Dabrafenib Versus Dabrafenib + Trametinib in BRAF-Mutated Radioactive Iodine Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Results of a Randomized, Phase 2, Open-Label Multicenter Trial.

Background: Oncogenic BRAF mutations are commonly found in advanced differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), and reports have shown efficacy of BRAF inhibitors in these tumors. We investigated the difference in response between dabrafenib monotherapy and dabrafenib + trametinib therapy in patients with BRAF-mutated radioactive iodine refractory DTC. Methods: In this open-label randomized phase 2 multicenter trial, patients aged ≥18 years with BRAF-mutated radioactive iodine refractory DTC with progressive disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 within 13 months before enrollment were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib alone or dabrafenib + trametinib. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by modified RECIST (minor response of -20% to -29%, partial and complete response) within the first 24 weeks of therapy. Trial Registration Number: NCT01723202. Results: A total of 53 patients were enrolled. The objective response rate (modified RECIST) was 42% (11/26 [95% confidence interval {CI} 23-63%]) with dabrafenib versus 48% (13/27 [CI 29-68%]) with dabrafenib + trametinib (p = 0.67). Objective response rate (RECIST 1.1) was 35% (9/26 [CI 17-56%]) with dabrafenib and 30% (8/27 [CI 14-51%]) with dabrafenib + trametinib. Most common treatment-related adverse events included skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (17/26, 65%), fever (13/26, 50%), hyperglycemia (12/26, 46%) with dabrafenib alone and fever (16/27, 59%), nausea, chills, fatigue (14/27, 52% each) with dabrafenib + trametinib. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Combination dabrafenib + trametinib was not superior in efficacy compared to dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF-mutated radioiodine refractory progressive DTC.

A pilot study of the pan-class I PI3K inhibitor buparlisib in combination with cetuximab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the PI3K inhibitor buparlisib given concurrently with cetuximab in recurrent and metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: Twelve patients with R/M HNSCC were enrolled. Patients were given oral buparlisib starting day 7 and daily thereafter. The dose of buparlisib was escalated in a 3 + 3 design followed by a dose expansion cohort of 6 patients. The MTD of buparlisib per protocol was 100 mg daily with cetuximab given intravenously every 14 days starting day 0. RESULTS: Ten patients had ≥2 previous treatment regimens (11 with prior cetuximab). There were no dose limiting toxicities observed during dose escalation. One patient achieved a partial response and 4 achieved stable disease. CONCLUSION: Based on this pilot study, buparlisib at 100 mg daily plus cetuximab proved to be well-tolerated. Patients previously treated with cetuximab monotherapy showed benefit from this combination.

Piloting a Financial Counseling Intervention for Patients With Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: National organizations encourage communication about costs of cancer care; however, few data are available on health system models for identifying and assisting patients with financial distress (FD). We report the feasibility and acceptability of a financial counseling (FC) intervention for patients who receive chemotherapy at a comprehensive cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to FC or standard care. The FC arm received education, financial assistance screening, and an estimation tool with total billed charges and out-of-pocket (OOP) cost of one cycle of chemotherapy from a financial counselor through phone call and in-person visit. Participants completed measures of FD, health-related quality of life, and acceptability. RESULTS: Ninety-five participants enrolled (mean age, 61 years; 72% white; 50% commercially insured), with a 32% attrition rate between assessments. Rates of completion for the phone call, in-person, and entire intervention were 98%, 47%, and 30%, respectively. The OOP estimation tool was considered understandable and acceptable to the majority of participants. No significant changes in FD were found between arms. Emotional functioning was negatively associated with having high FD (95% CI, -0.13379 to -0.013; P = .0189). Being married was associated with a decrease in log-odds of having high FD (ß = -1.916; 95% CI, -3.358 to -0.475; P = .0092). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an FC program that provides transparent cost data is feasible and acceptable. Incorporation of FC into clinical workflow, including phone counseling, is important to improve feasibility. Additional work is needed to develop tailored educational materials that are patient specific.