Effect of Longer-Interval vs Standard Dosing of Zoledronic Acid on Skeletal Events in Patients With Bone Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Zoledronic acid, a third-generation aminobisphosphonate, reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events and pain in patients with bone metastases. The optimal dosing interval for zoledronic acid is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether zoledronic acid administered every 12 weeks is noninferior to zoledronic acid administered every 4 weeks.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted at 269 academic and community sites in the United States. Patients (n = 1822) with metastatic breast cancer, metastatic prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma who had at least 1 site of bone involvement were enrolled between May 2009 and April 2012; follow-up concluded in April 2014.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid administered intravenously every 4 weeks (n = 911) vs every 12 weeks (n = 911) for 2 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the proportion of patients having at least 1 skeletal-related event (defined as clinical fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation to bone, or surgery involving bone) within 2 years after randomization and a between-group absolute difference of 7% as the noninferiority margin. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients with at least 1 skeletal-related event by disease type, pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher scores indicate worse pain), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (range, 0-4; higher scores indicate worse disability), incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, kidney dysfunction, skeletal morbidity rate (mean number of skeletal-related events per year), and, in a subset of 553 patients, suppression of bone turnover (assessed by C-terminal telopeptide levels).

RESULTS

Among 1822 patients who were randomized (median age, 65 years; 980 [53.8%] women; 855 with breast cancer, 689 with prostate cancer, and 278 with multiple myeloma), 795 completed the study at 2 years. A total of 260 patients (29.5%) in the zoledronic acid every 4-week dosing group and 253 patients (28.6%) in the every 12-week dosing group experienced at least 1 skeletal-related event within 2 years of randomization (risk difference of -0.3% [1-sided 95% CI, -4% to ∞]; P < .001 for noninferiority). The proportions of skeletal-related events did not differ significantly between the every 4-week dosing group vs the every 12-week dosing group for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma. Pain scores, performance status scores, incidence of jaw osteonecrosis, and kidney dysfunction did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. Skeletal morbidity rates were numerically identical in both groups, but bone turnover was greater (C-terminal telopeptide levels were higher) among patients who received zoledronic acid every 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, the use of zoledronic acid every 12 weeks compared with the standard dosing interval of every 4 weeks did not result in an increased risk of skeletal events over 2 years. This longer interval may be an acceptable treatment option.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00869206.

Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations about endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor (HR) -positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of evidence from 2008 through 2015 to create recommendations informed by that evidence. Outcomes of interest included sequencing of hormonal agents, hormonal agents compared with chemotherapy, targeted biologic therapy, and treatment of premenopausal women. This guideline puts forth recommendations for endocrine therapy as treatment for women with HR-positive MBC.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Sequential hormone therapy is the preferential treatment for most women with HR-positive MBC. Except in cases of immediately life-threatening disease, hormone therapy, alone or in combination, should be used as initial treatment. Patients whose tumors express any level of hormone receptors should be offered hormone therapy. Treatment recommendations should be based on type of adjuvant treatment, disease-free interval, and organ function. Tumor markers should not be the sole criteria for determining tumor progression; use of additional biomarkers remains experimental. Assessment of menopausal status is critical; ovarian suppression or ablation should be included in premenopausal women. For postmenopausal women, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the preferred first-line endocrine therapy, with or without the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor palbociclib. As second-line therapy, fulvestrant should be administered at 500 mg with a loading schedule and may be administered with palbociclib. The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus may be administered with exemestane to postmenopausal women with MBC whose disease progresses while receiving nonsteroidal AIs. Among patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive MBC, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-targeted therapy plus an AI can be effective for those who are not chemotherapy candidates.

Recommendations for the Use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs).

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update Committee and conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews from October 2005 through September 2014. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by the Update Committee.

RESULTS

Changes to previous recommendations include the addition of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, moderation of the recommendation regarding routine use of CSFs in older patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and addition of recommendations against routine dose-dense chemotherapy in lymphoma and in favor of high-dose-intensity chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. The Update Committee did not address recommendations regarding use of CSFs in acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in adults.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Prophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and no other equally effective and safe regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on the basis of age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense regimens that require CSFs should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total-body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death as a result of injury to other organs, include the prompt administration of CSFs.

Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations on the follow-up and management of patients with breast cancer who have completed primary therapy with curative intent.

METHODS

To update the 2006 guideline of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through March 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed the evidence to determine whether the recommendations were in need of updating.

RESULTS

There were 14 new publications that met inclusion criteria: nine systematic reviews (three included meta-analyses) and five randomized controlled trials. After its review and analysis of the evidence, the Update Committee concluded that no revisions to the existing ASCO recommendations were warranted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Physical examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. The use of complete blood counts, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, pelvic ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scans, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.

A single-arm, open-label, U.S. expanded access study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma

8567

Background: Vemurafenib (vem) has been FDA approved for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600E mutated melanoma since August 2011 based on results of a randomized phase III study (treatment-naive) and a single arm phase II study (previously treated). We report results of an expanded access study that allowed appropriate patients (pts) to receive vem until the drug was approved. Methods: Eligible pts had metastatic melanoma with a BRAFV600E mutation as detected by the cobas 4800 BRAFV600 Mutation Test. Enrolled pts received oral vem 960 mg b.i.d. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated for vem-related toxicities; tumor responses were assessed using RECIST 1.1. Results: 29 US sites screened 745 pts and enrolled 374 from December 2010 until October 2011. The following results are based on a median follow up time and treatment duration of 2 months. At baseline, mean age of pts was 54 y with 22% of pts ≥65 y; 75% had stage M1c disease; 29% had received radiotherapy for brain metastases. 19% of pts were ECOG PS 2 or 3; 71% of pts had prior systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma (21% 1 regimen; 50% ≥2 regimens). 50 pts had prior adjuvant treatment. At data cut-off, 243 pts had sufficient follow-up time for tumor assessment. In this group, the unconfirmed overall response rate was 52% (95% CI, 46 to 59). The median time to response was 1.8 months. Based on 240 pts with available ECOG PS status at time of analysis, response rate was 53% for pts with ECOG PS 0 or 1 (n=209), and 45% for pts with ECOG PS 2 or 3 (n=31). 370 pts were evaluable for safety analysis. The most common vem-related AEs were rash (36%), arthralgia (33%) and fatigue (21%) with the majority (~90%) of grade 1 or 2. 25 vem-related serious AEs were reported in 5.4% of pts with a slightly higher rate of pts with ECOG PS 2 or 3 (8.7%) compared to ECOG PS 0 or 1 (4.7%). 18% of pts missed at least one dose and 11% of pts required dose reduction of at least one level due to AEs. Conclusions: This expanded access study, with its limited follow-up time, confirms the established rapid and high tumor response rate with vem. No new safety signals were detected. Compared to the overall population, pts with an ECOG PS 2 or 3 demonstrated a similar benefit.

American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsement of the cancer care Ontario practice guideline on adjuvant ovarian ablation in the treatment of premenopausal women with early-stage invasive breast cancer

PURPOSE

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has policies and procedures for endorsing practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations.

METHODS

The Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Guideline on Adjuvant Ovarian Ablation (OA) in the Treatment of Premenopausal Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ad hoc review panel of experts reviewed the content.

RESULTS

The ASCO ad hoc OA guideline review panel concurred that the recommendations are clear, thorough, based on the most relevant scientific evidence in this content area, and present options that will be acceptable to patients. According to the CCO guideline: one, OA should not be routinely added to systemic therapy with chemotherapy, tamoxifen, or the combination of tamoxifen and chemotherapy; two, OA alone is not recommended as an alternative to any other form of systemic therapy, except in the specific case of patients who are candidates for other forms of systemic therapy but who, for some reason, will not receive any other systemic therapy (eg, patients who cannot tolerate other forms of systemic therapy or patients who choose no other form of systemic therapy); and three, when chemical suppression using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists is the chosen method of OA, in the opinion of the Breast Cancer Disease Site Group, monthly injection is the recommended mode of administration. The mode of administration in nearly all of the available trials has been monthly administration.

CONCLUSION

The ASCO review panel agrees with the recommendations as stated in the CCO guideline, with the qualification that ongoing research studies may alter the recommendations of the panel.

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 Update of the Breast Cancer Follow-Up and Management Guidelines in the Adjuvant Setting

Purpose

To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on breast cancer follow-up and management in the adjuvant setting.

Methods

An ASCO Expert Panel reviewed pertinent information from the literature through March 2006. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design.

Results

The evidence supports regular history, physical examination, and mammography as the cornerstone of appropriate breast cancer follow-up. All patients should have a careful history and physical examination performed by a physician experienced in the surveillance of cancer patients and in breast examination. Examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For those who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. Patients at high risk for familial breast cancer syndromes should be referred for genetic counseling. The use of CBCs, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography scanning, magnetic resonance imaging, or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine breast cancer follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.

Conclusion

Careful history taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are recommended for appropriate detection of breast cancer recurrence.