Phase 1 study of romidepsin plus erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies demonstrated anti-tumor efficacy of the combination of the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor romidepsin plus erlotinib in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) models that were insensitive to erlotinib monotherapy. We therefore studied this combination in a phase 1 clinical trial in previously treated advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Romidepsin (8 or 10mg/m(2)) was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days in combination with erlotinib (150 mg orally daily), with romidepsin monotherapy lead-in during Cycle 1. Correlative studies included peripheral blood mononuclear cell HDAC activity and histone acetylation status, and EGFR pathway activation status in skin biopsies. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients were enrolled. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-5). No cases had a sensitizing EGFR mutation. The most common related adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and fatigue (each 82%), diarrhea (65%), anorexia (53%), and rash (41%). Dose-limiting nausea and vomiting occurred at the romidepsin 10 mg/m(2) level despite aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment. Among 10 evaluable patients, the best response was stable disease (n=7) and progressive disease (n=3). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 months (range 1.4-16.5 months). Prolonged PFS (>6 months) was noted in a KRAS mutant adenocarcinoma and a squamous cell cancer previously progressed on erlotinib monotherapy. Romidepsin monotherapy inhibited HDAC activity, increased histone acetylation status, and inhibited EGFR phosphorylation. CONCLUSIONS: Romidepsin 8 mg/m(2) plus erlotinib appears well tolerated, has evidence of disease control, and exhibits effects on relevant molecular targets in an unselected advanced NSCLC population.

Temporal Trends and Predictors for Cancer Clinical Trial Availability for Medically Underserved Populations.

BACKGROUND: Lack of access to available cancer clinical trials has been cited as a key factor limiting trial accrual, particularly among medically underserved populations. We examined the trends and factors in clinical trial availability within a major U.S. safety-net hospital system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified cancer clinical trials activated at the Harold C. Simmons Cancer from 1991 to 2014 and recorded the characteristics of the trials that were and were not activated at the Parkland Health and Hospital System satellite site. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to determine the association between trial characteristics and nonactivation status, and chi-square analysis to determine the association between the trial characteristics and the reasons for nonactivation. RESULTS: A total of 773 trials were identified, of which 152 (20%) were not activated at Parkland. In multivariable analysis, nonactivation at Parkland was associated with trial year, sponsor, and phase. Compared with the 1991-2006 period, clinical trials in the 2007-2014 period were almost eightfold more likely not to be activated at Parkland. The most common reasons for nonactivation at Parkland were an inability to perform the study procedures (27%) and the startup costs (15%). CONCLUSION: Over time, in this single-center setting, a decreasing proportion of cancer clinical trials were available to underserved populations. Trial complexity and costs appeared to account for much of this trend. Efforts to overcome these barriers will be key to equitable access to clinical trials, efficient accrual, and the generalizability of the results. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite numerous calls to increase and diversify cancer clinical trial accrual, the present study found that cancer clinical trial activation rates in a safety-net setting for medically underserved populations have decreased substantially in recent years. The principal reasons for study nonactivation were expenses and an inability to perform the study-related procedures, reflecting the increasing costs and complexity of cancer clinical trials. Future efforts need to focus on strategies to mitigate the increasing disparity in access to clinical research and cutting-edge therapies, which also threatens to hinder study accrual, completion rates, and generalizability.