Available on request from the authors.

Purpose: Preclinical data indicate that DNA methyltransferase inhibition will circumvent cisplatin resistance in various cancers.Patient and Methods: SPIRE comprised a dose-escalation phase for incurable metastatic solid cancers, followed by a randomized dose expansion phase for neoadjuvant treatment of T2-4a N0 M0 bladder urothelial carcinoma. The primary objective was a recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for guadecitabine combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Treatment comprised 21-day gemcitabine and cisplatin cycles (cisplatin 70 mg/m 2 , i.v., day 8 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 , i.v., days 8 þ 15). Guadecitabine was injected subcutaneously on days 1-5, within escalation phase cohorts, and to half of 20 patients in the expansion phase. Registration ID: ISRCTN 16332228.Results: Within the escalation phase, dose-limiting toxicities related predominantly to myelosuppression requiring G-CSF prophylaxis from cohort 2 (guadecitabine 20 mg/m 2 , days 1-5). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in 17 patients in the dose-escalation phase were neutropenia (76.5%), thrombocytopenia (64.7%), leukopenia (29.4%), and anemia (29.4%). Addition of guadecitabine to gemcitabine and cisplatin in the expansion phase resulted in similar rates of severe hematologic adverse events, similar cisplatin dose intensity, but modestly reduced gemcitabine dose intensity. Radical treatment options after chemotherapy were not compromised. Pharmacodynamics evaluations indicated guadecitabine maximal target effect at the point of cisplatin administration. Pharmacokinetics were consistent with prior data. No treatment-related deaths occurred.Conclusions: The guadecitabine RP2D was 20 mg/m 2 , days 1-5, in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin and required GCSF prophylaxis. Gene promoter methylation pharmacodynamics are optimal with this schedule. Addition of guadecitabine to gemcitabine and cisplatin was tolerable, despite some additional myelosuppression, and warrants further investigation to assess efficacy.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The REMoDL-B phase III adaptive trial compared rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) versus R-CHOP + bortezomib (RB-CHOP) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), stratified by molecular subtype. Primary analysis at a median follow-up of 30 months found no effect of bortezomib on progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Retrospective analysis using a gene expression–based classifier identified a molecular high-grade (MHG) group with worse outcomes. We present an updated analysis for patients successfully classified by the gene expression profile (GEP). Eligible patients were age older than 18 years with untreated DLBCL, fit enough for full-dose chemotherapy, and with adequate biopsies for GEP. Of 1,077 patients registered, 801 were identified with Activated B-Cell (ABC), Germinal Center B-cell, or MHG lymphoma. At a median follow-up of 64 months, there was no overall benefit of bortezomib on PFS or OS (5-year PFS hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; P = .085; OS HR, 0.86; P = .32). However, improved PFS and OS were seen in ABC lymphomas after RB-CHOP: 5-year OS 67% with R-CHOP versus 80% with RB-CHOP (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.95; P = .032). Five-year PFS was higher in MHG lymphomas: 29% versus 55% (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.84). Patients with ABC and MHG DLBCL may benefit from the addition of bortezomib to R-CHOP in initial therapy.

BackgroundMalignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Earlier detection of MBO may improve patient outcomes. There are currently no screening tools to assist detection.AimWe report a screening questionnaire that can be used to detect MBO, and how the severity score for key clinical symptoms correlate with radiological evidence of MBO from ovarian cancer.DesignA case–control study in which patients with relapsed, metastatic ovarian cancer were asked to answer 10 questions related to key clinical symptoms associated with intestinal obstruction. The study group included women with CT-confirmed MBO, whereas the control group had no evidence of MBO. Patients scored each question according to severity from 1 (least severe) to 5 (most severe).Setting/participantsBetween 1 June and 31 December 2016, 37 women completed the screening questionnaire.ResultsPatients in the study group (n=17) reported significantly higher (ie, more severe) scores for abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and constipation. In contrast, differences in severity scores between groups did not differ significantly in response to questions regarding abdominal swelling, borborygmi, diarrhoea or loss of appetite. All patients in the study group more frequently stated that their symptoms had deteriorated within the 2 months prior to completing the questionnaire.ConclusionHere we report the key clinical symptoms associated with radiologically-confirmed MBO in relapsed, metastatic ovarian cancer. We recommend healthcare practitioners focus on these specific symptoms during patient consultations in order to improve risk stratification of MBO.