Beg, Muhammad Shaalan

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

Abstract Purpose: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to chemotherapy have limited treatment options. Ensituximab (NEO-102) is a novel chimeric mAb targeting a variant of MUC5AC with specificity to colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods: Single-arm, phase II trial assessed the efficacy and safety of ensituximab in patients with advanced, refractory cancer who expressed MUC5AC antigen in tumor tissue. Ensituximab was administered intravenously every 2 weeks with 3 mg/kg as recommended phase II dose (RP2D). A minimum sample size of 43 patients was required on the basis of the assumption that ensituximab would improve median overall survival (OS) by 7 months using a one-sided significance level of 10% and 80% power. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Results: Sixty-three patients with advanced, refractory colorectal cancer were enrolled and 53 subjects were treated in phase II arm. Median age was 58 years and 46% of the patients were female. Among 57 evaluable patients, median OS was 6.8 months. No responses were observed, and stable disease was achieved in 21% of the patients. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AE) at RP2D included fatigue (38%), anemia (30%), nausea (15%), vomiting (11%), increased bilirubin (9%), constipation (8%), decreased appetite (6%), and diarrhea (6%). Serious AEs at least possibly related to ensituximab occurred in 4 patients and included anemia, nausea, increased bilirubin, and hypoxia. No patients discontinued treatment due to drug-related AEs. Conclusions: Ensituximab was well tolerated and demonstrated modest antitumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated refractory colorectal cancer.

Mobile technology has become a ubiquitous part of everyday life and is changing the way we offer clinical care and perform clinical research. We have unprecedented access to data for one’s self-care as well as for sharing with health care providers. Meeting the challenge posed by the influx of wearable device data requires a multidisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, software developers, information technologists, and statisticians. Although the possibility of what can be achieved with the ever-evolving wearable technologies seems to be unlimited, regulatory agencies have provided a framework to establish standards for clinical applications, which will also affect research applications. Clinical programs and electronic medical records vendors should prepare to establish a framework to implement these technologies into clinicians’ workflow and to allow feedback to measure the impact on clinical outcome. In this article, we discuss how a new brand of multidisciplinary care is evolving around mobile health devices and present a vision of up-and-coming technology in this space.

69 Background: Due to improved survival, an increasing number of patients with advanced cancer are eligible for aggressive ICU care, including intubation. The American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends early integration of palliative care in patients with advanced cancer. We analyzed 10-year trends in the utilization of palliative care, and predictors of palliative care use in patients with metastatic cancer undergoing intubation using the National Hospital Discharge Survey database from 2001-2010. Methods: Diagnosis and procedure codes were utilized to identify adult patients with metastatic cancer who underwent intubation, and received palliative care. Demographics, diagnoses, length of stay (LOS), and discharge information were extracted. T-tests and χ^2 tests were used to compare medians and proportions respectively in patients that did or did not receive palliative care. Multivariate regression models with weighted analysis were conducted to study predictors of palliative care use. Results: Over the 10-year study period, 200,350 patients with metastatic cancer and intubation were identified, mean age 65.3 years, 46.2% male. Of these, 6690 (3.3%) received palliative care. There was a significant increase in the use of palliative care from 2001 (0%) to 2010 (17.4%), p for trend < 0.001. In multivariate analysis, patients who received palliative care were more likely to have age > 65 years, be white vs non-white, be hospitalized in 2009-2010 vs 2000-2001, and be admitted to hospitals in the Western part of the US. The overall inpatient mortality rate was 57.3%, discharge to a care facility (DTCF) rate was 15.2%, and mean LOS was 11.1 days. The LOS and DTCF rates were similar in patients with and without palliative care. Patients with palliative care had higher rates of inpatient mortality (adjusted OR 9.6, 95% CI 2.2- 42.0). Conclusions: There was a dramatic increase in the use of palliative care in intubated patients with metastatic cancer. Studies to address the racial and geographic discrepancies in palliative care use are warranted. The higher mortality in palliative care group suggests it is being used for the sickest patients. Early (vs end of life) palliative care may be more beneficial.

Abstract Background: MRX34 is a liposomal nanoparticle formulation with an encapsulated mimic of the naturally occurring microRNA-34 (miR-34), which is lost or expressed at reduced levels in many tumors. miR-34 inhibits key oncogenic pathways by repressing multiple important oncogenes including BCL2, E2F3, HDAC1, MET, MEK1, CDK4/6, PDGFR-ɑ/β, SIRT1, WNT1/3, NOTCH-1, β-catenin, CD44, Nanog and AXL. miR-34 also represses the expression of PD-L1 and DGKζ, thereby possibly triggering an anti-tumor immune response and cancer cell death. A multicenter Phase 1 clinical trial of MRX34 is being conducted in patients with advanced malignancies. Methods: Eligible patients were enrolled in a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation study and were given a MRX34 starting dose of 10 mg/m2, administered intravenously (IV) twice weekly (BIW) for 3 weeks in 28-day cycles. Enrollment is ongoing into a second MRX34 dosing schedule, daily x 5 (QD x 5) in 21-day cycles. The primary objectives are to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for the two dosing schedules. Secondary objectives include assessments of safety, tolerability and the pharmacokinetic profile of MRX34 after intravenous dosing as well as to assess any biological and clinical activity. Results: As of July 2015, 75 patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled and evaluable: 44 Caucasians, 47 males, a median age of 61 years and a median of 4 prior treatments. Histologies included 30 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), 7 pancreatic cancer, 4 cholangiocarcinoma, 3 each of bladder, breast, colorectal, cervix and lung. The remaining 19 patients represented various other malignancies &lt;3 patients each. The 110 mg/m2 was deemed to be the MTD for the BIW dosing schedule. The MTD has not been determined yet for the QD x 5 schedule and dose escalation is continuing. The current dose levels are 70 mg/m2 QD x 5 for HCC and 93 mg/m2 QD x 5 for other solid tumors. The following treatment-emergent, all-causality adverse events (AEs) were most frequent among 47 patients in BIW cohorts vs 28 patients in QD x 5 cohorts: fever (64% vs 61%), fatigue (57% vs 39%), chills (57% vs 36%), back pain (55% vs 36%), nausea (49% vs 39%), diarrhea (43% vs 11%), headache (34% vs 14%), vomiting (32% vs 11%), anorexia (26% vs 14%), abdominal pain (23% vs 21%), dyspnea (23% vs 14%), insomnia (23% vs 14%), and dehydration (23% vs 4%). Most frequent grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities were: lymphopenia (36% vs 71%), neutropenia (26% vs 36%), hyponatremia (26% vs 7%), AST elevation (26% vs 29%), leukopenia (23% vs 36%), hyperglycemia (19% vs 36%), thrombocytopenia (17% vs 29%), anemia (11% vs 21%), alkaline phosphatase elevation (11% vs 21%), and ALT elevation (9% vs 21%). One patient with HCC and another patient with melanoma achieved confirmed partial responses per RECIST. Conclusions: MRX34 has a manageable safety profile with confirmed partial responses in two patients with advanced HCC and melanoma. Due to better tolerability, QD x 5 schedule has been chosen for further study. Following MTD determination, enrollment will soon begin into the QD x 5 expansion cohorts for selected tumors. Citation Format: Muhammad Shaalan Beg, Andrew Brenner, Jasgit Sachdev, Samuel Ejadi, Mitesh Borad, Yang-Kon Kang, Ho Lim, T-Y Kim, Andreas Bader, Jay Stoudemire, Susan Smith, Sinil Kim, David Hong. Safety, tolerability, and clinical activity of MRX34, the first-in-class liposomal miR-34 mimic, in patients with advanced solid tumors. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2015 Nov 5-9; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2015;14(12 Suppl 2):Abstract nr C43.

Abstract Background: MRX34 is a liposome-formulated double-stranded mimic of tumor suppressor microRNA-34 (miR-34), which is lost or expressed at reduced levels in many solid and hematologic malignancies. miR-34 functions in the p53 tumor suppressor pathway and regulates the expression of more than 20 cancer-related genes including BCL2, E2F3, HDAC1, MET, MEK1, CDK4/6, PDGFR-ɑ, SIRT1, WNT1/3, NOTCH-1, β-catenin, CD44, Nanog and AXL. miR-34 also suppresses stem-like properties in cancer cells and sensitizes cancer cells to cytotoxic and targeted therapies. A multicenter phase I clinical trial of MRX34 is being conducted in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma or metastatic cancer with liver involvement. Methods: Eligible patients are enrolled in a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation study at MRX34 starting dose of 10 mg/m2, administered IV on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 of 28-day cycles. Dexamethasone premedication was added after the first 2 dose levels. The primary objective is to determine the RP2D, and secondary objectives include assessments of safety, PK and objective response rate (ORR). Response is evaluated by CT/MRI every 8 weeks. Once RP2D has been established, expansion cohort will be treated at the RP2D, with specific focus on determining biological response in tumor biopsy material. The latter will include assessing tumor uptake of miR-34 mimic and down-regulation of target gene expression as was observed in animal models of cancer. Results: Twenty-five patients received study drug, and enrollment is currently ongoing at the 5th dose level (70 mg/m2) and MTD has not been reached. There were 18 Caucasians, 15 males, with a median age of 62.5 years and a median of 4 prior treatments. Liposomal formulation-associated infusion reactions have been observed as characterized by the following treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) out of 20 patients: fever (13), chills (12), fatigue (12), thrombocytopenia (8), diarrhea (8), back/flank pain (6), nausea (6), and neutropenia (4). Most common Gr 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (4), thrombocytopenia (3), fatigue (2), AST/ALT elevation (4) and back/flank pain (2). Addition of pre-dose dexamethasone with higher dose levels ameliorated infusion reactions. One patient died on study from disease progression. One dose-limiting toxicity was observed at the 2nd dose level (20 mg/m2; Gr 3 acute kidney injury associated with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and dehydration) and one at the 5th dose level (70 mg/m2; Gr 3 increased AST). Conclusions: MRX34 has a manageable safety profile in patients with unresectable primary liver cancer or metastatic cancer with liver involvement. Determination of the R2PD, assessment of clinical response, and analyses of molecular markers are ongoing. Citation Format: Muhammad Shaalan Beg, Mitesh Borad, Jasgit Sachdev, David S. Hong, Susan Smith, Andres Bader, Jay Stoudemire, Sinil Kim, Andrew Brenner. Multicenter phase I study of MRX34, a first-in-class microRNA miR-34 mimic liposomal injection. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr CT327. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT327