Citations

e23078 Background: There are limited patient (pt) reported outcome data regarding CDDP neurotoxicity. Methods: CDDP-induced peripheral neuropathy was evaluated in pts with testicular cancer planning to receive CDDP (20 mg/m2/d for 5 days) for ≥ 3 cycles. Neurotoxicity was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 tool before each CDDP cycle and every 2-4 months after, out to 18 months. We compared these data to our studies evaluating pts receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC), paclitaxel and oxaliplatin. The total score of the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20, each of the three subscale scores and each individual item was computed following the standard scoring algorithm and converted to a 0-100 scale. Descriptive statistics and graphical plots were utilized. Results: 54 pts receiving CDDP (mean age 33 years) and 18 pts receiving AC were evaluated. Following completion of CDDP, neuropathy symptoms (sensory neuropathy score and numbness/tingling in toes/feet) worsened for about 6 months (consistent with the so-called “coasting phenomena”), similar to what had previously been seen with oxaliplatin (but different than what had been seen with paclitaxel). For CDDP pts, during therapy, numbness and tingling in fingers/hands were more prominent, than the same symptoms in the toes/feet. After therapy was completed, numbness, and tingling became more prominent in toes/feet, but improved in the fingers/hands. After stopping therapy, shooting/burning pain did not worsen in upper or lower extremities. During therapy, CDDP pts had less problems than had previously been seen with oxaliplatin or paclitaxel, maybe because of the younger ages of the CDDP pts. With AC, all of the CIPN-20 sensory neuropathy scores were better than was seen in the pts receiving CDDP and also in pts receiving paclitaxel and oxaliplatin in previous evaluations. Conclusions: CDDP-induced neuropathy is more similar to oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy than paclitaxel-induced neuropathy. AC chemotherapy pts do not have substantial changes in CIPN 20 scores, consistent with the CIPN 20 instrument being a measure of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, as opposed to more general chemotherapy-induced toxicities. Clinical trial information: NCT02677727.

PURPOSE Alliance/CALGB 50303 (NCT00118209), an intergroup, phase III study, compared dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received six cycles of DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary clinical objectives included response rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2013, 524 patients were registered; 491 eligible patients were included in the final analysis. Most patients (74%) had stage III or IV disease; International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk groups included 26% IPI 0 to 1, 37% IPI 2, 25% IPI 3, and 12% IPI 4 to 5. At a median follow-up of 5 years, PFS was not statistically different between the arms (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.27; P = .65), with a 2-year PFS rate of 78.9% (95% CI, 73.8% to 84.2%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 75.5% (95% CI, 70.2% to 81.1%) for R-CHOP. OS was not different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.59; P = .64), with a 2-year OS rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 82.3% to 91%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 85.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 90.2%) for R-CHOP. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common ( P < .001) in the DA-EPOCH-R arm than the R-CHOP arm, including infection (16.9% v 10.7%, respectively), febrile neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucositis (8.4% v 2.1%, respectively), and neuropathy (18.6% v 3.3%, respectively). Five treatment-related deaths (2.1%) occurred in each arm. CONCLUSION In the 50303 study population, the more intensive, infusional DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and did not improve PFS or OS compared with R-CHOP. The more favorable results with R-CHOP compared with historical controls suggest a potential patient selection bias and may preclude generalizability of results to specific risk subgroups.

PURPOSE Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell lymphoma characterized by cyclin D1 expression. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) consolidation after induction chemotherapy is often used for eligible patients; however, the benefit remains uncertain in the rituximab era. Herein we retrospectively assessed the impact of AHCT consolidation on survival in a large cohort of transplantation-eligible patients age 65 years or younger. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively studied transplantation-eligible adults age 65 years or younger with newly diagnosed MCL treated between 2000 and 2015. The primary objective was to assess for improved progression-free survival (PFS) with AHCT consolidation and secondarily to assess for improved overall survival (OS). Cox multivariable regression analysis and propensity score–weighted (PSW) analysis were performed. RESULTS Data were collected from 25 medical centers for 1,254 patients; 1,029 met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for the cohort was 76 months. Median PFS and OS were 62 and 139 months, respectively. On unadjusted analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (75 v 44 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .01) and OS (147 v 115 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.66; P < .01) and a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06). After PSW analysis, AHCT remained associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.84; P < .05) but not improved OS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.1; P = .2). CONCLUSION In this large cohort of younger, transplantation-eligible patients with MCL, AHCT consolidation after induction was associated with significantly improved PFS but not OS after PSW analysis. Within the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our findings suggest that in younger, fit patients, AHCT consolidation may improve PFS.

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.