Sunitinib in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) with FLT-3 Amplification: Results from the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study.

BACKGROUND: TAPUR is a pragmatic, phase II basket study evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers harboring genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Sunitinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor of FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT-3), among other targets. Results from a cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with FLT-3 amplification treated with sunitinib are reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether patients with mCRC with FLT-3 amplification would be responsive to sunitinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor. METHODS: Eligible patients received a standard sunitinib dose of 50 mg orally for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Simon's two-stage design was used with the primary study endpoint of objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) at 16 weeks based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled from November 2016 to April 2018. All patients had mCRC with FLT-3 amplification. No ORs were observed. Although two patients had SD at 16 weeks, one died because of disease progression shortly thereafter and the cohort was closed. A single grade 3 adverse event of diarrhea was reported as possibly related to sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with sunitinib does not have clinical activity in patients with mCRC with FLT-3 amplification and should not be prescribed for off-label use. Other treatments should be considered for these patients, including treatments offered in clinical trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02693535 (26 February 2016).

Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Smoke-free Policy in Philadelphia Public Housing.

OBJECTIVES: Multi-unit housing environments remain significant sources of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, especially for vulnerable populations in subsidized housing. In Philadelphia, the largest US housing authority to implement smoke-free policies, we measured baseline resident smoking-related behaviors and attitudes, and longitudinal exposures to airborne nicotine, during policy development and implementation. METHODS: In 4 communities, we collected data in 2013, 2014, and 2016, before and after introduction of comprehensive smoke-free policies, interviewing persons in 172 households, and monitoring air-borne nicotine in non-smoking homes and public areas. Average nicotine level differences across years were estimated with multi-level models. RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of respondents smoked. Only 37% of households were smoke-free, with another 41% restricting smoking by area or time of day. The number of locations with detectable nicotine did not differ before and after policy implementation, with approximately 20% of non-smoking homes and 70%-80% of public areas having detectable nicotine. However, public area nicotine levels were lower in 2016, after policy implementation, than in 2013 and 2014 (-0.19 µg/m3, p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that initial policy implementation was associated with reduced SHS exposure in Philadelphia. As HUD strengthens smoke-free policies, SHS monitoring can be useful to educate stakeholders and build support for policy enforcement.