Salvage treatment with irinotecan/cisplatin versus pemetrexed/cisplatin in patients with non-small cell lung cancer pre-treated with a non-platinum-based regimen in the first-line setting: a randomized phase II study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG)

Background. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard front-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, non-platinum combinations of third-generation chemotherapeutic agents are considered an alternative therapeutic option for patients who cannot tolerate the toxic effects of platinum compounds. In this study, the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of irinotecan plus cisplatin (IC) was compared to pemetrexed plus cisplatin (PC) regimen, in platinum-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC, who had been previously treated with the combination of a taxane plus gemcitabine. Patients and methods. A total of 124 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to either irinotecan 110 mg/m2 on day 1 and 100 mg/m2 on day 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks (IC arm) or pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks (PC arm). The primary endpoint of the study was the overall response rate (ORR). Results. The ORR and median progression-free survival (PFS) in the IC arm were 18 % and 3.3 months, respectively, while in the PC arm were 19 % and 4.2 months (p = ns). Median overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in patients with PC (6.9 vs. 10.9; p = 0.013). PC regimen had a better toxicity profile compared to IC, with a statistically significant lower incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia (3 vs. 31 %; p = 0.0001) and diarrhea (1.6 vs. 14.7 %, p = 0.018). Conclusions. In patients with advanced NSCLC pretreated with docetaxel/gemcitabine, the combination of pemetrexed/cisplatin is associated with increased OS and is better tolerated than the combination of irinotecan/cisplatin and should be considered as a valid therapeutic option for platinum-naive, previously treated patients (AU)

No disponible

Systematic review on T3 laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma; still far from a consensus on the optimal organ preserving treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal treatment of patients with T3 laryngeal carcinoma is controversially challenged by open partial laryngectomies (OPL), transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) and radiation therapy alone (RT) or combined with chemotherapy (ChRT). Treatment guidelines, experts' opinions and clinical studies are highly contradictory. The aim of this study is to compare the primary outcomes of the available treatment methods and identify the sources of variance among studies. METHODS: A review of the literature published in the time period 2003-2015 was conducted via the PubMed database (www.pubmed.org) and Scopus database (www.scopus.com) with the search terms "T3 laryngeal squamous cell cancer treatment". Data from clinical studies involving patients with T3 laryngeal cancer (n > 10) subjected to TLM, OPL, ChRT or RT, were pooled. In the absence of controlled studies, prospective and retrospective clinical trials with minimum 5-year follow-up were acceptable, provided that they included a description of patient eligibility criteria, so as to exclude studies with serious selection bias. RESULTS: Literature lacks studies with homogenous populations regarding TNM staging, preoperative/postoperative treatment or anatomical subsite. This raises substantial controversies and prohibits the conduction of a meta-analysis. Data for qualitative analysis were pooled from 8 studies (n = 1226). OPL and TLM both offer patients high survival and organ preservation rates. Preoperative induction chemotherapy seems to significantly compromise overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Multicenter studies referring to homogenous populations, at least regarding staging and anatomical subsite, are needed. No safe conclusions can be drawn given the heterogeneity in patient cohorts, study design and evaluation of results in the existing literature.

Salvage treatment with irinotecan/cisplatin versus pemetrexed/cisplatin in patients with non-small cell lung cancer pre-treated with a non-platinum-based regimen in the first-line setting: a randomized phase II study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG).

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard front-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, non-platinum combinations of third-generation chemotherapeutic agents are considered an alternative therapeutic option for patients who cannot tolerate the toxic effects of platinum compounds. In this study, the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of irinotecan plus cisplatin (IC) was compared to pemetrexed plus cisplatin (PC) regimen, in platinum-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC, who had been previously treated with the combination of a taxane plus gemcitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 124 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to either irinotecan 110 mg/m2 on day 1 and 100 mg/m2 on day 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks (IC arm) or pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks (PC arm). The primary endpoint of the study was the overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: The ORR and median progression-free survival (PFS) in the IC arm were 18 % and 3.3 months, respectively, while in the PC arm were 19 % and 4.2 months (p = ns). Median overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in patients with PC (6.9 vs. 10.9; p = 0.013). PC regimen had a better toxicity profile compared to IC, with a statistically significant lower incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia (3 vs. 31 %; p = 0.0001) and diarrhea (1.6 vs. 14.7 %, p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced NSCLC pretreated with docetaxel/gemcitabine, the combination of pemetrexed/cisplatin is associated with increased OS and is better tolerated than the combination of irinotecan/cisplatin and should be considered as a valid therapeutic option for platinum-naive, previously treated patients. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00614965.

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 cisplatin and bevacizumab for untreated patients with advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter phase II study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group.

BACKGROUND: The docetaxel/cisplatin (DC) combination is an active regimen against advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bevacizumab (B) improves the efficacy of frontline chemotherapy. This phase II study was designed in order to explore the efficacy and safety of DCB regiment in this setting. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients (n = 48) with measurable, histologically confirmed non-squamous, IIIB (wet)/IV NSCLC, and PS 0-2 were eligible. Patients received D (75 mg/m(2) IV), C (80 mg/m(2) IV), and B (15 mg/kg IV) every 3 weeks. Maintenance of bevacizumab was not mandatory. RESULTS: Complete and partial responses were achieved in two (4.2%) and 14 (29.2%) patients, respectively [overall response rate: 33.3%; 95% CI = 20.0-46.7%], whereas stable disease was documented in 14 [disease control rate = 62.5%; 95% CI = 48.8-76.2%]. The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months and the median overall survival 13.3 months. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events were leukopenia, neutropenia, and anemia in 8.4, 18.7, and 2.1% of the patients, respectively. Febrile neutropenia occurred in three (6.3%) patients. Bleeding was documented in 4% of the patients, thrombotic episodes in 8%, and proteinuria in 3%. There was one treatment-related death. CONCLUSIONS: Frontline DCB in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC is an active regimen with manageable toxicity and merits to be further investigated.

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 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.

Etoposide plus cisplatin followed by concurrent chemo-radiotherapy and irinotecan plus cisplatin for patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer: A multicenter phase II study.

PURPOSE: The combination of irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) has shown at least comparable efficacy to that of etoposide/cisplatin (EP) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of EP regimen followed by thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) and IP consolidation chemotherapy in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three chemotherapy-naive patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) were treated with etoposide 100mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and cisplatin 80mg/m(2) on day 1. Radiotherapy was given 3 weeks after the first treatment cycle concurrently with weekly cisplatin 20mg/m(2) on day 1 and etoposide 50mg/m(2) on day 4 within 5-6 weeks, followed by three courses of irinotecan 60mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 and cisplatin 60mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 4-week cycle. RESULTS: There were no treatment-related deaths. Toxicities during chemo-radiotherapy were mild including grade 3/4 neutropenia (24%) and grade 2 esophagitis (6%). The major toxicity observed during consolidation chemotherapy was grades 3-4 neutropenia which affected 42% of patients. In an intention-to-treat analysis the overall response rate was 66% (CR: 30% and PR: 36%). After a median follow-up period of 35.7 months (range: 9.6-41.2 months), the median survival time was 19 months (95% CI: 14.5-23.5 months), the median time to tumor progression 8.3 months and the 1- and 2-year survival rates 72% and 27.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Consolidation chemotherapy with IP following concurrent EP plus TRT is a safe and with acceptable toxicity regimen and deserves further phase III testing in patients with LS-SCLC.