Novel Clinician-Lead Intervention to Address Fear of Cancer Recurrence in Breast Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) affects 50%-70% of cancer survivors. This multicenter, single-arm study sought to determine the participant-rated usefulness of an oncologist-delivered FCR intervention. METHODS: Women who completed treatment for early breast cancer (could be receiving endocrine therapy) with baseline FCR > 0 were invited to participate. FCR was measured using a validated 42-item FCR Inventory. The brief oncologist-delivered intervention entailed (1) FCR normalization; (2) provision of personalized prognostic information; (3) recurrence symptoms education, (4) advice on managing worry, and (5) referral to psycho-oncologist if FCR was high. FCR, depression, and anxiety were assessed preintervention (T0), at 1 week (T1), and 3 months (T2) postintervention. The primary outcome was participant-rated usefulness. Secondary outcomes included feasibility and efficacy. RESULTS: Five oncologists delivered the intervention to 61/255 women invited. Mean age was 58 ± 12 years. Mean time since breast cancer diagnosis was 2.5 ± 1.3 years. Forty-three women (71%) were on adjuvant endocrine therapy. Of 58 women who completed T1 assessment, 56 (97%) found the intervention to be useful. FCR severity decreased significantly at T1 (F = 18.5, effect size = 0.39, P < .0001) and T2 (F = 24, effect size = 0.68, P < .0001) compared with baseline. There were no changes in unmet need or depression or anxiety. Mean consultation length was 22 minutes (range, 7-47 minutes), and mean intervention length was 8 minutes (range, 2-20 minutes). The intervention was perceived as useful and feasible by oncologists. CONCLUSION: A brief oncologist-delivered intervention to address FCR is useful and feasible, and has preliminary efficacy in reducing FCR. Plans for a cluster randomized trial are underway.

Five-Year Outcomes With Nivolumab in Patients With Wild-Type BRAF Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: The CheckMate 066 trial investigated nivolumab monotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma. Five-year results are presented herein. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III study, 418 patients with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III/IV, wild-type BRAF melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: Patients were followed for a minimum of 60 months from the last patient randomly assigned (median follow-up, 32.0 months for nivolumab and 10.9 months for dacarbazine). Five-year OS rates were 39% with nivolumab and 17% with dacarbazine; PFS rates were 28% and 3%, respectively. Five-year OS was 38% in patients randomly assigned to dacarbazine who had subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (n = 37). ORR was 42% with nivolumab and 14% with dacarbazine; among patients alive at 5 years, ORR was 81% and 39%, respectively. Of 42 patients treated with nivolumab who had a complete response (20%), 88% (37 of 42) were alive as of the 5-year analysis. Among 75 nivolumab-treated patients alive and evaluable at the 5-year analysis, 83% had not received subsequent therapy; 23% were still on study treatment, and 60% were treatment free. Safety analyses were similar to the 3-year report. CONCLUSION: Results from this 5-year analysis confirm the significant benefit of nivolumab over dacarbazine for all end points and add to the growing body of evidence supporting long-term survival with nivolumab mono-therapy. Survival is strongly associated with achieving a durable response, which can be maintained after treatment discontinuation, even without subsequent systemic therapies.

Long-term Follow-up of Standard-Dose Pembrolizumab Plus Reduced-Dose Ipilimumab in Patients with Advanced Melanoma: KEYNOTE-029 Part 1B.

PURPOSE: Combination therapy with reduced-dose programmed death 1 inhibitor plus standard-dose cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitor demonstrated efficacy, but substantial toxicity, in melanoma. We present long-term results of part 1B of KEYNOTE-029, which assessed safety and efficacy of standard-dose pembrolizumab plus reduced-dose ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Part 1B was an expansion cohort of the open-label, phase Ib portion of KEYNOTE-029. Eligible patients had advanced melanoma and no previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (amended to 200 mg) every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks (four cycles), then pembrolizumab alone for up to 2 years. Primary end point was safety; secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 153 patients received at least one dose of pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab. At a median follow-up of 36.8 months, 71.9% had received four doses of ipilimumab and 30.7% had completed 2 years of pembrolizumab; 26.1% completed both treatments. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96.1% (47.1% grade 3/4; no deaths), leading to discontinuation of one or both study drugs in 35.9%. ORR was 62.1% with 42 (27.5%) complete and 53 (34.6%) partial responses. Median DOR was not reached; 36-month ongoing response rate was 84.2%. Median PFS and OS were not reached; 36-month rates were 59.1% and 73.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Standard-dose pembrolizumab plus reduced-dose ipilimumab demonstrated robust antitumor activity, durable response, and favorable long-term survival with manageable toxicity.

Elevated levels of tumour apolipoprotein D independently predict poor outcome in breast cancer patients.

AIMS: Apolipoprotein D (ApoD) is a protein that is regulated by androgen and oestrogen, and is a major constituent of breast cysts. Although ApoD has been reported to be a marker of breast cancer, its prognostic importance in invasive breast cancer is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between ApoD protein expression, oestrogen receptor-α (ERα) expression and androgen receptor (AR) expression in predicting breast cancer outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: ApoD levels were measured by the use of immunohistochemistry and video image analysis on tissue sections from a breast cancer cohort (n = 214). We assessed the associations of ApoD expression with disease-free survival (DFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and overall survival (OS). We also assessed the relationship between ApoD expression, AR expression and ERα expression in predicting OS. ApoD expression (>1% ApoD positivity) was found in 72% (154/214) of tissues. High ApoD positivity (≥20.7%, fourth quartile) was an independent predictor of MFS and OS, and conferred a 2.2-fold increased risk of developing metastatic disease and a 2.1-fold increased risk of breast cancer-related death. ApoD positivity was not associated with AR or ERα nuclear positivity. However, patients with (≥1%) ERα-positive cancers with low (<20.7%) ApoD positivity, or those showing high (≥78%) AR positivity and low (<20.7%) ApoD positivity had better OS than other patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: ApoD expression could be used to predict breast cancer prognosis independently of ERα and AR expression.

Phase I study of the anti-endothelin B receptor antibody-drug conjugate DEDN6526A in patients with metastatic or unresectable cutaneous, mucosal, or uveal melanoma.

Background Endothelin B receptor (ETBR) is involved in melanoma pathogenesis and is overexpressed in metastatic melanoma. The antibody-drug conjugate DEDN6526A targets ETBR and is comprised of the humanized anti-ETBR monoclonal antibody conjugated to the anti-mitotic agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). Methods This Phase I study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and anti-tumor activity of DEDN6526A (0.3-2.8 mg/kg) given every 3 weeks (q3w) in patients with metastatic or unresectable cutaneous, mucosal, or uveal melanoma. Results Fifty-three patients received a median of 6 doses of DEDN6526A (range 1-49). The most common drug-related adverse events (>25% across dose levels) were fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, nausea, diarrhea, alopecia, and chills. Three patients in dose-escalation experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (infusion-related reaction, increased ALT/AST, and drug-induced liver injury). Based on cumulative safety data across all dose levels, the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) for DEDN6526A was 2.4 mg/kg intravenous (IV) q3w. The pharmacokinetics of antibody-conjugated MMAE and total antibody were dose-proportional at doses ranging from 1.8-2.8 mg/kg. A trend toward faster clearance was observed at doses of 0.3-1.2 mg/kg. There were 6 partial responses (11%) in patients with metastatic cutaneous or mucosal melanoma, and 17 patients (32%) had prolonged stable disease ≥6 months. Responses were independent of BRAF mutation status but did correlate with ETBR expression. Conclusion DEDN6526A administered at the RP2D of 2.4 mg/kg q3w had an acceptable safety profile and showed evidence of anti-tumor activity in patients with cutaneous, mucosal, and uveal melanoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01522664.

Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006. METHODS: KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAFV600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7-59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5-41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3-22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61-0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6-11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9-4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48-0·67, p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96 (17%) of 555 patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 50 (20%) of 256 patients in the ipilimumab group; the most common of these events were colitis (11 [2%] vs 16 [6%]), diarrhoea (ten [2%] vs seven [3%]), and fatigue (four [<1%] vs three [1%]). Any-grade serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (14%) patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 45 (18%) patients in the ipilimumab group. One patient assigned to pembrolizumab died from treatment-related sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Optimise not compromise: The importance of a multidisciplinary breast cancer patient pathway in the era of oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery.

Modern breast cancer care is a complex multidisciplinary undertaking in which the integrated function of multiple constituent parts is critical, and where changes to one therapeutic component may profoundly influence the delivery and outcomes of another. Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery has evolved in the era of longer survival rates for women with breast cancer and aims to enhance oncological and cosmetic outcomes. However, concurrently there has been an expansion in the indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (Abdulkarim et al., 2011; Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), 2014; Poortmans et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2011), the recognition of several biologically distinct breast cancer subtypes (Perou et al., 2000; Sørlie et al., 2001, 2003; Cheang et al., 2008, 2009; Sotiriou et al., 2003; Millar et al., 2011; Blows et al., 2010; Schnitt, 2010; Haque et al., 2012; Dai et al., 2015) and the development of recommendations for prophylactic surgery for high-risk women, including BRCA-mutation carriers (James et al., 2006; Domchek et al., 2010). Primary systemic therapy is increasingly utilised yet has varying efficacy depending on tumour biology (Cortazar et al., 2014). In this paper we review the evidence which informs the multidisciplinary team opinion in the era of oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery. We aim to describe an optimal multidisciplinary approach which balances competing risks of multimodal therapies to optimise oncological and cosmetic outcomes.

The Magnitude of Androgen Receptor Positivity in Breast Cancer Is Critical for Reliable Prediction of Disease Outcome.

Purpose: Consensus is lacking regarding the androgen receptor (AR) as a prognostic marker in breast cancer. The objectives of this study were to comprehensively review the literature on AR prognostication and determine optimal criteria for AR as an independent predictor of breast cancer survival.Experimental Design: AR positivity was assessed by immunostaining in two clinically validated primary breast cancer cohorts [training cohort, n = 219; validation cohort, n = 418; 77% and 79% estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) positive, respectively]. The optimal AR cut-point was determined by ROC analysis in the training cohort and applied to both cohorts.Results: AR was an independent prognostic marker of breast cancer outcome in 22 of 46 (48%) previous studies that performed multivariate analyses. Most studies used cut-points of 1% or 10% nuclear positivity. Herein, neither 1% nor 10% cut-points were robustly prognostic. ROC analysis revealed that a higher AR cut-point (78% positivity) provided optimal sensitivity and specificity to predict breast cancer survival in the training (HR, 0.41; P = 0.015) and validation (HR, 0.50; P = 0.014) cohorts. Tenfold cross-validation confirmed the robustness of this AR cut-point. Patients with ERα-positive tumors and AR positivity ≥78% had the best survival in both cohorts (P < 0.0001). Among the combined ERα-positive cases, those with comparable or higher levels of AR (AR:ERα-positivity ratio >0.87) had the best outcomes (P < 0.0001).Conclusions: This study defines an optimal AR cut-point to reliably predict breast cancer survival. Testing this cut-point in prospective cohorts is warranted for implementation of AR as a prognostic factor in the clinical management of breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 24(10); 2328-41. ©2018 AACR.

Dose modifications in adjuvant chemotherapy for solid organ malignancies: A systematic review of clinical trials.

Toxicities of systemic cancer therapies are often less frequently observed in clinical trials than in clinical practice, due to the careful selection of patients with fewer comorbidities. Although guidelines exist for the estimation of chemotherapy dose, clinical factors like age, comorbid illness and extremes of body habitus are not considered in the method of dose calculation, which can result in significant toxicity. We reviewed the referenced clinical trials from which the evidence-based curative-intent cancer treatment protocols were developed for EVIQ, which is an Australian government, online resource. This review shows that a significant proportion of patients in curative-intent clinical trials experience toxicities that result in dose modifications-dose reduction, dose delays or missed doses-despite strict selection criteria and intense monitoring. Thus, even in ideal, clinical-trial settings chemotherapy dose calculation remains imprecise and subject to adjustment as clinically appropriate. In real-world clinical practice, dose alterations or modifications in response to toxicities need to be thoroughly discussed and implemented with clear understanding of the patient with appropriate documentation. This review may be used as a reference in these situations to elaborate the extent of toxicities seen in clinical trials with optimal settings.

Isolated immune-related pancreatic exocrine insufficiency associated with pembrolizumab therapy.

We report a case of isolated immune-related pancreatic exocrine insufficiency in a patient treated with pembrolizumab for metastatic melanoma. This patient presented with explosive diarrhea and was treated with high dose corticosteroids for possible immune-related colitis. However, biopsies from colon and duodenum did not show any histological evidence of colitis/enteritis. Serum amylase and lipase were not elevated. There was no evidence of pancreatitis or pancreatic metastases on imaging. Significantly lower fecal elastase test on two occasions confirmed the diagnosis of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. He was treated with pancreatic enzyme supplementation with complete resolution of diarrhea. This case reinforces the importance of awareness and anticipation of unusual immune-related adverse events related to checkpoint inhibitors.

Standard-dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced-dose ipilimumab for patients with advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-029): an open-label, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Reduced-dose nivolumab in combination with standard-dose ipilimumab improves objective response and progression-free survival compared with standard-dose ipilimumab alone, but increases toxicity. We assessed the safety and anti-tumour activity of standard-dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced-dose ipilimumab. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 1b trial, we recruited patients from 12 medical centres in Australia, New Zealand, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had advanced melanoma, had an Eastern Coooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, had adequate organ function, had resolution of toxic effects of the most recent previous chemotherapy to grade 1 or less, had no active autoimmune disease requiring systemic steroids or immunosuppressive agents, had no active non-infectious pneumonitis, had no uncontrolled thyroid dysfunction or diabetes, had no active brain metastases, and had not received previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg plus intravenous ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. The proportion of patients achieving an objective response assessed per RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review and overall survival were secondary endpoints. We also assessed progression-free survival. The primary endpoint was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of combination therapy. Activity was assessed in all enrolled patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02089685. Enrolment into this cohort is closed, but patients are still being monitored for safety and anti-tumour activity. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2015, and Sept 17, 2015, we enrolled and treated 153 patients. As of the Oct 17, 2016, cutoff date, median follow-up was 17·0 months (IQR 14·8-18·8). 110 (72%) of 153 patients received all four pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab doses; 64 (42%) remained on pembrolizumab monotherapy. 110 grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 69 (45%) patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of pembrolizumab and ipilimumab in 22 (14%) patients, including 17 (11%) who discontinued both treatments for the same event and five (3%) who discontinued ipilimumab for one event and later discontinued pembrolizumab for another. 12 (8%) patients discontinued ipilimumab only and 14 (9%) discontinued pembrolizumab only because of treatment-related adverse events. 158 immune-mediated adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (60%) patients, and 50 immune-mediated adverse events of grade 3-4 occurred in 42 (27%) patients; the most common immune-mediated adverse events were hypothyroidism (25 [16%]) and hyperthyroidism (17 [11%]). 93 (61% [95% CI 53-69]) patients achieved an objective response. Estimated 1 year progression-free survival was 69% (95% CI 60-75), and estimated 1 year overall survival was 89% (95% CI 83-93). INTERPRETATION: Standard-dose pembrolizumab given in combination with four doses of reduced-dose ipilimumab followed by standard-dose pembrolizumab has a manageable toxicity profile and provides robust anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced melanoma. These data suggest that standard-dose pembrolizumab plus reduced-dose ipilimumab might be a tolerable, efficacious treatment option for patients with advanced melanoma. A randomised phase 2 trial of alternative dosing strategies of this combination is underway. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.