A Phase 2 Trial of Afatinib in Patients with Solid Tumors that Harbor Genomic Aberrations in the HER family: The MOBILITY3 Basket Study.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)- and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2-targeted therapies are approved for the treatment of breast, gastric/gastrointestinal junction (GEJ), and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with specific molecular aberrations affecting HER family members. Over 10 % of other cancers harbor genomic aberrations affecting HER family members, but their role remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: The MOBILITY3 trial evaluated the antitumor activity of afatinib, an oral pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) in HER-aberrant tumors outside of the licensed indications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-center basket trial, patients with advanced solid tumors that harbor mutations and/or amplifications of any of the HER family members (EGFR, ERBB2, ERBB3, ERBB4) were enrolled. The EGFR-mutated NSCLC and HER2-positive breast cancers were excluded. Participants were treated with oral afatinib 40 mg daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. RESULTS: The study enrolled 12 patients with 6 tumor types (NSCLC, sarcoma, salivary gland, gastric/GEJ, breast and pancreatic cancer). Objective response rate was 8 % (95 % CI 0.2-38%) and median PFS was 11.4 weeks (95% CI 4.6-33.3 weeks). All 3 patients with salivary gland cancers and 1 patient with ERBB2-mutant NSCLC had clinical benefit (stable disease or partial response lasting > 24 weeks). Due to slow accrual and a lower-than-expected response rate, trial recruitment was terminated before the target of 30 patients were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: In the MOBILITY3 study (NCT02506517), afatinib demonstrated modest activity in tumors that possess EGFR and ERBB2 aberrations. Clinical benefit seen in all 3 salivary gland cancers supports the growing evidence for the utility of HER-targeted therapies in the treatment of this specific tumor type.

A phase I trial of two sequence-specific schedules of decitabine and vorinostat in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

This phase I trial evaluated two schedules of escalating vorinostat in combination with decitabine every 28 days: (i) sequential or (ii) concurrent. There were three dose-limiting toxicities: grade 3 fatigue and generalized muscle weakness on the sequential schedule (n = 1) and grade 3 fatigue on the concurrent schedule (n = 2). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached on both planned schedules. The overall response rate (ORR) was 23% (three complete response [CR], two CR with incomplete incomplete blood count recovery [CRi], one partial response [PR] and two morphological leukemic free state [MLFS]). The ORR for all and previously untreated patients in the sequential arm was 13% (one CRi; one MLFS) and 0% compared to 30% (three CR; one CRi; one PR; one MLFS) and 36% in the concurrent arm (p = 0.26 for both), respectively. Decitabine plus vorinostat was safe and has clinical activity in patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Responses appear higher with the concurrent dose schedule. Cumulative toxicities may limit long-term usage on the current dose/schedules.

Effect of different single-session educational modalities on improving medical students' ability to demonstrate proper pressurized metered dose inhaler technique.

OBJECTIVE: Pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) remain important therapeutic options for obstructive lung diseases. The ability to instruct and evaluate inhaler technique is a crucial skill that all medical professionals should possess; unfortunately, many professionals lack proficiency with pMDIs. We aimed to determine if brief education interventions of differing modalities can positively affect medical students' skills over the long term. METHODS: The baseline ability of medical students and first year residents to use pMDIs was scored via a 10-point scoring system. Students were randomized to receive no education, one-on-one instruction, or video instruction. Students were then retested immediately after the education and at the 3-month mark for retention of acquired skills. RESULTS: Video, one-on-one and the placebo groups modalities statistically improved the average medical student's score in the immediate retesting (7.5 and 7.4 vs. 4.7, p < .01, respectively). Moreover, the proportion of passing grades at the immediate recall significantly improved for both modalities. During retention testing, only video education had a statistically significant improvement in pass rate over the control group, as defined by an average score of 7 or better (8 vs. 1, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: One-on-one teaching and video education were able to improve medical students' ability to use pMDIs in short-term testing. However, only video education retained significant improvement compared with control after 3 months. This suggests that compared with traditional one-on-one teaching, video education is an effective means of teaching medical students how to improve their pMDI technique.

Phase I study of decitabine in combination with vorinostat in patients with advanced solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas.

PURPOSE: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of the combination of decitabine with vorinostat. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphomas were eligible. Sequential and concurrent schedules were studied. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were studied in 9 different dose levels (6 sequential and 3 concurrent). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) on the sequential schedule was decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1 to 5 and vorinostat 200 mg three times a day on days 6 to 12. The MTD on the concurrent schedule was decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1 to 5 with vorinostat 200 mg twice a day on days 3 to 9. However, the sequential schedule of decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1 to 5 and vorinostat 200 mg twice a day on days 6 to 12 was more deliverable than both MTDs with fewer delays on repeated dosing and it represents the recommended phase II (RP2D) dose of this combination. Dose-limiting toxicities during the first cycle consisted of myelosuppression, constitutional and gastrointestinal symptoms and occurred in 12 of 42 (29%) patients evaluable for toxicity. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (49% of patients), thrombocytopenia (16%), fatigue (16%), lymphopenia (14%), and febrile neutropenia (7%). Disease stabilization for 4 cycles or more was observed in 11 of 38 (29%) evaluable patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of decitabine with vorinostat is tolerable on both concurrent and sequential schedules in previously treated patients with advanced solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. The sequential schedule was easier to deliver. The combination showed activity with prolonged disease stabilization in different tumor types.

Phase I study of decitabine in combination with vorinostat in patients with advanced solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas.

PURPOSE: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of the combination of decitabine with vorinostat. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphomas were eligible. Sequential and concurrent schedules were studied. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were studied in 9 different dose levels (6 sequential and 3 concurrent). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) on the sequential schedule was decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-5 and vorinostat 200 mg three times a day on days 6-12. The MTD on the concurrent schedule was decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-5 with vorinostat 200 mg twice a day on days 3-9. However, the sequential schedule of decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-5 and vorinostat 200 mg twice a day on days 6-12 was more deliverable than both MTDs with fewer delays on repeated dosing and it represents the recommended phase II (RP2D) dose of this combination. Dose-limiting toxicities during the first cycle consisted of myelosuppression, constitutional and gastrointestinal symptoms and occurred in 12/42 (29%) patients evaluable for toxicity. The most common ≥ grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (49% of patients), thrombocytopenia (16%), fatigue (16%), lymphopenia (14%), and febrile neutropenia (7%). Disease stabilization for ≥ 4 cycles was observed in 11/38 (29%) evaluable patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of decitabine with vorinostat is tolerable on both concurrent schedules in previously treated patients with advanced solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. The sequential schedule was easier to deliver. The combination showed activity with prolonged disease stabilization in different tumor types.