Search

Background: Collaborative relationships between academic oncology and industry (pharmaceutical, biotechnology, "omic," and medical device companies) are essential for therapeutic development in oncology; however, limited research on engagement in and perceptions of these relationships has been done. Methods: Survey questions were developed to evaluate relationships between academic oncology and industry. An electronic survey was delivered to 1000 randomly selected members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a professional organization for oncologists, eliciting respondents' views around oncology‐industry collaborations. The responses were analyzed according to prespecified plans. Results: There were 225 survey respondents. Most were from the United States (70.0%), worked at an academic institution (60.1%), worked in medical oncology (81.2%), and had an active relationship with industry (85.8%). One quarter (26.7%) of respondents reported difficulty establishing a relationship with industry collaborators, and most respondents (75%) did not report having had mentorship in developing these relationships. The majority (85.3%) of respondents considered these collaborations important to their careers. Respondents generally thought that scientific integrity was preserved (92%), and most respondents (95%) had little concern over the quality of the collaborative product. Many (60%) shared concerns over potential conflict of interest if an individual with a compensated relationship promoted an industry product for clinical care/research, yet most respondents (67%) stated these relationships did not shape their interactions with patients. Conclusions: This study provides novel data characterizing the nature of collaborative relationships between clinicians, researchers, and industry in oncology. Although respondents considered these collaborations an important part of clinical and academic oncology, formal education or mentorship around these relationships was rare. Conflicting findings around conflict of interest highlight the importance of more dedicated research in this area. Plain Language Summary: Business enterprises in health care play a central role in cancer research and care, driving the development of new medical testing, drugs, and devices. Effective working relationships among clinicians, researchers, and these industry partners can promote innovative research and enhance patient care. Study of these collaborations has been limited to date. Through distribution of a questionnaire to cancer clinicians and researchers, we found that most participants consider these relationships valuable, though they find establishing such relationships challenging partly because of gaps in educational programs in this area. Our findings also highlight the need for further policy around the potential bias these relationships can introduce. Oncology‐industry collaborations can be mutually beneficial relationships that contribute to both scientific and clinical innovation. Despite their value, a deficit of education and policy around these collaborations is recognized by cancer clinicians and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Repurposed memantine, mefloquine, and metformin have putative anticancer activity. The objective of this phase 1 study was to determine the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) of combinations of these agents with temozolomide (TMZ).Methods: Adults with newly diagnosed glioblastoma who completed chemoradiation were eligible. The patients were assigned to receive doublet, triplet, or quadruplet therapy with TMZ combined with mefloquine, memantine, and/or metformin. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were determined, using a 3 + 3 study design.Results: Of 85 enrolled patients, 4 did not complete cycle 1 (the DLT observation period) for nontoxicity reasons, and 81 were evaluable for DLT. The MTDs for doublet therapy were memantine 20 mg twice daily, mefloquine 250 mg 3 times weekly, and metformin 850 mg twice daily. For triplet therapy, the MTDs were memantine 10 mg twice daily, mefloquine 250 mg 3 times weekly, and metformin 850 mg twice daily. For quadruplet therapy, the MTDs were memantine 10 mg twice daily, mefloquine 250 mg 3 times weekly, and metformin 500 mg twice daily. DLTs included dizziness (memantine) and gastrointestinal effects (metformin). Lymphopenia was the most common adverse event (66%). From study entry, the median survival was 21 months, and the 2-year survival rate was 43%.Conclusions: Memantine, mefloquine, and metformin can be combined safely with TMZ in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Lonafarnib is an oral selective farnesyltransferase inhibitor, a class of drugs which have shown activity in preclinical glioma models. Temozolomide (TMZ) is an alkylating agent that is the first-line chemotherapy for glioblastoma. METHODS The current study combined the cytotoxic agent TMZ with the cytostatic agent lonafarnib for patients with recurrent glioblastoma to establish a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination and its preliminary efficacy. Three dose cohorts of lonafarnib were studied in the phase 1 component of the trial (100 mg twice daily [bid], 150 mg bid, and 200 bid) with dose-dense schedule of TMZ (150 mg/m2 daily) administered in an alternating weekly schedule. After establishing the MTD of lonafarnib, a subsequent expansion phase 1b was undertaken to evaluate efficacy, primarily measured by 6-month progression-free survival (PFS-6). RESULTS Fifteen patients were enrolled into the phase 1 component and 20 patients into the phase 1b component. The MTD of lonafarnib in combination with TMZ was 200 mg bid. Among the patients enrolled into the study, 34 were eligible for 6-month progression evaluation and 35 patients were evaluable for time-to-progression analysis. The PFS-6 rate was 38% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 22%, 56%) and the median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI = 2.5, 8.4). The median disease-specific survival was 13.7 months (95% CI = 8.9, 22.1). Hematologic toxicities, particularly lymphopenia, were the most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS These results demonstrate that TMZ can be safely combined with a farnesyltransferase inhibitor and that this regimen is active, although the current study cannot determine the relative contributions of the 2 agents or the contribution of the novel administration schedule. Cancer 2013;119:2747-2753. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options for patients with anaplastic gliomas (AGs) are limited despite better insights into glioma biology. The authors previously reported improved outcome in patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with thalidomide and irinotecan compared with historical controls. Here, results of the AG arm of the study are reported, using this drug combination. METHODS: Adults with recurrent AG previously treated with radiation therapy, with Karnofsky performance score ≥70, adequate organ function and not on enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants were enrolled. Treatment was in 6-week cycles with irinotecan at 125 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off, and thalidomide at 100 mg daily increased to 400 mg/day as tolerated. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS-6), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and response rate (RR). RESULTS: In 39 eligible patients, PFS-6 for the intent-to-treat population was 36% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 21%, 53%), median PFS was 13 weeks (95% CI = 6%, 28%) and RR was 10%(95% CI = 3%, 24%). Radiological findings included 2 complete and 2 partial responses and 17 stable disease. Median OS from study registration was 62 weeks, (95% CI = 51, 144). Treatment-related toxicities (grade 3 or higher) included neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue; 6 patients experienced venous thromboembolism. Four deaths were attributable to treatment-related toxicities: 1 from pulmonary embolism, 2 from colitis, and 1 from urosepsis. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of thalidomide and irinotecan did not achieve sufficient efficacy to warrant further investigation against AG, although a subset of patients experienced prolonged PFS/OS. A trial of the more potent thalidomide analogue, lenalidomide, in combination with irinotecan against AG is currently ongoing. Cancer 2012;3599-3606. © 2011 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]