Paulina Selaru

PURPOSE: Crizotinib is an oral kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The clinical benefits of crizotinib in patients with brain metastases have not been previously studied. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC enrolled onto clinical trial PROFILE 1005 or 1007 (randomly assigned to crizotinib) were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases (nontarget or target lesions) were allowed to enroll. Tumor assessments were evaluated every 6 weeks using RECIST (version 1.1). RESULTS: At baseline, 31% of patients (275 of 888) had asymptomatic brain metastases; 109 had received no prior and 166 had received prior brain radiotherapy as treatment. Among patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, the systemic disease control rate (DCR) at 12 weeks was 63% (95% CI, 54% to 72%), the intracranial DCR was 56% (95% CI, 46% to 66%), and the median intracranial time to progression (TTP) was 7 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 16.4). Among patients with previously treated brain metastases, the systemic DCR was 65% (95% CI, 57% to 72%), the intracranial DCR was 62% (95% CI, 54% to 70%), and the median intracranial TTP was 13.2 months (95% CI, 9.9 to not reached). Patients with systemic disease control were also likely to experience intracranial disease control at 12 weeks (correlation coefficient, 0.7652; P < .001). Among patients without baseline brain metastases who developed progressive disease (n = 253) after initiation of crizotinib, 20% were diagnosed with brain metastases. CONCLUSION: Crizotinib was associated with systemic and intracranial disease control in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC who were ALK inhibitor naive and had brain metastases. However, progression of preexisting or development of new intracranial lesions while receiving therapy was a common manifestation of acquired resistance to crizotinib.

BACKGROUND: Arginine vasopressin may contribute to abnormalities in hemodynamics and fluid balance in heart failure through its actions on V(1A) (vascular and myocardial effects) and V(2) receptors (renal effects). Inhibiting the action of vasopressin may be beneficial in patients with heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 142 patients with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association class III and IV) were randomized to double-blind, short-term treatment with conivaptan, a dual V(1a)/V(2) vasopressin receptor antagonist, at a single intravenous dose (10, 20, or 40 mg) or placebo. Compared with placebo, conivaptan at 20 and 40 mg significantly reduced pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (-2.6+/-0.7, -5.4+/-0.7, and -4.6+/-0.7 mm Hg for placebo and 20 and 40 mg groups, respectively; P<0.05) and right atrial pressure (-2.0+/-0.4, -3.7+/-0.4, and -3.5+/-0.4 mm Hg for placebo and 20 and 40 mg groups, respectively; P<0.05) during the 3- to 6-hour interval after intravenous administration. Conivaptan significantly increased urine output in a dose-dependent manner (-11+/-17, 68+/-17, 152+/-19, and 176+/-18 mL/hour for placebo and 10, 20, and 40 mg groups, respectively; P<0.001) during the first 4 hours after the dose. Changes in cardiac index, systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance, blood pressure, and heart rate did not significantly differ from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced heart failure, vasopressin receptor antagonism with conivaptan resulted in favorable changes in hemodynamics and urine output without affecting blood pressure or heart rate. These data suggest that vasopressin is functionally significant in advanced heart failure and that further investigations are warranted to examine the effects of conivaptan on symptom relief and natural history in such patients.

PURPOSE: Aberrant vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) signaling have been shown to play a role in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) pathogenesis and are associated with decreased survival. We evaluated the clinical activity and tolerability of sunitinib malate (SU11248), an oral, multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of receptors for VEGF and PDGF, as well as related tyrosine kinases in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC for whom platinum-based chemotherapy had failed received 50 mg/d of sunitinib for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks of no treatment in 6-week treatment cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR); secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 63 patients treated with sunitinib, seven patients had confirmed partial responses, yielding an ORR of 11.1% (95% CI, 4.6% to 21.6%). An additional 18 patients (28.6%) experienced stable disease of at least 8 weeks in duration. Median progression-free survival was 12.0 weeks (95% CI, 10.0 to 16.1 weeks), and median overall survival was 23.4 weeks (95% CI, 17.0 to 28.3 weeks). Therapy was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib has promising single-agent activity in patients with recurrent NSCLC, with an ORR similar to that of currently approved agents and an acceptable safety profile. Further evaluation in combination with other targeted agents and chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC is warranted.

PURPOSE: Intracranial efficacy of first-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy was compared prospectively in the phase III PROFILE 1014 study in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; n = 172) or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or carboplatin at area under the curve 5 to 6, every 3 weeks for ≤ six cycles; n = 171). Patients with stable treated brain metastases (tBM) were eligible. Intracranial efficacy was assessed at baseline and every 6 or 12 weeks in patients with or without known brain metastases (BM), respectively; intracranial time to tumor progression (IC-TTP; per protocol) and intracranial disease control rate (IC-DCR; post hoc) were measured. The intent-to-treat population was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 343 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 23% had tBM at baseline. A nonsignificant IC-TTP improvement was observed with crizotinib in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P = .069), patients with tBM (HR, 0.45; P = .063), and patients without BM (HR, 0.69; P = .323). Among patients with tBM, IC-DCR was significantly higher with crizotinib versus chemotherapy at 12 weeks (85% v 45%, respectively; P < .001) and 24 weeks (56% v 25%, respectively; P = .006). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with crizotinib versus chemotherapy in both subgroups (tBM present: HR, 0.40; P < .001; median, 9.0 v 4.0 months, respectively; BM absent: HR, 0.51; P < .001; median, 11.1 v 7.2 months, respectively) and in the intent-to-treat population (HR, 0.45; P < .001; median, 10.9 v 7.0 months, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with chemotherapy, crizotinib demonstrated a significantly higher IC-DCR in patients with tBM. Improvements in IC-TTP were not statistically significant in patients with or without tBM, although sensitivity to detect treatment differences in or between the two subgroups was low.