Thomas E. Stinchcombe

Phase I Trial of the Proteasome Inhibitor PS-341 in Patients With Refractory Hematologic Malignancies

PURPOSE To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (previously known as PS-341) in patients with refractory hematologic malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received PS-341 twice weekly for 4 weeks at either 0.40, 1.04, 1.20, or 1.38 mg/m(2), followed by a 2-week rest. The PD of PS-341 was evaluated by measurement of whole blood 20S proteasome activity. RESULTS Twenty-seven patients received 293 doses of PS-341, including 24 complete cycles. DLTs at doses above the 1.04-mg/m(2) MTD attributed to PS-341 included thrombocytopenia, hyponatremia, hypokalemia, fatigue, and malaise. In three of 10 patients receiving additional therapy, serious reversible adverse events appeared during cycle 2, including one episode of postural hypotension, one systemic hypersensitivity reaction, and grade 4 transaminitis in a patient with hepatitis C and a substantial acetaminophen ingestion. PD studies revealed PS-341 induced 20S proteasome inhibition in a time-dependent manner, and this inhibition was also related to both the dose in milligrams per meter squared, and the absolute dose of PS-341. Among nine fully assessable patients with heavily pretreated plasma cell dyscrasias completing one cycle of therapy, there was one complete response and a reduction in paraprotein levels and/or marrow plasmacytosis in eight others. In addition, one patient with mantle cell lymphoma and another with follicular lymphoma had shrinkage of nodal disease. CONCLUSION PS-341 was well tolerated at 1.04 mg/m(2) on this dose-intensive schedule, although patients need to be monitored for electrolyte abnormalities and late toxicities. Additional studies are indicated to determine whether incorporation of dose/body surface area yields a superior PD model to dosing without normalization. PS-341 showed activity against refractory multiple myeloma and possibly non-Hodgkins lymphoma in this study, and merits further investigation in these populations.

High Incidence of Cetuximab-Related Infusion Reactions in Tennessee and North Carolina and the Association With Atopic History

PURPOSE To confirm the anecdotal observation that patients in North Carolina (NC) and Tennessee (TN) treated with cetuximab experience hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) at a much higher rate than are reported nationally and internationally (<or= 3%). PATIENTS AND METHODS Data from patients treated with cetuximab on clinical trials (n = 88) at three research sites were analyzed for grade 3 or 4 HSR. Additional information was obtained from medical records for patients treated with cetuximab at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, NC) to determine whether history of other significant allergy was a risk factor for HSR to cetuximab. RESULTS Data for 88 patients on clinical trials and an additional 55 patients treated outside of trials were included in this analysis. Patients had a variety of tumor types. For the clinical trial group (n = 88), the overall rate of grade 3 to 4 HSR was 22%, significantly higher than the rate noted in any large published trial. All HSRs occurred during the first dose. There was a strong relationship between prior allergy history and chance of HSR. CONCLUSION At the sites in neighboring NC and TN studied, HSR was far more common than reported in national studies. History of prior allergy is a strong predictor of HSR. Further investigation of more specific predictors of HSR in the US middle south region is warranted, and patients being treated with cetuximab in this area should be observed particularly closely during their first infusion.

Personalized medicine in non-small-cell lung cancer: is KRAS a useful marker in selecting patients for epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy?

In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, the predictive value of KRAS mutational status in the selection of patients for treatment with anti-epidermal growth factor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies is established. In patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the utility of determining KRAS mutational status to predict clinical benefit to anti-EGFR therapies remains unclear. This review will provide a brief description of Ras biology, provide an overview of aberrant Ras signaling in NSCLC, and summarize the clinical data for using KRAS mutational status as a negative predictive biomarker to anti-EGFR therapies. Retrospective investigations of KRAS mutational status as a negative predictor of clinical benefit from anti-EGFR therapies in NSCLC have been performed; however, small samples sizes as a result of low prevalence of KRAS mutations and the low rate of tumor sample collection have limited the strength of these analyses. Although an association between the presence of KRAS mutation and lack of response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been observed, it remains unclear whether there is an association between KRAS mutation and EGFR TKI progression-free and overall survival. Unlike colorectal cancer, KRAS mutations do not seem to identify patients who do not benefit from anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in NSCLC. The future value of testing for KRAS mutational status may be to exclude the possibility of an EGFR mutation or anaplastic lymphoma kinase translocation or to identify a molecular subset of patients with NSCLC in whom to pursue a drug development strategy that targets the KRAS pathway.

KRAS Mutation: Should We Test for It, and Does It Matter?

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States and worldwide. Previously, lung cancer was simplistically divided into non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer. However, in the last decade, we have gone from a simplistic binary system of classifying lung cancer to defining NSCLC on the basis of molecular subsets. KRAS mutations represent the most common molecular change in NSCLC. The presence of KRAS mutation has been shown to be associated with a poor prognosis in NSCLC, but this is of little clinical utility. More important is determining the clinical utility of KRAS mutational analysis for predicting benefit of chemotherapy, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, or other novel therapeutics. Current data does not support the routine use of KRAS mutational analysis for predicting chemotherapy benefit. Additionally, there was significant interest in using KRAS status to select patients for EGFR TKI and anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. However, the EGFR mutational status has demonstrated significant predictive value in the selection of patients for EGFR TKI therapy and is now the preferred test. An association between KRAS mutational status and benefit of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies has not been demonstrated in NSCLC. Here we review, in the context of NSCLC, the underlying biology of KRAS mutations, the predictive value of KRAS mutations for therapeutic intervention, and the integration of KRAS mutational testing into our current clinical paradigms.

Randomized phase II trial of erlotinib alone or with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients who were never or light former smokers with advanced lung adenocarcinoma: CALGB 30406 trial.

PURPOSE Erlotinib is clinically effective in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have adenocarcinoma, are never or limited former smokers, or have EGFR mutant tumors. We investigated the efficacy of erlotinib alone or in combination with chemotherapy in patients with these characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced NSCLC (adenocarcinoma) who were epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor and chemotherapy naive never or light former smokers (smokers of > 100 cigarettes and ≤ 10 pack years and quit ≥ 1 year ago) were randomly assigned to continuous erlotinib or in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel (ECP) for six cycles followed by erlotinib alone. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Tissue collection was mandatory. RESULTS PFS was similar (5.0 v 6.6 months; P = .1988) in patients randomly assigned to erlotinib alone (arm A; n = 81) or to ECP (arm B; n = 100). EGFR mutation analysis was possible in 91% (164 of 181) of patients, and EGFR mutations were detected in 40% (51 of 128) of never smokers and in 42% (15 of 36) of light former smokers. In arm A, response rate (70% v 9%), PFS (14.1 v 2.6 months), and overall survival (OS; 31.3 v 18.1 month) favored EGFR-mutant patients. In arm B, response rate (73% v 30%), PFS (17.2 v 4.8 months), and OS (38.1 v 14.4 months) favored EGFR-mutant patients. Incidence of grades 3 to 4 hematologic (2% v 49%; P < .001) and nonhematologic (24% v 52%; P < .001) toxicity was greater in patients treated with ECP. CONCLUSION Erlotinib and erlotinib plus chemotherapy have similar efficacy in clinically selected populations of patients with advanced NSCLC. EGFR mutations identify patients most likely to benefit.

Randomized Phase II Study of Pemetrexed, Carboplatin, and Thoracic Radiation With or Without Cetuximab in Patients With Locally Advanced Unresectable Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 30407

PURPOSE Cancer and Leukemia Group B conducted a randomized phase II trial to investigate two novel chemotherapy regimens in combination with concurrent thoracic radiation therapy (TRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to carboplatin (area under the curve, 5) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) every 21 days for four cycles and TRT (70 Gy; arm A) or the same treatment with cetuximab administered concurrent only with TRT (arm B). Patients in both arms received up to four cycles of pemetrexed as consolidation therapy. The primary end point was the 18-month overall survival (OS) rate; if the 18-month OS rate was ≥ 55%, the regimen(s) would be considered for further study. RESULTS Of the 101 eligible patients enrolled (48 in arm A and 53 in arm B), 60% were male; the median age was 66 years (range, 32 to 81 years); 44% and 35% had adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma, respectively; and more patients enrolled onto arm A compared with arm B had a performance status of 0 (58% v 34%, respectively; P = .04). The 18-month OS rate was 58% (95% CI, 46% to 74%) in arm A and 54% (95% CI, 42% to 70%) in arm B. No significant difference in OS between patients with squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC was observed (P = .667). The toxicities observed were consistent with toxicities associated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSION The combination of pemetrexed, carboplatin, and TRT met the prespecified criteria for further evaluation. This regimen should be studied further in patients with locally advanced unresectable nonsquamous NSCLC.

Current treatments for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States, and the majority of patients will have non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and will present with locally advanced or metastatic disease. In the United States, the most common histology is adenocarcinoma, followed by squamous cell, large cell, and not otherwise specified. For patients with a preserved performance status (PS), double agent platinum-based therapy extends survival, improves quality of life (Qol), and reduces disease-related symptoms. The addition of a third cytotoxic agent increases toxicity without any clinical benefit. However, the addition of a targeted agent (bevacizumab, an antiangioegenesis agent, or cetuximab, an antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]) to platinum-based therapy has yielded an improvement in survival compared with platinum-based therapy alone. To receive bevacizumab, patients are required to have nonsquamous histology, a PS of 0 or 1, and no evidence of brain metastases, hemoptysis, uncontrolled hypertension, and no need for therapeutic anticoagulation. The benefits of chemotherapy for patients with a poor performance status are less well defined, and the current recommendations are for treatment with single-agent chemotherapy. Elderly patients (defined as age > or = 70 yr) derive a survival and Qol benefit from chemotherapy treatment, and for the majority of elderly patients single-agent chemotherapy is the standard. However, elderly patients with a good performance status and without co-morbidities can tolerate platinum-based therapy without excessive toxicity and appear to derive a survival benefit similar to that in younger patients. Recently, a separate population of patients defined by a light or never-smoking history has been identified. This patient population appears to have unique clinical and molecular characteristics, and may benefit from initial therapy with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Once patients have progressed on first-line therapy there are three agents available (docetaxel, pemetrexed, and erlotinib), but the efficacy of pemetrexed appears to be limited to patients with nonsquamous histology. Despite the improvements in care and number of therapeutic agents available, the survival for patients with advanced-stage NSCLC remains modest; novel approaches are required and participation in clinical trials should be encouraged.

Treatment of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a treatable, but not curable, clinical entity in patients given the diagnosis at a time when their performance status (PS) remains good. METHODS A systematic literature review was performed to update the previous edition of the American College of Chest Physicians Lung Cancer Guidelines. RESULTS The use of pemetrexed should be restricted to patients with nonsquamous histology. Similarly, bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy (and as continuation maintenance) should be restricted to patients with nonsquamous histology and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0 to 1; however, the data now suggest it is safe to use in those patients with treated and controlled brain metastases. Data at this time are insufficient regarding the safety of bevacizumab in patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation who have an ECOG PS of 2. The role of cetuximab added to chemotherapy remains uncertain and its routine use cannot be recommended. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line therapy are the recommended treatment of those patients identified as having an EGFR mutation. The use of maintenance therapy with either pemetrexed or erlotinib should be considered after four cycles of first-line therapy in those patients without evidence of disease progression. The use of second- and third-line therapy in stage IV NSCLC is recommended in those patients retaining a good PS; however, the benefit of therapy beyond the third-line setting has not been demonstrated. In the elderly and in patients with a poor PS, the use of two-drug, platinum-based regimens is preferred. Palliative care should be initiated early in the course of therapy for stage IV NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS Significant advances continue to be made, and the treatment of stage IV NSCLC has become nuanced and specific for particular histologic subtypes and clinical patient characteristics and according to the presence of specific genetic mutations.

Third-generation chemotherapy agents in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

Purpose: To estimate the efficacy of third-generation (3G) chemotherapy agents (paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and irinotecan) on response and survival in stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A meta-analysis was performed using trials identified through MEDLINE. Results on tumor response and survival were collected from randomized trials comparing 3G monotherapy versus best supportive care (BSC), 3G monotherapy versus second-generation (2G) platinum-based regimens, and 3G platinum-based regimens versus 2G platinum-based regimens. Results: Of the 2480 citations screened, 20 randomized controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 19 trials were used in the analyses. The data from two, three-arm trials were used in two different comparisons. Five trials (n = 1029 patients) compared 3G monotherapy with BSC. The summary risk difference (RD) for 1-year survival favored 3G agents by 7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2%, 12%). Four trials (n = 871 patients) compared treatment with 3G monotherapy versus 2G platinum-based regimens. The response RD was −6% (95% CI: −11%, 0%), and the 1-year survival rate RD was 3% (95% CI: −3%, 10%), suggesting that despite a slightly higher response rate for 2G platinum-based regimens relative to 3G monotherapy, there is equivalency in survival. Twelve trials (n = 3995) compared 3G versus 2G platinum-based regimens. The RD for response was 12% (95% CI: 10%, 15%). A RD for 1-year was not calculated, because of heterogeneity among the trials. A subset analysis of 3G versus 2G platinum-based doublets revealed a 1-year survival-rate RD of 6% (95% CI: 2%, 10%), favoring 3G platinum-based regimens without evidence of heterogeneity. Conclusions: 3G agents have been a significant advance in the treatment of NSCLC.

Considerations for Second-Line Therapy of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

For patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a good functional status, platinum-based first-line chemotherapy improves quality of life, reduces disease-related symptoms, and improves survival. The addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel in the first-line setting has been shown to produce a higher response rate and longer progression-free survival and overall survival times than with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Despite these therapies, all patients inevitably experience disease progression. There are currently three agents approved for treating patients who progress after one prior regimen: docetaxel, pemetrexed, and erlotinib. Erlotinib is also indicated for patients who progress after two prior regimens. These agents appear to have similar efficacies in terms of response and overall survival, but have significantly different toxicity profiles. Currently, the choice of agent depends on a number of factors, including the patients comorbidities, toxicity from previous treatments, the risk for neutropenia, smoking history, and patient preference. A better understanding of prognostic factors in the second-line setting may allow clinicians to better select patients for second-line therapy, and lead to better-designed second-line trials. Patients with a good performance status in second-line trials have a median survival duration of approximately 9 months, and may receive two second-line therapies during the course of their treatment. Several new agents have shown activity in phase II trials, and may be integrated into second-line therapy as single agents or in combination with current agents in the future.