Citations

106 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is one of the main treatment options for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is inherently less sensitive or even resistant to ADT. NEPC can be observed de novo (e.g., small cell prostate cancer) but more commonly arises after exposure to ADT. We hypothesized that a gene expression signature of NEPC when measured in primary tumor specimens (RP) of prostatic adenocarcinoma may be useful for predicting patients with innate resistance to ADT. Methods: Expression profiles of 1023 PCa patients treated with RP were obtained from the Decipher GRID database. These were split into training (n=529) and validation (n=494) sets and stratified by the receipt of adjuvant ADT (n=243) or no adjuvant ADT (n=780). A literature review of ADT resistance and neuroendocrine genes identified 1,557 genes as candidates. This set was further filtered, using logistic regression to select a 52-gene ADT resistance signature (ARS). ARS was trained using a generalized linear model with lasso regularization. Survival c-index and Kaplan Meier was used to compare survival differences between treated and untreated patients with high and low ARS scores (defined by median split). Results: In validation cohorts, the ARS was predictive of metastasis in cohorts receiving adjuvant ADT (10-year metastasis free survival c-index of 0.69 (95% CI 0.59-0.78) as compared to 0.45 (95% CI 0.29-0.61) in patients not treated with ADT). Similarly in a separate cohort of untreated patients that received no ADT until after metastatic onset, ARS was not prognostic (c-index 0.53). Among ADT treated patients, those with low ARS scores had a 10 year MFS of 87%, versus 70% in those with high ARS scores (p<0.001). In the subset of men who received ADT after metastatic onset and who developed castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC, n = 41), median time to treatment failure was 1 year in patients with high ARS compared to 2 years for those with low ARS scores (p=0.07). Conclusions: A 52-gene ADT resistance signature was developed which showed significant differences in metastasis-free survival among adjuvant hormone treated but not untreated patients.

300 Background: The National Radiation Oncology Registry (NROR) is developing an IT infrastructure to support the efficient collection, aggregation, and analysis of data concerning cancer patients treated with radiotherapy across the United States. Methods: Detailed requirements were developed to emphasize the following distinguishing goals for the system: 1) streamline the process of data collection by minimizing manual data entry; 2) support the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and their linkage with clinician-observed outcomes; 3) facilitate data integration within the NROR and between the NROR and other registries; 4) allow for evolution of the system in response to new learning; and 5) promote sustainability and ongoing improvement through an open standard of interoperability. Results: An innovative technical architecture has been designed to meet the goals described. The system maximizes efficiency through automated extraction and electronic transfer of data from radiation oncology information systems. PROs are collected directly from patients via a web-based portal and linked to data submitted from participating institutions. A data dictionary has been developed based on national standards and controlled vocabularies to facilitate data integration. Contemporary forms-based database technology is used in combination with traditional relational technology to permit both flexible evolution of the system and efficient data analysis. A unique “gateway” architecture and open transmission standard makes it possible for commercial products to interoperate with the registry in the future. Conclusions: The NROR prototype system will be launched later this year to collect data for a pilot registry of prostate cancer patients. Its performance and usability will be important factors in the success of the pilot. If effective, the platform will support the expansion of the NROR to benefit patients, clinicians, researchers, payors, device manufacturers, and policy-makers by capturing reliable, population-based information on radiation treatment delivery and health outcomes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the presence of HER-2/neu gene amplification and/or overexpression in benign breast disease was associated with an increased risk of subsequent breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study of a cohort of women who were diagnosed with benign breast disease at the Mayo Clinic and who were subsequently observed for the development of breast cancer. Patients who developed breast cancer formed the case group, and a matched sample from the remaining cohort served as controls. Benign tissue samples from 137 cases and 156 controls and malignant tissues from 99 cases provided DNA or tissue for evaluation of HER-2/neu amplification and protein overexpression. RESULTS: Among the controls, seven benign tissues (4.5%) demonstrated low-level HER-2/neu amplification, whereas 13 benign (9.5%) and 18 malignant (18%) tissue specimens from cases exhibited amplification. HER-2/neu amplification in benign breast biopsies was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 5.8); this association approached statistical significance. The risks for breast cancer associated with benign breast histopathologic diagnoses were OR = 1.1 (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.9) for lesions exhibiting proliferation without atypia and OR = 1.5 (95% CI, 0.4 to 5.6) for the diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. For women having both HER-2/neu amplification and a proliferative histopathologic diagnosis (either typical or atypical), the risk of breast cancer was more than seven-fold (OR = 7.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 60.8). Overexpression of the HER-2/neu protein product, defined as membrane staining in 10% or more of epithelial cells, was found in 30% of the breast tumors but was not detected in any of the benign breast tissues. Case patients who had HER-2/neu gene amplification in their malignant tumor were more likely to have had HER-2/neu amplification in their prior benign biopsy (P = .06, Fisher’s exact test). CONCLUSION: Women with benign breast biopsies demonstrating both HER-2/neu amplification and a proliferative histopathologic diagnosis may be at substantially increased risk for subsequent breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Multitargeted antifolate (MTA) is an investigational agent that, like gemcitabine, exhibits broad activity in solid tumors. A phase I trial of MTA and gemcitabine was undertaken, based on the demonstration of preclinical cytotoxic synergy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients (group I) received 164 courses (median, four; range, one to 14 courses) of treatment of gemcitabine at doses of 1,000 and 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and MTA at doses of 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 mg/m2, given 90 minutes after gemcitabine on day 1. Courses were repeated every 3 weeks. Because the day 8 dose of gemcitabine was reduced or omitted in 57% of courses due to neutropenia, 21 patients (group II) were treated on an alternate schedule, with MTA administered on day 8 rather than day 1. This group received 85 treatment courses (median, four; range, one to 10 courses). RESULTS: The most common and dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia. Other toxicities included nausea, fatigue, rash, and elevated hepatic transaminases. The maximum-tolerated dose was gemcitabine/MTA 1,000/500 mg/m2 for group I and 1,250/500 mg/m2 for group II. Thirteen objective responses were documented (colorectal cancer, n = 3; non–small-cell lung cancer, n = 3; cholangiocarcinoma, n = 2; ovarian carcinoma, n = 2; mesothelioma, n = 1; breast cancer, n = 1; and adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site, n = 1). Gemcitabine had no effect on the disposition of MTA. CONCLUSION: The gemcitabine/MTA combination is broadly active and warrants further evaluation. The sequence of gemcitabine administered on days 1 and 8 with MTA administered on day 8 is better tolerated and is recommended for further study at doses of gemcitabine/MTA 1,250/500 mg/m2.

PURPOSE: The goals of this study were to determine the maximum-tolerated dose and describe the toxicities of the combination of irinotecan and docetaxel administered every 3 weeks to patients with advanced malignancies and, also, to evaluate the effect of irinotecan on the disposition of docetaxel and describe preliminary evidence of antitumor activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients received 85 courses (median, two courses; range, one to 15 courses) of treatment with irinotecan, administered over 90 minutes by intravenous infusion, followed by docetaxel, administered over 60 minutes by intravenous infusion. Four escalating dose levels of irinotecan/docetaxel (160/50 mg/m2, 160/65 mg/m2, 200/65 mg/m2, and 200/75 mg/m2) were studied. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of irinotecan on the disposition of docetaxel. RESULTS: The most common and dose-limiting toxicity was myelosuppression, which consisted of neutropenia that was severe (National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria [NCI CTC] grade 4) but brief (< 5 days) in 11 patients, with three episodes of febrile neutropenia. Nonhematologic toxicities of anorexia, nausea, and stomatitis were mild to moderate (NCI CTC grades 1 and 2), but there was one incidence each of both CTC grade 3 anorexia and nausea. All patients had total alopecia. Diarrhea was dose-dependent and severe in four patients who failed to take adequate antidiarrhea therapy. Five out of 16 assessable patients, one with cholangiocarcinoma, one with leiomyosarcoma, and three with non–small-cell lung cancer, achieved partial remissions. CONCLUSION: The combination of irinotecan and docetaxel causes significant reversible myelosuppression, which was dose limiting but led to no serious sequelae. There was no evidence of a clinically significant interaction using these two agents in this sequence. The combination showed antitumor activity at all the dose levels tested and should be further studied in a number of tumor types. The recommended phase II dose on this schedule is irinotecan 160 mg/m2 and docetaxel 65 mg/m2.

PURPOSE: Yttrium-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan (IDEC-Y2B8) is a murine immunoglobulin G1 kappa monoclonal antibody that covalently binds MX-DTPA (tiuxetan), which chelates the radioisotope yttrium-90. The antibody targets CD20, a B-lymphocyte antigen. A multicenter phase I/II trial was conducted to compare two doses of unlabeled rituximab given before radiolabeled antibody, to determine the maximum-tolerated single dose of IDEC-Y2B8 that could be administered without stem-cell support, and to evaluate safety and efficacy.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had relapsed or refractory (two prior regimens or anthracycline if low-grade disease) CD20+B-cell low-grade, intermediate-grade, or mantle-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). There was no limit on bulky disease, and 59% had at least one mass ≥ 5 cm.RESULTS: The maximum-tolerated dose was 0.4 mCi/kg IDEC-Y2B8 (0.3 mCi/kg for patients with baseline platelet counts 100 to 149,000/μL). The overall response rate for the intent-to-treat population (n = 51) was 67% (26% complete response [CR]; 41% partial response [PR]); for low-grade disease (n = 34), 82% (26% CR; 56% PR); for intermediate-grade disease (n = 14), 43%; and for mantle-cell disease (n = 3), 0%. Responses occurred in patients with bulky disease (≥ 7 cm; 41%) and splenomegaly (50%). Kaplan-Meier estimate of time to disease progression in responders and duration of response is 12.9+ months and 11.7+ months, respectively. Adverse events were primarily hematologic and correlated with baseline extent of marrow involvement with NHL and baseline platelet count. One patient (2%) developed an anti-antibody response (human antichimeric antibody/human antimouse antibody).CONCLUSION: These phase I/II data demonstrate that IDEC-Y2B8 radioimmunotherapy is a safe and effective alternative for outpatient therapy of patients with relapsed or refractory NHL. A phase III study is ongoing.

PURPOSE: A prospective randomized phase III clinical trial was conducted to assess whether the addition of tamoxifen (TAM) to the three-agent regimen of cisplatin (CDDP), dacarbazine (DTIC), and carmustine (BCNU) significantly increased the progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with advanced malignant melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced malignant melanoma were treated with CDDP + DTIC + BCNU (CDB) with or without TAM. The dose schedule was CDDP 25 mg/m2 given intravenously (IV) for 30 to 45 minutes in 500 mL of dextrose and ½ normal saline (NS) on days 1 to 3 of a 3-week cycle; DTIC 220 mg/m2 IV for 1 hour in 500 mL of dextrose and ½ NaCl on days 1 to 3 of a 3-week cycle; BCNU 150 mg/m2 IV for 2 to 3 hours in 750 to1,000 mL of dextrose and 5% water onday 1 of every odd 3-week cycle; and TAM 20 mg taken orally every morning. RESULTS: There were 184 eligible patients enrolled. These patients were observed until death or for a minimum of 1.3 years. At last contact, 12 were still alive. The median time to progression was 3.4 months on the CDB arm and 3.1 months on the CDB + TAM arm. The median survival time was 6.8 months with CDB and 6.9 months with CDB + TAM. Progression-free survival (P = .429) and overall survival (P = .545) were not found to differ by treatment. CONCLUSION: The addition of TAM to this three-agent regimen of CDB was not found to provide a meaningful clinical advantage in the treatment of patients with advanced malignant melanoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetics of continuous venous infusion (CVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with that of oral eniluracil/5-FU and to describe toxicities and clinical activity of prolonged oral administration of eniluracil/5-FU. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, cross-over study compared CVI 5-FU to an oral 5-FU/eniluracil combination. Seventeen patients (arm A) were randomly assigned to receive eniluracil/5-FU combination tablets (10:1 mg/m 2 BID for 7 days) during the first study period, followed by 5-FU (300 mg/m 2 CVI for 7 days) during period 2, with a 14-day washout between periods. Sixteen patients (arm B) received treatment in the opposite sequence. In period 3, all patients received eniluracil/5-FU tablets BID for 28 days. Plasma levels of 5-FU during CVI and oral administration were analyzed in periods 1 and 2. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity was determined by measuring plasma uracil, urinary α–fluoro-β-alanine, and peripheral-blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) DPD activity. RESULTS: There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities in either arm. Partial responses were observed in three patients. Another three patients had stable disease for ≥ 3 months. Eniluracil and 5-FU pharmacokinetics were similar to those observed in previous studies and were unaffected by administration sequence. The mean ± SD steady-state plasma concentration (C P ) and area under the curve (AUC) 144-168h for CVI 5-FU (104 ± 45 ng/mL and 2,350 ± 826 ng·h/mL, respectively) were three-fold greater than those for oral 5-FU (38.1 ± 7.7 ng/mL and 722 ± 182 ng·h/mL, respectively [P < .00001]). Individual 5-FU concentrations during CVI were highly variable, whereas those after eniluracil/5-FU were very reproducible. DPD activity in PBMCs before each study period was normal. CONCLUSION: Both CVI 5-FU and oral eniluracil/5-FU were well tolerated, with moderate activity in these heavily pretreated patients. However, 5-FU steady-state C P and AUCs achieved with oral eniluracil/5-FU were significantly less than with CVI 5-FU.

PURPOSE: Because small-cell lung cancer is a rapidly proliferating tumor, it was hypothesized that it may be more responsive to thoracic irradiation (TI) given twice-daily than once-daily. This hypothesis was tested in a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer were entered onto a phase III trial, and all patients initially received three cycles of etoposide (130 mg/m 2 × 3) and cisplatin (30 mg/m 2 × 3). Subsequently, patients who did not have progression to a distant site (other than brain) were randomized to twice-daily thoracic irradiation (TDTI) versus once-daily thoracic irradiation (ODTI) given concomitantly with two additional cycles of etoposide (100 mg/m 2 × 3) and cisplatin (30 mg/m 2 × 3). The irradiation doses were TDTI, 48 Gy in 32 fractions, with a 2.5-week break after the initial 24 Gy, and ODTI, 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. After thoracic irradiation, the patients received a sixth cycle of etoposide/cisplatin, followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (30 Gy/15 fractions) if they had a complete response. RESULTS: Of 311 assessable patients enrolled in the trial, 262 underwent randomization to TDTI or ODTI. There were no differences between the two treatments with respect to local-only progression rates, overall progression rates, or overall survival. The patients who received TDTI had greater esophagitis (≥ grade 3) than those who received ODTI (12.3% v 5.3%; P = .05). Although patients received thoracic irradiation encompassing the postchemotherapy volumes, only seven of 90 local failures were out of the portal of irradiation. CONCLUSION: When TI is delayed until the fourth cycle of chemotherapy, TDTI does not result in improvement in local control or survival compared with ODTI.