Dianna Shipley

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Trial of Sorafenib and Erlotinib or Erlotinib Alone in Previously Treated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSEnSorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, has shown preliminary activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with erlotinib with or without sorafenib in this multicenter phase II trial.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnKey eligibility criteria included the following: stage IIIB or IV NSCLC; one to two prior regimens; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2; and measurable disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to sorafenib (400 mg orally twice a day) plus erlotinib (150 mg orally daily) or placebo plus erlotinib and stratified by squamous/nonsquamous histology and prior bevacizumab. Treatment efficacy, measured by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR), was compared. Treatment of 168 patients allowed detection of 40% improvement in the historical PFS of 2.2 months with single-agent erlotinib.nnnRESULTSnOne hundred sixty-eight patients enrolled from February 2008 to February 2009. Clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. ORRs for sorafenib/erlotinib and placebo/erlotinib were 8% and 11%, respectively (P = .56); disease control rates were 54% and 38%, respectively (P = .056). Median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.94 months for placebo/erlotinib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.22; P = .196). Seventy-two patients consented to analyses of tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In 67 patients with EGFR wild-type (WT) tumors, median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.77 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .018); median overall survival (OS) was 8 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 4.5 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .019). An OS advantage for sorafenib/erlotinib was suggested among 43 patients with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) EGFR-negative tumors (P = .064). Both regimens were tolerable, with modest toxicity increase with sorafenib.nnnCONCLUSIONnAlthough there was little difference in ORR or PFS, subset analyses in EGFR WT and EGFR FISH-negative patients suggest a benefit for the combination of erlotinib/sorafenib compared with single-agent erlotinib with respect to PFS and OS.

Paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide versus gemcitabine/irinotecan in the first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site: a randomized, phase III Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium Trial.

Purpose:To compare the results of empiric first-line therapy with paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide (PCE) versus gemcitabine/irinotecan, both followed by single-agent gefitinib, in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. Patients and Methods:Patients with previously untreated carcinoma of unknown primary site were randomized to receive either PCE or gemcitabine/irinotecan. Responding and stable patients continued treatment for 4 to 6 cycles. Patients with no evidence of tumor progression at that time received single-agent gefitinib until tumor progression. The trial was designed to detect an improvement in the 2-year survival rate from 20% to 30%. Results:Between September 2003 and July 2008, 198 patients entered this multicenter, community-based trial. Because of slow accrual, the trial was stopped short of its target accrual of 320 patients. Clinical characteristics were comparable for patients receiving PCE (N = 93) and gemcitabine/irinotecan (N = 105). PCE and gemcitabine/irinotecan produced similar 2-year survival (15% vs. 18%), median survival (7.4 months vs. 8.5 months), median progression-free survival (3.3 months vs. 5.3 months), and response rate (18% vs. 18%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and red blood cells transfusions were more common with PCE; diarrhea was more common with gemcitabine/irinotecan. The median duration of gefitinib maintenance was 3 months, suggesting no role as a maintenance therapy in this setting. Discussion:The PCE and gemcitabine/irinotecan regimens have comparable efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. Gemcitabine/irinotecan is the preferable regimen, due to its favorable toxicity profile. However, the moderate efficacy of both regimens underscores the need for novel treatment approaches in this patient population.

Combined modality treatment with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, bevacizumab, and erlotinib in patients with locally advanced squamous carcinoma of the head and neck: a phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon oncology research consortium.

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of adding bevacizumab and erlotinib to concurrent chemoradiation therapy for first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced squamous carcinoma of the head and neck. Methods: Sixty previously untreated patients with squamous carcinoma of the head and neck (36 with oropharyngeal primaries; 83% men; median age, 56 years; 73% stage IV) received induction chemotherapy with 6 weeks of paclitaxel, carboplatin, infusional 5-fluorouracil, and bevacizumab; this treatment was followed by radiation therapy, weekly paclitaxel, bevacizumab, and erlotinib. Results: After a median follow up of 32 months, the estimated 3-year progression-free and overall survival rates are 71% and 82%, respectively. Sixty-five percent of patients had major responses after induction therapy; after completion of therapy, 95% of patients had either partial or complete response radiographically. As expected, grade 3/4 mucosal toxicity occurred frequently (88%) during combined modality; no unexpected toxicity resulted from the addition of bevacizumab and erlotinib. Conclusions: The addition of bevacizumab and erlotinib to first-line combined modality therapy was feasible in a community-based setting, producing toxicity comparable to other effective combined modality regimens for head and neck cancer. The high level of efficacy suggests that incorporation of these targeted agents into first-line therapy should be further explored.

A randomized phase II trial of pemetrexed/gemcitabine/bevacizumab or pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Purpose: To assess time to progression (TTP) in elderly patients with previously untreated nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer treated with pemetrexed/gemcitabine/bevacizumab or pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab. Methods: Eligible patients were aged 70 years or older with newly diagnosed stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1; adequate organ function; and no active central nervous system metastasis. Patients were randomized 1:1 to cohort A (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 IV, gemcitabine 1500 mg/m2 IV, and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV; days 1 and 15 of 28-day cycles) or cohort B (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 IV, carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve =5 IV, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV; day 1 of 21-day cycles). After six cycles, stable/responding patients continued bevacizumab until disease progression. Results: Between March 2007 and December 2009, 110 patients (median age, 76 years; 88% stage IV) were treated for medians of 2.5 cycles (cohort A) and 6 cycles (cohort B). Overall response rate was 35% in both cohorts, with stable disease rates of 33% (A) and 45% (B). TTP by cohort was 4.7 and 10.2 months with median OS 7.5 and 14.8 months, respectively. Severe toxicities included the following: neutropenia (A, 51% and B, 45%), fatigue (A, 36% and B, 18%), anemia (A, 22% and B, 7%), infection (A, 25% and B, 7%), thrombocytopenia (A, 11% and B, 31%), and thromboembolism (A, 7% and B, 7%). Three potential treatment-related deaths occurred in cohort A (sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and myocardial infarction) and two in B (sepsis and pulmonary hemorrhage). Conclusions: Treatment with pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab was associated with improved TTP and OS in this elderly population and should be further evaluated. Treatment-related toxicities were expected and usually manageable, although deaths occurred with both regimens.

Hormonal Therapy Plus Bevacizumab in Postmenopausal Patients Who Have Hormone Receptor–Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Phase II Trial of the Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium

PURPOSEnPreclinical models suggest that addition of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy may improve the efficacy of anti-estrogens in hormone-sensitive breast cancer. This phase II trial evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of bevacizumab added to either anastrozole or fulvestrant in the first-line treatment of patients who have hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.nnnMETHODSnWomen who had newly diagnosed metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer were eligible. Patients who had relapsed while receiving, or ≤ 12 months after receiving, adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy were treated with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) and fulvestrant (loading dose 500 mg intramuscularly [IM], then 250 mg IM 2 weeks later, then 250 mg IM every 4 weeks). All other patients received fulvestrant/bevacizumab or anastrozole (1 mg orally daily)/bevacizumab. Patients who were HER2-positive could also receive trastuzumab (8 mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks). Patients were reevaluated after 8 weeks of therapy; responding or stable patients continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.nnnRESULTSnSeventy-nine patients were enrolled (38 were administered anastrozole 41 fulvestrant). Median treatment duration was 8 months in the anastrozole group and 5.5 months in the fulvestrant group. Both regimens were efficacious: overall response rate and median progression-free survival for the entire group were 28% and 13.5 months, respectively. Both regimens were well-tolerated; toxicity was consistent with the known toxicity profiles of each single agent.nnnCONCLUSIONnBevacizumab combined with either anastrozole or fulvestrant was feasible and active in the first-line treatment of patients who have hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Phase III trials evaluating the efficacy of bevacizumab added to endocrine therapy are in progress.

Brief-Duration Rituximab/Chemotherapy Followed by Maintenance Rituximab in Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Who Are Poor Candidates for R-CHOP Chemotherapy: A Phase II Trial of the Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium

INTRODUCTIONnPatients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are very elderly or have poor performance status are difficult to treat with a full course of R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/ prednisone) therapy. In this phase II trial, we treated this group of patients with a novel regimen containing 3 courses of rituximab/chemotherapy followed by maintenance rituximab.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnPatients with newly diagnosed stage II-IV DLBCL were eligible if they were considered poor candidates for 6-8 cycles of R-CHOP therapy. Patients who were eligible for anthracycline therapy received 3 cycles of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide/ mitoxantrone/vincristine/prednisone (CNOP); the remainder of patients received R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide/ vincristine/prednisone). Patients without progression after completion of 3 cycles received 4 courses of maintenance rituximab (375 mg/m2 weekly x 4, repeated every 6 months) for 24 months.nnnRESULTSnBetween May 2003 and July 2007, 51 patients were enrolled. The median age was 78 years, and 43% of patients were > 80 years of age. Nineteen patients (37%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, and 72% had high-intermediate or high-risk International Prognostic Index scores. After a median follow-up of 48 months, the 2-, 3-, and 4-year progression-free survival rates are 71%, 65%, and 56%, respectively. The 2-, 3-, and 4-year overall survival rates are 72%, 67%, and 67%, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated, with few severe toxicities and no treatment-related deaths.nnnCONCLUSIONnThis abbreviated course of rituximab/chemotherapy, followed by maintenance rituximab, was active and well tolerated in these very elderly patients. Brief-duration rituximab/chemotherapy as well as maintenance rituximab merit further evaluation in this setting.

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.

Phase II trial of ixabepilone and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUNDnEpothilones, a new class of cytotoxic agents, have demonstrated activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase II study examined ixabepilone/carboplatin (cohort A) and ixabepilone/carboplatin/bevacizumab (cohort B) as first-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.nnnMETHODnPatients were enrolled to either cohort A or B at physician discretion and when eligibility met. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed stage III/IV NSCLC, ECOG PS 0-1, adequate organ function, no active CNS metastases, and, in cohort B, bevacizumab treatment criteria. Both cohorts received ixabepilone 30 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC=6 IV day 1 every 3-weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients assigned to cohort B also received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV day 1 of each cycle, and could continue single-agent bevacizumab for 6 additional cycles.nnnRESULTSnEighty-two patients (median age, 63 years; majority stage IV and former smokers) were enrolled from 11/08 to 10/09 (A-42, B-40) and received medians of 4 and 6 cycles, respectively. The ORRs were 29% and 50%. After median follow up of 17.5 months (A) and 15.7 months (B), median progression free survivals were A-5.3 months (95% CI 2.8-8.6) and B-6.7 months (95% CI 5.1-8.4), with median overall survivals of 9.3 months (95% CI 6.4-16.6) 13.2 months (95% CI 8.9-upper limit not reached), respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicity included: anemia (A-10%, B-27%), neutropenia (A-31%, B-48%), thrombocytopenia (A-19%, B-20%), fatigue (A-10%, B-23%), infection (A-5%, B-20%), and hypersensitivity reaction (A-2%, B-5%). There was one treatment-related death, due to hemoptysis in a cohort B patient with squamous histology.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIxabepilone can be safely combined with carboplatin in newly diagnosed patients with advanced NSCLC. The benefits of treatment appear consistent with those achieved with other modern platinum-doublet regimens. The addition of bevacizumab increases toxicities, however, these are largely expected and reversible. The high ORR and OS observed in the bevacizumab-cohort are encouraging, but would require validation in a larger randomized trial of cohort A versus B.

A Phase II Study of Higher Dose Weekly Topotecan in Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUNDnFive-day topotecan is approved by the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) for sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We previously found that 4 mg/m(2) intravenous (I.V.) weekly dosing resulted in low-grade 3/4 toxicity but an overall response rate (ORR) < 10%. We hypothesized that higher topotecan dosing could improve ORR without significantly increasing toxicity.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnThis multicenter phase II trial sought a 25% ORR (α = 0.04; β = 0.20). Eligible patients (sensitive or refractory relapsed SCLC; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status [PS] 0-1; measurable disease) received weekly topotecan (6 mg/m(2) I.V. for 6 weeks) and were restaged every 8 weeks.nnnRESULTSnBaseline characteristics were N = 38, enrolled 5/2006-10/2007; median age 64 years (range, 35-82), 47% female, 74% ECOG PS 1, 50% refractory relapsed SCLC. The median follow-up was 15 months (range, 12-24 months). No patients received all planned therapy; only 1 patient was able to receive all planned treatment in cycle 1 because of hematologic toxicity and progressive disease (PD). Among all patients, ORR was 8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-21%), 24% had stable disease, and disease in 47% progressed. Among sensitive relapsed patients ORR was 16% (95% CI, 3%-40%) with no complete responses; median response duration was 3.3 months. Five (26%) patients had stable disease; 8 (42%) patients had PD. Among sensitive relapsed patients, the median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) was 2.5 months and 8.6 months, respectively. Among refractory relapsed patients there were no ORRs, and median TTP and OS were 1.5 months and 3.7 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities (> 10%) included neutropenia (53%), leukopenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (37%), anemia (13%), fatigue (13%), and pain (13%). There were no treatment-related deaths.nnnCONCLUSIONnWeekly topotecan (6 mg/m(2) I.V.) is not feasible because of hematologic toxicity and does not improve efficacy in patients with relapsed SCLC.

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

Abstract 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.