Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology-Friends of Cancer Research Brain Metastases Working Group

Management of brain metastases from lung cancer in the era of immunotherapy: a review of the literature

The brain is one of the most frequent sites of metastases in lung cancer patients, whose prognosis is related to the histological, biomolecular and clinical features of the disease. Over the years, the survival has improved significantly with the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but there are limited data concerning their efficacy in patients with brain metastases. The aim of this review is to describe the biological mechanisms supporting the use of immunotherapy for brain metastases and the outcomes experienced by lung cancer patients with brain involvement enrolled in Phase III registration trials of ICIs. We also review retrospective data on ICIs alone or combined with brain radiotherapy, and indicate future directions for preclinical and clinical research.

Survival benefit from immunocheckpoint inhibitors in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases: A National Cancer Database propensity-matched analysis

Immunocheckpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a standard pharmacological therapy in non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because brain metastases (BMs) have historically been listed as exclusion criteria in previous clinical trials involving ICIs in advanced NSCLC, the survival benefit from ICI in NSCLC patients with BMs remains unclear. The National Cancer Database was queried for stage IV NSCLC patients with or without BMs between 2014 and 2015. Overall survival (OS) of stage IV NSCLC patients who received immunotherapy and that of stage IV NSCLC patients who did not receive immunotherapy were compared according to the presence or absence of BMs. Multivariable logistic analyses identified the clinical characteristics predictive of overall survival. A propensity score analysis was conducted with the aim of adjusting the potential biases arising from the clinical characteristics. This study included 42,512 patients with stage IV NSCLC; 11,810 patients with BMs and 30,702 patients without BMs. In univariate analysis, stage IV NSCLC patients with BMs treated with immunotherapy had a significantly longer OS than those without immunotherapy after propensity score matching (median OS: 12.8 vs 10.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72–0.89, p < 0.0001). Multivariable Cox modeling after propensity score matching confirmed the survival benefit from ICI for stage IV NSCLC patients with BMs (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.67–0.83, p < 0.0001). The HR in NSCLC patients without BMs treated with ICI compared with those without ICI was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73–0.82, p < 0.0001). Survival in stage IV NSCLC patients with BMs was significantly improved by ICI treatment at levels comparable to those without BMs using a retrospective database. ICI may be one of the promising treatment options for stage IV NSCLC patients with BMs. These findings should be validated in future prospective studies.

Survival in Patients With Brain Metastases: Summary Report on the Updated Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment and Definition of the Eligibility Quotient

PURPOSE

Conventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility.

METHODS

A multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively.

RESULTS

Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation (P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non-small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Median survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).

Application of clinical trial inclusion criteria to clinical practice patients to quantify the burden of CNS metastases on health-related quality of life and healthcare resource use in patients with NSCLC

OBJECTIVES

Quantify the burden of central nervous system (CNS) metastases on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare resource use (HRU) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a prospective European study in clinical practice, utilising clinical trial inclusion criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients ≥18 years, with metastatic NSCLC, Eastern Oncology C0operative Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2 and life expectancy ≥12 weeks were enrolled in two cohorts by baseline CNS metastases status. Demographics, clinical characteristics, NSCLC management data, HRQoL and HRU were collected at baseline and two follow-up visits (Visits 2 and 3, 6 weeks apart). HRQoL was assessed using validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

162 patients were enrolled (n = 80 CNS cohort, n = 82 non-CNS cohort). Baseline characteristics were balanced, but CNS patients were younger (mean ± standard deviation age: 62.1 ± 9.6 vs 65.6 ± 9.7 years, p =  0.021) with a lower body mass index (13.8 % underweight [<18.5kg/m²] vs 3.7 %, p =  0.049). Mean HRQoL scores were similar between cohorts at all visits. Cancer pharmacotherapy, procedures and concomitant treatment were comparable across cohorts, with some exceptions. More CNS patients were hospitalised at baseline (10.3 % vs 2.2 %) for longer (mean 7.2 vs 4.6 days; p <  0.001). By Visit 2, more CNS patients were hospitalised (50.0 % vs 29.3 %; p = 0.009) with emergency room visits (11.8 % vs 2.7 %; p =  0.032). At baseline, more CNS versus non-CNS patients had Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans (80.0 % vs 31.7 %; p <  0.001), but fewer had fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) scans (10.0 % vs 28.0 %; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

These data from clinical practice show minor differences in HRQoL/HRU between patients with advanced NSCLC with/without CNS metastases when applying selected clinical trial criteria. Although follow-up was short, HRQoL scores were similar between cohorts at all visits, supporting the wider inclusion of selected patients with CNS disease into clinical trials.

Exploring New Therapeutic Pathways in Pulmonary Hypertension. Metabolism, Proliferation, and Personalized Medicine

In this review, we explore the main themes from the 62nd Annual Aspen Lung Conference (hypoxia, cellular metabolism, inflammatory pathways, aberrant proliferation, and personalized medicine) and highlight challenges and opportunities in the coming decade of pulmonary vascular disease.

Advances in Management of Brain and Leptomeningeal Metastases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The management of brain and leptomeningeal metastases has changed significantly over the past decade.

RECENT FINDINGS

Historically, radiation therapy had been the mainstay of treatment. Several strategies to limit toxicities with radiation have been developed in the recent years. Increasingly systemic therapy options are being considered an important therapeutic option for CNS metastases. Numerous novel small molecule inhibitors and immunotherapy agents have intracranial activity to varying degrees, in addition to good extracranial disease control. Overall, the prognosis of select patients with CNS metastases has improved over the past several years with advent of new therapeutic strategies. Systemic therapy options with CNS benefit should be considered in select patients with small and asymptomatic CNS metastases. Further areas of research focus on molecular alterations predisposing to CNS metastases, identification of small molecule inhibitors with CNS activity, and the combination of radiation therapy and immunotherapy.

Expanding Access to Lung Cancer Clinical Trials by Reducing the Use of Restrictive Exclusion Criteria: Perspectives of a Multistakeholder Working Group

Low rates of adult patient participation have been a persistent problem in cancer clinical trials and have continued to be a barrier to efficient drug development. The routine use of significant exclusion criteria has contributed to this problem by limiting participation in studies and creating significant clinical differences between the study cohorts and the real-world cancer patient populations. These routine exclusions also unnecessarily restrict opportunities for many patients to access potentially promising new therapies during clinical development. Multiple efforts are underway to broaden eligibility criteria, allowing more patients to enroll in studies and generating more robust data regarding the effect of novel therapies in the population at large. Focusing specifically on lung cancer as an example, a multistakeholder working group empaneled by the LUNGevity Foundation identified 14 restrictive and potentially outdated exclusion criteria that appear frequently in lung cancer clinical trials. As a part of the project, the group evaluated data from multiple recent lung cancer studies to ascertain the extent to which these 14 criteria appeared in study protocols and played a role in excluding patients (screen failures). The present report describes the working group's efforts to limit the use of these routine exclusions and presents clinical justifications for reducing the use of 14 criteria as routine exclusions in lung cancer studies, potentially expanding trial eligibility and improving the generalizability of the results from lung cancer trials.

Tucatinib, Trastuzumab, and Capecitabine for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer who have disease progression after therapy with multiple HER2-targeted agents have limited treatment options. Tucatinib is an investigational, oral, highly selective inhibitor of the HER2 tyrosine kinase.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab emtansine, who had or did not have brain metastases, to receive either tucatinib or placebo, in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine. The primary end point was progression-free survival among the first 480 patients who underwent randomization. Secondary end points, assessed in the total population (612 patients), included overall survival, progression-free survival among patients with brain metastases, confirmed objective response rate, and safety.

RESULTS

Progression-free survival at 1 year was 33.1% in the tucatinib-combination group and 12.3% in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.71; P<0.001), and the median duration of progression-free survival was 7.8 months and 5.6 months, respectively. Overall survival at 2 years was 44.9% in the tucatinib-combination group and 26.6% in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.88; P = 0.005), and the median overall survival was 21.9 months and 17.4 months, respectively. Among the patients with brain metastases, progression-free survival at 1 year was 24.9% in the tucatinib-combination group and 0% in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.69; P<0.001), and the median progression-free survival was 7.6 months and 5.4 months, respectively. Common adverse events in the tucatinib group included diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, fatigue, and vomiting. Diarrhea and elevated aminotransferase levels of grade 3 or higher were more common in the tucatinib-combination group than in the placebo-combination group.

CONCLUSIONS

In heavily pretreated patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, including those with brain metastases, adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine resulted in better progression-free survival and overall survival outcomes than adding placebo; the risks of diarrhea and elevated aminotransferase levels were higher with tucatinib. (Funded by Seattle Genetics; HER2CLIMB ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02614794.).

Older adults in hematologic malignancy trials: Representation, barriers to participation and strategies for addressing underrepresentation

Despite a high incidence of hematologic malignancies in older adults, available data indicate that there is disproportionately low representation of adults ≥65 years with hematologic malignancies (greater in patients ≥75 years) in clinical trials. Biological and clinical differences between older and younger adults and diversity within older patients necessitate adequate representation of the older subpopulation in hematologic malignancy trials. This would allow trial results to be generalizable and inform treatment decisions in the older patient population. Restrictive eligibility criteria may be barriers to adequate representation, as older adults do not typically meet these criteria. Efforts to broaden eligibility criteria in clinical trials have been proposed and may promote enrollment of a representative older population with hematologic malignancies. Collaboration among a diverse group of stakeholders will be needed to implement current proposals and evaluate their impact on increasing representation of older adults in trials evaluating therapies for hematologic malignancies.

HER2-targeted therapy prolongs survival in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and intracranial metastatic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intracranial metastatic disease (IMD) is a serious and known complication of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. The role of targeted therapy for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and IMD remains unclear. In this study, we sought to evaluate the effect of HER2-targeted therapy on IMD from HER2-positive breast cancer.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and gray literature sources for interventional and observational studies reporting survival, response, and safety outcomes for patients with IMD receiving HER2-targeted therapy. We pooled outcomes through meta-analysis and examined confounder effects through forest plot stratification and meta-regression. Evidence quality was evaluated using GRADE (PROSPERO CRD42020161209).

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies (37 interventional and 60 observational) were included. HER2-targeted therapy was associated with prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.56) without significantly prolonged progression-free survival (HR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-1.02) versus non-targeted therapy; the intracranial objective response rate was 19% (95% CI, 12-27%), intracranial disease control rate 62% (95% CI, 55-69%), intracranial complete response rate 0% (95% CI, 0-0.01%), and grade 3+ adverse event rate 26% (95% CI, 11-45%). Risk of bias was high in 40% (39/97) of studies.

CONCLUSION

These findings support a potential role for systemic HER2-targeted therapy in the treatment of patients with IMD from HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Breast cancer brain metastasis: molecular mechanisms and directions for treatment

The development of brain metastasis (BM) of breast cancer is usually a late event with deleterious effect on the prognosis. Treatment options for intracerebral seeding of breast cancer are limited and, so far, nonspecific. Molecular detailing of subsequent events of penetration, seeding, and outgrowth in brain is highly relevant for developing therapeutic strategies to treat, or prevent, BM.We scrutinize recent literature for molecules and pathways that are operative in the formation of breast cancer BM. We also summarize current data on therapeutic efforts to specifically address BM of breast cancer. Data on molecular pathways underlying the formation of BM of breast cancer are sketchy and to some extent inconsistent. The molecular makeup of BM differs from that of the primary tumors, as well as from metastases at other sites. Current efforts to treat breast cancer BM are limited, and drugs used have proven effects on the primary tumors but lack specificity for the intracerebral tumors.More basic research is necessary to better characterize BM of breast cancer. Apart from the identification of drug targets defined by the intracerebral tumors, also targets in the molecular pathways involved in passing the blood-brain barrier and intracerebral tumor cell growth should be revealed.

Suppressing immunotherapy by organ-specific tumor microenvironments: what is in the brain?

Recent breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy have led to curative efficacy and significantly prolonged survival in a subset of patients of multiple cancer types; and immunotherapy has become the newest pillar of cancer treatment in addition to surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and precision targeted therapies. In the metastatic disease setting, responses to immunotherapy are heterogeneous depending on the metastatic organ sites. The tissue-specific immuno-biology in the tumor microenvironments (TMEs) contributes to the differential therapeutic responses. Herein, we review the impact of tissue-specific tumor microenvironment on the efficacy of immunotherapy, with a focus on historically under-represented central nervous system (CNS) metastasis, which was excluded from most clinical trials. Retrospective examination of patient specimens and prospective clinical studies with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) have established that brain can harbor an “active” immune microenvironment for effective immunotherapy. Regulation by the innate immune microglial cells and remodeling of the blood–brain barrier (BBB) may contribute to immunotherapeutic responses mediated by T lymphocytes. How to convert an “inactive” (cold) brain microenvironment into an “active” (hot) brain TME should be the focus of future efforts. Thus, procurement and complete examination of clinical specimens from brain metastases as well as development of appropriate preclinical brain metastasis models susceptible to external manipulation of the TME are critical steps towards that goal. A deeper understanding of the immuno-biology in distinct organ microenvironments will help to expand the benefits of immunotherapy to more needed patients.

Patterns of recurrence and metastasis in BRCA1/BRCA2-associated breast cancers

Background

Breast cancer subtypes are associated with distinct metastatic patterns. Whether germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status is independently associated with central nervous system (CNS) relapse, controlling for tumor subtype, is unknown.

Methods

Patients who were treated at Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute and diagnosed with a first locoregional recurrence (LRR) or metastasis between 1981 and 2014 were identified using 2 institutional registries: 1) patients treated for recurrent breast cancer and 2) patients who underwent BRCA testing. The frequencies of LRR, sites of metastasis, and breast cancer‐specific survival from LRR or metastasis were calculated, and the factors associated with CNS recurrence were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models.

Results

The final study cohort included 30 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 32 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 270 noncarriers. Most BRCA1 carriers (73%) had triple‐negative breast cancer; whereas most BRCA2 carriers (72%) had hormone receptor‐positive tumors. BRCA1 carriers frequently experienced lung and distant lymph node metastasis, whereas BRCA2 carriers and noncarriers most often experienced bone metastasis. Although CNS disease occurred frequently in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (53% BRCA1, 50% BRCA2, 25% noncarriers; P < .001), only BRCA2 mutation (P = .006) was significantly associated with CNS metastasis in multivariable analysis controlling for tumor subtype. BRCA2 mutation (P = .01), triple‐negative subtype (P < .001), and the involvement of CNS (P < .001) and other non‐CNS distant sites (relative to locoregional recurrence or contralateral disease; P < .001) at presentation of recurrent breast cancer were associated with risk for mortality.

Conclusions

CNS involvement is frequent in women with germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations who have metastatic breast cancer. BRCA2 mutation carriers had a significantly higher frequency of CNS metastasis than noncarriers when controlling for breast cancer subtype.

Germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 alterations are associated with a high frequency (≥50%) of brain metastases in patients with locoregionally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. In multivariable analysis, only BRCA2 mutation (P = .006) was significantly associated with central nervous system metastasis when controlling for breast cancer subtype.

Brain metastasis as exclusion criteria in clinical trials involving extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research submitted recommendations to the FDA to reduce barriers in clinical trial participation. They proposed the removal of several specific exclusion criteria, including brain metastasis. Clinical trials involving small cell lung cancer (SCLC) have varying exclusion criteria regarding brain metastasis.

METHODS

We completed an online search of clinicaltrials.gov for the query "SCLC, extensive stage." The trials were classified into a group of strict exclusion, allowed only if treated, allowed without treatment, or undefined. Relationships between status of brain metastasis in exclusion criteria and study characteristics (trial status, trial design, sponsor, location, and treatment groups) were investigated by Chi-squared test. The trends of exclusion status were investigated by a comparison against the variable time.

RESULTS

Of the 204 eligible trials, 32 strictly excluded any form or history of CNS metastases, 129 allowed patients that are undergoing or have undergone CNS-specific therapy, 9 allowed patients without any CNS-specific therapy, and 34 did not mention any criteria involving CNS metastases. Studies conducted outside the United States and with single systemic therapy were associated with strict exclusion of brain metastasis (p = 0.026 and 0.039, respectively). The proportion of clinical trials with strict exclusion has remained around 15% for the past few decades.

CONCLUSION

Non-US and single systemic therapy studies are more commonly associated with strict exclusion of brain metastasis in ES-SCLC trials. The strict exclusion of brain metastases in clinical trials has remained relatively constant for the past few decades.

Provider-reported challenges and barriers to referring patients to neuro-oncology clinical trials: a report from the Society for Neuro-Oncology member survey

Background

Whereas much information exists in general oncology regarding the barriers to clinical trial referral, those specific to neuro-oncology are not yet well known. Trial barriers lead to lower patient accrual, which can lead to less-efficient clinical trials and slower improvement of the standard of care, which may negatively effect patient outcomes. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the clinical trial referral barriers that are specific to neuro-oncology to improve trial accrual rates.

Methods

An electronic survey was completed by 426 Society for Neuro-Oncology members, of whom 372 are included in this report. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and proportions, were used to characterize our survey sample.

Results

Only 22% of participants reported that their center tracks referrals to clinical trials inside as well as outside their own institution, with an estimate of less than 30% of patients referred. The most commonly reported provider-referral barrier was finding ongoing trials in the patient's geographic area. Providers also perceived that while considering participation in a trial their patients may not qualify for any trials, and if they do, may be unable to travel to the study site for follow-up. Additionally, practice location and provider and institution type all influenced referral patterns.

Conclusion

Efforts should be made to broaden trial availability and eligibility criteria, improve trial referral tracking, and ensure patients and their caregivers understand the goals and importance of clinical trials to reduce barriers and improve trial participation.

Physician Perceptions of the Use of Social Media for Recruitment of Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Social media campaigns have been successfully implemented in nontherapeutic trials. However, evidence to support their utility in cancer therapeutic trials is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine physician attitudes toward and perceptions of social media use for therapeutic trial recruitment of patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study engaged 44 physicians (24 academic based and 20 community based) at the main academic and 6 affiliated community sites of City of Hope in Duarte, California. Semistructured interviews were conducted in person or by telephone from March to June 2018. An interview guide was developed to explore perceptions of social media use for accrual of cancer therapeutic trials. Responses were recorded digitally and transcribed. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Physicians' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of using social media for clinical trial recruitment, strategies to improve uptake of social media in clinical trials, and the barriers and facilitators to social media use for professional purposes in general.

RESULTS

Of the 44 participants, 16 (36%) were women, 30 (68%) had more than 10 years of practice experience, 24 (55%) practiced in academia, and 20 (45%) practiced in the community. Physicians most commonly cited increased trial awareness and visibility as an advantage of using social media for trial recruitment. Cited disadvantages were increased administrative burden and risk of misinformation. Physicians also reported a need for institutional-level interventions (eg, restructuring of clinical trial offices to include personnel with social media expertise), increased evidence-based approaches to social media use, and more physician training on the use of social media. Perceived facilitators to professional social media use were networking and education; barriers included lack of time and lack of evidence of benefit.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, physicians recognized the benefits of using social media for clinical trial recruitment but noted that barriers, including increased administrative burden, increased time, and the risk of misinformation, remain. Future interventions to address these concerns are a required first step in increasing digital engagement for clinical trial accrual purposes.

Pre- and Postoperative Neratinib for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Brain Metastases: Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium 022

PURPOSE

This pilot study was performed to test our ability to administer neratinib monotherapy before clinically recommended craniotomy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer to the central nervous system, to examine neratinib's central nervous system penetration at craniotomy, and to examine postoperative neratinib maintenance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with HER2-positive brain metastases undergoing clinically indicated cranial resection of a parenchymal tumor received neratinib 240 mg orally once a day for 7 to 21 days preoperatively, and resumed therapy postoperatively in 28-day cycles. Exploratory evaluations of time to disease progression, survival, and correlative tissue, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and blood-based analyses examining neratinib concentrations were planned. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01494662.

RESULTS

We enrolled 5 patients between May 22, 2013, and October 18, 2016. As of March 1, 2019, patients had remained on the study protocol for 1 to 75+ postoperative cycles pf therapy. Two patients had grade 3 diarrhea. Evaluation of the CSF showed low concentrations of neratinib; nonetheless, 2 patients continued to receive therapy without disease progression for at least 13 cycles, with one on-study treatment lasting for nearly 6 years. Neratinib distribution in surgical tissue was variable for 1 patient, while specimens from 2 others did not produce conclusive results as a result of limited available samples.

CONCLUSION

Neratinib resulted in expected rates of diarrhea in this small cohort, with 2 of 5 patients receiving the study treatment for durable periods. Although logistically challenging, we were able to test a limited number of CSF- and parenchymal-based neratinib concentrations. Our findings from resected tumor tissue in one patient revealed heterogeneity in drug distribution and tumor histopathology.

Phase I Study of Intermittent High-Dose Lapatinib Alternating with Capecitabine for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients with Central Nervous System Metastases

PURPOSE

Lapatinib and capecitabine cross the blood-tumor barrier in breast cancer brain metastasis but have modest clinical efficacy. Administration of high-dose tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been evaluated in brain metastases and primary brain tumors as a strategy to improve drug exposure in the central nervous system (CNS). We derived a rational drug scheduling of intermittent high-dose lapatinib alternating with capecitabine based on our preclinical data and Norton-Simon mathematical modeling. We tested this intermittent, sequential drug schedule in patients with breast cancer with CNS metastasis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a phase I trial using an accelerated dose escalation design in patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer with CNS metastasis. Lapatinib was given on day 1-3 and day 15-17 with capecitabine on day 8-14 and day 22-28 on an every 28-day cycle. Lapatinib dose was escalated, and capecitabine given as a flat dose at 1,500 mg BID. Toxicity and efficacy were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were enrolled: brain only (4 patients, 36%), leptomeningeal (5 patients, 45%), and intramedullary spinal cord (2 patients, 18%). Grade 3 nausea and vomiting were dose-limiting toxicities. The MTD of lapatinib was 1,500 mg BID. Three patients remained on therapy for greater than 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose lapatinib is tolerable when given intermittently and sequentially with capecitabine. Antitumor activity was noted in both CNS and non-CNS sites of disease. This novel administration regimen is feasible and efficacious in patients with HER2+ breast cancer with CNS metastasis and warrants further investigation.

Characterization of Comorbidities Limiting the Recruitment of Patients in Early Phase Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Early phase clinical trials evaluate the safety and efficacy of new treatments. The exclusion/inclusion criteria in these trials are usually rigorous and may exclude many patients seen in clinical practice. Our objective was to study the comorbidities limiting the participation of patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer in clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried ClinicalTrials.gov on December 31, 2016. We reviewed the eligibility criteria of 1,103 trials. Logistic regression analyses were completed, and exclusion was studied as a binary variable.

RESULTS

Out of 1,103 trials, 70 trials (6%) excluded patients >75 years of age, and 45% made no reference to age. Eighty-six percent of trials placed restrictions on patients with history of prior malignancies. Regarding central nervous system (CNS) metastasis, 416 trials (38%) excluded all patients with CNS metastasis, and 373 (34%) only allowed asymptomatic CNS metastasis. Regarding chronic viral infections, 347 trials (31%) excluded all patients with human immunodeficiency virus, and 228 trials (21%) excluded all patients with hepatitis B or C infection. On univariate analysis, chemotherapy trials were more likely to exclude patients with CNS metastasis and history of other malignancies than targeted therapy trials. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that industry-sponsored trials had higher odds of excluding patients with compromised liver function.

CONCLUSION

Many clinical trials excluded large segments of the population of patients with cancer. Frequent exclusion criteria included patients with CNS metastasis, history of prior malignancies, and chronic viral infections. The criteria for participation in some clinical trials may be overly restrictive and limit enrollment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this study revealed that most early phase clinic trials contain strict exclusion criteria, potentially excluding the patients who may be more likely to represent the population treated in clinical settings, leaving patients susceptible to unintended harm from inappropriate generalization of trial results. Careful liberalization of the inclusion/exclusion criteria in clinical trials will allow investigators to understand the benefits and drawbacks of the experimental drug for a broader population, and possibly improve recruitment of patients with cancer into clinical trials.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Central Nervous System (CNS) Metastatic Disease

While the CNS has long been viewed as an immune-privileged environment, a paradigm shift in neuro-immunology has elevated the role of systemic immunotherapy for the treatment of metastatic disease. Increasing knowledge regarding the presence of a CNS lymphatic system and the physical and biochemical alteration of the blood brain barrier (BBB) by the tumor microenvironment suggests immune cell trafficking in and out of the CNS is possible. Emerging clinical data suggest immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can stimulate T cells peripherally to in turn have anti-tumor effects in the CNS. For example, anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monotherapy with pembrolizumab has shown intracranial response rates of 20-30% in patients with melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) brain metastases. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab [anti-PD-1 and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4)] showed an intracranial response rate of 55% in patients with melanoma brain metastases. More data are needed to confirm these response rates and to determine mechanisms of efficacy and resistance. While local therapies such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), and surgery remain current mainstays, ICIS offer potential decreased neurotoxicity. This review summarizes the biological rationale for systemic immunotherapy to treat CNS metastatic disease, existing clinical data on ICIs in this setting and ongoing clinical trials exploring areas of unmet need.

Neuro-oncology perspective of treatment options in metastatic breast cancer

Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease. Different subtypes of BC exhibit a peculiar natural history, metastatic potential and outcome. Stereotactic radiosurgery is the most used treatment for brain metastases (BM), while surgery is reserved for large and symptomatic lesions. Whole-brain radiotherapy is employed in multiple BM not amendable to radiosurgery or surgery, and it is not employed any more following local treatments of a limited number of BM. A critical issue is the distinction from pseudoprogression or radionecrosis, and tumor regrowth. Considering the increase of long-term survivors after combined or novel treatments for BM, cognitive dysfunctions following whole-brain radiotherapy represent an issue of utmost importance. Neuroprotective drugs and innovative radiotherapy techniques are being investigated to reduce this risk of cognitive sequelae. Leptomeningeal disease represents a devastating complication, either alone or in association to BM, thus targeted therapies are employed in HER2-positive BC brain and leptomeningeal metastases.

Treating brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients: what have we learnt from pharmaceutical recent clinical trials?

INTRODUCTION

Brain metastases (BMs) develop in up to 40% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In many recent practice-changing clinical trials, patients with BM were included; however, only few trials reported intracranial efficacies in either post hoc or pre-planned analysis. Clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy data of novel agents have not been completely disclosed.

AREAS COVERED

The authors performed a systemic review of recent pharmaceutical clinical trials, mainly pivotal or practice-changing trials. Some of the prospective clinical trials focused on patients with NSCLC and BM. The authors collected and compared intracranial efficacy reports of chemotherapy, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), ALK inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

EXPERT OPINION

Many clinical trials, especially those on 'brain-active' EGFR-TKIs and ALK inhibitors, have robust reports of intracranial efficacies either as post hoc or pre-planned analysis. Physicians should interpret this data with caution and apply the results to patients accordingly. For the design of future clinical trials, enrolling patients with only BM, incorporating novel risk classifications, pre-planning intracranial efficacy endpoints, reporting prior local brain therapies, and applying novel response evaluation criteria are emerging trends in this area.

Generalization and representativeness of phase III immune checkpoint blockade trials in non-small cell lung cancer

Background

Strict eligibility criteria for patient enrollment in phase III trials raise questions regarding generalization to ineligible patients. We evaluated whether pivotal phase III trials of immune checkpoint blockades (ICBs) represent the overall population of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Methods

We reviewed the inclusion and exclusion criteria of three phase III trials (CheckMate057, CheckMate017, and KEYNOTE‐010). Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients diagnosed from 2011 to 2013 at Seoul National University Hospital (cohort 1) were reviewed. We also analyzed the criteria in 53 patients with NSCLC who were treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab as routine practice (cohort 2).

Results

Among the 715 patients in cohort 1, 499 (69.9%) were ineligible for the three trials. Reasons for ineligibility included: no prior platinum doublet treatment (23.6%), lack of tissue availability (22.7%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status > 1 (14.1%), steroid use (18.2%), active cerebral nervous system metastasis (8.3%), hepatitis B/hepatitis C/human immunodeficiency virus (8.0%), and no measurable lesion (7.3%). EGFR mutations were more common in the ineligible group. In cohort 2, 67.9% of patients were classified as ineligible. Treatment outcomes of ICB in cohort 2 appeared inferior to those in the three pivotal trials, with a response rate of 11.3% and median progression‐free survival of 1.67 months.

Conclusion

Only 30% of NSCLC patients were eligible for ICB phase III trials. The actual efficacy in the 70% of ineligible patients is unknown. These findings suggest a huge gap between practice‐changing phase III trials and the overall population of NSCLC patients.

Drug Resistance in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Brain Metastases: Blame the Barrier or the Brain?

The brain is the most common site of first metastasis for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with HER2-targeting drugs. However, the development of effective therapies for breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) is limited by an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms governing drug sensitivity in the central nervous system. Pharmacodynamic data from patients and in vivo models suggest that inadequate drug penetration across the "blood-tumor" barrier is not the whole story. Using HER2-positive BCBMs as a case study, we highlight recent data from orthotopic brain metastasis models that implicate brain-specific drug resistance mechanisms in BCBMs and suggest a translational research paradigm to guide drug development for treatment of BCBMs. Clin Cancer Res; 24(8); 1795-804. ©2018 AACR.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement

Purpose The primary purposes of eligibility criteria are to protect the safety of trial participants and define the trial population. Excessive or overly restrictive eligibility criteria can slow trial accrual, jeopardize the generalizability of results, and limit understanding of the intervention's benefit-risk profile. Methods ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration examined specific eligibility criteria (ie, brain metastases, minimum age, HIV infection, and organ dysfunction and prior and concurrent malignancies) to determine whether to modify definitions to extend trials to a broader population. Working groups developed consensus recommendations based on review of evidence, consideration of the patient population, and consultation with the research community. Results Patients with treated or clinically stable brain metastases should be routinely included in trials and only excluded if there is compelling rationale. In initial dose-finding trials, pediatric-specific cohorts should be included based on strong scientific rationale for benefit. Later phase trials in diseases that span adult and pediatric populations should include patients older than age 12 years. HIV-infected patients who are healthy and have low risk of AIDS-related outcomes should be included absent specific rationale for exclusion. Renal function criteria should enable liberal creatinine clearance, unless the investigational agent involves renal excretion. Patients with prior or concurrent malignancies should be included, especially when the risk of the malignancy interfering with either safety or efficacy endpoints is very low. Conclusion To maximize generalizability of results, trial enrollment criteria should strive for inclusiveness. Rationale for excluding patients should be clearly articulated and reflect expected toxicities associated with the therapy under investigation.