NRG-GY012: Randomized phase 2 study comparing olaparib, cediranib, and the combination of cediranib/olaparib in women with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic endometrial cancer

PURPOSE

This paper reports the efficacy of the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib alone and in combination with the antiangiogenesis agent cediranib compared with cediranib alone in patients with advanced endometrial cancer.

METHODS

This was open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial (NCT03660826). Eligible patients had recurrent endometrial cancer, received at least one (<3) prior lines of chemotherapy, and were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by histology (serous vs. other) to receive cediranib alone (reference arm), olaparib, or olaparib and cediranib for 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Homologous repair deficiency was explored using the BROCA-GO sequencing panel.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were enrolled and all were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median age was 66 (range, 41-86) years and 47 (39.2%) had serous histology. Median progression-free survival for cediranib was 3.8 months compared with 2.0 months for olaparib (hazard ratio, 1.45 [95% CI, 0.91-2.3] p = .935) and 5.5 months for olaparib/cediranib (hazard ratio, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.43-1.14] p = .064). Four patients receiving the combination had a durable response lasting more than 20 months. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were hypertension in the cediranib (36%) and olaparib/cediranib (33%) arms, fatigue (20.5% olaparib/cediranib), and diarrhea (17.9% cediranib). The BROCA-GO panel results were not associated with response.

CONCLUSION

The combination of cediranib and olaparib demonstrated modest clinical efficacy; however, the primary end point of the study was not met. The combination was safe without unexpected toxicity.

A randomized phase 2 study of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (TP) compared to cetuximab and irinotecan (CETIRI) in advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with HER2 amplification: SWOG S1613

140

Background: HER2 ( ERBB2) over-expression and amplification (HER2+) is seen in a small but distinct subset (2-3%) of mCRC and is enriched in RAS/BRAF wild type (WT) tumors. This subset is characterized by a limited response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody-based (anti-EGFR) therapy and a promising response to dual-HER2 inhibition. Methods: In this multicenter, open label, randomized, phase 2 trial, we enrolled 54 patients with RAS/BRAF WT HER2+ mCRC who had had disease progression after 1 or 2 previous therapies. HER2 status was confirmed centrally with immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in-situ hybridization (ISH). HER2+ was defined as IHC 3+ or 2+ and ISH amplified (dual-probe HER2/CEP17 ratio > 2.0). Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TP (trastuzumab [loading 8 mg/kg then 6 mg/kg] + pertuzumab [loading 840 mg then 420 mg] every 3 weeks) or CETIRI (cetuximab 500 mg/m2 + irinotecan 180 mg/m2 every 2 weeks). Crossover was allowed for patients on CETIRI arm to TP (cTP) after progression. Restaging (per RECIST v1.1) was performed at 6 and 12 weeks and then every 8 weeks until progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: A total of 54 (out of planned 62 due to low accrual) patients were randomized to TP (26) and CETIRI (28) between 10/2017 and 12/2021. By 8/18/2022, 20 patients had crossed over to cTP arm. One CETIRI patient was not analyzable. The results for key endpoints by protocol defined stratification factors, prior irinotecan (Piri) (yes or no) and HER2/CEP17 ratio (HCR) (>5 or ≤5), are summarized as of data cut-off of 9/6/2022. PFS did not vary significantly by treatment: medians 4.4 (95%CI: 1.9 – 7.6) months in TP group and 3.7 (95%CI: 1.6 – 6.7) months in CETIRI group (p = 0.35). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 23%, 46% and 40% of patients in TP, CETIRI and cTP groups. Conclusions: Dual-HER2 inhibition with TP appears to be a safe and effective treatment option for patients with RAS/BRAF WT HER2+ mCRC with a promising response rate of 31%. Higher level of HER2 amplification may provide a greater degree of clinical benefit from TP compared to CETIRI. Future correlative efforts will explore biomarkers of response/resistance with this strategy. Clinical trial information: NCT03365882 . [Table: see text]

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia

PURPOSE

Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens.

METHODS

TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites.

RESULTS

Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%).

CONCLUSION

Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial of a standing physician order entry intervention for colony stimulating factor use among patients at intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia (SWOG S1415CD)

1518

Background: Primary prophylactic colony stimulating factors (PP-CSF) are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for regimens with intermediate FN risk is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) intervention for prescribing PP-CSF, we designed a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of PP-CSF for patients receiving therapy with intermediate FN risk. Methods: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where NCI community Oncology Research Program practices were randomized to usual care (UC) or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to a SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for NCCN-designated high FN risk chemotherapy regimens and alerts against PP-CSF orders for low FN risk regimens (intervention) versus usual care. A secondary randomization assigned intervention sites to a SOE intervention either to prescribe or not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate FN risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to override the SOE. Patients age ≥18 with either breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled and followed for 12 mo. PP-CSF was defined as initiation within 24-72 hours after systemic chemotherapy. Sample size calculations were based on an FN risk reduction from 15% to 7.5%, and provided 80% power at a planned enrollment of 90 patients per site. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between sites randomized to prescribe or not prescribe PP-CSF. Results: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 24 sites (2,287 patients) were randomized to the intervention. Among intervention sites, 12 were randomized to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for the 542 patients receiving intermediate FN risk regimens. Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to prescribe PP-CSF (37.1% vs 9.9%, OR = 5.90 (95% CI 1.72-20.20; p = 0.0048)). Overall, the rates of FN were low and identical between PP-CSF and no PP-CSF arms (3.7% vs 3.7%). Among patients who did not receive PP-CSF, rates of FN were also low and similar between arms (3.8% vs 4.1%). Conclusions: While implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving intermediate risk regimens, FN rates did not differ between arms. Despite SOE, 63% of patients assigned to receive PP-CSF did not receive it. FN rates overall were lower than expected and did not differ between patients that did or did not receive PP-CSF. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither the SOE nor PP-CSF itself provide sufficient benefit to justify their use for persons receiving intermediate FN risk regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial of a computerized clinical decision support system to improve colony stimulating factor prescribing for patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy (SWOG S1415CD)

1525

Background: Primary prophylactic colony stimulating factors (PP-CSF) are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Prior studies have shown that 55-95% of CSF prescribing is inconsistent with practice guidelines. We conducted a cluster randomized trial to determine if guideline-informed standing orders for PP-CSF improved prescribing and reduced the incidence of FN. Methods: Patients age ≥18 with breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer initiating first cancer-directed therapy with NCCN-recommended regimens were eligible. The intervention consisted of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk chemotherapy regimens and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk regimens. Regimen FN risk was based on NCCN guidelines. Clinicians could override the orders. Primary and secondary outcomes were PP-CSF use among patients receiving high and low risk regimens FN incidence within 6 months of initial therapy. Sample size estimates assumed an FN risk of 25% for high-risk chemotherapy. 32 NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices randomized 3:1 to the order entry system (intervention) versus usual care (UC) provided 90% power to detect a 50% reduction in FN at a planned enrollment of 90 patients per site. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used to test differences among randomized sites. 13 practices with pre-existing PP-CSF order sets enrolled in a parallel cohort study. Patients and other stakeholder groups informed study design, conduct and reporting. Results: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 2,946 patients were randomized (2287 intervention, 659 UC); 718 were enrolled in the cohort. Mean age across arms was 58.1. 77% of patients were female; 61% diagnosed with breast cancer. Among patients receiving high-risk regimens, PP-CSF use did not differ between arms (89.2% intervention; 95.8% UC, adjusted p = 0.21) and was similar to the cohort patients (93.0%). The FN rate for high-risk patients was 5.7% in intervention clinics and 4.2% in UC clinics (adjusted p = 0.26); FN was 14.9% among high-risk patients who did not receive PP-CSF. Among patients receiving low-risk regimens, PP-CSF use did not differ between arms (intervention 6.3%, UC 5.5%, adjusted p = 0.74) and was slightly lower than the cohort (8.3%). FN rates did not differ between low risk groups (intervention 1.5%, UC 0.8%, adjusted p = 0.51). Conclusions: Guideline-informed standing orders did not increase PP-CSF use in high-risk patients, nor did it decrease use in low-risk patients. Adherence to guidelines in both risk groups exceeded historical reports. FN rates among patients not receiving PP-CSF were substantially below those reported in CSF guidelines. Automated standing orders for PP-CSF do not appear to be helpful or necessary. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

Trametinib for the treatment of melanoma

Advanced melanoma traditionally has had poor prognosis with limited, modestly effective and relatively toxic systemic treatment options like cytotoxic chemotherapy (dacarbazine) and immunomodulating agents (high-dose interleukin-2 and ipilimumab) which have response rates of 6-20%. With the identification of BRAF mutations found to be present in 50% of melanomas and the clinical success of serine/threonine-protein kinase B-raf inhibitors the prognostic landscape of melanoma has changed considerably. Vemurafenib and dabrafenib have been at the forefront of antimelanoma-targeted agents with a tolerable side effect profile and efficacy that compared well with the standard chemotherapy. These characteristics have led to the regulatory approval of both agents for the treatment of melanoma. However, these agents are not curative and have a short life span primarily due to rapidly occurring drug resistance. More recently, mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors have been found to have strong anticancer activity independently as well as when combined with other agents like B-raf inhibitors due to their activity downstream of RAF. Preclinical data and limited clinical data suggest that MEK inhibitors may be a component of effective therapy for a broad spectrum of cancers with other oncogenic drivers.

Clinical value of stress-only Tc-99m SPECT imaging: importance of attenuation correction

BACKGROUND

In selected patients, stress-only SPECT imaging has been proposed as an alternative to rest-stress SPECT imaging to improve laboratory efficiency and reduce radiation exposure. The impact of attenuation correction (AC) upon interpretation, post-test patient management and cardiac risk stratification in relation to stress-only imaging is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical value for laboratory throughput and predicting outcomes of normal and abnormal stress-only SPECT imaging with AC in a consecutive series of clinically referred patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 1,383 consecutive patients who were scheduled for stress-only SPECT imaging for symptom assessment of suspected myocardial ischemia was performed. All images had been interpreted and categorized using the standard 17-segment model without AC followed by AC. Follow-up data for 2.1 ± 1.3 years after SPECT imaging for the occurrence of cardiac events (non-fatal MI, cardiac death, and cardiac revascularization) previously collected by routine methods were reviewed.

RESULTS

Non-AC SPECT image interpretation revealed that 58% (802/1383) of patients had abnormal stress images. AC image interpretation of the abnormal non-AC images re-classified 83% (666/802) of these as normal. Among patients with abnormal stress images after AC (136/1383), 63% (86/136) returned for additional rest scans, while the remaining 37% (50/136) were clinically managed without further rest images. The incidence of cardiac death or non-fatal MI was very low in patients with normal stress-only scans (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

A strategy of stress-only imaging with AC in symptomatic patients is an efficient method which appropriately identifies at risk and low-risk patients yielding a low percentage requiring rest imaging. Clinical decisions can be made based on abnormal stress-only imaging without further rest imaging if clinically appropriate.

OT1-02-12: Early Detection of Cardiotoxicity by Advanced Cardiac Imaging and a Novel Biomarker in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy

Background The survival rate of breast cancer patients has increased due to improvements in cancer treatment. However, many survivors develop irreversible or reversible cardiotoxicity associated with anthracycline or trastuzumab therapy, respectively. To detect cardiac damage, the currently accepted method is to measure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography, which lacks the sensitivity to predict early cardiac dysfunction.

Early identification of cardiotoxicity is essential to cancer survivors, as development of cardiomyopathy carries a worse outcome independent of cancer prognosis. Currently, there are no accepted guidelines for the early detection of myocardial injury. The use of cardiac biomarkers and more sensitive echocardiographic techniques have expanded options for monitoring, but have yet to reach a consensus.

Hence, our study will evaluate the potential predictive value of novel cardiac biomarkers and advanced echocardiographic and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) techniques to detect subclinical myocardial damage. Our findings may be applicable for monitoring new antineoplastic agents during food and drug administration (FDA) clinical trials.

Trial Design Prospective cohort study with internal control of 20 patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer. The trial will assess endpoints at baseline, 2 weeks after initiation of therapy, and 2 weeks and 6 months after chemotherapy completion.

1. Primary Endpoint

a. Decline in left ventricular ejection fraction assessed by CMR and 3D-echo not detected by conventional methods

b. Presence of either myocardial fibrosis or edema detected by CMR

c. Changes in myocardial deformation detected by echo or CMR strain

d. Increase in cardiac biomarkers (Serum caspase-3 p17 peptide, Troponin I, B-type natriuretic peptide) and possible correlation with imaging parameters

2. Secondary Endpoint

a. Development New York Heart Association class 1 to 4 symptoms

b. Decrease in LVEF of ≥5% to ≤50% with or without symptoms

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Newly diagnosed stage I, II, or III breast cancer

2. Age between 18 and 75 years old.

3. Treatment with trastuzumab or anthracycline-based chemotherapy

Exclusion Criteria:

1. History of cardiovascular disease

2. Pacemaker

3. History of mediastinal radiotherapy

4. Creatinine clearance &lt;30 ml/min

5. Serum bilirubin &gt;2.0 mg/dl, ALT and AST &gt; 100 U/1)

6. Hypertension, uncontrolled &gt;140/90

7. LVEF &lt;55% per 2-D echocardiogram

8. Claustrophobia

Specific Aims

1. Detect early myocardial injury.

2. Evaluate early predictors of left ventricular dysfunction.

3. Evaluate timing of monitoring during or post treatment

Statistical Method

This is a pilot study and 20 patients are required to reach statistical significance with 85% power. All values will be analyzed as mean±SD or n (%). Categorical indicators will be analyzed using nonparametric statistics such as Cochran's Q. Changes in imaging and biomarker parameters will be assessed using analysis of variance, while correlation between the two will be assessed using mixed models appropriate for binary outcome. Significance will be accepted at p ≤0.05 for all tests.

Present accrual and target accrual

Nine subjects are enrolled with a goal of 20.

Contact for people interested in trial:

1. Dr. Erick Avelar, eavelar@uchc.edu

2. Dr. Susan Tannenbaum, stannenbaum@uchc.edu

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-02-12.