Phase II Study of Palbociclib (PD-0332991) in CCND1, 2, or 3 Amplification: Results from the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Subprotocol Z1B.

PURPOSE: Cyclin D/CDK4/6 is critical in controlling the G1 to S checkpoint. CCND, the gene encoding cyclin D, is known to be amplified in a variety of solid tumors. Palbociclib is an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, approved in advanced breast cancer in combination with endocrine therapy. We explored the efficacy of palbociclib in patients with nonbreast solid tumors containing an amplification in CCND1, 2, or 3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with tumors containing a CCND1, 2, or 3 amplification and expression of the retinoblastoma protein were assigned to subprotocol Z1B and received palbociclib 125 mg once daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Tumor response was assessed every two cycles. RESULTS: Forty patients were assigned to subprotocol Z1B; 4 patients had outside assays identifying the CCND1, 2, or 3 amplification and were not confirmed centrally; 3 were ineligible and 2 were not treated (1 untreated patient was also ineligible), leaving 32 evaluable patients for this analysis. There were no partial responses; 12 patients (37.5%) had stable disease as best response. There were seven deaths on study, all during cycle 1 and attributable to disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 1.8 months. The most common toxicities were leukopenia (n = 21, 55%) and neutropenia (n = 19, 50%); neutropenia was the most common grade 3/4 event (n = 12, 32%). CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib was not effective at treating nonbreast solid tumors with a CCND1, 2, or 3 amplification in this cohort. These data do not support further investigation of single-agent palbociclib in tumors with CCND1, 2, or 3 amplification.

Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to provide an update to the ASCO guideline on metastatic pancreatic cancer pertaining to recommendations for therapy options after first-line treatment. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review to update guideline recommendations for second-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial of olaparib versus placebo, one report on phase I and II studies of larotrectinib, and one report on phase I and II studies of entrectinib met the inclusion criteria and inform the guideline update. RECOMMENDATIONS: New or updated recommendations for germline and somatic testing for microsatellite instability high/mismatch repair deficiency, BRCA mutations, and TRK alterations are provided for all treatment-eligible patients to select patients for recommended therapies, including pembrolizumab, olaparib, larotrectinib, or entrectinib, or potential clinical trials. The Expert Panel continues to endorse the remaining recommendations for second-line chemotherapy, as well as other recommendations related to treatment, follow-up, and palliative care from the 2018 version of this guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Locally Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor in a 33-Year-Old Woman Seeking to Conceive.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. They commonly present with nonspecific symptoms and thus are often discovered incidentally. They are best identified by CT scan, and most stain positive for CD117 (C-Kit), CD34, and/or DOG-1. Several risk stratification classification systems have been developed based on tumor size, mitotic rate, location, and perforation. Traditional chemotherapy and radiation therapy have been very ineffective, making surgery the mainstay of treatment. The discovery of mutations associated with these tumors has revolutionized the treatment approach. Imatinib mesylate, a selective tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor, used as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy, has greatly improved the morbidity and mortality associated with GISTs. As the survival of patients has increased with the long-term use of targeted therapies, quality-of-life issues now have become much more relevant and have come to the forefront of care. We present a young woman who was successfully treated for GIST but now faces associated long-term adverse effects of imatinib, including the challenge of preserving fertility and the potential for childbearing.

76-Year-Old Woman With a Bluish-Purple Lump in her Left Upper Medial Leg.

A woman, aged 76 years, presented with a bluish-purple lump in her mid- to upper medial left thigh. It started initially as a flat rash, and over a 2-month period, it turned into a mass measuring 2.5 cm by 3.1 cm. Work-up, including a PET-CT scan, showed the soft tissue mass on the inner thigh to have a Standardized Uptake Value of 4; there were no other sites of disease. A biopsy of the lesion was performed.

ctDNA applications and integration in colorectal cancer: an NCI Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces whitepaper.

An increasing number of studies are describing potential uses of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in the care of patients with colorectal cancer. Owing to this rapidly developing area of research, the Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces of the United States National Cancer Institute convened a panel of multidisciplinary experts to summarize current data on the utility of ctDNA in the management of colorectal cancer and to provide guidance in promoting the efficient development and integration of this technology into clinical care. The panel focused on four key areas in which ctDNA has the potential to change clinical practice, including the detection of minimal residual disease, the management of patients with rectal cancer, monitoring responses to therapy, and tracking clonal dynamics in response to targeted therapies and other systemic treatments. The panel also provides general guidelines with relevance for ctDNA-related research efforts, irrespective of indication.

Patient-Defined Treatment Success: Perspectives of Patients With Advanced-Stage Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: In the United States, lung cancer accounts for 14% of cancer diagnoses and 28% of cancer deaths annually. Because no cure exists for advanced lung cancer, the primary treatment goal is to prolong survival. OBJECTIVES: The study aim was to determine whether individual preferences, characteristics, and treatment experiences affect the meaning of treatment success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quantitative study using an observational, longitudinal cohort of patients with advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer was conducted. Data sources included medical records and patient interviews. Data were analyzed using χ2, Fisher's exact, and McNemar's tests, as well as logistic regressions. RESULTS: At the first interview of 235 individuals, 12% considered survival alone as their definition of treatment success; others defined treatment success as survival plus other aspects, such as quality of life and reaching an important personal goal. As they moved through chemotherapy, 47% of the patients changed their definition of treatment success. Bivariate analysis showed that patients with lower incomes tended to be more likely to change their definition of treatment success compared with their counterparts with higher income (P = .0245). CONCLUSION: By taking chemotherapy, patients expect to increase their odds of survival and want to maintain the quality of life and functionality. A patient's definition of treatment success is often changing as treatment continues, making it appropriate to ensure patient-provider communication throughout their clinical care. The study results are limited to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and drawn from a predominantly white patient population, mainly from the US Midwest.

Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose In 2016, ASCO published a guideline to assist in clinical decision making in metastatic pancreatic cancer for initial assessment after diagnosis, first- and second-line treatment options, palliative and supportive care, and follow-up. The purpose of this update is to incorporate new evidence related to second-line therapy for patients who have experienced disease progression or intolerable toxicity during first-line therapy. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on second-line therapy published between June 2015 and January 2018. Recommendations on other topics covered in the 2016 Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Guideline were endorsed by the Expert Panel. Results Two new studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus nanoliposomal irinotecan can be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, an ECOG PS of 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus irinotecan or fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin may be offered when there is a lack of availability of fluorouracil plus nanoliposomal irinotecan; gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS of 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Testing select patients for mismatch repair deficiency or microsatellite instability is recommended, and pembrolizumab is recommended for patients with mismatch repair deficiency or high microsatellite instability tumors. Endorsed recommendations from the 2016 version of this guideline for computed tomography, baseline performance status and comorbidity profile, defining goals of care, first-line therapy, and palliative care are also contained within the full guideline text. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Potential cost savings by dose down-rounding of monoclonal antibodies in a community cancer center.

Purpose Increasing new cancer cases and approval of effective but expensive new drugs extending survival have led to unsustainable cancer care costs. Potential cost savings by a hypothetical dose down-rounding project of monoclonal antibodies at a community-based cancer center is presented. Methods From October 2014 through October 2015, metastatic cancer patients receiving monoclonal antibodies at CHI-Health St Francis Cancer Treatment Center in Grand Island, Nebraska, were identified through electronic health records. A total of 11 different types of monoclonal antibodies that were administered during the study period were identified. Trastuzumab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab did not require dose-rounding; thus, they were excluded from the analyses. Available vial size(s) and costs per milligram per average wholesale price for each monoclonal antibody were recorded. Costs of actual amounts prescribed were compared to the costs of theoretically reduced ≤5% and ≤10% doses rounded to the nearest vial sizes. Reduced doses resulting in a decreased number of opened vials qualified for meaningful dose down-rounding and were included in the analysis. Average actual dose reduction percentage resulting in cost savings for both groups was also calculated. Results A total of 728 doses of eight monoclonal antibodies suitable for dose down-rounding were identified. Vial sizes of pembrolizumab and ipilimumab did not allow for a meaningful dose down-rounding. At the ≤5% dose down-rounding, 255 of 728 doses (35%) qualified with a potential annual cost savings of $220,793.80. At the ≤10% dose down-rounding, 526 of 728 doses (72%) qualified with a potential annual cost savings of $454,461.00. The average actual dose reduction was 2.4% for the ≤5% dose reduction group and 4.9% for the ≤10% dose reduction group. Overall average cost savings per qualifying dose reduction was around $865.00. More doses qualified for cost savings in the ≤10% dose reduction group. Significant differences between different monoclonal antibodies for dose rounding at either ≤5% (p = 0.002) or ≤10% (p < 0.001) were observed. Conclusion A practical dose down-rounding procedure may allow significant cost reduction in metastatic cancer setting, where the cure is not the goal. Drug waste can be avoided by convenient vial sizes or can even be eliminated by lyophilized forms like in trastuzumab. Our data reflect the monoclonal antibody use and potential cost savings with the proposed dose down-rounding approach in a community-based cancer program.

Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts to conduct a systematic review of the literature from April 2004 to June 2015. Outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological status, support systems, and symptom burden should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; favorable comorbidity profile) or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) -paclitaxel (adequate comorbidity profile) should be offered to patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available. Gemcitabine alone is recommended for patients with ECOG PS 2 or with a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens; the addition of capecitabine or erlotinib may be offered. Patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 3 and poorly controlled comorbid conditions should be offered cancer-directed therapy only on a case-by-case basis; supportive care should be emphasized. For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX, an ECOG PS 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or nanoliposomal irinotecan should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, ECOG PS 0 to 1, and favorable comorbidity profile, and gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label trial.

INTRODUCTION: A multicenter, open-label phase III study was conducted to test whether sunitinib plus paclitaxel prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer who were disease free for ≥ 12 months after adjuvant taxane treatment were randomized (1:1; planned enrollment 740 patients) to receive intravenous (I.V.) paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) every week for 3 weeks in 4-week cycles plus either sunitinib 25 to 37.5 mg every day or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks. [corrected] RESULTS: The trial was terminated early because of futility in reaching the primary endpoint as determined by the independent data monitoring committee during an interim futility analysis. At data cutoff, 242 patients had been randomized to sunitinib-paclitaxel and 243 patients to bevacizumab-paclitaxel. Median PFS was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (7.4 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-2.25]; 1-sided P = .999). At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, with 79% of sunitinib-paclitaxel and 87% of bevacizumab-paclitaxel patients alive, overall survival analysis favored bevacizumab-paclitaxel (HR 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]; 1-sided P = .996). The objective response rate was 32% in both arms, but median duration of response was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (6.3 vs. 14.8 months). Bevacizumab-paclitaxel was better tolerated than sunitinib-paclitaxel. This was primarily due to a high frequency of grade 3/4, treatment-related neutropenia with sunitinib-paclitaxel (52%) precluding delivery of the prescribed doses of both drugs. CONCLUSION: The sunitinib-paclitaxel regimen evaluated in this study was clinically inferior to the bevacizumab-paclitaxel regimen and is not a recommended treatment option for patients with advanced breast cancer.