Moore, Dennis F.

238 Background: Dual inhibition of the EGFR pathway using erlotinib and the monoclonal antibody panitumumab results in greater antitumor activity in preclinical pancreatic cancer models. A trial evaluating this approach was conducted. Methods: A safety analysis was initially performed with 6 patients at P 4 mg/kg every two weeks, E 100 mg daily, G 1000 mg/m2 weekly of a 28-day cycle. PGE was well tolerated with a grade 3 fatigue as only dose-limiting toxicity. Patients (pts) were then randomized to either PGE or GE alone. Eligibility included: no prior chemo, ECOG PS 0-1, bilirubin <2x UL, AST <2.5x UL. CT scans every 2 cycles. Results: 93 pts (46-GE; 47-PGE) were randomized from January to August, 2010. Median age 61 years and 65% male. ECOG PS 0 (51%) and PS 1 (49%). No significant differences in baseline characteristics observed between treatment arms. 81 pts evaluable for AEs; 37 (46%) had a maximum grade 3 (at least possibly related to treatment), and 12 (15%) maximum grade 4 or 5. Treatment arms similar with respect to the overall AEs with exception grade 1-3 acneiform rash, GE (65%) vs. PGE (85%). Commonly occurring grade 4 AEs (at least possibly related) consisted of thrombosis (3 pts) and thrombocytopenia (2 pts). Two grade 5 events occurred in PGE arm—duodenal hemorrhage (possibly related) and pancolitis with multisystem failure (unlikely). An additional PGE pt died 30 days off study (grade 5 CHF, possibly). 54 patients (67%; 31-GE, 23-PGE) ended treatment; 38 (70%) for disease progression (24-GE; 14-PGE). Other reasons for treatment discontinuation: AEs (9; 17%), pt refusal (4; 7%), death on study (2; 4%), other (1). In 81 pts with at least 1 cycle of chemotherapy, the median PFS for GE 2.0 months and 3.3 months for PGE. Accrual for the study was recently completed and overall and 6-month survival data will be presented. Conclusions: This study involved an initial run-in design to define tolerable doses of dual EGFR inhibitors, PGE, in pancreatic cancer patients. Although preliminary, the randomized phase II portion has been completed and differences between GE and PGE in terms of relevant clinical outcomes, PFS, are observed. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Erythropoiesis‐stimulating agents (ESAs) epoetin alfa (EA) and darbepoetin alfa (DA) increase hemoglobin (Hb) levels and reduce red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements in patients with cancer chemotherapy‐associated anemia (CAA). Extended‐interval ESA dosing (administration less than once weekly) is common with DA, but previous studies suggested that EA might also be administered less often than weekly. In this multicenter prospective trial, 239 CAA patients with Hb <10.5 g/dL were randomized to receive EA 40,000 U subcutaneously once weekly (“40K” arm), EA 80,000 U every 3 weeks (“80K”), EA 120,000 U every 3 weeks (“120K” arm), or DA 500 mcg every 3 weeks (“DA”), for 15 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving Hb ≥ 11.5 g/dL or increment of Hb > 2.0 g/dL from baseline without transfusion. Secondary endpoints included transfusion requirements, adverse events (AEs), and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the proportion of patients achieving Hb response (68.9% for 40K, 61.7% for 80K, 65.5% for 120K, and 66.7% for DA; P > 0.41 for all comparisons) or requiring RBC transfusion, but the median Hb increment from baseline was higher in the 40K and DA arms compared to the two extended dosing EA arms, and Hb response was achieved soonest in the weekly EA arm. There were no differences in PROs or AEs. The FDA‐approved schedules tested—weekly EA 40,000 U, and every 3 week DA 500 mcg—are reasonable standards for CAA therapy. Am. J. Hematol. 90:877–881, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Purpose Vorinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, represents a rational therapeutic target in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). Patients and Methods Patients with recurrent GBM who had received one or fewer chemotherapy regimens for progressive disease were eligible. Vorinostat was administered at a dose of 200 mg orally twice a day for 14 days, followed by a 7-day rest period. Results A total of 66 patients were treated. Grade 3 or worse nonhematologic toxicity occurred in 26% of patients and consisted mainly of fatigue (17%), dehydration (6%), and hypernatremia (5%); grade 3 or worse hematologic toxicity occurred in 26% of patients and consisted mainly of thrombocytopenia (22%). Pharmacokinetic analysis showed lower vorinostat maximum concentration and area under the curve (0 to 24 hours) values in patients treated with enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants, although this did not reach statistical significance. The trial met the prospectively defined primary efficacy end point, with nine of the first 52 patients being progression-free at 6 months. Median overall survival from study entry was 5.7 months (range, 0.7 to 28+ months). Immunohistochemical analysis performed in paired baseline and post-vorinostat treatment samples in a separate surgical subgroup of five patients with recurrent GBM showed post treatment increase in acetylation of histones H2B and H4 (four of five patients) and of histone H3 (three of five patients). Microarray RNA analysis in the same samples showed changes in genes regulated by vorinostat, such as upregulation of E-cadherin (P = .02). Conclusion Vorinostat monotherapy is well tolerated in patients with recurrent GBM and has modest single-agent activity. Histone acetylation analysis and RNA expression profiling indicate that vorinostat in this dose and schedule affects target pathways in GBM. Additional testing of vorinostat in combination regimens is warranted.

Purpose A phase II study was conducted to determine the efficacy and toxicity of radiotherapy with concomitant gemcitabine and cisplatin for patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients and Methods Forty-eight patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma received gemcitabine (30 mg/m2) and cisplatin (10 mg/m2) twice weekly during the first 3 weeks of radiotherapy. The radiation dose to the primary tumor and regional nodes was 45 Gy in 25 fractions, and the gross tumor volume received an additional 5.4 Gy in three fractions. Four weeks after radiotherapy, patients received gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) once weekly every 3 of 4 weeks for a 12-week period. The primary end point was survival at 12 months. Secondary end points were time to progression, toxicity, and quality of life. Results Survival at 1 year was 40% for 47 eligible patients. The median survival was 10.2 months. Confirmed responses were observed for 8.5% (two partial, two complete), and median time to progression was 7.3 months. Grade 4 or higher toxicity was observed for 31% and consisted primarily of hematologic and GI toxicity. There was a trend toward improved overall quality of life, measured by the Symptom Distress Scale (P = .06), with significant improvements in domains of insomnia, pain, and outlook. Conclusion The combination of radiotherapy, gemcitabine, and cisplatin was well tolerated. Survival results were similar to those achieved with other treatment regimens for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer but did not meet our predefined criteria for additional evaluation of this regimen.

Purpose The combination of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide is an effective regimen for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). However, it may be accompanied by increased toxicity compared with fludarabine alone. E2997 is a phase III randomized Intergroup trial comparing fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC arm) versus fludarabine (F arm) alone in patients receiving their first chemotherapy regimen for CLL. Patients and Methods Symptomatic, previously untreated patients with CLL were randomly assigned to receive either fludarabine 25 mg/m 2 intravenously (IV) days 1 through 5 or cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m 2 IV day 1 and fludarabine 20 mg/m 2 IV days 1 through 5. These cycles were repeated every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. Results A total of 278 patients were randomly assigned in this Intergroup study. Treatment with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide was associated with a significantly higher complete response (CR) rate (23.4% v 4.6%; P < .001) and a higher overall response (OR) rate (74.3% v 59.5%, P = .013) than treatment with fludarabine as a single agent. Progression-free survival (PFS) was also superior in patients treated with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide than those treated with fludarabine (31.6 v 19.2 months, P < .0001). Fludarabine and cyclophosphamide caused additional hematologic toxicity, including more severe thrombocytopenia (P = .046), but it did not increase the number of severe infections (P = .812). Conclusion Fludarabine and cyclophosphamide produced an increase in OR and CR, and it improved PFS in patients with previously untreated CLL compared with fludarabine alone and was not associated with an increase in infectious toxicity.

Purpose Results of a prospective randomized trial conducted by the Intergroupe Francais du Myélome (IFM 90) indicated that autologous hematopoietic cell–supported high-dose therapy (HDT) effected higher complete response rates and extended progression-free survial (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with standard-dose therapies (SDT) for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Patients and Methods In 1993, three North American cooperative groups launched a prospective randomized trial (S9321) comparing HDT (melphalan [MEL] 140 mg/m 2 plus total-body irradiation 12 Gy) with SDT using the vincristine, carmustine, MEL, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone regimen. Responders on both arms (≥ 75%) were randomly assigned to interferon (IFN) or no maintenance treatment. Results With a median follow-up time of 76 months, no differences were observed in response rates between the two study arms (HDT, n = 261 patients; SDT, n = 255 patients). Similarly, PFS and OS durations did not differ between the HDT and SDT arms, with 7-year estimates of PFS of 17% and 16%, respectively, and OS of 37% and 42%, respectively. Of 242 patients achieving at least 75% tumor reduction, no difference was observed in PFS or OS among the 121 patients randomly assigned to IFN and the 121 patients randomly assigned to no maintenance therapy. Among 157 patients relapsing on SDT, 87 received a salvage autotransplantation; their median survival time of 30 months was only slightly better than the survival time of the remaining patients who were managed with further SDT (23 months; P = .13). Conclusion The HDT and SDT regimens used in S9321 yielded comparable response rates and PFS and OS durations. IFN maintenance therapy did not benefit patients who achieved ≥ 75% tumor reduction on either arm.

Purpose Gemcitabine remains the standard therapy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ACA), but has limited activity. ISIS-2503 is an antisense compound directed against H-ras with preclinical activity against pancreatic ACA in tumor models. The combination of ISIS-2503 and gemcitabine has been evaluated in a prior phase I study. Methods Patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic ACA not amenable to surgery or local radiation received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8 and ISIS-2503 6 mg/kg/d as a continuous intravenous infusion over 14 days of an every-3-weeks cycle. Responses were monitored by radiologic imaging every 6 weeks. Results Forty-eight eligible patients were enrolled, 43 with metastatic disease. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range, 2.2 to 16.8 months) for living patients. A median of four cycles of treatment was given (range, 1 to 18 cycles). All patients were assessable for response and toxicity. The 6-month survival percentage was 57.5% (95% CI, 44.9% to 73.5%) and the median survival was 6.6 months. The response rate was 10.4% (one complete response, four partial responses). Clinically significant toxicity was limited except for one fatal pulmonary embolism. Conclusion This study shows a promising response rate to the combination of gemcitabine and ISIS-2503 in patients with pancreatic ACA. The observed 6-month survival rate in these patients met our protocol-defined criteria for success. This regimen is tolerable, but is of unclear benefit. Additional studies evaluating the role of gemcitabine and ISIS-2503 in the treatment of pancreatic ACA should be considered.