Advances in Organ Preservation for Laryngeal Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: At the University of Wisconsin, all treatment of head and neck cancer patients begins with discussion at our multi-disciplinary tumor board. Most patients with T4 disease, with existing laryngeal dysfunction, considered unlikely to complete definitive CRT or who have a high risk of persistent aspiration after non-operative management undergo total laryngectomy. A laryngeal sparing approach is attempted on most other patients. Radiotherapy is delivered over 6.5 weeks, preferably with concurrent weekly cisplatin. If the patient is hesitant of chemotherapy or has contraindications to cisplatin, concurrent cetuximab may be offered. Patients treated with RT alone are often treated to the same dose, but via an accelerated schedule by adding a 6th fraction per week. The 6th fraction is given by delivering two treatments at least 6 h apart on a weekday of the patient's choosing. We consider the following to be major risk factors for clinically significant weight loss during treatment: a 10% or greater loss of weight in the 6 months prior to starting treatment, delivery of concurrent cisplatin, and treatment of the bilateral neck with radiation. Patients who have 2-3 of these characteristics are often given gastrostomy tubes prophylactically. Patients are seen 2 weeks after completion of therapy, and then every 3 months after completion for 2 years. A CT neck and PET-CT are performed at the first 3-month visit. They are seen twice in year three, and then yearly until years 5-7. At each of these visits, we have a low threshold to present the patient at our multidisciplinary tumor board for consideration of salvage laryngectomy if there are signs of progression.

Adult Cancer Pain, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

In recent years, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Adult Cancer Pain have undergone substantial revisions focusing on the appropriate and safe prescription of opioid analgesics, optimization of nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant medications, and integration of nonpharmacologic methods of cancer pain management. This selection highlights some of these changes, covering topics on management of adult cancer pain including pharmacologic interventions, nonpharmacologic interventions, and treatment of specific cancer pain syndromes. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adult Cancer Pain addresses additional aspects of this topic, including pathophysiologic classification of cancer pain syndromes, comprehensive pain assessment, management of pain crisis, ongoing care for cancer pain, pain in cancer survivors, and specialty consultations.

A Phase Ib Study of Axitinib in Combination with Crizotinib in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer or Other Advanced Solid Tumors.

LESSONS LEARNED: The combination of axitinib and crizotinib has a manageable safety and tolerability profile, consistent with the profiles of the individual agents when administered as monotherapy.The antitumor activity reported here for the combination axitinib/crizotinib does not support further study of this combination treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma given the current treatment landscape. BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors have been successfully used to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, resistance eventually develops in most cases. Tyrosine protein kinase Met (MET) expression increases following VEGF inhibition, and inhibition of both has shown additive effects in controlling tumor growth and metastasis. We therefore conducted a study of axitinib plus crizotinib in advanced solid tumors and mRCC. METHODS: This phase Ib study included a dose-escalation phase (starting doses: axitinib 3 mg plus crizotinib 200 mg) to estimate maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in patients with solid tumors and a dose-expansion phase to examine preliminary efficacy in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and biomarkers were also assessed. RESULTS: No patients in the dose-escalation phase (n = 22) experienced dose-limiting toxicity; MTD was estimated to be axitinib 5 mg plus crizotinib 250 mg. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension (18.2%) and fatigue (9.1%). In the dose-expansion phase, overall response rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-54.3), and progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.5-not reached). CONCLUSION: The combination of axitinib plus crizotinib, at estimated MTD, had a manageable safety profile and showed evidence of modest antitumor activity in mRCC.

Pharmacodynamic study using FLT PET/CT in advanced solid malignancies treated with a sequential combination of X-82 and docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: A sequential approach, synchronizing cell-cycle specific chemotherapy during VEGFR-TKI treatment breaks, may improve the therapeutic index of this combination therapy. In this study we investigate the safety/tolerability and pharmacodynamic effects of docetaxel used in sequential combination with the novel VEGFR-TKI X-82. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid malignancies underwent 21-day treatment cycles with X-82 administered daily on days 1-14, a treatment break on days 15-20, and docetaxel administered on day 21. Randomization was 1:1 to either a low-dose X-82 (200 mg) or high-dose X-82 (400 mg) arm. Patients were scheduled to undergo four 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET/CT scans to assess changes in tumor cell proliferation. PET standardized uptake values (SUV) were summarized for tumors and changes were assessed using mixed effects models. RESULTS: 14 patients were enrolled and treated with median 3.5 cycles (range 0-12). Three patients in the high-dose cohort (50%) and three patients in the low-dose cohort (38%) experienced at least one grade 3 adverse event during the study (infections, cytopenias, electrolyte abnormalities, and vascular complications). Four patients with 13 metastatic tumors underwent FLT PET/CT scanning. During the cycle 1 X-82 exposure period, tumor SUVmax decreased by - 11% (p = 0.04). After administration of docetaxel and the cycle 2 X-82 exposure period, tumor SUVmax decreased - 44% (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The sequential combination of X-82 and docetaxel was safe and led to diminished FLT uptake. Further, decrease in FLT uptake during cycle 2 (X-82 plus docetaxel) was greater than in cycle 1 (X-82 alone), suggesting sequential chemotherapy enhances the pharmacodynamic effect of therapy.

18F-FLT PET/CT imaging in patients with advanced solid malignancies treated with axitinib on an intermittent dosing regimen.

PURPOSE: This study utilizes FLT PET/CT imaging to characterize changes in tumor cell proliferation and vasculature during intermittent treatment with VEGR-TKI axitinib. METHODS: Patients with metastatic solid malignancies underwent 3-week treatment cycles with axitinib (7 and 5 mg BID for safety and pharmacodynamic cohorts, respectively). Cycles consisted of 2 weeks of treatment (dosing period) followed by a 1-week treatment break (washout period). Patients in the pharmacodynamic cohort had up to six FLT PET/CT scans (three scans in each cycle 1 and cycle 3) and had plasma VEGF concentrations measured at imaging timepoints. Changes in tumor SUVs and VEGF within and across drug cycles were investigated. RESULTS: Eight patients enrolled in the safety cohort where it was determined 7 mg axitinib was not tolerable due to severe adverse events, including three patients who experienced significant hypertension and thrombovascular effects. Sixteen patients enrolled in the pharmacodynamic cohort demonstrated significant decreases in SUVs and increases in VEGF during dosing periods. This was followed by significant increases in SUVs and decreases in VEGF during drug washout periods. No significant differences in SUVs or VEGF were found when comparing cycle 1 with cycle 3. A mixed effects model demonstrated significant negative correlation between SUV and VEGF. CONCLUSIONS: Response to axitinib included diminished FLT uptake during dosing periods followed by increased FLT uptake during drug washout periods. These changes were not different when comparing treatment cycle 1 versus cycle 3, suggesting that the pharmacodynamic effect of intermittent axitinib is similar across multiple drug cycles.

A pharmacodynamically guided dose selection of PF-00337210 in a phase I study in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: PF-00337210 is an oral, highly selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor. We evaluated a composite of biomarkers in real time to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and preliminary anticancer activity of PF-00337210. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (Pts) with advanced cancers were treated once (QD) or twice daily (BID) with escalating doses. Acute effects on tumor perfusion and vascularity were assessed using DCE-MRI, weekly BP readings, soluble VEGFR-2, and hemoglobin levels. RESULTS: Forty-six pts were treated with 0.67-9 mg QD and 4-6 mg BID of PF-00337210. Nineteen pts (41%) previously received VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors. Two pts had dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at 9 mg QD (troponin I increase and hypertension). The MTD at QD dose was 8 mg. Common drug-related adverse events were hypertension, fatigue, proteinuria, and nausea. Hypertension incidence and intensity corresponded with dose, but was well controlled with medication. Two confirmed partial responses and minor regressions (>10 to <30% reduction in target lesions) were noted. Complete DCE-MRI was acquired in 21 pts (20 evaluable for vascular response). Ten pts were vascular responders, including 5/6 pts at BID doses. Greatest modulation of soluble VEGFR-2 was at 6 mg BID. The maximum change from baseline in diastolic BP was higher at BID doses. There were no significant differences for systolic BP and hemoglobin levels. CONCLUSIONS: PF-00337210 has profound VEGFR inhibition effects at well-tolerated doses. Antitumor activity and VEGF inhibition effects were observed across BID doses. The RP2D was 6 mg BID.

Pharmacodynamic study of axitinib in patients with advanced malignancies assessed with (18)F-3'deoxy-3'fluoro-L-thymidine positron emission tomography/computed tomography.

PURPOSE: Rapid disease progression associated with increased tumor proliferation has been observed during withdrawal of anti-angiogenic therapy. We characterize the dynamics of withdrawal flare for axitinib. METHODS: Thirty patients with metastatic solid malignancies received axitinib for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week drug holiday. Twenty patients suitable for PET imaging received scans with (18)F-3'deoxy-3'fluoro-L-thymidine (FLT), a marker of proliferation. Plasma VEGF and axitinib pharmacokinetic levels were also assessed at specified time points. RESULTS: During axitinib withdrawal, significant increases in both SUVmax (+22 %; p = 0.006) and SUVmean (+20 %; p = 0.001) were observed. Significant increases relative to peak axitinib concentration were observed at day 2 withdrawal for SUVmax and SUVmean, with no further significant increase from day 2 to day 7 of withdrawal. No significant change in SUVmax or SUVmean was observed during the treatment period, relative to baseline. VEGF concentration significantly increased when on drug (p < 0.001) and decreased back to a level indistinguishable from baseline by day 7 of drug washout (p = 0.448). No correlation between change in VEGF and change in imaging metrics was observed. CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase in tumor proliferation was observed during withdrawal of axitinib therapy, and this flare occurred within 2 days of axitinib withdrawal. An exploratory analysis indicated that this flare may be associated with poor clinical outcome.

A phase I pharmacodynamic trial of sequential sunitinib with bevacizumab in patients with renal cell carcinoma and other advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib treatment results in a compensatory increase in plasma VEGF levels. Acute withdrawal of sunitinib results in a proliferative withdrawal flare, primarily due to elevated VEGF levels. Concurrent sunitinib plus bevacizumab is poorly tolerated with high (37 %) incidence of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA). We evaluated a sequential design administering bevacizumab during the sunitinib treatment break to suppress the sunitinib withdrawal flare. METHODS: Patients with no prior VEGF treatment were enrolled in this study. All patients had target lesions amenable to serial FLT PET/CT imaging. Sunitinib 37.5 mg was given on days 1-28 every 6 weeks with bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on day 29. If safe and tolerable, sunitinib increased to 50 mg. FLT PET/CT scans would be obtained at baseline (D1), week 4, and week 6 to evaluate pharmacodynamics of the sequential combination. Sunitinib pharmacokinetics and total, free, and bound VEGF levels were obtained on each cycle at D1, pre-bevacizumab (D29), 4 h post-bevacizumab (D29H4), and day 42 (D42). RESULTS: Six patients enrolled in the safety cohort of sunitinib 37.5 mg plus bevacizumab (see Table). One patient experienced grade 1 MAHA, and after discussion with the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), the trial was closed to further accrual. No imaging scans were obtained due to early closure. Total and free VEGF levels during cycle 1 Cycle 1 Total VEGF (pg/mL) Mean ± SD Free VEGF (pg/mL) Mean ± SD D1 80 ± 70 51 ± 47 D29 150 ± 62 103 ± 35 D29H4 10 ± 12 2 ± 5 D42 177 ± 34 97 ± 18 CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical MAHA was seen despite using sequential sunitinib with low-dose bevacizumab, and this combination was not feasible for further development. As predicted, VEGF levels increased during sunitinib exposure followed by a rapid decline after bevacizumab. Due to the long half-life of bevacizumab, we expected VEGF ligand suppression through D42, but instead observed a complete rebound in total/free VEGF levels by D42. The increase in VEGF at D42 was unexpected based on sunitinib alone and contrary to the hypothesis that we would block VEGF flare with low-dose bevacizumab. VEGF ligand production may increase as a result of bevacizumab, implying a robust host compensatory mechanism to VEGF signaling pathway inhibition. A greater understanding of the compensatory mechanism would aid future sequencing strategies of new agents.

Current controversies in the management of biochemical failure in prostate cancer.

Approximately 35% of prostate cancer patients will experience a biochemical recurrence within 10 years of receiving treatment. Among patients who develop biochemical recurrence, approximately one-third will develop radiographic evidence of metastatic disease within 8 years from the time of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) elevation. Development of biochemical recurrence with a rising PSA level causes significant anxiety for both the patient and his treating oncologist. There is no consensus regarding the PSA level that indicates disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the standard of care for these patients. The key components that influence the consideration of ADT are the rate of change of the PSA level (PSA doubling time), the patient's anxiety regarding his PSA level, and the side effects associated with ADT. One of the most prominent controversies in the treatment of biochemical recurrence is the timing of ADT (early vs late) for treatment of PSA recurrence. An emerging treatment option is continued active surveillance, especially in patients who are asymptomatic. Other management approaches under investigation include intermittent ADT, the combination of ADT and novel agents, and peripheral androgen blockade.

A phase II study of 2-methoxyestradiol nanocrystal colloidal dispersion alone and in combination with sunitinib malate in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma progressing on sunitinib malate.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment for metastatic renal cell cancer with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have provided improved overall survival, but complete responses are rare. We conducted a multicenter phase II study to evaluate the objective response rate of 2-methoxyestradiol (2ME2 NCD) alone and in combination with sunitinib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on sunitinib alone. METHODS: Adults with metastatic kidney cancer were stratified depending on whether they were still taking sunitinib or had discontinued sunitinib therapy at the time of registration. Patients were treated with 2ME2 NCD alone or in combination with sunitinib. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. RESULTS: In total, 17 patients were enrolled, and 12 were evaluable for response (arm A, n = 7; arm b, n = 5). In arm A, four patients had the best response of stable disease, and three patients developed disease progression. In arm B, three patients had a best response of stable disease, and two patients had disease progression. One patient continued to receive treatment for a total of 14 cycles before developing disease progression. Fatigue was the most common observed toxicities. Thirty five percent of patients required discontinuation of therapy secondary to toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: 2ME2 NCD had minimal anti-tumor activity, with no observed objective responses. The study was terminated because 2ME2 NCD was not found to be tolerable at the recommended phase 2 dose in this patient population. A newer 2ME2 analog is in development with a more favorable toxicity profile and increased potency.