Follow-up from the A041202 study shows continued efficacy of ibrutinib regimens for older adults with CLL.

ABSTRACT: A041202 (NCT01886872) is a phase 3 study comparing bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and rituximab did not add additional benefits. Here we present an updated analysis. With a median follow-up of 55 months, the median PFS was 44 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-54) for BR and not yet reached in either ibrutinib-containing arm. The 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76%, and 76% for BR, ibrutinib, and IR, respectively. The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over chemoimmunotherapy was consistent across subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV). No significant interaction effects were observed between the treatment arm and del(11q), the complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, a greater difference in PFS was observed among the patients with TP53 abnormalities. There was no difference in the overall survival. Notable adverse events with ibrutinib included atrial fibrillation (afib) and hypertension. Afib was observed in 11 patients (pts) on BR (3%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (18%). All-grade hypertension was observed in 95 pts on BR (27%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (55%). These data show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS compared with BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. These benefits were observed across subgroups, including high-risk groups. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there was no inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature observed in CLL. These data continue to demonstrate the efficacy of ibrutinib in treatment-naïve CLL.

High-Dose Once-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy in Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CALGB 30610 (Alliance)/RTOG 0538.

PURPOSE: Although level 1 evidence supports 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy as standard for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, most patients receive higher-dose once-daily regimens in clinical practice. Whether increasing radiotherapy dose improves outcomes remains to be prospectively demonstrated. METHODS: This phase III trial, CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00632853), was conducted in two stages. In the first stage, patients with limited-stage disease were randomly assigned to receive 45-Gy twice-daily, 70-Gy once-daily, or 61.2-Gy concomitant-boost radiotherapy, starting with either the first or second (of four total) chemotherapy cycles. In the second stage, allocation to the 61.2-Gy arm was discontinued following planned interim toxicity analysis, and the study continued with two remaining arms. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Trial accrual opened on March 15, 2008, and closed on December 1, 2019. All patients randomly assigned to 45-Gy twice-daily (n = 313) or 70-Gy once-daily radiotherapy (n = 325) are included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years, OS was not improved on the once-daily arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.17; P = .594). Median survival is 28.5 months for twice-daily treatment, and 30.1 months for once-daily treatment, with 5-year OS of 29% and 32%, respectively. Treatment was tolerable, and the frequency of severe adverse events, including esophageal and pulmonary toxicity, was similar on both arms. CONCLUSION: Although 45-Gy twice-daily radiotherapy remains the standard of care, this study provides the most robust information available to help guide the choice of thoracic radiotherapy regimen for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.

CALGB 40603 (Alliance): Long-Term Outcomes and Genomic Correlates of Response and Survival After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With or Without Carboplatin and Bevacizumab in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: CALGB 40603 (NCT00861705), a 2 × 2 randomized phase II trial, demonstrated that adding carboplatin or bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel (wP) followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide significantly increased the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer. We now report long-term outcomes (LTOs) and correlative science end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate LTOs in 443 patients who initiated study treatment. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the impact of clinical characteristics, pathologic response, calculated residual cancer burden (RCB) in patients with residual disease (RD), treatment assignment, and dose delivery during wP on LTOs, including event-free survival (EFS). Genomic predictors of treatment response and outcomes were assessed on pretreatment tumor samples by mRNA sequencing. RESULTS: Among baseline characteristics, only the clinical stage was associated with LTOs. At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, LTOs were not significantly improved with either carboplatin or bevacizumab, overall or in patients with basal-like subtype cancers by genomic analysis. Patients with pCR (n = 205, 46.3%) had significantly higher 5-year EFS (85.5% v 56.6%, log-rank P < .0001) and overall survival (87.9% v 63.4%, P < .0001) rates compared with patients with RD, even those with RCB class I. Among clinical and genomic features, evidence of immune activation, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and low B-cell receptor evenness, was associated with pCR and improved EFS. CONCLUSION: Despite higher pCR rates, neither carboplatin nor bevacizumab appeared to improve LTOs although the study was not powered to assess these secondary end points. pCR was associated with superior LTOs even when compared with minimal RD. Markers of immune activation in pretreatment tumor biopsies were independently associated with higher pCR rates and improved survival.

Adverse event burden in older patients with CLL receiving bendamustine plus rituximab or ibrutinib regimens: Alliance A041202.

Ibrutinib has superior progression-free survival compared with bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in older CLL patients, however, differences in treatment duration, six monthly BR cycles versus continuous ibrutinib, complicate adverse event (AE) comparisons. We introduce the AE burden score (AEsc) to compare AEs, calculated for each patient by summing over products of reporting period length and grade for each all-cause grade 1-4 AE and dividing by the length of time over which AEs are assessed. A total of 176 patients received BR and 361 ibrutinib alone or with six cycles of rituximab. At 38 months median follow-up, 64% remained on ibrutinib. Median AEsc was higher with BR versus ibrutinib in the first six cycles (7.2 versus 4.9, p < 0.0001). Within ibrutinib arms, median AEsc decreased significantly to 3.7 after six cycles (p < 0.0001). 10% and 14% of BR and ibrutinib patients discontinued treatment for AEs. In ibrutinib arms, cumulative incidence of grade 3 or higher atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and infection (AEs of clinical interest) at 12 months was 4.5%, 17.5%, and 12.8%, respectively, and increased more slowly thereafter to 7.7%, 25.4%, and 20.5% at 36 months. Analytical tools including the AEsc and cumulative incidence of AEs can help to better characterize AE burden over time. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872.

Short Communication: Interim toxicity analysis for patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC) treated on CALGB 30610 (Alliance) / RTOG 0538.

INTRODUCTION: The CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 randomized trial was designed to test whether high-dose thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) would improve survival compared with 45 Gy twice-daily (BID) TRT in limited stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC). Two piloted experimental TRT regimens were of interest to study, 70 Gy daily (QD) and 61.2 Gy concomitant boost (CB). Driven by concerns about adequate patient accrual, a study design was employed that eliminated one experimental TRT arm based on early interim toxicity and tolerability, with the study then continuing as a traditional 2-arm phase III study. METHODS: Patients with LSCLC were assigned to receive four cycles of cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy with one of 3 TRT regimens starting with either the first or second cycle of chemotherapy. The interim endpoint was the cumulative highest toxicity calculated from a scoring system based on treatment-related grade 3 and higher toxicity and the ability to complete therapy in the experimental arms. RESULTS: The final interim analysis was performed after 70 patients accrued to each experimental cohort, and a difference in treatment related toxicity scoring was not found (p = 0.739). Severe esophageal toxicity was comparable in both cohorts. Pulmonary toxicity was low overall, though 4 patients (5.7 %) on the 61.2 Gy arm developed grade 4 dyspnea, which was not observed in the 70 Gy arm. A protocol mandated decision was made to discontinue the 61.2 Gy arm following review of toxicity with the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. CONCLUSION: A randomized trial design using a planned early interim toxicity analysis to discriminate between experimental treatment arms is feasible in a phase III setting. Refinement of the design could increase the likelihood of detecting clinically meaningful differences in toxicity in future studies.

Apixaban and dalteparin in active malignancy-associated venous thromboembolism: The ADAM VTE trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparin is the guideline-endorsed treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). While apixaban is approved for the treatment of acute VTE, limited data support its use in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included VTE recurrence and a composite of major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). PATIENTS/METHODS: Patients with cancer-associated VTE were randomly assigned to receive either apixaban 10 mg twice daily for seven days followed by 5 mg twice daily for six months or subcutaneous dalteparin (200 IU/kg for one month followed by 150 IU/kg once daily). RESULTS: Of 300 patients randomized, 287 were included in the primary analysis. Metastatic disease was present in 66% of subjects; 74% were receiving concurrent chemotherapy. Major bleeding occurred in 0% of 145 patients receiving apixaban, compared with 1.4% of 142 patients receiving dalteparin [P = .138; hazard ratio (HR) not estimable because of 0 bleeding event in apixaban group]. Recurrent VTE occurred in 0.7% of apixaban, compared to 6.3% of dalteparin patients [HR 0.099, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.013-0.780, P = .0281). Major bleeding or CRNMB rates were 6% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral apixaban was associated with low major bleeding and VTE recurrence rates for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients.

Ibrutinib Regimens versus Chemoimmunotherapy in Older Patients with Untreated CLL.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) since 2016 but has not been compared with chemoimmunotherapy. We conducted a phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of ibrutinib, either alone or in combination with rituximab, relative to chemoimmunotherapy. METHODS: Patients 65 years of age or older who had untreated CLL were randomly assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, ibrutinib, or ibrutinib plus rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board made the decision to release the data after the protocol-specified efficacy threshold had been met. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients were assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, 182 to receive ibrutinib, and 182 to receive ibrutinib plus rituximab. Median progression-free survival was reached only with bendamustine plus rituximab. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 2 years was 74% with bendamustine plus rituximab and was higher with ibrutinib alone (87%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.58; P<0.001) and with ibrutinib plus rituximab (88%; hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.59; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the ibrutinib-plus-rituximab group and the ibrutinib group with regard to progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.62; P=0.49). With a median follow-up of 38 months, there was no significant difference among the three treatment groups with regard to overall survival. The rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 hematologic adverse events was higher with bendamustine plus rituximab (61%) than with ibrutinib or ibrutinib plus rituximab (41% and 39%, respectively), whereas the rate of grade 3, 4, or 5 nonhematologic adverse events was lower with bendamustine plus rituximab (63%) than with the ibrutinib-containing regimens (74% with each regimen). CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients with untreated CLL, treatment with ibrutinib was superior to treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. There was no significant difference between ibrutinib and ibrutinib plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01886872 .).

Randomized, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Duloxetine Versus Placebo for Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Arthralgias in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: SWOG S1202.

Purpose Adherence to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy for early-stage breast cancer is limited by AI-associated musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS). Duloxetine is US Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of multiple chronic pain disorders. We hypothesized that treatment of AIMSS with duloxetine would improve average joint pain compared with placebo. Methods This randomized, double-blind, phase III trial included AI-treated postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer and who had average joint pain score of ≥ 4 out of 10 that developed or worsened since AI therapy initiation. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to duloxetine or placebo for 13 weeks. The primary end point was average joint pain through 12 weeks, examined using multivariable linear mixed models, adjusted for stratification factors (baseline pain score of 4 to 6 v 7 to 10 and prior taxane use). Clinically significant change in average pain was defined as a ≥ 2-point decrease from baseline. Results Of 299 enrolled patients, 127 patients treated with duloxetine and 128 who received placebo were evaluable for the primary analysis. By 12 weeks, the average joint pain score was 0.82 points lower for patients who received duloxetine compared with those who received placebo (95% CI, -1.24 to -0.40; P = .0002). Similar patterns were observed for worst joint pain, joint stiffness, pain interference, and functioning. Rates of adverse events of any grade were higher in the duloxetine-treated group (78% v 50%); rates of grade 3 adverse events were similar. Conclusion Results of treatment with duloxetine for AIMSS were superior to those of placebo among women with early-stage breast cancer, although it resulted in more frequent low-grade toxicities.

Feasibility Assessment of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

Impact of the addition of carboplatin and/or bevacizumab to neoadjuvant once-per-week paclitaxel followed by dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on pathologic complete response rates in stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer: CALGB 40603 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: One third of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) achieve pathologic complete response (pCR) with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). CALGB 40603 (Alliance), a 2 × 2 factorial, open-label, randomized phase II trial, evaluated the impact of adding carboplatin and/or bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 443) with stage II to III TNBC received paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) once per week (wP) for 12 weeks, followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide once every 2 weeks (ddAC) for four cycles, and were randomly assigned to concurrent carboplatin (area under curve 6) once every 3 weeks for four cycles and/or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks for nine cycles. Effects of adding these agents on pCR breast (ypT0/is), pCR breast/axilla (ypT0/isN0), treatment delivery, and toxicities were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients assigned to either carboplatin or bevacizumab were less likely to complete wP and ddAC without skipped doses, dose modification, or early discontinuation resulting from toxicity. Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more common with carboplatin, as were hypertension, infection, thromboembolic events, bleeding, and postoperative complications with bevacizumab. Employing one-sided P values, addition of either carboplatin (60% v 44%; P = .0018) or bevacizumab (59% v 48%; P = .0089) significantly increased pCR breast, whereas only carboplatin (54% v 41%; P = .0029) significantly raised pCR breast/axilla. More-than-additive interactions between the two agents could not be demonstrated. CONCLUSION: In stage II to III TNBC, addition of either carboplatin or bevacizumab to NACT increased pCR rates, but whether this will improve relapse-free or overall survival is unknown. Given results from recently reported adjuvant trials, further investigation of bevacizumab in this setting is unlikely, but the role of carboplatin could be evaluated in definitive studies, ideally limited to biologically defined patient subsets most likely to benefit from this agent.

Palliative irradiation of the spleen.

We analyzed the efficacy of splenic irradiation in a population of patients with hematologic diseases. The records of the Radiation Oncology Division, Naval Medical Center San Diego were retrospectively reviewed for all patients treated with splenic irradiation (SI) between January 1, 1990 and March 1, 2001. The charts of 17 patients were identified: 5 patients had chronic myelogenous leukemia, 4 had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 4 had idiopathic myelofibrosis, 2 had polycythemia vera, and 1 patient each had idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and acute myelogenous leukemia. Patient ages ranged from 37 to 88 years. Sixteen of 17 suffered from symptomatic splenomegaly. Twenty-six courses of splenic irradiation were delivered to these 17 patients. Treatment courses generally consisted of two fractions of 50 cGy in the first week, two fractions of 75 cGy the second week, and two fractions of 100 cGy the third week. Blood counts were checked prior to each treatment. Seven of the 17 patients died 1 month or less after SI due to the terminal nature of their disease. Twenty-two of 25 treatment courses for splenomegaly resulted in decreased pain and symptoms. Five patients required two treatment courses for splenomegaly, and one patient required five treatment courses. Three of four patients treated for thrombocytopenia demonstrated improvement, but only one was evaluable for more than 2 weeks due to disease-related mortality. Three of five patients treated for leukocytosis had significant improvement. In general, patients suffered few significant complications from this palliative intervention. Splenic irradiation can effectively palliate symptomatic splenomegaly in patients for whom splenectomy is not an option. Retreatment is possible. Splenic irradiation is less effective in the treatment of thrombocytopenia or leukocytosis.