Search

BackgroundThe NSABP B-36 compared four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with six cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-100) in node-negative early-stage breast cancer. A sub-study within B-36, focusing on symptoms, quality of life (QOL), menstrual history (MH), and cardiac function (CF) was conducted.Patients and methodsPatients completed the QOL questionnaire at baseline, during treatment, and every 6 months through 36 months. FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (TOI), symptom severity, and SF-36 Vitality and Physical Functioning (PF) scales scores were compared between the two groups using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis. MH was collected at baseline and subsequently assessed if menstrual bleeding occurred within 12 months prior to randomization. Post-chemotherapy amenorrhea outcome was examined at 18 months and was defined as lack of menses in the preceding year. Logistic regression was used to test for association of amenorrhea and treatment. CF assessment was done at baseline and 12 months. Correlation analysis was used to address associations between changes in baseline and 12-month PF and concurrent CF changes measured by LVEF.ResultsFEC-100 patients had statistically significantly lower TOI scores during chemotherapy (P = 0.02) and at 6 months (P

BackgroundS1400B is a biomarker-driven Lung-MAP substudy evaluating the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor taselisib (GDC-0032) in patients with PI3K pathway-activated squamous NSCLC (sqNSCLC).MethodsEligible patients had tumoral phosphatidylinositol-4,5-biphosphate 3 kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) alterations by next-generation sequencing and disease progression after at least one line of platinum-based therapy. Patients received 4-mg taselisib orally daily. The primary analysis population (PAP) was a subset of patients having substitution mutations believed to be associated with clinical benefit of PI3K inhibitors. Primary endpoint was response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival and duration of response.ResultsTwenty-six patients treated with taselisib comprised the full evaluable population (FEP); 21 patients comprised the PAP. Median age for patients in the FEP was 68 years (range: 53-83 years), 19 were male (73%). The study was closed for futility at interim analysis with one responder in the PAP (5% response rate, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0%-24%). Two possibly treatment-related deaths (one respiratory failure, one cardiac arrest) were observed; one patient had grades 4 and 11 had grade 3 adverse events. Median progression-free survival and overall survival in the PAP group were 2.9 months (95% CI: 1.8-4.0 mo) and 5.9 months (95% CI: 4.2-7.8 mo), respectively. These numbers were nearly the same in the FEP.ConclusionsStudy S1400B evaluating taselisib in PIK3CA-altered sqNSCLC failed to meet its primary endpoint and was closed after an interim futility analysis. The trial is unique in cataloguing the diversity of PIK3CA mutations in sqNSCLC.

BackgroundErlotinib is approved for the treatment of all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but is most active in the treatment of EGFR mutant NSCLC. Cabozantinib, a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targets MET, VEGFR, RET, ROS1, and AXL, which are implicated in lung cancer tumorigenesis. We compared the efficacy of cabozantinib alone or in combination with erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC.MethodsThis three group, randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial was done in 37 academic and community oncology practices in the USA. Patients were eligible if they had received one or two previous treatments for advanced non-squamous, EGFR wild-type, NSCLC. Patients were stratified by performance status and line of therapy, and randomly assigned using permuted blocks within strata to receive open-label oral daily dosing of erlotinib (150 mg), cabozantinib (60 mg), or erlotinib (150 mg) and cabozantinib (40 mg). Imaging was done every 8 weeks. At the time of radiographic progression, there was optional crossover for patients in either single-drug group to receive combination treatment. The primary endpoint was to compare progression-free survival in patients given erlotinib alone versus cabozantinib alone, and in patients given erlotinib alone versus the combination of erlotinib plus cabozantinib. We assessed the primary endpoint in the per-protocol population, which was defined as all patients who were eligible, randomly assigned, and received at least one dose of treatment. The safety analysis population included all patients who received study treatment irrespective of eligibility. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01708954.FindingsBetween Feb 7, 2013, and July 1, 2014, we enrolled and randomly assigned 42 patients to erlotinib treatment, 40 patients to cabozantinib treatment, and 43 patients to erlotinib plus cabozantinib treatment, of whom 111 (89%) in total were included in the primary analysis (erlotinib [n=38], cabozantinib [n=38], erlotinib plus cabozantinib [n=35]). Compared with erlotinib alone (median 1·8 months [95% CI 1·7-2·2]), progression-free survival was significantly improved in the cabozantinib group (4·3 months [3·6-7·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 80% CI 0·27-0·55; one-sided p=0·0003) and in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group (4·7 months [2·4-7·4]; HR 0·37, 0·25-0·53; one-sided p=0·0003). Among participants included in the safety analysis of the erlotinib (n=40), cabozantinib (n=40), and erlotinib plus cabozantinib (n=39) groups, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (three [8%] cases in the erlotinib group vs three [8%] in the cabozantinib group vs 11 [28%] in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group), hypertension (none vs ten [25%] vs one [3%]), fatigue (five [13%] vs six [15%] vs six [15%]), oral mucositis (none vs four [10%] vs one [3%]), and thromboembolic event (none vs three [8%] vs two [5%]). One death due to respiratory failure occurred in the cabozantinib group, deemed possibly related to either drug, and one death due to pneumonitis occurred in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group, deemed related to either drug or the combination.InterpretationDespite its small sample size, this trial showed that, in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC, cabozantinib alone or combined with erlotinib has clinically meaningful, superior efficacy to that of erlotinib alone, with additional toxicity that was generally manageable. Cabozantinib-based regimens are promising for further investigation in this patient population.FundingECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Background Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS- wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P =.38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P =.02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P =.13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P =.46). Conclusion In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The anticoagulant drug coumarin is not effective in treating lymphedema of the arm in women who have been treated for breast cancer. Lymphedema occurs when fluid accumulates in the skin, which causes swelling. Researchers randomly assigned 140 women with lymphedema of the arm to take coumarin or a placebo twice a day for six months. After six and 12 months, there was no difference between the groups in the size of the arm, indicating that coumarin did not reduce the swelling. Six percent of the women taking coumarin developed liver toxicity.