Phase I/II trial of ruxolitinib in combination with trastuzumab in metastatic HER2 positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data demonstrate STAT3 as an important regulator in HER2+ tumors, and disruption of the IL6-JAK2-STAT-S100A8/S100A9 signaling cascade reduces HER2+ cell viability. Ruxolitinib is an FDA approved inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2. We performed a phase I/II trial investigating the safety and efficacy of the combination of trastuzumab and ruxolitinib in patients with trastuzumab-resistant metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. METHODS: Patients with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer progressing on at least 2 lines of HER2-directed therapy were eligible. The phase I portion determined the tolerable dose of ruxolitinib in combination with trastuzumab. The primary objective of the phase II was to assess the progression free survival (PFS) of the combination of ruxolitinib plus trastuzumab compared to historical control. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled, with a median number of prior therapies of 4.5. Ruxolitinib 25 mg twice daily was the recommended phase II dose with no dose limiting toxicities (DLTs). Of 26 evaluable patients in phase II, the median PFS was 8.3 weeks (95% CI 7.1, 13.9). Among the 14 patients with measurable disease, 1 patient had a partial response and 4 patients had stable disease. Most of the adverse events were hematologic. CONCLUSION: While well tolerated with a strong preclinical rationale, the combination of ruxolitinib and trastuzumab did not lead to an improvement in PFS compared to historical control in patients with trastuzumab-resistant metastatic HER2+ breast cancer.

Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether phone results were equivalent to in-person result disclosure for individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic testing. METHODS: A total of 111 of 136 subjects undergoing education and counseling for BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic testing agreed to randomization to phone or in-person result disclosure. Content and format for both sessions were standardized. Data from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Psychological General Well-Being index were collected at baseline and then again at 1 week and 3 months after disclosure of test results. Baseline measures were administered after the following had occurred: counseling/education session had been conducted, informed consent had been obtained, and decision to be tested had been made. Satisfaction and cost assessments were administered after the result session. At 1 week, participants were asked their preferred method of result disclosure. RESULTS: There were no differences in anxiety and general well-being measures between 50 phone and 52 in-person results disclosure. Both groups reported similar rates of satisfaction with services. Among those with a preference, 77% preferred the notification method assigned. There was a statistically significant preference for phone results among the 23% who did not prefer the method assigned. Greater costs were associated with in-person result disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that phone results are a reasonable alternative to traditional in-person BRCA1/2 genetic test disclosure without any negative psychologic outcomes or compromise in knowledge. However, further study is needed in a more clinically representative population to confirm these findings.

Mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor and in KRAS are predictive and prognostic indicators in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy alone and in combination with erlotinib.

PURPOSE: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations have been associated with tumor response to treatment with single-agent EGFR inhibitors in patients with relapsed non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The implications of EGFR mutations in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors plus first-line chemotherapy are unknown. KRAS is frequently activated in NSCLC. The relationship of KRAS mutations to outcome after EGFR inhibitor treatment has not been described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC in the phase III TRIBUTE study who were randomly assigned to carboplatin and paclitaxel with erlotinib or placebo were assessed for survival, response, and time to progression (TTP). EGFR exons 18 through 21 and KRAS exon 2 were sequenced in tumors from 274 patients. Outcomes were correlated with EGFR and KRAS mutations in retrospective subset analyses. RESULTS: EGFR mutations were detected in 13% of tumors and were associated with longer survival, irrespective of treatment (P < .001). Among erlotinib-treated patients, EGFR mutations were associated with improved response rate (P < .05) and there was a trend toward an erlotinib benefit on TTP (P = .092), but not improved survival (P = .96). KRAS mutations (21% of tumors) were associated with significantly decreased TTP and survival in erlotinib plus chemotherapy-treated patients. CONCLUSION: EGFR mutations may be a positive prognostic factor for survival in advanced NSCLC patients treated with chemotherapy with or without erlotinib, and may predict greater likelihood of response. Patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC showed poorer clinical outcomes when treated with erlotinib and chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to confirm the findings of this retrospective subset analysis.

TRIBUTE: a phase III trial of erlotinib hydrochloride (OSI-774) combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Erlotinib is a potent reversible HER1/epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor with single-agent activity in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib was combined with chemotherapy to determine if it could improve the outcome of patients with NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TRIBUTE randomly assigned patients with good performance status and previously untreated advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC to erlotinib 150 mg/d or placebo combined with up to six cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by maintenance monotherapy with erlotinib. Random assignment was stratified by stage, weight loss in the previous 6 months, measurable disease, and treatment center. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response (OR), and duration of response. RESULTS: There were 1,059 assessable patients (526 erlotinib; 533 placebo). Median survival for patients treated with erlotinib was 10.6 v 10.5 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.16; P = .95). There was no difference in OR or median TTP. Patients who reported never smoking (72 erlotinib; 44 placebo) experienced improved OS in the erlotinib arm (22.5 v 10.1 months for placebo), though no other prespecified factors showed an advantage in OS with erlotinib. Erlotinib and placebo arms were equivalent in adverse events (except rash and diarrhea). CONCLUSION: Erlotinib with concurrent carboplatin and paclitaxel did not confer a survival advantage over carboplatin and paclitaxel alone in patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC. Never smokers treated with erlotinib and chemotherapy seemed to experience an improvement in survival and will undergo further investigation in future randomized trials.

Investigation of the prognostic and predictive value of thymidylate synthase, p53, and Ki-67 in patients with locally advanced colon cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of thymidylate synthase (TS), Ki-67, and p53 as prognostic markers in patients with Dukes' B2 and C colon carcinoma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the prognostic value of TS, Ki-67, and p53 in 465 patients with Dukes' B2 (220 patients) or Dukes' C (245 patients) colon carcinoma. Patients represent a nonrandom subset obtained from five randomized phase III trials and were treated with either surgery alone (151 patients) or surgery plus fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (314 patients). All three markers were assayed using immunohistochemical techniques. RESULTS: With a minimum follow-up of 5 years, our retrospective analysis failed to demonstrate a consistent and significant association between TS, Ki-67, or p53 and either disease-free survival or overall survival. Exploratory analyses did not reveal a convincing explanation for these results that are in conflict with the published literature. Notable interactions were observed. In particular, high Ki-67 levels were associated with increased (decreased) survival in patients with low (high) TS intensity. Patients whose tumors stained positively for p53 seemed to benefit substantially from the use of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with those who were not treated (P =.05). CONCLUSION: This retrospective investigation failed to demonstrate a significant association between TS, Ki-67, or p53 staining and clinical outcome.