Lasofoxifene versus fulvestrant for ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation: results from the randomized, phase II ELAINE 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Acquired estrogen receptor alpha (ER/ESR1) mutations commonly cause endocrine resistance in ER+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene, a novel selective ER modulator, stabilizes an antagonist conformation of wild-type and ESR1-mutated ER-ligand binding domains, and has antitumor activity in ESR1-mutated xenografts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, phase II, multicenter, ELAINE 1 study (NCT03781063), we randomized women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) mBC that had progressed on an aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) to oral lasofoxifene 5 mg daily or IM fulvestrant 500 mg (days 1, 15, and 29, and then every 4 weeks) until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients received lasofoxifene (n = 52) or fulvestrant (n = 51). The most current efficacy analysis showed that lasofoxifene did not significantly prolong median PFS compared with fulvestrant: 24.2 weeks (∼5.6 months) versus 16.2 weeks (∼3.7 months; P = 0.138); hazard ratio 0.699 (95% confidence interval 0.434-1.125). However, PFS and other clinical endpoints numerically favored lasofoxifene: clinical benefit rate (36.5% versus 21.6%; P = 0.117), objective response rate [13.2% (including a complete response in one lasofoxifene-treated patient) versus 2.9%; P = 0.124], and 6-month (53.4% versus 37.9%) and 12-month (30.7% versus 14.1%) PFS rates. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasofoxifene were nausea, fatigue, arthralgia, and hot flushes. One death occurred in the fulvestrant arm. Circulating tumor DNA ESR1 mutant allele fraction (MAF) decreased from baseline to week 8 in 82.9% of evaluable lasofoxifene-treated versus 61.5% of fulvestrant-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lasofoxifene demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity versus fulvestrant and was well tolerated in patients with ESR1-mutated, endocrine-resistant mBC following progression on AI plus CDK4/6i. Consistent with target engagement, lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, and to a greater extent than fulvestrant. Lasofoxifene may be a promising targeted treatment for patients with ESR1-mutated mBC and warrants further investigation.

A network approach to developing immuno-oncology combinations in Canada.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized care for many cancer indications, with considerable effort now being focused on increasing the rate, depth, and duration of patient response. One strategy is to combine immune strategies (for example, ctla-4 and PD-1/L1-directed agents) to harness additive or synergistic efficacy while minimizing toxicity. Despite encouraging results with such combinations in multiple tumour types, numerous clinical challenges remain, including a lack of biomarkers that reliably predict outcome, the emergence of therapeutic resistance, and optimal management of immune-related toxicities. Furthermore, the selection of ideal combinations from the myriad of immune, systemic, and locoregional therapies has yet to be determined. A longitudinal network-based approach could offer advantages in addressing those critical questions, including long-term follow-up of patients beyond individual trials. The molecular cancer registry Personalize My Treatment, managed by the Networks of Centres of Excellence nonprofit organization Exactis Innovation, is uniquely positioned to accelerate Canadian immuno-oncology (io) research efforts throughout its national network of cancer sites. To gain deeper insight into how a pan-Canadian network could advance research in io combinations, Exactis invited preeminent clinical and scientific advisors from across Canada to a roundtable event in November 2017. The present white paper captures the expert advice provided: leverage longitudinal patient data collection; facilitate network collaboration and assay harmonization; synergize with existing initiatives, networks, and biobanks; and develop an io combination trial based on Canadian discoveries.

How iMALDI can improve clinical diagnostics.

Protein mass spectrometry (MS) is an indispensable tool to detect molecular signatures that can be associated with cellular dysregulation and disease. Despite its huge success in the life sciences, where it has led to novel insights into disease mechanisms and the identification of potential protein biomarkers, protein MS is rarely used for clinical protein assays. While conventional matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) MS is not compatible with complex samples, liquid chromatography-MS (LC-MS)-based assays may be too complex and may lack the robustness and ease of automation required for routine use in the clinic. Therefore, clinical protein assays are dominated by immunohistochemistry and immunoassays which, however, often lack standardization and fully depend on antibody specificity. Immuno-MALDI (iMALDI) MS may overcome these hurdles by utilizing anti-peptide antibodies for the specific enrichment of targeted analytes and on-target detection of the captured analytes, thus combining the unique properties of MS for the unambiguous detection and quantitation of analytes with a workflow that can be fully automated. Here we discuss the requirements for clinical protein assays, the pitfalls of existing methods, how iMALDI has been successfully used to quantify endogenous peptides and proteins from clinical samples, as well as its potential as a powerful tool for companion diagnostics in the light of precision medicine.

Developing a model of a patient-group pathway to accessing cancer clinical trials in Canada.

Background: Colorectal Cancer Canada, in partnership with a Scientific Advisory Committee, is developing a Canadian Patient Group Pathway to Accessing Cancer Clinical Trials ("Pathway"). A central element of the Pathway is presented here-namely, a set of recommendations and tools aimed at each stakeholder group. Methods: A summary of the peer-reviewed and grey literature informed discussions at a meeting, held in June 2017, in which a cross-section of stakeholders reached consensus on the potential roles of patient groups in the cancer clinical trials process, barriers to accessing cancer clinical trials, best practice models for patient-group integration, and a process for developing the Pathway. Canadian recommendations and tools were subsequently developed by a small working group and reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Committee. Results: The major output of the consensus conference was agreement that the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (ctti) model, successfully applied in the United States, could be adapted to create a Canadian Pathway. Two main differences between the Canadian and American cancer clinical research environments were highlighted: the effects of global decision-making and systems of regulatory and funding approvals. The working group modified the ctti model to incorporate those aspects and to reflect Canadian stakeholder organizations and how they currently interact with patient groups. Conclusions: Developing and implementing a Canadian Pathway that incorporates the concepts of multi-stakeholder collaboration and the inclusion of patient groups as equal partners is expected to generate significant benefits for all stakeholders. The next steps to bring forward a proposed Pathway will involve engaging the broader cancer research community. Clinical trial sponsors will be encouraged to adopt a Charter recognizing the importance of including patient groups, and to support the training of patient groups through an independent body to ensure quality research partners. Integration of patient groups into the process of developing "real world" evidence will be advanced by a further consensus meeting being organized by Colorectal Cancer Canada for 6-7 November 2018.

Lung cancer care trajectory at a Canadian centre: an evaluation of how wait times affect clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer continues to be one of the most common cancers in Canada, with approximately 28,400 new cases diagnosed each year. Although timely care can contribute substantially to quality of life for patients, it remains unclear whether it also improves patient outcomes. In this work, we used a set of quality indicators that aim to describe the quality of care in lung cancer patients. We assessed adherence with existing guidelines for timeliness of lung cancer care and concordance with existing standards of treatment, and we examined the association between timeliness of care and lung cancer survival. METHODS: Patients with lung cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the Pulmonary Division Lung Cancer Registry at our centre. RESULTS: We demonstrated that the interdisciplinary pulmonary oncology service successfully treated most of its patients within the recommended wait times. However, there is still work to be done to decrease variation in wait time. Our results demonstrate a significant association between wait time and survival, supporting the need for clinicians to optimize the patient care trajectory. INTERPRETATION: It would be helpful for Canadian clinicians treating patients with lung cancer to have wait time guidelines for all treatment modalities, together with standard definitions for all time intervals. Any reductions in wait times should be balanced against the need for thorough investigation before initiating treatment. We believe that our unique model of care leads to an acceleration of diagnostic steps. Avoiding any delay associated with referral to a medical oncologist for treatment could be an acceptable strategy with respect to reducing wait time.

Retrospective analysis of the effect of CAPOX and mFOLFOX6 dose intensity on survival in colorectal patients in the adjuvant setting.

BACKGROUND: Despite lack of a true comparative study, the folfox (5-fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin) and capox (capecitabine-oxaliplatin) regimens are believed to be similar in their efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of stage iii colorectal cancer. However, that belief has been disputed, because real-life data suggest that the capox regimen is more toxic, leading to more frequent reductions in the delivered dose intensity-thus raising questions about the effect of dose intensity on clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective data review for two Canadian institutions, the Segal Cancer Centre and the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, considered patients diagnosed with stage iii colorectal cancer during 2006-2013. Primary endpoints were dose intensity and toxicity, with a secondary endpoint of disease-free survival. RESULTS: The study enrolled 180 eligible patients (80 at the Segal Cancer Centre, 100 at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre). Of those 180 patients, 75 received capox, and 105 received mfolfox6. In the capox group, a significant dose reduction was identified for capecitabine compared with 5-fluorouracil in mfolfox6 group (p = 0.0014). Similarly, a significant dose reduction was observed for oxaliplatin in mfolfox6 compared with oxaliplatin in capox (p = 0.0001). Compared with the patients receiving capox, those receiving mfolfox6 were twice as likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 1 cycle-length (p = 0.03855). Toxicity was more frequent in patients receiving mfolfox6 (nausea: 30% vs. 18%; diarrhea: 47% vs. 24%; peripheral sensory neuropathy: 32% vs. 3%). At a median follow-up of 40 months, preliminary data showed no difference in disease-free survival (p = 0.598). Pooled data from both institutions were also separately analyzed, and no significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of capox despite a lack of head-to-head randomized trial data.

Identification of performance indicators across a network of clinical cancer programs.

BACKGROUND: Cancer quality indicators have previously been described for a single tumour site or a single treatment modality, or according to distinct data sources. Our objective was to identify cancer quality indicators across all treatment modalities specific to breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer. METHODS: Candidate indicators for each tumour site were extracted from the relevant literature and rated in a modified Delphi approach by multidisciplinary groups of expert clinicians from 3 clinical cancer programs. All rating rounds were conducted by e-mail, except for one that was conducted as a face-to-face expert panel meeting, thus modifying the original Delphi technique. Four high-level indicators were chosen for immediate data collection. A list of confounding variables was also constructed in a separate literature review. RESULTS: A total of 156 candidate indicators were identified for breast cancer, 68 for colorectal cancer, 40 for lung cancer, and 43 for prostate cancer. Iterative rounds of ratings led to a final list of 20 evidence- and consensus-based indicators each for colorectal and lung cancer, and 19 each for breast and prostate cancer. Approximately 30 clinicians participated in the selection of the breast, lung, and prostate indicators; approximately 50 clinicians participated in the selection of the colorectal indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The modified Delphi approach that incorporates an in-person meeting of expert clinicians is an effective and efficient method for performance indicator selection and offers the added benefit of optimal clinician engagement. The finalized indicator lists for each tumour site, together with salient confounding variables, can be directly adopted (or adapted) for deployment within a performance improvement program.

Challenges in initiating and conducting personalized cancer therapy trials: perspectives from WINTHER, a Worldwide Innovative Network (WIN) Consortium trial.

Advances in 'omics' technology and targeted therapeutic molecules are together driving the incorporation of molecular-based diagnostics into the care of patients with cancer. There is an urgent need to assess the efficacy of therapy determined by molecular matching of patients with particular targeted therapies. WINTHER is a clinical trial that uses cutting edge genomic and transcriptomic assays to guide treatment decisions. Through the lens of this ambitious multinational trial (five countries, six sites) coordinated by the Worldwide Innovative Networking Consortium for personalized cancer therapy, we discovered key challenges in initiation and conduct of a prospective, omically driven study. To date, the time from study concept to activation has varied between 19 months at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus in France to 30 months at the Segal Cancer Center, McGill University (Canada). It took 3+ years to be able to activate US sites due to national regulatory hurdles. Access to medications proposed by the molecular analysis remains a major challenge, since their availability through active clinical trials is highly variable over time within sites and across the network. Rules regarding the off-label use of drugs, or drugs not yet approved at all in some countries, pose a further challenge, and many biopharmaceutical companies lack a simple internal mechanism to supply the drugs even if they wish to do so. These various obstacles should be addressed to test and then implement precision medicine in cancer.

Bevacizumab-based therapy for colorectal cancer: experience from a large Canadian cohort at the Jewish General Hospital between 2004 and 2009.

BACKGROUND: Before its regulatory approval in Canada, bevacizumab to treat patients with colorectal cancer (crc) was accessed through the Bevacizumab Expanded Access Trial and a special-access program at the Jewish General Hospital. We retrospectively evaluated patient outcomes in that large cohort. METHODS: All patients (n = 196) had metastatic crc, were bevacizumab-naïve, and received bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy at the Jewish General Hospital between 2004 and 2009. We collected patient demographics and clinical characteristics; relevant medical history, disease stage and tumour pathology at diagnosis; type, duration, and line of therapy; grades 3 and 4 adverse events (aes), time to disease progression (ttp), and overall survival (os) from diagnosis. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 36.0 months. Median ttp was 8.0 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 7.0 to 9.0 months). Median os was 41.0 months (95% ci: 36.0 to 47.0 months). Of the 40 grades 3 and 4 bevacizumab-related aes experienced by 38 patients (19.4%), the most common were thrombocytopenia (n = 17), deep-vein thrombosis (n = 6), pulmonary embolism (n = 4), and hypertension (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: In an expanded access setting, our data reflect the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab-based therapy in the controlled post-registration clinical trial setting.

Benefits, issues, and recommendations for personalized medicine in oncology in Canada.

The burden of cancer for Canadian citizens and society is large. New technologies have the potential to increase the use of genetic information in clinical decision-making, furthering prevention, surveillance, and safer, more effective drug therapies for cancer patients. Personalized medicine can have different meanings to different people. The context for personalized medicine in the present paper is genetic testing, which offers the promise of refining treatment decisions for those diagnosed with chronic and life-threatening illnesses. Personalized medicine and genetic characterization of tumours can also give direction to the development of novel drugs. Genetic testing will increasingly become an essential part of clinical decision-making. In Canada, provinces are responsible for health care, and most have unique policies and programs in place to address cancer control. The result is inconsistency in access to and delivery of therapies and other interventions, beyond the differences expected because of demographic factors and clinical education. Inconsistencies arising from differences in resources, policy, and application of evidence-informed personalized cancer medicine exacerbate patient access to appropriate testing and quality care. Geographic variations in cancer incidence and mortality rates in Canada-with the Atlantic provinces and Quebec having higher rates, and British Columbia having the lowest rates-are well documented. Our purpose here is to provide an understanding of current and future applications of personalized medicine in oncology, to highlight the benefits of personalized medicine for patients, and to describe issues and opportunities for improvement in the coordination of personalized medicine in Canada. Efficient and more rapid adoption of personalized medicine in oncology in Canada could help overcome those issues and improve cancer prevention and care. That task might benefit from the creation of a National Genetics Advisory Panel that would review research and provide recommendations on tests for funding or reimbursement, guidelines, service delivery models, laboratory quality assurance, education, and communication. More has to be known about the current state of personalized cancer medicine in Canada, and strategies have to be developed to inform and improve understanding and appropriate coordination and delivery. Our hope is that the perspectives emphasized in this paper will stimulate discussion and further research to create a more informed response.

A real-life experience using panitumumab in chemo-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a retrospective analysis at the Jewish General Hospital, 2009-2012.

BACKGROUND: Panitumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody, directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor, that was shown to be effective in third-line metastatic colorectal cancer. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with chemo-refractory non-KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, who received panitumumab at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Canada, between 2009 and 2012. METHODS: This chart review included 44 patients (median age: 60 years; performance status: 0-3), of whom 50% had already received three lines of treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (pfs). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and safety. Tumour progression was determined by radiologic assessments performed once every 3 months per clinical guidelines or by clinical deterioration as determined by the clinician-investigator. RESULTS: In our sample, median pfs was 21.86 ± 5.23 weeks (95% confidence interval: 12.9 to 36.9 weeks) and overall survival was 35.14 ± 7.75 weeks (95% confidence interval: 25.6 to 73.4 weeks) with a median of 5 cycles of panitumumab treatment. The most frequently reported toxicities with panitumumab were skin toxicity (16.2% grade 3) and hypomagnesemia (10.8% grade 3). No infusion reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a small sample size from a single institution, our survival and efficacy data are encouraging and comparable to results obtained from the registration panitumumab trial. Our findings suggest that panitumumab can be effective and tolerable in a real-world setting.

The Peter Brojde lung cancer centre: a model of integrative practice.

BACKGROUND: The generally poor prognosis and poor quality of life for lung cancer patients have highlighted the need for a conceptual model of integrative practice. Although the philosophy of integrative oncology is well described, conceptual models that could guide the implementation and scientific evaluation of integrative practice are lacking. PURPOSE: The present paper describes a conceptual model of integrative practice in which the philosophical underpinnings derive mainly from integrative oncology, with important contributions from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and the discipline of nursing. The conceptual model is described in terms of its purpose, values, concepts, dynamic components, scientific evidence, clinical approach, and theoretical underpinnings. The model argues that these components delineate the initial scope and orientation of integrative practice. They serve as the needed context for evaluating and interpreting the effectiveness of clinical interventions in enhancing patient outcomes in lung cancer at various phases of the illness. Furthermore, the development of relevant and effective integrative clinical interventions requires new research methods based on whole-systems research. An initial focus would be the identification of interrelationship patterns among variables that influence clinical interventions and their targeted patient outcomes.

Quality of life during the course of cancer treatment in older newly diagnosed patients. Results of a prospective pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective study was to report the quality of life (QoL) of older cancer patients during the first year after diagnosis and factors influencing QoL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients aged ≥65 years were recruited for a pilot prospective cohort study at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada. Participants were interviewed at baseline, and at 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6, and 12 months. QoL was assessed at each interview using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire with 30 items. Logistic regression was conducted to determine which sociodemographic, health, and functional status characteristics were associated with decline in global health status/QoL between baseline and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: There were 112 participants at baseline (response rate 72%), median age of 74.1, and 70% were women. Between baseline and 12-month follow-up (n=78), 18 participants (23.1%) declined ≥10 points in global health status/QoL, while 34 participants (43.6%) remained stable and 23 participants (33.3%) improved ≥10 points. None of the sociodemographic, health, and functional status variables were associated with decline in logistic regression analyses. CONCLUSION: Almost 25% of older adults experienced clinically relevant decline in their QoL. Further research is needed on which factors influence decline in QoL in older adults.

Anthracycline cardiotoxicity in the elderly cancer patient: a SIOG expert position paper.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities and risk factors likely to complicate treatment are common in elderly cancer patients. Anthracyclines remain the cornerstone of first-line therapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and metastatic and early breast cancer but can cause congestive heart failure. Elderly patients are at increased risk of this event and measures to reduce it should be considered. METHODS: A committee of experts in breast cancer and NHL met under the auspices of the International Society for Geriatric Oncology to review the literature and make recommendations, based on level of evidence, for the assessment, treatment and monitoring of elderly patients requiring anthracyclines. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Use of anthracycline-based chemotherapy illustrates many of the dilemmas facing elderly cancer patients. Age in itself should not prevent access to potentially curative treatment or treatment that prolongs life or improves its quality. The risk of cardiotoxicity with conventional anthracyclines is increased by the following factors: an existing or history of heart failure or cardiac dysfunction; hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease; older age (independent of comorbidities and performance status); prior treatment with anthracyclines; higher cumulative dose of anthracyclines and short infusion duration. The fact that cumulative and irreversible cardiotoxicity is likely to be greater in this population than among younger patients calls for effective pretreatment screening for risk factors, rigorous monitoring of cardiac function and early intervention. Use of liposomal anthracycline formulations, prolonging the infusion time for conventional anthracyclines and cardioprotective measures should be considered. However, when treatment is being given with curative intent, care should be taken to ensure reduced cardiotoxicity is not achieved at the expense of efficacy.

Does frailty predict hospitalization, emergency department visits, and visits to the general practitioner in older newly-diagnosed cancer patients? Results of a prospective pilot study.

Research on the use of health care by older newly-diagnosed cancer patients is sparse. We investigated whether frailty predicts hospitalization, emergency department (ED) and general practitioner (GP) visits in older cancer patients in a prospective pilot study. Newly-diagnosed cancer patients aged 65 years and over were recruited in the Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada. One hundred ten patients participated, mean age 74.1, 70% women. During 1 year follow-up, 52 patients (47.3%) had cancer-related hospitalizations, 23 patients (20.9%) had ED visit and 17 patients (15.5%) had GP visit. No frailty marker predicted hospitalization or visits to the GP. Cognitive impairment suspicion was the only frailty marker that predicted ED visits (odds ratio 4.97; 95%CI 1.14-21.69). Although health care use was considerable in this sample, most frailty markers were not associated with health care use in this pilot study.

Clinical experience of cancer specialists and geriatricians involved in cancer care of older patients: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is an important health problem in older persons. The aim of this study was to explore how cancer specialists and geriatricians manage the treatment of older patients with cancer. METHODS: Interviews using semi-structured open-ended questions. SAMPLE: physicians working in oncology and geriatric medicine at McGill affiliated hospitals. ANALYSIS: Grounded-theory approach. RESULTS: 24 cancer specialists and 17 geriatricians participated. There was considerable variability with regard to assessment, treatment plan, and follow-up care and little collaboration between both specialists. The cancer specialists have more older cancer patients in their practice and collaborate with geriatricians mostly to deal with complications of cancer treatment. However, both groups of specialists expressed a desire to collaborate more and had similar research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variability in the management of older patients with cancer. Care for older patients with cancer might be improved by more collaboration between cancer specialists and geriatricians.

The McGill University department of oncology: structure depicts the shape of evolving knowledge.

The McGill University Department of Oncology has changed and expanded since its inception in 1990, responding to the move to interdisciplinary clinical care, teaching, and research. Although the traditional Divisions have been maintained to correspond to University and Royal College interfaces, the department has steadily been generating a variety of cross-departmental and interdisciplinary programs in which new insights into clinical care and biology are being generated. In research areas ranging from psychosocial and fundamental to translational and clinical therapeutics, interdisciplinarity and an emphasis on clinician-scientists are critical features.

Phase II study of troxacitabine (BCH-4556) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Troxacitabine. a promising new L-nucleoside, inhibits DNA polymerase and leads to complete DNA chain termination. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC-CTG) conducted a phase II study to assess the efficacy and toxicity of troxacitabine in untreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previously untreated patients were eligible if they had inoperable stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, ECOG PS < or = 2, adequate hematology and biochemistry, and at least one bidimensionally measurable lesion. Patients with prior malignancy or brain metastases were excluded. Troxacitabine (10 mg/m(2)) was administered intravenously over 30 minutes every 3 weeks. Between June 1999 and May 2000, 17 eligible patients received treatment. Patient characteristics included: median age 64 years; female 41%; stage IV (94%); PS 0 (12%), 1 (59%), and 2 (29 %), 3 or more disease sites (59%). In 17 patients, there were 8 stable disease, 9 disease progression, and no objective responses. Median duration of stable disease was 3.6 months (range = 2.0-7.1). A total of 56 cycles were administered (median = 3), and 88% of patients received 90% or more of the planned dose intensity. The majority (82%) of patients experienced skin rash. Hematologic and biochemical toxicities, grade 3/4 (%) were: granulocytopenia (41), anemia (12), thrombocytopenia (6), and hyperglycemia (6). Troxacitabine appears to have little activity in NSCLC in the dose and schedule tested.

A phase I study of oral ZD 1839 given daily in patients with solid tumors: IND.122, a study of the Investigational New Drug Program of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: To define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the dose limiting toxicity (DLT), the biological active (BA) dose and the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZD1839 (Iressa) when administered continuously as a once daily dose in patients with advanced, incurable solid tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in cohorts of three from three National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) centers. ZD1839 was given at doses from 150 to 800 mg daily orally and patients underwent a pretreatment and a 28 day post treatment tumor biopsy, while PK sampling was performed on days 8, 15, 22, 29, and a toxicity assessment every 28 days. RESULTS: All twenty-eight patients were evaluable for non-hematological and hematological toxicity. Twenty-seven were evaluable for response. The MTD was not reached but DLT included reversible rash and diarrhea. One patient with urachal cancer had a transient 55% decrease in tumor size and two other patients (breast and non-small cell lung cancer) had minor responses; three additional patients had pharmacodynamic evidence of target effect. PK demonstrated steady state within the first 2 weeks of dosing and dose dependent exposure. CONCLUSION: It appears that ZD 1839 at a dose of 800 m/day was tolerable, although some patients required dose modification for diarrhea. Doses above 250 m/day demonstrate biologic activity and could be consider for future study in a variety of EGFR positive tumor types.

Phase II study of troxacitabine in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced cancer of the pancreas: gastrointestinal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Troxacitabine (Troxatyl) is a novel L-enantiomer nucleoside analog with activity in pancreatic cancer xenograft models. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Troxacitabine 1.5 mg/m(2) was administered by 30-min infusions daily x5 every 4 weeks to 54 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients were evaluated for objective tumor response, time to tumor progression (TTP), changes in tumor marker CA 19-9, survival, safety, pain, analgesic consumption, Karnofsky performance status and weight change. RESULTS: Median TTP was 3.5 months (95% CI 2.0-3.8), median survival 5.6 months (95% CI 4.9-7.4), and the 1 year survival rate 19%. Best responses were stable disease in 24 patients with eight patients having stable disease for at least 6 months (15%). A 50% or greater decrease in CA 19-9 was seen in seven of 44 assessed patients (16%). Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia were observed in 37% and 30% of patients with one episode of febrile neutropenia. The most common drug-related non-hematological toxic effects reported were cutaneous, with 22% and 6% of patients reporting grade 2 and 3 skin rash, respectively and 4% grade 2 hand-foot syndrome. CONCLUSION: Troxacitabine administered by a bolus daily x5 monthly regimen has modest activity in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.