in the cabozantinib group (4·3 months [3·6-7·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 80% CI 0·27-0·55; one-sided p=0·0003) and in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group (4·7 months [2·4-7·4]; HR 0·37, 0·25-0·53; one-sided p=0·0003). Among participants included in the safety analysis of the erlotinib (n=40), cabozantinib (n=40), and erlotinib plus cabozantinib (n=39) groups, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (three [8%] cases in the erlotinib group vs three [8%] in the cabozantinib group vs 11 [28%] in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group), hypertension (none vs ten [25%] vs one [3%]), fatigue (five [13%] vs six [15%] vs six [15%]), oral mucositis (none vs four [10%] vs one [3%]), and thromboembolic event (none vs three [8%] vs two [5%]). One death due to respiratory failure occurred in the cabozantinib group, deemed possibly related to either drug, and one death due to pneumonitis occurred in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group, deemed related to either drug or the combination. INTERPRETATION: Despite its small sample size, this trial showed that, in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC, cabozantinib alone or combined with erlotinib has clinically meaningful, superior efficacy to that of erlotinib alone, with additional toxicity that was generally manageable. Cabozantinib-based regimens are promising for further investigation in this patient population. FUNDING: ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

"Enjoy glass of wine before eating:" a randomized trial to test the orexigenic effects of this advice in advanced cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Because the extant literature suggests wine increases appetite, this study sought to determine whether this effect could be observed in advanced cancer patients with appetite loss. METHODS: Advanced cancer patients with self-reported loss of appetite were randomly assigned to white wine with ≤15 % alcohol content twice a day for 3-4 weeks versus a nutritional supplement, such as Boost® or Ensure®. Patients assigned to wine were encouraged to also take a nutritional supplement, whereas patients assigned to the nutritional supplement arm were told to abstain completely from alcohol. Patient-reported outcomes were captured with a validated questionnaire to assess the primary endpoint of appetite improvement. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients (118 evaluable) were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients (48 %) in the wine arm reported an improvement in appetite at some point during the treatment period, whereas 22 patients (37 %) assigned to the nutritional supplement arm also reported improvement (p = 0.35). Other appetite-related questions and questionnaire items showed no statistically significant differences between treatment arms. In both arms, approximately 9 % of patients achieved weight stability (p = 0.98); median survival was not statistically different. Both interventions were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: As prescribed in this trial, wine does not improve appetite or weight in advanced cancer patients.

A phase 2 cooperative group adjuvant trial using a biomarker-based decision algorithm in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (SWOG-0720, NCT00792701).

BACKGROUND: This cooperative group adjuvant phase 2 trial in patients with completely resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer with tumor diameters measuring ≥ 2 cm was designed to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of assigning patients to therapy or observation using a molecularly based decision algorithm. METHODS: At least a lobectomy and sampling of recommended mediastinal lymph node stations, good Zubrod performance status, adequate organ function, and a formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tumor specimen were required. Excision repair cross-complementing group 1 (ERCC1) and ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) were analyzed using immunofluorescence-based in situ automated quantitative image analysis and categorized as high or low using prespecified cutoff values. Patients with high ERCC1 and RRM1 were assigned to observation and all others to 4 cycles of cisplatin and gemcitabine. Feasibility was defined as treatment assignment within 84 days from surgery in > 85% of patients. Secondary objectives were to estimate the 2-year survival. RESULTS: Treatment assignment met the feasibility criteria in 88% of eligible patients (71 of 81 patients). The collective 2-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 80% and 96%, respectively. Protein levels for RRM1 fell within the previously established range, ERCC1 levels were slightly lower than expected, and they were significantly correlated (correlation coefficient, 0.4). The rates of assignment of patients to observation (22%) and chemotherapy (78%) were as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Gene expression analysis for treatment assignment is feasible. Survival results are encouraging and require future validation. Real-time performance of quantitative in situ ERCC1 and RRM1 analysis requires further development.

Blood-based tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for atezolizumab in non-small cell lung cancer: the phase 2 B-F1RST trial.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has shown promise in predicting benefit from PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors in retrospective studies. Aiming to assess blood TMB (bTMB) prospectively, we conducted B-F1RST ( NCT02848651 ), an open-label, phase 2 trial that evaluated bTMB as a predictive biomarker for first-line atezolizumab monotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic stage IIIB-IVB non-small cell lung cancer (n = 152). The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST version 1.1 and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) between high and low bTMB subgroups at the pre-defined bTMB ≥ 16 (14.5 mutations per megabase) cutoff. Secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed PFS, overall survival (OS) and duration of response at various bTMB cutoffs, as well as safety. Investigator-assessed PFS in the bTMB ≥ 16 versus bTMB < 16 groups was not statistically significant. However, bTMB ≥ 16 was associated with higher ORR, and ORR improved as bTMB cutoffs increased. No new safety signals were seen. In exploratory analyses, patients with maximum somatic allele frequency (MSAF) < 1% had higher ORR than patients with MSAF ≥ 1%. However, further analysis showed that this effect was driven by better baseline prognostics rather than by MSAF itself. At 36.5-month follow-up, an exploratory analysis of OS found that bTMB ≥ 16 was associated with longer OS than bTMB < 16. Further study and assay optimization will be required to develop bTMB as a predictive, standalone biomarker of immunotherapy or for use in conjunction with other biomarkers.

Exploring therapeutic decisions in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer: results and conclusions from North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0222.

How do oncologists choose therapy for the elderly? Oncologists assigned patients aged 65 years or older with incurable non-small cell lung cancer to: (a) carboplatin (AUC = 2) + paclitaxel 50 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15 (28-day cycle × 4) followed by gefitinib; or (b) gefitinib 250 mg/day. With (a), 12 of 34 were progression-free at 6 months; median time to cancer progression was 3.9 months. With (b), the same occurred in 11 of 28 patients with the latter being 4.9 months. The most common reason for conventional chemotherapy was oncologists' opinion that the cancer was aggressive, and for gefitinib alone, patients' reluctance to receive chemotherapy. Interestingly, age had no influence.

A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of pilocarpine for vaginal dryness: North Central Cancer Treatment group study N04CA.

Vaginal dryness is a common problem for which effective and safe nonestrogenic treatments are needed. Based on preliminary promising data that pilocarpine attenuated vaginal dryness, the current trial was conducted. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial design was used to compare pilocarpine, at target doses of 5 mg twice daily and 5 mg four times daily, with a placebo. Vaginal dryness was recorded by patient-completed questionnaires at baseline and weekly for 6 weeks after study initiation. The primary endpoint for this study was the area under the curve summary statistic composed of the longitudinal responses obtained at baseline and through the 6 weeks of treatment to a numerical analogue scale asking patients to rate their perceived amount of vaginal dryness. The primary analysis was carried out by a single t test using a two-side alternative to compare the collective pilocarpine treatment arms with the collective placebo arms. A total of 201 patients enrolled in this trial. The primary analysis, comparing vaginal dryness symptoms in the collective pilocarpine arms against the placebo arm, did not reveal any benefit for the pilocarpine treatment. This finding was confirmed by other secondary analyses. Toxicity evaluation revealed more nausea, sweating, rigors, and urinary frequency with the pilocarpine arms compared with the placebo arm.

The use of vitamin E for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: results of a randomized phase III clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) continues to be a substantial problem for many cancer patients. Pursuant to promising appearing pilot data, the current study evaluated the use of vitamin E for the prevention of CIPN. METHODS: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients undergoing therapy with neurotoxic chemotherapy, utilizing twice daily dosing of vitamin E (400 mg)/placebo. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 2+ sensory neuropathy (SN) toxicity (CTCAE v 3.0) in each treatment arm, analyzed by chi-square testing. Planned sample size was 100 patients per arm to provide 80% power to detect a difference in incidence of grade 2+ SN toxicity from 25% in the placebo group to 10% in the vitamin E group. RESULTS: Two-hundred seven patients were enrolled between December 1, 2006 and December 14, 2007, producing 189 evaluable cases for analysis. Cytotoxic agents included taxanes (109), cisplatin (8), carboplatin (2), oxaliplatin (50), or combination (20). There was no difference in the incidence of grade 2+ SN between the two arms (34%-vitamin E, 29%-placebo; P = 0.43). There were no significant differences between treatment arms for time to onset of neuropathy (P = 0.58), for chemotherapy dose reductions due to neuropathy (P = 0.21), or for secondary endpoints derived from patient-reported neuropathy symptom assessments. The treatment was well tolerated overall. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin E did not appear to reduce the incidence of sensory neuropathy in the studied group of patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy.

DeImplementing Ineffective and Low-Value Clinical Practices: Research and Practice Opportunities in Community Oncology Settings.

Patients, practitioners, and policy makers are increasingly concerned about the delivery of ineffective or low-value clinical practices in cancer care settings. Research is needed on how to effectively deimplement these types of practices from cancer care. In this commentary, we spotlight the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), a national network of community oncology practices, and elaborate on how it is an ideal infrastructure for conducting rigorous, real-world research on deimplementation. We describe key multilevel issues that affect deimplementation and also serve as a guidepost for developing strategies to drive deimplementation. We describe optimal study designs for testing deimplementation strategies and elaborate on how and why the NCORP network is uniquely positioned to conduct rigorous and impactful deimplementation trials. The number and diversity of affiliated community oncology care sites, coupled with the overall objective of improving cancer care delivery, make the NCORP an opportune infrastructure for advancing deimplementation research while simultaneously improving the care of millions of cancer patients nationwide.

SWOG S1400A (NCT02154490): A Phase II Study of Durvalumab for Patients With Previously Treated Stage IV or Recurrent Squamous Cell Lung Cancer (Lung-MAP Sub-study).

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the Lung-MAP sub-study S1400A was to evaluate the response rate to durvalumab, an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SqNSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who progressed on at least 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy were eligible. The study was designed as a phase II/III trial comparing durvalumab with docetaxel but was modified to a single-arm, phase II trial with the primary endpoint of objective response when immunotherapy became an approved treatment. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were registered to this sub-study; 78 to durvalumab and 38 to docetaxel. Of the 78 patients, 9 were ineligible, and 1 was not evaluable for endpoints. Responses were achieved in 11 patients among the 68 eligible and evaluable patients on durvalumab (overall response rate, 16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7%-25%). The disease control rate was 54% (95% CI, 43%-66%), the median overall survival was 11.6 months (95% CI, 10.2-14.3 months), and the median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.0-4.0 months). PD-L1 data was available for 43 patients on durvalumab, with 14 (33%) patients who were PD-L1-positive (≥ 25%) and 2 responses (overall response rate, 14%; 95% CI, 0%-33%), the disease control rate was 57% (95% CI, 31%-83%), the median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.2-14.3 months) and 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.2 months), respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22 (32%) patients on durvalumab, with 6 discontinuing owing to drug-related adverse events (9%; 95% CI, 2%-16%). CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab shows single-agent activity and toxicities in this sub-group of patients that is comparable with other anti-programmed cell death protein 1/PD-L1 antibodies.

Neratinib-Plus-Cetuximab in Quadruple-WT (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Resistant to Cetuximab or Panitumumab: NSABP FC-7, A Phase Ib Study.

PURPOSE: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), HER2 (ERBB2) gene amplification is implicated in anti-EGFR therapy resistance. We sought to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and efficacy of neratinib, a pan-ERBB kinase inhibitor, combined with cetuximab, in patients with progressive disease (PD) on anti-EGFR treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with quadruple-wild-type, refractory mCRC enrolled in this 3+3 phase Ib study. Standard dosage cetuximab was administered with neratinib at 120 mg, 160 mg, 200 mg, and 240 mg/day orally in 28-day cycles. Samples were collected for molecular and pharmacokinetic studies. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). 240 mg was determined to be the RP2D wherein a single DLT occurred (1/7 patients). Treatment-related DLTs were not seen at lower doses. Best response was stable disease (SD) in 7 of 16 (44%) patients. HER2 amplification (chromogenic in situ IHC) was detected in 2 of 21 (9.5%) treatment-naïve tumors and 4 of 16 (25%) biopsies upon trial enrollment (post-anti-EGFR treatment and progression). Compared with matched enrollment biopsies, 6 of 8 (75%) blood samples showed concordance for HER2 CNV in circulating cell-free DNA. Five SD patients had HER2 amplification in either treatment-naïve or enrollment biopsies. Examination of gene-expression, total protein, and protein phosphorylation levels showed relative upregulation of ≥2 members of the HER-family receptors or ligands upon enrollment versus matched treatment-naïve samples. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D of neratinib in this combination was 240 mg/day, which was well tolerated with low incidence of G3 AEs. There were no objective responses; SD was seen at all neratinib doses. HER2 amplification, detectable in both tissue and blood, was more frequent post-anti-EGFR therapy.

Impact of Diabetes and Insulin Use on Prognosis in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Cancer: An Ancillary Analysis of NRG Oncology RTOG 9704.

PURPOSE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) has been proposed to be tumorigenic; however, prior studies of the association between DM and survival are conflicting. The goal of this ancillary analysis of RTOG 9704, a randomized controlled trial of adjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer, was to determine the prognostic effects of DM and insulin use on survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients from RTOG 9704 with available data on DM and insulin use were included. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and variable levels were compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were created to assess the associations among DM, insulin use, and body mass index phenotypes on outcomes. RESULTS: Of 538 patients enrolled from 1998 to 2002, 238 patients were eligible with analyzable DM and insulin use data. Overall 34% of patients had DM and 66% did not. Of patients with DM, 64% had insulin-dependent DM, and 36% had non-insulin-dependent DM. On univariable analysis, neither DM nor insulin dependence were associated with OS or DFS (P > .05 for all). On multivariable analysis, neither DM, insulin use, nor body mass index were independently associated with OS or DFS. Nonwhite race (hazard ratio [HR], 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-3.50; P = .0014), nodal involvement (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.24-2.45; P = .0015), and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) ≥90 U/mL (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 2.32-5.63; P < .001) were associated with decreased OS. Nonwhite race (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.05-2.63; P = .029) and CA19-9 ≥90 U/mL (HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.85-4.40; P < .001) were associated with decreased DFS. CONCLUSIONS: DM and insulin use were not associated with OS or DFS in patients with pancreatic cancer in this study. Race, nodal involvement, and increased CA19-9 were significant predictors of outcomes. These data might apply to the more modern use of neoadjuvant therapies for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

Use of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Initial Results From the Pembrolizumab Arm of a Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is often used to downstage locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and decrease locoregional relapse; however, more than one-third of patients develop recurrent metastatic disease. As such, novel combinations are needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the addition of pembrolizumab during and after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can lead to an improvement in the neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score compared with treatment with FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and chemoradiotherapy alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this open-label, phase 2, randomized clinical trial (NRG-GI002), patients in academic and private practice settings were enrolled. Patients with stage II/III LARC with distal location (cT3-4 ≤ 5 cm from anal verge, any N), with bulky disease (any cT4 or tumor within 3 mm of mesorectal fascia), at high risk for metastatic disease (cN2), and/or who were not candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery (SSS) were stratified based on clinical tumor and nodal stages. Trial accrual opened on August 1, 2018, and ended on May 31, 2019. This intent-to-treat analysis is based on data as of August 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to neoadjuvant FOLFOX for 4 months and then underwent chemoradiotherapy (capecitabine with 50.4 Gy) with or without intravenous pembrolizumab administered at a dosage of 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 6 doses before surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the NAR score. Secondary end points included pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, SSS, disease-free survival, and overall survival. This report focuses on end points available after definitive surgery (NAR score, pCR, SSS, clinical complete response rate, margin involvement, and safety). RESULTS: A total of 185 patients (126 [68.1%] male; mean [SD] age, 55.7 [11.1] years) were randomized to the control arm (CA) (n = 95) or the pembrolizumab arm (PA) (n = 90). Of these patients, 137 were evaluable for NAR score (68 CA patients and 69 PA patients). The mean (SD) NAR score was 11.53 (12.43) for the PA patients (95% CI, 8.54-14.51) vs 14.08 (13.82) for the CA patients (95% CI, 10.74-17.43) (P = .26). The pCR rate was 31.9% in the PA vs 29.4% in the CA (P = .75). The clinical complete response rate was 13.9% in the PA vs 13.6% in the CA (P = .95). The percentage of patients who underwent SSS was 59.4% in the PA vs 71.0% in the CA (P = .15). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were slightly increased in the PA (48.2%) vs the CA (37.3%) during chemoradiotherapy. Two deaths occurred during FOLFOX: sepsis (CA) and pneumonia (PA). No differences in radiotherapy fractions, FOLFOX, or capecitabine doses were found. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Pembrolizumab added to chemoradiotherapy as part of total neoadjuvant therapy was suggested to be safe; however, the NAR score difference does not support further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02921256.

Gabapentin for the management of hot flashes in prostate cancer survivors: a longitudinal continuation Study-NCCTG Trial N00CB.

Hot flashes are a complication of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. A phase III study showed that use of low-dose gabapentin was well tolerated and moderately decreased the frequency of hot flashes due to androgen deprivation therapy when taken for 4 weeks. The current study, an open-label continuation of the randomized study, examined the efficacy and toxicity of gabapentin when taken for (an additional) 8 weeks. Patients were allowed to start, or continue, gabapentin and to titrate the dose to maximum efficacy, up to 900 mg/d. They were asked to complete a hot flash diary daily and keep weekly logs of toxicity, satisfaction with hot flash control, and quality of life. The moderate reduction in hot flash frequency and severity in the randomized phase of the study appeared to be maintained during this continuation phase. Men originally receiving the placebo or lowest dose of gabapentin (300 mg/d) had improved hot flash control relative to that at the end of the randomized phase. Minimal adverse effects were reported. These findings suggest that low-dose gabapentin is moderately efficacious for at least 12 weeks of hot flash treatment in men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer and seems to be well tolerated. (NCT00028572)

Dual VEGF inhibition with sorafenib and bevacizumab as salvage therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the phase II North Central Cancer Treatment Group study N054C (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab (BEV), a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), is a standard component of medical therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Activation of alternative angiogenesis pathways has been implicated in resistance to BEV. This phase II study examines the activity of combined vertical blockade of VEGF signaling with sorafenib and BEV as salvage therapy in patients with progressive disease (PD) on all standard therapy in mCRC. METHODS: mCRC patients with documented PD on standard therapy, received sorafenib (200 mg orally twice daily, days 1-5 and 8-12) and BEV (5 mg/kg intravenously, day 1) every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was 3-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), safety, and feasibility. RESULTS: Of the 83 patients enrolled, 79 were evaluable. Of these, 42 (53%) were progression-free at 3 months. Median PFS was 3.5 months and median OS was 8.3 months. One patient had a partial response and 50 patients (63.3%) had at least one stable tumor assessment. Of 79 evaluable patients, 54 (68%) experienced grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) at least possibly related to treatment. Most frequent grade 3/4 AEs were: fatigue (24.1%), hypertension (16.5%), elevated lipase (8.9%), hand-foot skin reaction (8.9%), diarrhea (7.6%), and proteinuria (7.6%). Reasons for treatment discontinuation were PD (72%), AEs (18%), patient refusal (8%), physician decision (1%), and death (1%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of BEV and sorafenib as salvage therapy in heavily pretreated mCRC patients is tolerable and manageable, with evidence of promising activity. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00826540, URL:http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00826540.

SWOG S1400B (NCT02785913), a Phase II Study of GDC-0032 (Taselisib) for Previously Treated PI3K-Positive Patients with Stage IV Squamous Cell Lung Cancer (Lung-MAP Sub-Study).

BACKGROUND: S1400B is a biomarker-driven Lung-MAP substudy evaluating the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor taselisib (GDC-0032) in patients with PI3K pathway-activated squamous NSCLC (sqNSCLC). METHODS: Eligible patients had tumoral phosphatidylinositol-4,5-biphosphate 3 kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) alterations by next-generation sequencing and disease progression after at least one line of platinum-based therapy. Patients received 4-mg taselisib orally daily. The primary analysis population (PAP) was a subset of patients having substitution mutations believed to be associated with clinical benefit of PI3K inhibitors. Primary endpoint was response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival and duration of response. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients treated with taselisib comprised the full evaluable population (FEP); 21 patients comprised the PAP. Median age for patients in the FEP was 68 years (range: 53-83 years), 19 were male (73%). The study was closed for futility at interim analysis with one responder in the PAP (5% response rate, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0%-24%). Two possibly treatment-related deaths (one respiratory failure, one cardiac arrest) were observed; one patient had grades 4 and 11 had grade 3 adverse events. Median progression-free survival and overall survival in the PAP group were 2.9 months (95% CI: 1.8-4.0 mo) and 5.9 months (95% CI: 4.2-7.8 mo), respectively. These numbers were nearly the same in the FEP. CONCLUSIONS: Study S1400B evaluating taselisib in PIK3CA-altered sqNSCLC failed to meet its primary endpoint and was closed after an interim futility analysis. The trial is unique in cataloguing the diversity of PIK3CA mutations in sqNSCLC.