Selumetinib in patients receiving standard pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic KRAS wildtype or unknown non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, multicenter, phase II study. Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) IND.219.

INTRODUCTION: Activation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway may confer resistance to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY142886), a MEK1/2 inhibitor combined with chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC was evaluated in two schedules to evaluate efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: IND.219 was a three-arm study of first line pemetrexed/platinum chemotherapy with two schedules of selumetinib (Arm A: intermittent given on days 2-19; Arm B: continuous given on days 1-21) versus chemotherapy alone (Arm C). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary objectives were tolerability, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS). The trial was stopped at the planned interim analysis. RESULTS: Arms A/B/C enrolled 20/21/21 patients, ORR was 35% (95% CI 15-59% median duration 3.8 months), 62% (95% CI 38-82%; median duration 6.3 months), 24% (95% CI 8-47%; median duration 11.6 months) respectively. The PFS (months Arm A, B, C) was 7.5, 6.7, 4.0 respectively (hazard ratio (HR) PFS Arm A over Arm C: 0.76 [95% CI, 0.38-1.51, 2-sided p = 0.42]; Arm B over Arm C 0.75 [95% CI 0.37-1.54, p = 0.43]. Skin and gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with the addition of selumetinib. A high incidence of venous thromboembolism was seen in all arms. CONCLUSIONS: Selumetinib combined with chemotherapy was associated with a higher response rate. Continuous selumetinib appeared to be superior to an intermittent schedule. PFS was prolonged with the addition of selumetinib, however this was not statistically significant.

A phase I study of foretinib plus erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Canadian cancer trials group IND.196.

PURPOSE: MET and AXL mediate resistance to EGFR TKI in NSCLC. Foretinib, a MET/RON/AXL/TIE-2/VEGFR kinase inhibitor may overcome EGFR kinase resistance. This dose escalation study combined foretinib and erlotinib in advanced pretreated NSCLC patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The primary endpoint was to define the RP2D of foretinib plus erlotinib as continuous oral daily dosing. Secondary objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics, response and potential biomarkers of response including EGFR, KRAS genotype, MET, AXL expression, and circulating HGF levels. Erlotinib (E100-150 mg) was commenced on day 1 cycle 1; if well tolerated, foretinib (F30-45 mg) was added on day 15 cycle 1, using standard 3+3 dose escalation. RESULTS: Of 31 patients enrolled in 3 dose levels, 6 were inevaluable for DLT and replaced. DLT occurred in 3/15 patients at DL2 (E150 mg, F30 mg): Gr3 pain, mucositis, fatigue and rash. Cycle 1 DLT was not seen at DL3 (E150 mg, F45 mg) but 27% experienced dose reduction/interruption. Adverse events in ≥20% included diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, dry skin, rash and hypertension. No PK interaction was seen with the combination. RP2D was defined as erlotinib 150 mg daily x 14 days with foretinib 30 mg added on day 15 (continuous dosing in 28-day cycles). Responses were seen in 17.8% of response evaluable patients (5/28). In 18 samples, baseline MET expression uncontrolled for EGFR genotype appeared associated with response. AXL expression was associated with neither EGFR mutation nor response. CONCLUSION: Combining foretinib and erlotinib demonstrated response in unselected advanced NSCLC but also incremental toxicity. Future development will require molecular patient selection.

ASCENDE-RT: An Analysis of Treatment-Related Morbidity for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost with a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) morbidity and erectile dysfunction in a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASCENDE-RT (Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy) enrolled 398 men, median age 68 years, who were then randomized to either a standard arm that included 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. At clinic visits, investigators recorded GU and GI morbidity and information on urinary continence, catheter use, and erectile function. Exclusion of 15 who received nonprotocol treatment and correction of 14 crossover events left 195 men who actually received a DE-EBRT boost and 188, an LDR-PB boost. Median follow-up was 6.5 years. RESULTS: The LDR-PB boost increased the risk of needing temporary catheterization and/or requiring incontinence pads. At 5 years the cumulative incidence of grade 3 GU events was 18.4% for LDR-PB, versus 5.2% for DE-EBRT (P<.001). Compared with the cumulative incidence, the 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GU morbidity was substantially lower for both arms (8.6% vs 2.2%, P=.058). The 5-year cumulative incidence of grade 3 GI events was 8.1% for LDR-PB, versus 3.2% for DE-EBRT (P=.124). The 5-year prevalence of grade 3 GI toxicity was lower than the cumulative incidence for both arms (1.0% vs 2.2%, respectively). Among men reporting adequate baseline erections, 45% of LDR-PB patients reported similar erectile function at 5 years, versus 37% after DE-EBRT (P=.30). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of acute and late GU morbidity was higher after LDR-PB boost, and there was a nonsignificant trend for worse GI morbidity. No differences in the frequency of erectile dysfunction were observed.

Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): An Analysis of Survival Endpoints for a Randomized Trial Comparing a Low-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Boost to a Dose-Escalated External Beam Boost for High- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the primary endpoint of biochemical progression-free survival (b-PFS) and secondary survival endpoints from ASCENDE-RT, a randomized trial comparing 2 methods of dose escalation for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ASCENDE-RT enrolled 398 men, with a median age of 68 years; 69% (n=276) had high-risk disease. After stratification by risk group, the subjects were randomized to a standard arm with 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy, pelvic irradiation to 46 Gy, followed by a dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (DE-EBRT) boost to 78 Gy, or an experimental arm that substituted a low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) boost. Of the 398 trial subjects, 200 were assigned to DE-EBRT boost and 198 to LDR-PB boost. The median follow-up was 6.5 years. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, men randomized to DE-EBRT were twice as likely to experience biochemical failure (multivariable analysis [MVA] hazard ratio [HR] 2.04; P=.004). The 5-, 7-, and 9-year Kaplan-Meier b-PFS estimates were 89%, 86%, and 83% for the LDR-PB boost versus 84%, 75%, and 62% for the DE-EBRT boost (log-rank P<.001). The LDR-PB boost benefited both intermediate- and high-risk patients. Because the b-PFS curves for the treatment arms diverge sharply after 4 years, the relative advantage of the LDR-PB should increase with longer follow-up. On MVA, the only variables correlated with reduced overall survival were age (MVA HR 1.06/y; P=.004) and biochemical failure (MVA HR 6.30; P<.001). Although biochemical failure was associated with increased mortality and randomization to DE-EBRT doubled the rate of biochemical failure, no significant overall survival difference was observed between the treatment arms (MVA HR 1.13; P=.62). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 78 Gy EBRT, men randomized to the LDR-PB boost were twice as likely to be free of biochemical failure at a median follow-up of 6.5 years.

A Phase II Study of PF-03446962 in Patients with Advanced Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. CCTG Trial IND.207.

There is no approved second-line systemic therapy option for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), but targeting angiogenesis is an area of investigation. PF-03446962 is a fully human antibody against activin receptor-like kinase 1, which is commonly expressed in tumor vasculature. We performed a multicenter, open label, single-arm, two-stage phase II study of PF-03446962 in patients with MPM and progressive disease after platinum-based chemotherapy. In total, 17 patients were enrolled, but no partial or complete responses were observed. The trial did not meet the prespecified response criterion for moving to the second stage. There were only three grade 3 (G3) or higher nonhematological toxicities observed (G3 hypertension [n=2] and G3 fatigue [n=1]) and just one episode of G3 lymphopenia. In conclusion, PF-03446962, despite being generally well tolerated, failed to demonstrate efficacy in the treatment of advanced MPM as a single agent. There are no plans for further investigation of this agent in MPM.

Pan Canadian Rash Trial: A Randomized Phase III Trial Evaluating the Impact of a Prophylactic Skin Treatment Regimen on Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Induced Skin Toxicities in Patients With Metastatic Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Erlotinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor approved for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose epidermal growth factor receptor expression status is positive or unknown. Although it is efficacious, erlotinib can cause skin toxicity. This prospective, randomized phase III trial examined the effect of prophylactic treatment of erlotinib-induced skin rash. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving erlotinib in the second- or third-line setting for advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to prophylactic minocycline (100 mg twice per day for 4 weeks), reactive treatment (after rash developed, per grade of rash), or no treatment unless severe (grade 3). Rash incidence and severity, time to maximal rash, time to resolution, and overall survival (OS) were compared among treatment groups. RESULTS: In all, 150 patients were randomly assigned, 50 to each of three treatment arms. The incidence of skin toxicity was 84% regardless of treatment arm. Prophylactic treatment with minocycline significantly lengthened the time to the most severe grade of rash. Grade 3 rash was significantly higher in the no-treatment arm. OS was not significantly different among treatment arms, but patients receiving prophylactic or reactive treatments had a longer OS (7.6 and 8 months, respectively) than those who received no rash treatment (6 months). Rash was not self-limiting. CONCLUSION: The incidence of all grades of rash did not differ statistically among the three arms, so the trial was negative. The incidence of grade 3 skin toxicities was reduced in patients who were treated with prophylactic minocycline or reactive treatment. Efficacy was not compromised. Prophylactic minocycline and reactive treatment are both acceptable options for the necessary treatment of erlotinib-induced rash in the second- or third-line setting of metastatic NSCLC.

The Influence of the Evolution of First-Line Chemotherapy on Steadily Improving Survival in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Clinical Trials.

Over the past three decades, survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) clinical trials has doubled with an increase in 1-year survival from 25% to 50 to 55%. This has been mainly attributed to improvements in systemic therapy. Although modern first-line chemotherapy regimens have more favorable toxicity profiles, a statistically significant improvement in overall survival has not been demonstrated in existing meta-analyses of second-generation versus third-generation combinations. Moreover, pivotal trials demonstrating statistically significant survival superiority of third-generation regimens are consistently not reproducible even for nonsquamous populations using pemetrexed-platinum combinations. As enhancement in the efficacy of first-line systemic therapy in patients without identifiable driver mutations is questionable, other factors are discussed that explain the doubling of 1-year survival reported in clinical trials. These factors include second-line or third-line therapy, maintenance chemotherapy, performance status selection, stage migration, sex migration, improved treatment of brain metastases, and better palliative care.

Outcomes with abiraterone acetate in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients who have poor performance status.

BACKGROUND: Although abiraterone acetate (abiraterone) has proven efficacy in two randomised phase 3 trials in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), patients who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥2 were either excluded or under-represented in these trials. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in ECOG PS 0-1 and ≥2 in mCRPC patients treated with abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cancer registries from three Canadian centres were used to retrospectively identify mCRPC patients (postdocetaxel and docetaxel-naïve) treated with abiraterone. ECOG PS, clinicopathologic characteristics, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, and survival data were collected. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards modelling was used to examine the effect of clinicopathologic characteristics on overall survival (OS) and time to PSA progression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 519 patients were identified; 61% (n=318) and 39% (n=201) were ECOG PS 0-1 and ≥2, respectively. ECOG PS 0-1 patients were significantly more likely than PS ≥2 patients to achieve a PSA decline ≥50% from baseline (45% vs 32%; p=0.003, Fisher exact test) and had significantly longer median time to PSA progression (5.2 mo vs 4.1 mo; p=0.023), median treatment duration (7.4 mo vs 4.5 mo; p<0.001), and median OS (20.0 mo vs 9.1 mo; p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, ECOG PS was a significant factor for OS (p<0.001), time to PSA progression (p=0.043), and PSA decline (p=0.002). Potential limitations include the retrospective study design and subjective nature of ECOG PS classification. CONCLUSIONS: ECOG PS ≥2 mCRPC patients treated with abiraterone have inferior outcomes compared with ECOG 0-1 patients, especially in regard to OS. These data indicate that early initiation of abiraterone prior to a decline in PS may be warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that advanced prostate cancer patients who have worse performance status (PS) derive less benefit from abiraterone, indicating that earlier treatment before PS declines could improve outcomes.

A phase II study of GW786034 (pazopanib) with or without bicalutamide in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Pazopanib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. In this randomized, open label phase II study, pazopanib alone or in combination with bicalutamide was evaluated in patients with chemotherapy-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either pazopanib 800 mg daily (arm A) or pazopanib 800 mg plus bicalutamide 50 mg daily (arm B). A 2-stage study design was used, and the primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (defined as a confirmed ≥ 50% decline from baseline). RESULTS: A total of 23 patients (arm A, 10; arm B, 13) were accrued. The main grade 3+ toxicities were hypertension, fatigue, decreased lymphocytes, and increased alanine transaminase. Owing to significant toxicity, the protocol was amended after the first 11 patients and the pazopanib starting dose was reduced to 600 mg daily. In arm A, of 9 evaluable patients, there was 1 patient (11%) with a PSA response, 3 (33%) with stable PSA, and 5 (56%) with PSA progression; in arm B, of 12 evaluable patients, there were 2 patients (17%) with PSA responses, 6 (50%) with stable PSA, and 4 (33%) with PSA progression. Median progression-free survival was similar in both arms at 7.3 months (95% CI, 2.5 months to not reached). Long-term stable disease was seen in 4 patients who remained on treatment for 18 months (arm A), 26 months (arm A), 35 months (arm B), and 52 months (arm B). CONCLUSION: In this unselected patient population, pazopanib either alone or in combination with bicalutamide failed to show sufficient activity to warrant further evaluation. However, 4 patients had long-term benefit, suggesting that targeting the VEGFR pathway may still be relevant in selected patients and emphasizing the need for improved predictive markers for patients with CRPC.

Referral patterns in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: impact on delivery of treatment and survival in a contemporary population based cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy improves overall survival (OS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet low rates of chemotherapy utilization have been observed. We sought to characterize the clinical effectiveness of chemotherapy in the general population by evaluating referral patterns, predictors of chemotherapy receipt and outcomes. METHODS: All referred cases of stage IIIB/IV NSCLC in British Columbia from January 1 to December 31, 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics and treatments were extracted. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox Proportional Hazards modeling was used to control for confounding variables. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess factors that predicted for chemotherapy treatment. RESULTS: 1373 patients were identified. Median age 70 years, 53% male, 37% ECOG ≥ 3. HISTOLOGY: 34% non-squamous, 21% squamous and 46% NOS. 748 (54%) patients were assessed by medical oncology and 417 (30%) received chemotherapy. Predictors of chemotherapy treatment were younger age, ECOG 0-2, living in a rural area and not receiving radiotherapy. There was an improvement in OS in patients who received chemotherapy at 13.1 months versus best supportive care 5.4 months (p<0.0001). This remained statistically significant when controlling for ECOG, sex, age, histology (HR 0.68, CI 0.59-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based setting, 37% of patients had an ECOG ≥ 3 at the time of referral, 54% were assessed by a medical oncologist and only 30% received chemotherapy. This is despite the awareness that chemotherapy significantly improves survival. Strategies to optimize appropriate referral such that patients do not miss out on life-prolonging therapy should be evaluated.

Less toxic chemotherapy improves uptake of all lines of chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a 10-year retrospective population-based review.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, well tolerated second-line therapies for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer have been approved including erlotinib and pemetrexed in addition to docetaxel. We hypothesize that the introduction of less toxic chemotherapy has increased treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer resulting in improved survival. METHODS: The BC Cancer Agency provides cancer care to 4.5 million. A retrospective review was conducted of all referred Stage IIIB/IV patients in four 1-year time cohorts; C1 baseline (1998) and 6 months after the provincial approval of C2 docetaxel (2001), C3 erlotinib (2006), and C4 pemetrexed (2007). RESULTS: Two-thousand six-hundred and twenty-three patients were referred and 720 had systemic therapy. Characteristics: M/F 55%/45%, median age 67 (33-101), ECOG PS <=1/>=2/unknown 33%/56%/11%, squam/nonsquam/NOS 18%/41%/41%. More patients received first-line chemotherapy over time; 16%, 23%, 34%, and 33% C1-C4 respectively. In C1-C4 uptake of second line (21%, 27%, 37% and 55%) increased. Second-line docetaxel was frequently used in C2 (51%) but usage decreased in C4 to 7% versus erlotinib 50% and pemetrexed 26%. The median overall survival in the best supportive care group remained stable over time; however, increased use of systemic therapy was associated with improved survival C1 9.4 m versus C4 11.8 m (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based data set represents the trend of treatments over time at community and tertiary care cancer treatment sites. Over a 10-year period an increased proportion of patients were treated with first-line chemotherapy and an even greater number with second-/third-line treatment with an associated improvement in overall survival.

A population-based review of the feasibility of platinum-based combination chemotherapy after tyrosine kinase inhibition in EGFR mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer patients with advanced disease.

INTRODUCTION: The IPASS trial demonstrated superior progression free survival for Asian, light/never smoking, advanced, pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients treated with first-line gefitinib compared to carboplatin/paclitaxel, of which 59% of those tested were epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive. In IPASS 39% of gefitinib treated patients went on to receive platin based polychemotherapy. We hypothesized that in a population-based setting fewer patients receive second-line platin based chemotherapy than those enrolled in a clinical trial. METHODS: The Iressa Alliance program provided standardized EGFR mutation testing and appropriate access to gefitinib to all patients in British Columbia with advanced, non squamous non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We retrospectively analyzed clinical, pathologic data and outcomes for all patients tested in this program between March 2010 and June 2011. RESULTS: A total of 548 patients were referred for testing and 22% of patients were mutation positive. Baseline characteristics of mutation negative and mutation positive; median age 67/65, male 41%/31%, Asian 15%/51%, never smoker 21%/58%, stage IV 80%/91%. Median overall survival was 12 months in mutation negative patients and not yet reached in mutation positive (p<0.0001). In mutation positive patients 5% of patients had a complete response, 46% partial response, 34% stable disease, 6% progressive disease. Twenty percent of patients continued on gefitinib after radiographic progression and clinical stability. Sixty-one gefitinib treated patients progressed at the time of analysis; 10% of patients received further gefitinib only, 38% platinum based doublet, 8% other chemotherapy and 44% no further treatment. Performance status most strongly predicted for delivery of second line chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This North American population based study shows similar efficacy of gefitinib in mutation positive patients compared to the IPASS trial. Contrary to our hypothesis, delivery of second line chemotherapy was feasible in a significant proportion of gefitinib treated patients.

Evaluation of second-line and subsequent targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with first-line cediranib.

INTRODUCTION: Pivotal phase III trials have positioned angiogenesis inhibitors as first-line therapy for the management of most advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinomas (mRCC). Approaches to second-line therapy, however, remain more controversial with respect to drug selection and drug sequencing. METHODS: In this study we evaluated mRCC patients who were initially treated on the first-line National Cancer Institute (NCI) trial with the highly potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cediranib, to determine the efficacy and tolerability of subsequent therapies. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (65.1%) of the 43 patients enrolled on the first-line cediranib trial were known to receive second-line therapy, most commonly sunitinib (n = 21), with 4 (14%), 2 (7%) and 1 (3%) patients receiving temsirolimus, sorafenib, and interleukin, respectively. Of these, 14 (50%) went on to have 3 or more lines of therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) proportion (PFS) at 1 year from starting second line was 30% (14.5%-47.9%). Longer duration of first-line cediranib treatment was modestly associated with longer duration of second-line treatment (Spearman rho 0.26). Patients who discontinued cediranib for toxicity were less likely to receive second-line sunitinib. CONCLUSION: In this real world evaluation, sequential use of TKIs for the management of mRCC was common. PFS with sequential TKIs was similar to observed and published results for any second-line therapy. Prior toxicity affected treatment patterns and the frequent use of at least 3 lines of therapy underscores the need for prospective sequencing trials in this disease.

A phase II study of cediranib (AZD 2171) in treatment naive patients with progressive unresectable recurrent or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A trial of the PMH phase 2 consortium.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of angiogenesis has emerged as an effective therapeutic strategy in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). In this single arm phase 2 study, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of cediranib (AZD2171) a potent angiogenesis inhibitor in first line mRCC. METHODS: Eligible patients who had no prior systemic therapy received cediranib 45 mg orally once daily continuously. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were clinical benefit rate (ORR plus stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months), duration of response, progression free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Between January 2006 and April 2008, 44 patients were accrued. The median age was 62 (range 44-83) and performance status was either 0 (22 patients) or 1 (22 patients). Of the 39 evaluable patients there were 15 (38 %) partial responses (95 % CI: 23-55 %); 18 stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate of 33/39 = 85 % (95 % CI: 69-94 %) and 6 progressive disease. Median PFS was 8.9 months (95 % CI: 5.1-12.9); and median OS was 28.6 months (95 % CI: 18.2-37.3 months). The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs included hypertension, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Cediranib demonstrated significant anti-tumour activity in first line, treatment-naive mRCC, with efficacy parameters comparable to the other approved agents (sunitinib and pazopanib) in this setting. The main toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea and hypertension. Based on these encouraging results, further evaluation of cediranib in mRCC at a more tolerable dose of 30 mg daily appears warranted.

Elevated expression of BIRC6 protein in non-small-cell lung cancers is associated with cancer recurrence and chemoresistance.

INTRODUCTION: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an aggressive, highly chemoresistant disease. Reliable prognostic assays and more effective treatments are critically required. BIRC6 (baculoviral inhibitors of apoptosis proteins repeat-containing 6) protein is a member of the inhibitors of apoptosis protein family thought to play an important role in the progression or chemoresistance of many cancers. In this study, we investigated whether BIRC6 expression can be used as a prognostic marker or potential therapeutic target for NSCLC. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, BIRC6 protein expression was determined for 78 resected primary NSCLCs and nine benign lung tissues. Twenty-nine chemoresistant or chemosensitive subrenal capsule NSCLC tissue xenografts were assessed for BIRC6 expression, using immunohistochemistry, and 13 of them for BIRC6 gene copy number, using array comparative genomic hybridization analysis. The effect of small interfering RNA-induced BIRC6 knockdown on the growth of human NSCLC cell cultures and apoptosis (in combination with cisplatin) was investigated. RESULTS: Elevated BIRC6 protein expression in NSCLC tissues was associated with poor 3-year relapse-free patient survival, lymph node involvement, and advanced pathological tumor, node, metastasis stage. In patient-derived lung squamous cell carcinoma xenografts, chemoresistance was associated with elevated BIRC6 expression and increased gene copy number. Small interfering RNA-induced BIRC6 down-regulation inhibited growth of the NSCLC cells and sensitized the cells to cisplatin. CONCLUSIONS: BIRC6 may play an important role in the malignant progression and chemoresistance of NSCLC. Elevated BIRC6 protein expression may serve as a predictive marker for chemoresistance of NSCLCs and a poor prognostic factor for NSCLC patients. Down-regulation of the BIRC6 gene as a therapeutic approach may be effective, especially in combination with conventional chemotherapeutics.

Three primary testicular tumours: Trials and tribulations of testicular preservation.

Balancing recurrence risk, side effects and patient preference in the treatment of multiple metachronous testicular tumours can be challenging. We present the case of a young male patient who developed 3 different primary testicular neoplasms over an 8-year period, each associated with retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy requiring chemotherapy. The first tumour at age 19 was managed with radical orchiectomy. Four years later, a partial orchiectomy was performed to remove 2 small lesions. Another 4 years later, a complete orchiectomy was required for an additional tumour. This case highlights the caveats of testis-sparing surgery for testis cancer and the need for careful surveillance in these patients.

Thymoma: a population-based study of the management and outcomes for the province of British Columbia.

INTRODUCTION: Thymomas are rare neoplasms with variable clinical behavior. Our primary study aim was to analyze treatment practices and outcomes in a population-based cohort of thymoma patients. We hypothesized that stage I and II thymomas would have high cure rates with resection and adjuvant radiation, whereas locally advanced cases would benefit from multimodality therapy. METHODS: All patients, diagnosed with thymoma or thymic carcinoma in British Columbia between 1994 and 2009, were identified using the British Columbia Cancer Agency Registry. Chart review was used to collect demographic and treatment data. Detailed pathology review was performed using the World Health Organization classification. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-one patients were identified for analysis. The 5-year overall survival was 93.3%, 88.7%, 74.6%, 43.4% for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Survival varied significantly among patients with thymoma compared with thymic carcinoma. In patients with stage II disease, adjuvant radiation did not confer an overall survival or recurrence-free survival benefit. Seventy-five patients had locally advanced disease. There was practice variation in treatment of these patients. Patients with thymoma undergoing trimodality treatment had a 5-year median overall survival of 80%, whereas patients with thymic carcinoma had poor outcomes despite aggressive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates in this population-based series were comparable to those in previously published reports. The ideal management of thymic tumors involves a multidisciplinary approach, particularly in locally advanced disease and selection of patients for adjuvant radiation therapy.