Oral minoxidil for late alopecia in cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Late alopecia, defined as incomplete hair regrowth > 6 months following cytotoxic chemotherapy or > 6 months from initiation of endocrine therapy, negatively impacts quality of life and may affect dose intensity of adjuvant therapy. This study investigates the effect of oral minoxidil in women with chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy-induced late alopecia. METHODS: The rate of clinical response was assessed by standardized photography and quantitated with trichoscopy. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen patients (mean age 57.8 ± 13.7) were included. The most common cancer diagnosis was breast, in 170 patients (79.1%). Alopecia developed after chemotherapy in 31 (14.4%) patients, endocrine monotherapy in 65 (30.1%) patients, and chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy in 120 (55.6%) patients. In 119 patients, standardized photography assessments were used to determine clinical change in alopecia after a median of 105 (IQR = 70) days on oral minoxidil and revealed improvement in 88 (74%) patients. Forty-two patients received quantitative trichoscopic assessments at baseline and at follow-up after a median of 91 (IQR = 126) days on oral minoxidil. Patients had clinically and statistically significant increases in frontal hair shaft density (from 124.2 hairs/cm2 at initial to 153.2 hairs/cm2 at follow-up assessment, p = 0.008) and occipital shaft density (from 100.3 hairs/cm2 at initial to 123.5 hairs/cm2 at follow-up assessment. p = 0.004). No patients discontinued oral minoxidil due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, oral minoxidil was well tolerated by patients and may benefit both frontal and occipital late alopecia in cancer survivors treated with cytotoxic and/or endocrine therapy by increasing hair shaft and follicle density.

Dermatologic adverse events related to the PI3Kα inhibitor alpelisib (BYL719) in patients with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Rash develops in approximately 50% of patients receiving alpelisib for breast cancer, often requiring dose modifications. Here, we describe the clinicopathologic, laboratory, and management characteristics of alpelisib-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs). METHODS: A single center-retrospective analysis was conducted. Data were abstracted from electronic medical records. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients (mean age 56 years, range 27-83) receiving alpelisib most frequently in combination with endocrine therapy (79, 77.5%) were included. We identified 41 (40.2%) patients with all-grade rash distributed primarily along the trunk (78%) and extremities (70%) that developed approximately within two weeks of treatment initiation (mean 12.8 ± 1.5 days) and lasted one-week (mean duration 7.1 ± 0.8 days). Of 29 patients with documented morphology of alpelisib-related dAEs, 26 (89.7%) had maculopapular rash. Histology showed perivascular and interface lymphocytic dermatitis. All-grade rash correlated with an increase in serum eosinophils from 2.7 to 4.4%, p < 0.05, and prophylaxis with non-sedating antihistamines (n = 43) was correlated with a reduction of grade 1/2 rash (OR 0.39, p = 0.09). Sixteen (84.2%) of 19 patients with grade 3 dAEs resulted in interruption of alpelisib, which were managed with antihistamines, topical and systemic corticosteroids. We did not observe rash recurrence in 12 (75%) patients who were re-challenged. CONCLUSIONS: A maculopapular rash associated with increased blood eosinophils occurs frequently with alpelisib. While grade 3 rash leads to alpelisib therapy interruption, dermatologic improvement is evident with systemic corticosteroids; and most patients can continue oncologic treatment at a maintained or reduced dose upon re-challenge with alpelisib.

Feasibility Assessment of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

Phase III Trial Evaluating Letrozole As First-Line Endocrine Therapy With or Without Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced-Stage Breast Cancer: CALGB 40503 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: To investigate whether anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy with bevacizumab prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) when added to first-line letrozole as treatment of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with hormone receptor-positive MBC were randomly assigned 1:1 in a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial of letrozole (2.5 mg orally per day) with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks) within strata defined by measurable disease and disease-free interval. This trial had 90% power to detect a 50% improvement in median PFS from 6 to 9 months. Using a one-sided α = .025, a target sample size of 352 patients was planned. RESULTS: From May 2008 to November 2011, 350 women were recruited; 343 received treatment and were observed for efficacy and safety. Median age was 58 years (range, 25 to 87 years). Sixty-two percent had measurable disease, and 45% had de novo MBC. At a median follow-up of 39 months, the addition of bevacizumab resulted in a significant reduction in the hazard of progression (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.96; P = .016) and a prolongation in median PFS from 15.6 months with letrozole to 20.2 months with letrozole plus bevacizumab. There was no significant difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.18; P = .188), with median overall survival of 43.9 months with letrozole versus 47.2 months with letrozole plus bevacizumab. The largest increases in incidence of grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicities with the addition of bevacizumab were hypertension (24% v 2%) and proteinuria (11% v 0%). CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to letrozole improved PFS in hormone receptor-positive MBC, but this benefit was associated with a markedly increased risk of grade 3 to 4 toxicities. Research on predictive markers will be required to clarify the role of bevacizumab in this setting.

A Pilot Study of Dose-Dense Paclitaxel With Trastuzumab and Lapatinib for Node-negative HER2-Overexpressed Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dual anti-HER2 therapy is effective for HER2-amplified breast cancer. Weekly paclitaxel, trastuzumab, and full-dose lapatinib (PTL) is not feasible because of grade 3 diarrhea. We conducted a phase II feasibility study of dose-dense (DD; every other week) PTL (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01827163). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had HER2-positive breast cancer, tumor size ≤ 3 cm, and negative nodes. Treatment included paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) × 4, every 2 weeks with pegfilgrastim), trastuzumab (4 mg/kg load and then 2 mg/kg weekly), and lapatinib (1000 mg daily). After paclitaxel × 4, trastuzumab (6 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus lapatinib were continued for 1 year. The primary endpoint was feasibility, defined as (1) > 80% of patients completing PTL without a dose delay or reduction, (2) grade 3 diarrhea rate < 20%, and (3) cardiac event rate < 4%. RESULTS: From May 2013 to November 2013, we enrolled 20 of 55 planned patients. The median age was 49 years (range, 34-74 years). One patient had immediate paclitaxel hypersensitivity and was deemed inevaluable. Only 13 of 19 evaluable patients (68%) completed PTL without a dose delay or reduction or unacceptable toxicities. Only 3 of 19 (16%) had grade 3 diarrhea. Rash was frequent, with all grades in 18 of 19 (95%) and grade 3 in 2 of 19 (11%). The study was stopped early because of excess toxicity. CONCLUSION: The discontinuation rate during DD PTL was high, owing, in part, to an unexpectedly high incidence of rash. The trial was halted, because the initial discontinuation rate from overall toxicity made it unlikely that full accrual would demonstrate feasibility.

Endocrine therapy with or without inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of fulvestrant with or without lapatinib for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer-CALGB 40302 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: CALGB 40302 sought to determine whether lapatinib would improve progression-free survival (PFS) among women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer treated with fulvestrant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible women had estrogen receptor-positive and/or progesterone receptor-positive tumors, regardless of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, and prior aromatase inhibitor treatment. Patients received fulvestrant 500 mg intramuscularly on day 1, followed by 250 mg on days 15 and 28 and every 4 weeks thereafter, and either lapatinib 1,500 mg or placebo daily. The study planned to accrue 324 patients and was powered for a 50% improvement in PFS with lapatinib from 5 to 7.5 months. RESULTS: At the third planned interim analysis, the futility boundary was crossed, and the data and safety monitoring board recommend study closure, having accrued 295 patients. At the final analysis, there was no difference in PFS (hazard ratio [HR] of placebo to lapatinib, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; P = .37); median PFS was 4.7 months for fulvestrant plus lapatinib versus 3.8 months for fulvestrant plus placebo. There was no difference in overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.21; P = .25). For HER2-normal tumors, median PFS did not differ by treatment arm (4.1 v 3.8 months). For HER2-positive tumors, lapatinib was associated with longer median PFS (5.9 v 3.3 months), but the differential treatment effect by HER2 status was not significant (P = .53). The most frequent toxicities were diarrhea, fatigue, and rash associated with lapatinib. CONCLUSION: Adding lapatinib to fulvestrant does not improve PFS or OS in advanced ER-positive breast cancer and is more toxic.

A phase II trial of erlotinib in combination with bevacizumab in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/HER1) and the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Thirty-eight patients with MBC were enrolled and treated at two institutions with erlotinib, a small molecule EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (150 mg p.o. daily) plus bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF antibody (15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks). Patients had one to two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease. The primary end point was response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria using a Simon 2-stage design. Secondary end points included toxicity, time to progression, response duration, and stabilization of disease of > or = 26 weeks. Correlative studies were done on tumor tissue, including EGFR expression and mutation analysis. RESULTS: One patient achieved a partial response for 52+ months. Fifteen patients had stable disease at first evaluation at 9 weeks; 4 of these patients had stable disease beyond 26 weeks. Median time to progression was 11 weeks (95% confidence interval, 8-18 weeks). Diarrhea of any grade was observed in 84% of patients (grade 3 in 3%); 76% experienced grade 1 or 2 skin rash, and 18% developed hypertension (grade 3 in 11%). The level of EGFR expression was not predictive of response to therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab was well-tolerated but had limited activity in unselected patients with previously treated MBC. Biomarkers are needed to identify those MBC patients likely to respond to anti-EGFR/HER1 plus anti-VEGF therapy.

A phase II trial of gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and taxane.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-agent gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Eligible patients were required to have bidimensionally measurable MBC that had been treated with 2-4 prior chemotherapy regimens that included an anthracycline and a taxane. Gemcitabine was delivered at a dose of 800 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle until evidence of disease progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled and included in the safety analysis; 18 patients were evaluable for response. The median age of patients was 54 years (range, 36-70 years). The mean number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease was 2.3, and the mean dose of gemcitabine delivered was 911 mg/m2 (range, 600-1600 mg/m2). RESULTS: Overall, gemcitabine was well tolerated with minimal grade 3 toxicities; the only grade 4 toxicity was 1 case of pulmonary embolus. Three patients had evidence of partial tumor regression (17%; 95% CI, 4%-41%), and 1 patient had a 41% decrease in tumor volume, including liver metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine is active and well tolerated as monotherapy given in heavily pretreated patients with MBC after anthracyclines and taxanes. The activity and safety reported in this trial are consistent with previous reports in similar patients.

High-dose chemotherapy in breast cancer.

High-dose chemotherapy is based on the scientific hypothesis that escalating the dose of drug will overcome drug resistance and improve outcome. Autologous bone marrow transplantation and, more recently, peripheral stem cell transplantation used as a means to restore marrow, made this a viable treatment for patients with selected tumours such as haematological malignancies. The role in breast cancer is less certain. Given the known as well as the potential toxicities, the objective of high-dose chemotherapy should be cure as opposed to palliation. However, the natural history of breast cancer can be protracted, with relapses occurring 15-20 years after treatment or within months of curative surgery. In breast cancer there is a positive correlation between recurrence-free and long-term survival. Therefore, the recurrence-free survival can be considered a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials. In patients with metastatic disease where cure is rare, at best, duration of a disease-free state may be a surrogate for overall benefit. Alternatively, time to progression may be another endpoint in the evaluation of treatment for metastatic disease. This is based on the assumption that quality of life is enhanced without progression of disease. Toxicity is the significant issue in the use of high-dose chemotherapy. The most common toxicity is myeloablation, potentially requiring prolonged hospitalisation. The only justification for these toxicities would be evidence of significant and meaningful benefit. A clinically relevant benefit with high-dose chemotherapy has not been seen in major randomised clinical trials of breast cancer in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting. In patients with advanced breast cancer, a small percentage may achieve long-term, disease-free survival, although there is no improvement in overall survival. Nonetheless, some investigators believe that high-dose chemotherapy holds promise, although currently this treatment is not recommended outside of a well designed prospective trial. These studies have provided useful information regarding cancer treatment. However, ongoing study of drug administration intervals, that is, dose-dense therapies, may lead to an approach that allows superior and less toxic treatment for breast cancer.

Aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: an update.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen has been the endocrine treatment of choice for patients with breast cancer. The development of selective aromatase inhibitors has offered an alternative management approach for patients in whom a hormonal approach is indicated. METHODS: The authors reviewed reports in which aromatase inhibitors were compared with tamoxifen for the treatment of metastatic disease, as well as information pertinent to their use as adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Both nonsteroidal (anastrozole and letrozole) and steroidal (exemestane) aromatase inhibitors for metastatic disease appear to provide superior efficacy and a better toxicity profile in first- and second-line treatment of metastatic disease than tamoxifen. Early results from the ATAC trial suggest anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen for disease-free survival, particularly in receptor-positive patients, and in reducing the incidence of contralateral breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Aromatase inhibitors have important roles in optimal management of postmenopausal patients with hormone-responsive metastases in both the adjuvant and advanced-disease settings.