Neo-adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer: Insights from a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The best regimen of neo-adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is unknown. Recent studies have shown promising data that adding carboplatin or pembrolizumab improves the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) in TNBC. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to define the overall, most effective, neo-adjuvant systemic therapy for TNBC. METHODS: We searched for studies comparing different neo-adjuvant regimens in patients with TNBC. We performed a network meta-analysis comparing the regimens using the random-effects model. We focused on anthracycline, bevacizumab, pembrolizumab, and platinum salts (Pl). All study regimens contained a taxane. We analyzed the rate of pCR (ypT0/is, N0), and the incidence of febrile neutropenia, grade 3-grade 4 thrombocytopenia, nausea/vomiting, and diarrhea. RESULTS: We identified a total of 13 randomized control trials for this analysis. We compared ten different classes of regimens. We found that regimens containing Pl were significantly superior to non-PI-containing regimens for the rate of pCR. Similarly, pembrolizumab-containing regimens were associated with significantly higher pCR rates. Regimens containing bevacizumab significantly increased the rate of pCR as well. However, it was equivocal as to whether the addition of Pl to pembrolizumab-containing regimen increases pCR rates. Adding anthracycline into the regimen did not show an improved rate of pCR. In the safety analysis, regimens containing Pl were associated with a significantly higher incidence of febrile neutropenia and grade 3-grade 4 thrombocytopenia. The regimen containing anthracycline plus bevacizumab plus Pl was associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: For TNBC, regimens containing bevacizumab, pembrolizumab, or Pl are most effective in terms of pCR rates, though it is unclear whether combining all these medications has the greatest efficacy. Additionally, the benefit of using anthracycline in the neo-adjuvant therapy regimen for TNBC is not apparent, which may warrant a further head-to-head comparison.

Risk factors for skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastasis from breast cancer undergoing treatment with zoledronate.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal-related events (SREs) are significant contributors to the morbidity and mortality in patients with bone metastasis from breast cancer. Thus, bone-modifying agents (BMAs) are recommended in this population. However, the baseline risk factors of SREs in patients with bone metastasis from breast cancer receiving BMAs are not well understood. METHODS: We analyzed the patient-level data from a controlled arm of a clinical trial comparing denosumab with zoledronate in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT00321464) available at Project Data Sphere, a broad-access research platform that collects and curates patient-level data from completed, phase III cancer trials. The primary endpoint was the first SRE after the inclusion to the trial. The time to the first on study SRE was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model based on patients' baseline characteristics including age, race, ECOG performance status (PS), histology and immunohistochemistry of breast cancer, and urine and serum laboratory data. RESULTS: Among 756 patients in the zoledronate arm of the trial, we excluded 64 patients with a documented history of osteopenia or osteoporosis. The median age of the patients was 56 years old, the median follow-up was 553 days, and 249 patients (36%) had SREs. The univariate analysis showed that black or African American heritage, ECOG PS > 0, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positivity, high urine N-telopeptide cross-links / creatinine ratio (NTx/Cre), and elevated serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) are significant baseline risk factors for SREs. Patients with the characteristics of ECOG PS > 0, HER2 positivity, and elevated ALP also showed a significantly higher hazard ratio of SREs in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We determined risk factors for SREs in patients with bone metastasis from breast cancer.

Bone modifying agents for bone loss in patients with aromatase inhibitor as adjuvant treatment for breast cancer; insights from a network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The data of head-to-head comparisons of the anti-fracture efficacy of bone modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitor (AI) are not available. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different BMAs in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant AI. METHODS: We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the change of bone mineral densities (BMDs) and the risk of fracture in the selected studies using a random effect model. The primary outcomes are the change of BMD of lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) from the baseline (ΔBMD, %) at 1 and 2 years and the risk of fracture. RESULTS: We identified and included a total of 16 randomized controlled trials for this analysis. All BMAs included (risedronate, zoledronate, and denosumab) were associated with a significant increase in BMD of LS and TH at 1 and 2 years compared with no upfront treatment group. Among BMAs, zoledronate and denosumab use resulted in significantly higher BMD of LS and TH at 1 and 2 years compared with risedronate. The risk of fracture was significantly lower in the patients who received denosumab or risedronate compared with the patients without upfront treatment (Relative risk (RR) [95% CI] 0.51 [0.38-0.67] and 0.54 [0.35-0.83], respectively). CONCLUSION: Among the bisphosphonates, zoledronate increased BMD the most, but risedronate, not zoledronate, use was associated with lower risk of fracture. Denosumab increased BMD not only of LS but also of the cortical-bone-rich hip, and showed a significant reduction of fracture risk.

Genomic comparison of paired primary breast carcinomas and lymph node macrometastases using the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® test.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant therapy decisions may in part be based on results of Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® (RS) testing of primary tumors. When necessary, lymph node metastases may be considered as a surrogate. Here we evaluate the concordance in gene expression between primary breast cancers and synchronous lymph node metastases, based on results from quantitative RT-PCR-based RS testing between matched primary tumors and synchronous nodal metastases. METHODS: This retrospective, exploratory study included patients (≥ 18 years old) treated at our center (2005-2009) who had ER+ , HER2-negative invasive breast cancer and synchronous nodal metastases with available tumor blocks from both sites. Paired tissue blocks underwent RS testing, and RS and single-gene results for ER, PR, and HER2 were explored between paired samples. RESULTS: A wide distribution of RS results in tumors and in synchronous nodal metastases were modestly correlated between 84 paired samples analyzed (Pearson correlation 0.69 [95% CI 0.55-0.78]). Overall concordance in RS group classification between samples was 63%. ER, PR, and HER2 by RT-PCR between the primary tumor and lymph node were also modestly correlated (Pearson correlation [95% CI] 0.64 [0.50-0.75], 0.64 [0.49-0.75], and 0.51 [0.33-0.65], respectively). Categorical concordance (positive or negative) was 100% for ER, 77% for PR, and 100% for HER2. CONCLUSIONS: There is modest correlation in continuous gene expression, as measured by the RS and single-gene results for ER, PR, and HER2 between paired primary tumors and synchronous nodal metastases. RS testing for ER+ breast cancer should continue to be based on analysis of primary tumors.

Phase I study of oxaliplatin in combination with gemcitabine, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (G-FLIE) in patients with metastatic solid tumors including adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of oxaliplatin in combination with fixed doses of gemcitabine, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (G-FLIE) in solid tumors, including advanced pancreatic cancer, and to evaluate the toxicity of the regimen. METHODS: Patients with metastatic solid tumors were treated with a regimen consisting of gemcitabine (500 mg/m(2) by fixed-dose-rate infusion), irinotecan (120 mg/m(2)), leucovorin 300 mg, bolus/infusion 5-fluorouracil (400 and 1,500 mg/m2, respectively), and oxaliplatin at doses from 50 to 85 mg/m(2) according to the escalation schema. Treatment was repeated every 14 days. RESULTS: The study enrolled 25 patients with a median age of 64 years and median Karnofsky performance score of 80. Patients had metastatic adenocarcinomas of pancreas (n = 9), as well as gastroesointestinal, hepatobiliary, or unknown primary tumors. With only one dose limiting toxicity (neutropenia and constipation), the MTD of oxaliplatin was not reached up to the pre-specified maximum level of 85 mg/m(2). Other toxicities predictably included cytopenias, fatigue, sensory neuropathy, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. Four partial responses and ten disease stabilizations were observed. The overall median time to disease progression was 17 weeks (2-110 weeks) with median overall survival of 31.5 weeks (7-139 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: G-FLIE is a tolerable multi-agent chemotherapy regimen with the oxaliplatin dose up to 85 mg/m(2). The combination of full-dose oxaliplatin with gemcitabine, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil is feasible with attenuated doses of the drugs, but further optimization is necessary before assessment of efficacy.

Phase II study of gemcitabine and bevacizumab as first-line treatment in taxane-pretreated, HER2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer, the best use of the available therapeutic agents is unclear. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combined therapy with bevacizumab and gemcitabine. PATIENTS: Women who were to undergo first-line treatment for locoregionally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were eligible. Patients must have received a taxane-containing regimen in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting with a ≥ 12-month disease-free interval. METHODS: This was a single-arm, phase II trial. On day 1 of each 14-day cycle, patients received gemcitabine (2500 mg/m(2)) followed by bevacizumab (10 mg/kg). Patients were treated until complete response, progressive disease (PD), or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Fifty-two women were enrolled and treated. The median PFS was 4.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-7.6), the 1-year overall survival rate was 68.7% (95% CI, 54.1%-79.5%), and the response rate was 21.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-36.8%). The clinical benefit rate was 35.7%. The median PFS in the triple-negative (n = 19) and non-triple-negative (n = 33) subsets was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.7-11.7) and 4.9 months (95% CI, 3.4-8.1), respectively. The most common (all grades) drug-related adverse events (AEs) were nausea (51.9%), fatigue (46.2%), decreased appetite (25.0%), and anemia (25.0%). The most common grade 3 or grade 4 drug-related AEs were neutropenia (13.5%), leukopenia (11.5%), and hypertension (7.7%). CONCLUSION: Although the gemcitabine-bevacizumab doublet appears active, the median PFS was lower than expected. There were no unexpected safety signals at this dose and schedule of this combination.

L-carnitine supplementation in patients with advanced cancer and carnitine deficiency: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Carnitine deficiency is prevalent in populations with chronic illness, including cancer. In a recent open-label study, L-carnitine supplementation was well tolerated and appeared to improve fatigue and other outcomes in cancer patients. To further evaluate this finding, adult patients with advanced cancer, carnitine deficiency (free carnitine more than 35 micromol/L for males or less than 25 micromol/L for females, or acyl/free carnitine ratio of more than 0.4), moderate to severe fatigue, and a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score of 50 or more, were randomly assigned to receive either L-carnitine (0.5 g/day for two days, followed by 1g/day for two days, and then 2g/day for 10 days) or placebo. This double-blind phase was followed by an open-label phase, during which all patients received L-carnitine supplementation for two weeks. Outcomes included the fatigue subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An), the Linear Analog Scale Assessments (LASA), the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), and the KPS. Twenty-nine patients (12 placebo, 17 L-carnitine) were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. From baseline to the end of the double-blind phase, serum total and free L-carnitine increased from 32.9+/-3.8 to 56.6+/-20.5 (P=0.004), and from 22.9+/-19.4 to 45.3+/-17.2 (P=0.004), respectively, in the L-carnitine-treated group, and from 28.2+/-10.2 to 36.2+/-8.7 (P=ns), and from 22.6+/-7.9 to 28.7+/-8.6 (P=ns) in the placebo group, respectively. The planned ITT analysis revealed no significant improvement in any of the study's endpoints, and these negative findings were not different when data from two patients who did not adhere to the protocol were eliminated. However, an exploratory covariate analysis that excluded these two protocol violators and included outcome data from both the double-blind and open-label phases demonstrated significantly improved fatigue on the FACT-An fatigue subscale (P<0.03), and significantly improved FACT-An functional well-being subscale (P<0.03), and KPS (P<0.003), in the group that started with L-carnitine during the double-blind phase. These data do not support the conclusion that L-carnitine in the doses tested reverses cancer-related fatigue in carnitine-deficient patients. However, L-carnitine supplementation does increase L-carnitine serum levels, and the positive findings in an exploratory analysis justify a larger study to determine if this strategy could be of benefit for a subpopulation of cancer patients.

Pooled efficacy analysis from a phase I-II study of biweekly irinotecan in combination with gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cisplatin in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Development of treatments to improve the outcomes achieved with single-agent gemcitabine therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer remains a research priority. G-FLIP (gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cisplatin) is a four-drug regimen designed to maximize sequence-dependent synergy, while attempting to minimize toxicity among the four drugs. The dose-limiting toxicities and maximum tolerated dose of irinotecan as part of the G-FLIP regimen have been published. For phase II testing, G-FLIP consisted of sequential gemcitabine 500 mg/m2 at a fixed rate of 10 mg/m2/min, irinotecan 120 mg/m2, bolus 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 and leucovorin 300 mg, followed by a 24-h 5-fluorouracil infusion of 1500 mg/m2 on day 1 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 on day 2. Cycles were repeated every 14 days. Thirty-three patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (22 men and 11 women) were treated and 31 were evaluable. Median patient age was 63 years (range 44-78 years) and median Karnofsky performance status score was 70-80. Estimated median time to disease progression was 171 days (6.1 months) and Kaplan-Meir-estimated median overall survival was 229 days (8.1 months). Twelve- and 18-month survivals were 33 and 21%, respectively. As per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, 13 patients had stable disease, seven (22%) attained a partial response, and 10 (32%) had disease progression. One patient attained a complete response and two were not evaluable (one withdrew consent and one died suddenly, each after cycle 1). Treatment generally was well tolerated. Grade 3-4 toxicities/patient were thrombocytopenia (3.1%), leukopenia (15%), neutropenia (21%), neutropenic fever (3%), fatigue (18%) and thrombosis (12.5%). Common grade 1-2 toxicities per patient included nausea/vomiting (69%), diarrhea (45%), constipation (21%) and fatigue (39%). In conclusion, G-FLIP is a feasible outpatient regimen with acceptable toxicity for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients. Disease control rate (stable disease rate plus partial or complete responses) and 1-year survival outcomes are encouraging.

Safety, tolerability and symptom outcomes associated with L-carnitine supplementation in patients with cancer, fatigue, and carnitine deficiency: a phase I/II study.

Carnitine deficiency is among the many metabolic disturbances that may contribute to fatigue in patients with cancer. Administration of exogenous L-carnitine may hold promise as a treatment for this common symptom. Little is known about L-carnitine safety, tolerability, and dose-response in patients with cancer. We conducted a Phase I/II open-label trial to assess the safety and tolerability of exogenous L-carnitine and clarify the safe dose range associated with symptom effects for future controlled trials. Adult patients with advanced cancer, carnitine deficiency (free carnitine <35 for males or <25 microM/L for females, or acyl/free carnitine ratio >0.4), moderate to severe fatigue, and a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score > or =50 were entered by groups of at least three into a standard maximum tolerated dose design. Each successive group received a higher dose of L-carnitine (250, 750, 1250, 1750, 2250, 2750, 3000 mg/day, respectively), administered in two daily doses for 7 days. To compare symptom outcomes before and after supplementation, patients completed validated measures of fatigue (Brief Fatigue Inventory [BFI]), depressed mood (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]), quality of sleep (Epworth Sleeplessness Scale [ESS]), and KPS at baseline and 1 week later. Of the 38 patients screened for carnitine levels, 29 were deficient (76%). Twenty-seven patients participated ("intention to treat, ITT") (17 males, 10 females), and 21 completed the study ("completers"); 17 of these patients ("responders," mean+/-[SD] age=57.9+/-15) had increased carnitine levels at the end of the supplementation period. The highest dose achieved was 3000 mg/day. No patient experienced significant side effects and no toxicities were noted. Analysis of all the patients accrued (ITT, n=27) showed a total carnitine increase from 32.8+/-10 to 54.3+/-23 microM/L (P<0.001) and free carnitine increase from 26.8+/-8 to 44.1+/-17 microM/L (P<0.001). BFI decreased significantly, from 66+/-12 to 39.7+/-26 (P<0.001); ESS decreased from 12.9+/-12 to 9+/-6 (P=0.001); and CES-D decreased from 29.2+/-12 to 19+/-12 (P<0.001). A separate analysis of the 17 "responders" showed a dose-response relationship for total- (r=0.54, P=0.03), free-carnitine (r=0.56, P=0.02) levels, and fatigue (BFI) scores (r=-0.61, P=0.01). These findings suggest that l-carnitine may be safely administered at doses up to 3000 mg/day and that positive effects may be more likely at relatively higher doses in this range. This study provides the basis for the design of future placebo-controlled studies of l-carnitine supplementation for cancer-related fatigue.

Planned neck dissection after concomitant radiochemotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Since 1998, at our academic, multidisciplinary head and neck cancer treatment center, it has been our policy to treat appropriate patients with locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) with concomitant radiochemotherapy followed within 6 weeks by planned neck dissection(s). Our objective was to investigate the oncologic efficacy of planned neck dissection, to date, in this patient population with a focus on outcomes in the neck. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a cumulative patient database. METHODS: The medical records of all patients who underwent planned neck dissection(s) after concomitant radiochemotherapy for locoregionally advanced SCCHN at Beth Israel Medical Center and The Institute for Head and Neck Cancer in New York City were reviewed. For each patient, preradiochemotherapy primary and neck stage, postradiochemotherapy/preneck dissection clinical and radiographic neck status, type of neck dissection(s) performed, pathologic status of the neck dissection specimen(s), length of follow-up (after planned neck dissection), disease status at last follow-up, and site(s) of recurrence were recorded. Local, regional, and distant disease control rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Fifty-one planned neck dissections were performed on 39 radiochemotherapy patients (12 patients had bilateral operations) between early 1998 and October, 2003. Thirty-two (82%) patients had N2 or greater neck disease, with 29 (74%) having T3/T4 disease at various upper aerodigestive tract primary sites. Patients received an average of 6,700 cGy and 6,000 cGy external beam radiation therapy to primary disease sites and involved cervical lymphatics respectively, concomitant with one of three platinum-based chemotherapy schedules. At a mean follow-up time of 24 (range 8-57) months for the entire study population, there has been only one neck recurrence (N2A neck). No patient with N2B (n = 11), N2C (n = 13, with majority of heminecks staged N2B), or N3 (n = 5) disease has recurred in the neck. No recurrences have occurred in the 41 heminecks (in 33 patients) where modified neck dissection (including 24 selective procedures) was performed despite the presence of residual carcinoma in 13 (32%) of these heminecks on pathologic review. Among all heminecks with residual carcinoma present (n = 18) in the neck dissection specimen, there has been only one neck recurrence. There have been no recurrences in the 26 heminecks (in 19 patients) with incomplete clinical response after radiochemotherapy despite the presence of residual carcinoma in 14 (54%) of these necks on pathologic review. The clinical and radiographic absence of residual disease after radiochemotherapy did not always predict a complete pathologic response. Surgical complications have been limited (1 chyle leak, 1 wound breakdown). CONCLUSIONS: The integration of planned neck dissection into the multidisciplinary management of patients with locoregionally advanced SCCHN is highly effective in controlling cervical metastatic disease. Modified and selective neck dissection procedures can be performed in the majority of patients, regardless of the response in the neck subsequent to concomitant radiochemotherapy. We recommend a planned neck dissection(s) in all patients staged (pretreatment) with N2 or greater neck disease and in select N1 cases.