Ross, Helen J.

125 Background: Esophageal cancer is best managed by multimodality therapy, frequently with chemotherapy (C) or chemo- radiotherapy (CRT) preceding resection. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly accepted, but studies of MIE in advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer after induction CRT are lacking. This report presents the data on MIE as part of tri-modality therapy for esophageal cancer at Mayo Clinic in Arizona (MCA). Methods: Patients (pts) who underwent CRT before or after MIE for cancer at MCA between November 2006 and May of 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Results: 46 pts (40 males, and 6 females) met study criteria and were reviewed. Median age was 62 years (41-88 years). 45 pts (98%) had adenocarcinoma and one pt had squamous carcinoma. Initial clinical stage was IIA in 10 pts (22%), IIB in 3 pts (7%), III in 26 pts (55%), and IVA in 7 pts (15%) with positive celiac nodes. 43 pts (93%) underwent preoperative CRT with additional intra-operative radiotherapy in 4 pts. Median operating time was 354 min (range 211-567 min), median blood loss was 225 ml (range 50-1,400 ml), and median hospital stay was 8 days (range 5-48 days). 19 pts (41%), including the 3 who did not undergo preoperative CRT, received postoperative C or CRT due to either residual disease at resection or to local recurrence. 30 of 43 pts undergoing MIE after CRT were down staged (11 CR [25.6%], 10 near CR [23.3%]) demonstrating a major response to neoadjuvant therapy in 48.9% of pts. One pt died in hospital (from ARDS and sepsis subsequent to aspiration pneumonia) and two pts died within 30 days of surgery (one from pulmonary embolism, and the other from unknown causes) for a 30 day surgical mortality of 6.5%. 29 pts (63%) had a complication of surgery including 11 (24%) minor and 18 (39%) major complications. After a median follow-up of 13 months (range 0.9-43 months) 16 pts were diagnosed with recurrent disease and 10 of these pts have died of their disease. Conclusions: CRT with MIE is associated with an acceptable morbidity and mortality level for pts with locally advanced esophageal cancer. These results compare favorably with morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates in open esophagectomy pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract Lessons Learned Targeted therapy options for SCLC patients are limited; no agent, thus far, has resulted in a strategy promising enough to progress to phase III trials. Linsitinib, a potent insulin growth factor-1-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may be one agent with activity against SCLC. Despite lack of a reliable predictive biomarker in this disease, which may have partly contributed to the negative outcome reported here, linsitinib, although safe, showed no clinical activity in unselected, relapsed SCLC patients. Background. Treatment of relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains suboptimal. Insulin growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) signaling plays a role in growth, survival, and chemoresistance in SCLC. Linsitinib is a potent IGF-1R tyrosine kinase inhibitor that potentially may be active against SCLC. Methods. In this phase II study, 8 eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to topotecan (1.5 mg/m2 intravenously or 2.3 mg/m2 orally, daily for 5 days for 4 cycles) or linsitinib (150 mg orally twice daily until progression). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Patients with relapsed SCLC, platinum sensitive or resistant, performance status (PS) 0–2, and adequate hematologic, renal, and hepatic function were enrolled. Patients with diabetes, cirrhosis, and those taking insulinotropic agents were excluded. Crossover to linsitinib was allowed at progression. Results. Fifteen patients received topotecan (8 resistant, 3 with PS 2) and 29 received linsitinib (16 resistant, 5 with PS 2). Two partial responses were observed with topotecan. Only 4 of 15 patients with topotecan and 1 of 29 with linsitinib achieved stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 3.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5–3.6) and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.1–1.4) months for topotecan and linsitinib, respectively (p = .0001). Median survival was 5.3 (95% CI, 2.2–7.6) and 3.4 (95% CI, 1.8–5.6) months for topotecan and linsitinib, respectively (p = .71). Grade 3/4 adverse events (>5% incidence) included anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia/leukopenia, diarrhea, fatigue, dehydration, and hypokalemia for topotecan; and thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase elevations for linsitinib. Conclusion. Linsitinib was safe but showed no clinical activity in unselected, relapsed SCLC patients.

AbstractThis analysis was performed to create a scoring system to estimate the survival of patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from 1274NSCLCpatients were analyzed to create and validate a scoring system. Univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) Cox models were used to evaluate the prognostic importance of each baseline factor. Prognostic factors that were significant on bothUVandMVanalyses were used to develop the score. These included quality of life, age, performance status, primary tumor diameter, nodal status, distant metastases, and smoking cessation. The score for each factor was determined by dividing the 5‐year survival rate (%) by 10 and summing these scores to form a total score.MVmodels and the score were validated using bootstrapping with 1000 iterations from the original samples. The score for each prognostic factor ranged from 1 to 7 points with higher scores reflective of better survival. Total scores (sum of the scores from each independent prognostic factor) of 32–37 correlated with a 5‐year survival of 8.3% (95%CI = 0–17.1%), 38–43 correlated with a 5‐year survival of 20% (95%CI = 13–27%), 44–47 correlated with a 5‐year survival of 48.3% (95%CI = 41.5–55.2%), 48–49 correlated to a 5‐year survival of 72.1% (95%CI = 65.6–78.6%), and 50–52 correlated to a 5‐year survival of 84.7% (95%CI = 79.6–89.8%). The bootstrap method confirmed the reliability of the score. Prognostic factors significantly associated with survival on bothUVandMVanalyses were used to construct a valid scoring system that can be used to predict survival ofNSCLCpatients. Optimally, this score could be used when counseling patients, and designing future trials.

Abstract Purpose: This randomized phase II study was initially designed to test the activity of two dose schedules of lapatinib (GW572016H), an oral, reversible, dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human EGFR-2 (HER2/neu; HER2), in chemotherapy-naive patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); it was later amended to target patients with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma or no smoking history. Experimental Design: Patients with good performance status and recurrent or metastatic NSCLC were randomized to lapatinib (orally, 1,500 mg once daily or 500 mg twice daily) until progression or intolerance. Patients could have had a maximum of one prior systemic therapy (chemotherapy or biological therapy) for NSCLC. Safety and activity were assessed every 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. Tumors were analyzed for EGFR and HER2 mutations and/or amplifications. Results: Of 75 patients in the nontargeted population, 1 (1.3%) had partial response and 16 (21%) had stable disease of ≥24 weeks. No complete or partial responses were observed in 56 patients in the targeted population; 14 (25%) had stable disease of ≥24 weeks. No responses were seen in three patients with EGFR mutations and five with EGFR gene amplification. No mutations in HER2 were found. One of two patients with HER2 amplification had a 51% decrease in tumor size; however, this response was unconfirmed. The most common adverse events were grade 1 or 2 diarrhea, rash, fatigue, nausea, and anorexia. Adverse events were similar across dosing regimens. Conclusions: Lapatinib was well tolerated, with no notable difference in toxicity between treatment groups. Lapatinib monotherapy did not induce a significant number of tumor regressions in NSCLC. Further studies may be warranted to determine whether lapatinib is active in combination with other agents in the treatment of NSCLC. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1938–49