Description of a Lung Cancer Hotspot: Disparities in Lung Cancer Histology, Incidence, and Survival in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky.

INTRODUCTION: Kentucky is recognized as the state with the highest lung cancer burden for more than 2 decades, but how lung cancer differs in Kentucky relative to other US populations is not fully understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined lung cancer reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program by Kentucky and the other SEER regions for patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2016. Our analyses included histologic types, incidence rates, stage at diagnosis, and survival in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky relative to other SEER regions. RESULTS: We found that both squamous cell carcinomas and small-cell lung cancers represent larger proportions of lung cancer diagnoses in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky than they do in the SEER registries. Furthermore, age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were higher in Kentucky for every subtype of lung cancer examined. Most notably, for Appalachian women the rate of small-cell carcinomas was 3.5-fold higher, and for Appalachian men the rate of squamous cell carcinoma was 3.1-fold higher, than the SEER rates. In Kentucky, lung cancers were diagnosed at later stages and lung cancer survival was lower for adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine carcinomas than in SEER registries. Squamous cell carcinomas and small-cell carcinomas were most lethal in Appalachian Kentucky. CONCLUSION: Together, these data highlight the considerable disparities among lung cancer cases in the United States and demonstrate the continuing high burden and poor survival of lung cancer in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky. Strategies to identify and rectify causes of these disparities are discussed.

Dose-escalation study of vemurafenib with sorafenib or crizotinib in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced cancers.

BACKGROUND: BRAF inhibitors are effective in melanoma and other cancers with BRAF mutations; however, patients ultimately develop therapeutic resistance through the activation of alternative signaling pathways such as RAF/RAS or MET. The authors hypothesized that combining the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib with either the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib or the MET inhibitor crizotinib could overcome therapeutic resistance. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancers and BRAF mutations were enrolled in a dose-escalation study (3 + 3 design) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of vemurafenib with sorafenib (VS) or vemurafenib with crizotinib (VC). RESULTS: In total, 38 patients (VS, n = 24; VC, n = 14) were enrolled, and melanoma was the most represented tumor type (VS, 38%; VC, 64%). In the VS arm, vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily and sorafenib 400 mg am/200 mg pm were identified as the MTDs, DLTs included grade 3 rash (n = 2) and grade 3 hypertension, and partial responses were reported in 5 patients (21%), including 2 with ovarian cancer who had received previous treatment with BRAF, MEK, or ERK inhibitors. In the VC arm, vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily and crizotinib 250 mg daily were identified as the MTDs, DLTs included grade 3 rash (n = 2), and partial responses were reported in 4 patients (29%; melanoma, n = 3; lung adenocarcinoma, n = 1) who had received previous treatment with BRAF, MEK, and/or ERK inhibitors. Optional longitudinal collection of plasma to assess dynamic changes in circulating tumor DNA demonstrated the elimination of BRAF-mutant DNA from plasma during therapy (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib combined with sorafenib or crizotinib was well tolerated with encouraging activity, including among patients who previously received treatment with BRAF, MEK, or ERK inhibitors.

S6K1 blockade overcomes acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs in non-small cell lung cancer.

The development of resistance to EGFR Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations is a critical limitation of this therapy. In addition to genetic alterations such as EGFR secondary mutation causing EGFR-TKI resistance, compensatory activation of signaling pathways without interruption of genome integrity remains to be defined. In this study, we identified S6K1/MDM2 signaling axis as a novel bypass mechanism for the development of EGFR-TKI resistance. The observation of S6K1 as a candidate mechanism for resistance to EGFR TKI therapy was investigated by interrogation of public databases and a clinical cohort to establish S6K1 expression as a prognostic/predictive biomarker. The role of S6K1 in TKI resistance was determined in in vitro gain-and-loss of function studies and confirmed in subcutaneous and orthotopic mouse lung cancer models. Blockade of S6K1 by a specific inhibitor PF-4708671 synergistically enhanced the efficacy of TKI without showing toxicity. The mechanistic study showed the inhibition of EGFR caused nuclear translocation of S6K1 for binding with MDM2 in resistant cells. MDM2 is a downstream effector of S6K1-mediated TKI resistance. Taken together, we present evidence for the reversal of resistance to EGFR TKI by the addition of small molecule S6K1/MDM2 antagonists that could have clinical benefit.

Phase 1 study of the combination of vemurafenib, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma and other advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: BRAF inhibitors are effective against selected BRAFV600 -mutated tumors. Preclinical data suggest that BRAF inhibition in conjunction with chemotherapy has increased therapeutic activity. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancers and BRAF mutations were enrolled into a dose-escalation study (3+3 design) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). RESULTS: Nineteen patients with advanced cancers and BRAF mutations were enrolled and received vemurafenib (480-720 mg orally twice a day), carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 5-6 intravenously every 3 weeks), and paclitaxel (100-135 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks). The MTD was not reached, and vemurafenib at 720 mg twice a day, carboplatin at AUC 5, and paclitaxel at 135 mg/m2 were the last safe dose levels. DLTs included a persistent grade 2 creatinine elevation (n = 1), grade 3 transaminitis (n = 1), and grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 1). Non-dose-limiting toxicities that were grade 3 or higher and occurred in more than 2 patients included grade 3/4 neutropenia (n = 5), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (n = 5), grade 3 fatigue (n = 4), and grade 3 anemia (n = 3). Of the 19 patients, 5 (26%; all with melanoma) had a partial response (PR; n = 4) or complete response (CR; n = 1); these responses were mostly durable and lasted 3.1 to 54.1 months. Of the 13 patients previously treated with BRAF and/or mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors, 4 (31%) had a CR (n = 1) or PR (n = 3). Patients not treated with prior platinum therapy had a higher response rate than those who did (45% vs 0%; P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of vemurafenib, carboplatin, and paclitaxel is well tolerated and demonstrates encouraging activity, predominantly in patients with advanced melanoma and BRAFV600 mutations, regardless of prior treatment with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors.

Pemetrexed Continuation Maintenance Phase 3 Trials in Nonsquamous, Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Focus on 2-Year Overall Survival and Continuum of Care.

Although lung cancer prognosis remains poor for most patients, treatments developed in the past 2 decades have extended survival for many. For those with disease that responded to or those with stable disease after receipt of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance regimens enable continued targeting of tumors beyond the induction phase, which is limited by toxicity. This overview summarizes completed phase 3 trials of pemetrexed continuation maintenance treatment in nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer with a focus on 2-year survival, and highlights similar ongoing trials. Some studies showed survival benefits of pemetrexed maintenance treatment versus control arms, with the potential for added benefit when combined with bevacizumab. Two-year survival rates underscore the value of maintenance therapy and suggest progress toward a clinical goal of managing non-small-cell lung cancer as a treatable chronic disease.

Lung Cancer in the Older Patient.

Cancers of the lung and bronchus are the leading cause of cancer deaths in men and women in the United States, and two-thirds of new lung cancer cases are diagnosed in patients over age 65. There are few dedicated clinical trials in the elderly, leading to both undertreatment and overtreatment biases. Even fit older adults experience age-related decline in physiologic reserve, and additional issues of polypharmacy, geriatric syndromes, and inadequate social support are not uncommon, leading to disparities in treatment and survival. This review discusses the challenges in balancing benefits and harms in management of lung cancer in elderly patients.

Meta-analysis of pemetrexed plus carboplatin doublet safety profile in first-line non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer studies.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis compared safety profiles (selected drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs]) of first-line pemetrexed plus carboplatin (PCb) area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/min•mL (PCb5) or 6 mg/min•mL (PCb6), two widely used regimens in clinical practice for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: All patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 every 21 days with either of two carboplatin doses for up to 4-6 cycles. Safety profiles of PCb doses were compared using three statistical analysis methods: frequency table analysis (FTA), generalized linear mixed effect model (GLMM), and the propensity score method. Efficacy outcomes of PCb5 and PCb6 regimens were summarized. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients mainly from the US, Europe, and East Asia were included in the analysis; 22% (n = 105) received PCb5 in one trial and 78% (n = 381) received PCb6 in four trials. The FTA comparison demonstrated that PCb5 vs PCb6 was associated with a statistically significantly lower incidence of TEAEs, including all-grade thrombocytopenia, anemia, fatigue, and vomiting, and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia. In the GLMM analysis, PCb5 patients were numerically less likely to experience all-grade and grade 3/4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. The propensity score regression analysis showed PCb5 group patients were significantly less likely than PCb6 group patients to experience all-grade hematologic TEAEs and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and anemia. After applying propensity score 1:1 matching, FTA analysis showed that the PCb5 group had significantly less all-grade and grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities. Overall efficacy outcomes, including overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, were similar between the two carboplatin doses. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the limitations of this meta-analysis of five trials, heterogeneous in patient's characteristics and trial designs, the results show that the PCb5 regimen was generally associated with a better safety profile than PCb6 across three statistical approaches, with no apparent impact on survival outcomes.

Parametric Dose Standardization for Optimizing Two-Agent Combinations in a Phase I-II Trial with Ordinal Outcomes.

A Bayesian model and design are described for a phase I-II trial to jointly optimise the doses of a targeted agent and a chemotherapy agent for solid tumors. A challenge in designing the trial was that both the efficacy and toxicity outcomes were defined as four-level ordinal variables. To reflect possibly complex joint effects of the two doses on each of the two outcomes, for each marginal distribution a generalised continuation ratio model was assumed, with each agent's dose parametrically standardised in the linear term. A copula was assumed to obtain a bivariate distribution. Elicited outcome probabilities were used to construct a prior, with variances calibrated to obtain small prior effective sample size. Elicited numerical utilities of the 16 elementary outcomes were used to compute posterior mean utilities as criteria for selecting dose pairs, with adaptive randomisation to reduce the risk of getting stuck at a suboptimal pair. A simulation study showed that parametric dose standardisation with additive dose effects provides a robust, reliable model for dose pair optimisation in this setting, and it compares favourably with designs based on alternative models that include dose-dose interaction terms. The proposed model and method are applicable generally to other clinical trial settings with similar dose and outcome structures.

Phase I dose-escalation study of the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus and the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat in patients with advanced malignancy.

Preclinical models suggest that histone deacetylase (HDAC) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors have synergistic anticancer activity. We designed a phase I study to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of combined mTOR inhibitor sirolimus (1 mg-5 mg PO daily) and HDAC inhibitor vorinostat (100 mg-400 mg PO daily) in patients with advanced cancer. Seventy patients were enrolled and 46 (66%) were evaluable for DLT assessment since they completed cycle 1 without dose modification unless they had DLT. DLTs comprised grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 6) and grade 3 mucositis (n = 1). Sirolimus 4 mg and vorinostat 300 mg was declared RP2D because MTD with sirolimus 5 mg caused significant thrombocytopenia. The grade 3 and 4 drug-related toxic effects (including DLTs) were thrombocytopenia (31%), neutropenia (8%), anemia (7%), fatigue (3%), mucositis (1%), diarrhea (1%), and hyperglycemia (1%). Of the 70 patients, 35 (50%) required dose interruption or modification and 61 were evaluable for response. Partial responses were observed in refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (-78%) and perivascular epithelioid tumor (-54%), and stable disease in hepatocellular carcinoma and fibromyxoid sarcoma. In conclusion, the combination of sirolimus and vorinostat was feasible, with thrombocytopenia as the main DLT. Preliminary anticancer activity was observed in patients with refractory Hodgkin lymphoma, perivascular epithelioid tumor, and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Sleep quality and its association with fatigue, symptom burden, and mood in patients with advanced cancer in a clinic for early-phase oncology clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist about sleep quality for patients with advanced cancer in phase 1 clinical trials. Poor sleep quality is often not captured as an adverse event, and its association with fatigue, one of the most frequently reported adverse events, is not documented routinely. This article describes sleep quality and its relation with fatigue, symptom burden, and mood in patients recruited from an early-phase clinic for targeted therapy. METHODS: Sleep, fatigue, symptom burden, and mood were assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Brief Fatigue Inventory, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), and the Brief Profile of Mood States, respectively; the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) was determined from medical records. RESULTS: The sample (n = 256) was 51.2% female, 90% had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1, and the mean age was 58 ± 0.8 years. Poor sleepers (global PSQI score > 5) constituted 64% of the sample. In separate multiple regression models, poor sleepers had higher levels of fatigue (P < .001), symptom burden (P < .001), and overall mood disturbance (P < .001) than good sleepers. Also, compared with good sleepers, poor sleepers had greater fatigue-related and symptom-related interference with daily activities (all P values < .001). The MDASI disturbed-sleep item correlated well with the global PSQI score (Pearson's r = 0.679, P < .001), and this suggests its usefulness as a patient-reported outcome screener of sleep quality in early-phase clinical trials clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Poor sleep quality was a significant problem in the current study and was associated with greater fatigue, symptom burden, and mood disturbance. Sleep quality should be routinely assessed in patients with advanced cancer who are participating in early-phase clinical trials. Cancer 2016;122:3401-3409. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

BRAF Mutation Testing in Cell-Free DNA from the Plasma of Patients with Advanced Cancers Using a Rapid, Automated Molecular Diagnostics System.

Cell-free (cf) DNA from plasma offers an easily obtainable material for BRAF mutation analysis for diagnostics and response monitoring. In this study, plasma-derived cfDNA samples from patients with progressing advanced cancers or malignant histiocytosis with known BRAF(V600) status from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumors were tested using a prototype version of the Idylla BRAF Mutation Test, a fully integrated real-time PCR-based test with turnaround time about 90 minutes. Of 160 patients, BRAF(V600) mutations were detected in 62 (39%) archival FFPE tumor samples and 47 (29%) plasma cfDNA samples. The two methods had overall agreement in 141 patients [88%; κ, 0.74; SE, 0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63-0.85]. Idylla had a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI, 0.60-0.83) and specificity of 98% (95% CI, 0.93-1.00). A higher percentage, but not concentration, of BRAF(V600) cfDNA in the wild-type background (>2% vs. ≤ 2%) was associated with shorter overall survival (OS; P = 0.005) and in patients with BRAF mutations in the tissue, who were receiving BRAF/MEK inhibitors, shorter time to treatment failure (TTF; P = 0.001). Longitudinal monitoring demonstrated that decreasing levels of BRAF(V600) cfDNA were associated with longer TTF (P = 0.045). In conclusion, testing for BRAF(V600) mutations in plasma cfDNA using the Idylla BRAF Mutation Test has acceptable concordance with standard testing of tumor tissue. A higher percentage of mutant BRAF(V600) in cfDNA corresponded with shorter OS and in patients receiving BRAF/MEK inhibitors also with shorter TTF. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(6); 1397-404. ©2016 AACR.

Advanced malignancies treated with a combination of the VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab, anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab, and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab and temsirolimus are active agents in advanced solid tumors. Temsirolimus inhibits mTOR in the PI3 kinase/AKT/mTOR pathway as well as CYP2A, which may be a resistance mechanism for cetuximab. In addition, temsirolimus attenuates upregulation of HIF-1α levels, which may be a resistance mechanism for bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed safety and responses in 21 patients with advanced solid tumors treated with bevacizumab, cetuximab, and temsirolimus. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 60 years (range, 23-80 years). The median number of prior systemic therapies was 3 (range, 1-6). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined to be bevacizumab 10 mg/kg biweekly, temsirolimus 5 mg weekly and cetuximab 100/75 mg/m2 weekly. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were seen in 52% of patients with the highest prevalence being hyperglycemia (14%) and hypophosphatemia (14%). Eighteen of the 21 patients were evaluable for response. Three patients were taken off the study before restaging for toxicities. Partial response (PR) was observed in 2/18 patients (11%) and stable disease (SD) lasting ≥ 6 months was observed in 4/18 patients (22%) (total = 6/18 (33%)). In 8 evaluable patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) there were partial responses in 2/8 (25%) patients and SD ≥ 6 months in 1/8 (13%) patients (total = 3/8, (38%)). CONCLUSION: The combination of bevacizumab, cetuximab, and temsirolimus showed activity in HNSCC; however, there were numerous toxicities reported, which will require careful management for future clinical development.

Erratum: Actionable mutations in plasma cell-free DNA in patients with advanced cancers referred for experimental targeted therapies.

The Abstract is incorrect in PubMed. The corrected Abstract is provided here.

BRAF mutation testing with a rapid, fully integrated molecular diagnostics system.

Fast and accurate diagnostic systems are needed for further implementation of precision therapy of BRAF-mutant and other cancers. The novel IdyllaTMBRAF Mutation Test has high sensitivity and shorter turnaround times compared to other methods. We used Idylla to detect BRAF V600 mutations in archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples and compared these results with those obtained using the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test or MiSeq deep sequencing system and with those obtained by a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory employing polymerase chain reaction-based sequencing, mass spectrometric detection, or next-generation sequencing. In one set of 60 FFPE tumor samples (15 with BRAF mutations per Idylla), the Idylla and cobas results had an agreement of 97%. Idylla detected BRAF V600 mutations in two additional samples. The Idylla and MiSeq results had 100% concordance. In a separate set of 100 FFPE tumor samples (64 with BRAF mutation per Idylla), the Idylla and CLIA-certified laboratory results demonstrated an agreement of 96% even though the tests were not performed simultaneously and different FFPE blocks had to be used for 9 cases. The IdyllaTMBRAF Mutation Test produced results quickly (sample to results time was about 90 minutes with about 2 minutes of hands on time) and the closed nature of the cartridge eliminates the risk of PCR contamination. In conclusion, our observations demonstrate that the Idylla test is rapid and has high concordance with other routinely used but more complex BRAF mutation-detecting tests.

Actionable mutations in plasma cell-free DNA in patients with advanced cancers referred for experimental targeted therapies.

Cell-free (cf) DNA in the plasma of cancer patients offers an easily obtainable source of biologic material for mutation analysis. Plasma samples from 157 patients with advanced cancers who progressed on systemic therapy were tested for 21 mutations in BRAF, EGFR, KRAS, and PIK3CA using the BEAMing method and results were compared to mutation analysis of archival tumor tissue from a CLIA-certified laboratory obtained as standard of care from diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Results were concordant for archival tissue and plasma cfDNA in 91% cases for BRAF mutations (kappa = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 - 0.88), in 99% cases for EGFR mutations (kappa = 0.90, 95% CI 0.71- 1.00), in 83% cases for KRAS mutations (kappa = 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 - 0.80) and in 91% cases for PIK3CA mutations (kappa = 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 - 0.85). Patients (n = 41) with > 1% of KRAS mutant cfDNA had a shorter median survival compared to 20 patients with 1% of mutant cfDNA (BRAF, EGFR, KRAS, or PIK3CA) had a shorter median survival compared to 33 patients with

PRONOUNCE: randomized, open-label, phase III study of first-line pemetrexed + carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients ith advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

Analysis of 1,115 patients tested for MET amplification and therapy response in the MD Anderson Phase I Clinic.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess MET amplification among different cancers, association with clinical factors and genetic aberrations and targeted therapy response modifications. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: From May 2010 to November 2012, samples from patients with advanced tumors referred to the MD Anderson Phase I Clinic were analyzed for MET gene amplification by FISH. Patient demographic, histologic characteristics, molecular characteristics, and outcomes in phase I protocols were compared per MET amplification status. RESULTS: Of 1,115 patients, 29 (2.6%) had MET amplification. The highest prevalence was in adrenal (2 of 13; 15%) and renal (4 of 28; 14%) tumors, followed by gastroesophageal (6%), breast (5%), and ovarian cancers (4%). MET amplification was associated with adenocarcinomas (P = 0.007), high-grade tumors (P = 0.003), more sites of metastasis, higher BRAF mutation, and PTEN loss (all P < 0.05). Median overall survival was 7.23 and 8.62 months for patients with and without a MET amplification, respectively (HR = 1.12; 95% confidence intervals, 0.83-1.85; P = 0.29). Among the 20 patients with MET amplification treated on a phase I protocol, 4 (20%) achieved a partial response with greatest response rate on agents targeting angiogenesis (3 of 6, 50%). No patient treated with a c-MET inhibitor (0 of 7) achieved an objective response. CONCLUSION: MET amplification was detected in 2.6% of patients with solid tumors and was associated with adenocarcinomas, high-grade histology, and higher metastatic burden. Concomitant alterations in additional pathways (BRAF mutation and PTEN loss) and variable responses on targeted therapies, including c-MET inhibitors, suggest that further studies are needed to target this population.

Synergy between VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors and chemotherapy agents in the phase I clinic.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that chemotherapy synergizes with VEGF/VEGFR (VEGF/R) inhibitors in patients with advanced solid malignancies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients treated on phase I protocols between December 2004 and July 2013 (n = 1,498) were included in this analysis. The primary outcome was clinical benefit, defined as stable disease ≥ 6 months, complete response, or partial response. Two odds ratios (OR) for achieving clinical benefit were calculated: one for patients treated with VEGF/R inhibitors (OR with VEGF/R) and another for patients treated without (OR without VEGF/R). To compare these two ORs, an interaction term was included in the multivariate model: (chemotherapy/factor of interest)×(VEGF/R). We took significant interaction terms (Pinteraction < 0.05) to suggest effect modification (either synergy or antagonism) with VEGF/R inhibitors. RESULTS: All patients treated with VEGF/R inhibitors exhibited higher OR for clinical benefit than those who were not [OR = 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5-2.4; P < 0.0001]. Use of chemotherapy agents concomitant with VEGF/R inhibitors was associated with significantly higher OR for clinical benefit compared with chemotherapy use without VEGF/R inhibitors [OR with VEGF/R = 1.6 (95% CI, 1.1-2.5) vs. OR without VEGF/R = 0.4 (95% CI, 0.3-0.6), Pinteraction = 0.02]. Specifically, the antimetabolite class was associated with the greatest increase in OR for clinical benefit [OR with VEGF/R = 2.7 (95% CI, 1.5-4.7) vs. OR without VEGF/R = 0.2 (95% CI 0.1-0.3), Pinteraction = 0.004]. CONCLUSIONS: VEGF/R inhibitor was found to synergize with chemotherapeutics. This effect was most pronounced with the antimetabolite class.

Triple-negative breast cancer patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center in phase I trials: improved outcomes with combination chemotherapy and targeted agents.

Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have poor treatment outcomes. We reviewed the electronic records of consecutive patients with metastatic TNBC treated in phase I clinic at MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX) between Augu st 2005 and May 2012. One hundred and six patients received at least 1 phase I trial. Twelve of 98 evaluable patients (12%) had either complete response (CR; n = 1), partial response (PR; n = 7), or stable disease ≥ 6 months (SD; n = 4). Patients treated on matched therapy (n = 16) compared with those on nonmatched therapy (n = 90) had improved SD ≥ 6 months/PR/CR (33% vs. 8%; P = 0.018) and longer progression-free survival (PFS; median, 6.4 vs. 1.9 months; P = 0.001). Eleven of 57 evaluable patients (19%) treated with combination chemotherapy and targeted therapy had SD ≥ 6 months/PR/CR versus 1 of 41 evaluable patients (2%) treated on other phase I trials (P = 0.013), and longer PFS (3.0 vs. 1.6 months; P < 0.0001). Patients with molecular alterations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway treated on matched therapy (n = 16) had improved PFS compared with those with and without molecular alterations treated on nonmatched therapy (n = 27; 6.4 vs. 3.2 months; P = 0.036). On multivariate analysis, improved PFS was associated with treatment with combined chemotherapy and targeted agents (P = 0.0002), ≤ 2 metastatic sites (P = 0.003), therapy with PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors for those with cognate pathway abnormalities (P = 0.018), and treatment with antiangiogenic agents (P = 0.023). In summary, combinations of chemotherapy and angiogenesis and/or PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with metastatic TNBC.

A phase 2 cooperative group adjuvant trial using a biomarker-based decision algorithm in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (SWOG-0720, NCT00792701).

BACKGROUND: This cooperative group adjuvant phase 2 trial in patients with completely resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer with tumor diameters measuring ≥ 2 cm was designed to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of assigning patients to therapy or observation using a molecularly based decision algorithm. METHODS: At least a lobectomy and sampling of recommended mediastinal lymph node stations, good Zubrod performance status, adequate organ function, and a formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tumor specimen were required. Excision repair cross-complementing group 1 (ERCC1) and ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) were analyzed using immunofluorescence-based in situ automated quantitative image analysis and categorized as high or low using prespecified cutoff values. Patients with high ERCC1 and RRM1 were assigned to observation and all others to 4 cycles of cisplatin and gemcitabine. Feasibility was defined as treatment assignment within 84 days from surgery in > 85% of patients. Secondary objectives were to estimate the 2-year survival. RESULTS: Treatment assignment met the feasibility criteria in 88% of eligible patients (71 of 81 patients). The collective 2-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 80% and 96%, respectively. Protein levels for RRM1 fell within the previously established range, ERCC1 levels were slightly lower than expected, and they were significantly correlated (correlation coefficient, 0.4). The rates of assignment of patients to observation (22%) and chemotherapy (78%) were as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Gene expression analysis for treatment assignment is feasible. Survival results are encouraging and require future validation. Real-time performance of quantitative in situ ERCC1 and RRM1 analysis requires further development.