Stella, Phillip J.

BACKGROUNDMitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)‐dependent signaling are hallmarks of glioblastoma. In the current study, the authors conducted a phase 1/2 study of sorafenib (an inhibitor of Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 [VEGFR‐2]) and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.METHODSPatients with recurrent glioblastoma who developed disease progression after surgery or radiotherapy plus temozolomide and with ≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens were eligible. The phase 1 endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), using a cohorts‐of‐3 design. The 2‐stage phase 2 study included separate arms for VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi)–naive patients and patients who progressed after prior VEGFi.RESULTSThe MTD was sorafenib at a dose of 200 mg twice daily and temsirolimus at a dose of 20 mg weekly. In the first 41 evaluable patients who were treated at the phase 2 dose, there were 7 who were free of disease progression at 6 months (progression‐free survival at 6 months [PFS6]) in the VEGFi‐naive group (17.1%); this finding met the prestudy threshold of success. In the prior VEGFi group, only 4 of the first 41 evaluable patients treated at the phase 2 dose achieved PFS6 (9.8%), and this did not meet the prestudy threshold for success. The median PFS for the 2 groups was 2.6 months and 1.9 months, respectively. The median overall survival for the 2 groups was 6.3 months and 3.9 months, respectively. At least 1 adverse event of grade ≥3 was observed in 75.5% of the VEGFi‐naive patients and in 73.9% of the prior VEGFi patients.CONCLUSIONSThe limited activity of sorafenib and temsirolimus at the dose and schedule used in the current study was observed with considerable toxicity of grade ≥3. Significant dose reductions that were required in this treatment combination compared with tolerated single‐agent doses may have contributed to the lack of efficacy. Cancer 2018;124:1455‐63. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

PURPOSE: Hot flashes can be a prominent problem in women with a history of breast cancer. Given concerns regarding the use of hormonal therapies in such patients, other nonhormonal means for treating hot flashes are required. Based on anecdotal information regarding the efficacy of fluoxetine and other newer antidepressants for treating hot flashes, the present trial was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial used a double-blinded, randomized, two-period (4 weeks per period), cross-over methodology to study the efficacy of fluoxetine (20 mg/d) for treating hot flashes in women with a history of breast cancer or a concern regarding the use of estrogen (because of breast cancer risk). Eligible patients had to have reported that they averaged at least 14 hot flashes per week; they could have received tamoxifen or raloxifene as long as they were on a stable dose. The major outcome measure was a bivariate construct representing hot flash frequency and hot flash score, analyzed by a classic sums and differences cross-over analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one randomized women began protocol therapy. By the end of the first treatment period, hot flash scores (frequency × average severity) decreased 50% in the fluoxetine arm versus 36% in the placebo arm. Cross-over analysis demonstrated a significantly greater marked hot flash score improvement with fluoxetine than placebo (P = .02). The results were not adjusted for potential confounding influences, including age and tamoxifen use. The fluoxetine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This dose of fluoxetine resulted in a modest improvement in hot flashes.