Introduction LY2603618 is a selective inhibitor of checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) protein kinase, a key regulator of the DNA damage checkpoint, and is predicted to enhance the effects of antimetabolites, such as pemetrexed. This phase II trial assessed the overall response rate, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of LY2603618 and pemetrexed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods In this open-label, single-arm trial, patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC progressing after a prior first-line treatment regimen (not containing pemetrexed) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 received pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2), day 1) and LY2603618 (150 mg/m(2), day 2) every 21 days until disease progression. Safety was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. Serial blood samples were collected for PK analysis after LY2603618 and pemetrexed administration. Expression of p53, as measured by immunohistochemistry and genetic variant analysis, was assessed as a predictive biomarker of response. Results Fifty-five patients were enrolled in the study. No patients experienced a complete response; a partial response was observed in 5 patients (9.1 %; 90 % CI, 3.7-18.2) and stable disease in 20 patients (36.4 %). The median progression-free survival was 2.3 months (range, 0-27.1). Safety and PK of LY2603618 in combination with pemetrexed were favorable. No association between p53 status and response was observed. Conclusions There was no significant clinical activity of LY2603618 and pemetrexed combination therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. The results were comparable with historical pemetrexed single-agent data, with similar safety and PK profiles being observed.

BackgroundLimited data exist regarding real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and costs of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (esSCLC) among elderly patients in the United States. While abundant data are available on treatment patterns in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), to our knowledge no data exist comparing costs and resource use between patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed administrative claims data (2000–2008) of patients aged ≥65 years from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were selected on the basis of having newly diagnosed esSCLC (n=5,855) or mNSCLC (n=24,090) during 1/1/2000-12/31/2005, and were required to have received cancer-directed therapy. Survival and other measures were compared between esSCLC and mNSCLC patients using Kaplan-Meier log-rank and univariate chi-square and t-tests. Study measures were followed from first diagnosis date of either esSCLC or mNSCLC until the earlier of death or end of the database.ResultsSurvival between the cohorts did not differ significantly: mean of 10.4 months for esSCLC patients versus 11.1 months for mNSCLC; median survival was 7.4 months versus 5.9 months. A higher percentage of mNSCLC patients (vs. esSCLC) received radiation therapy (75.6% vs. 65.4%; P < 0.001) and surgery (13.6% vs. 7.8%; P < 0.001) during the metastatic disease period. Conversely, a higher percentage of esSCLC patients than mNSCLC patients received chemotherapy (85.5% vs. 60.3%; P < 0.001), red blood-cell transfusion (20.7% vs. 10.9%; P < 0.001), platelet transfusion (5.6% vs. 1.8%; P < 0.001), and growth-factor support (59.0% vs. 39.5%; P < 0.001). esSCLC patients incurred higher lifetime disease-related costs ($44,167 vs. $37,932; P < 0.001) and all-cause costs ($70,549 vs. $67,176; P < 0.001) than mNSCLC patients.ConclusionsLifetime total and disease-related costs per patient were high. Increased use of chemotherapy, supportive care therapies (including growth factors), and disease-related hospitalizations were observed in esSCLC patients as compared with mNSCLC patients. Disease-related and all-cause costs for esSCLC also exceeded those of mNSCLC, except for hospice and skilled nursing services. Survival and per-patient costs for both groups underscore the unmet medical need for more effective therapies in patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0555-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multisensory information typically confers neural and behavioural advantages over unisensory information. We used a simple audio-visual detection task to compare healthy young (HY), healthy older (HO) and mild-cognitive impairment (MCI) individuals. Neuropsychological tests assessed individuals’ learning and memory impairments. First, we provide much-needed clarification regarding the presence of enhanced multisensory benefits in both healthily and abnormally aging individuals. The pattern of sensory dominance shifted with healthy and abnormal aging to favour a propensity of auditory-dominant behaviour (i.e., detecting sounds faster than flashes). Notably, multisensory benefits were larger only in healthy older than younger individuals who were also visually-dominant. Second, we demonstrate that the multisensory detection task offers benefits as a time- and resource-economic MCI screening tool. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated that MCI diagnosis could be reliably achieved based on the combination of indices of multisensory integration together with indices of sensory dominance. Our findings showcase the importance of sensory profiles in determining multisensory benefits in healthy and abnormal aging. Crucially, our findings open an exciting possibility for multisensory detection tasks to be used as a cost-effective screening tool. These findings clarify relationships between multisensory and memory functions in aging, while offering new avenues for improved dementia diagnostics.

BackgroundThis was a post hoc analysis of patients with non-squamous histology from a phase III maintenance pemetrexed study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsThe six symptom items' [average symptom burden index (ASBI)] mean at baseline was calculated using the lung cancer symptom scale (LCSS). Low and high symptom burden (LSB, ASBI < 25; HSB, ASBI ≥ 25) and performance status (PS: 0, 1) subgroups were analyzed for treatment effect on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using the Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for demographic/clinical factors.ResultsSignificantly longer PFS and OS for pemetrexed versus placebo occurred in LSB patients [PFS: median 5.1 versus 2.4 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, P < 0.0001; OS: median 17.5 versus 11.0 months, HR 0.63, P = 0.0012] and PS 0 patients (PFS: median 5.5 versus 1.7 months, HR 0.36, P < 0.0001; OS: median 17.7 versus 10.3 months, HR 0.54, P = 0.0019). Significantly longer PFS, but not OS, occurred in HSB patients (median 3.7 versus 2.8 months, HR 0.50, P = 0.0033) and PS 1 patients (median 4.4 versus 2.8 months, HR 0.60, P = 0.0002).ConclusionsASBI and PS are associated with survival for non-squamous NSCLC patients, suggesting that maintenance pemetrexed is useful for LSB or PS 0 patients following induction.

BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes have been associated with survival in numerous studies across cancer types, including breast cancer. However, the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) have rarely been investigated in this regard in breast cancer.MethodsHere we describe a post hoc analysis of the prognostic effect of baseline scores of these instruments on survival in a phase III trial of patients with advanced breast cancer who received gemcitabine plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone after anthracycline-based adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. The variables for this analysis were baseline BPI-SF “worst pain” and BPI-SF “pain interference” scores, and four RSCL subscales (each transformed to 0–100). Univariate and multivariate Cox models were used, the latter in the presence of 11 demographic/clinical variables. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to compare survival for patients by BPI-SF or RSCL scores.ResultsOf 529 randomized patients, 286 provided BPI-SF data and 336 provided RSCL data at baseline. Univariate analyses identified BPI-SF worst pain and pain interference (both hazard ratios [HR], 1.07 for a 1-point increase; both p ≤ 0.0061) and three of four RSCL subscales [activity level, physical distress, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (HR, 0.86–0.91 for 10-point increase all p ≤ 0.0104)], to have significant prognostic effect for survival. BPI-SF worst pain (p = 0.0342) and RSCL activity level (p = 0.0004) were prognostic in the multivariate analysis. Median survival for patients categorized by BPI-SF worst pain score was 23.8 (n = 91), 17.9 (n = 94) and 14.6 (n = 94) months for scores 0, 1–4, and 5–10, respectively (log-rank p = 0.0065). Median survival was 23.8 and 14.6 months for patients (n = 330) with above- and below-median RSCL activity level scores respectively (log-rank p < 0.0001).ConclusionPretreatment BPI-SF worst pain and RSCL activity scores provide distinct prognostic information for survival in patients receiving paclitaxel or gemcitabine plus paclitaxel for advanced breast cancer even after controlling for multiple demographic and clinical factors.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT00006459.