Martee L. Hensley

Gemcitabine and Docetaxel in Patients With Unresectable Leiomyosarcoma: Results of a Phase II Trial

PURPOSE Few chemotherapy agents are active in leiomyosarcoma (LMS), particularly LMS that has progressed after doxorubicin treatment. We sought to determine the response to gemcitabine plus docetaxel among patients with LMS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with unresectable LMS of uterine (n = 29) or other (n = 5) primary sites who did not respond to zero to two prior chemotherapy regimens were enrolled onto a phase II study of gemcitabine 900 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 8 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor given subcutaneously on days 9 to 15, delivered every 21 days. Patients with prior pelvic radiation received 25% lower doses of both agents. Gemcitabine was delivered over 30 or 90 minutes in cycles 1 and 2 and by 90-minute infusion in all subsequent cycles. Pharmacokinetic studies assessed in vivo differences in gemcitabine concentrations with different rates of infusion. RESULTS Thirty-four patients (median age, 55 years; range, 32 to 74 years) have enrolled. Fourteen had received prior pelvic radiation. Sixteen of 34 patients had progressed after doxorubicin-based therapy; 18 had no prior chemotherapy. Among 34 patients, complete response was observed in three patients and partial response in 15, for an overall response rate of 53% (95% confidence interval, 35% to 70%). Seven patients had stable disease. Fifty percent of patients previously treated with doxorubicin responded. Hematologic toxicity was common (neutropenia: grade 3, 15%; grade 4, 6%; thrombocytopenia: grade 3, 26%; grade 4, 3%), but neutropenic fever (6%) and bleeding events (0%) were rare. The median time to progression was 5.6 months (range, 4 to 10 months). CONCLUSION Gemcitabine plus docetaxel is tolerable and highly active in treated and untreated patients with LMS.

Outcome of Preventive Surgery and Screening for Breast and Ovarian Cancer in BRCA Mutation Carriers

PURPOSE To prospectively determine the impact of genetic counseling and testing on risk-reduction strategies and cancer incidence in a cohort of individuals at hereditary risk for breast and ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred fifty-one individuals with BRCA mutations were identified at a single comprehensive cancer center from May 1, 1995, through October 31, 2000. Uniform recommendations regarding screening and preventive surgery were provided in the context of genetic counseling. Patients were followed for a mean of 24.8 months (range, 1.6 to 66.0 months) using standardized questionnaires, chart reviews, and contact with primary physicians. RESULTS Frequency of cancer surveillance by physical examinations and imaging studies increased after genetic counseling and testing. Twenty-one breast, ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers were detected after receipt of genetic test results. Among 29 individuals choosing risk-reducing mastectomy after testing, two were found to have occult intraductal breast cancers. Among 90 individuals who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, one early-stage ovarian neoplasm and one early-stage fallopian tube neoplasm were found. Radiographic or tumor marker-based screening detected six breast cancers, five of which were stage 0/I, one early-stage primary peritoneal cancer, and three stage I or II ovarian cancers. Six additional breast cancers were detected by physical examination between radiographic screening intervals; four of these six tumors were stage I. No stage III or stage IV malignancies were detected after genetic testing. CONCLUSION This study provides prospective evidence that genetic counseling and testing increased surveillance and led to risk-reducing operations, which resulted in diagnosis of early-stage tumors in patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Phase II Study of Sorafenib in Patients With Metastatic or Recurrent Sarcomas

PURPOSE Since activity of sorafenib was observed in sarcoma patients in a phase I study, we performed a multicenter phase II study of daily oral sorafenib in patients with recurrent or metastatic sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS We employed a multiarm study design, each representing a sarcoma subtype with its own Simon optimal two-stage design. In each arm, 12 patients who received 0 to 1 prior lines of therapy were treated (0 to 3 for angiosarcoma and malignant peripheral-nerve sheath tumor). If at least one Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was observed, 25 further patients with that sarcoma subtype were accrued. Results Between October 2005 and November 2007, 145 patients were treated; 144 were eligible for toxicity and 122 for response. Median age was 55 years; female-male ratio was 1.8:1. The median number of cycles was 3. Five of 37 patients with angiosarcoma had a partial response (response rate, 14%). This was the only arm to meet the RECIST response rate primary end point. Median progression-free survival was 3.2 months; median overall survival was 14.3 months. Adverse events (typically dermatological) necessitated dose reduction for 61% of patients. Statistical modeling in this limited patient cohort indicated sorafenib toxicity was correlated inversely to patient height. There was no correlation between phosphorylated extracellular signal regulated kinase expression and response in six patients with angiosarcoma with paired pre- and post-therapy biopsies. CONCLUSION As a single agent, sorafenib has activity against angiosarcoma and minimal activity against other sarcomas. Further evaluation of sorafenib in these and possibly other sarcoma subtypes appears warranted, presumably in combination with cytotoxic or kinase-specific agents.

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2008 Clinical Practice Guideline Update: Use of Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy Protectants

PURPOSE To update a clinical practice guideline on the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy protectants for patients with cancer. METHODS An update committee reviewed literature published since the last guideline update in 2002. RESULTS Thirty-nine reports met the inclusion criteria: palifermin and dexrazoxane, three reports (two studies) each; amifostine, 33 reports (31 studies); and mesna, no published randomized trials identified since 2002. RECOMMENDATIONS Dexrazoxane is not recommended for routine use in breast cancer (BC) in adjuvant setting, or metastatic setting with initial doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. Consider use with metastatic BC and other malignancies, for patients who have received more than 300 mg/m(2) doxorubicin who may benefit from continued doxorubicin-containing therapy. Cardiac monitoring should continue in patients receiving doxorubicin. Amifostine may be considered for prevention of cisplatin-associated nephrotoxicity, reduction of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (alternative strategies are reasonable), and to decrease acute and late xerostomia with fractionated radiation therapy alone for head and neck cancer. It is not recommended for protection against thrombocytopenia, prevention of platinum-associated neurotoxicity or ototoxicity or paclitaxel-associated neuropathy, prevention of radiation therapy-associated mucositis in head and neck cancer, or prevention of esophagitis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Palifermin is recommended to decrease severe mucositis in autologous stem-cell transplantation (SCT) for hematologic malignancies with total-body irradiation (TBI) conditioning regimens, and considered for patients undergoing myeloablative allogeneic SCT with TBI-based conditioning regimens. Data are insufficient to recommend use in the non-SCT setting.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy Protectants

PURPOSE Because toxicities associated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy can adversely affect short- and long-term patient quality of life, can limit the dose and duration of treatment, and may be life-threatening, specific agents designed to ameliorate or eliminate certain chemotherapy and radiotherapy toxicities have been developed. Variability in interpretation of the available data pertaining to the efficacy of the three United States Food and Drug Administration-approved agents that have potential chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-protectant activity-dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine-and questions about the role of these protectant agents in cancer care led to concern about the appropriate use of these agents. The American Society of Clinical Oncology sought to establish evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines for the use of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine in patients who are not enrolled on clinical treatment trials. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel reviewed the clinical data regarding the activity of dexrazoxane, mesna, and amifostine. A computerized literature search was performed using MEDLINE. In addition to reports collected by individual Panel members, all articles published in the English-speaking literature from June 1997 through December 1998 were collected for review by the Panel chairpersons, and appropriate articles were distributed to the entire Panel for review. Guidelines for use, levels of evidence, and grades of recommendation were reviewed and approved by the Panel. Outcomes considered in evaluating the benefit of a chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-protectant agent included amelioration of short- and long-term chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related toxicities, risk of tumor protection by the agent, toxicity of the protectant agent itself, quality of life, and economic impact. To the extent that these data were available, the Panel placed the greatest value on lesser toxicity that did not carry a concomitant risk of tumor protection. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION Mesna: (1) Mesna, dosed as detailed in these guidelines, is recommended to decrease the incidence of standard-dose ifosfamide-associated urothelial toxicity. (2) There is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of mesna to prevent urothelial toxicity with ifosfamide doses that exceed 2.5 g/m(2)/d. (3) Either mesna or forced saline diuresis is recommended to decrease the incidence of urothelial toxicity associated with high-dose cyclophosphamide use in the stem-cell transplantation setting. Dexrazoxane: (1) The use of dexrazoxane is not routinely recommended for patients with metastatic breast cancer who receive initial doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. (2) The use of dexrazoxane may be considered for patients with metastatic breast cancer who have received a cumulative dosage of 300 mg/m(2) or greater of doxorubicin in the metastatic setting and who may benefit from continued doxorubicin-containing therapy. (3) The use of dexrazoxane in the adjuvant setting is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. (4) The use of dexrazoxane can be considered in adult patients who have received more than 300 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin-based therapy for tumors other than breast cancer, although caution should be used in settings in which doxorubicin-based therapy has been shown to improve survival because of concerns of tumor protection by dexrazoxane. (5) There is insufficient evidence to make a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in the treatment of pediatric malignancies, with epirubicin-based regimens, or with high-dose anthracycline-containing regimens. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence on which to base a guideline for the use of dexrazoxane in patients with cardiac risk factors or underlying cardiac disease. (6) Patients receiving dexrazoxane should continue to be monitored for cardiac toxicity. Amifostine: (1) Amifostine may be considered for the reduction of nephrotoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemoth

Fixed-dose rate gemcitabine plus docetaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group phase II trial.

OBJECTIVES Fixed-dose rate gemcitabine plus docetaxel is active as second-line therapy for metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma. We sought to determine the activity of this regimen as first-line treatment. METHODS Eligible women with advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma were treated with gemcitabine 900 mg/m(2) over 90 min, on days one and eight, plus docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day eight, with granulocyte growth factor support on day nine of a 21-day cycle. Patients with prior pelvic radiation received lower doses. Patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed every other cycle by RECIST. RESULTS Forty-two women enrolled, with 39 evaluable for response. Objective responses were observed in 15 of 42 patients (35.8% overall; complete response 4.8%, partial response 31%, 90% confidence interval 23.5 to 49.6%), with an additional 11 (26.2%) having stable disease. Nineteen of 38 (50%) received six or more cycles of study treatment. Myelosuppression was the major toxicity: neutropenia grade 3 in 5%, grade 4 in 12%; anemia grade 3 in 24%; thrombocytopenia grade 3 in 9.5%, grade 4 in 5%. One patient had a grade 3 allergic reaction, 17% had grade 3 fatigue. One possibly-related grade 4 pulmonary toxicity was observed. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.4 months (range 0.4 to 37.2+ months). Among 15 women with objective response, median response duration was 6 months (range 2.1 to 33.4+ months). Median overall survival was 16+ months (range:.4-41.3 months). CONCLUSION Fixed-dose rate gemcitabine plus docetaxel achieves high objective response rates as first-line therapy in metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma.

Efficacy and Safety of Trabectedin or Dacarbazine for Metastatic Liposarcoma or Leiomyosarcoma After Failure of Conventional Chemotherapy: Results of a Phase III Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

PURPOSE This multicenter study, to our knowledge, is the first phase III trial to compare trabectedin versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after prior therapy with an anthracycline and at least one additional systemic regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive trabectedin or dacarbazine intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were disease control-progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate, and duration of response-as well as safety and patient-reported symptom scoring. RESULTS A total of 518 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either trabectedin (n = 345) or dacarbazine (n = 173). In the final analysis of PFS, trabectedin administration resulted in a 45% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with dacarbazine (median PFS for trabectedin v dacarbazine, 4.2 v 1.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.55; P < .001); benefits were observed across all preplanned subgroup analyses. The interim analysis of OS (64% censored) demonstrated a 13% reduction in risk of death in the trabectedin arm compared with dacarbazine (median OS for trabectedin v dacarbazine, 12.4 v 12.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .37). The safety profiles were consistent with the well-characterized toxicities of both agents, and the most common grade 3 to 4 adverse effects were myelosuppression and transient elevation of transaminases in the trabectedin arm. CONCLUSION Trabectedin demonstrates superior disease control versus conventional dacarbazine in patients who have advanced liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma after they experience failure of prior chemotherapy. Because disease control in advanced sarcomas is a clinically relevant end point, this study supports the activity of trabectedin for patients with these malignancies.

Patient Online Self-Reporting of Toxicity Symptoms During Chemotherapy

PURPOSE Tracking symptoms related to treatment toxicity is standard practice in routine care and during clinical trials. Currently, clinicians collect symptom information via complex and often inefficient mechanisms, but there is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events schema for seven common symptoms was adapted into a Web-based patient-reporting system, accessible from desktop computers in outpatient clinics and from home computers. Eighty patients with gynecologic malignancies beginning standard chemotherapy regimens were enrolled between April and September 2004. During an 8-week observation period, participants were encouraged to log in and report symptoms at each follow-up visit, or alternatively, to access the system from home. RESULTS All patients completed an initial log in. At each subsequent appointment, most enrollees (80% to 85%) reported symptoms using the online system, with a mean of three follow-up visits per patient during the observation period (range, one to six). Sixty of 80 patients (75%) logged in at least once from home. Use was significantly associated with prior Internet experience. Forty-two severe toxicities (grade 3 to 4) entered from home prompted seven clinician interventions. Most patients (96%) found the system useful and would recommend it to others. CONCLUSION Patients are capable of reporting symptoms experienced during chemotherapy using a Web-based interface. Assessment in the clinical trial setting and comparison of direct patient- versus clinician-based approaches for reporting symptoms and their severity are warranted.

Quality of life in patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia on imatinib versus interferon alfa plus low-dose cytarabine: results from the IRIS Study.

PURPOSE Quality of life (QOL) outcomes in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) were evaluated in an international phase III study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Newly diagnosed patients with chronic phase CML were randomly assigned to imatinib or interferon alfa plus subcutaneous low-dose cytarabine (IFN+LDAC). Cross-over to the other treatment was permitted because of intolerance or lack of efficacy. Patients completed cancer-specific QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers) and utility (Euro QoL-5D) questionnaires at baseline and during treatment (n = 1,049). The primary QOL end point was the Trial Outcome Index (TOI; a measure of physical function and well-being). Secondary end points included social and family well-being (SFWB), emotional well-being (EWB), and the utility score. Primary analyses were intention to treat with secondary analyses accounting for cross-over. RESULTS Patients receiving IFN+LDAC experienced a large decline in the TOI, whereas those receiving imatinib maintained their baseline level. Treatment differences at each visit were significant (P <.001) and clinically relevant in favor of imatinib. Mean SFWB, EWB, and utility scores were also significantly better for those patients taking imatinib. Patients who crossed over to imatinib experienced a large increase in TOI; significant (P <.001) differences were observed between patients who did and did not cross over in favor of imatinib. CONCLUSION Imatinib offers clear QOL advantages compared with IFN+LDAC as first-line treatment of chronic phase CML. In addition, patients who cross over to imatinib from IFN+LDAC experience a significant improvement in QOL compared with patients who continue to take IFN+LDAC.

Phase I Trial of Overlapping Long Peptides from a Tumor Self-Antigen and Poly-ICLC Shows Rapid Induction of Integrated Immune Response in Ovarian Cancer Patients

Purpose: Long peptides are efficiently presented to both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells after intracellular processing by antigen-presenting cells. To investigate the safety and in vivo immunogenicity of synthetic overlapping long peptides (OLP) from a human tumor self-antigen, we conducted a phase I clinical trial with OLP from cancer-testis antigen NY-ESO-1 in various adjuvant combinations. Experimental Design: Twenty-eight patients with advanced ovarian cancer in second or third remission were enrolled sequentially in three cohorts and received at least one vaccination. Patients in Cohort 1 (n = 4) received 1.0 mg OLP, Cohort 2 (n = 13) received OLP in Montanide-ISA-51, and Cohort 3 (n = 11) received OLP + 1.4 mg Poly-ICLC in Montanide-ISA-51 on weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13. Humoral and cellular responses were evaluated by standardized immunomonitoring techniques (ELISA, ELISPOT assay, intracellular cytokine staining, and tetramer staining). Results: The vaccine was generally well tolerated with injection site reactions and fatigue that resolved. NY-ESO-1–specific antibody and CD8+ T cells were undetectable after vaccination with OLP alone, but were found in 6 of 13 (46%) and 8 of 13 (62%) patients, respectively, after vaccination with OLP+Montanide, and in 10 of 11 (91%) and 10 of 11 (91%) patients, respectively, after vaccination with OLP+Montanide+Poly-ICLC. NY-ESO-1–specific CD4+ T cells were detected in all patients with greater frequency and polyclonality when Montanide-ISA-51 was used for vaccination. Inclusion of Poly-ICLC as an adjuvant further accelerated the induction of NY-ESO-1–specific immune responses. Conclusions: The current study shows that NY-ESO-1 OLP vaccine is safe and rapidly induces consistent integrated immune responses (antibody, CD8+ and CD4+) in nearly all vaccinated patients when given with appropriate adjuvants. Clin Cancer Res; 18(23); 6497–508. ©2012 AACR.