Loprinzi, Charles

PURPOSE The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A221805) was to screen two doses of duloxetine for preventing sensory oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN). METHODS Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive once daily 30 mg duloxetine, 60 mg duloxetine, or placebo. Eligible participants had stage II to III colorectal cancer and no baseline neuropathy, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, were age 25 years and older, and received oxaliplatin via one of the following doses and schedules: 85 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks (6 or 12 doses) or 130 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks (4 doses). Duloxetine/placebo was taken once daily beginning day 1 of cycle 1 and continued for 17 weeks. The primary end point, a composite response reflecting sensory OIPN symptom severity and onset, was measured in weeks 19-21 using a validated participant-reported outcome survey assessing extremity numbness, tingling, and pain. Response was defined as a participant-reported highest score of ≤2 (ie, 1 = not at all; 2 = a little) on survey items. To be evaluable for the response end point, eligible participants must have initiated oxaliplatin and submitted ≥1 postbaseline OIPN survey. RESULTS Of the 199 participants (n = 66, 30 mg duloxetine; n = 66, 60 mg duloxetine; n = 67, placebo), 46, 47, and 50 (N = 143, 71.8%), respectively, were evaluable for primary end point analysis based on modified intention-to-treat criteria. Participant mean age was 55.1 years (standard deviation = 10.4). Most were White (n = 113, 80.7%) and male (n = 82, 58.6%). The proportion of responders among those receiving placebo (68.0%) was similar to those receiving duloxetine 30 mg (65.2%) or 60 mg (66.0%). Duloxetine adherence rates, measured via pill counts—30 mg (54%), 60 mg (57%), and placebo (59%) groups—were low (<75%). CONCLUSION Duloxetine is not more promising than placebo for preventing sensory OIPN.

AbstractBackgroundLow molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the guideline‐endorsed treatment for cancer‐associated venous thromboembolism (cVTE). Study objectives were to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban and enoxaparin in cVTE.MethodsUsing a cohort study design, consecutive patients with cVTE (3/1/2013‐7/31/2016), enrolled in the Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic Direct Oral Anticoagulants Registry, were compared to contemporary cancer patients receiving enoxaparin. The cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, major and clinically relevant non‐major bleeding, and survival were assessed at 3 and 12 months.ResultsNinety‐eight patients received rivaroxaban (51% female, mean age 63 ± 12 years) and 168 enoxaparin (34.5% female, mean age 62 ± 15 years). The most common cancers included gastrointestinal/pancreatic, genitourinary and hematologic cancers. More than half of patients had pulmonary emboli at presentation. More than half had metastases, and two‐thirds were receiving chemotherapy. At 3 months, there were no differences in VTE recurrence (rivaroxaban 1.0% vs enoxaparin 4.2%; P = .15), major bleeding (rivaroxaban 5.1% vs enoxaparin 3.6%; P = .55), or all‐cause mortality (rivaroxaban 4.1% vs enoxaparin 8.9%; P = .14). At 12 months, these outcomes did not differ by treatment strategy.ConclusionThe results of this “real‐world” experience with cVTE suggest that rivaroxaban may offer a safe and effective alternative to LMWH.

Abstract Purpose: Hyperactivation of AKT is common and associated with endocrine resistance in estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer. The allosteric pan-AKT inhibitor MK-2206 induced apoptosis in PIK3CA-mutant ER+ breast cancer under estrogen-deprived condition in preclinical studies. This neoadjuvant phase II trial was therefore conducted to test the hypothesis that adding MK-2206 to anastrozole induces pathologic complete response (pCR) in PIK3CA mutant ER+ breast cancer. Experimental Design: Potential eligible patients with clinical stage II/III ER+/HER2− breast cancer were preregistered and received anastrozole (goserelin if premenopausal) for 28 days in cycle 0 pending tumor PIK3CA sequencing. Patients positive for PIK3CA mutation in the tumor were eligible to start MK-2206 (150 mg orally weekly, with prophylactic prednisone) on cycle 1 day 2 (C1D2) and to receive a maximum of four 28-day cycles of combination therapy before surgery. Serial biopsies were collected at preregistration, C1D1 and C1D17. Results: Fifty-one patients preregistered and 16 of 22 with PIK3CA-mutant tumors received study drug. Three patients went off study due to C1D17 Ki67 &gt;10% (n = 2) and toxicity (n = 1). Thirteen patients completed neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery. No pCRs were observed. Rash was common. MK-2206 did not further suppress cell proliferation and did not induce apoptosis on C1D17 biopsies. Although AKT phosphorylation was reduced, PRAS40 phosphorylation at C1D17 after MK-2206 persisted. One patient acquired an ESR1 mutation at surgery. Conclusions: MK-2206 is unlikely to add to the efficacy of anastrozole alone in PIK3CA-mutant ER+ breast cancer and should not be studied further in the target patient population. Clin Cancer Res; 23(22); 6823–32. ©2017 AACR.