Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), CD20, CD10, Bcl6, and MUM1 stainings in 4 non-GCB and 2 GCB cases representative for each DLBCL subtype. Bars, 50 µm.

AbstractPurpose: The aurora A kinase inhibitor alisertib demonstrated single-agent clinical activity and preclinical synergy with vincristine/rituximab in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). This phase I study aimed to determine the safety and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of alisertib in combination with rituximab ± vincristine in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-NHL. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory, diffuse, large, or other aggressive B-NHL received oral alisertib 50 mg b.i.d. days 1 to 7, plus i.v. rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, for up to eight 21-day cycles (MR). Patients in subsequent cohorts (3 + 3 design) received increasing doses of alisertib (30 mg starting dose; 10 mg increments) b.i.d. days 1 to 7 plus rituximab and vincristine [1.4 mg/m2 (maximum 2 mg) days 1, 8] for 8 cycles (MRV). Patients benefiting could continue single-agent alisertib beyond 8 cycles. Cell-of-origin and MYC/BCL2 IHC was performed on available archival tissue. Results: Forty-five patients participated. The alisertib RP2D for MR was 50 mg b.i.d. For MRV (n = 32), the RP2D was determined as 40 mg b.i.d. [1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at 40 mg; 2 DLTs at 50 mg]. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 89% of patients, the most common was neutropenia (47%). Seven patients had complete responses (CR), 7 had partial responses (PRs); 9 of 20 (45%) patients at the MRV RP2D responded (4 CRs, 5 PRs), all with non–germinal center B-cell (GCB) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Conclusions: The combination of alisertib 50 mg b.i.d. plus rituximab or alisertib 40 mg b.i.d. plus rituximab and vincristine was well tolerated and demonstrated activity in non-GCB DLBCL.

Both solid and hematologic malignancies may be complicated by coagulopathies. Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) in the presence of pancreatic cancer is generally unrecognized and may have fatal consequences. The diagnosis of DIC in a patient with advanced cancer is a poor prognostic indicator. Presented here is a case study consisting of two patients presenting with a new diagnosis of pancreatic cancer complicated by DIC. Aggressive supportive treatment in addition to systemic chemotherapy consisting of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel was initiated and DIC was controlled. An early diagnosis of DIC and the administration of systemic chemotherapy with a high response rate and an ability to reduce tumor bulk rapidly may offer some patients the probability of recovery.

PURPOSE:To compare the progression-free survival (PFS) using a treatment regimen selected by molecular profiling (MP) of a patient's tumor with the PFS for the most recent regimen on which the patient had experienced progression (ie, patient as his own control).PATIENTS AND METHODS:Patients with refractory metastatic cancer had tissue samples submitted for MP in two formats including formalin-fixed tissue for immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization assays and immediately frozen tissue for oligonucleotide microarray (MA) gene expression assays (all performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments [CLIA]-certified laboratory). The MP approach was deemed of clinical benefit for the individual patient who had a PFS ratio (PFS on MP-selected therapy/PFS on prior therapy) of ≥ 1.3.RESULTS:In 86 patients who had MP attempted, there was a molecular target detected in 84 (98%). Sixty-six of the 84 patients were treated according to MP results. Eighteen (27%) of 66 patients had a PFS ratio of ≥ 1.3 (95% CI, 17% to 38%; one-sided, one-sample P = .007). Therefore, the null hypothesis (that ≤ 15% of this patient population would have a PFS ratio of ≥ 1.3) was rejected.CONCLUSION:It is possible to identify molecular targets in patients' tumors from nine different centers across the United States. In 27% of patients, the MP approach resulted in a longer PFS on an MP-suggested regimen than on the regimen on which the patient had just experienced progression. Issues to be considered in interpretation of this study include limited prior experience with patients as their own controls as a study end point and overall patient attrition.