Phase Ib/II Study of Enzalutamide with Samotolisib (LY3023414) or Placebo in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report efficacy and safety of samotolisib (LY3023414; PI3K/mTOR dual kinase and DNA-dependent protein kinase inhibitor) plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following cancer progression on abiraterone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled phase Ib/II study (NCT02407054), following a lead-in segment for evaluating safety and pharmacokinetics of samotolisib and enzalutamide combination, patients with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer with progression on prior abiraterone were randomized to receive enzalutamide (160 mg daily)/samotolisib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group criteria (PCWG2). Secondary and exploratory endpoints included radiographic PFS (rPFS) and biomarkers, respectively. Log-rank tests assessed treatment group differences. RESULTS: Overall, 13 and 129 patients were enrolled in phase Ib and II, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicity was not reported in patients during phase Ib and mean samotolisib exposures remained in the targeted range despite a 35% decrease when administered with enzalutamide. In phase II, median PCWG2-PFS and rPFS was significantly longer in the samotolisib/enzalutamide versus placebo/enzalutamide arm (3.8 vs. 2.8 months; P = 0.003 and 10.2 vs. 5.5 months; P = 0.03), respectively. Patients without androgen receptor splice variant 7 showed a significant and clinically meaningful rPFS benefit in the samotolisib/enzalutamide versus placebo/enzalutamide arm (13.2 months vs. 5.3 months; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Samotolisib/enzalutamide has tolerable side effects and significantly improved PFS in patients with mCRPC with cancer progression on abiraterone, and this may be enriched in patients with PTEN intact and no androgen receptor splice variant 7.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the CheckMate 374 advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients received prior treatment regimens (1-2 antiangiogenic; 0-3 systemic) with progression on/after last treatment and ≤ 6 months of enrollment. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤ 24 months or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients had advanced predominantly ccRCC; 75.3% received only 1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. After a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 0.4-26.9 months), no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, and 9.3% of patients reported grade 3/4 IMAEs (hepatitis, 4.1%; diabetes mellitus, 2.1%; nephritis and renal dysfunction, 1.0%; rash, 1.0%; adrenal insufficiency, 1.0%). The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.8%-32.3%). Three patients had a complete response; 19 had partial responses. The median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.5 months). The median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.4 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the safety and efficacy of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W flat-dose monotherapy for previously treated advanced ccRCC and adds to previous safety and efficacy data using the 3 mg/kg Q2W dose.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

BACKGROUND: The open-label phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 374. METHODS: Eligible patients received 0 to 3 prior systemic therapies. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤24 months or until confirmed progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty-four patients had advanced nccRCC (papillary [n = 24], chromophobe [n = 7], unclassified [n = 8], other [n = 5]); 34.1% received ≥1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. With median follow-up of 11 (range, 0.4-27) months, no all-cause grade 3-5 IMAEs or treatment-related grade 5 adverse events were reported. ORR was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-27.4), with 1 complete response (chromophobe) and 5 partial responses (papillary [n = 2], chromophobe [n = 1], collecting duct [n = 1], and unclassified [n = 1] histology). Median PFS was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-5.4). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 9.2-not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: Safety of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was consistent with previous results. Clinically meaningful efficacy was observed with responses in several histologies, supporting nivolumab as a treatment option for patients with advanced nccRCC, a patient population with high unmet need.

Recent developments in the clinical pharmacology of rolapitant: subanalyses in specific populations.

Knowledge of the involvement of the neurokinin substance P in emesis has led to the development of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1 RAs) for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), in combination with serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids. The NK-1 RA rolapitant, recently approved in oral formulation, has nanomolar affinity for the NK-1 receptor, as do the other commercially available NK-1 RAs, aprepitant and netupitant. Rolapitant is rapidly absorbed and has a long half-life in comparison to aprepitant and netupitant. All three NK-1 RAs undergo metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, necessitating caution with the concomitant use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, but in contrast to aprepitant and netupitant, rolapitant does not inhibit or induce CYP3A4. However, rolapitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6, and concomitant use with CYP2D6 substrates with narrow therapeutic indices should be avoided. Aprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant have all demonstrated efficacy in the control of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in randomized controlled trials, including over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. We reviewed recent post hoc analyses of clinical trial data demonstrating that rolapitant is efficacious in the control of CINV in patient populations with specific tumor types, namely, breast cancers, gastrointestinal/colorectal cancers, and lung cancers. In addition, we show that rolapitant has efficacy in the control of CINV in specific age groups of patients receiving chemotherapy (<65 and ≥65 years of age). Overall, the safety profile of rolapitant in these specific patient populations was consistent with that observed in primary analyses of phase 3 trials.

APF530 versus ondansetron, each in a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a post hoc subgroup analysis of the Phase III randomized MAGIC trial.

BACKGROUND: APF530, a novel extended-release granisetron injection, was superior to ondansetron in a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen in preventing delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in the double-blind Phase III Modified Absorption of Granisetron In the prevention of CINV (MAGIC) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This MAGIC post hoc analysis evaluated CINV prevention efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron, each with fosaprepitant and dexamethasone, in patient subgroup receiving an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen. Patients were randomized 1:1 to APF530 500 mg subcutaneously (granisetron 10 mg) or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously (IV) (≤16 mg); stratification was by planned cisplatin ≥50 mg/m2 (yes/no). Patients were to receive fosaprepitant 150 mg IV and dexamethasone 12 mg IV on day 1, then dexamethasone 8 mg orally once daily on day 2 and twice daily on days 3 and 4. Patients were mostly younger females (APF530 arm, mean age 54.1 years, female, 99.3%; ondansetron arm, 53.8 years, female 98.3%). The primary end point was delayed-phase (>24-120 hours) complete response (CR). RESULTS: APF530 versus ondansetron regimens achieved numerically better CINV control in delayed and overall (0-120 hours) phases for CR, complete control, total response, rescue medication use, and proportion with no nausea. APF530 trends are consistent with the overall population, although not statistically superior given the underpowered AC subgroup analysis. The APF530 regimen in this population was generally well tolerated, with safety comparable to that of the overall population. CONCLUSION: APF530 plus fosaprepitant and dexamethasone effectively prevented CINV among patients receiving AC-based HEC, a large subgroup in whom CINV control has traditionally been challenging.

Rolapitant improves quality of life of patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Addition of rolapitant to standard antiemetic therapy improved protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in phase 3 trials of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Here, we assessed the impact of CINV on the daily lives of patients receiving HEC or MEC using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). METHODS: In three double-blind phase 3 studies, patients receiving HEC or MEC were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo prior to chemotherapy plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone therapy. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included FLIE total score, nausea and vomiting domain scores, and the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (total score >108 [range 18-126]). We performed a prespecified analysis of the MEC/anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) study and a post hoc analysis of two pooled cisplatin-based HEC studies. RESULTS: In the pooled HEC studies, rolapitant significantly improved the FLIE total score (114.5 vs 109.3, p < 0.001), nausea score (55.3 vs 53.5, p < 0.05), and vomiting score (59.2 vs 55.8, p < 0.001) versus control; similar results were observed in the MEC/AC study for FLIE total score (112.7 vs 108.6, p < 0.001), nausea score (54.1 vs 52.3, p < 0.05), and vomiting score (58.6 vs 56.3, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patients reported no impact on daily life with rolapitant than with control in the MEC/AC study (73.2 vs 67.4, p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with control, rolapitant improved quality of life in patients receiving HEC or MEC.

Efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Rolapitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, provided effective protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimen. The current analysis explored the efficacy and safety of rolapitant in preventing CINV in a subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant (180 mg) or a placebo 1 to 2 hours before chemotherapy administration; all patients received oral granisetron (2 mg) on days 1 to 3 and oral dexamethasone (20 mg) on day 1. A post hoc analysis examined the subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin in cycle 1. The efficacy endpoints were as follows: complete response (CR), no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, complete protection, time to first emesis or use of rescue medication, and no impact on daily life. RESULTS: In the subgroup administered carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 401), a significantly higher proportion of patients in the rolapitant group versus the control group achieved a CR in the overall phase (0-120 hours; 80.2% vs 64.6%; P < .001) and in the delayed phase (>24-120 hours; 82.3% vs 65.6%; P < .001) after chemotherapy administration. Superior responses were also observed by the measures of no emesis, no nausea, and complete protection in the overall and delayed phases and by the time to first emesis or use of rescue medication. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for the rolapitant and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rolapitant provided superior CINV protection to patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy in comparison with the control. These results support rolapitant use as part of the antiemetic regimen in carboplatin-treated patients. Cancer 2016;122:2418-2425. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

A Randomized, Phase II Trial of Cetuximab With or Without PX-866, an Irreversible Oral Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phosphotidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K)/serine-threonine kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin signaling pathway is frequently altered in colorectal cancer (CRC). PX-866 is an oral, irreversible, pan-isoform inhibitor of PI3K. This randomized phase II study evaluated cetuximab with or without PX-866 in patients with metastatic, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-naive, KRAS codon 12 and 13 wild-type CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic CRC who had received both oxaliplatin and irinotecan were randomized (1:1) to cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading then 250 mg/m2 weekly) with or without PX-866 (8 mg orally daily; arms A and B, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, overall survival (OS), toxicity, and correlation of relevant biomarkers with efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients were enrolled. The median PFS was 59 days versus 104 days for arms A (cetuximab + PX-866) and B (cetuximab alone), respectively (P = .77). OS between the 2 arms (266 vs. 333 days for arm A vs. B) were similar (P = .83). Overall toxicity, including treatment-related toxicity, was higher in arm A compared with arm B, especially in terms of all-grade nausea (66% vs. 37%), vomiting (50% vs. 29%), diarrhea (64% vs. 18%), and rash (66% vs. 37%). Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 19% of patients in Arm A and 0% in Arm B. PIK3CA mutations and PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry were infrequently seen. CONCLUSION: The addition of PX-866 to cetuximab did not improve PFS, objective response rate, or OS in patients with metastatic CRC. The combination arm had greater toxicity and may have been harmful in this study.

APF530 (granisetron injection extended-release) in a three-drug regimen for delayed CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

AIM: APF530, extended-release granisetron, provides sustained release for ≥5 days for acute- and delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We compared efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron for delayed CINV after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), following a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen. METHODS: HEC patients received APF530 500 mg subcutaneously or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously, with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant. Primary end point was delayed-phase complete response (no emesis or rescue medication). RESULTS: A higher percentage of APF530 versus ondansetron patients had delayed-phase complete response (p = 0.014). APF530 was generally well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse event incidence was similar across arms, mostly mild-to-moderate injection-site reactions. CONCLUSION: APF530 versus the standard three-drug regimen provided superior control of delayed-phase CINV following HEC. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02106494.

Treatment of CD30-positive systemic mastocytosis with brentuximab vedotin.

Systemic mastocytosis is a myeloproliferative neoplasm with varying presentation that is caused by infiltration of neoplastic mast cells into extracutaneous tissues. Cytoreductive therapy is used to control organ dysfunction in aggressive systemic mastocytosis and is sometimes needed for control of severe refractory symptoms in patients with indolent disease. However, current standard cytoreductive agents are limited by their suboptimal degree and duration of response and associated significant toxicities, highlighting the need for novel treatments for systemic mastocytosis. Recent studies have identified CD30 as a therapeutic target in systemic mastocytosis, as CD30 is expressed on a majority of neoplastic mast cells. In this case series, the clinical outcomes of 4 patients with aggressive or indolent systemic mastocytosis treated with the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin are reported. Two patients showed evidence of a response to treatment with a reduction in disease burden, 1 of which has demonstrated a durable response with ongoing benefit for more than 3 years. Treatment with brentuximab vedotin was well-tolerated with side effects that were effectively managed by dose modifications. The results presented suggest that brentuximab vedotin is active in systemic mastocytosis and can induce durable responses with a manageable toxicity profile.

Efficacy and safety of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over multiple cycles of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Rolapitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA), was shown to protect against delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the first cycle of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in randomized, double-blind trials. This analysis explored the efficacy and safety of rolapitant in preventing CINV over multiple cycles of MEC or HEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in one phase III MEC, one phase II HEC, and two phase III HEC clinical trials were randomized to receive oral rolapitant (180 mg) or placebo in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Regardless of response in cycle 1, patients could continue the same antiemetic treatment for up to six cycles. On days 6-8 of each subsequent chemotherapy cycle, patients reported the incidence of emesis and/or nausea interfering with normal daily life. Post hoc analyses of pooled safety and efficacy data from the four trials were performed for cycles 2-6. RESULTS: Significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reported no emesis or interfering nausea (combined measure) in cycles 2 (p = 0.006), 3 (p < 0.001), 4 (p = 0.001), and 5 (p = 0.021). Over cycles 1-6, time-to-first emesis was significantly longer with rolapitant than with control (p < 0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events during cycles 2-6 was similar in rolapitant (5.5%) and control (6.8%) arms. No cumulative toxicity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Over multiple cycles of MEC or HEC, rolapitant provided superior CINV protection and reduced emesis and nausea interfering with daily life compared with control and remained well tolerated.

Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens in patients with cancer: a randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side-effect of many antineoplastic regimens and can occur for several days after treatment. We aimed to assess the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, in combination with a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. METHODS: We conducted a global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study at 170 cancer centres in 23 countries. We included patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy before, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly allocate patients to receive either oral rolapitant (one 180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) 1-2 h before administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by sex. All patients also received granisetron (2 mg orally) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1 (except for patients receiving taxanes as part of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, who received dexamethasone according to the package insert) and granisetron (2 mg orally) on days 2-3. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients received the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless they chose to leave the study or were removed at the treating clinician's discretion. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a study site compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500226. The study has been completed. FINDINGS: Between March 5, 2012, and Sept 6, 2013, 1369 patients were randomised to receive either rolapitant (n=684) or active control (n=685). 666 patients in each group received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rolapitant had complete responses in the delayed phase than did those receiving active control (475 [71%] vs 410 [62%]; odds ratio 1·6, 95% CI 1·2-2·0; p=0·0002). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache. For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event in the rolapitant versus active control groups was neutropenia (32 [5%] vs 23 [3%] patients). No serious adverse event was treatment-related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event resulted in death. INTERPRETATION: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the 5-day (0-120 h) at-risk period after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. FUNDING: TESARO, Inc.

Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with cancer: two randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in almost all patients in the absence of prophylaxis. Guidelines recommend use of a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist in conjunction with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess rolapitant, an NK-1 receptor antagonist, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted two global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (HEC-1 and HEC-2) at 155 cancer centres (76 in HEC-1 and 79 in HEC-2) in 26 countries (17 in HEC-1 and 14 in HEC-2). We enrolled patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not previously been treated with cisplatin, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly assign patients to treatment. Patients were stratified by sex and randomly allocated to either oral rolapitant (180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) about 1-2 h before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received granisetron (10 µg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients were allowed to receive the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless removed at the clinician's discretion. Patients could also choose to leave the study at any point. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a cancer centre compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01499849 and NCT01500213. Both studies have been completed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 21, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 532 patients in HEC-1 and 555 patients in HEC-2 were randomly assigned to treatment. 526 patients in HEC-1 (264 rolapitant and 262 active control) and 544 in HEC-2 (271 rolapitant and 273 active control) received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the rolapitant group had complete responses in the delayed phase than did patients in the active control group (HEC-1: 192 [73%] vs 153 [58%]; odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·3-2·7; p=0·0006; HEC-2: 190 [70%] vs 169 [62%]; 1·4, 1·0-2·1; p=0·0426; pooled studies: 382 [71%] vs 322 [60%]; 1·6, 1·3-2·1; p=0·0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. The most commonly reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in the rolapitant versus active control groups were headache (three [<1%] vs two [<1%]), hiccups (three [<1%] vs four [<1%]), constipation (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]), and dyspepsia (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]). For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-5 adverse events in patients allocated rolapitant versus active control were neutropenia (HEC-1: nine [3%] vs 14 [5%]; HEC-2: 16 [6%] vs 14 [5%]), anaemia (HEC-1: one [<1%] vs one [<1%]; HEC-2: seven [3%] vs two [<1%]), and leucopenia (HEC-1: six [2%] vs two [<1%]; HEC-2: two [<1%] vs two [<1%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were treatment related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events resulted in death. INTERPRETATION: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well-tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the at-risk period (120 h) after administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: TESARO, Inc.

Sequencing of Cabazitaxel and Abiraterone Acetate After Docetaxel in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Multicenter Community-Based US Oncology Practices.

BACKGROUND: Optimal sequencing of cabazitaxel (C) and abiraterone acetate (A) after docetaxel (D) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unclear. We assessed treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with mCRPC receiving different sequences of A or C, or both, after administration of D. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted of US Oncology Network iKnowMed (iKM) electronic health record (EHR) data to assess patients with mCRPC who received treatment with D and were subsequently treated with C or A, or both, between April 2011 and May 2012. Patients received 2 or 3 drugs: DA, DC, DAC, or DCA. Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method from the start to the end of second-line therapy after administration of D (TTF1) and to the end of combined second- and third-line therapy (TTF2) for 3-drug sequences. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models evaluated the impact of baseline clinical prognostic factors and treatment sequence on OS and TTF. RESULTS: Of 350 patients who were treated with D and subsequent therapies, 183 (52.3%) received DA, 54 (15.4%) received DC, 77 (22.0%) received DCA, and 36 (10.3%) received DAC. In a multivariable analysis, adjusted comparisons suggested that 3-drug sequences were associated with improved OS versus 2-drug sequences (hazard ratio [HR], 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.092-0.476; P = .0002). There were no statistically significant differences in OS and TTF for DC versus DA, and OS was significantly greater for DCA versus DAC (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.022-0.733; P = .0210). More cycles of C were administered in DCA than in DAC (median 6 vs. 4; t test P < .0001), whereas the duration of A treatment was similar. CONCLUSION: Administration of 3 agents in the DCA sequence was more optimal for treating mCRPC in this hypothesis-generating study.

Clinical outcomes with bevacizumab-containing and non-bevacizumab-containing regimens in patients with recurrent glioblastoma from US community practices.

This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab as monotherapy and with irinotecan for recurrent glioblastoma in community-based practices. Adult patients with bevacizumab-naive, recurrent glioblastoma initiating second-line treatment (July 2006-June 2010) were identified using McKesson Specialty Health/US Oncology Network health records. Overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) estimates were analyzed through July 2011 and compared for bevacizumab and non-bevacizumab regimens using the log-rank test. An adjusted Cox proportional hazards model assessed the effects of patient and treatment characteristics on outcomes. The analysis identified 159 patients initiating second-line treatment with a bevacizumab-monotherapy (n = 57), bevacizumab-combination (n = 79), or non-bevacizumab (n = 23) regimen. Patient characteristics were generally similar across groups. In the Cox analyses, OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.82]; univariate medians: 8.86 vs. 5.19 months) was significantly longer with bevacizumab-containing regimens. Median PFS was longer with bevacizumab-containing regimens, but did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.64 [95 % CI 0.38-1.09]; univariate medians: 7.00 vs. 4.00 months). Analyses showed that each bevacizumab treatment group relative to non-bevacizumab had a reduced risk of death (bevacizumab-monotherapy regimen: HR 0.56 [95 % CI 0.31-1.03] and bevacizumab-combination regimen: HR 0.34 [95 % CI 0.21-0.68]). Patients receiving the bevacizumab-combination regimen trended toward longer OS and PFS than those receiving the bevacizumab-monotherapy regimen. Rates of bevacizumab-related toxicities were consistent with clinical trial reports.

A randomized, phase 2 trial of docetaxel with or without PX-866, an irreversible oral phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor, in patients with relapsed or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The phosphotidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K)/serine-threonine kinase (AKT)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway is frequently altered in head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). PX-866 is an oral, irreversible, pan-isoform inhibitor of PI3K. Preclinical models revealed synergy with docetaxel and a phase 1 trial demonstrated tolerability of this combination. This randomized phase 2 study evaluated PX-866 combined with docetaxel in patients with advanced, refractory HNSCC. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who had received at least one and no more than two prior systemic treatment regimens were randomized (1:1) to a combination of docetaxel (75mg/m(2) IV every 21days) with or without PX-866 (8mg PO daily; Arms A and B, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (RR), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and correlation of biomarker analyses with efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: 85 patients were enrolled. There was a non-significant improvement in response rate in the combination arm (14% vs. 5%; P=0.13). Median PFS was 92days in Arm A and 82days in Arm B (P=0.42). There was no difference in OS between the two arms (263 vs. 195days; P=0.62). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were infrequent, but more common in the combination arm with respect to diarrhea (17% vs. 2%), nausea (7% vs. 0%), and febrile neutropenia (21% vs. 5%); grade 3 or higher anemia was more frequent in arm B (7% vs. 27%). PIK3CA mutations or PTEN loss were infrequently observed. CONCLUSION: The addition of PX-866 to docetaxel did not improve PFS, RR, or OS in patients with advanced, refractory HNSCC without molecular pre-selection.

Dosing patterns, toxicity, and outcomes in patients treated with first-line sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma in community-based practices.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study by McKesson Specialty Health (MSH)/US Oncology Network (USON) evaluates dosing patterns of first-line sunitinib for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) and its association with toxicities and clinical outcomes in community practices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aRCC who started first-line sunitinib between June 1, 2007, and May 31, 2011, were identified from 17 MSH/USON practices. Clinical data were extracted from iKnowMed electronic medical records linked to the MSH/USON pharmacy database. RESULTS: In total, 134 patients were included; mean age was 63.9 years, 85% of the patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1, 82% had clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and 65% had undergone nephrectomy. The median treatment duration was 4 cycles (range, 1-19). Overall, 113 patients discontinued sunitinib, mainly because of disease progression (45.1%) or toxicities (16.8%). Of all discontinuations, 77% occurred within the first 5 cycles. A total of 45 patients were dose-reduced, mostly because of toxicities (93%); 67% of all dose reductions occurred in the first 3 cycles. The objective response rate was 16.4%, median overall survival (OS) was 15.5 months, and progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.5 months. Multivariate analysis showed that OS and PFS were associated with sunitinib treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with aRCC from community practices undergo sunitinib dose reductions more frequently because of toxicities and discontinue therapy sooner than in clinical trials. Clinical outcomes were inferior to those reported in clinical trials, potentially because of shorter duration of therapy. Sunitinib therapy optimization remains an important challenge in community practices.

A randomized, phase 2 trial of Docetaxel with or without PX-866, an irreversible oral phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor, in patients with relapsed or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The phosphotidylinositol-3 kinase/serine-threonine kinase (AKT)/mammalian target of rapamycin signaling pathway is frequently altered in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PX-866 is an oral, irreversible, pan-isoform inhibitor of phosphotidylinositol-3 kinase. Preclinical models revealed synergy with docetaxel and a phase 1 trial demonstrated tolerability of this combination. This randomized phase 2 study evaluated PX-866 combined with docetaxel in patients with advanced, refractory NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic NSCLC who had received at least one and no more than two prior systemic treatment regimens were randomized (1:1) to a combination of docetaxel (75 mg/m intravenous every 21 days) with or without PX-866 (8 mg orally daily; arms A and B, respectively). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate, overall survival (OS), toxicity, and correlation of biomarker analyses with efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients were enrolled. Median PFS was 2 months in arm A and 2.9 months in arm B (p = 0.65). Objective response rates were 6% and 0% in arms A and B, respectively (p = 0.4). There was no difference in OS between the two arms (7.0 versus 9.2 months; p = 0.9). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were infrequent, but more common in the combination arm with respect to diarrhea (7% versus 2%), nausea (4% versus 0%), and vomiting (7% versus 0%). PIK3CA mutations or PTEN loss were infrequently observed. CONCLUSION: The addition of PX-866 to docetaxel did not improve PFS, response rate, or OS in patients with advanced, refractory NSCLC without molecular preselection.

Light chain renal amyloidosis with prominent giant cells.

Clinical diagnosis of amyloidosis may be very challenging because signs, symptoms, and laboratory study results can be highly variable and may overlap with other disease entities. Amyloid has characteristic features on kidney biopsy, involving glomeruli, vessels, and/or interstitium as typically amorphous waxy material that is periodic acid-Schiff pale and Congo Red birefringent under polarized light. Electron microscopy demonstrates characteristic randomly oriented fibrils. However, in rare cases, amyloid may present with atypical morphologic features on kidney biopsy, closely mimicking other histopathologic diagnoses. We present a case of light chain (AL) κ amyloidosis with an unusual inflammatory infiltrate including prominent multinucleated giant cells in the interstitium and at the glomerular hilus. Amyloid was apparent within giant cells on Congo Red staining, as well as on ultrastructural evaluation. Together with prior studies of tumoral nonrenal amyloid and renal amyloid A, we suggest that the amyloid fibril constituents κ and serum amyloid A have some predilection for inciting the rare multinucleated giant cell reaction.

Optimal timing of chemotherapy in androgen independent prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To interpret available docetaxel clinical trial data in order to define optimal timing of the initiation of chemotherapy in androgen independent prostate cancer (AIPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published literature on the natural history of nonmetastatic AIPC was reviewed. Phase III clinical trials using docetaxel-based therapy were analyzed as well as their associated quality of life (QOL) findings. Trials using docetaxel in earlier stage of the disease, as well those using novel agents were examined. RESULTS: Based on one report, non-metastatic AIPC is relatively indolent, and there is currently no evidence that supports the use of chemotherapy in this disease subset. The results of TAX 327 and SWOG 9916 demonstrate that chemotherapy is indicated for metastatic AIPC. However, based on available data, more than one hormonal maneuver can be offered to patients before chemotherapy is initiated. Timing of docetaxel therapy can further be individualized based on risk, clinical status, and patients' values and preferences. Building on the success of docetaxel, several novel agents that target different pathways are being tested in combination with, or as an alternative to, docetaxel-based therapy in Phase III clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, docetaxel therapy should be reserved for patients with metastatic AIPC who have progressed despite one or more hormonal therapies. In most patients, more than one hormonal treatment can be offered before chemotherapy is initiated. Studies that test the efficacy of chemotherapy early in the natural history of prostate cancer are under way or are planned.