No abstract

Patients receiving ifosfamide as part of their cancer treatment are at risk for ifosfamide-related encephalopathy (IRE), a potentially serious adverse event affecting up to 60% of patients. Symptoms range from transient altered mental status to coma and death. Consensus regarding risk factors for the development of IRE has not been reached in the literature. The purpose of this review is to identify risk factors for the development of IRE in adult cancer patients. A literature review was completed by searching PubMed and Scopus databases to identify articles published between 2008 and 2018. A total of 76 search results were reduced to a final sample of seven articles after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Published data suggest that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of greater than or equal to 2, impaired renal function, hypoalbuminemia, and having multiple risk factors are risk factors for the development of IRE. Knowledge of which patients are at increased risk for the development of IRE could help clinicians to appropriately counsel patients and families regarding personal risk for the development of IRE. Clinicians may also more closely monitor patients with risk factors for IRE.

Background: Advanced practice providers (APPs) play important roles in enrolling, educating, and caring for patients in clinical trials. However, much remains unknown about the role of APPs in managing adverse events (AEs) in early (phase I to II) clinical trials. In this study, we assessed the outpatient management of grade 3 to 4 AEs by APPs in early trials and characterized the workflow of our APP Phase I to II Fast Track (FT) Clinic. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records of patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors enrolled in phase I to II clinical trials who were seen by APPs from September 2017 to August 2018 in the APP phase I to II FT clinic in the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics. Results: A total of 808 patients enrolled in 159 clinical trials were seen in 2,697 visits (median 3 visits per patient; range 1–28) by 10 APPs. Treatment was interrupted in 6.9% of visits, and grade 3 to 4 AEs were seen in 5.4% of visits; however, patients from 1.4% of visits were sent to the emergency center (EC) and/or admitted. Patients referred to the EC and/or admitted were more likely to have baseline hypoalbuminemia, high lactate dehydrogenase, and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (i.e., ECOG > 1; p < .001). There were no associations between EC referral and gender, APP years of experience, or type of treatment. Conclusions: The APP Phase I to II FT Clinic has an important role in the management of AEs by APPs in early clinical trials in the outpatient setting, potentially avoiding EC visits and admissions.

5565 Background: Selinexor is a first-in-class novel, oral potent selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) which blocks Exportin-1 (XPO1) leading to nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins and prevention of translation of proto-oncogenes. Weekly paclitaxel is a standard chemotherapy regimen used in various tumor types. Preclinical models show that selinexor with paclitaxel exerts antitumor activity against multiple solid tumors. Our objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of selinexor and weekly paclitaxel. Methods: This was an open label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study utilizing a “3 + 3” design and a “basket type” expansion. Selinexor (twice weekly orally) and weekly paclitaxel (80mg IV 2 week on, 1 week off) was employed as one of 13 parallel arms. Two dose levels (DL) of selinexor were explored: DL1 selinexor 60mg; DL2 selinexor 80mg. Patients (pts) with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were eligible if they had adequate bone marrow and organ function. There was no limit on prior lines of therapy. Efficacy was evaluated using RECIST 1.1. Progression free survival (PFS) was defined as time from treatment until disease progression or death. Results: Of 35 pts treated, all were evaluable for toxicity, and 31 (88%) were evaluable for response. Pt diagnoses included ovarian (n = 28), breast (n = 4), prostate (n = 2), and cervical (n = 1) cancer. Pts had a median of four prior therapies (range 1-10), and 47% had a prior taxane. All pts with ovarian cancer had platinum resistant/refractory disease; high grade serous histology was most common. There were no DLTs and DL1 was chosen as the RP2D given its long term tolerability. 97% of pts had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and the most common TEAEs were anemia (74%), nausea (57%), fatigue (51%), leukopenia (51%), neutropenia (49%), thrombocytopenia (46%), and vomiting (31%). The most prevalent grade ≥ 3 TEAE were neutropenia (46%), anemia (31%), leukopenia (17%), and fatigue (9 %). Partial responses (PR) were noted in 4 pts (13%); 10 pts (32%) achieved stable disease for > 4 months for a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 45%. 16 pts (47%) had prior exposure to a taxane, including 1 pt who achieved PR. Among 24 evaluable pts with ovarian cancer, response rate was 17%, CBR was 58%, and PFS was 6.83 months (95% CI 3.73, not reached (NR)). Median duration of clinical benefit in ovarian cancer was 7.57 months (95% CI: 4.43, NR). Conclusions: Oral selinexor in combination with weekly paclitaxel demonstrated promising clinical activity with manageable toxicity, and further evaluation with once weekly selinexor is warranted. This combination should be considered for further exploration in a randomized study, especially in ovarian malignancies. Clinical trial information: NCT02419495.