Wallace Akerley

Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

BACKGROUND An improvement in overall survival among patients with metastatic melanoma has been an elusive goal. In this phase 3 study, ipilimumab--which blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 to potentiate an antitumor T-cell response--administered with or without a glycoprotein 100 (gp100) peptide vaccine was compared with gp100 alone in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. METHODS A total of 676 HLA-A*0201-positive patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, whose disease had progressed while they were receiving therapy for metastatic disease, were randomly assigned, in a 3:1:1 ratio, to receive ipilimumab plus gp100 (403 patients), ipilimumab alone (137), or gp100 alone (136). Ipilimumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight, was administered with or without gp100 every 3 weeks for up to four treatments (induction). Eligible patients could receive reinduction therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS The median overall survival was 10.0 months among patients receiving ipilimumab plus gp100, as compared with 6.4 months among patients receiving gp100 alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.68; P<0.001). The median overall survival with ipilimumab alone was 10.1 months (hazard ratio for death in the comparison with gp100 alone, 0.66; P=0.003). No difference in overall survival was detected between the ipilimumab groups (hazard ratio with ipilimumab plus gp100, 1.04; P=0.76). Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 10 to 15% of patients treated with ipilimumab and in 3% treated with gp100 alone. There were 14 deaths related to the study drugs (2.1%), and 7 were associated with immune-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Ipilimumab, with or without a gp100 peptide vaccine, as compared with gp100 alone, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. Adverse events can be severe, long-lasting, or both, but most are reversible with appropriate treatment. (Funded by Medarex and Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094653.)

Non-small cell lung cancer.

Most patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed with advanced cancer. These guidelines only include information about stage IV NSCLC. Patients with widespread metastatic disease (stage IV) are candidates for systemic therapy, clinical trials, and/or palliative treatment. The goal is to identify patients with metastatic disease before initiating aggressive treatment, thus sparing these patients from unnecessary futile treatment. If metastatic disease is discovered during surgery, then extensive surgery is often aborted. Decisions about treatment should be based on multidisciplinary discussion.

Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Chemoradiotherapy Compared With Chemoradiotherapy Alone for Regionally Advanced Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B

PURPOSE Standard therapy for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer includes concomitant chemoradiotherapy. In Cancer and Leukemia Group B 39801, we evaluated whether induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemoradiotherapy would result in improved survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between July 1998 and May 2002, 366 patients were randomly assigned to arm A, which involved immediate concurrent chemoradiotherapy with carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 2 and paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 given weekly during 66 Gy of chest radiotherapy, or arm B, which involved two cycles of carboplatin AUC 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 administered every 21 days followed by identical chemoradiotherapy. The accrual goal was 360 patients. RESULTS Thirty-four percent of patients were female, 66% were male, and the median age was 63 years. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities during induction chemotherapy on arm B consisted mainly of neutropenia (18% and 20%, respectively). During concurrent chemoradiotherapy, there was no difference in severity of in-field toxicities of esophagitis (grade 3 and 4 were, respectively, 30% and 2% for arm A v 28% and 8% for arm B) and dyspnea (grade 3 and 4 were, respectively, 11% and 3% for arm A v 15% and 4% for arm B). Survival differences were not statistically significant (P = .3), with a median survival on arm A of 12 months (95% CI, 10 to 16 months) versus 14 months (95% CI, 11 to 16 months) on arm B and a 2-year survival of 29% (95% CI, 22% to 35%) and 31% (95% CI, 25% to 38%). Age, weight loss before therapy, and performance status were statistically significant predictive factors. CONCLUSION The addition of induction chemotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy added toxicity and provided no survival benefit over concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. The median survival achieved in each of the treatment groups is low, and the routine use of weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel with simultaneous radiotherapy should be re-examined.

Randomized Phase II Study of Erlotinib Plus Tivantinib Versus Erlotinib Plus Placebo in Previously Treated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE c-MET (MET) receptor activation is associated with poor prognosis and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This global, randomized phase II trial examined erlotinib plus tivantinib (ARQ 197; ArQule, Woburn, MA), a novel MET inhibitor. METHODS Previously treated patients with EGFR TKI-naive advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg daily) plus oral tivantinib (360 mg twice daily) or erlotinib plus placebo (EP). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). At the time of progression, cross-over from EP to erlotinib plus tivantinib (ET) was permitted. Archival tumor tissue specimens were required. RESULTS One hundred sixty-seven patients were randomly assigned to ET (n = 84) and to EP (n = 83). Median PFS was 3.8 months for ET and 2.3 months for EP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.16; P = .24). Exploratory analysis revealed that the small cohort with KRAS mutations achieved a PFS HR of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.70; interaction P = .006). Objective responses were seen in 10% of patients on ET, 7% of patients on EP, and in two patients who crossed over from EP to ET, including one with EGFR mutation and MET gene copy number greater than 5. There were no significant differences in adverse events between study arms. CONCLUSION The combination of the MET inhibitor tivantinib and erlotinib is well-tolerated. Although the study did not meet its primary end point, evidence of activity was demonstrated, especially among patients with KRAS mutations. Additional study of tivantinib and erlotinib in patients with NSCLC is planned.

Phase II Study of Docetaxel, Estramustine, and Low-Dose Hydrocortisone in Men With Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer: A Final Report of CALGB 9780

PURPOSE To investigate the combination of docetaxel, estramustine (EM), and low-dose hydrocortisone in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Combinations of EM with other antimitotic agents such as docetaxel are synergistic in vitro and show significant clinical activity in patients with HRPC. We studied intravenous administration of docetaxel 70 mg/m(2), oral estramustine, and low-dose daily hydrocortisone in men with HRPC who demonstrated progression after initial hormone therapy. RESULTS Of the 47 men enrolled onto this multicenter cooperative group study, 46 were assessable for response and/or toxicity. In the 24 patients with measurable disease, there were three complete and nine partial responses for a measurable disease response rate of 50% (12 of 24 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27% to 73%). In the 44 patients in whom pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was elevated, 30 (68%) had a 50% or greater decrease, and 25 (57%) had a 75% or greater decrease in PSA. The combined measurable disease and biochemical response rate in all 46 assessable patients was 54% (three complete responses, 22 partial responses, 95% CI, 37% to 71%). The predominant toxicity was neutropenia, with 26% of patients having grade 3 and 30% having grade 4 granulocytopenia; there were no episodes of febrile neutropenia. Other common but mild adverse effects included malaise/fatigue, peripheral edema, and hyperglycemia. The incidence of thromboembolic events during therapy was 9%. With a median follow-up of 17 months, the median survival was 20 months. The median time to disease progression was 8 months for all patients, and 10 months for those with measurable disease. CONCLUSION This therapy is efficacious and moderately well tolerated in HRPC and should be compared in a phase III trial with mitoxantrone and prednisone.

Multiinstitutional phase II trial of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and concurrent radiation therapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE Combined modality therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has produced promising results. A multiinstitutional phase II clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the activity and toxicity of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and concurrent radiation therapy on patients with locally advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty previously untreated patients with inoperable locally advanced NSCLC entered onto a phase II study from March 1995 to December 1996. On an outpatient basis for 7 weeks, patients received paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 weekly over 1 hour; carboplatin at (area under the curve) AUC 2 weekly; and radiation therapy of 66 Gy in 33 fractions. After chemoradiation therapy, patients received an additional two cycles of paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 over 3 hours and carboplatin at AUC 6 every 3 weeks. RESULTS Thirty-nine patients were eligible for the study. The survival rates at 12 months were 56.3%, and at 24 months, 38.3%, with a median overall survival of 20.5 months. The progression-free survival rates at 12 months were 43.6%, and at 24 months, 34.7%, with a median progression-free survival of 9.0 months. Two patients did not receive more than 2 weeks of concurrent chemoradiotherapy and were not assessable for toxicity and response. The overall response rate (partial plus complete response) of 37 assessable patients was 75.7%. The major toxicity was esophagitis. Seventeen patients (46%) developed grade 3 or 4 esophagitis. However, only two patients developed late esophageal toxicity with stricture at 3 and 6 months posttreatment. CONCLUSION Combined modality therapy with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and radiation is a promising treatment for locally advanced NSCLC that has a high response rate and acceptable toxicity and survival rates. A randomized trial will be necessary to fully evaluate the usefulness of these findings.

Small Cell Lung Cancer

Neuroendocrine tumors account for approximately 20% of lung cancers; most (≈15%) are small cell lung cancer (SCLC). These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for SCLC focus on extensive-stage SCLC because it occurs more frequently than limited-stage disease. SCLC is highly sensitive to initial therapy; however, most patients eventually die of recurrent disease. In patients with extensive-stage disease, chemotherapy alone can palliate symptoms and prolong survival in most patients; however, long-term survival is rare. Most cases of SCLC are attributable to cigarette smoking; therefore, smoking cessation should be strongly promoted.

High-dose intravenous methotrexate for patients with nonleukemic leptomeningeal cancer: is intrathecal chemotherapy necessary?

PURPOSE Standard treatments for neoplastic meningitis are only modestly effective and are associated with significant morbidity. Isolated reports suggest that concurrent systemic and intrathecal (i.t.) therapy may be more effective than i.t. therapy alone. We present our experience, which includes CSF and serum pharmacokinetic data, on the use of high-dose (HD) intravenous (i.v.) methotrexate (MTX) as the sole treatment for neoplastic meningitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS Sixteen patients with solid-tumor neoplastic meningitis received one to four courses (mean, 2.3 courses) of HD (8 g/m2 over 4 hours) i.v. MTX and leucovorin rescue. Serum and CSF MTX concentrations were measured daily. Toxicity, response, and survival were retrospectively compared with a reference group of 15 patients treated with standard i.t. MTX during the same time interval. RESULTS Peak methotrexate concentrations ranged from 3.7 to 55 micromol/L (mean, 17.1 micromol/L) in CSF and 178 to 1,700 micromol/L (mean, 779 micromol/L) in serum. Cytotoxic CSF and serum MTX concentrations were maintained much longer than with i.t. dosing. Toxicity was minimal. Cytologic clearing was seen in 81% of patients compared with 60% of patients treated intrathecally (P = .3). Median survival in the HD i.v. MTX group was 13.8 months versus 2.3 months in the i.t. MTX group (P = .003). CONCLUSION HD i.v. MTX is easily administered and well tolerated. This regimen achieves prolonged cytotoxic serum MTX concentrations and CSF concentrations at least comparable to those achieved with standard i.t. therapy. Cytologic clearing and survival may be superior in patients treated with HD i.v. MTX. Prospective studies and a reconsideration of the use of i.t. chemotherapy for patients with neoplastic meningitis are warranted.

Safety of Bevacizumab in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Brain Metastases

PURPOSE Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases have previously been excluded from trials of bevacizumab because of suspected risk of CNS hemorrhage. This phase II trial, AVF3752g (PASSPORT), specifically addressed bevacizumab safety (incidence of grade > or = 2 CNS hemorrhage) in patients with NSCLC and previously treated brain metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS This open-label multicenter trial for first- and second-line treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC enrolled patients with treated brain metastases. First-line patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks with platinum-based doublet therapy or erlotinib (at physicians decision), and second-line patients received bevacizumab with single-agent chemotherapy or erlotinib, until disease progression or death. RESULTS Of the 115 enrolled patients, 66 of 76 first-line patients received carboplatin-based chemotherapy; 22 of 39 second-line patients received pemetrexed, and nine of 39 received erlotinib. As of the June 23, 2008 data cut, among 106 safety-evaluable patients, median on-study duration was 6.3 months (range, 0 to 22 months), with a median of five bevacizumab cycles (range, one to 17), and no reported episodes of grade > or = 2 CNS hemorrhage (95% CI, 0.0% to 3.3%). Of the bevacizumab-targeted adverse events reported, two were grade 5. Both were pulmonary hemorrhages, one occurring during treatment and the other occurring 6 weeks after the data cut; there was also one grade 4, nonpulmonary/non-CNS hemorrhage. Twenty-six patients (24.5%) discontinued study treatment as a result of an adverse event, and 37 (34.9%) discontinued because of disease progression. CONCLUSION Addition of bevacizumab to various chemotherapy agents or erlotinib in patients with NSCLC and treated brain metastases seems to be safe and is associated with a low incidence of CNS hemorrhage.

A randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial of divalproex sodium prophylaxis in adults with newly diagnosed brain tumors

Background: Seizures occur after the diagnosis of brain tumors in up to 40% of patients. Prophylactic anticonvulsants are widely advocated despite a lack of convincing evidence of their efficacy in preventing first seizures. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the incidence of first seizures in divalproex sodium- and placebo-treated patients with newly diagnosed brain tumors. Patients and Methods: Patients who had not previously had a seizure were randomized within 14 days of diagnosis of their brain tumor to receive either divalproex sodium or placebo. All patients had at least one supratentorial brain lesion, a Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) more than equals 50%, and no previous anticonvulsant use or other brain disease. Compliance and adequacy of dosing were assessed by pill counts and monthly blood levels. Results: Seventy-four of 75 consecutive eligible patients were entered in this study. Median follow-up was 7 months. The drug and placebo groups did not differ significantly in age, sex, KPS, primary tumor type, number or location of brain lesions, frequency of brain surgery, or pretreatment EEG. Thirteen of 37 patients (35%) receiving divalproex sodium and 9 of 37 patients (24%) on placebo had seizures. The odds ratio for a seizure in the divalproex sodium arm relative to the placebo arm was 1.7 (95% CI 0.6 to 4.6; p equals 0.3). The hypothesis that anticonvulsant prophylaxis provides a reduction in the frequency of first seizure as small as 30% was rejected (p equals 0.05). Conclusions: Anticonvulsant prophylaxis with divalproex sodium is not indicated for patients with brain tumors who have not had seizures. NEUROLOGY 1996;46: 985-991.