NRG Oncology/RTOG1205: A Randomized Phase II Trial of Concurrent Bevacizumab and Reirradiation Versus Bevacizumab Alone as Treatment for Recurrent Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: To assess whether reirradiation (re-RT) and concurrent bevacizumab (BEV) improve overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS), compared with BEV alone in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). The primary objective was OS, and secondary objectives included PFS, response rate, and treatment adverse events (AEs) including delayed CNS toxicities. METHODS: NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is a prospective, phase II, randomized trial of re-RT and BEV versus BEV alone. Stratification factors included age, resection, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS). Patients with recurrent GBM with imaging evidence of tumor progression ≥ 6 months from completion of prior chemo-RT were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to re-RT, 35 Gy in 10 fractions, with concurrent BEV IV 10 mg/kg once in every 2 weeks or BEV alone until progression. RESULTS: From December 2012 to April 2016, 182 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 170 were eligible. Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms. The median follow-up for censored patients was 12.8 months. There was no improvement in OS for BEV + RT, hazard ratio, 0.98; 80% CI, 0.79 to 1.23; P = .46; the median survival time was 10.1 versus 9.7 months for BEV + RT versus BEV alone. The median PFS for BEV + RT was 7.1 versus 3.8 months for BEV, hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.0; P = .05. The 6-month PFS rate improved from 29.1% (95% CI, 19.1 to 39.1) for BEV to 54.3% (95% CI, 43.5 to 65.1) for BEV + RT, P = .001. Treatment was well tolerated. There were a 5% rate of acute grade 3+ treatment-related AEs and no delayed high-grade AEs. Most patients died of recurrent GBM. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, NRG Oncology/RTOG1205 is the first prospective, randomized multi-institutional study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of re-RT in recurrent GBM using modern RT techniques. Overall, re-RT was shown to be safe and well tolerated. BEV + RT demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in PFS, specifically the 6-month PFS rate but no difference in OS.

Definitive results of a phase III adjuvant trial comparing six cycles of FEC-100 to four cycles of AC in women with operable node-negative breast cancer: the NSABP B-36 trial (NRG Oncology).

PURPOSE: Results from adjuvant trials evaluating 6 cycles of epirubicin-based chemotherapy regimens suggested these programs may be more effective than 4 cycles of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. METHOD: NSABP B-36 was a phase III clinical trial originally designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study comparing 6 cycles of 5-FU, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-100) to 4 cycles of conventional doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with celecoxib or placebo. Shortly after activation, concerns regarding increased cardiovascular risks among selective COX-2 inhibitors resulted in a decision to remove the celecoxib/placebo from the trial. Women with histologically node-negative invasive breast cancer who had undergone primary surgery with a lumpectomy or total mastectomy were eligible. Primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Between May 2004 and July 2008, 2722 patients were enrolled. Administration of FEC-100 did not result in improvement in DFS compared to AC (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.92-1.29, p value = 0.31). The effect of FEC-100 compared to AC on DFS was significantly different for receptor-positive (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66) compared to receptor-negative patients (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66-1.11) (treatment-by-receptor status interaction p value = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in the effect of treatment on overall survival (OS) with FEC-100 compared to AC (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.84-1.35, p value = 0.61). Overall, Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more frequent in the FEC-100 group. CONCLUSION: The results of B-36 do not support use of six-cycle anthracycline-based regimens in node-negative breast cancer. Prolongation of anthracycline-based therapy with FEC-100 does not improve DFS or OS, relative to AC for 4 cycles, and was associated with expected increases in toxicity. A statistically significant interaction between treatment and hormone receptor status favoring AC in hormone-receptor-positive breast cancers is consistent with the hypothesis that optimal duration of chemotherapy may be four cycles in these patients. Late cardiac events and deaths prior to recurrence or second cancer were infrequent on both arms, but slightly higher with FEC-100. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00087178.

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.

The Correlative Strength of Objective Physical Assessment Against the ECOG Performance Status Assessment in Individuals Diagnosed With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with cancer experience loss of function and disability due to disease and cancer-related treatments. Physical fitness and frailty influence treatment plans and may predict cancer outcomes. Outcome measures currently used may not provide sufficiently comprehensive assessment of physical performance. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to: (1) describe the development of a functional measure, the Bellarmine Norton Assessment Tool (BNAT), for individuals with cancer; and (2) assess the relationship between the BNAT and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status, a commonly used classification system by oncologists. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort correlation study. METHODS: The BNAT encompasses 1 self-reported physical activity question and 4 objective tests: 2-Minute Step Test, 30-Second Sit to Stand, Timed Arm Curl, and Timed Up and Go. The BNAT score and its components were compared with ECOG Performance Status scores assigned by oncologists and analyzed for correlation and agreement. RESULTS: A total of 103 male and female individuals (ages 33-87 years) with various cancer diagnoses participated. The mean (SD) ECOG Performance Status score was 0.95 (0.87), range 0 to 3, and the mean BNAT score was 14.9 (4.3), range 5 to 24. Spearman agreement association of BNAT and ECOG Performance Status scores revealed a significant moderate negative relationship (r = -0.568). LIMITATIONS: The BNAT was compared with the ECOG Performance Status, a commonly used but subjective measure. Additionally, a common data set was used for both deriving and evaluating the BNAT performance scale. CONCLUSIONS: There was a moderate negative linear relationship of BNAT to ECOG Performance Status scores across all participants. Utilization of the BNAT may reflect overall physical performance and provide comprehensive and meaningful detail to influence therapeutic decisions.

Multidisciplinary approach to low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in a metropolitan community.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the primary cause of cancer death in men and women in the USA, led by Kentucky. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services initiated annual lung cancer screening with a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan. This observational cohort study evaluated the multidisciplinary approach to this screening in our metropolitan community. METHODS: We present the prospective findings of patients who underwent a screening lung LDCT scan over a 2-year period at our institution in Kentucky. Patients who fulfilled the screening criteria were identified during an office visit with their primary care provider. RESULTS: Of the 4170 patients who underwent a screening lung LDCT scan, a total of 838 (20.9%) patients had nodules >4 mm. Of the 70 patients diagnosed with lung cancer, Stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer was most commonly detected [38 cases (54.3%)]. A follow-up lung LDCT scan (n = 897), pulmonary function test (n = 157), positron emission tomography scan (n = 12) and a lung biopsy (n = 53) were performed for certain individuals who had anomalies observed on the screening lung LDCT scan. A total of 42% of patients enrolled in group tobacco cessation classes quit smoking. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a unique perspective of a lung LDCT scan screening program driven by primary care providers in a state plagued by cigarette smoking and lung cancer deaths and offers a valuable message into the prevention, high-risk screening and diagnosis of lung cancer.

Identifying Health Information Technology Needs of Oncologists to Facilitate the Adoption of Genomic Medicine: Recommendations From the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology Omics and Precision Oncology Workshop.

At the ASCO Data Standards and Interoperability Summit held in May 2016, it was unanimously decided that four areas of current oncology clinical practice have serious, unmet health information technology needs. The following areas of need were identified: 1) omics and precision oncology, 2) advancing interoperability, 3) patient engagement, and 4) value-based oncology. To begin to address these issues, ASCO convened two complementary workshops: the Omics and Precision Oncology Workshop in October 2016 and the Advancing Interoperability Workshop in December 2016. A common goal was to address the complexity, enormity, and rapidly changing nature of genomic information, which existing electronic health records are ill equipped to manage. The subject matter experts invited to the Omics and Precision Oncology Workgroup were tasked with the responsibility of determining a specific, limited need that could be addressed by a software application (app) in the short-term future, using currently available genomic knowledge bases. Hence, the scope of this workshop was to determine the basic functionality of one app that could serve as a test case for app development. The goal of the second workshop, described separately, was to identify the specifications for such an app. This approach was chosen both to facilitate the development of a useful app and to help ASCO and oncologists better understand the mechanics, difficulties, and gaps in genomic clinical decision support tool development. In this article, we discuss the key challenges and recommendations identified by the workshop participants. Our hope is to narrow the gap between the practicing oncologist and ongoing national efforts to provide precision oncology and value-based care to cancer patients.

Two schedules of etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102) in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer: a randomised phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic options are needed for patients with heavily pretreated breast cancer. Etirinotecan pegol is a long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor designed to provide prolonged tumour-cell exposure to SN38, the active metabolite. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two etirinotecan pegol dosing schedules in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer to determine an optimum dosing schedule for phase 3 trials. METHODS: In this randomised, two-stage, open-label phase 2 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older who had received taxane therapy and undergone two or fewer previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from 18 sites in three countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to etirinotecan pegol 145 mg/m(2) every 14 days or every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. FINDINGS: 70 patients (35 in each group) were randomly assigned to treatment between Feb 17, 2009 and April 13, 2010. Of the 70 patients, 20 (29%; 95% CI 18·4-40·6) achieved an objective response (two [3%] had a complete response and 18 [26%] had a partial response). Ten patients on the 14-day schedule achieved an objective response (29%; 95% CI 14·6-46·3; eight partial responses, two complete responses) as did ten on the 21-day schedule (29%; 95% CI 14·6-46·3; all partial responses). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were delayed diarrhoea (seven [20%] of 35 patients on the 14-day schedule vs eight [23%] of 35 patients on the 21-day schedule), fatigue (five [14%] vs three [9%]), neutropenia (four [11%] vs four [11%]), and dehydration (three [9%] vs four [11%]); 14 [20%] patients discontinued treatment because of drug-related toxicity. There were two possible drug-related deaths (acute renal failure and septic shock) in the 14-day group; other drug-related serious adverse events reported by more than one patient included ten [14%] patients with diarrhoea (six [17%] patients on the 14-day schedule vs four [11%] on the 21-day schedule), six [9%] with dehydration (two [6%] vs four [11%]), two [3%] with nausea (two [6%] vs none), and two [3%] with vomiting (two [6%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: On the basis of the overall clinical data, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability profile, etirinotecan pegol 145 mg/m(2) every 21 days has been selected for a phase 3 trial against treatment of physician's choice in patients with advanced breast cancer.

Axitinib and/or bevacizumab with modified FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial, the authors evaluated the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor axitinib, bevacizumab, or both in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous axitinib 5 mg twice daily, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or axitinib 5 mg twice daily plus bevacizumab 2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, each in combination with modified 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In all, 126 patients were enrolled from August 2007 to September 2008. The ORR was numerically inferior in the axitinib arm (n = 42) versus the bevacizumab arm (n = 43; 28.6% vs 48.8%; 1-sided P = .97). Progression-free survival (PFS) (11.0 months vs 15.9 months; 1-sided P = .57) and overall survival (OS) (18.1 months vs 21.6 months; 1-sided P = .69) also were numerically inferior in the axitinib arm. Similarly, efficacy endpoints for the axitinib/bevacizumab arm (n = 41) were numerically inferior (ORR, 39%; PFS, 12.5 months; OS, 19.7 months). The patients who received axitinib had fewer treatment cycles compared with other arms. Common all-grade adverse events across all 3 treatment arms were fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea (all ≥49%). Hypertension and headache were more frequent in the patients who received axitinib. Patients in the bevacizumab arm had the longest treatment exposures and the highest rates of peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the addition of continuous axitinib nor the axitinib/bevacizumab combination to FOLFOX-6 improved ORR, PFS, or OS compared with bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC.

A multicenter, phase I, dose-escalation study to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of etirinotecan pegol in patients with refractory solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and to evaluate tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of etirinotecan pegol. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with refractory solid malignancies were enrolled and assigned to escalating-dose cohorts. Patients received 1 infusion of etirinotecan pegol weekly 3 times every 4 weeks (w × 3q4w), or every 14 days (q14d), or every 21 days (q21d), with MTD as the primary end point using a standard 3 + 3 design. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were entered onto 3 dosing schedules (58-245 mg/m(2)). The MTD was 115 mg/m(2) for the w × 3q4w schedule and 145 mg/m(2) for both the q14d and q21d schedules. Most adverse events related to study drug were gastrointestinal disorders and were more frequent at higher doses of etirinotecan pegol. Late onset diarrhea was observed in some patients, the frequency of which generally correlated with dose density. Cholinergic diarrhea commonly seen with irinotecan treatment did not occur in patients treated with etirinotecan pegol. Etirinotecan pegol administration resulted in sustained and controlled systemic exposure to SN-38, which had a mean half-life of approximately 50 days. Overall, the pharmacokinetics of etirinotecan pegol are predictable and do not require complex dosing adjustments. Confirmed partial responses were observed in 8 patients with breast, colon, lung (small and squamous cell), bladder, cervical, and neuroendocrine cancer. CONCLUSION: Etirinotecan pegol showed substantial antitumor activity in patients with various solid tumors and a somewhat different safety profile compared with the irinotecan historical profile. The MTD recommended for phase II clinical trials is 145 mg/m(2) q14d or q21d.

Phase II study of sunitinib as maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

This open-label, phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of sunitinib monotherapy as maintenance treatment following first-line chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Following treatment with standard doublet chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin), patients received oral sunitinib (starting dose 50mg/day) in 6-week cycles (Schedule 4/2: 4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off treatment) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was probability of survival at 1 year ≥55%. Of 84 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 66 (79%) received sunitinib maintenance therapy (median sunitinib cycles started: 2 [range 1-20]). Probability of survival at 1 year was 40.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.8, 51.0). Median overall survival was 10.4 months (95% CI: 8.0, 12.2). The objective response rate was 27.4% (95% CI: 18.2, 38.2). The most frequently reported all-causality adverse events of any grade during sunitinib maintenance therapy were fatigue/asthenia (55%), diarrhea (36%), and nausea (32%). These data suggest that maintenance therapy may have value in NSCLC, although the primary endpoint of the study was not met.

Gemcitabine/epirubicin/paclitaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: a phase II trial of the NSABP Foundation Research Group.

BACKGROUND: This phase II protocol of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine/epirubicin/paclitaxel (GET) was designed to determine the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in the breast, clinical response rate, disease-free survival, and overall survival at 2 years as well as toxicity in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. This trial also evaluated the feasibility of tissue collection for gene-expression profiling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-six women with stage IIB, IIIA, and IIIB breast cancer were entered into this trial. Patients received a maximum of 6 cycles of neoadjuvant GET chemotherapy every 21 days (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously [i.v.] on days 1 and 4, epirubicin 90 mg/m2 i.v. bolus on day 1, and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1). After chemotherapy, patients underwent surgery and were assessed for pathologic response. RESULTS: The pCR rate among the 74 patients evaluable for efficacy was 23% (95% CI, 14%-34.2%). Adverse events among the 76 patients evaluable for toxicity included anemia requiring transfusion (14.5%), infection with grade 3/4 neutropenia (10.5%), febrile neutropenia (7.9%), and platelet transfusion (6.6%). Infectious complications occurred in 24 patients (31.6%), of whom 18.4% were in the setting of neutropenia. High-quality RNA and successful probe synthesis were obtained from all pretreatment core biopsy specimens that contained tumor cells (n=66; 88%). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant GET chemotherapy is an active regimen but with substantial toxicity. Tissue collection for gene-expression profiling is feasible in a multi-institutional setting.

Addition of bevacizumab to bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a randomized phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor, increases survival when combined with irinotecan-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This randomized, phase II trial compared bevacizumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin (FU/LV) versus placebo plus FU/LV as first-line therapy in patients considered nonoptimal candidates for first-line irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had metastatic CRC and one of the following characteristics: age > or = 65 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 or 2, serum albumin < or = 3.5 g/dL, or prior abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to FU/LV/placebo (n = 105) or FU/LV/bevacizumab (n = 104). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, response duration, and quality of life. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Median survival was 16.6 months for the FU/LV/bevacizumab group and 12.9 months for the FU/LV/placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; P = .16). Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 5.5 months (FU/LV/placebo); hazard ratio was 0.50; P = .0002. Response rates were 26.0% (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 15.2% (FU/LV/placebo) (P = .055); duration of response was 9.2 months (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 6.8 months (FU/LV/placebo); hazard ratio was 0.42; P = .088. Grade 3 hypertension was more common with bevacizumab treatment (16% v 3%) but was controlled with oral medication and did not cause study drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Addition of bevacizumab to FU/LV as first-line therapy in CRC patients who were not considered optimal candidates for first-line irinotecan treatment provided clinically significant patient benefit, including statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival.