Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MAIA): overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival. METHODS: MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172. FINDINGS: Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7-59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8-not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6-39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·43-0·66]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (daratumumab group, 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group, 95% CI 55·7-not reached; HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·86]; p=0·0013). The most common (>15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 [54%] patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 [37%] patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 [19%] vs 39 [11%]), anaemia (61 [17%] vs 79 [22%]), and lymphopenia (60 [16%] vs 41 [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Detection of posture and mobility in individuals at risk of developing pressure ulcers.

Pressure mapping technologies provide the opportunity to estimate trends in posture and mobility over extended periods in individuals at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The aim of the study was to combine pressure monitoring with an automated algorithm to detect posture and mobility in a vulnerable population of Spinal Cord Injured (SCI) patients. Pressure data from able-bodied cohort studies involving prescribed lying and sitting postures were used to train the algorithm. This was tested with data from two SCI patients. Variations in the trends of the centre of pressure (COP) and contact area were assessed for detection of small- and large-scale postural movements. Intelligent data processing involving a deep learning algorithm, namely a convolutional neural network (CNN), was utilised for posture classification. COP signals revealed perturbations indicative of postural movements, which were automatically detected using individual- and movement-specific thresholds. CNN provided classification of static postures, with an accuracy ranging between 70-84% in the training cohort of able-bodied subjects. A clinical evaluation highlighted the potential of the novel algorithm to detect postural movements and classify postures in SCI patients. Combination of continuous pressure monitoring and intelligent algorithms offers the potential to objectively detect posture and mobility in vulnerable patients and inform clinical-decision making to provide personalized care.

A phase I/II study of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib in patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Final analysis of second dose-expansion cohort.

The maximum tolerated dose of the panobinostat and carfilzomib combination in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) was not reached in our previous dose-escalation study. We report additional dose levels in the phase I/II, single-arm, multicenter, standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation expansion-cohort study (NCT01496118). Patients with RRMM were treated with panobinostat 30 mg, carfilzomib 20/56 mg/m2 (N = 3), or panobinostat 20 mg, carfilzomib 20/56 mg/m2 (N = 33). Treatment cycles lasted 28 days; panobinostat: days 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, 19; carfilzomib: days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16. For dose level 6 (DL 6), median age was 63 years (range, 49-91 years), 60.6% were male, 42.4% were high risk. Patients received a median of two prior therapies (range 1-7); proteasome inhibitors (PI; 100%), immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiD; 78.8%), and stem cell transplant (36.4%); 48.5%, 51.1%, and 24.2% were refractory to prior PI or prior IMiD treatment or both, respectively. Patients completed a median of seven (range 1-40) treatment cycles. Overall response rate (primary endpoint) of evaluable patients in the expansion cohort (N = 32): 84.4%; clinical benefit rate: 90.6%. With a median follow-up of 26.1 months (range, 0-72.5 months), median (95% CI) progression-free survival, time-to-progression and overall survival of patients was 10.3 (6.1, 13.9), 11.7 (5.6, 14.5), and 44.6 (20.8, N/A) months, respectively. Common adverse events (AEs) included thrombocytopenia (78.8%), nausea (63.6%), fatigue (63.6%), diarrhea (51.5%), and vomiting (51.5%). Seven patients had serious treatment-related AEs. There was one treatment-related death. In conclusion, panobinostat plus carfilzomib is an effective steroid-sparing regimen for RRMM.

Daratumumab plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone for Untreated Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. We sought to determine whether the addition of daratumumab would significantly reduce the risk of disease progression or death in this population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 737 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Treatment was to continue until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable side effects. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 28.0 months, disease progression or death had occurred in 240 patients (97 of 368 patients [26.4%] in the daratumumab group and 143 of 369 patients [38.8%] in the control group). The estimated percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 30 months was 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0 to 75.4) in the daratumumab group and 55.6% (95% CI, 49.5 to 61.3) in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a complete response or better was 47.6% in the daratumumab group and 24.9% in the control group (P<0.001). A total of 24.2% of the patients in the daratumumab group, as compared with 7.3% of the patients in the control group, had results below the threshold for minimal residual disease (1 tumor cell per 105 white cells) (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (50.0% in the daratumumab group vs. 35.3% in the control group), anemia (11.8% vs. 19.7%), lymphopenia (15.1% vs. 10.7%), and pneumonia (13.7% vs. 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation, the risk of disease progression or death was significantly lower among those who received daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone. A higher incidence of neutropenia and pneumonia was observed in the daratumumab group. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MAIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02252172.).

Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with intermediate or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: phase 2 results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Guadecitabine is a next-generation hypomethylating agent whose active metabolite decitabine has a longer in-vivo exposure time than intravenous decitabine. More effective hypomethylating agents are needed for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes. In the present study, we aimed to compare the activity and safety of two doses of guadecitabine in hypomethylating agent treatment-naive or relapsed or refractory patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. METHODS: This phase 2 part of the phase 1/2, randomised, open-label study enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 14 North American medical centres with International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-1-risk, intermediate-2-risk, or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. They were either hypomethylating agent treatment-naive or had relapsed or refractory disease after previous hypomethylating agent treatment as determined by the investigators' judgment. Eligible patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer algorithm for dynamic randomisation to subcutaneous guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of a 28-day treatment cycle. Treatment was stratified by previous treatment with hypomethylating agents and neither patients nor investigators were masked. The primary endpoint was overall response (a composite of complete response, partial response, marrow complete response, and haematological improvement) assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01261312. FINDINGS: Between July 9, 2012, and April 7, 2014, 105 patients were enrolled: 55 (52%) were allocated to guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 (28 patients were treatment-naive and 27 had relapsed or refractory disease after previous hypomethylating agent treatment) and 50 (48%) patients to 90 mg/m2 (23 patients were treatment-naive and 27 had relapsed or refractory disease). Three (3%) patients of 105 did not receive study treatment and were excluded from analyses. Median follow-up was 3·2 years (IQR 2·8-3·5). The proportion of patients achieving an overall response did not significantly differ between dose groups (21 of 53 [40%, 95% CI 27-54] with 60 mg/m2 and 27 of 49 [55%, 95% CI 40-69] with 90 mg/m2; p=0·16). 25 of 49 (51%, 95% CI 36-66) patients who were treatment-naive and 23 of 53 (43%, 30-58) patients with relapsed or refractory disease achieved an overall response. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups, regardless of relationship to treatment, were thrombocytopenia (22 [41%] of 53 patients in the 60 mg/m2 group and 28 [57%] of 49 in the 90 mg/m2 group), neutropaenia (21 [40%] and 25 [51%]), anaemia (25 [47%] and 24 [49%]), febrile neutropaenia (17 [32%] and 21 [43%]), and pneumonia (13 [25%] and 15 [31%]). Seven (7%) of 102 patients died due to adverse events (three with 90 mg/m2 and four with 60 mg/m2), and all except one were in the relapsed or refractory cohort. Two deaths were deemed treatment related (septic shock with 60 mg/m2; pneumonia with 90 mg/m2). INTERPRETATION: Guadecitabine was clinically active with acceptable tolerability in patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Responses and overall survival in the relapsed or refractory cohort offer the potential of a new therapeutic option for patients for whom currently available hypomethylating agents are not successful. We therefore recommend guadecitabine at a dose of 60 mg/m2 on a 5-day schedule for these patients. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals and Stand Up To Cancer.

Phase II Study of Bendamustine and Ofatumumab in Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Who Are Poor Candidates for R-CHOP Chemotherapy.

LESSONS LEARNED: The combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma demonstrated modest efficacy compared with standard of care.The poor response may have been due to patient age and the high rate of treatment discontinuation. BACKGROUND: This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of bendamustine and ofatumumab in elderly patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were not candidates for rituximab cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). METHODS: Patients received IV 90 mg/m2 bendamustine on days 1 and 2 of cycles 1 through 6 and IV 1,000 mg ofatumumab on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6. Both drugs were administered at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved dose for combination therapy. All patients received premedications before each infusion of ofatumumab and hematopoietic growth factors. Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging after cycle 3 and cycle 6. The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CRR). RESULTS: Twelve of 21 enrolled patients completed treatment; median age was 83 years. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression (three patients), intercurrent illness (two patients), and death (one patient due to drug-related sepsis and bowel necrosis and one patient due to unknown cause). Thrombocytopenia (14%), neutropenia (10%), diarrhea (10%), vomiting (10%), and dehydration (10%) were the most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events. The overall response rate was 90.5% and the CRR was 33.3%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8.6 and 12.0 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine is feasible in elderly patients with DLBCL.

A Phase II Randomized Trial (GO27827) of First-Line FOLFOX Plus Bevacizumab with or Without the MET Inhibitor Onartuzumab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulated hepatocyte growth factor/mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling is associated with poor prognosis and resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report outcomes from a double-blind, multicenter phase II trial of the MET inhibitor onartuzumab in combination with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab for mCRC (GO27827; NCT01418222). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive onartuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) or placebo plus mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV). Oxaliplatin was given for 8-12 cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression-positive populations. RESULTS: Between September 2011 and November 2012, 194 patients were enrolled. In September 2013, an interim analysis recommended stopping onartuzumab treatment due to lack of efficacy. At the time of the final analysis in February 2014, no significant improvement in PFS was seen with onartuzumab versus placebo in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. An improvement in PFS was noted in the MET IHC-negative population. Neither overall survival nor response rate was improved with onartuzumab. The incidence of fatigue, peripheral edema, and deep vein thrombosis was increased with onartuzumab relative to placebo. CONCLUSION: Onartuzumab combined with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab did not significantly improve efficacy outcomes in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. MET expression by IHC was not a predictive biomarker in this setting. The Oncologist 2017;22:264-271 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The addition of onartuzumab to mFOLFOX-6 plus bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer in this randomized, phase II study. Although initial results with onartuzumab were promising, a number of phase II/III clinical trials have reported a lack of improvement in efficacy with onartuzumab combined with standard-of-care therapies in several tumor types. Furthermore, negative study data have been published for rilotumumab and ficlatuzumab, both of which block hepatocyte growth factor binding to the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) receptor. MET immunohistochemistry was not a predictive biomarker. It remains to be seen if other biomarkers or small molecule inhibitors may be more appropriate for inhibiting this oncogenic pathway.

A Randomized, Open-Label Phase 2 Study of the CXCR4 Inhibitor LY2510924 in Combination with Sunitinib Versus Sunitinib Alone in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC).

PURPOSE: The chemokine (C-X-C Motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) and its ligand, stromal-cell derived factor-1 (SDF-1), are frequently overexpressed in a variety of solid tumors, and are believed to play important roles in the regulation of organ-specific metastasis, tumor growth, invasion, and survival. In this randomized Phase 2 trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of LY2510924 (LY), a peptide antagonist of CXCR4, combined with sunitinib (SUN) in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive LY (20 mg SC daily) + SUN (50 mg PO daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off) or SUN alone. Response was assessed after two cycles; patients continued treatment until tumor progression or intolerable toxicity. The study was powered to detect a 47 % increase in median progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred eight patients were randomized and treated (LY + SUN, 72; SUN, 36); median duration of treatment of five cycles. Observed median PFS was 8.1 months with LY + SUN and 12.3 months with SUN; Bayesian time-to-event HR 1.23; 95 % credible interval: 0.74, 1.96. LY was well tolerated; the toxicity profile was typical of SUN. No efficacy differences were seen between treatments groups when subsets with high versus low levels of CXCR4 tumor expression were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of LY to SUN in the first-line treatment of metastatic RCC was well tolerated, but did not improve the PFS or overall survival (OS) vs. SUN alone. CXCR4 remains an unproven therapeutic target for the treatment of RCC. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01391130.

Phase I/II study of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after at least one prior treatment were eligible to participate. In the dose escalation part of the study a standard 3+3 design was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose of four planned dose levels of the combination of carfilzomib and panobinostat. Panobinostat was administered on days 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, and 19. Carfilzomib was administered on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of each 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until progression or intolerable toxicity. Forty-four patients were accrued into the trial, 13 in the phase I part and 31 in the phase II part of the study. The median age of the patients was 66 years and the median number of prior therapies was five. The expansion dose was established as 30 mg panobinostat, 20/45 mg/m(2) carfilzomib. The overall response rate was 67% for all patients, 67% for patients refractory to prior proteasome inhibitor treatment and 75% for patients refractory to prior immune modulating drug treatment. At a median follow up of 17 months, median progression-free survival was 7.7 months, median time to progression was 7.7 months, and median overall survival had not been reached. The regimen was well tolerated, although there were several panobinostat dose reductions. In conclusion, the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib is feasible and effective in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. (Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01496118).

Randomized phase II study of cetuximab and bevacizumab in combination with two regimens of paclitaxel and carboplatin in chemonaive patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a phase II study of dual-agent monoclonal antibody therapy consisting of cetuximab and bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer randomly received cetuximab (400 mg/m initially, 250 mg/m weekly thereafter) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) for six cycles combined with paclitaxel (200 mg/m) and carboplatin (area under the curve 6) for either six cycles (six-cycle arm) or the first three cycles (three-cycle arm) (one cycle = 3 weeks). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS), estimated separately for each treatment arm. RESULTS: In 121 patients, the median PFS was 6.05 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.65, 7.03) in the six-cycle arm and 4.50 months (95% CI: 4.01, 5.42) in the three-cycle arm. Respective median overall survival times were 12.06 months (95% CI: 9.40, 19.25) and 11.63 months (95% CI: 6.64, 17.61). The tumor response rate was 51.7% (95% CI: 39.0%, 64.3%) and 44.3% (95% CI: 31.8%, 56.7%) in the six-cycle and three-cycle arms, respectively, with corresponding median response durations of 4.86 months (95% CI: 4.30, 7.16) and 3.94 months (95% CI: 2.92, 4.47). Quality of life was consistent across arms. Cetuximab-related grade 3/4 events in greater than 5% of patients (six-cycle arm, three-cycle arm) were dermatitis acneiform (6.9%; 8.6%) and fatigue (13.8%; 5.2%). Three patients died during the study from drug-related adverse events (one in the six-cycle arm and two in the three-cycle arm). CONCLUSIONS: Both the regimens showed expected PFS and numerically comparable overall survival. Quality of life was similar in the two arms, and both the regimens were well tolerated.

Phase II study of 9-nitro-camptothecin in patients with advanced chordoma or soft tissue sarcoma.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this trial was to assess the objective clinical response, toxicity, and time to progression of treatment with 9-Nitro-Camptothecin (9-NC) in patients with advanced chordoma, soft tissue sarcoma (STS), and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic chordoma, STS, or GIST received 9-NC 1.25 mg/m2 orally for 5 consecutive days followed by 2 days of rest. Patients continued on therapy until disease progression, uncontrollable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. RESULTS: From January 2000 to May 2003, 51 patients (15 chordoma, 23 STS, 13 GIST patients) enrolled. One patient (7%) with chordoma and one patient (4%) with STS had an objective response. Median time to progression was 9.9, 8.0, and 8.3 weeks for chordoma, STS, and GIST patients, respectively. Three- and 6-month progression-free survival rates were 47% and 33% for chordoma patients, 26% and 22% for STS patients, and 31% and 23% for GIST patients, respectively. Ten patients (10%) stopped study drug before disease progression secondary to toxicity. Common adverse events included anemia (42 patients, seven with grade 3/4 toxicity), leukopenia (33 patients, nine with grade 3/4 toxicity), fatigue (30 patients, three with grade 3/4 toxicity), nausea (34 patients, six with grade 3/4 toxicity), and diarrhea (28 patients, five with grade 3/4 toxicity). CONCLUSION: 9-NC has modest activity in delaying progression in patients with unresectable or metastatic chordoma. 9-NC is associated with moderate toxicity and shows little benefit in patients with advanced STS and GIST.

Crossover randomized comparison of intravenous versus intravenous/oral mesna in soft tissue sarcoma treated with high-dose ifosfamide.

PURPOSE: We conducted our study to determine the pharmacokinetics (PK) and clinical efficacy of oral mesna in patients receiving ifosfamide for soft tissue sarcoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Seventeen patients were enrolled in a randomized prospective Phase I/II study. Seventeen patients were exposed to study medication. Ifosfamide was given at a dose of 2 g/m2/day for 5 days on a 21-day cycle. Before the first cycle, all patients were randomized onto a crossover design and received either the approved i.v. or i.v./oral mesna regimen, with crossover for the second cycle of chemotherapy. The i.v. mesna regimen consisted of dosings (20% ifosfamide dose) at 0, 4, and 8 h. The i.v./oral arm consisted of an i.v. mesna dosing (20% ifosfamide dose) at 0 h, followed by oral tablet dosing (40% ifosfamide dose) at 2 and 6 h. In-patient clinical monitoring and phlebotomy and urine sampling for mesna, dimesna, and ifosfamide PK were performed on all chemotherapy days. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were evaluable for PK and 17 for efficacy and toxicity. No significant differences were detected in the plasma PK of the concomitantly infused ifosfamide. Rates of hemorrhagic cystitis were similar across mesna schedules. Four of 10 evaluable patients demonstrated objective response. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our study, an i.v./oral mesna regimen is at least as uroprotective as the approved i.v. regimen. The i.v./oral regimen will improve patient tolerance and convenience, allow for a reduction in elective hospitalizations for ifosfamide chemotherapy, reduce the potential morbidity associated with inpatient administration of chemotherapy, and likely result in decreased costs of care.

Response of extraabdominal desmoid tumors to therapy with imatinib mesylate.

BACKGROUND: Desmoid tumor represents a rare monoclonal neoplasm arising from deep musculoaponeurotic structures and may occur sporadically or in association with the familial adenomatous polyposis and Gardner syndromes. Desmoid tumors do not appear to demonstrate metastatic potential; however, local infiltrative growth results in significant morbidity and potential mortality. Although the delineation of optimal therapy for desmoid tumors has been confounded by several factors, surgical resection with adjuvant radiotherapy for a positive surgical margin remains the standard approach. Responses have been demonstrated to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents, antiestrogen compounds, and a variety of other agents in small series. Imatinib mesylate appears to demonstrate inhibitory activity against multiple class 3 receptor tyrosine kinases, including platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR)-alpha and PDGFR-beta, as well as c-kit. METHODS: The authors performed immunohistochemical and qualitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis on nine desmoid tumor specimens that demonstrated consistent positivity for c-kit as well as PDGFR-alpha and PDGFR-beta. At the time of last follow-up, 2 patients had received therapy with imatinib mesylate at a dose of 400 mg twice daily. RESULTS: Both patients demonstrated ongoing radiographic and clinical responses with a duration of 9 months and 11 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imatinib mesylate has been reported to have activity against desmoid tumor, most likely because of c-kit and PDGFR receptor tyrosine kinase activity inhibition, and warrants further study. The relative novelty of this agent and the lack of long-term toxicity data should prompt its use only in the salvage setting in which established local and systemic approaches fail to control disease. In addition, the use of imatinib mesylate in the treatment of this neoplasm preferably should be in the context of a formal prospective clinical trial.