Prognostic significance of SOX17 and WNT5a promoter methylation status in circulating cell-free DNA metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Aim: Carcinogenesis of colorectal cancer is a process involving genetic mutations and epigenetic alterations in its multiple phases. The most considerable epigenetic alteration occurring in colorectal cancer (CRC) tumorigenesis is the methylation-mediated silencing of tumor suppressor genes. The present study aimed to detect the methylation status of SOX17 and WNT5a promoters in cell-free DNA circulating in plasma of metastatic CRC patients and to investigate potential prognostic correlation. Methods: A methylation-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction was utilized to investigate the methylation status of genes (SOX17 and WNT5a) promoter in the blood of 85 metastatic CRC patients. Results: We found the SOX17 promoter methylated in 54/85 (63.5 %) while WNT5a was methylated in 39/85 (45.8 %) samples of the advanced CRC. All control samples were negative for SOX17 and WNT5a promoter methylation. Patients with metastatic CRC and methylated SOX17 and WNT5a promoter status had a significantly poorer outcome than patients with non-methylated ones. Conclusions: Plasma SOX17 and WNT5a promoter methylation are frequent epigenetic events in advanced CRC. The reported correlations between the methylation status of genes (SOX17 and Wnt5a) promoter and poorer survival in patients with advanced CRC disease agree with the proposed role of SOX17 as a tumor suppressor gene. A more considerable CRC patient cohort is required to research these findings' potential further and investigate whether SOX17 in plasma could serve as a useful prognostic biomarker in metastatic CRC. HIPPOKRATIA 2023, 27 (1):7-11.

Prognostic role of APC and RASSF1A promoter methylation status in cell free circulating DNA of operable gastric cancer patients.

Gastric carcinogenesis is a multistep process including not only genetic mutations but also epigenetic alterations. The best known and more frequent epigenetic alteration is DNA methylation affecting tumor suppressor genes that may be involved in various carcinogenetic pathways. The aim of the present study was to investigate the methylation status of APC promoter 1A and RASSF1A promoter in cell free DNA of operable gastric cancer patients. Using methylation specific PCR, we examined the methylation status of APC promoter 1A and RASSF1A promoter in 73 blood samples obtained from patients with gastric cancer. APC and RASSF1A promoters were found to be methylated in 61 (83.6%) and 50 (68.5%) of the 73 gastric cancer samples examined, but in none of the healthy control samples (p < 0.001). A significant association between methylated RASSF1A promoter status and lymph node positivity was observed (p = 0.005). Additionally, a significant correlation between a methylated APC promoter and elevated CEA (p = 0.033) as well as CA-19.9 (p = 0.032) levels, was noticed. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival, significantly favored patients with a non-methylated APC promoter status (p = 0.008). No other significant correlations between APC and RASSF1A methylation status and different tumor variables examined was observed. Serum RASSF1A and APC promoter hypermethylation is a frequent epigenetic event in patients with early operable gastric cancer. The observed correlations between APC promoter methylation status and survival as well as between a hypermethylated RASSF1A promoter and nodal positivity may be indicative of a prognostic role for those genes in early operable gastric cancer. Additional studies, in a larger cohort of patients are required to further explore whether these findings could serve as potential molecular biomarkers of survival and/or response to specific treatments.

Docetaxel plus gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine as treatment for inoperable pancreatic cancer: a phase II study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the activity and tolerance of gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel and capecitabine in previously untreated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were treated with gemcitabine (1,500 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15), docetaxel (50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15) and capecitabine (2,250 mg/m(2), orally in two daily divided doses, on days 1-7 and 15-21). All three drugs were administered in 4-week cycles, in an initial prospective plan of six cycles. The primary end-point was response rate. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled in the study. At the time of enrollment, 40% of patients had locally advanced and 60% metastatic disease. All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. On an intent-to-treat analysis, the overall response and disease control rates were 40 and 80%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 6.0 months, and the median overall survival was 9.0 months. Major grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (17.5%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (7.5%). There was no treatment-related death. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine with docetaxel and capecitabine is feasible and exhibits satisfactory degree of activity in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, deserving further exploration.

Docetaxel plus oxaliplatin in combination with capecitabine as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE: In the present phase II study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of a docetaxel-oxaliplatin-capecitabine combination as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 27 patients (18 males) with histologically confirmed inoperable gastric adenocarcinoma were recruited. Docetaxel was given (50 mg/m(2) i.v.) on day 1 followed by oxaliplatin (75 mg/m(2) i.v.) also on day 1. Capecitabine (2,750 mg/m(2)) was given orally as two daily divided doses from days 1 to 7. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. All patients had measurable disease and 18 of them had a performance status (WHO) of 0. RESULTS: A total of 240 treatment cycles were administered. All patients were evaluable for toxicity. Four patients who discontinued treatment early (having received only 3 chemotherapy cycles) were included as non-responders in an intention-to-treat response analysis. Complete response, partial response, stable disease and progressive disease were observed in 4 (15%), 12 (44%), 3 (11%) and 8 (30%) patients, respectively. The observed response rate was 59%, and the disease control rate (complete response + partial response + stable disease) was 70%. At the time of analysis, 6 patients were still alive and the median survival was 18.0 months. The most common grade III/IV toxicities observed were neutropenia (5%), diarrhea (2%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (2%) and neurotoxicity (1%). All other toxicities were mostly of grade I/II and easily manageable. CONCLUSION: The combination of docetaxel, oxaliplatin and capecitabine in the described mode of administration represents a relatively active and well-tolerated regimen in patients with advanced gastric cancer and warrants further evaluation.

Biweekly vinorelbine and gemcitabine as second-line and beyond treatment in ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the activity and tolerance of vinorelbine (VRL) in combination with gemcitabine (GEM) in pre-treated patients with refractory ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients with ovarian cancer who had disease progression after a carboplatin and taxane front-line regimen were treated with VRL 30 mg/m(2) IV over 10 min followed by GEM 1,200 mg/m(2) IV over 30 min on days 1 and 15 of each 28 days cycle. Chemotherapy was given in a initial prospective plan of six cycles, unless disease progression or unacceptable toxicity was seen, giving more cycles as consolidation therapy in the case of CR, PR or SD. The median age of patients was 67 years old, and the performance status (WHO) was 1 for 13 and 2 for 4 patients. The treatment was second-line for 11 (65%) and >third-line for 6 (35%) patients. RESULTS: One complete and one partial response were observed (ORR:11%). Stable disease was seen in 4 (24%) patients and progressive disease in 11 (65%). The median time to tumor progression was 4 months (range 2-11), and the median survival has not yet been reached. Myelotoxicity was rare. Grade 1 neutropenia was observed just in one patient and grade 2/3 anemia in four patients (24%). Thrombocytopenia was absent. Non-hematologic toxicity was also predictable and easily manageable. CONCLUSION: The vinorelbine plus gemcitabine combination at the present doses and schedule is a safe but ineffective regimen, and therefore, is not recommended as second-line and beyond treatment in patients with refractory ovarian cancer.

Biweekly vinorelbine and gemcitabine as second-line treatment and beyond in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the activity and tolerance of gemcitabine (GEM) in combination with vinorelbine (VRL) in pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with advanced NSCLC who had disease progression after a cisplatin- or taxane-based front-line regimen were enrolled into a 2-stage design trial and were treated with VRL 30 mg/m² i.v. for 10 min followed by GEM 1,200 mg/m² i.v. for 30 min on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Chemotherapy was given for 6 cycles unless disease progression or unacceptable toxicity was seen. The patients' median age was 64 years and the performance status (WHO) was 0 (n = 7), 1 (n = 5), and 2 (n = 3). The treatment was second line for 10 (67%) and third line or more for 5 (33%) patients. RESULTS: No complete or partial responses were observed. Stable disease was seen in 4 (27%) patients and progressive disease in 11 (73%). The median time to tumor progression was 3 months (range 1-12) and the median survival was 4 months (range 2-31). Severe myelotoxicity was infrequent. Grade 2 neutropenia was observed in 2 (13%) patients, grade 2 thrombocytopenia in 1 (7%), and grade 2 anemia in 3 (20%). Nonhematologic toxicities were very mild and easily manageable. CONCLUSION: The GEM plus VRL combination at the present doses and schedule is a safe but ineffective regimen; therefore, it is not recommended as second-line treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Modified CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) regimen every two weeks as second-line treatment in patients with advanced colorectal cancer previously treated with irinotecan-based frontline therapy: a multicenter phase II study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of capecitabine (CAP) given every other week and biweekly oxaliplatin (OX; modified CAPOX regimen) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer previously treated with irinote- can-based frontline chemotherapy. METHODS: Sixty-seven patients were enrolled; the median age was 62 years and 62 (92.5%) had a performance status (ECOG) of 0-1. OX and CAP were administered at the dose of 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 2,000 mg/m(2) on days 1-7, respectively, every 2 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 429 treatment cycles were administered. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in 4 (6%) and 2 (3%) patients, respectively. Febrile neutropenia complicated 1 treatment cycle. The main nonhematologic toxicities were grade 2/3 peripheral sensory neurotoxicity (10% of patients) and grade 3/4 diarrhea (7%). In an intention-to-treat analysis, 3 (4.5%) complete and 13 (19.4%) partial responses (overall response rate 24%) were observed. Seventeen (24.5%) patients had stable and 27 (40.3%) progressive disease. The median time to tumor progression and overall survival were 5 months and 11.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the modified CAPOX regimen is safe and effective as salvage treatment in patients with advanced colorectal cancer who were previously treated with irinotecan-based frontline therapy.

Salvage chemotherapy with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter phase II study.

PURPOSE: It was the aim of this study to evaluate the activity and tolerance of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: Thirty-one patients who had disease relapse or progression after completion of an anthracycline- and/or taxane-based front-line regimen were treated with gemcitabine 1,500 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 as a 30-min intravenous infusion and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 8 as a 4-hour intravenous infusion, in cycles of 21 days. RESULTS: Complete response occurred in 1 patient (3%) and partial response in 4 patients (13%) (overall response rate 16%; 95% confidence interval 3.2-29.1). Nine patients (29%) had stable disease and 17 (55%) progressive disease. Three partial responses (13%) were achieved among 23 patients receiving the regimen as third-line treatment. The median duration of response was 6 months (range 3-44.8), the median time to tumor progression 4.6 months (range 0.8-43.8), and the median survival 14.4 months (range 2.1-44.8). Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 14 patients (45%), grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 6 patients (20%), and grade 2 and 3 asthenia in 4 patients (13%). There was no episode of febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: The gemcitabine-oxaliplatin combination is a relatively active and well-tolerated salvage regimen in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer.

A dose escalation study of docetaxel plus capecitabine in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Capecitabine (CAP), gemcitabine (GEM), and docetaxel (DOC) have shown interesting activity in a wide range of solid tumors. A phase I study was conducted in order to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of their combination in patients with refractory solid tumors. Eighteen patients were enrolled. The patients' median age was 60 years, 15 were male, and 11 were chemo-naive. DOC was administered on day 1 as an 1-h (IV) infusion at escalating doses ranging from 40 to 50 mg/m2. GEM was administered on day 1 as a 30-min (IV) infusion at a standard dose of 1500 mg/m2. CAP was administered orally on days 1 to 7 at escalating doses ranging from 1750 to 2500 mg/m2 given as two daily divided doses. Treatment was repeated every 2 weeks. Five different dose levels were examined. At dose level V two out of three enrolled patients presented DLTs (one patient grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3 stomatitis and another grade 3 diarrhea), and thus the recommended MTD for future phase II studies are CAP 2250 mg/m2, DOC 50 mg/m2, and GEM 1500 mg/m2. A total of 124 treatment cycles were administered. Toxicity was generally mild. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in eight (7%) treatment cycles and grade 3 thrombocytopenia in one (1%). There was no febrile episode. Grade 2/3 asthenia was observed in six (33%) patients, grade 2/3 diarrhea in four (22%), and grade 2/3 hand-foot syndrome in three (17%). Other toxicities were uncommon. There was no treatment-related death. One (6%) CR, four (25%) PRs, and six (38%) SD were observed among 16 evaluable patients. Responses were seen in patients with breast (one CR), gastric (three PRs), and pancreatic (one PR) cancer. These results demonstrate that CAP, DOC, and GEM can be safely combined at clinically relevant doses and this regimen merits further evaluation.

A dose escalation study of pegylated liposomal Doxorubicin (caelyx) in combination with capecitabine (xeloda) in patients with refractory solid tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and capecitabine (CAP) have separately shown significant antitumor activity in a wide range of solid tumors. A phase I study was conducted in order to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of their combination in patients with refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with histologically confirmed inoperable solid neoplasms were enrolled. The patients' median age was 65 years, 10 were male, and 12 had a performance status score (WHO) of 0-1. PLD was administered on day 1 as a 1-hour intravenous infusion at escalated doses ranging from 35 to 40 mg/m(2). CAP was administered on days 1-14 per os, at escalated doses ranging from 1,600 to 1,800 mg/m(2), given as two daily divided doses. Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: At the dose of PLD 40 mg/m(2) and CAP 1,800 mg/m(2), all 3 enrolled patients presented DLTs [2 patients grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) and 1 patient grade 3 asthenia] and thus, the recommended MTD for future phase II studies is PLD 40 mg/m(2) and CAP 1,700 mg/m(2). A total of 57 treatment cycles were administered. Grade 2/3 neutropenia complicated 9 (17%) cycles and 1 patient was hospitalized for febrile neutropenia. There was no septic death. The main nonhematologic toxicity was PPE grade 2 in 3 (19%) patients and grade 3 in 4 (27%). PPE was the reason of treatment interruption for 3 patients. Other toxicities were mild and easily manageable. Two patients (16%) with partial response suffering from gastric cancer and 5 patients with (42%) stable disease were observed among 12 evaluable patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this phase I study demonstrate that PLD and CAP can be combined at clinically effective and relevant doses. However, PPE is a common side effect and further investigation is warranted to define its precise role in the treatment of solid malignancies.

Dose escalation study on oxaliplatin and capecitabine (Xeloda) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

OBJECTIVES: Capecitabine (CAP) and oxaliplatin (OX) have shown interesting activity in a wide range of solid tumors. A phase I study was conducted in order to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of their combination in patients with refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three pretreated patients with histologically confirmed inoperable neoplasms were enrolled. The patients' median age was 64 years, 21 were males, and 27 had a WHO performance status of 0-1. OX was administered on days 1 and 8, as a 3-hour intravenous infusion, at escalated doses ranging from 50 to 70 mg/m(2). CAP was administered orally for 14 consecutive days, at escalated doses ranging from 1,200 to 2,100 mg/m(2)/day. Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: At the dose of 2,100 mg/m(2) (Xeloda) and 70 mg/m(2) (OX), all 3 enrolled patients presented DLT (grade 3 diarrhea, grade 3 asthenia and grade 3 neurotoxicity, respectively), and, thus, the recommended MTD for future phase II studies are 2,000 mg/m(2) for CAP and 70 mg/m(2 )for OX. A total of 145 treatment cycles were administered. Toxicity was very mild. Grade 2/3 neutropenia was observed in 4 (3%) treatment cycles. The main nonhematologic toxicities were grade 2/3 nausea/vomiting (7 cycles; 5%), grade 2/3 neurotoxicity (10 cycles; 7%), grade 2/3 asthenia (8 cycles; 5.5%) and grade 2/3 diarrhea (6 cycles; 4%). There was no treatment-related death. One (4%) complete remission, 2 (8%) partial remissions, and 9 (36%) cases of stable disease were observed among 25 evaluable patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that CAP and OX can be safely combined at clinically relevant doses and that this regimen merits further evaluation.