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 ...

Lessons Learned. O_LINon-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents 85% of lung cancer in elderly patients. C_LIO_LIIn the present study performed in the 36 elderly subjects with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation-positive NSCLC, osimertinib 80 mg demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the objective response rate, which was comparable to those in the nonelderly population. C_LIO_LIOsimertinib appears to be an effective and safe treatment option in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutation; further research in larger scale is warranted. C_LI Background.Previous findings suggest the possibility of relatively safe use of osimertinib for patients with T790M-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with few serious adverse events for the elderly in comparison with conventional endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and with an antitumor effect. Methods.This phase II study was performed to prospectively investigate the efficacy and safety of osimertinib for elderly patients aged [≥]75 years with ineffective prior EGFR TKI treatment or with recurrence in T790M EGFR TKI resistance mutation-positive NSCLC. Results.A total of 36 patients were included in the analyses. Among the 36 subjects, 63.9% were female, with mean age of 79.9 years. The objective response rate (ORR) was 58.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42.2%-72.9%), demonstrating statistically significant efficacy of osimertinib (p = .0017). The median duration of response (DOR) was 27.9 weeks (95% CI, 21.1-82.0). Complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) were 2.8% and 55.6%, respectively. Disease control rate (DCR) was 97.2%. A waterfall plot revealed that 33 (91.6%) subjects exhibited tumor shrinkage during treatment, including 12 of 14 subjects who had stable disease (SD). All adverse events were not reason for discontinuation of the study drug. Conclusion.Osimertinib may be an effective and safe treatment option in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutation.

Lessons Learned.O_LIThe upregulation of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) and thymidylate synthase (TS) are important mechanisms of resistance to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after long exposure to 5-FU. C_LIO_LIS-1 (containing a DPD inhibitor) combined with raltitrexed (a TS inhibitor) showed a moderate effect, which needs further study as a third- or later-line therapy in mCRC. C_LI Background.5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is a fundamental drug in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with mCRC are often exposed to 5-FU and/or its analogues for a long time because of its central role in treatment regimens. The upregulation of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) and/or thymidylate synthase (TS) are important mechanisms of resistance of 5-FU. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-1 (containing a DPD inhibitor) and raltitrexed (a TS inhibitor) for refractory mCRC, a one-center, single-arm, prospective phase II trial was conducted. Methods.Patients who had mCRC that had progressed after treatment with fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin and who had at least one measurable lesion were eligible for this trial. Patients received oral S-1 (80-120 mg for 14 days every 3 weeks) plus an intravenous infusion of raltitrexed (3 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Results.In total, 46 patients were enrolled. Three patients did not complete the first assessment because of adverse events and unwillingness, leaving tumor response evaluation available in 43 patients. Of 43 evaluable patients, the ORR was 13.9% and disease control rate was 58.1%. In the intention-to-treat population (n = 46), the ORR was 13.0% and disease control rate was 54.3%. Median PFS and median OS were 107 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.3-117.7) and 373 days (95% CI, 226.2-519.8), respectively. Most of the adverse effects were mild to moderate. Conclusion.S-1 combined with raltitrexed for refractory mCRC showed moderate effect, and it is worthy of further study as third- or later-line therapy in mCRC.

Lessons Learned. O_LIDual epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-directed therapy with erlotinib and panitumumab in combination with gemcitabine was superior to gemcitabine and erlotinib, but the clinical relevance is uncertain given the limited role of gemcitabine monotherapy. C_LIO_LIA significantly longer overall survival was observed in patients receiving the dual EGFR-directed therapy. C_LIO_LIThe dual EGFR-directed therapy resulted in increased toxicity. C_LI Background.Gemcitabine is active in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The combination of erlotinib, an oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, and gemcitabine was shown to modestly prolong overall survival when compared with gemcitabine alone. The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (now part of Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology) trial N064B compared gemcitabine plus erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus combined EGFR inhibition with erlotinib and panitumumab. Methods.Eligible patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomized to either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with erlotinib 100 mg p.o. daily (Arm A) or the same combination with the addition of panitumumab 4 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle (Arm B). The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, the confirmed response rate, and toxicity. Comparison between arms for the primary endpoint was done with a one-sided log-rank test, and a p value less than .20 was considered statistically significant. Response rate comparison was done with Fisher's exact test. All other reported p values are two-sided. Results.A total of 92 patients were randomized, 46 to each arm. The median overall survival was 4.2 months in Arm A and 8.3 months in Arm B (hazard ratio, 0.817; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.530-1.260; p = .1792). The progression-free survival was 2.0 months in Arm A and 3.6 months in Arm B (hazard ratio, 0.843; 95% CI, 0.555-1.280; p = .4190). A partial confirmed response was seen in 8.7% of patients on Arm A and 6.5% on Arm B (p = .9999). No patients had a complete response. Grade 3 and higher nonhematologic toxicities were more common in patients on Arm B compared with those on Arm A (82.6% vs. 52.2%; p = .0018). Conclusion.Dual EGFR-directed therapy resulted in a significant prolongation of overall survival in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas but was associated with substantially increased toxicities. Dual EGFR-directed therapy in combination with gemcitabine alone cannot be recommended for further study, as single-agent gemcitabine is no longer considered an appropriate therapy for otherwise fit patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Lessons Learned. O_LIDefinitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy based on oxaliplatin and endostatin was effective with the objective response rate exceeding 80%, and the treatment-related toxicities were acceptable. C_LIO_LIThe treatment compliance of the current combination was much higher, without significant reduction in survival outcomes, than historical reports. C_LI Background.This phase II trial aimed at assessing the efficiency and safety of definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) using oxaliplatin (OHP) and endostatin in patients with inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods.Radiotherapy was delivered with a daily fraction of 2.0 Gy to a total dose of 60.0 Gy over 6 weeks. Endostatin and OHP were both intravenously administered at doses of 7.5 mg/m2 daily for 2 weeks and 135 mg/m2 on day 1, respectively, every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Results.The analysis included 37 patients. The median age was 63 years (range: 49-71 years), and all patients were stage III-IVA. Of these patients, 97.3% (36/37) completed the dCRT course with an ORR of 83.8%, including 10 (27.0%) patients with complete response and 21 (56.8%) patients with partial response. The median overall survival (OS) time was 18.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.6-26.4) with a 2-year OS rate of 39.6% (95% CI: 0.202-0.590). The median progression-free survival (PFS) time was 11.5 months (95% CI: 7.6-15.4) with a 2-year PFS rate of 20.2% (95% CI: 0.049-0.355). Grade 3 toxicities included esophagitis (five patients) and leukocytopenia (three patients). Grade 4 leukopenia was observed in one patient. Late toxicity was infrequent, and no treatment-related death occurred. Posttreatment dysphagia scores were significantly improved when compared with baseline (p < .001). Conclusion.dCRT based on OHP and endostatin resulted in high treatment compliance with manageable toxicities. This combination resulted in encouraging ORR without compromising survival outcomes. It should be validated in future clinical studies.

Lessons Learned. O_LICoadministration of S-1 and paclitaxel in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer showed favorable efficacy. C_LIO_LICoadministration of S-1 and paclitaxel in elderly patients with advanced non-small lung cancer showed tolerable toxicity. C_LI Background.Although monotherapy with cytotoxic agents including docetaxel or vinorelbine are recommended for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the outcome is not satisfactory. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of S-1 and paclitaxel (PTX) as a first-line cotreatment in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Methods.Oral S-1 was administered on days 1-14 every 3 weeks at 80, 100, and 120 mg per day for patients with body surface area < 1.25 m2, 1.25-1.5 m2, and > 1.5 m2, respectively. PTX was administered at 80 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8. The primary endpoint was response rate, and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results.Seventeen patients were enrolled with response and disease control rates of 47.1% and 88.2%, respectively. Median PFS and OS were 5.6 and 35.0 months, respectively. Hematological grade 3 or 4 toxicities included leukopenia (55.8%), neutropenia (52.9%), febrile neutropenia (11.8%), and anemia (11.8%). Nonhematological grade 3 toxicities included stomatitis (23.5%), diarrhea (5.9%), and interstitial lung disease (5.9%), and grade 5 toxicities included interstitial lung disease (5.9%). Conclusion.This S-1 and PTX cotherapy dose and schedule showed satisfactory efficacy with mild toxicities in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

Lessons Learned. O_LIThe combination of bevacizumab with docetaxel-gemcitabine resulted in unacceptable toxicity, particularly a high rate of pulmonary toxicity (30%). C_LIO_LIDespite promising efficacy, excessive toxicity of this regimen does not support its use in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. C_LI Background.Prior to immunotherapy, standard treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was platinum doublet chemotherapy. In a previous phase II study, docetaxel-gemcitabine demonstrated comparable efficacy and tolerability to platinum doublets. In this phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of adding bevacizumab to docetaxel- gemcitabine in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Methods.Patients with untreated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC were treated with up to six cycles of docetaxel-gemcitabine-bevacizumab, followed by bevacizumab until progression. The primary endpoint for this study was 1-year progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety, overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). The planned sample size was 46 patients. Results.A total of 13 patients were enrolled and received a median of six cycles of chemotherapy and four cycles of bevacizumab. The treatment was poorly tolerated, with five patients requiring dose reduction and four discontinuing treatment for toxicity. Grade 3-5 nonhematologic toxicity was seen in 10 patients, and 4 (30%) were hospitalized with pulmonary toxicity possibly related to study drugs. At this point, enrollment was halted for safety concerns. The 12-month PFS was 8%. In 11 evaluable patients, ORR was 72%, median PFS 6 months, and median OS was 11 months. Conclusion.Docetaxel, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab at this dose and schedule resulted in excessive toxicity. Despite promising efficacy, in light of efficacious and safe alternative therapies, this regimen should not be used to treat advanced NSCLC.

Lessons Learned. O_LIPharmacokinetic results underscore that the vorolanib (X-82) study design was successful without the need for further dose escalation beyond 400 mg once daily (q.d.). C_LIO_LITherefore, the recommended dose of X-82 as a single agent in patients with advanced cancer is 400 mg q.d. C_LI Background.Vorolanib (X-82) is a novel, oral, multikinase vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor/platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) receptor inhibitor that was developed on the same chemical scaffold as sunitinib, but designed to improve upon the safety profile while maintaining the efficacy of sunitinib. By targeting the VEGF and PDGF receptors, X-82 was expected to disrupt tumor angiogenesis and be active in a broad spectrum of solid tumors. Therefore, we determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and characterized the preliminary pharmacokinetics and clinical tumor response of X-82 as a single agent in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods.Adult patients with advanced solid tumors received X-82 as tablets or capsules (once daily [q.d.] or b.i.d.) every 4 weeks. Patients were evaluated for response every 8 weeks, and continued treatment until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Results.Fifty-two patients received study treatment in 17 cohorts. X-82 capsule dosing was as follows: cohorts 1-6 (20-400 mg q.d.) and cohorts 7-8 (140-200 mg b.i.d.). Patients in cohorts 9-17 received 50-800 mg q.d. tablet dosing. The median time on treatment was 58 days. X-82 blood pharmacokinetics appeared dose-independent with a t1/2 of 5.13 hours and 6.48 hours for capsule and tablet formulations, respectively. No apparent accumulation was observed after 21 days of daily dosing. Conclusion.X-82 had a safety profile consistent with its mechanism of action. It has a short half-life and was well tolerated by most patients. Study enrollment ended prior to the determination of the MTD because of the apparent saturation of absorption at 400-800 mg. The recommended dose of X-82 as a single agent in patients with advanced cancer is 400 mg q.d.