Lessons Learned. O_LIThe combination of axitinib and crizotinib has a manageable safety and tolerability profile, consistent with the profiles of the individual agents when administered as monotherapy. C_LIO_LIThe antitumor activity reported here for the combination axitinib/crizotinib does not support further study of this combination treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma given the current treatment landscape. C_LI Background.Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors have been successfully used to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, resistance eventually develops in most cases. Tyrosine protein kinase Met (MET) expression increases following VEGF inhibition, and inhibition of both has shown additive effects in controlling tumor growth and metastasis. We therefore conducted a study of axitinib plus crizotinib in advanced solid tumors and mRCC. Methods.This phase Ib study included a dose-escalation phase (starting doses: axitinib 3 mg plus crizotinib 200 mg) to estimate maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in patients with solid tumors and a dose-expansion phase to examine preliminary efficacy in treatment-naive patients with mRCC. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and biomarkers were also assessed. Results.No patients in the dose-escalation phase (n = 22) experienced dose-limiting toxicity; MTD was estimated to be axitinib 5 mg plus crizotinib 250 mg. The most common grade [≥]3 adverse events were hypertension (18.2%) and fatigue (9.1%). In the dose-expansion phase, overall response rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-54.3), and progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.5-not reached). Conclusion.The combination of axitinib plus crizotinib, at estimated MTD, had a manageable safety profile and showed evidence of modest antitumor activity in mRCC.

Lessons Learned. O_LIThe negative results are consistent with the negative results of large phase III trials in which docetaxel plus antiangiogenic agents were used in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). C_LIO_LIThe negative data underscore that, despite a sound biological rationale and supportive early-phase clinical results, adding antiangiogenic agents to docetaxel for mCRPC is a great challenge. C_LI Background.Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling abrogates tumor-induced angiogenesis to constrain tumor growth, and can be exploited therapeutically by using cediranib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGF receptor signaling. Our preliminary phase I trial data showed that adding cediranib to docetaxel plus prednisone (DP) was safe and feasible, with early evidence for efficacy in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods.This multicenter phase II trial assessed whether adding cediranib to DP improves efficacy of DP in patients with mCRPC. Chemotherapy-naive patients with mCRPC were randomly assigned to receive either docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks) with prednisone (5 mg twice daily) plus cediranib (30 mg once daily; the DP+C arm) or DP only (the DP arm). The primary endpoint was to compare 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate between the two arms. Secondary endpoints included 6-month overall survival (OS), objective tumor and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates, biomarkers, and adverse events. Results.The 6-month PFS rate in a total of 58 patients was only numerically higher in the DP+C arm (61%) compared with the DP arm (57%). Similarly, the 6-month OS rate, objective tumor and PSA response rates, and biomarkers were not significantly different between the two arms. Increased baseline levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), however, were significantly associated with increased risk of progression. Neutropenia was the only grade 4 toxicity (38% in the DP+C arm vs. 18% in the DP arm). Conclusion.Combining cediranib with docetaxel + prednisone failed to demonstrate superior efficacy, compared with docetaxel + prednisone, and added toxicity. Our data do not support pursuing the combination further in patients with mCRPC.

Lessons Learned. O_LIAdding docetaxel to the modified FOLFOX7 backbone (DOF) is a feasible three-drug combination therapy for advanced gastric cancer with high activity, providing evidence that leucovorin is not necessary in this setting. C_LIO_LIThe DOF regimen represents an alternative to the FLOT (5-FU 2,600 mg/m2 as 24-hour infusion with leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, and docetaxel 50 mg/m2) regimen that can be considered in select patients with advanced gastric cancer and is a potential choice in the curative setting. C_LI Background.The combination of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) demonstrates high response rates in advanced gastric cancer, albeit with increased toxicity. Given the efficacy of platinum-taxane-fluoropyrimidine regimens, this phase II study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and 5-FU (DOF) for the treatment of metastatic or unresectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Methods.Patients with metastatic or unresectable gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma with no prior therapy for metastatic disease received docetaxel 50 mg/m2 on day 1, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on day 1, and 5-FU 2,400 mg/m2 continuous intravenous infusion over 46 hours; cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Results.Forty-four patients were enrolled. Assessment of treatment response and toxicity was feasible in 41 and 43 patients, respectively. ORR was 73.2% (68.3% partial response; 4.9% complete response). Therapy was discontinued for progressive disease in 53%, toxicity in 26%, and death on treatment in 16%. Two patients underwent surgical resection. Thirty-three patients (76.7%) received at least seven cycles (7-34). Grade 3-4 toxicities occurred in 31 patients (72.1%), including neutropenia (23.3%), neurologic (20.9%), and diarrhea (14.0%). Median overall survival was 10.3 months. Conclusion.DOF demonstrates a high response rate, expected safety profile, and prolonged survival and remains an option for select patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Lessons Learned. O_LIGC1118 is a novel fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody with unique binding epitopes and different ligand-binding inhibitory activity compared with cetuximab or panitumumab. C_LIO_LIGC1118 showed promising antitumor activity, especially in patients with colorectal cancer resistant to prior EGFR antibody. Skin toxicities were more common and diarrhea was less frequent compared with other anti-EGFR antibodies. C_LI Background.GC1118 is a novel monoclonal antibody targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with more potent ligand inhibition than cetuximab or panitumumab. We conducted a first-in-human, phase I study of GC118 in patients with refractory solid tumors. Methods.In the dose escalation part, GC1118 was administered on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, followed by a 2-week rest, during which dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated. In the expansion part, patients were enrolled into three cohorts (Cohort 1 [C1], patients with colorectal cancer [CRC] without prior anti-EGFR treatment; Cohort 2 [C2], patients with CRC with tumors resistant to anti-EGFR therapy; Cohort 3 [C3], EGFR-overexpressing gastric cancer). Results.In the dose escalation part, 24 patients were treated at five dose levels: 0.3, 1.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 mg/kg. In the 5.0 mg/kg cohort, two patients experienced DLTs (skin toxicities). The maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was 4.0 mg/kg. Common adverse events were skin toxicities. In the expansion part, 39 patients were enrolled. In Cohort 1, stable disease (SD) was observed in 58%; in Cohort 2, partial response (PR) 17% and SD 8%; in Cohort 3, PR 8% and SD 17%. Conclusion.GC1118 showed promising antitumor activity and was well tolerated. Infrequent diarrhea compared with other anti-EGFR antibodies might be advantageous for further development.

Lessons Learned. O_LIThe combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma demonstrated modest efficacy compared with standard of care. C_LIO_LIThe poor response may have been due to patient age and the high rate of treatment discontinuation. C_LI Background.This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of bendamustine and ofatumumab in elderly patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were not candidates for rituximab cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Methods.Patients received IV 90 mg/m2 bendamustine on days 1 and 2 of cycles 1 through 6 and IV 1,000 mg ofatumumab on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6. Both drugs were administered at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved dose for combination therapy. All patients received premedications before each infusion of ofatumumab and hematopoietic growth factors. Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging after cycle 3 and cycle 6. The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CRR). Results.Twelve of 21 enrolled patients completed treatment; median age was 83 years. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression (three patients), intercurrent illness (two patients), and death (one patient due to drug-related sepsis and bowel necrosis and one patient due to unknown cause). Thrombocytopenia (14%), neutropenia (10%), diarrhea (10%), vomiting (10%), and dehydration (10%) were the most common grade [≥]3 treatment-related adverse events. The overall response rate was 90.5% and the CRR was 33.3%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8.6 and 12.0 months, respectively. Conclusion.The combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine is feasible in elderly patients with DLBCL.

Lessons Learned. O_LIIn terms of efficacy and safety, good results were obtained with S-1 and paclitaxel (PTX) combination therapy. C_LIO_LIThe findings suggest that S-1 and PTX combination therapy is a feasible treatment option in patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. C_LI Background.Although monotherapy with cytotoxic agents, including docetaxel and pemetrexed, is recommended for patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), its outcomes are unsatisfactory. S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine agent that consists of tegafur, 5- chloro-2, 4-dihydroxypyridine, and potassium oxonate. S-1 is approved for patients with gastric cancer in 7 Asian countries and 15 European countries. It is also approved for patients with eight type of cancers, including NSCLC, in Japan. We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of S-1 and paclitaxel (PTX) combination therapy in patients with previously treated NSCLC. Methods.Oral S-1 was administered thrice weekly on days 1-14 at 80, 100, and 120 mg/day in patients with body surface areas of <1.25, 1.25-1.5, and >1.5 m2, respectively. PTX was administered at 80 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8. Primary endpoint was response rate, and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results.Forty patients were enrolled, with response and disease control rates of 27.5% and 75.0%, respectively (Fig. 1). Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 20.7 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia were seen in five (12%) and one (2%) patients, respectively. Febrile neutropenia occurred in three patients (7%). Common grade 3/4 nonhematological toxicities were stomatitis (5% of patients), diarrhea (7% of patients), and interstitial lung disease (one patient). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Conclusion.This S-1 and PTX cotherapy dose and schedule showed satisfactory efficacy, with mild toxicities, in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC.

Lessons Learned. O_LIThis single-arm, phase II study shows that concurrent EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus thoracic radiotherapy as the first-line treatment for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR active mutations provides long-term control for the primary lung lesion, and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate and median PFS are numerically higher than those of the erlotinib monotherapy. C_LIO_LISerious adverse events are acceptable, although grade >3 radiation pneumonitis occurred in 20% of patients. C_LI Background.Studies show effective local control by EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combined with radiotherapy at metastatic sites in advanced lung cancer harboring EGFR active mutations. Salvage local radiotherapy is associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in local disease during EGFR-TKI treatment. However, no prospective study has been reported on concurrent EGFR-TKI and radiotherapy for primary lung lesions. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of first-line EGFR-TKI combined with thoracic radiotherapy in treating stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR active mutations. Methods.We conducted a single-arm, phase II clinical trial. Each patient received EGFR-TKI (erlotinib 150 mg or gefitinib 250 mg per day) plus thoracic radiotherapy (54-60 Gy/27-30 F/5.5-6 w) within 2 weeks of beginning EGFR-TKI therapy until either disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs) appeared. Results.From January 2015 to March 2018, 401 patients were screened, and 10 patients (5 male and 5 female) were eligible. These patients had a median age of 55 years (40-75) and median follow-up of 19.8 months (5.8-34). The 1-year PFS rate was 57.1%, median PFS was 13 months, and median time to progression of irradiated lesion (iTTP) was 20.5 months. Objective response rate (ORR), was 50% and disease control rate (DCR) was 100%. The most common grade [≥]3 AEs were radiation pneumonitis (20%) and rash (10%). One patient died after rejecting treatment for pneumonitis. The others received a full, systematic course of glucocorticoid therapy. Pneumonitis was all well controlled and did not relapse. Conclusion.Concurrent EGFR-TKI plus thoracic radiotherapy as the first-line treatment for stage IV NSCLC harboring EGFR active mutations shows a long-term control of primary lung lesion. The 1-year PFS rate and median PFS of this combined therapy are numerically higher than those of the erlotinib monotherapy. The risk of serious adverse events is acceptable.

Background.There are limited data to predict which novel childhood cancer therapies are likely to be successful. To help rectify this, we sought to identify the factors that impact the success of phase II clinical trials for pediatric malignancies. Materials and Methods.We examined the impact of 24 preclinical and trial design variables for their influence on 132 phase II pediatric oncology clinical trials. Success was determined by an objective assessment of patient response, with data analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Pearson's chi-square test, and logistic regression models. Results.Trials that evaluated patients with a single histological cancer type were more successful than those that assessed multiple different cancer types (68% vs. 47%, 27%, and 17% for 1, 2-3, 4-7, and 8+; p < .005). Trials on liquid or extracranial solid tumors were more successful than central nervous system or combined trials (70%, 60%, 38%, and 24%; p < .005), and trials of combination therapies were more successful than single agents (71% vs. 28%; p < .005). Trials that added therapies to standard treatment backbones were more successful than trials testing novel therapies alone or those that incorporated novel agents (p < .005), and trials initiated based on the results of adult studies were less likely to succeed (p < .05). For 61% of trials (80/132), we were unable to locate any relevant preclinical findings to support the trial. When preclinical studies were carried out (52/132), there was no evidence that the conduct of any preclinical experiments made the trial more likely to succeed (p < .005). Conclusion.Phase II pediatric oncology clinical trials that examine a single cancer type and use combination therapies have the highest possibility of clinical success. Trials building upon a standard treatment regimen were also more successful. The conduct of preclinical experiments did not improve clinical success, emphasizing the need for a better understanding of the translational relevance of current preclinical testing paradigms. Implications for Practice.To improve the clinical outcomes of phase II childhood cancer trials, this study identified factors impacting clinical success. These results have the potential to impact not only the design of future clinical trials but also the assessment of preclinical studies moving forward. This work found that trials on one histological cancer type and trials testing combination therapies had the highest possibility of success. Incorporation of novel therapies into standard treatment backbones led to higher success rates than testing novel therapies alone. This study found that most trials had no preclinical evidence to support initiation, and even when preclinical studies were available, they did not result in improved success.

Lessons Learned. O_LINivolumab treatment at doses of 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (Q2W), 240 mg Q2W, and 360 mg once every 3 weeks was well tolerated in the Chinese population, with no new safety signals identified. C_LIO_LIComparison of intensive pharmacokinetic profiles of nivolumab at 3 mg/kg Q2W in Chinese versus global populations revealed no ethnic differences of nivolumab treatment. C_LIO_LINivolumab shows promising preliminary antitumor activity in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. C_LI Background.This phase I/II study investigated the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of nivolumab (anti-programmed cell death-1 monoclonal antibody) in Chinese patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and other solid tumors. Methods.A dose evaluation phase (3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks [Q2W]) was followed by a cohort expansion phase (3 mg/kg Q2W or flat doses of 240 mg Q2W or 360 mg once every 3 weeks). Results.In the dose evaluation phase, 8/8 patients completed one cycle with no dose-limiting toxicities. At data cutoff, 46/51 patients were evaluable for safety (all cohorts). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 35 (76%) patients and were primarily grade 1-2; one patient (3 mg/kg Q2W) discontinued because of study drug toxicity. Intensive PK profiles at 3 mg/kg, 240 mg, and 360 mg were well characterized at single and multiple doses of nivolumab. An objective response was determined in six (6/46) patients, four (4/32) of whom had NPC tumors. Conclusion.Nivolumab monotherapy at 3 mg/kg and flat doses of 240 mg and 360 mg were well tolerated in this Chinese patient population, with PK profiles at 3 mg/kg being similar to those of global patients. Preliminary efficacy results showed promising antitumor activity of nivolumab in advanced NPC.

Lessons Learned. O_LIAdjuvant treatment with zoledronic acid did not decrease the recurrence rate of giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) in this study. The efficacy could not be determined because of the small sample size. C_LIO_LIGCTB recurrences, even in the denosumab era, are still an issue; therefore, a randomized study exploring the efficacy of zoledronic acid in the adjuvant setting in GCTB is still valid. C_LI Background.Bisphosphonates are assumed to inhibit giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB)-associated osteoclast activity and have an apoptotic effect on the neoplastic mononuclear cell population. The primary objective of this study was to determine the 2-year recurrence rate of high-risk GCTB after adjuvant zoledronic acid versus standard care. Methods.In this multicenter randomized open-label phase II trial, patients with high-risk GCTB were included (December 2008 to October 2013). Recruitment was stopped because of low accrual after the introduction of denosumab. In the intervention group, patients received adjuvant zoledronic acid (4 mg) intravenously at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after surgery. Results.Fourteen patients were included (intervention n = 8, controls n = 6). Median follow-up was long: 93.5 months (range, 48-111). Overall 2-year recurrence rate was 38% (3/8) in the intervention versus 17% (1/6) in the control group (p = .58). All recurrences were seen within the first 15 months after surgery. Conclusion.Adjuvant treatment with zoledronic acid did not decrease the recurrence rate of GCTB in this study. The efficacy could not be determined because of the small sample size. Because recurrences, even in the denosumab era, are still an issue, a randomized study exploring the efficacy of zoledronic acid in the adjuvant setting in GCTB is still valid.

Lessons Learned. O_LISingle-agent selinexor has limited activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. C_LIO_LISelinexor 60 mg by mouth twice weekly was generally well tolerated with a side-effect profile consistent with previous clinical trials. C_LIO_LIFuture studies of selinexor in this population should focus on combination approaches and a biomarker-driven strategy to identify patients most likely to benefit. C_LI Background.This phase II trial evaluated the safety, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of selinexor (KPT-330), an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Methods.This phase II trial was designed to enroll 30 patients with metastatic TNBC. Selinexor was given at 60 mg orally twice weekly on days 1 and 3 of each week, three of each 4-week cycle. The primary objective of this study was to determine the clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as complete response + partial response + stable disease (SD) [≥]12 weeks. Results.Ten patients with a median age of 60 years (range 44-71 years) were enrolled between July 2015 and January 2016. The median number of prior chemotherapy lines was 2 (range 1-5). A planned interim analysis for the first stage per protocol was performed. Three patients had SD and seven had progressive disease. On the basis of these results and predefined stoppage rules, the study was halted. Conclusion.Selinexor was fairly well tolerated in patients with advanced TNBC but did not result in objective responses. However, clinical benefit rate was 30%, and further investigation of selinexor in this patient population should focus on combination therapies.

Lessons Learned. O_LIThe results of the APPEARANCE trial indicate that adapalene does not prevent acne-like rash over placebo when added to topical moisturizer and oral minocycline but instead may have a detrimental effect. Therefore, adapalene is not recommended as prophylaxis against acne-like rash induced by anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapies. C_LIO_LIGiven that acne-like rash was completely controlled with placebo in approximately half of patients, predictive measures to identify patients needing intensive prophylaxis are required. C_LI Background.Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies are frequently associated with acne-like rash. To evaluate the prophylactic efficacy of adapalene, a topical retinoid used as first-line therapy for acne vulgaris, we conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, evaluator-blinded, left-right comparative trial. Methods.Patients with non-small cell lung, colorectal, or head and neck cancer scheduled to receive anti-EGFR therapies were randomly assigned to once-daily adapalene application on one side of the face, with placebo on the other side. All patients had topical moisturizer coapplied to both sides of the face, and received oral minocycline. The primary endpoint was the difference in total facial lesion count of acne-like rash at 4 weeks. Secondary endpoints included complete control rate (CCR) of acne-like rash ([≤]5 facial lesions) and global skin assessment (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] scale, grade 0-4) at 4 weeks. Two blinded dermatologists independently evaluated the endpoints from photographs. Results.A total of 36 patients were enrolled, of whom 26 were evaluable. Adapalene treatment was associated with a greater lesion count than placebo at 4 weeks, although the difference was not statistically significant (mean, 12.6 vs. 9.8, p = .12). All four patients with a difference >10 in lesion count between face sides had a greater count on the adapalene-treated side. No significant differences were observed in CCR of acne-like rash (54% vs. 50%) or IGA scale (mean grade, 1.9 vs. 1.7) between the adapalene and placebo sides. Conclusion.Adapalene is not recommended as prophylaxis against acne-like rash induced by anti-EGFR therapies.

Lessons Learned.O_LIPatients with metastatic colorectal cancer with good performance status or no liver metastasis could benefit from apatinib. C_LIO_LICirculating tumor DNA abundance may be a predictor in serial monitoring of tumor load. C_LI Background.Apatinib, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor-2 inhibitor, has been approved as third-line treatment for metastatic gastric cancer in China. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib, in the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of two or more lines of chemotherapy. Methods.In this open-label, single-arm, phase II study, patients with histological documentation of adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum were eligible if they had received at least two prior regimens of standard therapies including fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. These patients were treated with apatinib in a daily dose of 500 mg, p.o., in the third-line or higher setting. Capture sequencing was dynamically performed to identify somatic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) with a panel of 1,021 cancer-related genes. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and the tumor response was determined according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Interim analysis was applied as predefined. Results.From June 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, 26 patients were enrolled. The median PFS of the whole group was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1-5.9). The median overall survival (OS) was 7.9 months (95% CI: 4.6-10.1+). Patients with performance status (PS) 0-1 had longer PFS than those with PS 2 (4.17 months vs. 1.93 months, p = .0014). Patients without liver metastasis also had longer PFS than those who had live metastasis (5.87 months vs. 3.33 months, p = .0274). The common side effects of apatinib were hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, proteinuria, and diarrhea. The incidence of grade 3-4 hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, proteinuria, and diarrhea was 76.92%, 11.54%, 73.08%, and 23.08%, respectively. All of the patients received dose reduction because of adverse effect. Results of capture sequencing showed APC, TP53, and KRAS were most frequently mutant genes. ctDNA abundance increased before the radiographic assessment in ten patients. Conclusion.Apatinib monotherapy showed promising efficiency for patients with refractory colorectal cancer, especially in patients with PS 0-1 or no liver metastasis. ctDNA abundance may be a predictor in serial monitoring of tumor load.

Time-to-event outcomes, such as overall survival and progression-free survival, are often selected as key endpoints in comparative clinical studies. When analyzing results from these studies, estimating the magnitude of the between-group difference is a fundamental step. This is especially important in clinical trials that compare treatments, because quantitative information about the treatment effect is necessary to balance benefits/risks and inform clinical decision making. Conventionally, many comparative oncology studies use the hazard ratio (HR) and a corresponding 95% confidence interval to report the magnitude of the between-group difference, despite a number of important limitations [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. One well-known ...

Lessons Learned. O_LIInduction chemotherapy with Genexol-PM and cisplatin demonstrated modest tumor response in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. C_LIO_LIConsidering favorable toxicity profiles and promising survival data, further studies on this regimen are warranted in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. C_LI Background.Genexol-PM is a polymeric micellar formulation of paclitaxel without Cremophor EL. We investigated the efficacy and safety of Genexol-PM plus cisplatin as induction chemotherapy (IC) in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC). Methods.Patients received Genexol-PM (230 mg/m2) and cisplatin (60 mg/m2) every 3 weeks as IC. After three cycles of IC, definitive treatment of either concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2) or surgery was performed. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) after IC. Results.Of 52 patients enrolled, 47 completed three cycles of IC, and the ORR was 55.8% (95% confidence interval, 42.3-69.3). Although there was one treatment-related death, toxicity profiles to Genexol-PM and cisplatin were generally favorable, and the most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were neutropenia (15.4%), anorexia (7.7%), and general weakness (7.7%). Fifty-one patients received definitive treatment (CCRT [n = 44] or radical surgery [n = 7]). The rate of complete response following CCRT was 81.8% (36/44). After a median follow-up of 39 months, estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years were 54.3% and 71.3%, respectively. Conclusion.IC with Genexol-PM and cisplatin demonstrated modest tumor response with well-tolerated toxicity profiles for patients with LA-HNSCC.

Lessons Learned. O_LIThe triple combination chemotherapy of SOXIRI (S-1/oxaliplatin/irinotecan) in patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was an effective treatment that appeared to be better tolerated than the widely used FOLFIRINOX regimen. C_LIO_LISOXIRI regimen may provide an alternative approach for advanced pancreatic cancer. C_LI Background.In our previous phase I study, we determined the recommended dose of a biweekly S-1, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (SOXIRI) regimen in patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This phase II study was conducted to assess the safety and clinical efficacy in patients with unresectable PDAC. Methods.Patients with previously untreated metastatic and locally advanced PDAC were enrolled. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR). Secondary endpoints were adverse events (AEs), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Patients received 80 mg/m2 of S-1 twice a day for 2 weeks in alternate-day administration, 150 mg/m2 of irinotecan on day 1, and 85 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin on day 1 of a 2-week cycle. Results.Thirty-five enrolled patients received a median of six (range: 2-15) treatment cycles. The RR was 22.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-40.1); median OS, 17.7 months (95% CI: 9.8-22.0); and median PFS, 7.4 months (95% CI: 4.2-8.4). Furthermore, the median OS in patients with distant metastasis was 10.1 months, whereas that in patients with locally advanced PDAC was 22.6 months. Major grade 3 or 4 toxicity included neutropenia (54%), anemia (17%), febrile neutropenia (11%), anorexia (9%), diarrhea (9%), and nausea (9%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion.SOXIRI is considered a promising and well-tolerated regimen in patients with unresectable PDAC.

Lessons Learned. O_LITKM-080301 showed a favorable toxicity profile at the studied dose. C_LIO_LITKM-080301 targeting PLK1 through small interfering RNA mechanism did not demonstrate improved overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma compared with historical control. Preliminary antitumor activity as shown in this early-phase study does not support further evaluation as a single agent. C_LI Background.Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) is overexpressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Knockdown of PLK1 expression by PLK1 small interfering RNA (siRNA) in an HCC cell line showed reduced expression in RNA-induced silencing complex and a reduction in cell proliferation. Methods.A 3 + 3 dose escalation plus expansion cohort at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was implemented. Patients with HCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status [≤]2, and Child-Pugh score A received TKM-080301 as an intravenous infusion once every week for 3 consecutive weeks, repeated every 28 days. Results.The study enrolled 43 patients. The starting dose of TKM-080301 was 0.3 mg/kg, and MTD was declared at 0.75 mg/kg. Following the development of grade 4 thrombocytopenia in two subjects on the expansion cohort, the MTD was redefined at 0.6 mg/kg. Four patients did not have any evaluable postbaseline scan. Of the other 39 subjects who had received at least 0.3 mg/kg, 18 subjects (46.2%) had stable disease (SD) by independent RECIST 1.1 criteria. By Choi criteria, eight subjects (23.1%) had a partial response (PR). For 37 assessable subjects, with 2 subjects censored, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.04 months. Median survival for the whole study population was 7.5 months. Conclusion.TKM-080301 was generally well tolerated. In this early-phase study, antitumor effect for TKM 080301 was limited. Further evaluation as a single agent in large randomized trials is not warranted.

Lessons Learned. O_LIFirst trial to report safety and activity of the microtubule inhibitor vinflunine plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib in post-platinum metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) patients. C_LIO_LIA recommended phase II dose was identified for the treatment combination of vinflunine plus sorafenib, with main adverse events including fatigue, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, hypertension, and hyponatremia. C_LIO_LIAn overall response rate of 41% to second-line vinflunine plus sorafenib treatment in patients with platinum-resistant mUC was confirmed. C_LI Background.Platinum-progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is a clinical challenge. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib has demonstrated varied activity in mUC. This trial was designed to examine safety and activity of vinflunine plus sorafenib in mUC. Methods.In addition to standard dose of vinflunine (320 or 280 mg/m2), patients received sorafenib (400, 600, or 800 mg/day), in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation phase I design. Results.Twenty-two patients (median age 62.5 years) were included. Five patients received vinflunine 320 mg/m2 and 17 received 280 mg/m2. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sorafenib with vinflunine 280 mg/m2 was 600 mg, and with vinflunine 320 mg/m2 it was not determined, owing to toxicity. Adverse events (AEs) grades 3 + 4 consisted of neutropenia (6 patients), febrile neutropenia (5), and hyponatremia (5). The overall response rate (ORR) in the efficacy-evaluable patients was 41% (7 of 17), all partial responses evaluated by RECIST version 1.1. Median overall survival (OS) was 7.0 months (1.8-41.7). Conclusion.The defined recommended phase II dose (RPTD) was vinflunine 280 mg/m2 plus sorafenib 400 mg. Sorafenib was too toxic in combination with vinflunine 320 mg/m2. The ORR of 41% to this second-line combination treatment of mUC is noteworthy and supports further trials.

Lessons Learned.O_LIThe androgen receptor (AR) is present in most breast cancers (BC), but its exploitation as a therapeutic target has been limited. C_LIO_LIThis study explored the activity of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), a precursor being transformed into androgens within BC cells, in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (to block DHEA conversion into estrogens), in a two-stage phase II study in patients with AR-positive/estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative metastatic BC. C_LIO_LIAlthough well tolerated, only 1 of 12 patients obtained a prolonged clinical benefit, and the study was closed after its first stage for poor activity. C_LI Background.Androgen receptors (AR) are expressed in most breast cancers, and AR-agonists have some activity in these neoplasms. We investigated the safety and activity of the androgen precursor dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) in patients with AR-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods.A two-stage phase II study was conducted in two patient cohorts, one with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (resistant to AIs) and the other with triple-negative MBC. DHEA 100 mg/day was administered orally. The combination with an AI aimed to prevent the conversion of DHEA into estrogens. The main endpoint was the clinical benefit rate. The triple-negative cohort was closed early. Results.Twelve patients with ER-positive MBC were enrolled. DHEA-related adverse events, reported in four patients, included grade 2 fatigue, erythema, and transaminitis, and grade 1 drowsiness and musculoskeletal pain. Clinical benefit was observed in one patient with ER-positive disease whose tumor had AR gene amplification. There was wide inter- and intra-patient variation in serum levels of DHEA and its metabolites. Conclusion.DHEA showed excellent safety but poor activity in MBC. Although dose and patient selection could be improved, high serum level variability may hamper further DHEA development in this setting.

These are exciting times--an almost dizzying array of FDA approvals logged for immunotherapy, interspersed with some novel compounds. Nearing 50 approvals for immunotherapy in 3 years, oncologists are poised to utilize 7 immune checkpoint inhibitors with FDA approval in more than a dozen oncology settings. No class of oncology drugs has spawned such an effort, and by current estimates, 380,900 slots for patients need to be filled to complete current second-generation immune checkpoint inhibitor combination trials [1]. The excitement surrounding these agents has led almost every patient diagnosed with cancer to request treatment with immunotherapy. Therein is the rub--try to find data on the effectiveness of these agents in diseases for which there is no FDA approval and one comes up empty-handed. We work in a field where the importance of publishing is well-accepted--in basic science, fo ...