Canadian cohort expanded-access program of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.

Background: The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab is approved in several jurisdictions (United States, European Union, Canada) for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. CheckMate 218 is a North American expanded-access program (eap) of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report safety and survival outcomes for the Canadian cohort in the eap. Methods: Eligible patients were those 18 years of age or older with unresectable stage iii or iv melanoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no prior anti-PD-1 or anti-ctla-4 therapy. Patients were treated with nivolumab 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 cycles (induction phase); they then continued with nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (maintenance phase) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a maximum of 48 weeks, whichever occurred first. Safety and overall survival (os) data were collected. Results: Of 194 patients enrolled, 174 were treated, and 51% continued on nivolumab maintenance. Median follow-up was 12.9 months. All-grade and grades 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 98% and 60% of patients respectively and led to treatment discontinuation in 40% and 28% of patients. Two treatment-related deaths were reported. The 12- and 18-month os rates were 80% [95% confidence interval (ci): 73% to 86%] and 76% (95% ci: 67% to 82%) respectively. Conclusions: In this Canadian population, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated a safety profile and survival outcomes consistent with phase ii and iii clinical trial data.

An Examination of Lymph Node Sampling as a Predictor of Survival in Resected Node-Negative Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma: a SEER Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare disease. Current recommendations are largely extrapolated from the colorectal literature. For node-negative (N -ve) cases, optimally stratifying cases into high or low risk, may help define optimal management. The objective of this analysis was to determine the importance of lymph node sampling for prognostication and to define what number of lymph nodes sampled is adequate. METHODS: Cases of non-metastatic SBA with complete staging, pathologic, and demographic information were selected from the SEER database and SAS 9.4 software was used. Variables included age, gender, race, grade, TNM staging, and number of lymph nodes were examined. Comparisons were made between N -ve and N +ve cases. Survival analysis using N -ve cases was performed to characterize the impact of nodal sampling on survival and to determine which nodal cut-offs best predict survival. RESULTS: A total of 523 cases from 2004 to 2014 were included in this analysis. Statistically significant differences identified included the median number of nodes sampled between the N -ve and N +ve groups, and the distribution of T stage and grade. Survival analysis in the N -ve cases demonstrated that the strongest predictor of survival was sampling of 16 or more lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: In this analysis, lymph node sampling was shown to be the most important pathologic predictor of survival in cases of N -ve SBA. Replicating these findings in a secondary dataset and determining whether a clinical benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy exists for SBA patients with inadequate sampling are both important next steps.

Reporting practices of pharmacodynamic studies involving invasive research procedures in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: Tumour biopsy for pharmacodynamic (PD) study is increasingly common in early-phase cancer trials. As they are non-diagnostic, the ethical justification for such procedures rests on their knowledge value. On the premise that knowledge value is related to reporting practices and outcome diversity, we assessed in a sample of recent invasive PD studies within cancer trials. METHODS: We assessed reporting practices and outcomes for PD studies in a convenience sample of cancer trials published from 2000 to 2010 that employed invasive, non-diagnostic tissue procurement. Extracted data were used to measure outcome reporting in individual trials. Using a reporting scale we developed for exploratory purposes, we tested whether reporting varied with study characteristics, such as funding source or drug novelty. RESULTS: Reporting varied widely within and across studies. Some practices were sporadically reported, including results of all planned tests (78% trials reporting), use of blinded histopathological assessment (43% trials reporting), biopsy dimensions (38% trials reporting), and description of patient flow through PD analysis (62%). Pharmacodynamic analysis as a primary end point and mandatory biopsy had statistically significant positive relationships with overall quality of reporting. A preponderance of positive results (61% of the studies described positive PD results) suggests possible publication bias. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the need for PD-reporting guidelines, and suggest several avenues for improving the risk/benefit for studies involving invasive, non-diagnostic tissue procurement.