Search

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results from cohorts of patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) with FGFR1 and FGFR2 alterations treated with sunitinib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Forty patients with BC with FGFR1 (N = 30; amplification only n = 26, mutation only n = 1, both n = 3) or FGFR2 (N = 10; amplification only n = 2, mutation only n = 6, both n = 2) alterations were enrolled. Three patients in the FGFR1 cohort were not evaluable for efficacy; all patients in the FGFR2 cohort were evaluable. For the FGFR1 cohort, two patients with partial response and four with SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 27% (90% CI, 13 to 100) and 7% (95% CI, 1 to 24), respectively. The null hypothesis of 15% DC rate was not rejected (P =.169). No patients achieved DC in the FGFR2 cohort (P = 1.00). Thirteen of the 40 total patients across both cohorts had at least one grade 3-4 adverse event or serious adverse event at least possibly related to sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib did not meet prespecified criteria to declare a signal of antitumor activity in patients with BC with either FGFR1 or FGFR2 alterations. Other treatments and clinical trials should be considered for these patient populations. Sunitinib did not demonstrate antitumor activity in patients with FGFR1-/2-amplified or -mutated breast cancer. @ASCO #TAPUR [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Scalp cooling therapy (SCT) is the most effective method to reduce chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA), a highly distressing side effect of cancer treatment. Despite data supporting SCT efficacy and safety, SCT use in the United States is not widespread. Oncologists' interactions with scalp cooling were examined to identify facilitators and barriers to SCT implementation. METHODS: A 33-question survey was distributed through the ASCO Research Survey Pool to a nationally representative, random sample of 600 oncology providers. Outcome measures included knowledge of SCT, frequency of initiating conversations about SCT with patients, degree of support, and barriers for SCT. Significance was defined as P < .001. RESULTS: Of 155 (25.8%) responding providers, 62% of providers were in favor of SCT always or most of the time, but only 26% reported initiating discussions about SCT always or most of the time. Providers who treat breast cancer (P ≤ .0001), those who report being very familiar with SCT (P ≤ .0001), those who report having read SCT literature in the past 2 years (P ≤ .0001), and those who work at a facility with machine SCT (P ≤ .0001) were significantly more likely to initiate conversations with patients about SCT. Financial concerns (58%) were the primary reason for not recommending SCT use; efficacy (31%), staff or facility (24%), and safety (15%) concerns were also noted. Although safety concerns have decreased markedly over time, 14% of providers report patients who continue to express these concerns and 17% of providers see safety issues as barriers to supporting SCT. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that oncology provider familiarity and experience with SCT lead to increased support for scalp cooling, which may ultimately result in greater availability and utilization of SCT when indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]