A multicenter evaluation of treatment patterns and outcomes for Adamantinoma-like Ewing sarcoma

e23500

Background: Sarcomas are a rare and heterogenous group of malignancies comprised of > 150 histologic subtypes. Adamantinoma-like Ewing sarcoma (ALES) is a rare, small round blue cell tumor that represents a variant of Ewing sarcoma (EWS). First described 20 years ago, ALES harbors a EWS subset defining EWS-related translocation; however, ALES has a complex epithelial differentiation component defining it as a distinct clinical entity. Most ALES cases arise in the head and neck, but it has also been reported in the extremities and thorax. Given the rarity of ALES, there is a paucity of literature to guide treatment and describe outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective review (January 1, 2010-January 1, 2022) at two sarcoma centers in the United States and identified 4 cases of ALES. Tumor and patient characteristics were described, and patient outcomes were assessed. Results: Four patients were identified. 3 (75%) were male. Median age at diagnosis was 37 years (range 23-57). Primary site of ALES was head and neck (50%) and thorax (50%). Median tumor size was 4 cm (2.7-5.5 cm). All patients underwent resection of their primary tumor, and two (50%)received adjuvant radiation therapy. All pts received/are receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. 75% of patients were treated with Vincristine, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphane (VDC) alternating with Ifosfamide & Etoposide (IE) for 12-14 cycles. One patient received 4 cycles of adjuvant carboplatin and etoposide and radiation after an initial diagnosis of basaloid carcinoma but recurred 47 months later and diagnosed at ALES at that time. That patient underwent re-resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with Vincristine, Doxorubicin, and Ifosfamide (VAI). Median follow-up from initial diagnosis was 25 months (3-39 months). All patients are alive with no evidence of disease. Conclusions: Similar to treatment of EWS, a multidisciplinary strategy is paramount. VDC/IE is a reasonable treatment strategy. Further multicenter collaboration is essential to define clinical characterization of this rare sarcoma subtype and to guide treatment particularly in the relapsed or refractory setting.[Table: see text]

Evaluation of formulation-associated ifosfamide neurotoxicity

e23562

Background: Ifosfamide, an alkylating agent used commonly in both hematologic and solid tumor malignancies, carries a notable risk for neurotoxicity/encephalopathy. Ifosfamide is available as both a reconstituted powder formulation and a solution for injection. Literature has shown that there may be higher rates of ifosfamide neurotoxicity/encephalopathy (INT/E) with the solution compared to the reconstituted powder. The primary objective of this study was to compare the rates of neurotoxicity/encephalopathy in association with the two available pharmaceutical formulations of ifosfamide. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of adult patients receiving at least one dose of either available pharmaceutical formulation of ifosfamide. The primary outcome was the incidence of formulation-associated INT/E. Secondary outcomes included additional risk factors for development of INT/E. Results: Of 218 patients evaluated, 212 were included in the study with 56 patients receiving the reconstituted powder formulation and 156 patients receiving the solution for injection formulation of ifosfamide. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, including dose of ifosfamide received, use of INT/E prophylaxis, and renal and hepatic function. INT/E occurred in 4 patients (7.1%) receiving the reconstituted powder formulation vs 32 patients (20.5%) receiving the solution for injection (p = 0.022) Evaluation and analysis of additional risk factors for development of INT/E are ongoing, including the impact of baseline demographics, ifosfamide dosing, renal and hepatic function, and concomitant medications. Conclusions: In this study, hematology/oncology patients who were treated with ifosfamide had significantly lower rates of INT/E with the reconstituted powder formulation compared to the solution for injection. Further analysis regarding additional risk factors for INT/E development is ongoing.[Table: see text]

Efficacy of liposomal doxorubicin in patients with intra- and extra-abdominal desmoid fibromatosis

11581

Background: Desmoid tumors (DT) or aggressive fibromatosis are rare growths of fibroblastic connective tissue that can be locally aggressive but without metastatic potential. Most cases are sporadic, but 5-20% of cases are associated with Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Despite numerous systemic options, optimal choice is unclear, and there is a paucity of studies comparing efficacy based on tumor site. Liposomal doxorubicin (LD) can be an appealing option for DT patients (pts) given its favorable schedule and toxicity profile. In this study, we compared outcomes in pts with intra-abdominal (IA) and extra-abdominal (EA) DT who received LD. Methods: We identified pts with DT who were treated with LD between 1/2010 - and 2/2022 at two sarcoma centers. Tumor and pt characteristics and outcomes were clinically (symptom improvement) and radiologically (RECIST 1.1) assessed. Results: 40 pts with DT treated with LD were identified; 58% female and 42% male. Pt characteristics and outcomes are summarized in Table 1. Primary tumor site was IA in 21 (53%) pts. FAP was present more commonly in pts with IA vs EA DT, 8/21 (43%) and 4/19 (21%), respectively. In the IA cohort, LD was given as first (15/21, 71%), second (10%) or third (19%) line therapy. LD was used more commonly as a later line in the EA cohort with 16%, 52%, 16%, and 16% receiving it in first, second, third, and fourth lines, respectively. 37 pts were evaluable for response. Response rate in the IA cohort treated in first-line was 50% (8 of 16) and 10 of 12 evaluable pts had symptomatic improvement. No first-line responses were seen in the EA cohort. As later lines of therapy, 7/12 pts had disease control in the second line, 6/8 pts in the third line, and 1/2 pts in the fourth line with LD in the IA cohort. 1 patient had fourth line response to LD in the EA cohort. Disease control rate with LD was 72.5% across all pts. Reasons for early discontinuation of LD included progression or lack of symptom improvement (20%), allergic reaction (12.5%), adverse effects (7.5%), or infection (2.5%). No acute or long-term cardiotoxicity was reported. 2 pts had no signs of recurrence or symptoms at follow-up, 33 pts were alive with symptomatic DT, 1 patient died from disease, and 3 were lost to follow-up. Conclusions: In our study, LD provided tumor response, disease control, and symptomatic improvement regardless of location or prior therapy, with responses most frequently seen in IA DT in first line setting. Further studies should include comparison of efficacy, adverse effects, and patient-reported outcomes while accounting for tumor location and line of therapy. [Table: see text]

A pilot study of the feasibility and utility of a fitness tracker to correlate activity level with patient reported outcomes (PROs) in sarcoma patients undergoing systemic therapy

11559

Background: The feasibility and utility of wearable devices is unknown in sarcoma patients (pts). Objective assessment of activity level, body composition, and PROs facilitate understanding of the tolerability and toxicity of cancer treatment. Methods: From 6/11-10/12/2020, we enrolled sarcoma pts receiving systemic therapy to a prospective study evaluating activity levels and sleep via a Fitbit Charge 3, body composition with the Inbody 570, and PROs using NIH PROMIS short forms (fatigue, pain, physical function, and sleep disturbance), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale. Time on study was 12-16 weeks depending upon treatment. The Fitbit was worn continuously. Body composition and PROs were assessed every 3-4 weeks. Feasibility was defined as successful device wearing and data syncing. Data was collected through a cloud-based application, Fitabase. Results: 22 pts were approached and enrolled. Two pts did not complete the first study assessment due to disease progression and were excluded from analysis. 50% of pts were female. 90% of pts were white. Median age was 47 yrs (range 20-81). The most common histologies were Ewing sarcoma and leiomyosarcoma. 89.5% (17/19) of pts wore the Fibit for >3 weeks; median time was 68 days (5-112). 95% (19/20) of pts were able to sync data. Median step count was 2614 steps (376-19806). High step counts, defined as greater than the median, were associated with improved sleep (p=0.14) and physical function (p=0.22), and decreased pain (p=0.15), but these associations were not statistically significant. Low step counts, defined as lower than the median, were associated with skeletal muscle mass loss (p=0.22), but this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Incorporating a fitness tracker is feasible in sarcoma pts receiving systemic therapy. It provides longitudinal, objective evaluation of activity levels and sleep patterns. Correlation of activity level with sleep, body composition, and PROs was limited due to small numbers; however, a larger prospective pilot study is ongoing.[Table: see text]

A phase III study (APROMISS) of AL3818 (Catequentinib, Anlotinib) hydrochloride monotherapy in subjects with metastatic or advanced synovial sarcoma

11505

Background: AL3818 (Catequentinib, Anlotinib) is a novel, orally administered, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The primary objective of this Phase 3 study is to evaluate the efficacy of AL3818 monotherapy in patients (pts) with synovial sarcoma (SS) comparing with dacarbazine in randomization setting. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of synovial sarcoma requiring second line or further line treatment were eligible for enrollment. The regimen was a 21-day cycle with oral AL3818 administered on 14 days on and 7 days off. This phase 3 trial is randomized in 2:1 ratio of AL3818 comparing to dacarbazine with option of crossover after PD of dacarbazine treatment. Progression free survival (PFS) with Log Rank test is the primary endpoint and this trial for SS is currently completed enrolled in US and Italy. Results: Total 79 pts initiated treatment and are evaluable, 52 received AL3818 as treatment arm (T), and 27 received dacarbazine (D) as control arm (C). Arms T/C median ages were 40.5/42.0 years (range: 18-70+) and 20/16 (38.5%/59.3%) were male. Overall, PFS was 2.89 months (95% CI: 2.73 – 6.87) for AL3818 and 1.64 (95% CI: 1.45 – 2.70) for D. The PFS of study met the primary endpoint with a p-value of 0.0015 and a HR of 0.449 (95% CI: 0.270– 0.744). At the month 4, 6, and 12, the percentages of progression free patients for AL3818 were 48.1%, 42.3% and 26.9%; and for D were 14.85%, 11.1% and 3.7%. For grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, 12(23.1%) of pts experienced for AL3818 and 7(25.9%) of pts experienced for D. The most common AL3818 related grade 3 AEs were diarrhea (5.8%) and hypertension (3.8%). Conclusions: This phase III trial demonstrates improved disease control and superior progression free survival for AL3818 vs dacarbazine in advanced SS. In addition, the study further confirms the acceptable benefit-risk profile of AL3818 from the prior randomized Phase 2b soft tissue sarcoma study (NCT02449343). AL3818 is a meaningful treatment option for pts with advanced SS. Clinical trial information: NCT 03016819 Clinical trial information: NCT03016819.

Multi-institutional analysis of outcomes in patients with dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (DDCS)

11028

Background: DDCS is a rare bone tumor with a poor prognosis. While no standard therapy exists, NCCN guidelines recommend osteosarcoma regimens (ORs). Methods: We performed a retrospective review (January 1, 2007-June 1, 2018) at three sarcoma centers and identified 46 patients (pts) with DDCS to evaluate treatments and outcomes. Results: Median age was 62.5 years (23-83); 61% were male. Median tumor size was 10.5cm (2-34). Most pts had localized disease at diagnosis (dx) (80%), extremity primary (76%), and did not receive neo/adjuvant chemotherapy (70%) or radiotherapy (69%). Local and distant recurrences were frequent (35% and 57%, respectively) and rapid (6.6 months (m) and 5.4 m, respectively). Twenty-eight pts received chemotherapy, 9 neo/adjuvant and 19 for metastasis (met) (Table). Response rate to first line ORs was poor (53% progressed). Notably, 11% had a partial response (D/I). Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) led to stable disease. Median overall survival was 22.8 m and 7.2 m; 5-year survival rates were 30% and 0% in localized and metastatic disease, respectively. Median follow-up was 12.5 m (1.4-120). A multivariate cox proportional hazards model (age, sex, location, met at dx) identified met at dx as the only risk factor for worse prognosis (HR 2.8, p=0.026). Conclusions: DDCS is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. Despite guidelines to treat with ORs, the benefit is unclear, illustrating the need for randomized trials comparing standard regimens to novel agents. [Table: see text]

A phase II randomized study of CMB305 and atezolizumab versus atezolizumab in NY-ESO-1+ soft tissue sarcoma: Analysis of immunogenicity, tumor control, and patient survival

11011

Background: CMB305 (C) is an immunotherapy designed to generate an anti-NY-ESO-1 immune response (IR). C consists of a dendritic cell-targeting lentiviral vector encoding NY-ESO-1 gene (LV305), and a TLR-4 agonist NY-ESO-1 recombinant protein plus GLA-SE (G305). A Phase 1 study demonstrated C is safe, generates IR and conveys a median overall survival (mOS) of 23.7 months (15.5, not reached [NR]) for soft tissue sarcomas & 29.2 months (12.2, NR) for synovial sarcoma (SS) (ESMO 2018). We evaluated efficacy and safety of C and atezolizumab (A) vs A alone in NY-ESO-1+ SS and myxoid round cell liposarcoma (MRCL). Methods: A prospective randomized open label phase 2 study of C (LV305 Intradermal Days 0, 14, 42, 70 + G305 Intramuscular Days 28, 56, 84 then q 6wk up to one year (yr)) + A (1200mg IV q3wk) vs A alone in advanced NY-ESO-1+ SS/MRCL. Primary endpoints of OS and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints of safety, IR, and response rate and post hoc analysis by line of therapy. Results: 88 patients (pts) were enrolled and dosed. Arm C+A: median age 48 yrs, 73% SS, 98% relapsed metastatic, 73% ≥2 prior lines chemotherapy; Arm A: 47 yrs, 67% SS, 84% relapsed metastatic, 53% ≥2 prior lines chemotherapy. Most treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) Grade 1/2, no treatment related deaths. Summary of clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Despite no major differences in PFS and OS between the treatment arms (Arm C+A had more advanced disease and more prior lines of chemotherapy), Arm A +C achieved PRs, a higher level of anti-NY-ESO-1 IR, and pts with IR had numerically superior outcomes. Moreover, the clinical benefit of C+A in earlier lines of therapy warrant further study. Clinical trial information: NCT02609984. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of vemurafenib in patients (pts) with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with BRAFV600 mutation

9074

Background: BRAFV600 mutations occur in 1–2% of pts with NSCLC. We previously reported the efficacy of vemurafenib, a selective BRAFV600 inhibitor, in BRAF mutation-positive non-melanoma tumors (VE-BASKET study). We now present final data for the expanded NSCLC cohort. Methods: This open-label, histology-independent, phase 2 study included 6 prespecified cohorts (including NSCLC) plus one ‘all-others’ cohort. Pts received vemurafenib (960 mg bid) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included best overall response rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Because the pre-specified clinical benefit endpoint was met in the initial NSCLC cohort, the cohort was expanded. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01524978. Results: Database lock was 12 Jan 2017. Of 208 pts enrolled at 25 centers worldwide, 62 pts had NSCLC: median age 65 years; 56% male; 13% had no prior systemic therapy; 50% had ≥2 prior therapies. Responses were seen in previously treated and untreated pts (Table). The most common all-grade adverse event (AE) was nausea (40%); grade 3–5 AEs included keratoacanthoma (15%) and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin (15%). Six pts discontinued vemurafenib due to AEs; two had non-treatment-related fatal AEs. Conclusions: Vemurafenib showed evidence of encouraging efficacy in pts with NSCLC with BRAFV600 mutation, with prolonged PFS in previously untreated pts; median OS was not estimable due to ongoing responses. The safety profile of vemurafenib was similar to that seen in melanoma studies. Our results suggest a role for BRAF inhibition in NSCLC with BRAF mutations. Clinical trial information: NCT01524978. [Table: see text]

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAFV600 mutant glioma: A cohort of the histology-independent VE-basket study

2004

Background: Recurrent malignant gliomas (MG) are a universally fatal disease in desperate need of better therapies. Pleiomorphic xanthoastrocytomas (PXA) and juvenile pilocytic astrocytomas (JPA) typically have better outcomes, although when recurrent, also represent an aggressive disease with no proven effective chemotherapy. BRAFV600 alterations have been identified in a substantial proportion of gliomas, including glioblastoma (GBM), astrocytoma, PXA, and JPA. The phase 2, open-label, histology-independent VE-BASKET study of vemurafenib, a selective BRAFV600 kinase inhibitor, in patients with BRAF mutation-positive non-melanoma tumors, included those with gliomas in the ‘all-others’ cohort. We now report final data for patients with recurrent gliomas. Methods: Patients received vemurafenib (960 mg bid) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed response rate; secondary endpoints included clinical benefit rate (confirmed complete or partial response or stable disease lasting ≥6 months), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01524978. Results: 24 patients (median age 32 years; 18 female, 6 male) with glioma were treated, including mg (n = 11; 6 GBM and 5 anaplastic astrocytoma [AA]), PXA (n = 7), anaplastic ganglioglioma (AG, n = 3), JPA (n = 2), and unknown (n = 1). In patients with mg (n = 11), best response included PR (n = 1; AA), SD (n = 5), PD (n = 3), and unknown (n = 2). Two patients with mg had durable SD lasting 12.9 months (GBM) and 14.9 months (AA). In patients with PXA (n = 7), best response included CR (n = 1), PR (n = 2), SD (n = 3), and PD (n = 1). Additionally, 1 patient with JPA and 1 with AG achieved a PR. The most frequent AEs included arthralgia (67%), melanocytic nevus (38%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (38%), photosensitivity reaction (38%) and alopecia (33%). Conclusions: Vemurafenib demonstrated activity in patients with BRAFV600 mutant glioma. The safety profile was similar to that seen in previous melanoma studies. Survival data will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT01524978.

First-in-class oral ERK1/2 inhibitor Ulixertinib (BVD-523) in patients with advanced solid tumors: Final results of a phase I dose escalation and expansion study

2508

Background: Aberrant MAPK pathway activation is known to be an oncogenic driver in many solid tumors, making ERK inhibition an attractive therapeutic strategy. Ulixertinib is an oral ERK1/2 inhibitor that demonstrated potent activity in vitro and tumor regression in BRAF and RAS mutant xenograft models. Methods: This multi-center phase I trial enrolled patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors. Dose escalation utilized an accelerated 3+3 design; expansion cohorts included BRAF or NRAS mutant melanoma and other BRAF or MEK mutant cancers. Study objectives were to characterize dose limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicity profile, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and preliminary anti-tumor activity by RECIST 1.1. Results: A total of 135 pts were enrolled. Dose escalation enrolled 27 pts (10-900 mg BID) and established the MTD and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 600 mg BID. DLTs included rash, diarrhea, elevated AST, and elevated creatinine. Drug exposure was dose proportional up to the RP2D, which provided near-complete inhibition of ERK activity in whole blood. In the 108 pt expansion cohort, there were no drug related deaths; however, 32% of pts required a dose reduction. The most common adverse events were rash (49%), diarrhea (47%), fatigue (41%), and nausea (37%). In addition to 3 pts with partial responses during escalation (11%), an additional 9 of 83 (11%) evaluable pts at expansion had a partial response: 1 melanoma pt refractory to prior BRAFi/MEKi treatment, 3 NRAS mutant melanoma pts, 2 pts with BRAF V600E mutant lung cancers including response in brain metastases, 1 with BRAF V600E mutant glioblastoma multiforme, 1 with BRAF G469A head & neck cancer, and 1 with BRAFL485W gallbladder cancer. The duration of response ranged from 2 to 24+ months. Conclusions: Ulixertinib at 600 mg twice a day has an acceptable safety profile and has produced durable responses in pts with NRAS mutant melanoma, BRAF V600 and non-V600 mutant solid tumors including melanoma, glioblastoma multiforme, lung cancers with brain metastases, gallbladder and head & neck cancers. These data support further clinical development of ulixertinib. Clinical trial information: NCT01781429.

Tumor volume score (TVS), modified recist, and tissue damage score (TDS) as novel methods for assessing response in tenosynovial giant cell tumors (TGCT) treated with pexidartinib: Relationship with patient-reported outcomes (PROs)

11048

Background: TGCT is a locally aggressive neoplasm of joint and tendon sheath synovia that may cause pain, limit joint function and destroy bone and local tissues. Measuring TGCT with RECIST is a challenge due to irregular shape and asymmetrical growth, and local tissue damage is not assessed. We reported earlier results of a longitudinal trial of pexidartinib, a selective CSF1R kinase inhibitor, using RECIST as well as novel TVS, modified RECIST and TDS. Here we examine concordance of these MRI measures with PROs. Methods: Patients (pts) with progressive TGCT in a single-arm, multi-center trial of pexidartinib (1000 mg po daily) were assessed by MRI every 2 months by 2 central radiologists (blind to visit order). For RECIST, longest measurable dimensions of up to 2 tumors per joint or tendon sheath were summed (SLD). Modified RECIST summed short axis dimensions (SSD). TVS was based on 10% increments of the estimated maximally distended normal synovial cavity or tendon sheath. TDS scored bone erosion (ERO), cartilage loss (CAR) and bone marrow edema (BME) in multiple regions of each joint. The relationship with PROs (Worst Pain numerical rating scale [NRS] and Worst Stiffness NRS) was assessed. Results: 15 pts (7 knees, 3 hips, 2 ankles, 1 elbow, 1 wrist, 1 thigh) with PRO data and evaluable MRI scans at baseline and Month 7 were assessed. All SLD, SSD and TVS scores improved with respective median changes of -25%, -39% and -50%. Baseline ERO, CAR, and BME ranged 0-19, 0-34, and 0-15, respectively. Median change for each was 0%: ERO worsened in 1 pt, CAR did not change, and BME improved in 4 and worsened in 2. Worst Pain NRS and Worst Stiffness NRS improved in 11 and 9 pts, respectively. Conclusions: TVS demonstrated the greatest pexidartinib effect size, followed by SSD and then conventional RECIST. All had good concordance with PROs. Clinical trial information: NCT01004861. [Table: see text]

A phase II study of erlotinib followed by chemotherapy on progression in an unselected population of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients

7568

Background: Erlotinib is now accepted as first line therapy for advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR mutated tumors. However, some patients with EGFR wild-type tumors may benefit as well, and there are no accepted biomarkers to define this subset of patients or to define which patients benefit from chemotherapy. We conducted a single arm phase II trial of erlotinib followed by chemotherapy on progression (carboplatin + paclitaxel +/- bevacizumab) in treatment naïve patients with stage IV NSCLC. Methods: In this multicenter prospective phase II trial, patients with stage IV NSCLC were eligible for enrollment. Blood, frozen tissue and FFPE biopsies for molecular analysis were mandatory at the time of study entry and optional at the time of progression on erlotinib. Additional eligibility included ECOG performance status (PS) 0-2, measurable disease, and adequate marrow, renal and hepatic function. Patients with stable treated brain metastases were allowed. Patients were treated with erlotinib 150 mg daily until disease progression at which time they underwent a biopsy and were switched to carboplatin/paclitaxel +/- bevacizumab. Disease status was assessed after 4 weeks of erlotinib to detect early progression. Results: From 10/07 to 06/11, 127 patients were enrolled: 59% male, 90% Caucasian, 6% African American, 4% Asian, 30% never smokers. 7 patients failed screening. Among evaluable patients on erlotinib, 13% had PR, 48% SD, and 27% PD. Median PFS on erlotinib was 4.7 months (95% CI 3.5 to 8.3 months). In patients who went on to receive chemotherapy on protocol, 24% had PR, 27% SD, and 20% PD. In patients who went on to receive chemotherapy on protocol median progression-free survival (PFS) on chemotherapy was 8.1 months (95% CI 5.5 to 10.9 months). Among the 55 patients who did not receive chemotherapy, 23 had a decline in PS, 14 patients refused, 2 patients enrolled on another protocol, and 6 patients had other therapy. Conclusions: This is the first study to report on PFS in unselected NSCLC patients following first line therapy with erlotinib. Translational studies on this large prospectively collected cohort of tissue samples prior to initiation of erlotinib are ongoing.

A phase II study of second-line bendamustine in relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC)

7094

Background: Bendamustine is an alkylating agent with a nitrogen mustard group and purine-like benzimidazole group. Bendamustine in combination with carboplatin has shown efficacy as first line therapy in extensive stage SCLC with RR 73%, TTP 5.2 months and OS 8.3 months [Köster, et al, JCO 2007]. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of single agent bendamustine as 2nd or 3rd line therapy in patients with extensive-stage disease, small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Methods: This is an open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase II trial. Eligible patients had previously treated ED-SCLC, up to 2 prior regimens, ECOG performance status 0-2, evaluable/measurable disease, and adequate marrow, renal and hepatic function. Patients with stable treated brain metastases were allowed. Patients were treated with bendamustine (120mg/m2 IV days 1 and 2 every 3 weeks) for up to 6 cycles. Evaluation occurred every 2 cycles. Primary endpoint was TTP; secondary endpoints include RR, PFS, OS, and toxicity. Results: 48 patients were enrolled; 56% were male and 96% were Caucasian. 33 patients were evaluable for response. There was 1 CR, 9 PR, 13 SD (48% disease control rate) and 10 PD. Median TTP was 3.37 months (95% CI 2.30 to 4.47 months). At the time of analysis, 13 patients were alive and with a median overall survival of 4.77 months (95% CI 3.67 to 6.07 months). 5 patients (10.4%) required dose reductions due to AEs, 2 due to fatigue, 1 due to neutropenia, 1 due to pancytopenia and 1 due to pneumonia. Grade 3/4 AEs included fatigue (18.8%), dyspnea (14.5%), infection without neutropenia (12.5%), anemia (8.3%), neutropenia (8.3%), and diarrhea (8.3%). Conclusions: These data indicate that single agent bendamustine appears to be well tolerated and effective in the second or third line setting for patients with SCLC.

American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Mutation testing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer considering first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy

PURPOSE

An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the clinical utility of using epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation testing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to predict the benefit of taking a first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).

CLINICAL CONTEXT

Patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC have a significantly higher rate of partial responses to the EGFR TKIs gefitinib and erlotinib. In the United States, approximately 15% of patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung harbor activating EGFR mutations. EGFR mutation testing is widespread at academic medical centers and in some locales in community practice. As of yet, there is no evidence of an overall survival (OS) benefit from selecting treatment based on performing this testing.

RECENT DATA

One large phase III trial (the Iressa Pan-Asia Study [IPASS] trial), three smaller phase III randomized controlled trials using progression-free survival as the primary end point, and one small phase III trial with OS as the primary end point, all involving first-line EGFR TKIs and chemotherapy doublets, form the basis of this PCO.

PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION

On the basis of the results of five phase III randomized controlled trials, patients with NSCLC who are being considered for first-line therapy with an EGFR TKI (patients who have not previously received chemotherapy or an EGFR TKI) should have their tumor tested for EGFR mutations to determine whether an EGFR TKI or chemotherapy is the appropriate first-line therapy. NOTE. ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical practice and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical trials. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.