Preemptive Versus Reactive Topical Clobetasol for Regorafenib-Induced Hand-Foot Reactions: A Preplanned Analysis of the ReDOS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.

Regorafenib dose-optimisation in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (ReDOS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction). INTERPRETATION: The dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Host immunity affects survival in myelodysplastic syndromes: Independent prognostic value of the absolute lymphocyte count.

The prognostic significance of the peripheral blood absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) has been carefully examined in lymphoid malignancies, but the importance of the baseline ALC in chronic myeloid neoplasms is less clear. In a recent analysis of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) associated with deletion of chromosome 5q, we observed that an ALC < 1.2x 10(9) cells/L at diagnosis is independently associated with poorer survival. Clinicopathological data from 503 patients with non-del(5q) MDS evaluated at Mayo Clinic between 1996 and 2007 were reviewed to determine the prognostic impact of ALC at diagnosis in non-del(5q) MDS. Patients with MDS and an ALC at diagnosis > or =1.2x 10(9) (N = 248) experienced a superior overall survival (OS) compared with patients with an ALC < 1.2x 10(9)/L (N = 255, median OS of 26.6 months versus 18.5 months, P < 0.001, respectively). ALC at diagnosis was an independent predictor for OS when compared with the International Prognostic Scoring System and the WHO-based Prognostic Scoring System. This study suggests that ALC at diagnosis is a prognostic factor for OS in MDS, and argues in favor of further studies to assess the role of host immunity in MDS clinical outcomes.

Cumulative morbidity and late mortality in long-term survivors of exocrine pancreas cancer.

BACKGROUND: Less than 5% of patients diagnosed with exocrine pancreas cancer live to be long-term survivors (5+ years after diagnosis). As a result, few studies have focused on these patients' cumulative, cancer-related morbidity and late mortality. This descriptive study was undertaken to explore such issues. METHODS: One thousand eight hundred thirty consecutive patients who had exocrine pancreas cancer had been seen at the Mayo Clinic between 1995 and 2001 and who had well-documented evidence of having lived for 5+ years were the focus of this study. RESULTS: Only 85 patients (4.6%) met all the above criteria. These patients had a median age of 65 years with a slight female predominance (53%). Eighty-one (95%) were treated with surgery, 42 (49%) with chemotherapy, and 41 (48%) with radiation. Cumulative morbidity included one or more subsequent surgeries in 17 patients (20%), one or more major infections in 14 (16%), diabetes in 39 (45%), depression in 16 (19%), and a second malignancy in 17 (20%). Twenty-nine patients were deceased at the time of this report; 15 (18%) died from recurrent pancreas cancer more than 5 years after their original diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Long-term survivors of exocrine pancreas cancer confront notable rates of cumulative morbidity, which include subsequent major surgeries, major infections, diabetes, depression, and second malignancies, as well as late deaths from pancreas cancer itself.