A phase 2 trial of consolidation pembrolizumab following concurrent chemoradiation for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: Hoosier Cancer Research Network LUN 14-179.

BACKGROUND: Five-year overall survival (OS) for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poor. Until recently, a standard of care was concurrent chemoradiation alone. Patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with anti-programmed death 1 antibodies have demonstrated improved OS. This trial evaluated pembrolizumab as consolidation therapy after concurrent chemoradiation in patients with unresectable stage III disease. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC received concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin and etoposide, cisplatin and pemetrexed, or carboplatin and paclitaxel and 59.4 to 66.6 Gy of radiation. Patients with nonprogression of disease were enrolled and received pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 12 months). The primary endpoint was the time to metastatic disease or death (TMDD). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS: The median follow-up for 93 patients (92 for efficacy) was 32.2 months (range, 1.2-46.6 months). The median TMDD was 30.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.7 months to not reached), which was significantly longer than the historical control of 12 months (P < .0001). The median PFS was 18.7 months (95% CI, 12.4-33.8 months), and the median OS was 35.8 months (95% CI, 24.2 months to not reached). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS estimates were 81.2%, 62.0%, and 48.5%, respectively. Forty patients (43.5%) completed 12 months of treatment (median number of cycles, 13.5). Symptomatic pneumonitis (grade 2 or higher) was noted in 16 patients (17.2%); these cases included 4 grade 3 events (4.3%), 1 grade 4 event (1.1%), and 1 grade 5 event (1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Consolidation pembrolizumab after concurrent chemoradiation improves TMDD, PFS, and OS in comparison with historical controls of chemoradiation alone. Rates of grade 3 to 5 pneumonitis were similar to those reported with chemoradiation alone.

Phase I/II study of bevacizumab with BKM120, an oral PI3K inhibitor, in patients with refractory solid tumors (phase I) and relapsed/refractory glioblastoma (phase II).

BACKGROUND: Current bevacizumab-based regimens have failed to improve survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. To improve treatment efficacy, we evaluated bevacizumab + BKM120, an oral pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, in this patient population. METHODS: A brief phase I study established the optimal BKM120 dose to administer with standard-dose bevacizumab. BKM120 60 mg PO daily + bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks in 28-day cycles was then administered to patients with relapsed/refractory glioblastoma in the phase II portion. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients enrolled (phase I, 12; phase II, 76). In phase I, BKM120 80 mg PO daily produced dose limiting toxicity in 3 of 6 patients; a BKM120 dose of 60 mg PO daily was established as the maximum tolerated dose. In phase II, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.4, 5.4), PFS at 6 months was 36.5%, and the overall response rate was 26%. Forty-two patients (57%) experienced one or more serious treatment related toxicities. The most common CNS toxicities included mood alteration (17%) and confusion (12%); however, these were often difficult to classify as treatment- versus tumor-related. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy seen in this study is similar to the efficacy previously reported with single-agent bevacizumab. This regimen was poorly tolerated, despite the low daily dose of BKM120. Further development of this combination for the treatment of glioblastoma is not recommended.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care.

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.