Phase 1 study of high-dose DFMO, celecoxib, cyclophosphamide and topotecan for patients with relapsed neuroblastoma: a New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy trial.

BACKGROUND: MYC genes regulate ornithine decarboxylase (Odc) to increase intratumoral polyamines. We conducted a Phase I trial [NCT02030964] to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of DFMO, an Odc inhibitor, with celecoxib, cyclophosphamide and topotecan. METHODS: Patients 2-30 years of age with relapsed/refractory high-risk neuroblastoma received oral DFMO at doses up to 9000 mg/m2/day, with celecoxib (500 mg/m2 daily), cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2/day) and topotecan (0.75 mg/m2/day) IV for 5 days, for up to one year with G-CSF support. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (median age, 6.8 years) received 136 courses. Slow platelet recovery with 21-day courses (dose-levels 1 and 2) led to subsequent dose-levels using 28-day courses (dose-levels 2a-4a). There were three course-1 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; hematologic; anorexia; transaminases), and 23 serious adverse events (78% fever-related). Five patients (21%) completed 1-year of therapy. Nine stopped for PD, 2 for DLT, 8 by choice. Best overall response included two PR and four MR. Median time-to-progression was 19.8 months, and 3 patients remained progression-free at >4 years without receiving additional therapy. The MTD of DFMO with this regimen was 6750 mg/m2/day. CONCLUSION: High-dose DFMO is tolerable when added to chemotherapy in heavily pre-treated patients. A randomized Phase 2 trial of DFMO added to chemoimmunotherapy is ongoing [NCT03794349].

Randomized Phase II Trial of MIBG Versus MIBG, Vincristine, and Irinotecan Versus MIBG and Vorinostat for Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Neuroblastoma: A Report From NANT Consortium.

PURPOSE: 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is an active radiotherapeutic for neuroblastoma. The primary aim of this trial was to identify which of three MIBG regimens was likely associated with the highest true response rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 1-30 years were eligible if they had relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma, at least one MIBG-avid site, and adequate autologous stem cells. Patients received MIBG 18 mCi/kg on day 1 and autologous stem cell on day 15. Patients randomly assigned to arm A received only MIBG; patients randomly assigned to arm B received intravenous vincristine on day 0 and irinotecan daily on days 0-4; patients randomly assigned to arm C received vorinostat (180 mg/m2/dose) orally once daily on days 1 to 12. The primary end point was response after one course by New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy criteria. The trial was designed with 105 patients to ensure an 80% chance that the arm with highest response rate was selected. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients were enrolled, with three ineligible and six unevaluable, leaving 105 eligible and evaluable patients (36 in arm A, 35 in arm B, and 34 in arm C; 55 boys; and median age 6.5 years). After one course, the response rates (partial response or better) on arms A, B, and C were 14% (95% CI, 5 to 30), 14% (5 to 31), and 32% (18 to 51). An additional five, five, and four patients met New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy Minor Response criteria on arms A, B, and C, respectively. On arms A, B, and C, rates of any grade 3+ nonhematologic toxicity after first course were 19%, 49%, and 35%. CONCLUSION: Vorinostat and MIBG is likely the arm with the highest true response rate, with manageable toxicity. Vincristine and irinotecan do not appear to improve the response rate to MIBG and are associated with increased toxicity.

Inter-operator and inter-device agreement and reliability of the SEM Scanner.

OBJECTIVE: The SEM Scanner is a medical device designed for use by healthcare providers as part of pressure ulcer prevention programs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater and inter-device agreement and reliability of the SEM Scanner. METHODS: Thirty-one (31) volunteers free of pressure ulcers or broken skin at the sternum, sacrum, and heels were assessed with the SEM Scanner. Each of three operators utilized each of three devices to collect readings from four anatomical sites (sternum, sacrum, left and right heels) on each subject for a total of 108 readings per subject collected over approximately 30 min. For each combination of operator-device-anatomical site, three SEM readings were collected. Inter-operator and inter-device agreement and reliability were estimated. RESULTS: Over the course of this study, more than 3000 SEM Scanner readings were collected. Agreement between operators was good with mean differences ranging from -0.01 to 0.11. Inter-operator and inter-device reliability exceeded 0.80 at all anatomical sites assessed. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate the high reliability and good agreement of the SEM Scanner across different operators and different devices. Given the limitations of current methods to prevent and detect pressure ulcers, the SEM Scanner shows promise as an objective, reliable tool for assessing the presence or absence of pressure-induced tissue damage such as pressure ulcers.