Racialized Economic Segregation and Treatment and Outcomes of Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the role of residential segregation in the treatment and outcomes of small cell lung cancer (SCLC), a highly recalcitrant disease, among non-Hispanic White (NHW) and non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify men and women diagnosed with SCLC from January 2007 to December 2015 (n = 38,393). An Index of Concentration at the Extremes was computed to measure county-level racialized economic segregation and categorized into Quartile 1 (most privileged: highest concentration of high-income NHW residents) through Quartile 4 (least privileged: highest concentration of low-income NHB residents). Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate the ORs for extensive-stage diagnosis and nonadherence to guideline-recommended treatment. HRs for lung cancer-specific and overall mortalities were computed using multilevel Cox regression. RESULTS: Patients in the least privileged counties had higher risks of nonadherence to guideline-recommended treatment [OR = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.40; Ptrend < 0.01], lung cancer-specific mortality (HR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04-1.12; Ptrend < 0.01), and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.09-1.17; Ptrend < 0.0001) compared with patients in the most privileged counties. Adjustment for treatment did not significantly reduce the association with mortality. These associations were comparable between NHB and NHW patients. Segregation was not significantly associated with extensive-stage diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that living in the neighborhoods with higher proportions of low-income households and Black residents had adverse impacts on stage-appropriate treatment of and survival from SCLC. IMPACT: This highlights the need for improving the access to quality lung cancer care in the less privileged neighborhoods.

Prevalence of Women in Medicine Programs at University-Based Internal Medicine Residency Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Women physicians face various forms of inequities during their training process that inhibit them from reaching their full potential. As a response, several academic institutions have established women in medicine (WIM) programs as a support system. Our objective was to investigate the prevalence of WIM programs at university-based Internal Medicine residency programs as of December 2021. METHODS: Using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database, we identified 145 university-based Internal Medicine residency programs. Four independent reviewers reviewed the programs' Web sites, looking for evidence of a WIM program using a standardized checklist of search terms to evaluate and categorize their programs. Categories included whether the program was specific to graduate medical trainees, departments of medicine, or institution-wide. The proportions of programs that had a WIM program, a trainee-specific WIM program, and a Department of Medicine-specific WIM program were then analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 145 programs searched, 58 (40%) had a WIM program. Only 16 (11%) were specific to trainees (11 for only medicine trainees and 5 included trainees graduate medical education-wide). The remaining 42 programs targeted faculty and trainees (5 included only the Department of Medicine and 37 included departments university-wide). CONCLUSIONS: Few university-affiliated Internal Medicine residency programs have a WIM program specific to trainees. Given the gender inequity and evidence that supports early development of leadership skills and support networks, our findings highlight a possible gap in the residency training program infrastructure.

Investing in Women Trainees: Building a Women in Medicine Group at an Academic Institution.

Given the importance of proactively supporting women trainees in medicine to address gender inequities, we draw on the experience of a well-established professional development initiative to provide a framework for other institutions seeking to create similar trainee-focused programs.

Phase 1b trial of anti-VEGF/PDGFR vorolanib combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Vorolanib is a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor with anti-angiogenic properties. This study aimed to evaluate the tolerability, safety and efficacy of vorolanib when added to checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: We conducted a phase 1b study of vorolanib (300 or 400 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab or nivolumab using a standard 3 + 3 design to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The endpoints included safety, toxicity and objective response rate, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: Sixteen patients (9 in pembrolizumab arm, 7 in nivolumab arm) with gastrointestinal or lung cancers were enrolled. All patients had at least 1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). The most common TRAEs across all cohorts were lymphopenia (n = 7), leukopenia (n = 5), fatigue (n = 5), and alanine aminotransferase elevation (n = 5); most toxicities were grade (G) 1-2. DLTs were reported in 3 patients at vorolanib 400 mg dose level, with G3 aspartate aminotransferase elevation, G3 rectal hemorrhage, and G3 rash. Of 13 total response-evaluable patients, 2 patients had confirmed partial responses (1 rectal squamous cell cancer and 1 small cell lung cancer). Two patients achieved prolonged stable disease. Vorolanib 300 mg daily was determined to be the RP2D for either pembrolizumab or nivolumab. CONCLUSION: Combination vorolanib 300 mg orally once daily plus CPI appears to be a feasible regimen with manageable toxicity and promising efficacy in select tumor types. NCT03511222. Date of Registration: April 18, 2018.

Phase I Study of Accelerated Hypofractionated Proton Therapy and Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose of hypofractionated proton beam radiation therapy with concurrent weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with stage II-III non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A phase I trial was designed using the time-to-event continuous reassessment method. Maximum tolerated dose was defined as the dose associated with a 20% probability of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events protocol-specified serious adverse events (SAEs). Starting dose was 3.5 Gy/fx for 15 fractions with 2 potential escalation and de-escalation levels in 0.25 Gy/fx increments. Chemotherapy was weekly concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel with 2 cycles of optional consolidation carboplatin/paclitaxel. RESULTS: From May 2015 to September 2016, 23 patients enrolled at a single institution. Of 20 evaluable, median age was 66.5 years (range, 54-89) and 12 were male (60%). Fourteen (70%) had squamous cell and 15 (75%) were stage IIIA. Nineteen (95%) completed all 3 cycles of concurrent chemotherapy, and 16 (80%) received at least 1 cycle of consolidation chemotherapy. Within the 6-month time-to-event continuous reassessment method assessment window, no SAEs were reported, and most patients were treated at the highest dose level. Dose level assignment was 52.5 Gy (n = 2), 56.25 Gy (n = 4), and 60 Gy (n = 14). The posterior probability of dose-limiting toxicity for 60 Gy was 5.3% (95% confidence interval, 1%-18.1%). Acute, nonserious AEs included grade 2 esophagitis in 7 patients (35%) and grade 2 pneumonitis in 1 patient (5%). At a median follow-up of 20.3 months for all and 44.9 months for living patients, there were no grade 4 or 5 AEs, though there were 3 (21% at 24 months) SAEs outside of the dose-escalation window. The 2-year overall survival, local, regional, and distant control rates were 48%, 84%, 77%, and 79%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated proton beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy up to 60 Gy in 15 fractions is acutely well tolerated, with high rates of locoregional control and overall survival, though late SAEs were noted.

A phase II study of everolimus in patients with advanced solid malignancies with TSC1, TSC2, NF1, NF2 or STK11 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the mTOR pathway has been implicated in the development of several malignancies and alterations in TSC1, TSC2, STK11 and NF1, can lead to the dysregulation of this pathway. Furthermore, mutations in TSC1 and NF2 are known to confer sensitivity to everolimus-an mTOR inhibitor. Based on these data, a single-arm, open label, single-institution phase II basket study was designed to assess the activity of everolimus in patients with solid malignancies whose tumors harbored mutations in TSC1, TSC2, NF1, NF2, or STK11. METHODS: A total of 12 patients with histologically confirmed diagnosis of advanced solid tumors (metastatic, recurrent, or unresectable) with mutations in TSC1, TSC2, NF1, NF2 or STK11 genes, who had failed at least one line of standard of care systemic therapy, were enrolled to this open label, single-arm study. Presence of mutations in TSC1, TSC2, NF1, NF2 or STK11 genes was assessed using targeted-next generation sequencing (NGS). All eligible patients were treated with everolimus at an initial dose of 10 mg orally once daily in cycles of 28 days. The primary endpoint of this study was overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Of 12 patients enrolled, 8 were evaluable for response at the end of 2 cycles. One complete response (CR) was observed (12.5%) and one patient (12.5%) had stable disease (SD), while six (75%) patients showed disease progression. Everolimus was overall well tolerated with anemia, decreased neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, peripheral edema and hyperglycemia representing the most common adverse events. One patient discontinued treatment due to a treatment related grade 4 pericardial effusion. Both patients with CR or SD had a diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma with NF1 or STK11 mutations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study failed to meet its prespecified ORR threshold for success of 30% or higher, exploratory analyses suggest potential activity for everolimus in a subset of patients with lung adenocarcinomas with STK11 or NF1 mutations. Further studies are necessary to systematically explore the clinical activity of everolimus, potentially as a combination therapy, in these patients.

Phase 1 study combining alisertib with nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

AIM: Aurora kinase A (AURKA) is a pleiotropic serine/threonine kinase that orchestrates mitotic progression. Paclitaxel stabilises microtubules and disrupts mitotic spindle assembly. The combination of AURKA inhibitor (alisertib) plus paclitaxel may be synergistic in rapidly proliferative cancers. We evaluated the safety and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of alisertib in combination with nab-paclitaxel and its preliminary efficacy in patients with refractory high-grade neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). METHOD: This is a two-part, Phase 1 study. In Part A (dose escalation), a standard 3 + 3 design was used to determine MTD. In Part B (dose expansion), patients with predominantly refractory high-grade NETs were enrolled. RESULTS: In total, 31 patients were enrolled and treated (16 in Part A and 15 in Part B). The MTD of alisertib was 40 mg BID on D1-3 per week and nab-paclitaxel 100mg/m2 weekly: 3 weeks, 1 week off. Dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia, and other common side-effects included fatigue, mucositis, and diarrhoea. In Part A, a patient with small-cell lung cancer with partial response (PR) was treated for more than 2 years, whereas four other patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (one patient), small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (two patients), or high-grade NET (one patient) achieved stable disease (SD). In Part B, 13 of 15 enrolled patients had high-grade NETs. Of these, one had PR, and four had SD for more than 10 months. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of alisertib and nab-paclitaxel has manageable side-effect profile and showed promising preliminary efficacy in high-grade NETs, warranting further testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01677559.

Phase I Study of Docetaxel and Temsirolimus in Refractory Solid Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a downstream mediator in the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt signaling pathway, and plays a central role in cell proliferation, growth, differentiation, migration, and survival. Temsirolimus (CCI-779), a selective inhibitor of the mTOR, is an ester analog of rapamycin (sirolimus) with improved aqueous solubility and pharmacokinetic (PK) properties. Preclinical studies have confirmed additive and synergistic antitumor activity in cancer cell lines (breast, prostate cancer) with combinations of taxanes and mTOR inhibitors. We conducted a phase I open-label, dose-escalation study to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of docetaxel in combination with temsirolimus in patients with refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had a diagnosis of a refractory solid malignancy, measurable disease, and adequate organ function. Patients were sequentially enrolled in 4 dose level intravenous combinations of docetaxel and temsirolimus. Temsirolimus was administered weekly with docetaxel administered every 3 weeks. Laboratory data for tumor markers and radiologic imaging were conducted prestudy and then after every 2 cycles of the treatment. Radiologic response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. Blood samples for PK and pharmacodynamic analysis were planned to be drawn at MTD. Apart from the traditional 3+3 design, we also implemented Bayesian Optimal Interval design which uses isotonic regression method to select MTD. We proceeded with isotonic regression analysis by using 20% dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate as target. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were treated in this study in 4 cohorts and dose levels. Fourteen males and 12 females were enrolled with a median age of 50 years (range of 27 to 72 y) and median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 1. Tumor histologies included pancreas (6), colon (5), rectum (3), gallbladder (2), non-small cell lung (2), endometrium (1), neuroendocrine (1), esophagus (1), stomach (1), pharynx (1), small intestine (1), and duodenum (1). Stable disease was observed in 2/4 (50%), 3/7 (43%), 4/10 (40%), and 3/5 (60%) patients in cohorts 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Dose escalation in cohorts 2, 3, and 4 was complicated by DLTs such as grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3 diarrhea and an inability for patients to tolerate treatments during and beyond cycle 1 without dose reductions. Therefore, we could not determine an MTD or recommended phase II dose using the traditional 3+3 study analysis. Blood samples for PK and pharmacodynamic analysis were not collected since MTD was not determined. By using 20% DLT rate closest to the target, isotonic regression analysis showed identical estimated DLT rates in dose -1 (docetaxel 50 mg/m2 and temsirolimus 15 mg/m2) and dose level 1 (docetaxel 60mg/m2 and temsirolimus 15 mg/m2). CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation of docetaxel and temsirolimus was limited by severe myelosuppressive toxicity in this phase I study. Most of the DLTs occurred after cycle 1 of therapy hence, we were unable to determine MTD or collect blood samples for PK and pharmacodynamic analysis. Our trial did not meet its objectives due to significant DLTs with this chemotherapy combination. Although our novel use of Bayesian Optimal Interval design using isotonic regression method to select MTD showed identical estimated DLT rates in dose levels 1 and -1, clinically our patients were not able to complete 2 cycles of this regimen without dose reductions due to myelosuppressive toxicity in either of these dose levels, and hence, escaped clinical validity. This combination regimen should not be studied further at the dose levels and schedules tested in our study.

Phase II Trial of Carfilzomib Plus Irinotecan in Patients With Small-cell Lung Cancer Who Have Progressed on Prior Platinum-based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of carfilzomib plus irinotecan (C/I) in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with SCLC who progressed after 1 platinum-containing regimen for recurrent or metastatic disease were eligible. Patients were stratified as: sensitive (SS) (progressive disease > 90 days after chemotherapy) or refractory (RS) (progressive disease 30 to 90 days after chemotherapy) and received up to 6 cycles of C/I; imaging was performed every 2 cycles. The primary endpoint was 6-month overall survival (OS). RESULTS: All 62 patients enrolled were evaluable for efficacy and adverse events. 6-month OS was 59% in the platinum SS and 54% in the platinum RS. The overall response rate was 21.6% (2.7% complete response, 18.9% partial response) in SS (n = 37) and 12.5% (all partial response) in RS (n = 25). The disease control rate was 68% (SS) and 56% (RS). Progression-free survival and OS were 3.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-4.6 months) and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3-12.3 months) in SS, and 3.3 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.9 months) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 4.1-11 months) in RS. Twenty-nine (47%) patients experienced ≥ grade 3 adverse events; 8 (12.9%) subjects had grade 4 toxicities. Three treatment-related deaths occurred: myocardial infarction (possible), lung infection (possible), and sepsis (probable). CONCLUSION: In patients with relapsed SCLC, C/I was effective in the treatment of SS and RS. With 4.8% grade 5 toxicity, C/I is a viable option for relapsed patients with SCLC with performance status 0 to 1, particularly in platinum-resistant patients, or subjects who cannot receive immunotherapy.

Effect of Erlotinib Plus Bevacizumab vs Erlotinib Alone on Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Advanced EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Erlotinib is a standard first-line therapy for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Median progression-free survival (PFS) with erlotinib is approximately 10 months. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adding bevacizumab to erlotinib treatment results in superior progression-free survival compared with erlotinib alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 2 randomized clinical trial compared erlotinib plus bevacizumab with erlotinib alone in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. The trial was conducted in 17 US academic and community medical centers among 88 patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation based on local testing and stage 4 NSCLC who were eligible for bevacizumab. Patients were enrolled between November 2, 2012, and August 22, 2016, and followed up for a median (range) of 33 (0.7-62.5) months. Data were analyzed on August 28, 2018, and included data from November 2, 2012, to August 20, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized with equal allocation to 150 mg of oral erlotinib daily alone or with 15 mg/kg of intravenous bevacizumab every 3 weeks. Study therapy continued until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or withdrawal of consent. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was PFS as assessed by the investigator; secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and overall survival (OS). Analysis was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.667 for PFS (an improvement from a median PFS of 10 to 15 months). RESULTS: Among 88 patients enrolled, the median (range) age was 63 (31-84) years; 62 patients (70%) were female; 75 (85%) were white, 8 (9%) were African American, 3 (3%) were Asian, and for 2 (2%), data on race were not available. Forty-eight patients (55%) were never smokers, 45 patients (51%) were of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1, and 59 patients (67%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion. Compared with erlotinib, the combination did not result in a significant difference in PFS (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.50-1.31; P = .39; median PFS 17.9 [combination] and 13.5 months [erlotinib]), ORR (81% vs 83%; P = .81), and OS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.71-2.81; P = .33; median OS, 32.4 months [combination] and 50.6 months [erlotinib]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher observed in 5 or more patients in the combination and erlotinib arms were skin eruption in 11 (26%) vs 7 (16%) patients, diarrhea in 4 (9%) vs 6 (13%) patients, hypertension in 17 (40%) vs 9 (20%) patients, and proteinuria in 5 (12%) vs 0 (0%) patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Erlotinib plus bevacizumab compared with erlotinib did not result in a significant improvement in PFS in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01532089.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Seribantumab in Combination with Erlotinib in Patients with EGFR Wild-Type Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Seribantumab (MM-121) is a fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody that binds to human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3/ErbB3) to block heregulin (HRG/NRG)-mediated ErbB3 signaling and induce receptor downregulation. This open-label, randomized phase 1/2 study evaluated safety and efficacy of seribantumab plus erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we report the activity of seribantumab plus erlotinib, versus erlotinib alone, in patients with EGFR wild-type tumors and describe the potential predictive power of HRG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC were assigned randomly to receive seribantumab + erlotinib or erlotinib alone. Patients underwent pretreatment core needle biopsy and archived tumor samples were collected to support prespecified biomarker analyses. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients received seribantumab + erlotinib (n = 85) or erlotinib alone (n = 44). Median estimated progression-free survival (PFS) in the unselected intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 8.1 and 7.7 weeks in the experimental and control arm, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.822; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.828; p = 0.63), and median estimated overall survival was 27.3 and 40.3 weeks in the experimental and control arm, respectively (HR, 1.395; 95% CI, 0.846 to 2.301; p = .1898) In patients whose tumors had detectable HRG mRNA expression, treatment benefit was observed in the seribantumab + erlotinib combination (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.76; p = .008). In contrast, in patients whose tumors were HRG negative, the HR was 2.15 (95% CI, 0.97-4.76; p = .059, HRG-by-treatment interaction, p value = .0016). CONCLUSION: The addition of seribantumab to erlotinib did not result in improved PFS in unselected patients. However, predefined retrospective exploratory analyses suggest that detectable HRG mRNA levels identified patients who might benefit from seribantumab. An ongoing clinical trial of seribantumab, in combination with docetaxel, is underway in patients with advanced NSCLC and high HRG mRNA expression (NCT02387216). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The poor prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) underscores the need for more effective treatment options, highlighting the unmet medical need in this patient population. The results of this study show that a novel biomarker, heregulin, may help to identify patients with advanced NSCLC who could benefit from treatment with seribantumab. On the basis of the observed safety profile and promising clinical efficacy, a prospective, randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase II trial (SHERLOC, NCT02387216) is under way to investigate the efficacy and safety of seribantumab in combination with docetaxel in patients with heregulin-positive advanced adenocarcinoma.

Phase II study of olaratumab with paclitaxel/carboplatin (P/C) or P/C alone in previously untreated advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) mediates angiogenesis, tissue invasion, and tumor interstitial pressure. Olaratumab (IMC-3G3) is a fully human anti-PDGFRα monoclonal antibody. This Phase II study assessed safety and efficacy of olaratumab+paclitaxel/carboplatin (P/C) versus P/C alone for previously untreated advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received up to six 21-day cycles of P 200mg/m2 and C AUC 6 (day 1)±olaratumab 15mg/kg (days 1 and 8). Primary endpoint was PFS. Olaratumab was continued in the olaratumab+P/C arm until disease progression. RESULTS: 131 patients were: 67 with olaratumab+P/C and 64 with P/C; 74% had nonsquamous NSCLC. Median PFS was similar between olaratumab+P/C and P/C (4.4 months each) (HR 1.29; 95% CI [0.86-1.93]; p=0.21). Median OS was similar between olaratumab+P/C (11.8 months) and P/C (11.5 months) (HR 1.04; 95% CI [0.68-1.57]; p=0.87). Both arms had similar toxicity profiles. All evaluable cases were PDGFR-negative by immunohistochemistry. Tumor stroma PDGFR expression was evaluable in 23/131 patients, of which 78% were positive. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of olaratumab to P/C did not result in significant prolongation of PFS or OS in advanced NSCLC. Olaratumab studies in other patient populations, including soft tissue sarcoma (NCT02783599), pancreatic cancer (NCT03086369), and pediatric malignancies (NCT02677116) are underway.

Phase III Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial of Celecoxib in Addition to Standard Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Cyclooxygenase-2 Overexpression: CALGB 30801 (Alliance).

Purpose Tumor overexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) has been associated with worse outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 30203, we found that the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in addition to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with moderate to high COX-2 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). CALGB 30801 (Alliance) was designed to prospectively confirm that finding. Patients and Methods Patients with NSCLC (stage IIIB with pleural effusion or stage IV according to American Joint Committee on Cancer [sixth edition] criteria) were preregistered, and biopsy specimens were analyzed for COX-2 by IHC. Patients with COX-2 expression ≥ 2, performance status of 0 to 2, and normal organ function were eligible. Chemotherapy was determined by histology: carboplatin plus pemetrexed for nonsquamous NSCLC and carboplatin plus gemcitabine for squamous histology. Patients were randomly assigned to celecoxib (400 mg twice per day; arm A) or placebo (arm B). The primary objective was to demonstrate improvement in progression-free survival in patients with COX-2 index ≥ 4 with hazard ratio of 0.645 with approximately 85% power at two-sided significance level of .05. Results The study was halted for futility after 312 of the planned 322 patients with COX-2 index ≥ 2 were randomly assigned. There were no significant differences between the groups (hazard ratio, 1.046 for COX-2 ≥ 4). Subset analyses evaluating histology, chemotherapy regimen, and incremental COX-2 expression did not demonstrate any advantage for COX-2 inhibition. Elevation of baseline urinary metabolite of prostaglandin E2, indicating activation of the COX-2 pathway, was a negative prognostic factor. Values above the third quartile may have been a predictive factor. Conclusion COX-2 expression by IHC failed to select patients who could benefit from selective COX-2 inhibition. Urinary metabolite of prostaglandin E2 may be able to identify patients who could benefit from COX-2 inhibition.

Pulsatile Erlotinib in EGFR-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Leptomeningeal and Brain Metastases: Review of the Literature.

Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-positive (EGFR+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) show improved response rates when treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as erlotinib. However, standard daily dosing of erlotinib often does not reach therapeutic concentrations within the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), resulting in progression of central nervous system (CNS) disease. Intermittent, high-dose administration of erlotinib reaches therapeutic concentrations within the CSF and is well tolerated in patients. Experience with "pulsatile" dosing, however, is limited. We review the literature on the pharmacology and clinical outcomes of pulsatile erlotinib in the treatment of EGFR+ NSCLC with brain and leptomeningeal metastases, and include available data on the use of next-generation TKIs in CNS progression. We also provide our institution's experience with patients treated with pulsatile erlotinib for CNS metastasis, and propose clinical criteria for its use. Pulsatile erlotinib is a reasonable alternative in EGFR+ patients with new or worsening CNS disease, without evidence of systemic progression, and without confirmed T790M resistance mutations within the CNS.

Phase 1b trial of proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib with irinotecan in lung cancer and other irinotecan-sensitive malignancies that have progressed on prior therapy (Onyx IST reference number: CAR-IST-553).

Introduction Proteasome inhibition is an established therapy for many malignancies. Carfilzomib, a novel proteasome inhibitor, was combined with irinotecan to provide a synergistic approach in relapsed, irinotecan-sensitive cancers. Materials and Methods Patients with relapsed irinotecan-sensitive cancers received carfilzomib (Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) at three dose levels (20/27 mg/m2, 20/36 mg/m2 and 20/45 mg/m2/day) in combination with irinotecan (Days 1, 8 and 15) at 125 mg/m2/day. Key eligibility criteria included measurable disease, a Zubrod PS of 0 or 1, and acceptable organ function. Patients with stable asymptomatic brain metastases were eligible. Dose escalation utilized a standard 3 + 3 design. Results Overall, 16 patients were enrolled to three dose levels, with four patients replaced. Three patients experienced dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was exceeded in Cohort 3. The RP2 dose was carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2 (given on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) and irinotecan 125 mg/m2 (Days 1, 8 and 15). Common Grade (Gr) 3 and 4 toxicities included fatigue (19%), thrombocytopenia (19%), and diarrhea (13%). Conclusions Irinotecan and carfilzomib were well tolerated, with common toxicities of fatigue, thrombocytopenia and neutropenic fever. Objective clinical response was 19% (one confirmed partial response (PR) in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and two unconfirmed); stable disease (SD) was 6% for a disease control rate (DCR) of 25%. The recommended phase II dose was carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2 and irinotecan125 mg/m2. The phase II evaluation is ongoing in relapsed small cell lung cancer.

Maintenance Sunitinib following Initial Platinum-Based Combination Chemotherapy in Advanced-Stage IIIB/IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study-CALGB 30607 (Alliance).

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy of maintenance sunitinib after first-line chemotherapy for stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. METHODS: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30607 trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study that enrolled patients without progression after four cycles of first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Bevacizumab was allowed only during the four cycles of chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive sunitinib, 37.5 mg/d, or placebo and were treated until unacceptable adverse event(s), progression, or death. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 210 patients were enrolled, randomized, and included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Ten patients did not receive maintenance therapy (four who received placebo and six who received sunitinib). Grade 3/4 adverse events affecting more than 5% of the patients were fatigue (25%), thrombocytopenia (12%), hypertension (12%), rash (11%), mucositis (11%), neutropenia (7%), and anemia (6%) for sunitinib and none for placebo. There were three grade 5 events in patients receiving sunitinib (one pulmonary hemorrhage, one other pulmonary event, and one death not associated with a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events term) and two grade 5 events in patients receiving placebo (one other pulmonary event and one thromboembolism). Median PFS was 4.3 months for sunitinib and 2.6 months for placebo (hazard ratio = 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.82, p = 0.0006). Median overall survival was 11.7 months for sunitinib versus 12.1 months for placebo (hazard ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.31, p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance sunitinib was safe and improved PFS as maintenance therapy in stage IIIB/IV NSCLC but had no impact on overall survival. There is no room for future investigations of sunitinib in this setting.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with T2N0M0 NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with completely resected stage II and III NSCLC. However, its role in patients with stage IB NSCLC disease remains unclear. We evaluated the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in a large data set of patients with completely resected T2N0M0 NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with pathologic stage T2N0M0 NSCLC who underwent complete (R0) resection between 2004 and 2011 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base and classified into four groups based on tumor size: 3.1 to 3.9 cm, 4 to 4.9 cm, 5 to 5.9 cm, and 6 to 7 cm. Patients who died within 1 month after their operation were excluded. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and compared by log-rank test. RESULTS: Among the 25,267 patients who met the inclusion criteria, there were 4996 (19.7%) who received adjuvant chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved median and 5-year overall survival compared with observation for all tumor size groups. In patients with T2 tumors smaller than 4 cm, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved median and 5-year overall survival in univariate (101.6 versus 68.2 months [67% versus 55%], hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.72, p < 0.0001) and multivariable analysis (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.83, p < 0.001) as well as propensity-matched score (101.6 versus 78.9 months [68% versus 60%], HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.70-0.86; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with completely resected T2N0M0, adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved survival in all tumor size groups. The benefit in patients with tumors smaller than 4 cm strongly suggests a role for chemotherapy in this patient population and counters its current status as an exclusion criteria for adjuvant trials.

Delayed nausea and vomiting from carboplatin doublet chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Delayed nausea and vomiting following administration of carboplatin containing chemotherapy regimen remains a clinically significant problem for patients with cancer despite administration of standard antiemetic prophylaxis comprising of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone. We performed a prospective study to define the incidence and risk factors for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: Previously untreated patients with newly diagnosed cancer scheduled to receive carboplatin containing chemotherapy (AUC 5 or above), but no prophylactic aprepitant were enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delayed CINV after Cycle 1 of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of CINV with the third chemotherapy cycle and gender differences in incidence of CINV. Patients completed the Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaires 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours after receiving chemotherapy. Telephone interviews were conducted 24-48 hours following chemotherapy to assess the severity and need for breakthrough medications for CINV. RESULTS: Between December 2006 and July 2009, 105 patients were enrolled onto this study. Delayed emesis following Cycle 1 of carboplatin was observed in 30% of patients. Of these, 14.1%, 22.4% and 23.5% of patients described CINV at 48, 72, and 96 hours, respectively. The incidence of delayed CINV following Cycle 3 dropped to 12.8%, 14.6% and 16% of patients at 48, 72 and 96 hours, respectively. No differences were observed in the incidence of CINV between men and women. A total of 20% of patients required use of breakthrough antiemetics with Cycle 1. CONCLUSIONS: Without prophylactic aprepitant administration, 30% of patients receiving carboplatin containing regimen had moderate to severe delayed CINV.

A Phase I Trial of Temsirolimus and Pemetrexed in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed is an antifolate chemotherapeutic agent approved for use in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway is implicated in lung cancer development and inhibited by temsirolimus. METHODS: We performed a phase I study evaluating the combination of pemetrexed and temsirolimus in advanced non-squamous NSCLC. RESULTS: Eight patients were enrolled in this study. The dose-limiting toxicities included grade 4 thrombocytopenia, grade 3 leukopenia and grade 3 neutropenia. The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be pemetrexed 375 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 and temsirolimus 25 mg intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15. No objective responses were noted and 3 patients had stable disease as the best response. CONCLUSION: The combination of pemetrexed and temsirolimus is feasible and well tolerated. This combination may be further evaluated in patients with mTOR pathway activation, particularly in those with TSC1 or STK11 mutations.

Chemotherapy With or Without Maintenance Sunitinib for Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study-CALGB 30504 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of maintenance sunitinib after chemotherapy for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30504 trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II study that enrolled patients before chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) or carboplatin area under the curve of 5 on day 1 plus etoposide 100 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 to 3 every 21 days for four to six cycles). Patients without progression were randomly assigned 1:1 to placebo or sunitinib 37.5 mg per day until progression. Cross-over after progression was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from random assignment for maintenance placebo versus sunitinib using a one-sided log-rank test with α = .15; 80 randomly assigned patients provided 89% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.67. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four patients were enrolled; 138 patients received chemotherapy. Ninety-five patients were randomly assigned; 10 patients did not receive maintenance therapy (five on each arm). Eighty-five patients received maintenance therapy (placebo, n = 41; sunitinib, n = 44). Grade 3 adverse events with more than 5% incidence were fatigue (19%), decreased neutrophils (14%), decreased leukocytes (7%), and decreased platelets (7%) for sunitinib and fatigue (10%) for placebo; grade 4 adverse events were GI hemorrhage (n = 1) and pancreatitis, hypocalcemia, and elevated lipase (n = 1; all in same patient) for sunitinib and thrombocytopenia (n = 1) and hypernatremia (n = 1) for placebo. Median PFS on maintenance was 2.1 months for placebo and 3.7 months for sunitinib (HR, 1.62; 70% CI, 1.27 to 2.08; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.60; one-sided P = .02). Median overall survival from random assignment was 6.9 months for placebo and 9.0 months for sunitinib (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.10; one-sided P = .16). Three sunitinib and no placebo patients achieved complete response during maintenance. Ten (77%) of 13 patients evaluable after cross-over had stable disease on sunitinib (6 to 27 weeks). CONCLUSION: Maintenance sunitinib was safe and improved PFS in extensive-stage SCLC.