Myelopreservation with the CDK4/6 inhibitor trilaciclib in patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy: a phase Ib/randomized phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced damage of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPC) causes multi-lineage myelosuppression. Trilaciclib is an intravenous CDK4/6 inhibitor in development to proactively preserve HSPC and immune system function during chemotherapy (myelopreservation). Preclinically, trilaciclib transiently maintains HSPC in G1 arrest and protects them from chemotherapy damage, leading to faster hematopoietic recovery and enhanced antitumor immunity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a phase Ib (open-label, dose-finding) and phase II (randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled) study of the safety, efficacy and PK of trilaciclib in combination with etoposide/carboplatin (E/P) therapy for treatment-naive extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer patients. Patients received trilaciclib or placebo before E/P on days 1-3 of each cycle. Select end points were prespecified to assess the effect of trilaciclib on myelosuppression and antitumor efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were enrolled, with 19 patients in part 1 and 75 patients in part 2 receiving study drug. Improvements were seen with trilaciclib in neutrophil, RBC (red blood cell) and lymphocyte measures. Safety on trilaciclib+E/P was improved with fewer ≥G3 adverse events (AEs) in trilaciclib (50%) versus placebo (83.8%), primarily due to less hematological toxicity. No trilaciclib-related ≥G3 AEs occurred. Antitumor efficacy assessment for trilaciclib versus placebo, respectively, showed: ORR (66.7% versus 56.8%, P = 0.3831); median PFS [6.2 versus 5.0 m; hazard ratio (HR) 0.71; P = 0.1695]; and OS (10.9 versus 10.6 m; HR 0.87; P = 0.6107). CONCLUSION: Trilaciclib demonstrated an improvement in the patient's tolerability of chemotherapy as shown by myelopreservation across multiple hematopoietic lineages resulting in fewer supportive care interventions and dose reductions, improved safety profile, and no detriment to antitumor efficacy. These data demonstrate strong proof-of-concept for trilaciclib's myelopreservation benefits. CLINICAL TRAIL NUMBER: NCT02499770.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus capecitabine plus docetaxel with planned crossover to the alternate single agent in metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus docetaxel (GD) and capecitabine plus docetaxel (CD) were compared in patients with metastatic breast cancer, where the alternate crossover monotherapy (GD→C or CD→G) was predetermined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to 3-week cycles of either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1. Upon progression, patients received crossover monotherapy. Primary end point was time to progression (TtP). Secondary end points evaluated overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Despite over-accrual of 475 patients, the trial matured with only 324 of 385 planned TtP events due to patient discontinuations. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was not captured in this study. More CD patients (28%) discontinued due to AEs than GD patients (18.0%, P = 0.009). TtP [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.101, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.885-1.370, P = 0.387] and OS (HR = 1.031, 95% CI 0.830-1.280, P = 0.785) were not significantly different comparing GD and CD. ORR was not statistically different (P = 0.239) comparing GD (72 of 207, 34.8%) and CD (78 of 191, 40.8%). TtP, OS, and ORR were not significantly different comparing crossover groups. GD caused greater fatigue, hepatotoxicity, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia but not febrile neutropenia; CD caused more hand-foot syndrome, gastrointestinal toxicity, and mucositis. CONCLUSIONS: GD and CD produced similar efficacy and toxicity profiles consistent with prior clinical experience.

Small-cell lung carcinoma: an analysis of 194 consecutive patients.

The treatment of small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) requires the careful combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. To understand the factors involved in the outcome of these patients, the authors undertook a study of patients treated for limited stage SCLC. The charts of 194 consecutive patients treated at our facilities between 1986 and 1994 were reviewed. All patients underwent thoracic radiation therapy (TRT), 50% received prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI), and all but one received chemotherapy. The probability of survival at 5 years was 14%, and the disease-free survival (DFS) was 17%. Patients receiving a combination of platinum and etoposide (PE) and Cytoxan (Bristol-Myers, Evansville, IN, U.S.A.), Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Dublin, OH, U.S.A.), and Vincristine (Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN, U.S.A.) (CAV) experienced a DFS at 3 years of 31%, versus 14% for CAV only and 18% for PE only (p = 0.004). In a multivariate survival analysis, only PCI (p = 0.001), having received PE and CAV (p = 0.01), and response to treatment (p = 0.001) were significant. Radiation dose and field size did not influence outcome. The combination of PE and CAV chemotherapy produced the best results in our series. Unanswered questions regarding the optimal TRT dose, field size, and timing of TRT await the results of ongoing randomized trials.

Discrimination learning decreases perceived similarity according to an objective measure.

UNLABELLED: Initial identification discriminations between two sizes and between two slants produced better overall performances on subsequent size and slant same-different discriminations, respectively. This size- and slant-specific transfer was due to an improvement on only the different pairs. Time-duration identification discriminations with the identical stimuli and response assignments improved neither overall same-different performances nor performances on different pairs. A good performance on different pairs relative to same pairs should indicate a low perceived similarity. The literature indicates that A-X and B-Y pairings produce a positive transfer on an A-versus-B discrimination when X and Y are relatively low in similarity, and also indicates that a low perceived (not physical) similarity improves discrimination learning. An increase in salience should have also improved performance on the same pairs. THE CONCLUSION: the initial discriminations decreased the perceived similarity of parts (size or slant). This decrease resembles perceptual contrast. A discrimination between two parts also seems to increase the extent to which each part is apprehended as a separate group. Therefore, the conclusion accords with the position that two groups are associated with contrast, including for visibility.