Response to Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in a Patient With an Uncommon Activating BRAF Mutation: A First in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Mutations in BRAF are present in 4% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), of which half are well-characterized activating variants affecting codon 600 (classified as class I). These mutations, most commonly BRAF V600E, have been associated with response to BRAF/MEK-directed small molecule kinase inhibitors. NSCLC with kinase-activating BRAF mutations occurring at other codons (class II variants) represent a substantial portion of BRAF-mutated NSCLC, but use of targeted therapy in these tumors is still under investigation. Class II mutations have been described in other tumor types and have been associated with response to BRAF/MEK-targeted agents, although optimal treatment strategies for these patients are lacking. This report presents a case of a woman with metastatic NSCLC harboring a class II BRAF p.N486_P490del variant who had a sustained clinical response to combination therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib. This first report of the use of BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy for this variant in NSCLC supports consideration of such treatment for tumors with class II BRAF variants.

Neoadjuvant irinotecan, cisplatin, and concurrent radiation therapy with celecoxib for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who are treated with trimodality therapy have a high recurrence rate. Preclinical evidence suggests that inhibition of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2) increases the effectiveness of chemoradiation, and observational studies in humans suggest that COX-2 inhibition may reduce esophageal cancer risk. This trial tested the safety and efficacy of combining a COX2 inhibitor, celecoxib, with neoadjuvant irinotecan/cisplatin chemoradiation. METHODS: This single arm phase 2 trial combined irinotecan, cisplatin, and celecoxib with concurrent radiation therapy. Patients with stage IIA-IVA esophageal cancer received weekly cisplatin 30 mg/m(2) plus irinotecan 65 mg/m(2) on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 concurrently with 5040 cGy of radiation therapy. Celecoxib 400 mg was taken orally twice daily during chemoradiation, up to 1 week before surgery, and for 6 months following surgery. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled with stage IIa (30 %), stage IIb (20 %), stage III (22.5 %), and stage IVA (27.5 %) esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (AJCC, 5th Edition). During chemoradiation, grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicity included dysphagia (20 %), anorexia (17.5 %), dehydration (17.5 %), nausea (15 %), neutropenia (12.5 %), diarrhea (10 %), fatigue (7.5 %), and febrile neutropenia (7.5 %). The pathological complete response rate was 32.5 %. The median progression free survival was 15.7 months and the median overall survival was 34.7 months. 15 % (n = 6) of patients treated on this study developed brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of celecoxib to neoadjuvant cisplatin-irinotecan chemoradiation was tolerable; however, overall survival appeared comparable to prior studies using neoadjuvant cisplatin-irinotecan chemoradiation alone. Further studies adding celecoxib to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer are not warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00137852 , registered August 29, 2005.

Potential of 18F-FDG PET toward personalized radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in lung cancer.

PURPOSE: We investigated the metabolic response of lung cancer to radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy by (18)F-FDG PET and its utility in guiding timely supplementary therapy. METHODS: Glucose metabolic rate (MRglc) was measured in primary lung cancers during the 3 weeks before, and 10-12 days (S2), 3 months (S3), 6 months (S4), and 12 months (S5) after radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. The association between the lowest residual MRglc representing the maximum metabolic response (MRglc-MMR) and tumor control probability (TCP) at 12 months was modeled using logistic regression. RESULTS: We accrued 106 patients, of whom 61 completed the serial (18)F-FDG PET scans. The median values of MRglc at S2, S3 and S4 determined using a simplified kinetic method (SKM) were, respectively, 0.05, 0.06 and 0.07 µmol/min/g for tumors with local control and 0.12, 0.16 and 0.19 µmol/min/g for tumors with local failure, and the maximum standard uptake values (SUVmax) were 1.16, 1.33 and 1.45 for tumors with local control and 2.74, 2.74 and 4.07 for tumors with local failure (p < 0.0001). MRglc-MMR was realized at S2 (MRglc-S2) and the values corresponding to TCP 95 %, 90 % and 50 % were 0.036, 0.050 and 0.134 µmol/min/g using the SKM and 0.70, 0.91 and 1.95 using SUVmax, respectively. Probability cut-off values were generated for a given level of MRglc-S2 based on its predicted TCP, sensitivity and specificity, and MRglc ≤0.071 µmol/min/g and SUVmax ≤1.45 were determined as the optimum cut-off values for predicted TCP 80 %, sensitivity 100 % and specificity 63 %. CONCLUSION: The cut-off values (MRglc ≤0.071 µmol/min/g using the SKM and SUVmax ≤1.45) need to be tested for their utility in identifying patients with a high risk of residual cancer after standard dose radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy and in guiding a timely supplementary dose of radiation or other means of salvage therapy.

Phase 1-2a multicenter dose-ranging study of canfosfamide in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of canfosfamide in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: This was a phase 1-2a, multicenter, dose-ranging trial that enrolled patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer with measurable disease. Patients received canfosfamide in doses ranging from 400 to 1000 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) with carboplatin at area under the curve 6 IV and paclitaxel at 200 mg/m2 IV day 1 every 3 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate, and the secondary endpoints were safety and progression-free survival. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients were treated with canfosfamide at dose levels of 400 (n = 3), 500 (n = 51), 750 (n = 54), and 1000 mg/m2 (n = 21). Objective tumor responses by RECIST were observed in 40 patients [34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 26-44)], the median progression-free survival was 4.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-5.2) and the median survival 9.9 months (95% CI, 7.7-11.9). The percent of patients alive at 1 year was 43.1%. The overall safety profile of the combination was acceptable and consistent with the profiles of the individual agents. In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving the optional maintenance canfosfamide therapy had a prolonged median survival of 16.8 months compared with those eligible for but not receiving maintenance therapy at 8.8 months (hazard ratio = 0.38, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of canfosfamide with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy is well tolerated and active. Maintenance canfosfamide may further improve outcomes. This regimen is worthy of additional study.

Phase III study of immediate compared with delayed docetaxel after front-line therapy with gemcitabine plus carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) is active as front-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). For patients without progression, timing of second-line chemotherapy for optimum clinical benefit remains uncertain. This phase III, randomized trial assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel administered either immediately after GC or at disease progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The chemotherapy-naïve patients enrolled had either stage IIIB NSCLC with pleural effusion or stage IV NSCLC. Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) was administered on days 1 and 8 followed by carboplatin (area under the curve = 5) on day 1. After four 21-day cycles, patients who did not have progression were randomly assigned either to an immediate docetaxel group (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days, with maximum of six cycles) or to a delayed docetaxel group. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) measured from random assignment. Additional analyses included tumor response, toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Enrollment totaled 566 patients; 398 patients completed GC; 309 patients were randomly assigned equally to the two docetaxel treatment groups. Toxicity profiles were generally comparable for the docetaxel groups. Median PFS for immediate docetaxel (5.7 months) was significantly greater (P = .0001) than for delayed docetaxel (2.7 months). Median OS for immediate docetaxel (12.3 months) was greater than for delayed docetaxel (9.7 months), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .0853). QOL results were not statistically different (P = .76) between docetaxel groups. CONCLUSION: We observed a statistically significant improvement in PFS and a nonstatistically significant increase in OS when docetaxel was administered immediately after front-line GC, without increasing toxicity or decreasing QOL.