Citations

Purpose The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal transduction pathway controls cell proliferation and survival. Everolimus is an oral agent targeting raptor mTOR (mTORC1). The trial's goal was to determine the antitumor activity and safety of single-agent everolimus in patients with relapsed/refractory Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Patients and Methods Eligible patients had measurable disease (immunoglobulin M monoclonal protein > 1,000 mg/dL with > 10% marrow involvement or nodal masses > 2 cm), a platelet count more than 75,000 × 10 6 /L, a neutrophil count more than 1,000 × 10 6 /L, and a creatinine and bilirubin less than 2 × the laboratory upper limit of normal. Patients received everolimus 10 mg orally daily and were evaluated monthly. Tumor response was assessed after cycles 2 and 6 and then every three cycles until progression. Results Fifty patients were treated. The median age was 63 years (range, 43 to 85 years). The overall response rate (complete response plus partial remission [PR] plus minimal response [MR]) was 70% (95% CI, 55% to 82%), with a PR of 42% and 28% MR. The median duration of response and median progression-free survival (PFS) have not been reached. The estimated PFS at 6 and 12 months is 75% (95% CI, 64% to 89%) and 62% (95% CI, 48% to 80%), respectively. Grade 3 or higher related toxicities were observed in 56% of patients. The most common were hematologic toxicities with cytopenias. Pulmonary toxicity occurred in 10% of patients. Dose reductions due to toxicity occurred in 52% of patients. Conclusion Everolimus has high single-agent activity with an overall response rate of 70% and manageable toxicity in patients with relapsed WM and offers a potential new therapeutic strategy for this patient group.

Abstract Therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes (t-MDSs) and acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) have a poor prognosis with conventional therapy. Encouraging results are reported after allogeneic transplantation. We analyzed outcomes in 868 persons with t-AML (n = 545) or t-MDS (n = 323) receiving allogeneic transplants from 1990 to 2004. A myeloablative regimen was used for conditioning in 77%. Treatment-related mortality (TRM) and relapse were 41% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-44) and 27% (24-30) at 1 year and 48% (44-51) and 31% (28-34) at 5 years, respectively. Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 32% (95% CI, 29-36) and 37% (34-41) at 1 year and 21% (18-24) and 22% (19-26) at 5 years, respectively. In multivariate analysis, 4 risk factors had adverse impacts on DFS and OS: (1) age older than 35 years; (2) poor-risk cytogenetics; (3) t-AML not in remission or advanced t-MDS; and (4) donor other than an HLA-identical sibling or a partially or well-matched unrelated donor. Five-year survival for subjects with none, 1, 2, 3, or 4 of these risk factors was 50% (95% CI, 38-61), 26% (20-31), 21% (16-26), 10% (5-15), and 4% (0-16), respectively (P < .001). These data permit a more precise prediction of outcome and identify subjects most likely to benefit from allogeneic transplantation.

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell neoplasm that proceeds through a premalignant state of monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance; however, the molecular events responsible for myelomagenesis remain uncharacterized. To identify cellular pathways deregulated in MM, we addressed that sumoylation is homologous to ubiquitination and results in the attachment of the ubiquitin-like protein Sumo onto target proteins. Sumoylation was markedly enhanced in MM patient lysates compared with normal plasma cells and expression profiling indicated a relative induction of sumoylation pathway genes. The Sumo-conjugating enzyme Ube2I, the Sumo-ligase PIAS1, and the Sumo-inducer ARF were elevated in MM patient samples and cell lines. Survival correlated with expression because 80% of patients with low UBE2I and PIAS1 were living 6 years after transplantation, whereas only 45% of patients with high expression survived 6 years. UBE2I encodes the sole Sumo-conjugating enzyme in mammalian cells and cells transfected with a dominant-negative sumoylation-deficient UBE2I mutant exhibited decreased survival after radiation exposure, impaired adhesion to bone marrow stroma cell and decreased bone marrow stroma cell–induced proliferation. UBE2I confers cells with multiple advantages to promote tumorigenesis and predicts decreased survival when combined with PIAS1. The sumoylation pathway is a novel therapeutic target with implications for existing proteasomal-based treatment strategies.

AbstractCertain malignant B cells rely on B-cell receptor (BCR)–mediated survival signals. Spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk) initiates and amplifies the BCR signal. In in vivo analyses of B-cell lymphoma cell lines and primary tumors, Syk inhibition induces apoptosis. These data prompted a phase 1/2 clinical trial of fostamatinib disodium, the first clinically available oral Syk inhibitor, in patients with recurrent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Dose-limiting toxicity in the phase 1 portion was neutropenia, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia, and 200 mg twice daily was chosen for phase 2 testing. Sixty-eight patients with recurrent B-NHL were then enrolled in 3 cohorts: (1) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), (2) follicular lymphoma (FL), and (3) other NHL, including mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, lymphoplasmacytic lymphomas, and small lymphocytic leukemia/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (SLL/CLL). Common toxicities included diarrhea, fatigue, cytopenias, hypertension, and nausea. Objective response rates were 22% (5 of 23) for DLBCL, 10% (2 of 21) for FL, 55% (6 of 11) for SLL/CLL, and 11% (1/9) for MCL. Median progression-free survival was 4.2 months. Disrupting BCR-induced signaling by inhibiting Syk represents a novel and active therapeutic approach for NHL and SLL/CLL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00446095.

AbstractTherapeutic options for multiple myeloma (MM) patients have changed quickly in recent years and uncertainty has arisen about optimal approaches to therapy. A reasonable goal of MM treatment in younger “transplant eligible” patients is to initiate therapy with a target goal of durable complete remission, and the anticipated consequence of long-term disease control. To achieve this goal we recommend induction therapy with multi-agent combination chemotherapies (usually selected from bortezomib, lenalidomide, thalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and corticosteriods) which when employed together elicit frequent, rapid, and deep responses. We recommend consolidation with high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation in the majority of patients willing and able to undergo this procedure and subsequent maintenance therapy, especially in those failing to achieve a complete response or at high risk for early relapse based on prognostic, genetically defined risk factors. Defining genetic risk for early relapse is therefore an important aspect of early diagnostic testing and attention to minimizing expected toxicities once therapy begins is critical in ensuring the efficacy of modern combination therapy approaches. When access to newer drugs is restricted participation in clinical trials should be pursued.

Sensitivity analysis is an important statistical technique that assesses whether the results of phase III trials are robust and likely to be generalizable. Until recently, sensitivity analyses were rarely included in phase III trials, and they remain poorly understood by many oncologists. Sensitivity analyses are critical to understanding the strength of conclusions made in the primary analysis of a late-stage clinical trial. They examine the influence of protocol design errors, unintended biases, deviations from assumptions underlying statistical models, and any unanticipated treatment delivery or practice patterns on trial results. In trials with complex or subjective end points, they also allow an understanding of the extent to which a positive outcome is driven by a single, possibly subjective, and therefore biased, element of an end point. The purposes of this article are to explain how sensitivity analyses are performed, to discuss areas of a clinical trial where sensitivity analyses should focus, and to illuminate the importance of this technique in the rigorous evaluation of late-stage clinical trial data, using specific examples. This article focuses on late-stage trials that use progression-free survival or time to progression as their primary end point, because sensitivity analyses are particularly important in these cases for which the end point is potentially subject to bias. Three sources of potential bias are explored: assessment time, symptomatic (ie, nonradiologic) disease progression, and missing data. For each source of potential bias, case studies are presented to highlight the role that sensitivity analyses play in determining whether the trial's conclusions are robust.

PurposeTo determine the risk of ipsilateral breast events in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with local excision without irradiation.Patients and MethodsPatients with either low- or intermediate-grade DCIS measuring 2.5 cm or smaller, or high-grade DCIS measuring 1 cm or smaller who had microscopic margin widths of 3 mm or wider and no residual calcifications on postoperative mammograms were eligible for a prospective trial conducted from 1997 to 2002 by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Patients entered in 2000 and later could take tamoxifen if they wished. Median age at last surgery for the entire population was 60 years (range, 28 to 88 years), and median tumor sizes in the two strata were 6 mm and 5 mm, respectively.ResultsWith a median follow-up of 6.2 years, the 5-year rate of ipsilateral breast events in the 565 eligible patients in the low/intermediate grade stratum was 6.1% (95% CI, 4.1% to 8.2%). With a median follow-up of 6.7 years, this incidence for the 105 eligible patients in the high-grade stratum was 15.3% (95% CI, 8.2% to 22.5%).ConclusionRigorously evaluated and selected patients with low- to intermediate-grade DCIS with margins 3 mm or wider had an acceptably low rate of ipsilateral breast events at 5 years after excision without irradiation. Patients with high-grade lesions had a much higher rate, suggesting that excision alone is inadequate treatment. Further follow-up is necessary to document long-term results.

Objective:This guideline provides evidence‐based recommendations on managing hoarseness (dysphonia), defined as a disorder characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces voice‐related quality of life (QOL). Hoarseness affects nearly one‐third of the population at some point in their lives. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where hoarseness would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with hoarseness.Purpose:The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve diagnostic accuracy for hoarseness (dysphonia), reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, reduce inappropriate steroid use, reduce inappropriate use of anti‐reflux medications, reduce inappropriate use of radiographic imaging, and promote appropriate use of laryngoscopy, voice therapy, and surgery. In creating this guideline the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of neurology, speech‐language pathology, professional voice teaching, family medicine, pulmonology, geriatric medicine, nursing, internal medicine, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, pediatrics, and consumers.ResultsThe panel made strong recommendations that 1) the clinician should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat hoarseness and 2) the clinician should advocate voice therapy for patients diagnosed with hoarseness that reduces voice‐related QOL. The panel made recommendations that 1) the clinician should diagnose hoarseness (dysphonia) in a patient with altered voice quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces voice‐related QOL; 2) the clinician should assess the patient with hoarseness by history and/or physical examination for factors that modify management, such as one or more of the following: recent surgical procedures involving the neck or affecting the recurrent laryngeal nerve, recent endotracheal intubation, radiation treatment to the neck, a history of tobacco abuse, and occupation as a singer or vocal performer; 3) the clinician should visualize the patient's larynx, or refer the patient to a clinician who can visualize the larynx, when hoarseness fails to resolve by a maximum of three months after onset, or irrespective of duration if a serious underlying cause is suspected; 4) the clinician should not obtain computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the patient with a primary complaint of hoarseness prior to visualizing the larynx; 5) the clinician should not prescribe anti‐reflux medications for patients with hoarseness without signs or symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease; 6) the clinician should not routinely prescribe oral corticosteroids to treat hoarseness; 7) the clinician should visualize the larynx before prescribing voice therapy and document/communicate the results to the speech‐language pathologist; and 8) the clinician should prescribe, or refer the patient to a clinician who can prescribe, botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of hoarseness caused by adductor spasmodic dysphonia. The panel offered as options that 1) the clinician may perform laryngoscopy at any time in a patient with hoarseness, or may refer the patient to a clinician who can visualize the larynx; 2) the clinician may prescribe anti‐reflux medication for patients with hoarseness and signs of chronic laryngitis; and 3) the clinician may educate/counsel patients with hoarseness about control/preventive measures.Disclaimer:This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance in managing hoarseness (dysphonia). Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence‐based framework for decision‐making strategies. The guideline is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.

Purpose This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of plerixafor (AMD3100), a CXCR4 antagonist, in mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells for autologous stem-cell transplantation in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients. Patients and Methods This is a phase III, multicenter, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma requiring an autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in first or second complete or partial remission were eligible. Patients received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; 10 μg/kg) subcutaneously daily for up to 8 days. Beginning on evening of day 4 and continuing daily for up to 4 days, patients received either plerixafor (240 μg/kg) or placebo subcutaneously. Starting on day 5, patients began daily apheresis for up to 4 days or until ≥ 5 × 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg were collected. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who collected ≥ 5 × 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in 4 or fewer apheresis days. Results This report presents all data for all patients (n = 298) through 12 months follow-up. Eighty-nine (59%) of 150 patients in the plerixafor group and 29 (20%) of 148 patients in the placebo group met the primary end point (P < .001). One hundred thirty-five patients (90%) in plerixafor group and 82 patients (55%) in placebo group underwent transplantation after initial mobilization. Median time to engraftment was similar in both groups. The most common plerixafor-associated adverse events were GI disorders and injection site reactions. Conclusion Plerixafor and G-CSF were well tolerated and resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma achieving the optimal CD34+ cell target for transplantation in fewer apheresis days, compared with G-CSF alone.