TITAN: phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by ixabepilone or paclitaxel in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Ixabepilone is a microtubule stabilizer with activity in taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer and low susceptibility to taxane-resistance mechanisms including multidrug-resistant phenotypes and high ß-III tubulin expression. Since these resistance mechanisms are common in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ixabepilone may have particular advantages in this patient population. This study evaluated the substitution of ixabepilone for paclitaxel following doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage TNBC. METHODS: Patients with operable TNBC were eligible following definitive breast surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive four cycles of AC followed by either four cycles (12 weeks) of ixabepilone or 12 weekly doses of paclitaxel. RESULTS: 614 patients were randomized: 306 to AC/ixabepilone and 308 to AC/paclitaxel. At a median follow-up of 48 months, 59 patients had relapsed (AC/ixabepilone, 29; AC/paclitaxel, 30). The median time from diagnosis to relapse was 20.8 months. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of the two groups were similar [HR 0.92; ixabepilone 87.1% (95% CI 82.6-90.5) vs. paclitaxel 84.7% (95% CI 79.7-88.6)]. The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were also similar [HR 1.1; ixabepilone 89.7% (95% CI 85.5-92.7) vs. paclitaxel 89.6% (95% CI 85.0-92.9)]. Peripheral neuropathy was the most common grade 3/4 event. Dose reductions and treatment discontinuations occurred more frequently during paclitaxel treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with AC/ixabepilone provided similar DFS and OS in patients with operable TNBC when compared to treatment with AC/paclitaxel. The two regimens had similar toxicity, although treatment discontinuation, dose modifications, and overall peripheral neuropathy were more frequent with AC/paclitaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier, NCT00789581.

Cardiac safety results from a phase II, open-label, multicenter, pilot study of two docetaxel-based regimens plus bevacizumab for the adjuvant treatment of subjects with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Adding antiangiogenic therapy to standard chemotherapy has improved response rates and progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer (BC) patients. This phase II study evaluated cardiac safety of bevacizumab with/without trastuzumab with two docetaxel-based regimens in early BC. METHODS: 127 women with non-metastatic node-positive or high-risk node-negative BC were enrolled. Women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative BC (n = 93) received docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC) + bevacizumab, while women with HER2-positive disease (n = 34) received docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab (TCH) + bevacizumab, every 3 weeks for six cycles. Maintenance therapy with bevacizumab alone or bevacizumab plus trastuzumab, respectively, was given every 3 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate cardiac safety, as measured by the incidence of ≥ grade 3 clinical congestive heart failure (CHF); the secondary objective was assessment of safety and toxicity. RESULTS: At least one cardiac adverse event (AE; CHF, cardiomyopathy, or left ventricular dysfunction) was reported in 26.1% of TAC (n = 92) and 17.6% of TCH subjects (n = 34); there were no cardiac deaths. ≥ Grade 3 clinical CHF was observed in 4.3% in the TAC plus bevacizumab stratum and 0% in the TCH plus bevacizumab stratum. A ≥ grade 3 treatment-emergent AE (any kind) related to study treatment was observed in 59.8% in the TAC with bevacizumab and 52.9% in the TCH plus bevacizumab stratum. CONCLUSION: Adding bevacizumab to a docetaxel-based regimen with trastuzumab did not appear to increase cardiotoxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00446030, registered March 8, 2007.

Projected supply of and demand for oncologists and radiation oncologists through 2025: an aging, better-insured population will result in shortage.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published a study in 2007 that anticipated a shortage of oncologists by 2020. This study aims to update and better assess the market for chemotherapy and radiation therapy and the impact of health reform on capacity of and demand for oncologists and radiation oncologists. METHODS: The supply of oncologists and radiation oncologists, by age, sex, and specialty, was projected through 2025 with an input-output model. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, commercial claims, and Medicare claims were analyzed to determine patterns of use by patient characteristics such as age, sex, health insurance coverage, cancer site, physician specialty, and service type. Patterns of use were then applied to the projected prevalence of cancer, using data from the SEER Program of the National Cancer Institute. RESULTS: Beginning in 2012, 16,347 oncologists and radiation oncologists were active and supplying 15,190 full-time equivalents (FTEs) of patient care. Without consideration of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), overall demand for oncologist services is projected to grow 40% (21,255 FTEs), whereas supply may grow only 25% (18,997 FTEs), generating a shortage of 2,258 FTEs in 2025. When fully implemented, the ACA could increase the demand for oncologists and radiation oncologists by 500,000 visits per year, increasing the shortage to 2,393 FTEs in 2025. CONCLUSION: Anticipated shortages are largely consistent with the projections of the ASCO 2007 workforce study but somewhat more delayed. The ACA may modestly exacerbate the shortage. Unless oncologist productivity can be enhanced, the anticipated shortage will strain the ability to provide quality cancer care.

Carcinoma of unknown primary site: sequential treatment with paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide and gemcitabine/irinotecan: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the sequential administration of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Princeton, NJ), carboplatin (Paraplatin; Bristol-Myers Squibb), and oral etoposide (VePesid; Bristol-Myers Squibb) followed by gemcitabine (Gemzar; Eli Lilly; Indianapolis, IN) and irinotecan (Campostar; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; New York, NY) in the first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients were treated with sequential combination chemotherapy for a maximum of six cycles. All patients had relatively poor prognostic features. Fifty-nine patients had well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, 73 patients had poorly differentiated carcinoma, and 121 patients had performance status scores of 0 or 1. RESULTS: Thirty-three (30%) of 111 assessable patients (95% confidence interval 27%-33%) had objective responses to treatment (26 partial responses, seven complete responses). The combination of gemcitabine and irinotecan was associated with significantly less toxicity than the triple-drug regimen and improved the responses in several patients (10%). The response rates were similar in the two major histologic tumor types, but were lower for patients with liver-dominant tumors (13%) and higher for patients with lymph-node-dominant tumors (50%). The median progression-free survival time, median survival time, and actuarial survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 5.7 months, 9.1 months, 35%, and 16%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel/carboplatin/oral etoposide and gemcitabine/irinotecan is an active treatment for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site, but overall toxicities are greater than those seen with other combinations of new drugs and survival appears similar to that observed in 264 other patients treated in our four previous phase II trials. A better understanding of the biology of these heterogeneous tumors will likely lead to improved therapy for these patients.

First-line treatment with brief-duration chemotherapy plus rituximab in elderly patients with intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: phase II trial.

This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of rituximab added to the VNCOP-B (etoposide/mitoxantrone/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/prednisone/bleomycin) combination regimen for the treatment of elderly patients with large B-cell lymphoma. Previously untreated patients > or = 65 years of age with stage II, III, or IV large B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were treated with a modified VNCOP-B regimen with weekly chemotherapy for 8 weeks. In addition, patients received rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenously on weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. All patients received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) during the 8 weeks of treatment. Between August 1999 and February 2002, 41 patients entered this multicenter phase II trial. The median age was 74 years, and 54% of patients had high-risk tumors (age-adjusted International Prognostic Index scores of 2 or 3). Sixty-eight percent of patients completed the 8 weeks of therapy. Overall response rate was 66%; actuarial progression-free survival rate at 2 years was 59%, with a 57% actuarial overall 2-year survival rate. Patients > or = 75 years of age had similar treatment outcomes compared with younger patients. Toxicity with this regimen was predominantly related to chemotherapy; rituximab was well tolerated. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 83% of patients even with routine use of prophylactic G-CSF or GM-CSF. Treatment-related death occurred in 4 patients (10%). VNCOP-B plus rituximab is efficacious, producing 2-year progression-free survival rates that compare favorably with those of other active regimens in this patient group. Hematologic toxicity was increased compared with previous reports with VNCOP-B alone, as evidenced by the treatment-related mortality rate of 10% in the present study. Differences in toxicity may have been caused by the addition of rituximab, the modified etoposide schedule, or the differences in patient characteristics. This regimen provides a treatment option for elderly patients who are not considered candidates for standard CHOP/rituximab chemotherapy.

Phase I clinical trials of tezacitabine [(E)-2'-deoxy-2'-(fluoromethylene)cytidine] in patients with refractory solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of a new nucleoside analogue, tezacitabine [(E)-2'-deoxy-2'-(fluoromethylene)cytidine (FMdC)] in patients with refractory solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Seventy patients were enrolled in four separate Phase I trials. Patients had metastatic or relapsed cancer of the colon, breast, pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, lung, and other sites. FMdC was administered by i.v. infusion over 30 min in one of four dose schedules--from once every 3 weeks to twice a week for 3 weeks, with dose escalation in each. Maximum doses ranged from 630 to 16 mg/m(2). RESULTS: Myelotoxicity, especially neutropenia, was the dominant toxicity and was generally dose-related. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 53% of patients but was of relatively short duration (1-8 days) in all of the patients. One patient experienced grade 3 thrombocytopenia and one patient grade 4 (duration 15 and 11 days, respectively). Transient febrile episodes were reported in 82% of patients with drug administration but were easily controlled. Drug-related gastrointestinal events were mild and appeared unrelated to dose. Pharmacokinetics were linear with dose, not appreciably affected by schedules, and not different after single or multiple doses. Terminal half-life was 3-4 h, and 23% of the administered drug was recovered in the urine as unchanged drug. The uridine analogue (FMdU), the deaminated metabolite of FMdC, was the primary metabolite. Objective antitumor activity was observed in eight patients: one exhibited a partial response and seven exhibited stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: In general, FMdC was well tolerated. On the basis of the time to recovery from neutropenia, the recommended schedule for Phase II studies is one treatment every 2 weeks, at a minimum dose of 270 mg/m(2).