Efficacy of Pharmacokinetics-Directed Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide, and Etoposide Conditioning and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma: Comparison of a Multicenter Phase II Study and CIBMTR Outcomes.

Busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (BuCyE) is a commonly used conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). This multicenter, phase II study examined the safety and efficacy of BuCyE with individually adjusted busulfan based on preconditioning pharmacokinetics. The study initially enrolled Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients ages 18 to 80 years but was amended due to high early treatment-related mortality (TRM) in patients > 65 years. BuCyE outcomes were compared with contemporaneous recipients of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Two hundred seven subjects with HL (n = 66) or NHL (n = 141) were enrolled from 32 centers in North America, and 203 underwent ASCT. Day 100 TRM for all subjects (n = 203), patients > 65 years (n = 17), and patients ≤ 65 years (n = 186) were 4.5%, 23.5%, and 2.7%, respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) were 33% for HL and 58%, 77%, and 43% for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 63), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n = 29), and follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23), respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year overall survival (OS) were 76% for HL and 65%, 89%, and 89% for DLBCL, MCL, and FL, respectively. In the matched analysis rates of 2-year TRM were 3.3% for BuCyE and 3.9% for BEAM, and there were no differences in outcomes for NHL. Patients with HL had lower rates of 2-year PFS with BuCyE, 33% (95% CI, 21% to 46%), than with BEAM, 59% (95% CI, 52% to 66%), with no differences in TRM or OS. BuCyE provided adequate disease control and safety in B cell NHL patients ≤ 65 years but produced worse PFS in HL patients when compared with BEAM.

An integrated approach to the prediction of chemotherapeutic response in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in oncology is the selection of the most effective chemotherapeutic agents for individual patients, while the administration of ineffective chemotherapy increases mortality and decreases quality of life in cancer patients. This emphasizes the need to evaluate every patient's probability of responding to each chemotherapeutic agent and limiting the agents used to those most likely to be effective. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using gene expression data on the NCI-60 and corresponding drug sensitivity, mRNA and microRNA profiles were developed representing sensitivity to individual chemotherapeutic agents. The mRNA signatures were tested in an independent cohort of 133 breast cancer patients treated with the TFAC (paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, adriamycin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy regimen. To further dissect the biology of resistance, we applied signatures of oncogenic pathway activation and performed hierarchical clustering. We then used mRNA signatures of chemotherapy sensitivity to identify alternative therapeutics for patients resistant to TFAC. Profiles from mRNA and microRNA expression data represent distinct biologic mechanisms of resistance to common cytotoxic agents. The individual mRNA signatures were validated in an independent dataset of breast tumors (P = 0.002, NPV = 82%). When the accuracy of the signatures was analyzed based on molecular variables, the predictive ability was found to be greater in basal-like than non basal-like patients (P = 0.03 and P = 0.06). Samples from patients with co-activated Myc and E2F represented the cohort with the lowest percentage (8%) of responders. Using mRNA signatures of sensitivity to other cytotoxic agents, we predict that TFAC non-responders are more likely to be sensitive to docetaxel (P = 0.04), representing a viable alternative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the optimal strategy for chemotherapy sensitivity prediction integrates molecular variables such as ER and HER2 status with corresponding microRNA and mRNA expression profiles. Importantly, we also present evidence to support the concept that analysis of molecular variables can present a rational strategy to identifying alternative therapeutic opportunities.