A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Phase II Trial of Carboplatin and Pemetrexed with or without Apatorsen (OGX-427) in Patients with Previously Untreated Stage IV Non-Squamous-Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The SPRUCE Trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein (Hsp) 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus apatorsen) or Arm B (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus placebo). Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging every two cycles, until progression or intolerable toxicity. Serum Hsp27 levels were analyzed at baseline and during treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 155 patients (median age 66 years; 44% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0). Toxicities were similar in the 2 treatment arms; cytopenias, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. Median PFS and OS were 6.0 and 10.8 months, respectively, for Arm A, and 4.9 and 11.8 months for Arm B (differences not statistically significant). Overall response rates were 27% for Arm A and 32% for Arm B. Sixteen patients (12%) had high serum levels of Hsp27 at baseline. In this small group, patients who received apatorsen had median PFS of 10.8 months, and those who received placebo had median PFS 4.8 months. CONCLUSION: The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting.

Randomized phase 2 trial of pemetrexed, pemetrexed/bevacizumab, and pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2.

BACKGROUND: The best treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a poor performance status is not well defined. In this phase 2 trial, patients were randomized to receive treatment with either single-agent pemetrexed or 1 of 2 combination regimens. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed nonsquamous NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 were stratified by age and serum albumin level and were randomized (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 regimens: pemetrexed (arm 1), pemetrexed and bevacizumab (arm 2), or pemetrexed, carboplatin, and bevacizumab (arm 3). The response to treatment was assessed every 2 cycles; responding and stable patients continued treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-two patients were randomized, 162 patients began the study treatment, and 146 patients completed 2 cycles and were evaluated for their response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months in arm 1, 4.0 months in arm 2, and 4.8 months in arm 3. The overall response rates were 15% in arm 1, 31% in arm 2, and 44% in arm 3. The overall survival was similar in the 3 treatment arms. All 3 regimens were relatively well tolerated. Patients receiving bevacizumab had an increased incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, and bleeding episodes, but most events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 regimens were feasible for patients with advanced NSCLC and an ECOG performance status of 2. The addition of bevacizumab to pemetrexed increased the overall response rate. The efficacy of pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab (median PFS, 4.8 months) approached the prespecified study PFS goal of 5 months. Larger studies will be necessary to define the role of bevacizumab in addition to standard pemetrexed and carboplatin in this population. Cancer 2018;124:1982-91. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Phase II Trial of Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Apatorsen or Placebo in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: The RAINIER Trial.

LESSONS LEARNED: The addition of the heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27)-targeting antisense oligonucleotide, apatorsen, to a standard first-line chemotherapy regimen did not result in improved survival in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.Findings from this trial hint at the possible prognostic and predictive value of serum Hsp27 that may warrant further investigation. BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27) mRNA, or placebo in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus apatorsen) or Arm B (gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus placebo). Treatment was administered in 28-day cycles, with restaging every 2 cycles, until progression or intolerable toxicity. Serum Hsp27 levels were analyzed at baseline and on treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled, 66 per arm. Cytopenias and fatigue were the most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events for both arms. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 2.7 and 5.3 months, respectively, for arm A, and 3.8 and 6.9 months, respectively, for arm B. Objective response rate was 18% for both arms. Patients with high serum level of Hsp27 represented a poor-prognosis subgroup who may have derived modest benefit from addition of apatorsen. CONCLUSION: Addition of apatorsen to chemotherapy does not improve outcomes in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the first-line setting, although a trend toward prolonged PFS and OS in patients with high baseline serum Hsp27 suggests this therapy may warrant further evaluation in this subgroup.

A Phase-2 Trial of Single Agent Axitinib as Maintenance Therapy Following First-Line Treatment With Modified FOLFOX/Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

This phase-2 trial evaluated the efficacy of axitinib as maintenance therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) following first-line treatment with FOLFOX/bevacizumab. Patients with mCRC received mFOLFOX/bevacizumab followed by axitinib maintenance after four cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Seventy patients were enrolled. Common treatment-related toxicities were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and peripheral neuropathy during FOLFOX/bevacizumab treatment; and fatigue, hypertension, diarrhea, and peripheral neuropathy during axitinib treatment. Median PFS was 8.3 months. Treatment with FOLFOX/bevacizumab followed by maintenance axitinib as first-line treatment for mCRC produced a median PFS consistent with historical controls of other first-line regimens.

Phase I/II trial of neoadjuvant sunitinib administered with weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin in patients with locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of adding sunitinib to paclitaxel/carboplatin in the neoadjuvant therapy of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients had histologically proven, previously untreated, triple-negative adenocarcinoma, with disease limited to the breast and axilla (clinical T1-T3, N0-N2, M0; T1N1M0 excluded). Following determination of the maximum tolerated doses in the phase I portion, patients in the phase II study received paclitaxel 70 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 8, and 15; carboplatin AUC 5.0 IV day 1; sunitinib 25 mg orally daily; treatment was administered for six 28-day cycles followed by definitive surgery. Sunitinib was resumed postoperatively to complete a 52-week course. Pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was the primary endpoint. Fifty-four patients enrolled; 41 received treatment in the phase II study. Sixteen patients (39 %) were able to complete six cycles of neoadjuvant therapy; 18 additional patients had surgery after completing 2-5 cycles of treatment. The pCR rate in these 34 evaluable patients was 35 %. The toxicity of the regimen was considerable, with myelosuppression resulting in numerous dose reductions and/or omissions of paclitaxel and carboplatin. Eleven patients (27 %) discontinued sunitinib during neoadjuvant therapy, and six patients (14 %) completed 52 weeks of single-agent sunitinib. In the neoadjuvant treatment of patients with TNBC, the combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and sunitinib was difficult to administer, and produced a pCR rate comparable to other less toxic regimens. This combination is not recommended for further evaluation. At present, sunitinib has no defined role in the treatment of breast cancer.

Sorafenib and everolimus in advanced clear cell renal carcinoma: a phase I/II trial of the SCRI Oncology Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of sorafenib and everolimus in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Patients with advanced RCC and ≤ 1 previous targeted therapy were treated. RESULTS: Maximum tolerated doses were sorafenib 200 mg PO BID, everolimus 35 mg PO once weekly. Dose-limiting toxicity was hand-foot syndrome. The response rate was 13%; median PFS was 5.45 months (95% CI: 3.8-7.6). Skin toxicity, fatigue, hypertension, proteinuria, and mucositis (usually Grade 2) were common. CONCLUSIONS: Fifty percent doses of sorafenib and everolimus were required when these drugs were combined. No increase in efficacy was suggested; toxicity was modestly increased.

A pilot study of adjuvant nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide, with trastuzumab in HER2-positive patients, in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer.

nab-Paclitaxel has shown favorable efficacy and toxicity profiles compared to other taxanes in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. In this pilot trial, we evaluated a nab-paclitaxel-containing adjuvant regimen in patients with early stage breast cancer. Patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative early-stage breast cancer were eligible following completion of standard primary therapy. All the patients received four cycles, at 21-day intervals, of nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m(2) IV days 1, 8, and 15) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m(2) IV day 1). HER2-positive patients also received trastuzumab 8 mg/kg IV on cycle 1 day 1, followed by 6 mg/kg every 21 days for a total of 52 weeks. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate feasibility and toxicity of this nab-paclitaxel-containing adjuvant regimen. 62 patients were treated between 2/08 and 11/08. The majority of the patients (87%) were HER2-negative. This adjuvant regimen was well tolerated, and full doses of all agents were administered in >90% of cycles. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 53% of the patients; however, only one episode of febrile neutropenia occurred in a total of 249 cycles administered. Other grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in less than 5% of patients. After short follow-up, all the patients remain alive and disease-free. The combination of nab-paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide, with or without trastuzumab, is feasible and well tolerated in patients with early stage breast cancer. Further investigation of the role of nab-paclitaxel in adjuvant breast cancer therapy is indicated, but definitive evaluation will require randomized phase III trials.

Phase II study of capecitabine in combination with thalidomide in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

We examined the toxicity/efficacy of capecitabine with thalidomide, administered over 21-day cycles, in 24 previously treated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. This regimen was poorly tolerated: grade 3/4 neutropenia (13%); grade 3 nausea (22%), vomiting (17%), and diarrhea (13%); and grade 2/3 hand-foot syndrome (38%). In addition, the response rate was lower than expected: partial response (13%), stable disease (17%), and progressive disease at first evaluation (35%). The median time to progression and overall survival were 2.7 and 11.0 months, respectively. These results do not support further investigation of thalidomide for MBC. The role of angiogenesis inhibition in breast cancer treatment should continue to be defined using more efficacious and specific inhibitors.

Phase II trial of FOLFOX6, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To examine FOLFOX/bevacizumab/cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). DESIGN: Randomized phase II trial aimed at achieving a 60% objective response rate (ORR). Due to frequent cetuximab-related hypersensitivity reactions the trial was amended to a single-arm design. Eligibility: Previously untreated mCRC, measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) 0-1. TREATMENT: Modified FOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 350 mg, and 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m² bolus; 2.4 g/m² infusion, 46 h) day 1; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on day 1; cetuximab 400 mg/m² on day 1, then 250 mg/m² on days 1 and 8, every 14 days (1 cycle) until progressive disease (PD); restaging occurred every 4 cycles. RESULTS: With emerging negative progression-free survival (PFS) data from a similarly designed trial, this trial closed early. Enrollment (N=31) was from August 2005-June 2008. PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS: Median age was 55 years (29-78); 58% were male; 71% were ECOG-PS 0. Ten cycles (median) were completed (range 2-62). The ORR was 55% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36-73%); 11 patients (35%) had stable disease; 1 patient (3%) had PD; 2 patients (6%) were unevaluable. Median PFS was 9 months (95% CI, 8.3-15.2 months); median overall survival was 25.7 months (95% CI, 15.4-27.6 months). Grade 3/4 toxicities (>1 patient) included neutropenia (25%), rash (23%; grade 2 events, 45%), diarrhea (19%), fatigue (16%), pain (16%), anemia (13%), sensory neuropathy (13%), deep-vein thrombosis (10%), nausea (10%), pulmonary embolism (7%), anorexia (6%), and vomiting (6%). CONCLUSION: In this limited trial, it is unclear whether cetuximab contributed to FOLFOX/bevacizumab efficacy, although the response rate, PFS, and overall survival were high. The regimen was generally well-tolerated, with expected skin effects; thromboembolic rates should be assessed in larger analyses. Cetuximab's role in first-line mCRC treatment is likely best guided by K-RAS testing in future clinical trials.

A Randomized Phase II Study of Eribulin/Cyclophosphamide or Docetaxel/Cyclophosphamide as Neoadjuvant Therapy in Operable HER2-negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Eribulin mesylate is a non-taxane microtubule inhibitor effective in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer refractory to anthracyclines and taxanes. In preclinical studies, additional mechanisms of eribulin included reversal of epithelial mesenchymal transition and tumor vascular remodeling. The present study compared the safety and efficacy of eribulin plus cyclophosphamide (ErC) to docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) as neoadjuvant therapy for operable HER2- breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with invasive HER2- breast adenocarcinoma with no distant metastases were eligible. After a 10-patient safety lead-in, the patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either ErC (eribulin 1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 on day 1) or TC (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 on day 1) administered every 21 days for 6 cycles, followed by surgery. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was the primary endpoint. Tumor samples collected at baseline and at surgery were assayed for select epithelial mesenchymal transition and vascular density markers: E-cadherin, vimentin, and CD31 expression. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were enrolled. Of the 76 patients, 10 received ErC in the lead-in phase and 66 were randomized to ErC (n = 44) or TC (n = 22). The pCR rates with ErC and TC were 13% and 9%, respectively. Both regimens produced frequent neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy. Both regimens increased vascular density as measured by CD31 staining. CONCLUSION: The neoadjuvant regimens of ErC and TC resulted in relatively low pCR rates in this patient population. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Our results also provided no suggestion that ErC is a neoadjuvant treatment with greater efficacy than that of standard regimens.

Regorafenib Prior to Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Using 90Y-Resin Microspheres for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Analysis of Safety, Dosimetry, and Molecular Markers.

Background: This Phase II, open-label, study examined the safety of regorafenib followed by selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with regorafenib re-initiation in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with liver metastases who are not surgical candidates. Methods: Patients received 160 mg regorafenib daily on a 21-day course followed by a 1 week washout prior to SIRT. Liver function was evaluated at 2 and 4 weeks after SIRT, and regorafenib re-initiated if liver function was normal. Patients were evaluated for safety, and restaged at weeks 6 and 12 following SIRT. In addition, protein and cytokine assays of blood were performed to identify candidate molecular biomarkers associated with outcomes. Individual patient voxel-based dosimetry assessment was performed post-SIRT. Results: Twenty-Five patients were enrolled and received a median 11 weeks regorafenib. Three patients received regorafenib, but not SIRT due to disease progression. The remaining 22 patients received SIRT with a median activity delivered to the liver of 38 mCi, mean normal liver dose of 14.98 Gy and tumor mean dose of 29.0 Gy with a tumor to normal ratio mean of 2.42. There were four treatment-related serious AEs and no treatment-related deaths. Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months and the median overall survival was 12.1 months. The relative densities of several biomolecules changed significantly during the course of treatment, most notably post-treatment increases in levels of sex-hormone binding globulin (SHBG) and decreased levels of the cytokine MIG (CXL9). Decreases in von Willebrand factor (VWF), the ankyrin repeat domain (ANKRD26), and MIG were associated with improved survival times. Post-treatment increases in alpha-2-macroglobulin (A2M) and the cytokine intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM-1) were associated with reduced overall survival time, while increases in Eotaxin (CCL14) predicted longer overall survival times. Conclusions: The treatment of mCRC patients with liver metastases using regorafenib followed by SIRT was tolerable in this patient population. Further efficacy analysis of this treatment schema and analysis of potential molecular biomarkers using larger sample sizes is merited.

A phase II trial of gemcitabine/carboplatin with or without trastuzumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin (and with trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive disease) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-four patients who had received no previous chemotherapy for MBC were enrolled. Patients with HER2-negative breast cancer received treatment with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously (I.V.) on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 I.V. on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. Patients with HER2-positive disease also received trastuzumab 8-mg/kg I.V. loading dose, then 6 mg/kg I.V. every 21 days. After the first 29 patients were treated, the carboplatin dose was lowered to AUC 4. Patients were re-evaluated every 6 weeks; responses were measured using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. RESULTS: In patients with HER2-negative disease, gemcitabine/carboplatin produced a 34% major response rate; an additional 28% of patients had stable disease > or = 6 months (overall disease control rate, 62%). Gemcitabine/carboplatin/trastuzumab produced an overall response rate of 66%, with a disease control rate of 77%. Grade 3/4 myelosuppression was common, even after reduction of the carboplatin dose. Only 3 patients treated with the lower dose regimen developed neutropenia and fever, but platelet and red blood cell transfusions were necessary in 24% and 40% of patients, respectively. Trastuzumab did not add to hematologic toxicity. Severe nonhematologic toxicity was uncommon. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine/carboplatin and gemcitabine/carboplatin/trastuzumab are active first-line regimens for patients with MBC. The gemcitabine/carboplatin combination causes more grade 3/4 myelosuppression than other standard combination regimens for MBC; however, severe nonhematologic toxicity is minimal.

A randomized phase II trial of oral topotecan versus docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomized phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of oral topotecan compared with intravenous docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty patients were randomized to receive topotecan (2 mg per day or 2.5 mg per day fixed dose for 5 of 7 days for 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) every 21 days. Thirty-nine patients received 138 cycles of topotecan. RESULTS: The overall response rate (RR; ORR) was 8%, median time to progression (TTP) was 1.6 months, median survival was 8.4 months, and the 1- and 2-year survival rates were 36% and 13%, respectively, for patients receiving topotecan. Forty-one patients were randomized, but only 38 patients were actually treated with 136 cycles of docetaxel. The ORR was 8% (7% intent to treat RR), median TTP was 1.4 months, median survival was 7.6 months, and the 1- and 2-year survival rates were 29% and 13%, respectively, for patients receiving docetaxel. CONCLUSION: Oral topotecan appears to be active and well tolerated when administered as a fixed dose daily for 5 of every 7 days for 2 weeks every 21 days and might provide another treatment alternative for patients with advanced-stage NSCLC.

Amrubicin and carboplatin with pegfilgrastim in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer: A phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: First-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) includes treatment with platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Amrubicin is a synthetic anthracycline with single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory SCLC. In an attempt to improve treatment efficacy, we evaluated amrubicin/carboplatin as first-line therapy for extensive-stage SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter phase II trial, patients received amrubicin (30 mg/m2 daily on Days 1, 2, and 3) and carboplatin (AUC = 5 on Day 1); cycles were repeated every 21 days for 4 cycles. Pegfilgrastim (6 mg subcutaneously) was administered on Day 4 of all cycles. Overall survival (OS) proportion at 1 year was the primary endpoint. The target 1-year OS rate was 47%, an improvement of 35% from historical results with carboplatin/etoposide. RESULTS: Eighty patients received study treatment, and 62% completed the planned 4 courses. The overall response rate was 74% (13% complete responses). The 1-year survival rate was 38% (95% CI: 25, 50). The median survival was 10 months. Myelosuppression was severe but manageable. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of amrubicin/carboplatin was an active first-line treatment for extensive stage SCLC, but showed no indication of increased efficacy compared to standard treatments. Severe myelosuppression was common with this regimen, in spite of prophylactic pegfilgrastim. These results are consistent with those of other trials in showing no role for amrubicin in the first-line treatment of SCLC.

Paclitaxel/Carboplatin/gemcitabine versus gemcitabine/vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II/III study of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network.

PURPOSE: This prospective randomized study compared overall survival (OS) in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when treated with the platinum agent-based triple drug combination of paclitaxel/carboplatin/gemcitabine (PCG) versus the nonplatinum agent-based doublet drug combination of gemcitabine/vinorelbine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced (stages IIIB, IV, and recurrent) chemotherapy-naive patients with NSCLC and performance status 0-2 were randomly assigned to the PCG arm (paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1, carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve of 5 on day 1, and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or to the gemcitabine/vinorelbine arm (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15, every 28 days). RESULTS: A total of 337 patients were randomly assigned to the 2 arms. The median time to progression was 6 months for PCG and 3.9 months for gemcitabine/vinorelbine with 1- and 2-year progression-free survival rates of 13% and 2% versus 14% and 4% (P = .324 log rank). Median OS for PCG was 10.3 months versus 10.7 months for gemcitabine/vinorelbine with 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates of 38%, 12%, and 2% versus 45%, 12%, and 6%, respectively (P = 0.269 log rank). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, nausea/vomiting, myalgia/arthralgia, and neuropathy were significantly greater in the PCG arm. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in OS or progression-free survival when comparing PCG and gemcitabine/vinorelbine, and gemcitabine/vinorelbine was significantly less toxic. Gemcitabine/vinorelbine is a reasonable nonplatinum agent-based doublet therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Sorafenib and continued erlotinib or sorafenib alone in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer progressing on erlotinib: A randomized phase II study of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute (SCRI).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of erlotinib, continued after tumor progression, plus sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in patients with refractory metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who previously benefitted from single-agent erlotinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with progressive refractory NSCLC who had previously benefitted from erlotinib (objective response or stable disease >8weeks) were randomized to receive treatment with either erlotinib and sorafenib (400mg orally twice daily) or sorafenib alone. Patients were evaluated for response every 8 weeks, and continued treatment until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were randomized (erlotinib/sorafenib, 25; sorafenib, 28) and 52 patients received study treatment. Patients in both groups received a median of 8weeks of treatment. The median PFS was 3.1months for erlotinib/sorafenib versus 1.7months for sorafenib alone; response rates were 8% and 4%, respectively. Both regimens were tolerable, but toxicity was more frequent with erlotinib/sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not suggest any benefit in continuing erlotinib after tumor progression in patients with refractory metastatic NSCLC. Both regimens tested had limited efficacy, consistent with results from other studies. ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT00609804.

Phase I. Trial of irinotecan and temozolomide in patients with solid tumors.

This phase I study was conducted to determine the dose-limiting toxicity, maximum tolerated doses, and recommended phase II doses of the combination of irinotecan (CPT-11, Camptosar) and temozolomide (Temodar). Patients have received irinotecan and temozolomide on one of three different dosing schedules: (1) oral temozolomide on days 1-14 plus a single i.v. dose of irinotecan on day 8 every 28 days (arm 1); (2) weekly i.v. irinotecan on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 plus oral temozolomide on days 1-7 and 15-21 every 42 days (arm 2); and (3) every-other-week i.v. irinotecan on days 1 and 15 plus oral temozolomide on days 1-7 and 15-21 every 28 days (arm 3). A total of 49 patients have received 112+ cycles of therapy on all three dosing schedules to date. Dose-limiting toxicity consisting of diarrhea, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia was encountered at a temozolomide dose of 125 mg/m2/d and an irinotecan dose of 250 mg/m2 on treatment arm 1. As a result, the protocol has been amended to explore lower doses of temozolomide in combination with higher doses of irinotecan, and patient accrual is currently continuing. Dose-limiting grade 3 diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting were reported in 7/12 patients enrolled on the two dose levels explored on treatment arm 2, so this dosing regimen was considered intolerable. Patient accrual currently continues at dose level 1 of treatment arm 3, so it is too early to determine dose-limiting toxicities and recommended phase II doses for this treatment schedule. Two partial responses have been reported to date in patients with glioblastoma and head and neck cancer, respectively. One evaluable response has also been observed in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan weekly x 4 plus temozolomide on days 1-7 and 15-21 is intolerable due to the development of dose-limiting gastrointestinal toxicities. The recommended phase II doses of irinotecan and temozolomide on treatment arms 1 and 3 remain to be determined as patient accrual is currently ongoing.

High-dose bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma: a phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The dose of bevacizumab necessary to optimally inhibit tumor angiogenesis in advanced renal cell carcinoma is unknown. In this phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of 2 escalated doses of bevacizumab in patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced unresectable clear cell renal carcinoma. Patients who were previously untreated or who had previously received vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy were eligible and were considered separately in the efficacy evaluation. Two doses of bevacizumab were evaluated in sequential cohorts: 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 15 mg/kg weekly. The initial reevaluation was at 8 weeks; responding and stable patients continued treatment, with reevaluations every 8 weeks until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen eligible patients were enrolled and received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 61) or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg weekly (n = 58). Seventy patients were previously untreated with VEGFR-targeted therapy. In previously untreated patients, the overall response rate was 19%, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.8 months. Less activity was seen in patients previously treated with VEGFR-targeted agents (overall response rate, 4%; median PFS, 3.7 months). There was no suggestion of any difference in efficacy between the 2 dose levels tested. Both dose levels were tolerated well by most patients, with a spectrum of toxicity typical for bevacizumab. Grade 3/4 proteinuria was more frequent with both of these escalated doses, particularly with 15 mg/kg weekly. CONCLUSION: Although administration of escalated doses of bevacizumab was feasible in patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma, there was no suggestion that these doses were more efficacious than bevacizumab administered at the standard dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

Phase II study of bevacizumab and chemoradiation in the preoperative or adjuvant treatment of patients with stage II/III rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We wanted to evaluate the efficacy, defined as 2-year disease-free survival (DFS), and safety of bevacizumab/chemoradiation in preoperative and adjuvant settings for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and adequate organ function, and received preoperative (cohort A) or adjuvant (cohort B) treatment at physician discretion. Patients received 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) as an intravenous infusion (IVCI) 225 mg/m(2)/d on days 1-42, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg intravenously (I.V.) on days 1 and 15 (cohort A), or every 2 weeks (cohort B), with radiation therapy to 50.4 Gy. After surgery (cohort A) or chemoradiation (cohort B), FOLFOX6 (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) and bevacizumab were administered for 4 months and then bevacizumab was given alone for up to 1 year. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (cohort A = 35; cohort B = 31) were enrolled from August 2006-April 2009: median age was 57 years; male patients, 62%; ECOG PS 0, 75%; stage II/III, 31%/69%. In cohort A, the complete pathologic response (pCR) rate was 29% (11% microscopic residual disease, 49% gross disease). Four patients did not undergo surgery (toxicity, 2 patients; progressive disease, 1 patient; patient decision, 1 patient). One- and 2-year DFS for cohorts A/B were 85%/not reached and 97%/89%, respectively (median survival not reached for either cohort). Frequent grade 3/4 toxicity included diarrhea (A cohort, 14%; B cohort, 29%), neutropenia (A cohort, 14%, B cohort, 23%), mucositis (A cohort, 23%, B cohort, 0%), and fatigue (A cohort, 6%, B cohort, 10%). Other serious toxicity included bowel perforation and pelvic infection (cohort A, 1 patient each), bowel perforation (2 patients), anal wound dehiscence (1 patient), perianal infection (2 patients), and rectovaginal fistula (1 patient) (cohort B), without treatment-related death in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab can be added to standard preoperative and adjuvant chemoradiation in most patients with expected and manageable toxicity and may increase treatment efficacy.

Phase II study of maintenance sunitinib following irinotecan and carboplatin as first-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of angiogenesis may be effective in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Sunitinib, an oral agent that inhibits the VEGF signaling pathway, may delay progression in sequence with chemotherapy. This phase II trial was designed to evaluate the role of sunitinib monotherapy following 6 cycles of irinotecan and carboplatin in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage (ES) SCLC. METHOD: Patients aged ≥18 years with previously untreated ES-SCLC were eligible. Additional criteria included: ECOG PS 0-1, no active brain metastases, and adequate organ function. Patients received 28-day cycles of irinotecan (60 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, 15) and carboplatin (AUC=4, day 1), and were assessed for response every 8 weeks. After 6 cycles of chemotherapy, patients with stable disease or responding disease proceeded to sunitinib monotherapy (25 mg orally daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was 1-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between 2/09 and 10/09, 34 patients (median age 65 years [range, 41-80]) were enrolled. 53% of patients were male, 47% had ECOG PS 0.21 patients (62%) completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy, and 17 (50%) initiated sunitinib monotherapy (median duration: 9 weeks; range, 2-28+weeks). After a median follow-up of 50 weeks (range: 37-68 weeks), 22 (62%) of the patients remain alive. The objective response rate with chemotherapy was 59%, and an additional 20% had stable disease. 1-year OS was 54% and median time to progression was 7.6 months. Grade 3/4 toxicity was rare during sunitinib monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This phase II trial provides support for further study of sunitinib maintenance therapy following platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC. The 1 year OS of 54% is encouraging, and a randomized trial would be appropriate to assess sunitinib's impact following chemotherapy.