Back to Authors

Levine, Edward A

0000-0002-7683-9502

Mayo Clinic

Division of Surgical Oncology, Surgical Oncology Section, Wake Forest Baptist Health Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.

Citations 3

Utility of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in cases of incomplete cytoreductive surgery
Mangieri, Christopher W. , Moaven, Omeed , Valenzuela, Cristian D. , Votanopoulos, Konstantinos I., Shen, Perry , Levine, Edward A. , Levine, Edward A , W Mangieri, Christopher , Moaven, Omeed , Erali, Richard A.

Journal of Surgical Oncology | November 29, 2021 | Volume: 125 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 703-711

10.1002/jso.26759 Get It

AbstractIntroductionHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is typically reserved for a complete or optimal cytoreduction. There is the potential for therapeutic effect of HIPEC with an incomplete cytoreduction, particularly for near optimal cytoreductions.MethodsRetrospective review of incomplete cytoreductions (R2b, R2c) for appendiceal and colorectal primaries. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS). Subgroup analysis for primary etiology and specific cytoreductive score.ResultsA total of 121 cases of incomplete CRS, 74 CRS alone, and 47 CRS‐HIPEC. For the entire study group there was a survival benefit with HIPEC. OS and PFS were 2.3 versus 1.4 (p = 0.001) and 1.6 versus 0.7 (p < 0.0001) respectively for cases with and without HIPEC. Subgroup analysis of appendiceal neoplasms, 43 CRS‐HIPEC and 50 CRS alone, found HIPEC benefit persisted; OS and PFS were 2.4 versus 1.5 (p = 0.016) and 1.7 versus 0.8 (p < 0.0001), respectively for cases with and without HIPEC. Benefit most pronounced in low‐grade cases with doubling of the OS and PFS (p = 0.004). With colorectal primary cases, 10 CRS‐HIPEC and 18 CRS alone, no difference in OS and PFS. When stratifying out by cytoreduction scores, R2b and R2c, HIPEC only provided a benefit for R2b cases; OS and PFS for R2b cases were 2.28 versus 1.01 (p = 0.011) and 1.67 versus 0.75 (p = 0.001), respectively for cases with and without HIPEC.ConclusionHIPEC has utility for incomplete cytoreductions with appendiceal neoplasms, greatest effect with low‐grade appendiceal neoplasms. HIPEC is only beneficial for near optimal cytoreductions (R2b).
Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of seviprotimut-L polyvalent melanoma vaccine in patients with post-resection melanoma at high risk of recurrence
Slingluff, Craig L. , Lewis, Karl D. , Andtbacka, Robert Hans Ingemar, Hyngstrom, John , Milhem, Mohammed , Bowles, Tawnya L. , Hamid, Omid , Hernandez‐Aya, Leonel F. , Claveau, Joël, Jang, Sekwon, Philips, Prejesh, Holtan, Shernan G. , Shaheen, Montaser , Curti, Brendan D. , Schmidt, William, Butler, Marcus O. , Paramo, Juan, Lutzky, Jose , Padmanabhan, Arvinda, Thomas, Sajeve , Milton, Daniel T., Pecora, Andrew L. , Sato, Takami , Hsueh, Eddy C. , Badarinath, Suprith, Keech, John A., Kalmadi, Sujith, Kumar, Pallavi , Weber, Robert, Levine, Edward A. , Berger, Adam C. , Bar, Anna, Travers, Jeffrey B. , Mihalcioiu, Catalin , Gastman, Brian , Beitsch, Peter D. , Rapisuwon, Suthee , McCarron, Edward C. , Gupta, Vinay , Behl, Deepti , Blumenstein, Brent A. , Peterkin, Joanna, Curti, Brendan , Lutzky, Jose , Rapisuwon, Suthee , Milhem, Mohammed M , Butler, Marcus O , Levine, Edward A , Holtan, Shernan , Markovic, Svetomir N. , Paramo, Juan, Milton, Daniel, Beck, J. Thaddeus , Glaspy, John A.

Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer | October 1, 2021 | Volume: 9 | Issue: 10 | Pages: e003272

10.1136/jitc-2021-003272 Get It

Background Most patients with advanced melanomas relapse after checkpoint blockade therapy. Thus, immunotherapies are needed that can be applied safely early, in the adjuvant setting. Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine containing human melanoma antigens, plus alum. To assess the efficacy of seviprotimut-L, the Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study (MAVIS) was initiated as a three-part multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Results from part B1 are reported here. Methods Patients with AJCC V.7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma after resection were randomized 2:1, with stage stratification (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C), to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was the primary endpoint. For an hypothesized HR of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%, target enrollment was 325 patients. Results For randomized patients (n=347), arms were well-balanced, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar for seviprotimut-L and placebo. For the primary intent-to-treat endpoint of RFS, the estimated HR was 0.881 (95% CI: 0.629 to 1.233), with stratified logrank p=0.46. However, estimated HRs were not uniform over the stage randomized strata, with HRs (95% CIs) for stages IIB/IIC, IIIA, IIIB/IIIC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.19), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.35 to 1.50), and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.72 to 1.97), respectively. In the stage IIB/IIC stratum, the effect on RFS was greatest for patients <60 years old (HR=0.324 (95% CI: 0.121 to 0.864)) and those with ulcerated primary melanomas (HR=0.493 (95% CI: 0.255 to 0.952)). Conclusions Seviprotimut-L is very well tolerated. Exploratory efficacy model estimation supports further study in stage IIB/IIC patients, especially younger patients and those with ulcerated melanomas. Trial registration number NCT01546571.
NSABP B-38: Definitive analysis of a randomized adjuvant trial comparing dose-dense (DD) AC→paclitaxel (P) plus gemcitabine (G) with DD AC→P and with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer.
Tang, Gong, Rastogi, Priya , Atkins, James N., Donnellan, Paul , Azar, Catherine A., Robidoux, André, Polikoff, Jonathan, Brufsky, Adam , Biggs, David D., Levine, Edward A. , Zapas, John L., Provencher, Louise , Perez, Edith A. , Costantino, Joseph P., Mamounas, Eleftherios P. , Swain, Sandra M. , Tang, Gong , Geyer, Charles E. , Fehrenbacher, Louis , Paik, Soonmyung , Mamounas, Eleftherios P. , Wolmark, Norman , Brufsky, Adam M , Levine, Edward A

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 30 | Issue: 18_suppl | Pages: LBA1000-LBA1000

10.1200/jco.2012.30.18_suppl.lba1000 Get It

LBA1000 Background: The primary aims were to determine whether adjuvant DD AC→PG will be superior to DD AC→P as well as to TAC in DFS and to compare the relative DFS of TAC and DD AC→P. Secondary endpoints include survival and toxicity. Methods: From Nov 3, 2004 to May 3, 2007, 4894 women were randomized; 1630 to TAC (docetaxel [T] 75 mg/m2, doxorubicin [A] 50 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide [C] 500 mg/m2 q3 wks x 6), 1634 to DD AC→P (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 followed by P 175 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4), and 1630 to DD AC→PG (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 → P 175 mg/m2 + G 2000 mg/m2q2 wks x 4). Primary G-CSF support was required and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) were used at investigator discretion. 52% were postmenopausal, 65% had 1 - 3 positive nodes, and 80% had HR+ breast cancer. Log-rank tests were used for pair-wise comparisons of the primary (DFS) and secondary (OS) endpoints among the three treatment arms. Results: With 64 months median follow-up, 5-year DFS in DD AC→PG group was 80.6% compared with 82.2% in DD AC→P group (HR=1.1; p=0.27) and 80.1 % (HR=0.97; p=0.71) in TAC group. 5-year OS was 90.8% in DD AC→PG group as compared with 89.1% (HR=.89; p=0.25) in DD AC→P group and 89.6 % (HR=0.90; p=0.32) in TAC group. HR for DFS and OS of DD AC→P vs. TAC were 0.89 (p=0.14) and 1.01 (p=0.92) respectively. Toxicities for TAC, DD AC→P, DD AC→PG, respectively: febrile neutropenia (Gr 3/4: 9%, 4%, 4% [p<0.001]), sensory neuropathy (Gr 3/4: <1%, 7%, 6% [p<0.001]), diarrhea (Gr 3/4: 8 %, 2%, 2% [p<0.001]). Hgb was <10 in 12%, 26%, 33% with ESA use in 35.2%, 47%, 51.6% and transfusions in 3.7%, 6.3%, 9.4%. Deaths on treatment: N=13, 5, 7 (p=0.2). AML/MDS: N=5, 8, 11. All cycles completed in 91% for TAC and 88% for DD regimens. Conclusions: Addition of G to DD AC→P did not improve outcomes. No significant differences in efficacy endpoints were identified between DD AC→P and TAC, though toxicity profiles differed. Funding: NCI PHS U10-CA-37377, -69974, -12027, -69651 and NCCTG U10-CA25224, with additional funding from Eli Lilly & Company, and Amgen, Inc.