We discuss the most popular static and dynamic models of household behavior. Our main objective is to explain which aspects of household decisions different models can account for. Using this insight, we describe testable implications, identification results, and estimation findings obtained in the literature. Particular attention is given to the ability of different models to answer various types of policy questions.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether a measurement and feedback system led to improvements in adherence to clinical pathways. DESIGN: The M-QURE (Moffitt-Quality, Understanding, Research and Evidence) Initiative was introduced in 2012 to enhance and improve adherence to pathways at Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) in three broad clinical areas: breast, lung and gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. M-QURE used simulated patient vignettes based on MCCs Clinical Pathways to benchmark clinician adherence and monitor change over three rounds of implementation. SETTING: MCC, located in Tampa, Florida, a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center. PARTICIPANTS: Three non-overlapping cohorts at MCC (one each in breast, lung and GI) totalling 48 providers participated in this study, with each member of the multidisciplinary team (composed of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons and advanced practice providers) invited to participate. INTERVENTIONS: Each participant was asked to complete a set of simulated patient vignettes over three rounds within their own cancer specialty. Participants were required to complete all assigned vignettes over each of the three rounds, or they would be excluded from this study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Increased domain and overall provider care adherence to clinical pathways, as scored by blinded physician abstractors. RESULTS: We found significant improvements in pathway adherence between the third and first rounds of data collection particularly for workup and treatment of cancer cases. By clinical grouping, breast improved by 13.6% (p<0.001), and lung improved by 12.1% (p<0.001) over baseline, whereas GI showed a decrease of 1.4% (p=0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pathway adherence improved in a short timeframe for breast and lung cancers using group-level measurement and individual feedback. This suggests that a measurement and feedback programme may be a useful tool to improve clinical pathway adherence.

Background

Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) can sensitise cancer cells to topoisomerase inhibitors by increasing their access and binding to DNA.

Methods

This phase I trial was designed to determine the toxicity profile, tolerability, and recommended phase II dose of escalating doses of the HDACi vorinostat, with weekly doxorubicin.

Results

In total, 32 patients were treated; vorinostat was dosed at 400, 600, 800, or 1000 mg day(-1) on days 1-3, followed by doxorubicin (20 mg m(-2)) on day 3 for 3 of 4 weeks. Maximal tolerated dose was determined to be 800 mg day(-1) of vorinostat. Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 nausea/vomiting (two out of six) and fatigue (one out of six) at 1000 mg day(-1). Non-dose-limiting grade 3/4 toxicities included haematological toxicity and venous thromboembolism. Antitumor activity in 24 evaluable patients included two partial responses (breast and prostate cancer). Two patients with melanoma had stable disease for > or =8 months. Histone hyperacetylation changes in peripheral blood mononuclear and tumour cells were comparable. Histone hyperacetylation seemed to correlate with pre-treatment HDAC2 expression.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that vorinostat can be combined with weekly doxorubicin in this schedule at a dose of 800 mg day(-1). The HDAC2 expression may be a marker predictive of HDAC inhibition. Antitumor activity of this regimen in breast cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma seems interesting.

Background

Bcl-2 family genes are frequently amplified in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). A phase I trial was conducted to evaluate the safety of obatoclax, a Bcl-2 family inhibitor, given in combination with standard chemotherapy.

Methods

Eligible patients (3-6 per cohort) had extensive-stage SCLC, measurable disease, ≤ 1 before therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. Patients were treated with escalating doses of obatoclax, either as a 3- or 24-h infusion, on days 1-3 of a 21-day cycle, in combination with carboplatin (area under the curve 5, day 1 only) and etoposide (100 mg m(-2), days 1-3). The primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of obatoclax.

Results

Twenty-five patients (56% male; median age 66 years) were enrolled in three dose cohorts for each schedule. Maximum tolerated dose was established with the 3-h infusion at 30 mg per day and was not reached with the 24-h infusion. Compared with the 24-h cohorts, the 3-h cohorts had higher incidence of central nervous system (CNS) adverse events (AEs); dose-limiting toxicities were somnolence, euphoria, and disorientation. These CNS AEs were transient, resolving shortly after the end of infusion, and without sequelae. The response rate was 81% in the 3-h and 44% in the 24-h infusion cohorts.

Conclusion

Although associated with a higher incidence of transient CNS AEs than the 24-h infusion, 3-h obatoclax infusion combined with carboplatin-etoposide was generally well tolerated at doses of 30 mg per day. Though patient numbers were small, there was a suggestion of improved efficacy in the 3-h infusion group. Obatoclax 30 mg infused intravenously over 3 h on 3 consecutive days will be utilised in future SCLC studies.

Background

In a phase II North American study (NP28761; NCT01871805), the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor alectinib demonstrated both systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy with good tolerability in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. We describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the NP28761 study.

Patients and methods

PROs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits were assessed using two self-administered questionnaires (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-Item Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the 13-item EORTC QLQ-lung cancer-specific module) at enrolment and every 6 weeks until week 66, disease progression or death.

Results

Clinically meaningful mean improvements (≥10 point change from baseline) were observed in 10 domains, including global health status (GHS), role and social functioning, fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, and appetite loss. A clinically meaningful improvement was observed in GHS from the first assessment (6 weeks) until week 60. Alectinib demonstrated a rapid effect, with a median time to symptom improvement, using the composite endpoint of cough, dyspnoea and pain in the chest, of 1.4 months (6.1 weeks) (95% CI 1.4 to 1.6) and a median time to symptom deterioration of 5.1 months (22.1 weeks) (95% CI 2.8 to 6.8). Patients with CNS metastases at baseline experienced comparable HRQoL over the duration of the study as patients without CNS metastases. Exploratory analysis showed that the occurrence of an objective response may be associated with a better HRQoL.

Conclusions

Patients treated with alectinib in this phase II study achieved clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL and symptoms and had delayed time to symptom deterioration.

Introduction

First-line epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR-activating mutations improves outcomes compared with chemotherapy, but resistance develops in most patients. Compensatory signaling through type 1 insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) may contribute to resistance; dual blockade of IGF-1R and EGFR may improve outcomes.

Patients and methods

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of linsitinib, a dual IGF-1R and insulin receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in chemotherapy-naive patients with EGFR-mutation positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients received linsitinib 150 mg twice daily or placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg once daily on continuous 21-day cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival.

Results

After randomization of 88 patients (44 each arm), the trial was unblinded early owing to inferiority in the linsitinib arm. The median progression-free survival for the linsitinib versus the placebo group was 8.4 months versus 12.4 months (hazard ratio, 1.37; P = .29). Overall response rate (47.7% vs. 75.0%; P = .02) and disease control rate (77.3% vs. 95.5%; P = .03) were also inferior. Whereas most adverse events were ≤ grade 2, linsitinib plus erlotinib was associated with increased adverse events that led to decreased erlotinib exposure (median days, 228 vs. 305). No drug-drug interaction was suggested by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results.

Conclusion

Adding linsitinib to erlotinib resulted in inferior outcomes compared with erlotinib alone. Further understanding of the signaling pathways and a biomarker that can predict efficacy is needed prior to further clinical development of IGF-1R inhibitors in lung cancer.