Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The BOLT study for sonidegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) approved for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy, used modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for laBCC tumor evaluation. The ERIVANCE study for vismodegib, another HHI, used a composite RECIST endpoint of ≥30% reduction in externally visible tumor or radiographic dimension, or complete ulceration resolution. This preplanned sensitivity BOLT analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with laBCC who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily. Methods This phase 2, double-blind study randomized patients 1:2 to sonidegib 200:800 mg daily, respectively. Key endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). laBCC tumors were assessed by both mRECIST and ERIVANCE-like criteria. Per mRECIST, an overall response of CR was based on negative histology; photographic assessment of CR, PR (scar/fibrosis only), SD (scar/fibrosis only), or not available (NA); and a magnetic resonance imaging response of CR or NA. An overall response of CR was primarily based on negative histology using ERIVANCE-like criteria. Results Per mRECIST criteria, ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) by central and investigator review for patients with laBCC ( n  = 66) was 56.1% (43.3–68.3%) and 71.2% (58.7–81.7%), respectively. CR per central review was achieved in 3 (4.5%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 34 (51.5%), 23 (34.8%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. Median (95% CI) DOR was 26.1 months (not estimable [NE]). Using ERIVANCE-like criteria, efficacy outcomes per central and investigator review were higher, with an ORR (95% CI) of 60.6% (47.8–72.4%) and 74.2% (62.0–84.2%), respectively. CR per central review was reached in 14 (21.2%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 26 (39.4%), 20 (30.3%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. DOR was unchanged with a median (95% CI) of 26.1 months (NE). Conclusions Overall, applying ERIVANCE-like criteria to patients with laBCC receiving sonidegib 200 mg daily yielded higher response rates vs mRECIST criteria. Trial registration BOLT registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01327053 ) on March 30, 2011.

John T LearUniversity of Manchester, 46 Grafton Street, Manchester M13 9NT, UKTel +44 161 276 4173Fax +44 161 276 8881Email john.lear@srft.nhs.ukNevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome (NBCCS), or Gorlin syndrome, is a rare hereditary disease characterized by the development of multiple cutaneous basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) from a young age.1 Loss-of-function germline mutations in the hedgehog-related patched 1 (PTCH1) tumor suppressor gene are the most common cause of NBCCS.1 The hedgehog signaling pathway plays a major role in embryonic development, and in adulthood, is involved in the renewal and maintenance of distinct tissues, including hair follicles, muscle stem cells, and gastric epithelium.2 Its abnormal activation is thought to drive the formation of both sporadic BCCs and those resulting from NBCCS.1 Patients with NBCCS inherit one inactive copy of PTCH1 and then acquire a \"second-hit\" mutation, resulting in hedgehog pathway activation and BCC formation.1 Mutations in Suppressor of fused (SUFU) or the PTCH1 homolog PTCH2 have also been found in a subset of patients meeting criteria for NBCCS.1,3

Purpose: Abiraterone acetate is an androgen synthesis inhibitor used to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The therapeutic equivalence, pharmacokinetics, and safety of abiraterone acetate fine particle (AAFP) versus originator abiraterone acetate (OAA) were examined in a Phase-2 study; sufficient similarity was observed between the 2 treatments. This 1-year, open-label, extension study evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of AAFP. Patients and methods: This was an open-label, single-arm extension study. Patients who completed the 84-day, Phase-2, run-in study could enroll to receive 500 mg AAFP once daily and 4 mg methylprednisolone twice daily for up to 1 year. Safety was the primary endpoint, as assessed by adverse event monitoring throughout the study. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change from run-in study baseline levels of serum testosterone and prostate-specific antigen measured at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Results: Twenty patients enrolled, of whom 9 and 11 received prior AAFP and OAA in the run-in study, respectively. Both prior treatment groups maintained a significant decrease in serum testosterone from run-in baseline at all timepoints; mean change from run-in baseline ± standard deviation at 1 year of −6.24 ± 2.02 (P = .0023) and −5.87 ± 3.64 (P = .0026) ng/dL for the prior AAFP and OAA group, respectively. Change from run-in baseline in serum prostate-specific antigen was not significant. Most (84.0%) adverse events were Grade 1 or 2. Conclusion: No new safety signals were identified, and patients were able to successfully switch from OAA to AAFP with no impact.

Introduction: Subcutaneous injection of octreotide acetate is indicated to treat adults with acromegaly and diarrhea associated with carcinoid tumors or vasoactive intestinal peptide tumors. In this formative human factors study, we evaluated the readability and comprehension of the instructions for use (IFU) and ease of use of the octreotide pen injector. Methods: The study enrolled patients and healthcare practitioners who would be using the pen injector. The IFU contained a stepwise process with illustrations to detail injection administration and safe storage of the octreotide pen injector. Participants read the IFU and familiarized themselves with the device. Participants administered 2 unaided injections into skin-like pads. Injection success was defined as an attempt that delivered the correct dose into the pad. Each injection was evaluated by objective performance and subjective measures. Objective performance measures included assessment of steps necessary to deliver the correct medication dose and ensure user safety. Subjective measures included soliciting participant feedback on perceived success and difficulties administering a dose with the octreotide pen injector, as well as suggestions for improvements. Additional goals included evaluation of the IFU and octreotide pen injector usability aspects. Results: A total of 8 patients and 3 healthcare practitioners enrolled in the study. All (n = 11) participants successfully administered both injections, leading to an overall injection success rate of 100% across twenty-two injections. Subtask errors included participants priming the pen injector with the incorrect dose (n = 1) and not holding the injection button for 10 seconds after the injection (n = 2), but neither error resulted in dosing failure. Participant suggestions for improving the IFU included changes to the illustration of the plunger, reordering statements to clarify the priming process, and detailing how long to let the pen injector come to room temperature. Conclusion: Overall, participants felt the octreotide pen injector was easy to use and the instructions were clearly written and illustrated. Participant feedback and observations by moderators of the study led to recommendations for improvements to the clarity of the IFU.

Introduction Sonidegib is approved to treat locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) in the USA, EU, Switzerland, and Australia and metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) in Switzerland and Australia in patients not amenable to surgery or radiotherapy. Vismodegib is approved to treat patients with mBCC, recurrent laBCC, or those not candidates for surgery or radiation. There is no head-to-head trial comparing Hedgehog inhibitors. We describe time to onset and severity of adverse events (AEs) in two studies reporting cumulative AE incidence every treatment cycle: the sonidegib phase 2 BOLT study and the expanded-access, open-label vismodegib study. Methods This analysis included patients with histologically confirmed laBCC or mBCC from BOLT who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily (QD) and patients from the vismodegib study who received vismodegib 150 mg QD. Cumulative occurrence of AEs and median time to AE onset were calculated on 30-day cycles for sonidegib and 28-day cycles for vismodegib. AEs were graded for severity using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Only common (at least 15% incidence) AEs were analyzed in this study. Results Over 18 treatment cycles, the most common all-grade AEs for sonidegib and vismodegib were muscle spasm (54.4% vs 70.6%; P  = 0.0236), alopecia (49.4% vs 58.0%; no significant difference [NS]), and dysgeusia (43.0% vs 70.6%; P  = 0.0003); incidences of diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and weight decrease were 31.6% vs 25.2% (NS), 39.2% vs 19.3% ( P  = 0.0032), 32.9% vs 19.3% ( P  = 0.0429), and 30.4% vs 16.0% ( P  = 0.0217), respectively. Sonidegib-treated patients had more delayed median time to onset for all AEs than vismodegib-treated patients, except fatigue and weight decrease (NS). Most AEs reported were grade ≤ 2. Conclusion This post hoc analysis suggests lower overall incidence and slower onset of certain AEs in patients treated with sonidegib compared with vismodegib. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the relevance of these findings needs further studies to provide conclusive evidence.

Introduction Sonidegib is a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor approved to treat locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and, depending on regulatory approval, metastatic basal cell carcinoma. Results from the BOLT study demonstrated robust efficacy and continued tolerability through 42 months. This analysis evaluated the impact of sonidegib dose reductions and interruptions in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma through 42 months. Methods BOLT was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 2 study. Adults with no previous Hedgehog pathway inhibitor therapy were randomized 1:2 to sonidegib 200 or 800 mg once daily. Primary endpoint was objective response rate. Dose modifications were permitted in patients unable to tolerate the dosing schedule or if a treatment-related adverse event was suspected. Results The incidence of dose interruptions was similar between the 200- and 800-mg groups (68.4% vs 65.3%, respectively). Dose reductions occurred more frequently in patients receiving sonidegib 800 mg (36.7%) than 200 mg (16.5%). Overall response rate for all patients receiving sonidegib 200 mg daily was 48.1% and was similar to those of patients without dose reduction or interruption (48.5%) and patients with at least one dose reduction or interruption (46.2%). Conclusion Dose reductions and interruptions were practical and did not impact the efficacy of sonidegib. In patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma who necessitate long-term treatment, dose interruptions may be beneficial for continued treatment and disease control. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01327053.