Manuel R. Modiano

Randomized Phase III Study of Exatecan and Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Untreated Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE Exatecan mesylate is a hexacyclic, water-soluble, topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. Exatecan has single-agent and combination activity with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. A multicenter, randomized, phase III trial comparing exatecan plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligibility criteria included Karnofsky performance status > or = 60%, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and no prior chemotherapy. Radiation alone for locally advanced disease was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis. For the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm, exatecan 2.0 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 were administered on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Gemcitabine alone was dosed at 1,000 mg/m2 up to 7 weeks in the first cycle, then once a week for the first 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. Tumor assessment was performed every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. An intent-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS From August 2001 to January 2003, 349 patients were randomly assigned, 175 to exatecan plus gemcitabine and 174 to gemcitabine alone. Twenty-four patients (6.9%) were not treated. The median survival time was 6.7 months for exatecan plus gemcitabine and 6.2 months for gemcitabine alone (P = .52). One complete response (CR; < 1%) and 11 partial responses (PRs; 6.3%) were observed in the exatecan plus gemcitabine treatment group, and one CR (< 1%) and eight PRs (4.6%) were observed in the gemcitabine-alone group. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were higher for the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm versus the gemcitabine alone arm; neutropenia (30% v 15%) and thrombocytopenia (15% v 4%). CONCLUSION Exatecan plus gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: 10-year follow-up of the phase 3 randomised BCIRG 001 trial

BACKGROUND We compared standard adjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy with anthracycline-taxane combination chemotherapy in women with operable node-positive breast cancer. Here we report the final, 10-year follow-up analysis of disease-free survival, overall survival, and long-term safety. METHODS BCIRG 001 was an open label, phase 3, multicentre trial in which 1491 patients aged 18-70 years with node-positive, early breast cancer and a Karnofsky score of 80% or more were randomly assigned to adjuvant treatment with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) or fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was stratified according to institution and number of involved axillary lymph nodes per patient (one to three vs four or more). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint and was defined as the interval between randomisation and breast cancer relapse, second primary cancer, or death, whichever occurred first. Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. BCIRG 001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00688740. FINDINGS Enrolement took place between June 11, 1997 and June 3, 1999; 745 patients were assigned to receive TAC and 746 patients were assigned to receive FAC. After a median follow-up of 124 months (IQR 90-126), disease-free survival was 62% (95% CI 58-65) for patients in the TAC group and 55% (51-59) for patients in the FAC group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·68-0·93; log-rank p=0·0043). 10-year overall survival was 76% (95% CI 72-79) for patients in the TAC group and 69% (65-72) for patients in the FAC group (HR 0·74, 0·61-0·90; log-rank p=0·0020). TAC improved disease-free survival relative to FAC irrespective of nodal, hormone receptor, and HER2 status, although not all differences were significant in these subgroup analyses. Grade 3-4 heart failure occurred in 26 (3%) patients in the TAC group and 17 (2%) patients in the FAC group, and caused death in two patients in the TAC group and four patients in the FAC group. A substantial decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (defined as a relative decrease from baseline of 20% or more) was seen in 58 (17%) patients who received TAC and 41 (15%) patients who received FAC. Six patients who received TAC developed leukaemia or myelodysplasia, as did three patients who received FAC. INTERPRETATION Our results provide evidence that the initial therapeutic outcomes seen at the 5-year follow-up with a docetaxel-containing adjuvant regimen are maintained at 10 years. However, a substantial percentage of patients had a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction, probably caused by anthracycline therapy, which warrants further investigation. FUNDING Sanofi.

An educational program to increase cervical and breast cancer screening in Hispanic women: a Southwest Oncology Group study.

We conducted a community-based pilot study to train Hispanic cancer survivors as promotoras (lay health educators) to encourage their social contacts to obtain breast and cervical cancer screening. Promotoras were recruited from a private oncologists practice at a Minority-Based Community Clinical Oncology Program (MBCCOP). Five Hispanic women were trained to serve as promotoras by attending a 12-week course. They shared cancer screening information with family and social contacts and encouraged them to obtain Papanicolaou smears and/or mammograms. Study endpoints included the number of women recruited and trained to serve as promotoras, the number of contacts made per promotora, and the number of contacts who were screened; data were based on contact logs maintained for 1 year. Screening examinations were documented by a postcard returned by the contact or by review of community health clinic records. Five promotoras contacted 141 (range = 24-49 per promotora) women to share cancer screening information. Fifty Hispanic women obtained screening after contact with a promotora. Twenty-nine underwent mammography (ages 25-58) and 43 received a Papanicolaou smear (ages 23-62). Hispanic female cancer survivors can be trained as promotoras. Screening information conveyed by a promotora can successfully prompt Hispanic women to obtain mammography and Papanicolaou smears.

Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with cancer: two randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in almost all patients in the absence of prophylaxis. Guidelines recommend use of a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist in conjunction with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess rolapitant, an NK-1 receptor antagonist, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS We conducted two global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (HEC-1 and HEC-2) at 155 cancer centres (76 in HEC-1 and 79 in HEC-2) in 26 countries (17 in HEC-1 and 14 in HEC-2). We enrolled patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not previously been treated with cisplatin, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly assign patients to treatment. Patients were stratified by sex and randomly allocated to either oral rolapitant (180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) about 1-2 h before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received granisetron (10 μg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients were allowed to receive the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless removed at the clinicians discretion. Patients could also choose to leave the study at any point. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a cancer centre compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01499849 and NCT01500213. Both studies have been completed. FINDINGS Between Feb 21, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 532 patients in HEC-1 and 555 patients in HEC-2 were randomly assigned to treatment. 526 patients in HEC-1 (264 rolapitant and 262 active control) and 544 in HEC-2 (271 rolapitant and 273 active control) received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the rolapitant group had complete responses in the delayed phase than did patients in the active control group (HEC-1: 192 [73%] vs 153 [58%]; odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·3-2·7; p=0·0006; HEC-2: 190 [70%] vs 169 [62%]; 1·4, 1·0-2·1; p=0·0426; pooled studies: 382 [71%] vs 322 [60%]; 1·6, 1·3-2·1; p=0·0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. The most commonly reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in the rolapitant versus active control groups were headache (three [<1%] vs two [<1%]), hiccups (three [<1%] vs four [<1%]), constipation (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]), and dyspepsia (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]). For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-5 adverse events in patients allocated rolapitant versus active control were neutropenia (HEC-1: nine [3%] vs 14 [5%]; HEC-2: 16 [6%] vs 14 [5%]), anaemia (HEC-1: one [<1%] vs one [<1%]; HEC-2: seven [3%] vs two [<1%]), and leucopenia (HEC-1: six [2%] vs two [<1%]; HEC-2: two [<1%] vs two [<1%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were treatment related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events resulted in death. INTERPRETATION Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well-tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the at-risk period (120 h) after administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. FUNDING TESARO, Inc.

A Phase I/II Study of LY900003, an Antisense Inhibitor of Protein Kinase C-α, in Combination with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose: Protein kinase C-α has been implicated in malignant transformation and proliferation. Based on in vivo superadditive interaction between the protein kinase C-α antisense oligonucleotide LY900003 (Affinitak, ISIS 3521) and cisplatin, we designed this phase I/II trial of LY900003 with cisplatin/gemcitabine Experimental Design: The safety of the combination, as well as potential pharmacokinetic interactions, was evaluated in the phase I portion of the trial. The phase II portion evaluated the antitumor activity of the combination in previously untreated patients with stage IIIB/IV non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results: Seven patients received 18 cycles of the combination during the phase I portion. Dose-limiting toxicity was only observed in one of six evaluable patients (grade 3 fatigue). However, due to a relatively high frequency of thrombocytopenia, cisplatin 80 (mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) were recommended for the phase II portion. Antitumor activity was observed in two patients (one with NSCLC and one with pancreatic carcinoma), and prolonged stabilization was observed in two others. No pharmacokinetic interactions occurred. In the phase II portion, 55 NSCLC patients received the combination at two gemcitabine doses [1,000 mg/m2, n = 44 (original cohort); 1,250 mg/m2, n = 11 (expanded cohort)]. Fourteen of 39 evaluable patients in the original cohort had a response rate (1 complete response and 13 partial responses; response, 36%), whereas 2 of 9 evaluable patients in the expanded cohort experienced partial response (combined response rate, 33%). The median time to treatment failure was 3.9 months, whereas the median time response to progression for the 48 patients with evaluable response was 4.4 months (confidence interval, 3.5–5.5 months). Intent to treat median survival time was 8.9 months. Forty-eight percent of the patients experienced catheter-related events. Conclusions: LY900003 can be administered safely in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine and is associated with antitumor activity in patients with advanced NSCLC. Better characterization of subsets of patients most likely to benefit from this combination therapy is needed.

Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens in patients with cancer: A randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side-effect of many antineoplastic regimens and can occur for several days after treatment. We aimed to assess the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, in combination with a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. METHODS We conducted a global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study at 170 cancer centres in 23 countries. We included patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy before, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly allocate patients to receive either oral rolapitant (one 180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) 1-2 h before administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by sex. All patients also received granisetron (2 mg orally) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1 (except for patients receiving taxanes as part of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, who received dexamethasone according to the package insert) and granisetron (2 mg orally) on days 2-3. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients received the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless they chose to leave the study or were removed at the treating clinicians discretion. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a study site compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500226. The study has been completed. FINDINGS Between March 5, 2012, and Sept 6, 2013, 1369 patients were randomised to receive either rolapitant (n=684) or active control (n=685). 666 patients in each group received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rolapitant had complete responses in the delayed phase than did those receiving active control (475 [71%] vs 410 [62%]; odds ratio 1·6, 95% CI 1·2-2·0; p=0·0002). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache. For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event in the rolapitant versus active control groups was neutropenia (32 [5%] vs 23 [3%] patients). No serious adverse event was treatment-related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event resulted in death. INTERPRETATION Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the 5-day (0-120 h) at-risk period after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. FUNDING TESARO, Inc.

Phase I Trial of Imexon in Patients With Advanced Malignancy

PURPOSE Imexon, a pro-oxidant small molecule, has antitumor activity in preclinical models. The drug induces apoptosis through accumulation of reactive oxygen species. The purpose of this trial was to define the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of imexon in patients with advanced cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-nine patients with metastatic cancer received intravenous imexon over 30 to 45 minutes for 5 consecutive days (one course) every other week (days 1 through 5 and 15 through 19) monthly. Doses were initially escalated using an accelerated trial design and then a modified Fibonacci method. Plasma imexon levels and six different thiols were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography assays. RESULTS There were 13 dose levels evaluated, from 20 mg/m2/d to 1,000 mg/m2/d. The MTD recommended for phase II studies was 875 mg/m2/d for 5 days every 2 weeks (n = 9 patients). The two dose-limiting toxicities at 1,000 mg/m2/d involved grade 3 abdominal pain and fatigue and grade 4 neutropenia, which occurred in one patient each. Other common toxicities included nausea and vomiting (58%) and constipation (63%); both were managed well with prophylactic medications. One partial response was obtained in a heavily pretreated patient with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Pharmacokinetic studies showed dose-independent clearance, with a 95-minute mean half-life. Plasma thiol studies showed a dose- and area under the curve-dependent decrease in cystine levels 8 hours after dosing at 750 mg/m2/d. CONCLUSION The phase II recommended dose of imexon is 875 mg/m2/d for 5 days every other week. A decrease in plasma thiols did correlate with imexon exposure.

Randomized, double blind, dose‐response trial across four oral doses of dolasetron for the prevention of acute emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

This double blind parallel group study assessed the acute antiemetic efficacy of four oral doses of dolasetron mesylate in cancer patients receiving their first course of intravenous chemotherapy with doxorubicin and/or cyclophosphamide.

Evaluation of race as a prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. An ancillary of Southwest Oncology Group Study 8229.

PURPOSE The objective of this investigation was to assess the impact of race (black v white) on the survival of patients with multiple myeloma treated within the context of a large clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS A cohort of patients randomized to receive one of two treatment regimens and monitored for at least 10 years was studied to assess the impact of race as a prognostic factor, after adjusting for other known factors such as stage of disease. Patients were recruited from the referral network of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), a national multiinstitutional consortium that includes both academic and community treatment centers. Patients had a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and had not previously been treated for this disease. They were carefully characterized as to demographic and clinical features, and were randomized to receive one of two treatment regimens, which proved to have virtually identical outcomes. The outcome measure was survival, measured from the date of randomization to the date of last contact. Patients still alive at last contact date were treated as censored observation. RESULTS Survival for black myeloma patients was similar to that for white patients, both overall and adjusted for prognostic factors such as stage. CONCLUSION Observed differences in mortality between blacks and whites cannot be attributed to differences in survival after diagnosis, given comparable treatment.

Predictors of Cervical Cancer Screening in Mexican American Women of Reproductive Age

Several barriers impede cancer prevention in the Mexican American population. This study identified sociocultural factors that could be used to increase screening rates for cervical cancer in women of reproductive age. A survey was conducted in 1991 of 366 Mexican American women ages 18 to 40 in Tucson, Arizona, to assess current compliance with cervical cancer screening guidelines and several psychological, social, and cultural variables. Women who had never been screened (13 percent of the sample) had a knowledge deficit, no gynecological care, and no sexual activity. Women not screened annually (16 percent) lacked preventive care, imperfectly understood the Pap test, had lower selfefficacy expectations for understanding physicians, experienced higher emotional stress about the test, and were older and less acculturated. Women who have never been screened require basic education on cancer and cancer screening and policy changes increasing access to care. For women with less routine screening, preventive care, supportive attitudes, and health care skills must be encouraged.