Search

Despite a growing number of clinical trials and supportive care programs for cancer survivors, recruitment of patients for these opportunities during the survivorship phase of care is challenging. We piloted a novel process to systematically educate patients about available research studies and supportive care programs as part of a survivorship care visit. Between 3/2015 and 8/2015, patients seen in the Adult Survivorship Program who had not previously received a treatment summary and survivorship care plan (TS/SCP) were provided with one accompanied by a list of survivorship research studies and care programs tailored to their diagnosis. Survivorship providers discussed the opportunities and recorded whether the patient was interested in relevant studies and placed referrals to study staff. Following the visit, we tracked study enrollment and surveyed patients about their experience. Fifty of 56 (89%) pilot participants completed the survey. Almost all (98%) reported that the TS/SCP visit and document helped with knowledge of research opportunities and supportive care interventions. Following receipt of the TS/SCP, 44% were interested in at least one study and in further follow-up with research staff. Of the 30 survivors eligible for at least one study, 6 (20%) have enrolled in at least one study to date. This pilot program demonstrates that the systematic sharing of available clinical studies and supportive care programming as part of a survivorship care plan visit is feasible and well received by cancer survivors and may facilitate and enhance accrual to clinical trials in the survivorship phase of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Dose-limiting neuropathy is a major adverse event associated with most of the microtubule-stabilizing agent-based chemotherapy regimens. Ixabepilone, a semisynthetic analogue of the natural epothilone B, has activity against a wide range of tumor types. Peripheral neuropathy (PN), associated with ixabepilone treatment, is usually mild to moderate, predominantly sensory and cumulative. Preclinical studies demonstrate that ixabepilone and taxanes produce a similar neurotoxicity profile. Methods: We searched databases of phase II/III clinical trials involving patients receiving ixabepilone as a monotherapy or in combination with capecitabine for incidences of neuropathy. Potential risk factors for grade 3/4 PN were identified by a Cox regression analysis on a dataset of 1,540 patients with different tumor types across multiple studies. Results: Rates for incidence of ixabepilone-induced severe PN (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3/4) ranged from 1% in early untreated breast cancer up to 24% in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer; grade 4 PN was rare (≤1%). Common symptoms included numbness, paresthesias, and sometimes dysesthesias. Cox regression analysis identified only preexisting neuropathy as a risk factor for increased ixabepilone-associated PN. The management of PN has been primarily through dose adjustments (dose delays and/or dose reduction). Patients had resolution of their neuropathy within a median time of 5 to 6 weeks. Conclusions: PN is a dose-limiting toxicity associated with ixabepilone treatment, is reversible in most patients, and can be managed with dose reduction and delays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A phase I study of the antitumor antibiotic 7-cyanoquinocarcinol, DX-52-1, was conducted in patients with refractory solid malignancies. This study sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose and principal toxicities of this agent and to characterize its pharmacokinetic behavior. Methods: Patients were required to have adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic function. DX-52-1 was administered by i.v. continuous infusion over a 6-h period each week for four consecutive weeks followed by a 2-week rest period, which constituted one cycle of treatment. Results: Initial dose levels were 3, 6, and 10 mg/m2. An intermediate dose level of 8 mg/m2 was added after acceptable toxicity was observed at the 6 mg/m2 dose level, but dose-limiting toxicities, including life-threatening ones, were seen at the 10 mg/m2 dose level in all three patients. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was subsequently determined to be 6 mg/m2. Because a clear pattern of toxicities was not initially evident, a larger than usual number of additional patients (16) were enrolled at the MTD to better distinguish toxicities due to the study drug from those secondary to the patients' underlying malignancies. Even at the MTD, the drug was poorly tolerated, with gastrointestinal toxicities (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and increased liver function tests) predominating and dose-limiting. Pharmacokinetic studies revealed that the mean maximum plasma concentration of DX-52-1 in patients evaluated at the MTD (138.8±59.3 ng/ml, n=19) was considerably lower than the concentrations required for cytostatic or cytotoxic activity against sensitive human tumor cell lines in vitro. Further, the weekly dose intensity of the most efficacious treatment schedule identified during in vivo antitumor efficacy studies was 60 times greater than the 6 mg/m2 weekly dose tolerated by cancer patients. None of the 33 patients participating in this study, including the 22 patients evaluated at the MTD, had any response to treatment. Conclusion: Given the poor tolerability, the inability to achieve drug levels necessary to inhibit in vitro or in vivo tumor growth, and the lack of any responses in our study, DX-52-1, as given by this schedule, does not appear to warrant further investigation in phase II studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]