Wagner‐Johnston, Nina D.

Abstract Purpose: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 trial investigating lenalidomide versus investigator's choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Experimental Design: Patients with DLBCL who received ≥2 prior therapies were stratified by DLBCL subtype [germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs. non-GCB; determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC)] and then randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin). Crossover to lenalidomide was permitted for IC-treated patients with radiologically confirmed progressive disease. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and subtype analysis [GCB vs. activated B-cell (ABC)] using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints. Results: Stage 1: 102 DLBCL patients (by IHC: non-GCB, n = 54; GCB, n = 48) received ≥1 dose of lenalidomide or IC. Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events with lenalidomide versus IC included neutropenia (42.6%; 36.4%), anemia (33.3%; 47.3%), thrombocytopenia (24.1%; 43.6%), and leukopenia (5.6%; 12.7%), respectively. Overall, lenalidomide-treated patients had an ORR of 27.5% versus 11.8% in IC (ORRs were similar regardless of IHC-defined DLBCL subtype). Median PFS was increased in patients receiving lenalidomide (13.6 weeks) versus IC (7.9 weeks; P = 0.041), with greater improvements in non-GCB patients (15.1 vs. 7.1 weeks, respectively; P = 0.021) compared with GCB (10.1 vs. 9.0 weeks, respectively; P = 0.550). Conclusions: The clinical benefit of lenalidomide monotherapy in DLBCL patients was more evident in the non-GCB subtype. Exploratory analyses suggest that this preferential benefit was more pronounced in the GEP-defined ABC population, demonstrating a need for additional studies of lenalidomide in DLBCL using GEP subtyping. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4127–37. ©2017 AACR.

Purpose Given that the clinical course of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy is not well defined, the current study was performed to better understand clinical parameters associated with its presentation. Methods Acute and chronic neuropathy was evaluated in patients receiving adjuvant FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) on study N08CB (North Central Cancer Treatment Group, Alliance). Acute neuropathy was assessed by having patients complete daily questionnaires for 6 days with each cycle of FOLFOX. Before each dose of FOLFOX and as long as 18 months after chemotherapy cessation, chronic neurotoxicity was assessed with use of the 20-item, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Results Three hundred eight (89%) of the 346 patients had at least one symptom of acute neuropathy with the first cycle of FOLFOX; these symptoms included sensitivity to touching cold items (71%), sensitivity to swallowing cold items (71%), throat discomfort (63%), or muscle cramps (42%). Acute symptoms peaked at day 3 and improved, although they did not always resolve completely between treatments. These symptoms were about twice as severe in cycles 2 through 12 as they were in cycle 1. For chronic neurotoxicity, tingling was the most severe symptom, followed by numbness and then pain. During chemotherapy, symptoms in the hands were more prominent than they were in the feet; by 18 months, symptoms were more severe in the feet than they were in the hands. Patients with more severe acute neuropathy during the first cycle of therapy experienced more chronic sensory neurotoxicity (P < .0001). Conclusion Acute oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy symptoms do not always completely resolve between treatment cycles and are only half as severe on the first cycle as compared with subsequent cycles. There is a correlation between the severities of acute and chronic neuropathies.

BACKGROUNDPostmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors are at an increased risk of bone loss. The current study was undertaken to determine whether upfront versus delayed treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA) impacted bone loss. This report described the 5‐year follow‐up results.METHODSA total of 551 postmenopausal women with breast cancer who completed tamoxifen treatment and were undergoing daily letrozole treatment were randomized to either upfront (274 patients) or delayed (277 patients) ZA at a dose of 4 mg intravenously every 6 months. In the patients on the delayed treatment arm, ZA was initiated for a postbaseline bone mineral density T‐score of <‐2.0 or fracture.RESULTSThe incidence of a 5% decrease in the total lumbar spine bone mineral density at 5 years was 10.2% in the upfront treatment arm versus 41.2% in the delayed treatment arm (P<.0001). A total of 41 patients in the delayed treatment arm were eventually started on ZA. With the exception of increased NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 1/2 elevated creatinine and fever in the patients treated on the upfront arm and cerebrovascular ischemia among those in the delayed treatment arm, there were no significant differences observed between arms with respect to the most common adverse events of arthralgia and back pain. Osteoporosis occurred less frequently in the upfront treatment arm (2 vs 8 cumulative cases), although this difference was not found to be statistically significant. Bone fractures occurred in 24 patients in the upfront treatment arm versus 25 patients in the delayed treatment arm.CONCLUSIONSImmediate treatment with ZA prevented bone loss compared with delayed treatment in postmenopausal women receiving letrozole and these differences were maintained at 5 years. The incidence of osteoporosis or fractures was not found to be significantly different between treatment arms. Cancer 2015;121:2537–2543. © 2015 American Cancer Society.