Search

We sought to define risk factors predisposing breast cancer and lymphoma patients to cardiac and pulmonary toxicity when undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous stem cell rescue (ASCR). Additionally, we evaluated in depth the predictive value of the ejection fraction measured prior to HDC in determining cardiac toxicity. In this retrospective analysis, 24 variables were examined in 138 patients undergoing HDC and ASCR from 1990 until 1995. Logistic regression models were used to model the probability of experiencing cardiac and pulmonary toxicity as a function of the 24 prognostic covariates. Cardiac toxicity occurred in 12% of patients and pulmonary toxicity in 24% of patients. Bivariate analyses showed that patients with lymphoma (as opposed to breast cancer) and those with a higher cardiac risk factor score were more likely to experience cardiac toxicity. Multivariate logistic regression models predicted lymphoma and older age to be risk factors for cardiac toxicity. History of an abnormal ejection fraction and higher doses of anthracyclines prior to HDC may also contribute to cardiac toxicity. Pulmonary toxicity occurred more commonly in lymphoma than breast cancer patients, likely due to the busulfan used in the HDC regimen. No other risk factors for pulmonary toxicity were identified. We conclude that older patients with lymphoma should be carefully evaluated prior to being accepted for HDC programs. Older patients with breast cancer may tolerate this procedure well. There is a trend towards cardiac toxicity in patients with a past history of low ejection fraction, although seemingly poor cardiac risk patients may fare well with HDC if carefully selected with the aid of a thorough cardiac evaluation. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2000) 25, 885–894. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.—: Pembrolizumab is used in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma contingent upon the programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS)., Objective.—: To compare PD-L1 CPS scores derived from paired resected primary tumors (PTs) and lymph node metastases (LMs) in patients with p16+ oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC)., Design.—: We identified 38 resected p16+ OPSCCs for which paired PTs and LMs were available. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry using the SP263 antibody clone was done on both the PT and the LM. CPS scoring was performed by 4 observers, and data were analyzed at the CPS cut points of greater than or equal to 1 and 20 in regard to interobserver and interspecimen agreement., Results.—: Overall agreement between consensus CPS scoring of PT and LM was seen in 76% of paired specimens (κ = 0.53). No specimen received a negative consensus score. Interobserver agreement for both PT and LM was fair to substantial (κ = 0.54 and 0.51, respectively) and was inferior to that seen in a prospective series of unselected head and neck squamous carcinoma cases evaluated at our institution (κ = 0.84)., Conclusions.—: Given the high rates of interobserver and interspecimen variability, evaluation of additional material or by additional observers may be of value in performing CPS scoring in cases of p16+ OPSCC. This is particularly the case when a negative or low-positive result is being evaluated in a patient who is otherwise a good candidate for immunotherapy., (© 2023 College of American Pathologists.)

Purpose: Combination of antiprogrammed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) plus anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 (anti-CTLA-4) immunotherapy shows greater response rates (RRs) than anti-PD-1 antibody alone in melanoma, but RR after initial anti-PD-1 and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody progression awaits robust investigation. Anti-CTLA-4 antibody alone after anti-PD-1/L1 antibody progression has a historical RR of 13%. We report the results of the first prospective clinical trial evaluating ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus pembrolizumab following progression on anti-PD-1 immunotherapy., Methods: Patients with advanced melanoma who had progressed on anti-PD-1/L1 antibody as immediate prior therapy (including non-anti-CTLA-4 antibody combinations) were eligible. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by pembrolizumab monotherapy. The primary end point was RR by irRECIST. After 35 patients, the trial met the primary end point and was expanded to enroll a total of 70 patients to better estimate the RR., Results: Prior treatments included 60 on anti-PD-1 antibody alone and 10 on anti-PD-1/L1 antibody-based combinations. Thirteen patients had progressed in the adjuvant setting. The median length of prior treatment with anti-PD-1/L1 antibody was 4.8 months. Response assessments included five complete and 15 partial responses, making the irRECIST RR 29% among the entire trial population. The median progression-free survival was 5.0 months, and the median overall survival was 24.7 months. The median duration of response was 16.6 months. There was no difference in median time on prior anti-PD1/L1 or time to PD1 + CTLA4 initiation between responders and nonresponders. Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events occurred in 27% of patients. Responses occurred in PD-L1-negative, non-T-cell-inflamed, and intermediate tumor phenotypes., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus low-dose ipilimumab after anti-PD-1/L1 immunotherapy failure, demonstrating significant antitumor activity and tolerability., Competing Interests: Zeynep ErogluConsulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Sun Pharma, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, OncoSec, Natera, ElsevierResearch Funding: Novartis, Pfizer Bruce BrocksteinConsulting or Advisory Role: Exelixis/IpsenResearch Funding: AstraZenecaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDate. Author and Editorial duties Andrew S. PoklepovicConsulting or Advisory Role: NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb Sunil BabuEmployment: Fort Wayne Medical Oncology & HematologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Fort Wayne Medical Oncology & Hematology, Lutheran HospitalHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Bayer, AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Kite, a Gilead company, Janssen Oncology, AmgenSpeakers' Bureau: Alexion PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Janssen Oncology, Amgen, TG Therapeutics, Abbvie, Lilly, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Syndax, Nektar, Sanofi, argenxTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Janssen Oncology, Genentech/Roche Sigrun HallmeyerLeadership: Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC)Honoraria: Cardinal HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, Array PharamceuticalSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Cardinal Health, Bristol Myers SquibbUncompensated Relationships: Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Mario VelascoEmployment: Cancer Care Specialists of IL Jose LutzkyConsulting or Advisory Role: Castle Biosciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Replimune, RegeneronResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Immunocore, Regeneron, Replimune, Vyriad Emily HiggsEmployment: LillyStock and Other Ownership Interests: LillyResearch Funding: LillyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Jeffrey D. Helterbrand, Richard E. Higgs, Phillip W. Iversen, Automatic Contextual Segmentation for Imaging Bones for Osteoporosis Therapies (Granted February 1, 2000, US Patent 6,021,213). Raymond E. Kaiser, Richard E. Higgs, Randall K. Julian Jr, System and Methods for Quantitatively Comparing Complex Mixtures Using Single Ion Chromatograms Derived From Spectroscopic Analysis of Such Admixtures (Granted March 23, 1999, US Patent 5,885,841)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly Vernon K. SondakConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck/Schering Plough, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Replimune, EisaiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Polynoma, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Replimune Thomas F. GajewskiStock and Other Ownership Interests: Jounce Therapeutics, Evelo Therapeutics, Five Prime Therapeutics, PyxisConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Jounce Therapeutics, Adaptimmune, FOGPharma, Allogene Therapeutics, Pyxis, Trillium Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Ono Pharmaceutical, Aduro Biotech, Pyxis, BayerPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Licensing to Evelo, Licensing to Aduro, Licensing to BMS, Licensing to Pyxis Nikhil I. KhushalaniStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Mazor Robotics, Amarin Corporation, Asensus SurgicalHonoraria: SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Merck, Incyte, Jounce Therapeutics, Iovance Biotherapeutics, NCCN/PfizerResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, HUYA Bioscience International, Amgen, Regeneron, Celgene, Replimune Jason J. LukeStock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Array BioPharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, TTC Oncology, Alphamab, Compugen, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf Therapeutics, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius Therapeutics, Tesaro, Xilio Therapeutics, XencorResearch Funding: Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma, EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring Bank, Trishula TherapeuticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio TherapeuticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Objective: To test feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a couple-based supportive communication (CSC) intervention for head and neck cancer (HNC) delivered during patients' oncology treatment., Methods: Twenty couples were randomly assigned to either a four-session CSC or a treatment-as-usual (TAU) condition. The CSC intervention primarily focused on increasing couple emotional disclosure, supportive listening, and social support. Patients and partners completed measures of individual and relationship functioning at baseline, post-intervention, and 6-month follow-up., Results: Ninety-eight percent of CSC sessions were completed and couples reported high levels of satisfaction with the intervention. Between-group effect sizes indicated that patients and partners in CSC reported improvements in individual and relationship functioning, relative to those in the TAU condition., Conclusions: A couple-based communication intervention delivered during oncology treatment is feasible and acceptable in the context of HNC and may lead to improvements in individual and relationship functioning. Preliminary efficacy results are interpreted in the context of social-cognitive processing and intimacy theories., Trial Registration: The trial was registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01785576) first posted on February 7, 2013.

Background: Brivanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling. We performed a phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in 7 tumour types (soft-tissue sarcomas [STS], ovarian cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], gastric/esophageal cancer and transitional cell carcinoma [TCC])., Patients and Methods: During a 12-week open-label lead-in period, patients received brivanib 800 mg daily and were evaluated for FGF2 status by immunohistochemistry. Patients with stable disease at week 12 were randomised to brivanib or placebo. A study steering committee evaluated week 12 response to determine if enrolment in a tumour type would continue. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) for brivanib versus placebo in patients with FGF2-positive tumours., Results: A total of 595 patients were treated, and stable disease was observed at the week 12 randomisation point in all tumour types. Closure decisions were made for breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, NSCLC, gastric cancer and TCC. Criteria for expansion were met for STS and ovarian cancer. In 53 randomised patients with STS and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 2.8 months for brivanib and 1.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58, p = 0.08). For all randomised patients with sarcomas, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.0) for those treated with brivanib compared with 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3-1.6) for placebo (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.38-1.07; p = 0.09). In the 36 randomised patients with ovarian cancer and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 4.0 (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) months for brivanib and 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) for placebo (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.26-1.22). For all randomised patients with ovarian cancer, the median PFS in those randomised to brivanib was 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) and was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) in those randomised to placebo (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.25-1.17; p = 0.11)., Conclusion: Brivanib demonstrated activity in STS and ovarian cancer with an acceptable safety profile. FGF2 expression, as defined in the protocol, is not a predictive biomarker of the efficacy of brivanib., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) discussions afford patients and physicians a chance to better understand patients' values and wishes regarding end-of-life care; however, these conversations typically take place late in the course of a disease. The goal of this study was to clarify attitudes of oncologists, cardiologists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) toward ACP and to identify persistent barriers to timely ACP discussion following a quality improvement initiative at our health system geared at improvement in ACP implementation., Methods: A 20-question, cross-sectional online survey was created and distributed to cardiologists, oncologists, PCPs, and cardiology and oncology support staff at the NorthShore University HealthSystem (NorthShore) from February to March 2015. A total of 117 individuals (46% of distributed) completed the surveys. The results were compiled using an online survey analysis tool (SurveyMonkey, Inc., Palo Alto, California, USA)., Results: Only 15% of cardiologists felt it was their responsibility to conduct ACP discussions with their patients having congestive heart failure (CHF). In contrast, 68% of oncologists accepted this discussion as their responsibility in patients with terminal cancer ( P < .01). These views were mirrored by PCPs, as 68% of PCPs felt personally responsible for ACP discussion with patients having CHF, while only 34% felt the same about patients with cancer. Reported documentation of these discussions in the electronic health record was inconsistent between specialties. Among all surveyed specialties, lack of time was the major barrier limiting ACP discussion. Perceived patient discomfort and discomfort of the patient's family toward these discussions were also significant reported barriers., Conclusion: Attitudes toward ACP implementation vary considerably by medical specialty and medical condition, with oncologists in this study tending to feel more personal responsibility for these discussions with patients having cancer than cardiologists with their patients having heart failure. Robust implementation of ACP across the spectrum of medical diagnoses is likely to require a true collaboration between office-based PCPs and specialists in both the inpatient and the ambulatory settings.

Background: Cancer and its treatment lead to increased financial distress for patients. To the authors' knowledge, to date, no standardized patient-reported outcome measure has been validated to assess this distress., Methods: Patients with AJCC Stage IV solid tumors receiving chemotherapy for at least 2 months were recruited. Financial toxicity was measured by the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) measure. The authors collected data regarding patient characteristics, clinical trial participation, health care use, willingness to discuss costs, psychological distress (Brief Profile of Mood States [POMS]), and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General (FACT-G) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL questionnaires. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity of the COST measure were assessed using standard-scale construction techniques. Associations between the resulting factors and other variables were assessed using multivariable analyses., Results: A total of 375 patients with advanced cancer were approached, 233 of whom (62.1%) agreed to participate. The COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analyses revealed a coherent, single, latent variable (financial toxicity). COST values were found to be correlated with income (correlation coefficient [r] = 0.28; P<.001), psychosocial distress (r = -0.26; P<.001), and HRQOL, as measured by the FACT-G (r = 0.42; P<.001) and by the EORTC QOL instruments (r = 0.33; P<.001). Independent factors found to be associated with financial toxicity were race (P = .04), employment status (P<.001), income (P = .003), number of inpatient admissions (P = .01), and psychological distress (P = .003). Willingness to discuss costs was not found to be associated with the degree of financial distress (P = .49)., Conclusions: The COST measure demonstrated reliability and validity in measuring financial toxicity. Its correlation with HRQOL indicates that financial toxicity is a clinically relevant patient-centered outcome. Cancer 2017;123:476-484. © 2016 American Cancer Society., (© 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

It was estimated that 59,340 new cases of head and neck cancer would be diagnosed in the US alone in 2015 and that 12,290 deaths would be attributed to the disease. Local and regional recurrences may be treated with chemotherapy and radiation; however, metastatic head and neck cancer is fatal and is treated with chemotherapy for palliation. Recent successful treatment of a variety of solid and hematological malignancies by immunotherapeutic approaches (i.e. harnessing the body's own immune system to combat disease) has added a fourth therapeutic option for the treatment of cancer. This commentary will review the status of immunotherapies in clinical development for the specific treatment of head and neck cancer.

Purpose: The LIFE Cancer Survivorship Program at NorthShore University HealthSystem provides risk-adapted visits (RAV) facilitated by an oncology nurse during which a survivorship care plan (SCP) is provided and discussed. In this report, we describe and evaluate RAV in promoting individualized health care and self-management during survivorship transition., Methods: Patients complete a post-RAV questionnaire at their RAV and another ≥1 year after their RAV., Results: One thousand seven hundred thirteen (1713) RAVs, majority for breast cancer, occurred from January 2007 to March 2014. One thousand six hundred fifteen (1615) "day-of" post-RAV questionnaires were completed. Respondents scaled statements as strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree. Combined strongly agree/agree ratings are 94 % felt more confident in communicating information about their treatments to other health care providers, 90 % felt more comfortable recognizing signs/symptoms to report to providers, and 98 % had a better appreciation for community programs/services. Of 488 respondents (RAV January 2007 to December 2012 n = 1366) to a questionnaire at least 1 year after the RAV, nearly 100 % found SCP useful to summarize medical information, 97 % to reinforce follow-up, 85 % to recognize symptoms of recurrence, 93 % to identify healthy lifestyle practices, 91 % to assist in identifying resources for support, 72 % discussed their SCP with their healthcare provider, and 97 % made at least one positive lifestyle change., Conclusions: Participation in LIFE RAV following treatment helps survivors to guide future self-care behavior. Data suggest that benefits may persist 1 year after the visit and support the feasibility of a nurse-led RAV to establish a SCP in cancer survivors., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Combined provision and discussion of SCPs help survivors construct a useful understanding of their cancer experience and may promote long-term self-management.

Background: Despite American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommending that oncologists discuss advance care planning (ACP) with patients with stage IV cancer early in treatment, in standard practice ACP remains a late step of a terminal illness. ACP preserves comfort and dignity at the end of life, ensuring patients receive the care that they desire., Methods and Materials: A feasibility study in patients with stage IV cancer was developed to test whether incorporating ACP immediately after a stage IV cancer diagnosis is feasible. Inclusion criteria were consecutive new gastrointestinal and thoracic oncology patients treated by one of two oncologists. The project included creation of new workflow; development of an ACP patient education guidebook; training seminars for oncology staff; and enhancements to the electronic health record (EHR) to improve ACP documentation., Results: The oncologists recorded 33 of 48 (69%) advance directive notes (ADNs) and 22 of 48 (46%) code status orders (CSOs) in the EHR of patients newly diagnosed with stage IV cancer by following ACP protocol during the 6-month trial period. Twenty-one of 33 ADNs were entered within 7 days of first consultation. The median time to ADN placement was 1 day after consultation. Twenty-two of 33 patients with ADNs had CSOs placed, of which 16 were do-not-resuscitate (DNR) and 6 were full code. One year prior to the feasibility study, only 1 of 75 deceased patients of the two oncologists had outpatient ADNs and CSOs., Conclusions: Outpatient ACP is feasible early in the care of patients with stage IV cancer through systematic improvement in workflow and motivated providers. Education and infrastructure were pivotal to routine development of advance care plans.

BRAF inhibition therapy, used to treat melanomas with BRAF mutations, is associated with both neoplastic and non-neoplastic cutaneous side effects including squamous cell carcinomas, warty dyskeratomas, verrucous keratoses, photosensitivity and widespread eruptions that present histopathologically as acantholytic dyskeratosis. We report a case of a patient undergoing BRAF inhibition therapy for disseminated melanoma with a V600E mutation who developed bilateral areolar leiomyomas, one of which was biopsied and the other of which resolved after discontinuation of vemurafenib therapy. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a mesenchymal neoplasm developing in association with BRAF inhibition therapy., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Preclinical studies have shown synergistic antitumour activity by inhibition of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) and mTOR. The expression of IGF-1R seems to be crucial for this effect. We investigated the safety and efficacy of the combination of the IGF-1R antibody cixutumumab and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with chemotherapy-refractory bone and soft-tissue sarcomas according to IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry., Methods: We undertook a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study in 19 cancer centres in the USA. Patients aged at least 16 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of bone or soft-tissue sarcoma were allocated on the basis of IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry to one of three treatment groups: IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma (group A), IGF-1R-positive bone sarcomas (group B), or IGF-1R-negative bone and soft-tissue sarcoma (group C). Patients received weekly treatment with cixutumumab (6 mg/kg, intravenous) and temsirolimus (25 mg, intravenous flat dose) in 6-week cycles. A Simon optimal two-stage design was used for every arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks by intention-to-treat analysis in the first 54 patients assigned to every treatment arm. Although patients still remain on treatment, this trial has completed enrolment and this represents the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01016015., Findings: Between Nov 18, 2009, and April 11, 2012, 388 patients were screened for IGF-1R expression and 54 were assigned to each arm. 17 of 54 patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (31%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 21%; two-sided 90% CI 21-43), 19 of 54 in IGF-1R-positive bone sarcoma group (35%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 24%; two-sided 90% CI 24-47), and 21 of 54 in the IGF-1R-negative group (39%, one-sided 95% CI lower bound 28%; two-sided 90% CI 28-51) were progression free at 12 weeks. On April 6, 2011, the protocol was amended to include three additional patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (total of 57 patients) and nine more in the IGF-1R-negative group (total of 63 patients). There were 2546 adverse events reported during the study, 214 (8%) of which were grade 3-4. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities in the 174 treated patients were anaemia in 16 (9%) patients, hyperglycaemia in 18 (10%), hypophosphataemia in 16 (9%), lymphopenia in 25 (14%), oral mucositis in 19 (11%), and thrombocytopenia in 19 (11%)., Interpretation: The combination of cixutumumab and temsirolimus shows clinical activity in patients with sarcoma and forms a basis for future trials. However, IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry is not predictive of clinical outcome after treatment with this combination., Funding: National Cancer Institute and CycleforSurvival Fund, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cetuximab is typically administered on a weekly schedule for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). This study explores cetuximab administered every 2 weeks (q2w). In this multicenter randomized prospective phase II study, eligible patients (≤2 prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease; ECOG performance status ≤2) were randomized to receive cetuximab q2w at 500 mg/m(2) (Group A) or 750 mg/m(2) (Group B). The primary end point was response rate (RECIST 1.0). Sixty-one patients were enrolled: 35 in Group A and 26 in Group B, which was closed early for lack of efficacy. Confirmed partial response rates were 11% for Group A (4/35) and 8% for Group B (2/26) according to intention to treat analysis. Partial responses occurred only among patients whose primary tumors were in the oral cavity or larynx. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were similar for both groups (PFS, 2.2 and 2.0 months; OS, 7.0 and 9.4 months; Groups A and B, respectively). The most common cetuximab-related adverse events (all grades) among treated subjects included rash, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia. Cetuximab, 500 mg/m(2), q2w achieves similar efficacy as conventional dosing for patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Escalating the dose to 750 mg/m(2) q2w offers no obvious therapeutic advantage.

The electronic health record (EHR) was adopted into the NorthShore University HealthSystem, a four-hospital integrated health system located in suburban Chicago, in 2003. By 2005, all chemotherapy and medicine order entry was conducted through the EHR, completing the incorporation of a fully paperless EHR in our hospital-based oncology practice in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The use of the EHR has dramatically changed our practice environment by improving efficiency, patient safety, research productivity, and operations, while allowing evaluation of adherence to established quality measures and incorporation of new quality improvement initiatives. The reach of the EHR has been substantial and has influenced every aspect of care at our institution over the short period since its implementation. In this article, we describe subjective and objective measures, outcomes, and achievements of our 5-year EHR experience.

Purpose: Assess efficacy and toxicity of gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, added to, and in maintenance after, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locally advanced head and neck cancer (LA-HNC) and correlate outcomes with EGFR gene copy number alterations., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage III to IV LA-HNC received two cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by split-course CCRT with fluorouracil, hydroxyurea, twice daily radiotherapy (FHX), and gefitinib (250 mg daily) followed by continued gefitinib for 2 years total. The primary end point was complete response (CR) rate after CCRT. EGFR gene copy number was assessed by fluorescent in situ hybridization., Results: Sixty-nine patients (66 with stage IV disease, 37 with oropharynx primary tumors, and 67 with performance status 0 to 1) were enrolled with a median age of 55 years. Predominant grade 3 or 4 toxicities during IC and CCRT were neutropenia (n = 20) and in-field mucositis (n = 59) and dermatitis (n = 23), respectively. CR rate after CCRT was 90%. After median follow-up of 3.5 years, 4-year overall, progression-free, and disease-specific survival rates were 74%, 72%, and 89%, respectively. To date, one patient has developed a second primary tumor in the aerodigestive tract. In 31 patients with available tissue, high EGFR gene copy number was associated with worse overall survival (P = .02)., Conclusion: Gefitinib can be administered with FHX and as maintenance therapy for at least 2 years, demonstrating CR and survival rates that compare favorably with prior experience. High EGFR gene copy number may be associated with poor outcome in patients with LA-HNC treated with this regimen.

Background: Docetaxel and irinotecan have single-agent antitumor activity in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). The authors sought to evaluate their combination in the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN., Methods: Eligibility criteria included recurrent or metastatic SCCHN with measurable disease, good performance status, and adequate laboratory parameters. Patients received docetaxel 35 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 60 mg/m(2), intravenously, on Days 1 and 8, every 21 days, until disease progression. The authors assessed UGT1A1 genotype, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in serum, and cyclooxygenase-2 and VEGF in baseline tumor tissue., Results: Fifty-two patients were analyzable: 20 chemotherapy naive (Group A) and 32 previously treated with 1 chemotherapy regimen (Group B); 73% of patients had distant metastasis, and 60% were paclitaxel-exposed. In Group A, 3 (15%) patients achieved a partial response; in Group B, 1 (3%) patient achieved a partial response. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.3 and 8.2 months in Group A and 1.9 and 5.0 months in Group B, respectively. Common serious toxicities were diarrhea, fatigue, and anorexia. Patients with high serum VEGF had a median PFS of 2.8 months versus 1.7 months for patients with low VEGF (P = .085)., Conclusions: Docetaxel and irinotecan had acceptable toxicities, but efficacy results in unselected patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN did not suggest an advantage over docetaxel alone or platinum-based regimens., (2009 American Cancer Society.)

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in most head and neck cancers and correlates with poor prognosis. In the past few years, numerous clinical trials for head and neck cancer have tested monoclonal antibodies against EGFRs and small molecule inhibitors of EGFR tyrosine kinase. Results led to FDA approval of cetuximab with concomitant radiotherapy for treating locally or regionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), and as a single agent in patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN for whom prior platinum-based therapy failed. This article reviews the biology of EGFR as it pertains to head and neck cancer, including the important clinical trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors in SCCHN, alone and with concomitant radiotherapy. Molecular and clinical markers of response and outcome are also discussed.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of administration context (embedded versus stand-alone) on the reliability and validity of the FACT Head and Neck Symptom Index (FHNSI)., Methods: Ninety-eight patients with head and neck cancer were randomized to one of two assessment conditions to evaluate the FHNSI's context (items administered embedded within the FACT-H&N or as stand-alone scale) and order of administration in the battery., Results: Planned comparisons on the item and scale levels revealed no systematic order or context differences. The embedded and stand-alone versions of the FHNSI showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.79-0.87). Correlations were high between the FHNSI versions and the physical and functional well-being scales of the FACT-H&N (0.70-0.84) and measures of pain intensity (-0.73, -0.74) and depression (-0.71, -0.74); moderate to large with the Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck subscales (PSS-HN; 0.46-0.71); and low with an anxiety measure (0.30, 0.34). Both FHNSI versions differentiated patients grouped by performance status (p < .0001, p < .0001) and global rating of change (p < .0001, p < 0.01). The FHNSI's minimally important difference range was 3-4 points., Conclusion: The FHNSI is a reliable and valid symptom index, which can be administered alone or scored using items embedded within the FACT-H&N.