Phase III Prospectively Randomized Trial of Perioperative 5-FU After Curative Resection for Colon Cancer: An Intergroup Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1292).

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy should be initiated at the earliest possible time. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Intergroup evaluated the effect of perioperative fluorouracil (5-FU) on overall survival (OS) for colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase III trial randomized patients to receive continuous infusional 5-FU for 7 days starting within 24 h after curative resection (arm A) or no perioperative 5-FU (arm B). Patients with Dukes' B3 and C disease received adjuvant chemotherapy per standard of care. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival in patients with Dukes' B3 and C disease. The secondary objective was to determine whether a week of perioperative infusion would affect survival in patients with Dukes' B2 colon cancer with no additional chemotherapy. RESULTS: From August 1993 to May 2000, 859 patients were enrolled and 855 randomized (arm A: 427; arm B: 428). The trial was terminated early due to slow accrual. The median follow-up is 15.4 years (0.03-20.3 years). Among patients with Dukes' B3 and C disease, there was no statistically significant difference in OS [median 10.3 years (95% CI 8.4, 13.2) for perioperative chemotherapy and 9.3 years (95% CI 5.7, 12.3) for no perioperative therapy, one-sided log-rank p = 0.178, HR = 0.88 (95% CI 0.66, 1.16)] or disease-free survival (DFS). For patients with Dukes' B2 disease, there was also no significant difference in OS (median 16.1 versus 12.9 years) or DFS. There was no difference between treatment arms in operative complications. One week of continuous infusion of 5-FU was tolerable; 18% of arm A patients experienced grade 3 or greater toxicity.

A Coala-T-Cannabis Survey Study of breast cancer patients' use of cannabis before, during, and after treatment.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to characterize cannabis use among patients with breast cancer, including their reasons for and timing of use, their sources of cannabis information and products, their satisfaction with the information found, their perceptions of its safety, and their dialogue about cannabis with their physicians. METHODS: United States-based members of the Breastcancer.org and Healthline.com communities with a self-reported diagnosis of breast cancer within 5 years (age ≥ 18 years) were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. After informed consent was obtained, nonidentifiable data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Of all participants (n = 612), 42% (n = 257) reported using cannabis for relief of symptoms, which included pain (78%), insomnia (70%), anxiety (57%), stress (51%), and nausea/vomiting (46%). Furthermore, 49% of cannabis users believed that medical cannabis could be used to treat cancer itself. Of those taking cannabis, 79% had used it during treatment, which included systemic therapies, radiation, and surgery. At the same time, few (39%) had discussed it with any of their physicians. CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of survey participants (42%) used cannabis to address symptoms; approximately half of these participants believed that cannabis could treat cancer itself. Most participants used cannabis during active cancer treatment despite the potential for an adverse event during this vulnerable time. Furthermore, most participants believed that cannabis was safe and were unaware that product quality varied widely and depended on the source. This study reviews the research on medicinal cannabis in the setting of these findings to help physicians to recognize its risks and benefits for patients with cancer. LAY SUMMARY: Almost half of patients with breast cancer use cannabis, most commonly during active treatment to manage common symptoms and side effects: pain, anxiety, insomnia, and nausea. However, most patients do not discuss cannabis use with their physicians. Instead, the internet and family/friends are the most common sources of cannabis information. Furthermore, most participants believe that cannabis products are safe and are unaware that the safety of many products is untested.

Indoximod: An Immunometabolic Adjuvant That Empowers T Cell Activity in Cancer.

Exploding interest in immunometabolism as a source of new cancer therapeutics has been driven in large part by studies of tryptophan catabolism mediated by IDO/TDO enzymes. A chief focus in the field is IDO1, a pro-inflammatory modifier that is widely overexpressed in cancers where it blunts immunosurveillance and enables neovascularization and metastasis. The simple racemic compound 1-methyl-D,L-tryptophan (1MT) is an extensively used probe of IDO/TDO pathways that exerts a variety of complex inhibitory effects. The L isomer of 1MT is a weak substrate for IDO1 and is ascribed the weak inhibitory activity of the racemate on the enzyme. In contrast, the D isomer neither binds nor inhibits the purified IDO1 enzyme. However, clinical development focused on D-1MT (now termed indoximod) due to preclinical cues of its greater anticancer activity and its distinct mechanisms of action. In contrast to direct enzymatic inhibitors of IDO1, indoximod acts downstream of IDO1 to stimulate mTORC1, a convergent effector signaling molecule for all IDO/TDO enzymes, thus possibly lowering risks of drug resistance by IDO1 bypass. In this review, we survey the unique biological and mechanistic features of indoximod as an IDO/TDO pathway inhibitor, including recent clinical findings of its ability to safely enhance various types of cancer therapy, including chemotherapy, chemo-radiotherapy, vaccines, and immune checkpoint therapy. We also review the potential advantages indoximod offers compared to selective IDO1-specific blockade, which preclinical studies and the clinical study ECHO-301 suggest may be bypassed readily by tumors. Indoximod lies at a leading edge of broad-spectrum immunometabolic agents that may act to improve responses to many anticancer modalities, in a manner analogous to vaccine adjuvants that act to boost immunity in settings of infectious disease.

Preliminary evaluation of a predictive blood assay to identify patients at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test a new blood-based assay for its ability to predict delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea. METHODS: Blood drawn from consented patients prior to receiving their first platinum-based therapy was tested for glutathione recycling capacity and normalized to total red cell numbers. This number was used to predict nausea and then compared to patient reported outcomes using the Rotterdam Symptom Check List and medical records. RESULTS: We show that the pathways involved in the glutathione recycling are stable for at least 48 h and that the test was able to correctly classify the risk of nausea for 89.1 % of the patients. The overall incidence of nausea was 21.9 % while women had an incidence of 29.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: This might be the first objective test to predict delayed nausea for cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We believe that this assay could better guide clinicians in their efforts to provide optimal patient-oriented care.

The symptom burden of cancer: Evidence for a core set of cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns study.

BACKGROUND: A set of common cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms has been proposed for quality of care assessment and clinical research. Using data from a large, multicenter, prospective study, the authors assessed the effects of disease site and stage on the percentages of patients rating these proposed symptoms as moderate to severe. METHODS: The severity of 13 symptoms proposed to represent "core" oncology symptoms was rated by 3106 ambulatory patients with cancer of the breast, prostate, colon/rectum, or lung, regardless of disease stage or phase of care; 2801 patients (90%) repeated the assessment 4 to 5 weeks later. RESULTS: At the time of the initial assessment, approximately 33% of the patients reported ≥ 3 symptoms in the moderate-to-severe range; 11 of the 13 symptoms were rated as moderate to severe by at least 10% of all patients and 6 were rated as moderate to severe by at least 20% of those receiving active treatment. Fatigue/tiredness was the most severe symptom, followed by disturbed sleep, pain, dry mouth, and numbness/tingling. More patients with lung cancer and patients receiving active treatment reported moderate to severe symptoms. Percentages of symptomatic patients increased by disease stage, less adequate response to therapy, and declining Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The percentages of patients reporting moderate to severe symptoms were stable across both assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study support a core set of moderate to severe symptoms that are common across outpatients with solid tumors, that can guide consideration of progression-free survival as a trial outcome, and that should be considered in clinical care and in assessments of quality of care and treatment benefit.

Effect of duloxetine on pain, function, and quality of life among patients with chemotherapy-induced painful peripheral neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: There are no known effective treatments for painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of duloxetine, 60 mg daily, on average pain severity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial at 8 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded cooperative research networks that enrolled 231 patients who were 25 years or older being treated at community and academic settings between April 2008 and March 2011. Study follow-up was completed July 2012. Stratified by chemotherapeutic drug and comorbid pain risk, patients were randomized to receive either duloxetine followed by placebo or placebo followed by duloxetine. Eligibility required that patients have grade 1 or higher sensory neuropathy according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and at least 4 on a scale of 0 to 10, representing average chemotherapy-induced pain, after paclitaxel, other taxane, or oxaliplatin treatment. INTERVENTIONS: The initial treatment consisted of taking 1 capsule daily of either 30 mg of duloxetine or placebo for the first week and 2 capsules of either 30 mg of duloxetine or placebo daily for 4 additional weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary hypothesis was that duloxetine would be more effective than placebo in decreasing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain severity was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form "average pain" item with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing as bad as can be imagined. RESULTS: Individuals receiving duloxetine as their initial 5-week treatment reported a mean decrease in average pain of 1.06 (95% CI, 0.72-1.40) vs 0.34 (95% CI, 0.01-0.66) among those who received placebo (P = .003; effect size, 0.513). The observed mean difference in the average pain score between duloxetine and placebo was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.26-1.20). Fifty-nine percent of those initially receiving duloxetine vs 38% of those initially receiving placebo reported decreased pain of any amount. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, the use of duloxetine compared with placebo for 5 weeks resulted in a greater reduction in pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00489411.

Combined therapy with topotecan and gemcitabine in patients with inoperable or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: We conducted a phase I/II trial of topotecan combined with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic or unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on preclinical data showing in vitro synergy against an established lung adenocarcinoma cell line. The aim was to determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of topotecan when the gemcitabine dose is held constant, as well the dose limiting toxicity (DLTs) of this combination in NSCLC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were treated weekly times 3 with a week break with gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 over 30 minutes) and topotecan (30 minutes) at varying doses. The starting dose of topotecan was 1.0 mg/m2 and doses were escalated in 0.25-mg/m2 increments until the MTD was achieved. RESULTS: The MTD of gemcitabine/topotecan was 1250 mg/m2 of gemcitabine and 2.00 mg/m2 of topotecan (level 5). Neutropenia was the DLT. Few nonhematologic toxicities were observed. There were 5 (21%) partial responses among 24 patients. The median survival was 22 weeks. Two patients have had prolonged (> 2 year) survival. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine and topotecan seems to be active against NSCLC with acceptable hematologic toxicity and minimal nonhematologic toxicity. The recommended dose for further study is 1250 mg/m2 of gemcitabine (days 1, 8, 15) and 2.0 mg/m2 of topotecan (days 1, 8, 15) administered every 28 days.