Sorafenib: 10 years after the first pivotal trial.

Sorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor with anticancer activity against a wide spectrum of cancers. It is currently approved for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, advanced renal cell carcinoma or progressive, locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid carcinoma. In this review, we present a number of studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in these settings. We also discuss the perspectives on the use of this molecule, including the role of sorafenib as comparator for the development of new drugs, the combination of sorafenib with additional therapies (such as transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma) and the use of this treatment in several other advanced refractory solid tumors.

Benefit from anthracyclines in relation to biological profiles in early breast cancer.

There are no validated predictors of benefit from anthracyclines. We compared cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF), and epirubicin in different sequences with CMF alone in a phase III trial on operable breast cancers. Outcomes were analyzed in relation to tumor biological profiles to identify potential predictors of the efficacy of different treatments/drug combinations. Patients with N- or 1-3N+ tumors, were randomized to receive (a) epirubicin (4 cycles) followed by CMF (4 cycles); (b) CMF (4 cycles) followed by epirubicin (4 cycles), or (c) CMF (6 cycles) alone. Immunohistochemical assessments of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors, HER2 and Ki67 were available for 705 patients (arm A/B/C: 276/269/160). Prognostic and predictive relevance was analyzed by log-rank tests and Cox models. Ki67 > 20 % and absent/low expression of ER and PgR were associated with worsen disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). In patients with triple negative tumors (ER-, PgR-, HER2-), epirubicin-containing regimens yielded better DFS (HR 0.33, 95 % CI 0.17-0.62, P = 0.0007) and OS (HR 0.24, 95 % CI 0.10-0.57, P = 0.001) compared with CMF alone, whereas no differences were found in patients with HER2-positive (HER2+, ER-, PgR-) subtype. Treatment by subtype interaction (HER2-positive vs. others) was significant for DFS (χ (2) = 6.72, P = 0.009). In triple unfavorable (ER-, PgR-, Ki67 > 20 %) tumors, the use of epirubicin yielded better DFS (HR 0.45,95 % CI 0.26-0.78, P = 0.005) and OS (HR 0.30, 95 % CI 0.15-0.63, P = 0.001). Epirubicin-containing regimens seem to be superior to CMF alone in patients with highly proliferating, triple negative or triple unfavorable tumors.

Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) versus CMF followed by epirubicin in patients with node-negative or 1-3 node-positive rapidly proliferating breast cancer.

Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) have proven highly effective in rapidly proliferating breast cancer (RPBC). It has also been seen that sequential administration of doxorubicin and CMF is superior to their alternation, especially in indolent tumors. In a phase III study, we evaluated whether adjuvant epirubicin (E) followed by CMF is superior to the inverse sequence in RPBC. Patients with node-negative or 1-3 node-positive RPBC (Thymidine Labeling Index > 3% or histological grade 3 or S-phase > 10% or Ki67 > 20%) were randomized to receive E (100 mg/m(2) i.v. d1, q21 days for 4 cycles) followed by CMF (600, 40, 600 mg/m(2) i.v. d1 and 8, q28 days for 4 cycles) (E â†’ CMF) or CMF followed by E (CMF â†’ E) or CMF for 6 cycles. From November 1997 to December 2004, 1066 patients were enrolled: E â†’ CMF 440, CMF â†’ E 438, and CMF 188. At a median follow-up of 69 months, 5-year OS was 91% (95% CI 88-94) for E â†’ CMF and 93% (95% CI 90-95) for CMF â†’ E, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58-1.35), and DFS was 80% in both arms, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.99 (95% CI 0.73-1.33, Cox model). Adverse events were similar, apart from a higher rate of neutropenia in the CMF â†’ E arm. No important differences in clinical outcome were observed between the two different sequences, making both a valid option in early breast cancer. Further molecular characterization of the tumors might help to identify subgroups achieving higher benefit from either sequence.

Multicenter phase II trial of first-line docetaxel/gemcitabine in advanced breast cancer pretreated with adjuvant anthracyclines.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate activity and tolerability of docetaxel-gemcitabine combination as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with adjuvant anthracyclines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight women received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) as 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8, and docetaxel 80 mg/m(2) as 1-hour infusion on day 8, with cycles repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Objective responses were observed in 32 out of 68 evaluable patients (45%; 95% confidence interval, 35.2-58.8%). Responses were 44%, 42%, 49% in soft tissue, bone and visceral lesions, respectively, 50% /52% in HER2-positive/-negative tumors, and 50% in both ER- positive/-negative tumors. Median time to progression and overall survival were 6 and 16 months, respectively. Treatment was usually well tolerated, with grade 3-4 neutropenia in 32% - 7% of the patients, and neutropenic fever, grade 3 vomiting, mucositis and peripheral neurotoxicity in 3% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine-docetaxel combination is effective and well tolerated as first-line treatment in advanced breast cancer previously treated with adjuvant anthracyclines.

Sequential docetaxel followed by epirubicin-vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and the tolerability of a sequential regimen of docetaxel followed by epirubicin-vinorelbine combination as first-line chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients received docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (4 cycles) followed by 4 cycles of epirubicin 90 mg/m2 (day 1) combined with vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 (days 1 and 5), with cycles repeated every 3 weeks. G-CSF was administered during epirubicin-vinorelbine treatment. RESULTS: There were 1 (3.7%) CR and 14 (51.9%) PR, for an overall response rate of 55.6% (95% CI, 36.9%-74.3%). Median time to response, time to progression and overall survival were 2, 9 and 25 months, respectively. The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia (grade 3 to 4 in 85% of the patients). There was one toxic death due to neutropenic fever. Gastrointestinal side-effects were generally mild According to the Simon two-stage design the response rate was considered unsatisfactory and patient accrual was terminated. CONCLUSION: This sequential regimen appears to be moderately effective; possibly, a modulation of the treatment based on objective responses instead of a fixed number of cycles may be more appropriate in order to obtain better results.

Novel association with gemcitabine and docetaxel as salvage chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines: results of a multicenter phase II study.

The goals of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the gemcitabine/docetaxel combination in metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines. Fifty-three patients with metastatic breast cancer who had failed or relapsed after anthracycline-based chemotherapy entered the study and were evaluable. Patients received gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8) and docetaxel (80 mg/m(2) day 8), every 3 weeks. The regimen was generally well tolerated with good feasibility. A complete response occurred in six patients (9.4%) and partial response in 23 (43.4%) for an overall response rate of 53% (95% confidence interval, 38.9% to 66.7%). Median survival rate was 70%; and the duration of response, time to progression, and overall survival were 6, 7.5, and 16.5 months, respectively. We conclude that the gemcitabine/docetaxel combination constitutes a manageable and tolerable combination as salvage chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer and may represent a valid treatment option in patients previously treated with anthracyclines.

First-line treatment with epirubicin and vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase II multicenter trial was aimed at investigating the activity of epirubicin-vinorelbine combination as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven patients with metastatic breast cancer and no prior exposure to anthracyclines received the following regimen: epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) by intravenous (IV) bolus infusion on day 1 plus vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) by 30-minute IV infusion on days 1 and 5, every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. All patients also received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G- CSF) on days 7 to 12 of every cycle. RESULTS: Objective responses, confirmed at least 4 weeks after the first documentation, were observed in 65 out of 92 assessable patients (70.6%; 95% CI, 62% to 80%). Disease remained stable in 17 patients (18.5%). Responses were observed in all disease sites, being 94% in soft tissue, 60% in bone, and 66% in visceral disease. Median time to response, median duration of response, median time to progression, and median overall survival were 2, 9, 10, and 26 months, respectively. The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia, which was grade 4 in 36% of the patients, and was accompanied by fever in 26% of the cases. Grade 3 to 4 mucositis was encountered in 28% of the patients. Other toxicities were mild to moderate. No cardiotoxicity was observed. CONCLUSION: The epirubicin-vinorelbine combination with G-CSF support has been shown in this study to be highly active as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients, with significant although transient toxicity. This justifies further evaluation in the neoadjuvant setting and in early-stage breast cancer.