Overcoming Barriers to Tobacco Cessation and Lung Cancer Screening among Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups and Underserved Patients in Academic Centers and Community Network Sites: The City of Hope Experience.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco control is important for cancer patient health, but delivering effective low-dose CT (LDCT) screening and tobacco cessation is more difficult in underserved and patients from racial and ethnic minority groups. At City of Hope (COH), we have developed strategies to overcome barriers to the delivery of LDCT and tobacco cessation. METHODS: We performed a needs assessment. New tobacco control program services were implemented focusing on patients from racial and ethnic minority groups. Innovations included Whole Person Care with motivational counseling, placing clinician and nurse champions at points of care, training module and leadership newsletters, and a patient-centric personalized medicine Personalized Pathways to Success (PPS) program. RESULTS: Emphasis on patients from racial and ethnic minority groups was implemented by training cessation personnel and lung cancer control champions. LDCT increased. Tobacco use assessment increased and abstinence was 27.2%. The PPS pilot program achieved 47% engagement in cessation, with self-reported abstinence at 3 months of 38%, with both results slightly higher in patients from racial and ethnic minority groups than in Caucasian patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco cessation barrier-focused innovations can result in increased lung cancer screening and tobacco cessation reach and effectiveness, especially among patients from racial and ethnic minority groups. The PPS program is promising as a personalized medicine patient-centric approach to cessation and lung cancer screening.

Increasing clinician participation in tobacco cessation by an implementation science-based tobacco cessation champion program.

BACKGROUND: We designed a process to increase tobacco cessation in an academic center and its widely distributed network community sites using clinical champions to overcome referral barriers. METHODS: In 2020 a needs assessment was performed across the City of Hope Medical Center and its 32 community treatment sites. We reviewed information science strategies to choose elements for our expanded tobacco control plan, focusing on distributed leadership with tobacco cessation champions. We analyzed smoking patterns in patients with cancer before and following program implementation. We evaluated the champion experience and measured tobacco abstinence after 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Cancer center leadership committed to expanding tobacco control. Funding was obtained through a Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) grant. Multi-disciplinary leaders developed a comprehensive plan. Disease-focused clinics and community sites named cessation champions (a clinician and nurse) supported by certified tobacco treatment specialists. Patient, staff, clinician, and champion training/education were developed. Roles and responsibilities of the champions were defined. Implementation in pilot sites showed increased tobacco assessment from 80.8 to 96.6%, increased tobacco cessation referral by 367%, and moderate smoking abstinence in both academic (27.2%) and community sites (22.5%). 73% of champions had positive attitudes toward the program. CONCLUSION: An efficient process to expand smoking cessation in the City of Hope network was developed using implementation science strategies and cessation champions. This well-detailed implementation process may be helpful to other cancer centers, particularly those with a tertiary care cancer center and community network.

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California.

BACKGROUND: Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care. METHODS: A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers. CONCLUSIONS: Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.

Integrating Academic and Community Cancer Care and Research through Multidisciplinary Oncology Pathways for Value-Based Care: A Review and the City of Hope Experience.

As the US transitions from volume- to value-based cancer care, many cancer centers and community groups have joined to share resources to deliver measurable, high-quality cancer care and clinical research with the associated high patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, and practice health at optimal costs that are the hallmarks of value-based care. Multidisciplinary oncology care pathways are essential components of value-based care and their payment metrics. Oncology pathways are evidence-based, standardized but personalizable care plans to guide cancer care. Pathways have been developed and studied for the major medical, surgical, radiation, and supportive oncology disciplines to support decision-making, streamline care, and optimize outcomes. Implementing multidisciplinary oncology pathways can facilitate comprehensive care plans for each cancer patient throughout their cancer journey and across large multisite delivery systems. Outcomes from the delivered pathway-based care can then be evaluated against individual and population benchmarks. The complexity of adoption, implementation, and assessment of multidisciplinary oncology pathways, however, presents many challenges. We review the development and components of value-based cancer care and detail City of Hope's (COH) academic and community-team-based approaches for implementing multidisciplinary pathways. We also describe supportive components with available results towards enterprise-wide value-based care delivery.

Use of HER2-Directed Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer and How Community Physicians Collaborate to Improve Care.

The development of new HER2-directed therapies has resulted in a significant prolongation of survival for women with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Discoveries in the laboratory inform clinical trials which are the basis for improving the standard of care and are also the backbone for quality improvement. Clinical trials can be completed more rapidly by expanding trial enrollment to community sites. In this article we review some of the challenges in treating metastatic breast cancer with HER2-directed therapies and our strategies for incorporating our community partners into the research network.

Complex Oncological Decision-Making Utilizing Fast-and-Frugal Trees in a Community Setting-Role of Academic and Hybrid Modeling.

Non-small cell lung cancer is a devastating disease and with the advent of targeted therapies and molecular testing, the decision-making process has become complex. While established guidelines and pathways offer some guidance, they are difficult to utilize in a busy community practice and are not always implemented in the community. The rationale of the study was to identify a cohort of patients with lung adenocarcinoma at a City of Hope community site (n = 11) and utilize their case studies to develop a decision-making framework utilizing fast-and-frugal tree (FFT) heuristics. Most patients had stage IV (N = 9, 81.8%) disease at the time of the first consultation. The most common symptoms at initial presentation were cough (N = 5, 45.5%), shortness of breath (N = 3, 27.2%), and weight loss (N = 3, 27.2%). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ranged from 0-1 in all patients in this study. Distribution of molecular drivers among the patients were as follows: EGFR (N = 5, 45.5%), KRAS (N = 2, 18.2%), ALK (N = 2, 18.2%), MET (N = 2, 18.2%), and RET (N = 1, 9.1%). Seven initial FFTs were developed for the various case scenarios, but ultimately the decisions were condensed into one FFT, a molecular stage IV FFT, that arrived at accurate decisions without sacrificing initial information. While these FFT decision trees may seem arbitrary to an experienced oncologist at an academic site, the simplicity of their utility is essential for community practice where patients often do not get molecular testing and are not assigned proper therapy.

Strategies to Improve Participation of Older Adults in Cancer Research.

Cancer is a disease associated with aging. As the US population ages, the number of older adults with cancer is projected to dramatically increase. Despite this, older adults remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments and, consequently, clinicians struggle with how to interpret data from clinical trials and apply them to older adults in practice. A combination of system, clinician, and patient barriers bar opportunities for trial participation for many older patients, and strategies are needed to address these barriers at multiple fronts, five of which are offered here. This review highlights the need to (1) broaden eligibility criteria, (2) measure relevant end points, (3) expand standard trial designs, (4) increase resources (e.g., institutional support, interdisciplinary care, and telehealth), and (5) develop targeted interventions (e.g., behavioral interventions to promote patient enrollment). Implementing these solutions requires a substantial investment in engaging and collaborating with community-based practices, where the majority of older patients with cancer receive their care. Multifaceted strategies are needed to ensure that older patients with cancer, across diverse healthcare settings, receive the highest-quality, evidence-based care.

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms. METHODS: The study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898. FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014). INTERPRETATION: Given the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

Overview of neuropathy associated with taxanes for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

Taxanes are an established option in the standard treatment paradigm for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Neuropathy is a common, dose-limiting side effect of taxane therapy that is often managed by dose reductions and delays. The severity, time to onset, and improvement in neuropathy are important considerations for patient management and vary among currently approved taxanes. The rate of grade ≥3 neuropathy with taxanes has been shown to be dose and schedule dependent; however, time to improvement to grade ≤1 is typically shorter for nab-paclitaxel than for other taxanes in patients with MBC. Many tools for assessing patient-reported neuropathy exist. Because MBC is incurable and patient quality of life must be critically considered when making treatment decisions, there is a need for more prospective trials to assess patient-reported neuropathy. Validated predictors of taxane-related neuropathy may play an important role in treatment decisions in the future. This review will focus on the toxicity profile (i.e., neuropathy) of each of the taxanes used in the treatment of MBC, will provide updates on tools used for the assessment of neuropathy, and will highlight newly discovered predictors of taxane-related neuropathy.

A phase 1/pharmacokinetic study of sunitinib in combination with highly active antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients with cancer: AIDS Malignancy Consortium trial AMC 061.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of non-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining cancers may be complicated by drug interactions between highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and chemotherapy. This trial is the first by the AIDS Malignancy Consortium to assess targeted therapies and HAART in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00890747). METHODS: In a modified phase 1 study of sunitinib, patients were stratified into 2 treatment arms based on whether they were receiving therapy with ritonavir, a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor. Patients in treatment arm 1 (non-ritonavir HAART) received standard sunitinib dosing (50 mg/day). Treatment arm 2 (ritonavir-based HAART) used a phase 1, 3 + 3 dose escalation design (from 25 mg/day to 50 mg/day). Cycles were comprised of 4 weeks on treatment followed by a 2-week break (6 weeks total). The pharmacokinetics of sunitinib and its active metabolite (N-desethyl sunitinib) were assessed. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled and were evaluable. Patients on treatment arm 1 tolerated treatment with no dose-limiting toxicity observed. In treatment arm 2, a dose-limiting toxicity was experienced at a dose of 37.5 mg, and an additional 3 of 5 patients experienced grade 3 neutropenia (toxicity graded as per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]), an uncommon toxicity of sunitinib. No patient achieved a response, but 10 patients had stable disease, including 8 with prolonged disease stability. Efavirenz, a potent inducer of CYP3A4, resulted in increased exposure of N-desethyl sunitinib, whereas ritonavir caused decreased exposure of the metabolite. Hand-foot syndrome was associated with higher steady-state trough concentrations of sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving non-ritonavir-based HAART regimens tolerated standard dosing of sunitinib. Patients receiving ritonavir-based therapy who were treated with a dose of 37.5 mg/day experienced higher toxicities. Dose reductions of sunitinib to 37.5 mg may be warranted in patients receiving ritonavir.

Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of pemetrexed in patients with brain or leptomeningeal metastases.

Brain metastases (BM) and leptomeningeal metastases (LM) are devastating neurologic complications. Pemetrexed is a multi-targeted anti-folate agent approved for treatment of nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer but has anti-tumor activity in other solid tumors. We performed two trials using pemetrexed in patients with BM and LM to assess CSF penetration and anti-tumor activity. Patients were treated with intravenous pemetrexed at doses of 500 (n = 3), 750 (n = 3), 900 (n = 12) or 1,050 mg/m(2) (n = 3) every 3 weeks. Neuro-imaging was done every 6 weeks. Matched CSF and plasma samples were obtained serially from three patients with Ommaya reservoirs; the remaining patients had a single paired collection. Twenty-one patients (15 women and six men) with median age of 50 years and median KPS of 90 were treated. Primary tumors included breast (13), lung (4), colorectal (1), endometrial (1), esophageal (1) and pinealoblastoma (1). Nine patients had prior whole brain RT and median number of prior chemotherapies was two including prior methotrexate in four patients. Median pemetrexed doses administered was three (range 1-14). Responses included one partial response, ten stable disease and ten progressive disease. Median time to progression and survival was 2.7 and 7.3 months; PFS six was 22 %. No major toxicities were seen. Pemetrexed distributed from the plasma to the CSF within 1-4 h with the resulting CSF concentrations < 5 % of plasma. Pemetrexed was tolerated in solid tumor patients with CNS metastases. Limited anti-tumor activity was seen, which might have been due to low CSF concentrations, although some patients displayed prolonged benefit.

Pilot neoadjuvant trial in HER2 positive breast cancer with combination of nab-paclitaxel and lapatinib.

Lapatinib, a dual kinase inhibitor against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal receptor two (HER2) has shown efficacy in treating HER2 positive breast cancer. Nanoparticle albumin bound (nab) paclitaxel was developed to reduce toxicities from paclitaxel and improve its efficacy. Thirty patients with stage I-III HER2 positive breast cancer were treated in the neoadjuvant setting with lapatinib 1,000 mg/day and nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for four cycles. The primary end point of the trial was clinical response rate (cRR) with secondary end points including pathologic complete response rate (pCR), tolerability of the combination, and marker response. The cRR was 82.8% (24 patients) with six (20.7%) patients having complete clinical response, 18 (62.1%) having partial clinical response, and five (17.2%) stable disease. A pCR was observed in five of the 28 patients (17.9%). The most frequent grade 2 toxicities were neuropathy in nine patients (30%), fatigue in seven patients (23.3%), rash in 11 patients (36.7%), and bone pain in 10 patients (33.3%). There was no significant drop in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Of the tissue markers examined, we were not able to find a predictor of response. The combination of lapatinib and nab-paclitaxel was well tolerated and provided good efficacy in women with HER2 positive breast cancer. This combination offers an alternative non-anthracycline-containing regimen for women with HER2 positive breast cancer.

Pilot study evaluating the interaction between paclitaxel and protease inhibitors in patients with human immunodeficiency virus-associated Kaposi's sarcoma: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and AIDS Malignancy Consortium (AMC) trial.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel, a cytotoxic agent metabolized by cytochrome P450 hepatic enzymes, is active for the treatment of human immunodeficiency (HIV) associated Kaposi's sarcoma. Protease inhibitors are commonly used to treat HIV infection and are known to inhibit cytochrome P450. We sought to determine whether protease inhibitors alter the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel. METHODS: Patients with advanced HIV-associated KS received paclitaxel (100 mg/m(2)) by intravenous infusion over 3 h, and plasma samples were collected to measure paclitaxel concentration. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using a combination of the log and linear trapezoidal rule, and clearance was calculated as the dose/AUC. Pharmacokinetics were compared with respect to antiretroviral therapy and toxicity, RESULTS: Thirty-four patients received paclitaxel, of whom 20 had no prior paclitaxel therapy and were assessable for response. Twenty-seven had pharmacokinetic studies performed. Paclitaxel exposure was higher in patients taking protease inhibitors compared to those who were not taking protease inhibitors. The increased exposure did not correlate with efficacy or toxicity. Of the 20 patients assessable for response, 6 (30%) had an objective response and median progression-free survival was 7.8 months (95% confidence interval, 5.6, 21.0 months). CONCLUSION: Despite higher exposure to paclitaxel, patients on protease inhibitors did not experience enhanced toxicity or efficacy.

Randomized trial of paclitaxel versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for advanced human immunodeficiency virus-associated Kaposi sarcoma: evidence of symptom palliation from chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) are active cytotoxic agents for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated Kaposi sarcoma (KS). A randomized trial comparing the efficacy and toxicity of paclitaxel and PLD was performed, and the effects of therapy on symptom palliation and quality of life were determined. METHODS: Patients with advanced HIV-associated KS were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m2 intravenously (iv) every 2 weeks or PLD at a dose of 20 mg/m2 iv every 3 weeks. The KS Functional Assessment of HIV (FAHI) quality of life instrument was used before and after every other treatment cycle. RESULTS: The study included 73 analyzable patients enrolled between 1998 and 2002, including 36 in the paclitaxel arm and 37 in the PLD arm; 73% of patients received highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and 32% had an undetectable viral load (<400 copies/mL). Treatment was associated with significant improvements in pain (P=.024) and swelling (P<.001). Of the 36 patients who reported that pain interfered with their normal work or activities at baseline, 25 (69%) improved. Of the 41 patients who reported swelling at baseline, 38 (93%) improved. Comparing the paclitaxel and PLD arms revealed comparable response rates (56% vs 46%; P=.49), median progression-free survival (17.5 months vs 12.2 months; P=.66), and 2-year survival rates (79% vs 78%; P=.75), but somewhat more grade 3 to 5 toxicity for paclitaxel (84% vs 66%; P=.077). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with either paclitaxel or PLD appears to produce significant improvements in pain and swelling in patients with advanced, symptomatic, HIV-associated KS treated in the HAART era.

New molecular classifications of breast cancer.

Traditionally, pathologic determinations of tumor size, lymph node status, endocrine receptor status, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status have driven prognostic predictions and adjuvant therapy recommendations for patients with early stage breast cancer. However, these prognostic and predictive factors are relatively crude measures, resulting in many patients being overtreated or undertreated. As a result of gene expression assays, there is growing recognition that breast cancer is a molecularly heterogeneous disease. Evidence from gene expression microarrays suggests the presence of multiple molecular subtypes of breast cancer. The recent commercial availability of gene expression profiling techniques that predict risk of disease recurrence as well as potential chemotherapy benefit have shown promise in refining clinical decision making. These techniques will be reviewed in this article.

Overcoming recurrence risk: extended adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Recurrence risk after initial treatment of breast cancer is a major concern for patients. Although tamoxifen therapy has been shown to be effective in preventing recurrences and cancer-related deaths, recurrences continue to be an issue for patients after the 5-year therapy period. Until recently, there were no therapeutic options available for risk reduction in the period after the first 5 years of tamoxifen (the extended adjuvant setting). The introduction of the aromatase inhibitors (AIs), which have a different mechanism of action than tamoxifen, has provided an option for postmenopausal women seeking to extend their adjuvant hormonal treatment. The Canadian-led MA.17 trial specifically addressed this issue, and the results showed a clear, significant benefit of letrozole, improving disease-free survival over placebo among postmenopausal women who already had 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment. Because of the favorable results observed in the first interim analysis, the trial was unblinded, the patients treated with placebo were offered letrozole, and subsequently, letrozole became approved for the extended adjuvant indication. Recent analyses from MA.17 and other trials, such as the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group 6a and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-33, confirm the beneficial effect of extending adjuvant hormonal therapy with an AI and identify a large group of patients who could benefit from this therapeutic option. Recent post-unblinding analyses from the MA.17 trial have also shown that there is a benefit for patients to initiate late extended adjuvant letrozole therapy, even after a prolonged period off tamoxifen.

Application of epothilones in breast cancer therapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The taxanes that target microtubules are among the most active drugs in breast cancer treatment; however, resistance to these agents remains a significant issue for many patients. The epothilones are a novel class of nontaxane, microtubule-targeting agents, currently being evaluated in varying stages of clinical trials. Ixabepilone is the first epothilone analogue to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval in the United States for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and as such will be the primary focus of this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple phase II trials evaluating ixabepilone in different populations of patients with metastatic breast cancer as well as a phase III trial in combination with capecitabine have recently been published. SUMMARY: Phase II trials clearly demonstrate the activity of single-agent ixabepilone in both taxane-untreated and taxane-treated metastatic breast cancer. Although the highest activity was seen in early lines of therapy, there was also clear evidence of activity in heavily pretreated patients. Ixabepilone has also been evaluated in combination with capecitabine in a randomized, phase III trial demonstrating a benefit for the combination compared with single-agent capecitabine for patients resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. In general, ixabepilone administered as a single-agent and in combination with capecitabine has been reasonably well tolerated.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: The main objectives of this phase I and pharmacokinetic, open-label study were to determine the optimally tolerated regimen (OTR), safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in patients with advanced solid malignancies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced breast cancer with immunohistochemically detectable estrogen or progesterone receptors or other cancers were eligible. Doses of lapatinib were escalated in cohorts of three subjects from 1,250 to a maximum of 1,500 mg/d based on dose-limiting toxicities in the first treatment cycle. The letrozole dose was fixed at 2.5 mg/d. Additional patients were enrolled at the OTR dose level to further evaluate safety and for pharmacokinetic analyses. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in the study: 12 in the dose-escalation group, 7 in the OTR safety group, and 20 in the pharmacokinetic group. The OTR dose level was identified as 1,500 mg/d lapatinib and 2.5 mg/d letrozole. The most common (>25% of patients) drug-related adverse events were diarrhea (77%), rash (62%), nausea (46%), and fatigue (26%). No significant differences were observed in the pharmacokinetic variables (C(max) and AUC) of lapatinib and letrozole when coadministered compared with single-agent administration. One patient with endometrial cancer had a confirmed partial response. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant doses of lapatinib in combination with letrozole were well tolerated and did not result in a pharmacokinetic interaction, and clinical antitumor activity was observed.