Vorinostat, a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, has shown evidence of single-agent activity in glioblastoma (GBM), and in preclinical studies, we have demonstrated significant synergistic cytotoxicity between HDAC inhibitors and proteasome inhibitors in GBM cell lines. We therefore conducted a phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of vorinostat in combination with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in patients with recurrent GBM. Vorinostat was administered at a dose of 400 mg daily for 14 days of a 21-day cycle, and bortezomib was administered at a dose of 1.3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of the cycle. A total of 37 patients were treated, and treatment was well tolerated: grade 3, 4 nonhematologic toxicity occurred in 30% of patients and consisted mainly of fatigue (14%) and neuropathy (5%); grade 3, 4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 37% of patients and consisted of thrombocytopenia (30%), lymphopenia (4%), and neutropenia (4%). The trial was closed at the predetermined interim analysis, with 0 of 34 patients being progression-free at 6 months. One patient achieved a partial response according to the Macdonald criteria. The median time to progression for all patients was 1.5 months (range, 0.5-5.6 months), and median overall survival (OS) was 3.2 months. Patients who had received prior bevacizumab therapy had a shorter time to progression and OS, compared with those who had not. On the basis of the results of this phase II study, further evaluation of the vorinostat-bortezomib combination in GBM patients in this dose and schedule is not recommended.

Background Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) continues to be a substantial problem for many cancer patients. Pursuant to promising appearing pilot data, the current study evaluated the use of vitamin E for the prevention of CIPN. Methods A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients undergoing therapy with neurotoxic chemotherapy, utilizing twice daily dosing of vitamin E (400 mg)/placebo. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 2+ sensory neuropathy (SN) toxicity (CTCAE v 3.0) in each treatment arm, analyzed by chi-square testing. Planned sample size was 100 patients per arm to provide 80% power to detect a difference in incidence of grade 2+ SN toxicity from 25% in the placebo group to 10% in the vitamin E group. Results Two-hundred seven patients were enrolled between December 1, 2006 and December 14, 2007, producing 189 evaluable cases for analysis. Cytotoxic agents included taxanes (109), cisplatin (8), carboplatin (2), oxaliplatin (50), or combination (20). There was no difference in the incidence of grade 2+ SN between the two arms (34%—vitamin E, 29%—placebo; P=0.43). There were no significant differences between treatment arms for time to onset of neuropathy (P=0.58), for chemotherapy dose reductions due to neuropathy (P=0.21), or for secondary endpoints derived from patient-reported neuropathy symptom assessments. The treatment was well tolerated overall. Conclusions Vitamin E did not appear to reduce the incidence of sensory neuropathy in the studied group of patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy.

SummaryBackground-The objective of ECOG 1503 was to determine the response rate of this combination in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Purpose Painful oral mucositis (OM) is a significant toxicity during radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to test the efficacy of doxepin hydrochloride in the reduction of radiotherapy-induced OM pain. Patients and Methods In all, 155 patients were randomly allocated to a doxepin oral rinse or a placebo for the treatment of radiotherapy-related OM pain. Patients received a single dose of doxepin or placebo on day 1 and then crossed over to receive the opposite agent on a subsequent day. Pain questionnaires were administered at baseline and at 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes. Patients were then given the option to continue doxepin. The primary end point was pain reduction as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of the pain scale using data from day 1. Results Primary end point analysis revealed that the AUC for mouth and throat pain reduction was greater for doxepin (−9.1) than for placebo (−4.7; P < .001). Crossover analysis of patients completing both phases confirmed that patients experienced greater mouth and throat pain reduction with doxepin (intrapatient changes of 4.1 for doxepin-placebo arm and −2.8 for placebo-doxepin arm; P < .001). Doxepin was associated with more stinging or burning, unpleasant taste, and greater drowsiness than the placebo rinse. More patients receiving doxepin expressed a desire to continue treatment than did patients with placebo after completion of each of the randomized phases of the study. Conclusion A doxepin rinse diminishes OM pain. Further studies are warranted to determine its role in the management of OM.

Postmenopausal women with breast cancer (BC) are at increased risk for bone loss. Bisphosphonates improve bone mineral density (BMD) in normal postmenopausal women. The purpose of this study was to determine if immediate treatment with zoledronic acid preserves BMD in postmenopausal women with BC starting letrozole after tamoxifen. Postmenopausal women with BC completing tamoxifen were treated with daily letrozole 2.5 mg/vitamin D 400 I.U., calcium 500 mg twice daily and were randomized to upfront or delayed zoledronic acid 4 mg every 6 months. Patients in the delayed arm were only given zoledronic acid if they developed a post-baseline BMD T score <−2.0 or had a fracture. The primary endpoint was the mean percent change in lumbar spine (LS) BMD at 1 year. About 558 women enrolled; 395 provided 1 year BMD data. The upfront arm experienced a mean change of +3.66% in LS BMD versus -1.66% for the delayed group (P < 0.001). Changes at the femoral neck/total hip were also greater for the upfront versus delayed arms (P < 0.001; P < 0.001) with differences persisting at 2 years. Patients in the delayed arm were more likely to experience a clinically meaningful 5% loss of BMD at all sites versus the upfront zoledronate group. Patients in the upfront arm were slightly more likely to report limb edema, fatigue, fever, nausea and jaw osteonecrosis(1%). Upfront zoledronic acid prevents bone loss in postmenopausal women with BC starting letrozole after tamoxifen.

Purpose. The Oncotype DX colon cancer assay is a clinically validated predictor of recurrence risk in stage II colon cancer patients. This prospective study evaluated the impact of recurrence score (RS) results on physician recommendations regarding adjuvant chemotherapy in T3, mismatch repairproficient (MMR-P) stage II colon cancer patients. Patients and Methods. Stage IIA colon cancer patients were enrolled in 17 centers. Patient tumor specimens were assessed by the RS test (quantitative reverse transcriptionpolymerase chain reaction) and mismatch repair (immunohistochemistry). For each patient, the physician's recommended postoperative treatment plan of observation, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy, or combination therapy with oxaliplatin was recorded before and after the RS and mismatch repair results were provided. Results. Of 221 enrolled patients, 141 patients had T3 MMR-P tumors and were eligible for the primary analysis.Treatment recommendations changed for 63 (45%; 95% confidence interval: 36%-53%) of these 141 T3 MMR-P patients, with intensity decreasing for 47 (33%) and increasing for 16 (11%). Recommendations for chemotherapy decreased from 73 patients (52%) to 42 (30%), following review of RS results by physician and patient. Increased treatment intensity was more often observed at higher RS values, and decreased intensity was observed at lower values (p 5 .011). Conclusion. Compared with traditional clinicopathological assessment, incorporation of the RS result into clinical decision making was associated with treatment recommendation changes for 45% of T3 MMR-P stage II colon cancer patients in this prospective multicenter study. Use of the RS assay may lead to overall reduction in adjuvant chemotherapy use in this subgroup of stage II colon cancer patients. The Oncologist 2014;19:492-497Implications for Practice: The use of adjuvant therapy for resected stage II colon cancer remains of uncertain benefit. Patients with high-risk features appear to gain benefit, whereas patients with a deficiency in mismatch repair enzymes have a low risk of recurrence and should not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. For all other stage II patients, defining recurrence risk has been challenging. Using the Oncotype DX colon cancer assay with a recurrence score in this patient group, we observed a change in the initial treatment recommendation in 45% of patients, indicating that the assay can provide meaningful information with regard to adjuvant therapy decisions.

BACKGROUNDShark cartilage has been a popular complementary or alternative medicine intervention. The basis for this popularity is the claim that sharks rarely get cancer because of the high proportion of cartilage in the shark's body. However, early studies were equivocal. Therefore, a clinical trial was conducted to look at the impact of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer. The primary goal of this trial was to determine whether a shark cartilage product improved overall survival for patients with advanced cancer who were getting standard care. Secondary research goals were to evaluate toxicities, tolerability, and quality of life associated with this shark cartilage product.METHODSThe study was a two‐arm, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, clinical trial. Patients with incurable breast or colorectal carcinoma had to have good performance status and organ function. Patients could be receiving chemotherapy. Patients were all to receive standard care and then to be randomly selected to receive either a shark cartilage product or an identical‐appearing and smelling placebo 3 to 4 times each day.RESULTSData on a total of 83 evaluable patients were analyzed. There was no difference in overall survival between patients receiving standard care plus a shark cartilage product versus standard care plus placebo. Likewise, there was no suggestion of improvement in quality of life for patients receiving the shark cartilage, compared with those receiving placebo.CONCLUSIONThis trial was unable to demonstrate any suggestion of efficacy for this shark cartilage product in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

Background Despite newer agents, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to remain a distressing side effect to a proportion of patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer therapy. Methods We recently performed an unplanned secondary analysis on a previously reported negative phase III trial (N08C3) looking at the efficacy of gabapentin/placebo in combination with dexamethasone and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist in the prevention of CINV for 413 patients undergoing regimens with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In the current study, we attempted to better understand the higher than expected rate of overall patient satisfaction, despite a low complete response rate in both arms. Additionally, we looked at patient variables and their relationship to rates of CINV. Results Approximately one third of patients experienced more than mild nausea and reported scores on the Functional Living Index–Emesis that indicated interference with activities. Thirty-five percent reported nausea greater than 2.5 on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 being none), 19 % reported at least one emetic episode, and 49 % reported taking rescue medication. Nausea and vomiting on day 1, cisplatin therapy, and history of motion sickness significantly predicted delayed CINV. Age, combination chemotherapy (HEC with moderately emetogenic), and getting treatment for breast cancer predicted CINVon day 1. Discussion These data confirm previous reports that subgroups of patients may be more prone to acute and delayed CINV. Future CINV study design may benefit from a more individualized approach to CINV management, targeting those patients who are truly at risk for CINV despite continued drug development efforts.