Lasofoxifene versus fulvestrant for ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation: results from the randomized, phase II ELAINE 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Acquired estrogen receptor alpha (ER/ESR1) mutations commonly cause endocrine resistance in ER+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene, a novel selective ER modulator, stabilizes an antagonist conformation of wild-type and ESR1-mutated ER-ligand binding domains, and has antitumor activity in ESR1-mutated xenografts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, phase II, multicenter, ELAINE 1 study (NCT03781063), we randomized women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) mBC that had progressed on an aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) to oral lasofoxifene 5 mg daily or IM fulvestrant 500 mg (days 1, 15, and 29, and then every 4 weeks) until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients received lasofoxifene (n = 52) or fulvestrant (n = 51). The most current efficacy analysis showed that lasofoxifene did not significantly prolong median PFS compared with fulvestrant: 24.2 weeks (∼5.6 months) versus 16.2 weeks (∼3.7 months; P = 0.138); hazard ratio 0.699 (95% confidence interval 0.434-1.125). However, PFS and other clinical endpoints numerically favored lasofoxifene: clinical benefit rate (36.5% versus 21.6%; P = 0.117), objective response rate [13.2% (including a complete response in one lasofoxifene-treated patient) versus 2.9%; P = 0.124], and 6-month (53.4% versus 37.9%) and 12-month (30.7% versus 14.1%) PFS rates. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasofoxifene were nausea, fatigue, arthralgia, and hot flushes. One death occurred in the fulvestrant arm. Circulating tumor DNA ESR1 mutant allele fraction (MAF) decreased from baseline to week 8 in 82.9% of evaluable lasofoxifene-treated versus 61.5% of fulvestrant-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lasofoxifene demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity versus fulvestrant and was well tolerated in patients with ESR1-mutated, endocrine-resistant mBC following progression on AI plus CDK4/6i. Consistent with target engagement, lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, and to a greater extent than fulvestrant. Lasofoxifene may be a promising targeted treatment for patients with ESR1-mutated mBC and warrants further investigation.

A systematic review of dermatologic manifestations among adult patients with COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Infection with COVID-19 is characterized by respiratory, gastrointestinal and neurologic symptoms. However, limited evidence exists of the involvement of the integumentary system among COVID-19 patients and evidence suggests that these symptoms may even be the first presenting sign. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the literature published on dermatologic signs of COVID-19 in order to educate doctors about the dermatologic signs of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Lit COVID, World Health Organization COVID-19 database and PubMed were searched using terminology to identify adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection and dermatologic manifestations of disease. The last search was completed on 13 July 2020. RESULTS: There were 802 reports found. After exclusion, 20 articles were found with 347 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Within these articles, 27 different skin signs were reported. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this review include the recency of COVID-19 infection; so, there are limited published reports and that many reports are not by dermatologists, and so, the cutaneous signs may be misdiagnosed or misdescribed. CONCLUSION: Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 may be the first presenting sign of infection; so, dermatologists and doctors examining the skin should be aware of the virus's influence on the integumentary system in order to promptly diagnose and treat the infected patients.

Phase III safety study of intravenous NEPA: a novel fixed antiemetic combination of fosnetupitant and palonosetron in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Background: NEPA, an oral fixed combination of the NK1RA netupitant (300 mg) and clinically/pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA palonosetron (PALO, 0.50 mg), is the first fixed antiemetic combination to have been approved. A single oral NEPA capsule plus dexamethasone (DEX) given before anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) showed superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over PALO plus DEX for 5 days postchemotherapy. The safety of NEPA was well-established in the phase II/III clinical program in 1169 NEPA-treated patients. An intravenous (i.v.) formulation of the NEPA combination (fosnetupitant 235 mg plus PALO 0.25 mg) has been developed. Patients and methods: This randomized, multinational, double-blind, stratified (by sex and country) phase III study (NCT02517021) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors assessed the safety of a single dose of i.v. NEPA infused over 30 min before initial and repeated cycles of HEC. Patients received either i.v. NEPA or oral NEPA, both with oral DEX on days 1-4. Safety was assessed primarily by treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and electrocardiograms. Results: A total of 404 patients completed 1312 cycles. The incidence and type of treatment-emergent AEs were similar for both treatment groups with the majority of AEs as mild/moderate in intensity. There was no increased incidence of AEs in subsequent cycles in either group. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was similar and relatively low in both groups (12.8% i.v. NEPA and 11.4% oral NEPA during the entire study), with constipation being the most common (6.4% i.v. NEPA, 6.0% oral NEPA). No serious treatment-related AEs occurred in either group. No infusion site or anaphylactic reactions related to i.v. NEPA occurred. No clinically relevant changes in QTc and no cardiac safety concerns were observed. Conclusions: Intravenous NEPA was well-tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA in patients with various solid tumors receiving HEC.

The development of a prediction tool to identify cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective antiemetics and evidence-based guidelines, up to 40% of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy fail to achieve complete nausea and vomiting control. In addition to type of chemotherapy, several patient-related risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified. To incorporate these factors into the optimal selection of prophylactic antiemetics, a repeated measures cycle-based model to predict the risk of ≥ grade 2 CINV (≥2 vomiting episodes or a decrease in oral intake due to nausea) from days 0 to 5 post-chemotherapy was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1198 patients enrolled in one of the five non-interventional CINV prospective studies were pooled. Generalized estimating equations were used in a backwards elimination process with the P-value set at <0.05 to identify the relevant predictive factors. A risk scoring algorithm (range 0-32) was then derived from the final model coefficients. Finally, a receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROCC) analysis was done to measure the predictive accuracy of the scoring algorithm. RESULTS: Over 4197 chemotherapy cycles, 42.2% of patients experienced ≥grade 2 CINV. Eight risk factors were identified: patient age <60 years, the first two cycles of chemotherapy, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, history of morning sickness, hours of sleep the night before chemotherapy, CINV in the prior cycle, patient self-medication with non-prescribed treatments, and the use of platinum or anthracycline-based regimens. The ROC analysis indicated good predictive accuracy with an area-under-the-curve of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.67-0.70). Before to each cycle of therapy, patients with risk scores ≥16 units would be considered at high risk for developing ≥grade 2 CINV. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical application of this prediction tool will be an important source of individual patient risk information for the oncology clinician and may enhance patient care by optimizing the use of the antiemetics in a proactive manner.

Safety and immunogenicity of neoadjuvant treatment using WT1-immunotherapeutic in combination with standard therapy in patients with WT1-positive Stage II/III breast cancer: a randomized Phase I study.

PURPOSE: This Phase I, multicenter, randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01220128) evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of recombinant Wilms' tumor 1 (WT1) protein combined with the immunostimulant AS15 (WT1-immunotherapeutic) as neoadjuvant therapy administered concurrently with standard treatments in WT1-positive breast cancer patients. METHODS: Patients were treated in 4 cohorts according to neoadjuvant treatment (A: post-menopausal, hormone receptor [HR]-positive patients receiving aromatase inhibitors; B: patients receiving chemotherapy; C: HER2-overexpressing patients on trastuzumab-chemotherapy combination; D: HR-positive/HER2-negative patients on chemotherapy). Patients (cohorts A-C) were randomized (2:1) to receive 6 or 8 doses of WT1-immunotherapeutic or placebo together with standard neoadjuvant treatment in a double-blind manner; cohort D patients received WT1-immunotherapeutic in an open manner. Safety was assessed throughout the study. WT1-specific antibodies were assessed pre- and post-vaccination. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized; 60 received ≥ one dose of WT1-immunotherapeutic. Two severe toxicities were reported: diarrhea (cohort C; also reported as a grade 3 serious adverse event) and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (cohort B; also reported as a grade 2 adverse event). Post-dose 4 of WT1-immunotherapeutic, 10/10 patients from cohort A, 0/8 patients from cohort B, 6/11 patients from cohort C, and 2/3 patients from cohort D were humoral responders. The sponsor elected to close the trial prematurely. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent administration of WT1-immunotherapeutic and standard neoadjuvant therapy was well tolerated and induced WT1-specific antibodies in patients receiving neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitors. In patients on neoadjuvant chemotherapy or trastuzumab-chemotherapy combination, the humoral response was impaired or blunted, likely due to either co-administration of corticosteroids and/or the chemotherapies themselves.

A randomized phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic guidelines recommend co-administration of agents that target multiple molecular pathways involved in emesis to maximize prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). NEPA is a new oral fixed-dose combination of 300 mg netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) and 0.50 mg palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA, which targets dual antiemetic pathways. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel group phase III study (NCT01339260) in 1455 chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving moderately emetogenic (anthracycline-cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of NEPA versus a single oral dose (0.50 mg) of PALO. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1 only (12 mg in the NEPA arm and 20 mg in the PALO arm). The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the delayed (25-120 h) phase in cycle 1. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with CR during the delayed phase was significantly higher in the NEPA group compared with the PALO group (76.9% versus 69.5%; P = 0.001), as were the percentages in the overall (0-120 h) (74.3% versus 66.6%; P = 0.001) and acute (0-24 h) (88.4% versus 85.0%; P = 0.047) phases. NEPA was also superior to PALO during the delayed and overall phases for all secondary efficacy end points of no emesis, no significant nausea and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea). NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile as PALO. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA plus a single dose of DEX was superior to PALO plus DEX in preventing CINV following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in acute, delayed and overall phases of observation. As a fixed-dose antiemetic drug combination, NEPA along with a single dose of DEX on day 1 offers guideline-based prophylaxis with a convenient, single-day treatment.

A phase II, multicenter, open-label randomized study of motesanib or bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study estimated the difference in objective response rate (ORR) among patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving paclitaxel-carboplatin (CP) plus motesanib or bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients (N = 186) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive CP plus motesanib 125 mg once daily (qd) (arm A), motesanib 75 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) 5 days on/2 days off (arm B), or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) (arm C). The primary end point was ORR (per RECIST). Other end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), motesanib pharmacokinetics, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: ORRs in the three arms were as follows: arm A, 30% (95% confidence interval 18% to 43%); arm B, 23% (13% to 36%); and arm C, 37% (25% to 50%). Median PFS in arm A was 7.7 months, arm B 5.8 months, and arm C 8.3 months; median OS for arm A was 14.0 months, arm B 12.8 months, and arm C 14.0 months. Incidence of AEs was greater in arms A and B than in arm C. More grade 5 AEs not attributable to disease progression occurred in arm B (n = 10) than in arms A (n = 4) and C (n = 4). Motesanib plasma C(max) and C(min) values were consistent with its pharmacokinetic properties observed in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of 125 mg qd motesanib or bevacizumab plus CP was estimated to be comparable. Toxicity was higher but manageable in both motesanib arms. Efficacy and tolerability of motesanib 125 mg qd plus CP in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC are being further investigated in a phase III study.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus capecitabine plus docetaxel with planned crossover to the alternate single agent in metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus docetaxel (GD) and capecitabine plus docetaxel (CD) were compared in patients with metastatic breast cancer, where the alternate crossover monotherapy (GD→C or CD→G) was predetermined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to 3-week cycles of either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1. Upon progression, patients received crossover monotherapy. Primary end point was time to progression (TtP). Secondary end points evaluated overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Despite over-accrual of 475 patients, the trial matured with only 324 of 385 planned TtP events due to patient discontinuations. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was not captured in this study. More CD patients (28%) discontinued due to AEs than GD patients (18.0%, P = 0.009). TtP [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.101, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.885-1.370, P = 0.387] and OS (HR = 1.031, 95% CI 0.830-1.280, P = 0.785) were not significantly different comparing GD and CD. ORR was not statistically different (P = 0.239) comparing GD (72 of 207, 34.8%) and CD (78 of 191, 40.8%). TtP, OS, and ORR were not significantly different comparing crossover groups. GD caused greater fatigue, hepatotoxicity, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia but not febrile neutropenia; CD caused more hand-foot syndrome, gastrointestinal toxicity, and mucositis. CONCLUSIONS: GD and CD produced similar efficacy and toxicity profiles consistent with prior clinical experience.

Single-agent lapatinib for HER2-overexpressing advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed on first- or second-line trastuzumab-containing regimens.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lapatinib in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed during prior trastuzumab therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with stage IIIB/IV HER2-overexpressing breast cancer were treated with single-agent lapatinib 1250 or 1500 mg once daily after protocol amendment. Tumor response according to RECIST was assessed every 8 weeks. HER2 expression was assessed in tumor tissue by immunohistochemistry and FISH. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Investigator and independent review response rates [complete response (CR) or partial response (PR)] were 7.7% and 5.1%, and clinical benefit rates (CR, PR, or stable disease for >or=24 weeks) were 14.1% and 9.0%, respectively. Median time to progression was 15.3 weeks by independent review, and median overall survival was 79 weeks. The most common treatment-related adverse events were rash (47%), diarrhea (46%), nausea (31%), and fatigue (18%). CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent lapatinib has clinical activity with manageable toxic effects in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer that progressed on trastuzumab-containing therapy. Studies of lapatinib-based combination regimens with chemotherapy and other targeted therapies in metastatic and earlier stages of breast cancer are warranted.

Treatment of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia with humanized anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody HuM195.

HuM195 is a humanized, unconjugated, anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody. Fifty adult patients with relapsed or refractory AML were randomized to receive HuM195 at a dose of 12 or 36 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion over 4 h on days 1-4 and 15-18. Patients with stable or responding disease received two additional cycles on days 29-32 and 43-46. HuM195 was given as first salvage therapy in 24 patients and as second or subsequent salvage therapy in 26 patients. Pretreatment blast percentage in the marrow was between 5 and 30% in 20 patients with the others having blast counts greater than 30%. The median age of patients was 62 years (range 26-86) and CD33 was detected in 95% of patients for whom immunophenotyping was available. Of 49 evaluable patients, two complete and one partial remission were observed. All three responses were in patients treated at the 12 mg/m(2) dose level and all had baseline blast percentages less than 30%. Decreases in blast counts ranging from 30 to 74% were seen in nine additional patients. Infusion-related events of fever and chills occurred in the majority of patients and were generally mild and primarily related to the first dose of antibody. No hepatic, renal or cardiac toxicities were observed and other adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, mucositis and diarrhea were uncommon or felt to be unrelated to HuM195. In addition, anti-HuM195 responses were not detected. HuM195 as a single agent has minimal, but observable, anti-leukemic activity in patients with relapsed or refractory AML and activity is confined to patients with low burden disease. No significant differences in clinical efficacy or toxicity were seen between the two dose levels of antibody. HuM195 was well tolerated with infusion-related fevers and chills the predominant toxicities seen. Meaningful clinical efficacy of this unconjugated monoclonal antibody may be realized only in patients with minimal residual disease, or in combination with chemotherapy.

Darbepoetin alfa given every 1 or 2 weeks alleviates anaemia associated with cancer chemotherapy.

In part A of this study, patients were randomised to cohorts receiving darbepoetin alfa at doses of 0.5 to 8.0 m.c.g x kg(-1) x wk(-1) or to a control group receiving epoetin alfa at an initial dose of 150 U x kg(-1) three times weekly. In part B, the cohorts were darbepoetin alfa 3.0 to 9.0 m.c.g x kg(-1) every 2 weeks or epoetin alfa, initial dose 40 000 U x wk(-1). Safety was assessed by adverse events, changes in blood pressure, and formation of antibodies to darbepoetin alfa. Efficacy was assessed by several haematologic endpoints, including change in haemoglobin from baseline. The adverse event profile of darbepoetin alfa was similar to that of epoetin alfa. No relationship between the rapidity of haemoglobin response and any adverse event was observed. No antibodies to darbepoetin alfa were detected. Higher doses of darbepoetin alfa increased the proportion of patients with a haemoglobin response and decreased the median time to response. The overall dose of darbepoetin alfa required to produce a mean increase in haemoglobin does not increase when the dosing interval is increased from 1 to 2 weeks. Therapy with darbepoetin alfa is safe and effective in producing a dose-related increase in haemoglobin levels in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Dolor irruptivo en cáncer: ensayo aleatorizado comparati vo entre citrato de fentanilo oral transmucosa (CFOT) y sulfato de morfina de liberación inmediata (MSIR®) / Irruptive pain in cancer: A randomized comparative trial of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) versus immediate-re l e a s e morphine sulphate (MSIR®)

El citrato de fentanilo oral transmucosa (CFOT; Actiq®) es una formulación farmacológica utilizada para el tratamiento de las crisis de dolor irruptivo del cáncer. Estudios p revios comparativos y de diseño abierto indicaron que el CFOT era más eficaz que los opioides habitualmente utilizados por los pacientes para las crisis de dolor irruptivo. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el CFOT con el sulfa- to de morfina de liberación inmediata (MSIR®) en el tratamiento del dolor irruptivo en pacientes tratados con una pauta de opioides fija. Este estudio cruzado múltiple, aleatorizado, doble ciego y con doble enmascaramiento se llevó a cabo en 19 clínicas y hospitales comunitarios o universitarios de Estados Unidos y participaron en él 134 pacientes ambulatorios adultos con cáncer. Los pacientes estaban siendo tratados con una pauta de opioides fija, equivalente a 60-1.000 mg.día- 1 de morfina oral o 50-300 µg . h- 1 de fentanilo transdérmico, utilizando una dosis de MSIR® "eficaz" (15-60 mg) según lo definido por los criterios de inclusión, y experimentaban de 1 a 4 episodios de dolor irruptivo al día. En un primer periodo de tratamiento de diseño abierto, se realizó un ajuste de la dosis de CFOT de tal manera que con una sola unidad (200-1.600 µg) se obtuviera un alivio del dolor suficiente con unos efectos secundarios aceptables. Los pacientes en los que se logró realizar satisfactoriamente este ajuste, se incorporaron a la fase doble ciego del estudio y re c i b i e ron diez juegos pre n umerados de cápsulas y unidades oral transmucosa asignados de forma aleatorizada. Cinco de los juegos contenían la dosis de CFOT eficaz y cápsulas de placebo, y otros cinco contenían el placebo de CFOT y cápsulas que contenían la dosis eficaz de MSIR®. Los pacientes utilizaron un juego de medicación del estudio para cada episodio de dolor irruptivo a tratar. Se registró la intensidad del dolor (ID), el alivio del dolor (AD) y la utilidad global (UG) de la medicación. Se calcularon las diferencias en la intensidad del dolor (DID) y se utilizó como variable principal de eficacia la DID a los 15 minutos. Se re g i s t r a ron las reacciones adversa. El 69 por ciento de los pacientes (93/134) encontraron una dosis eficaz de CFOT. Los resultados obtenidos con el CFOT (ID, DID y AD) en todos los momentos de valoración fueron significativamente mejores que los de la MSIR®. La UG fue también más favorable con el CFOT y hubo más pacientes que optaron por continuar con el CFOT que con la MSIR® después del estudio. La somnolencia, las náuseas, el estreñimiento y el mareo fueron los efectos secundarios más frecuentes asociados a la medicación. Como conclusión, el CFOT fue más eficaz que la MSIR® en el tratamiento de las crisis de dolor irruptivo del cáncer (AU)

Clinical experience with edrecolomab: a monoclonal antibody therapy for colorectal carcinoma.

Edrecolomab (monoclonal antibody 17-1A) is a murine monoclonal antibody that recognizes the human tumor-associated antigen Ep-CAM (otherwise known as 17-1A). It is being developed for the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer. In a study of 189 patients with resected stage III colorectal cancer, treatment with edrecolomab resulted in a 32% increase in overall survival compared with no treatment (P<0.01) and decreased the tumor recurrence rate by 23% (P<0.04). In terms of safety, edrecolomab was well tolerated. Based on these study results, edrecolomab is currently under investigation in large multicenter phase III studies both as monotherapy and in combination with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the treatment of stage III colon cancer. Although these studies are still ongoing, an interim analysis of safety data indicated that the combination of edrecolomab with chemotherapy is well tolerated. In addition, edrecolomab monotherapy demonstrated a favorable safety profile compared with chemotherapy. Edrecolomab is also currently being tested in large multicenter adjuvant phase III studies in stage II/III rectal cancer and stage II colon cancer. Edrecolomab represents a novel therapeutic approach and has the potential to become a treatment of choice as monotherapy in stage II colon cancer and in combination with chemotherapy in stage II/III rectal and stage III colon cancer.

Short-term autologous tumor cell lines for the active specific immunotherapy of patients with metastatic melanoma.

We established short-term cell lines for 108/170 (64%) patients with metastatic melanoma. Tumor cell numbers were expanded to 10(8), then cells were irradiated, aliquoted, and cryopreserved for clinical use. Vaccines have been used to treat 69 patients with clinical follow up for 33 who had measurable metastatic disease at the time vaccine therapy was initiated (METS), and 33 who had no evidence of disease (NED) at the time of vaccine therapy following surgical resection of metastases. The protocol called for a baseline test of delayed tumor hypersensitivity (DTH), three weekly injections, a repeat of the DTH test, then monthly injections for an additional 5 months. Objective tumor responses were noted in 3/26 (12%) patients who received a minimum of three vaccinations, one complete, and two partial, with survivals of 36, 46+, and 78+ months. Only 6/64 (9.4%) had a positive DTH (>10 mm) at baseline, including three METS, all of whom progressed within 4 months and died within a year, and three who are still NED after more than 5 years. Conversion of DTH from negative to positive was documented in 18/44 (41%) patients who were tested at week 0 and 4. At a median follow up of greater than 5 years, the median overall survival (OS) was 40 months for "NED" with a 5-year survival rate of 39%, and 8.6 months with a 5-year survival rate of 10% for "METS" The 18 patients who had conversion of their DTH had a median event-free survival (EFS) of 15.8 months and 5-year EFS of 32% compared to 4.2 months and 9% for the 26 non-converters (P=0.012, two-tailed, log-rank test). Among patients who were NED when treatment started, the 12 patients whose DTH converted had a median overall survival of 61.4 months with 5-year survival of 63% compared to 9.7 months and 0% for the 13 non-converters (P=0.0026). This treatment approach is feasible, produces minimal toxicity, and is associated with long-term survival in a significant subset of patients.

A dose-finding and safety study of novel erythropoiesis stimulating protein (NESP) for the treatment of anaemia in patients receiving multicycle chemotherapy.

Darbepoetin alfa is a novel erythropoiesis stimulating protein (NESP), which stimulates erythropoiesis by the same mechanism as recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO). NESP has been shown to be safe and efficacious in patients with chronic renal failure. NESP is biochemically distinct from rHuEPO, due to its increased sialic acid content. NESP has an approximately 3-fold greater half-life. rHuEPO has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of NESP administered once per week, under the supervision of a physician, to patients with solid tumours who were receiving multicycle chemotherapy for up to 12 weeks. Three dose cohorts are presented in this sequential, unblinded and dose-escalating study. Thirteen to 59 patients received NESP (0.5, 1.5 or 2.25 mcg kg(-1)wk(-1)) in each cohort. Patients were monitored for adverse events, including antibody formation to NESP and for effects on haemoglobin. NESP appeared to be well tolerated. Adverse events were similar across all cohorts and were consistent with the population being studied. No antibody formation was detected over the 16-week study period and follow-up. A dose-response relationship was evident for NESP and multiple measures of efficacy, including proportion of patients responding to NESP and the mean change in haemoglobin by week 4 and end of treatment for NESP 0.5, 1.5 and 2.25 mcg kg(-1)wk(-1)cohorts (mean change in haemoglobin at end of treatment was 1.24, 1.73 and 2.15 g dl(-1)respectively). Controlled studies of this agent at higher doses and less frequent schedules of administration are ongoing.

Breakthrough cancer pain: a randomized trial comparing oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR).

Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC); Actiq) is a drug delivery formulation used for management of breakthrough cancer pain. Previous studies with open-label comparisons indicated OTFC was more effective than patients' usual opioid for breakthrough pain. The objective of this study was to compare OTFC and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR) for management of breakthrough pain in patients receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen. This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, multiple crossover study was conducted at 19 US university- and community-based hospitals and clinics and comprised 134 adult ambulatory cancer patients. Patients were receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen equivalent to 60-1000 mg/day oral morphine or 50-300 microg/h transdermal fentanyl, were using a 'successful' MSIR dose (15-60 mg) as defined by entry criteria, and were experiencing 1-4 episodes of breakthrough pain per day. In open-label fashion, OTFC was titrated such that a single unit (200-1600 microg) provided adequate pain relief with acceptable side effects. Successfully titrated patients entered the double-blind phase of the study and received ten prenumbered sets of randomized capsules and oral transmucosal units. Five sets were the successful OTFC dose paired with placebo capsules, and five sets were placebo OTFC paired with capsules containing the successful MSIR dose. Patients took one set of study medication for each episode of target breakthrough pain. Pain intensity (PI), pain relief (PR) and global performance of medication (GP) scores were recorded. Pain intensity differences (PID) were calculated and 15-min PID was the primary efficacy variable. Adverse events were recorded. Sixty-nine percent of patients (93/134) found a successful dose of OTFC. OTFC yielded outcomes (PI, PID, and PR) at all time points that were significantly better than MSIR. GP also favored OTFC and more patients opted to continue with OTFC than MSIR following the study. Somnolence, nausea, constipation, and dizziness were the most common drug-associated side effects. In conclusion, OTFC was more effective than MSIR in treating breakthrough cancer pain.

Breast tumor contamination of PBSC harvests: tumor depletion by positive selection of CD34(+) cells.

BACKGROUND: Positive selection of CD34(+) cells may reduce or eliminate tumor cells contaminating PBSC harvests of breast cancer (BrCa) patients. However, to assess tumor purging accurately methods may be needed that are of higher sensitivity than standard immunocytochemistry (ICC) assays. METHODS: BrCa-cell depletion, resulting from CD34(+) cell selection, was evaluated using a novel, highly sensitive assay based upon immunomagnetic enrichment with ICC detection in 36 BrCa patients undergoing highdose chemotherapy with autologous PBSC support. RESULTS: The prevalence of BrCa-cell contamination was significantly lower (P = 0.0078) in selected CD34(+) cell fractions (17/35, 49%) from apheresis collections compared with CD34(-) cell fractions (25/35, 71%). In 8/34 (24%) patients, BrCa cells were detected in CD34(-) cell fractions, but not in paired CD34(+) cell fractions. Significantly lower total numbers (P < 0.0005) of BrCa cells were enumerable in CD34(+) cell fractions compared with corresponding apheresis harvests. The median total BrCa-cell content of selected CD34(+) cell fractions with measurable contamination was 22 BrCa cells (range, 6-73 BrCa cells), compared with 3297 BrCa cells (range, 10-98 400 BrCa cells) in apheresis harvests. The median log depletion of BrCa cells achieved by positive CD34(+) cell selection in specimens with detectable contamination both before and after selection was 2.2 (range, 1.7-4.0). Total pre-selection BrCa cell number was significantly predictive (P = 0.004) of residual detectable post-selection contamination. DISCUSSION: Positive CD34(+) cell selection is an effective tumor purging strategy. The prevalence of PBSC contamination in BrCa patients is substantially higher than formerly appreciated.

High-dose chemotherapy with peripheral blood stem cell support for stage IIIB inflammatory carcinoma of the breast.

The purpose of this study was to determine outcomes for 56 patients with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with cyclophosphamide, thiotepa and carboplatin (CTCb) with peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support. All patients received the same total amount of chemotherapy but there were differences in the sequence of therapy: 15 received induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy mobilization of PBSC and CTCb after surgery (adjuvant group) while 41 received induction chemotherapy with (n = 17) or without (n = 24) chemotherapy for mobilization of PBSC prior to surgery and CTCb after surgery (neoadjuvant group). Median time from diagnosis to HDC was 5.5 months (range 3.5-12.5). Fifty-one patients (91%) required admission to the hospital following HDC for a median of 11 days (range 5-25). There were two (4%) infectious deaths after HDC. Twenty-four patients (43%) have relapsed at a median of 18 months (range 8-50) from diagnosis resulting in death in 34%. The probabilities of overall (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) at 3 years for all 56 patients were 0.72 and 0.53, respectively, with a median follow-up of 44 months (range 15-76) from diagnosis. There were no differences in OS, EFS or patterns of relapse between patients in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant groups. These sequences of combined modality therapy incorporating HDC are comparable or superior to other intensive approaches for the treatment of IBC. Further improvements will be necessary to decrease systemic recurrences.