Impact of a tailored oral vitamin D supplementation regimen on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in early breast cancer patients: a randomized phase III study.

BACKGROUND: A minority of early breast cancer (EBC) patients treated with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy have sufficient baseline vitamin D (vitD) level. This randomized phase III study assessed the safety and efficacy of a tailored, high-dose, oral vitD supplementation in restoring a normal 25-hydroxy vitD (25OHD) level in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants received a 6-month conventional (C) vitD and calcium supplementation or a 6-month high-dose oral vitD regimen tailored on the deficiency (T) and a conventional calcium supplementation. The primary end point was the 6-month percentage of 25OHD serum level normalization. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients including 197 patients with vitD deficiency were recruited, and 195 patients were randomized (T, 100; C, 95). Compliance to the daily oral supplementation was 68.4% and 67% in the C and T arms, respectively. Discontinuous high-dose vitD compliance appeared higher in the T arm (77%). At 6 months, more patients presented with a normalized vitD level in the T arm (30% versus 12.6%; P = 0.003). Supplementation was well tolerated, and no significant difference in the treatment-related toxicity between the two arms was reported. Fifty-two patients without vitD normalization from the C arm switched to the T arm after 6 months. At 12 months, 44% of these patients achieved vitD normalization. CONCLUSION: A tailored high-dose oral vitD supplementation safely allows a higher percentage of the serum 25OHD level normalization compared with a conventional regimen in chemotherapy-treated EBC patients. As compliance to a daily oral supplementation remains poor in this setting, an adaptation of the treatment schedule is warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01480869.

Feasibility of biweekly combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic solid tumors: results of a two-step phase I trial: XELIRI and XELIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: Biweekly schedule of capecitabine combined with irinotecan (XELIRI), consecutively with irinotecan and oxaliplatin (XELIRINOX), was evaluated in patients with metastatic cancer from any solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this two-step phase I trial, seventeen and eleven patients were enrolled in the XELIRI and XELIRINOX stages, respectively. RESULTS: In XELIRI, a total of 136 chemotherapy cycles were administered with a median number of 8 cycles per patient (2-16). Main dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were grade 3-4 neutropenia, with one toxicity-related death. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for capecitabine combined with 180 mg/m(2) of irinotecan was 3,500 mg/m(2)/day. In XELIRINOX, capecitabine starting dose was 2,500 mg/m(2)/day. Fifty-eight chemotherapy cycles were administered with a median of 4 cycles per patient (1-16). DLT included 3 grade 4 neutropenia, associated with 1 grade 3 diarrhea, and 1 grade 4 pneumopathy leading to patient death. MTD for capecitabine with 180 mg/m(2) of irinotecan and 85 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin was 3,000 mg/m(2)/day. The recommended doses for capecitabine were 3,000 and 2,500 mg/m(2)/day D1-D7 in combination with 180 mg/m(2) of irinotecan in XELIRI, plus 85 mg/m(2) of oxaliplatin in XELIRINOX (D1 = D14), respectively. CONCLUSION: XELIRI and XELIRINOX regimens are feasible and warrant further investigation in combination with targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Any clinical benefit from the use of oncofoetal markers in the management of chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinomas?

AIMS: Computed tomography (CT) is the reference technique for evaluating response to chemotherapy. The potential helpfulness of tumour markers is debated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 1997 to January 1999, 91 consecutive patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma underwent whole-body spiral CT, estimates of anti-carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CA19-9 every 8 weeks. RESULTS: CEA and CA19-9 levels were above normal in 78 (85.7%) and 61 (67.5%) patients, respectively. Tumour response evaluation according to the RECIST criteria was obtained at 8-week evaluation in 83 (91%) patients. The positive predictive values (PPV) for response of a decrease of the marker levels were 53.8 for CEA and 41.7 for CA19-9 using a 30% decrease threshold, and 60/52.2, respectively, using a 50% decrease threshold. Meaningful PPV values (> 90%) for progression of an increase of the marker levels were only obtained using the 200% increase threshold for CEA alone or a combination of CEA and CA 19-9. A 100% CEA increase between baseline and the 8-week evaluation was correlated to overall survival (P = 0.0023). The need for a radiological confirmation of tumour progression could be avoided by the systematic dosage of tumour markers at baseline and after 8 weeks of treatment only in a sub-population of 13% of the patients with a 200% increase of CEA or CA 19-9 at 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: CEA, CA 19-9, or both should be used with caution for tumour response evaluation to chemotherapy in addition to CT in metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

Assessment of tumour response to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: accuracy of the RECIST criteria.

Evaluation of tumour size modifications in response to treatment is a critical issue in the management of advanced malignancies. In 1981, the World Health Organization (WHO) established guidelines for tumour response assessment. These WHO1981 criteria were recently simplified in a revised version, named RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours), which uses unidimensional instead of bidimensional measurements, a reduced number of measured lesions, withdrawal of the progression criteria based on isolated increase of a single lesion, and different shrinkage threshold for definitions of tumour response and progression. In order to validate these new guidelines, we have compared results obtained with both classifications in a prospective series of 91 patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Data from iterative tomographic measurements were fully recorded and reviewed by an expert panel. The overall response and progression rates according to the WHO1981 criteria were 19% and 58%, respectively. Using RECIST criteria, 16 patients were reclassified in a more favourable subgroup, the overall response rate being 28% and the progression rate 45% (non-weighted kappa concordance test 0.72). When isolated increase of a single measurable lesion is not taken into account for progression with the WHO1981 criteria, only 7 patients were reclassified and the kappa test was satisfying, i.e. > or =0.75, for the whole population as well as for each of the responding and progressive subgroups. Since it provides concordant results with a simplified method, the use of RECIST criteria is recommended for evaluation of treatment efficacy in clinical trials and routine practice.

[Granisetron (per os) compared with ondansetron (per os) in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by mildly emetogenic chemotherapies. Groupe de Recherches en Cancerologie du Nord]. / Granisétron (per os) comparé à ondansétron (per os) dans la prévention des nausées et vomissements induits par des chimiothérapies moyennement émétisantes. Groupe de recherche en cancérologie du Nord.

It is a randomised cross-over multicenter study comparing the efficacy and the tolerance of granisetron (Gra) 1 mg and ondansetron (Ond) 8 mg, oral, given during two consecutive cycles to 188 naive patients scheduled to receive a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The antiemetic treatment is given one day per course, 1 hour before chemotherapy and the second administration from 8 to 12 hours after the beginning, during each of the two cycles; alternatively according to the randomisation. Five criteria are assessed; nausea (ordinal and visual analogic scales), emeric episodes (vomiting orland retching), complete response (minor or no nausea, no emetic episode and no rescue treatment), patient preference and tolerance. The intent to treat analysis showed no significant difference at cycle 1 between Gra and Ond; at cycle 2, there is no significant difference in the number of emetic episodes; for the prevention of nausea, the ordinal scale shows a significant difference (p = 0.028 in favour of Gra at day 1 (D1) but not from D2 to D5. Gra induced more complete response than Ond at D1 (p = 0.028), but not from D2 to D5. The cross-over study did not show any period or order effect, whereas a treatment effect on Ond was significant in favour of Gra (p = 0.01). There is no significant patients preference in favour of Gra or Ond. In conclusion, Gra was more efficient in preventing nausea and obtaining complete response on the first day of treatment, significantly at the second cycle. Both Gra and Ond had a good antiemetic activity for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with complete response rates always over 50% on day 1; delayed emesis remain less weli controlled.