Effect of Project Orbis participation by the Swiss regulator on submission gaps, review times, and drug approval decisions between 2020 and 2022: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Expedited market access for novel and efficacious drugs is warranted for patients. Since 2020, Swissmedic (The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products) has been participating in Project Orbis, a collaborative parallel-review programme launched by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 to expedite patient access to cancer drugs. This programme allows regulatory agencies to remain independent in their decisions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the first 2 years of Project Orbis from the Swissmedic perspective. METHODS: In this comparative analysis, we compared submission gap (time between submission at the FDA and Swissmedic), review time, approval and consensus decision rate, and the approved indications between Swissmedic and the FDA for marketing authorisation applications (MAAs) in oncology submitted to Swissmedic through Project Orbis (Orbis MAAs) or outside of Project Orbis (non-Orbis MAAs) from Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021. Swissmedic review time was evaluated with a decision until June 30, 2022. For the decision comparison analysis, non-Orbis oncology MAAs submitted and evaluated from Jan 1, 2009, to Dec 31, 2018 (referred to as the pre-Orbis era) were also considered. Inferential statistics were done using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the 95% CI for the median was based on binomial distribution. For each hypothesis testing, the significance level was set to 5%. No correction for multiple testing was performed. FINDINGS: We analysed the submission gap, review time, and regulatory decision for 31 Orbis MAAs and 41 non-Orbis MAAs during the Orbis era. The median submission gap was 33·0 days (95% CI 19·0-57·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 168·0 days (56·0-351·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p<0·0001). The median review time at Swissmedic was 235·5 days (198·0-264·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 314·0 days (279·0-354·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p=0·0002). Approval rates at Swissmedic were consistent between Orbis MAAs (20 [77%] of 26) and non-Orbis MAAs (31 [76%] of 41). The rate of consensus decisions between Swissmedic and the FDA was 21 (81%) of 26 for Orbis MAAs and 31 (76%) of 41 for non-Orbis MAAs. Swissmedic approval rates were lower for indication extensions than for new active substances for Orbis MAAs (13 [72%] of 18 vs seven [88%] of eight) and non-Orbis MAAs (17 [71%] of 24 vs 14 [82%] of 17). Divergent decisions between agencies were predominantly observed for indication extensions (11 [73%] of 15 divergent decisions). During the pre-Orbis era, Swissmedic approved 61 (88%) of 69 MAAs for new active substances. INTERPRETATION: Submission gap and review time for oncology applications at Swissmedic were significantly reduced by participation in Project Orbis, and approval consensus decisions were increased between agencies. These findings suggests that participating in Project Orbis could lead to faster patient access to drugs. FUNDING: None.

Decision-making at Swissmedic, the Swiss regulatory agency, with a focus on (neo)adjuvant cancer treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Additional considerations are required for the benefit-risk assessment of new drugs or indications in the setting of (neo)adjuvant cancer treatment as compared to the metastatic/advanced setting, possibly leading to different decision patterns for the (neo)adjuvant versus the metastatic and advanced setting within a health authority but also among different health authorities. METHODS: We analyzed regulatory decisions at the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products Swissmedic (SMC) for all oncology indications (mostly metastatic indications) and indications in the (neo)adjuvant setting and compared these to decisions taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). RESULTS: Comparing the positive and negative decisions within the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products Swissmedic (SMC) between July 2017 and Dec 2021 the approval rates were with 66.7% lower for (neo)adjuvant indications versus 88.4% in the metastatic and advanced indications. While the approval rates for metastatic and advanced New Active Substances (NAS) applications were similar at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA, they were lower for (neo)adjuvant applications at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA. The underlying reason in all cases with divergent decisions at SMC as compared to EMA and FDA was that no overall survival (OS) benefit as compared to control arm has been observed in the submitted data package. CONCLUSION: Approval and consensus decision rates at SMC in comparison to EMA and FDA were lower for (neo)adjuvant indications but not for advanced and metastastic NAS oncology indications.

Regulatory Review Duration and Differences in Submission Times of Drugs in the United States and Europe, 2011 to 2020.

The speed of drug regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe is often a source of discussion. The objective of this research was to assess regulatory review duration of first and supplementary indications approved between 2011 and 2020 in the United States and Europe (European Union [EU] and Switzerland) and differences in submission times between the United States and Europe. Descriptive statistics were applied to review times between the jurisdictions and across the therapeutic areas. A regression analysis was done to estimate the association between approval agency and review times. The primary analysis cohort included 241 drugs approved in the United States, the EU, and Switzerland. Of these, 128 drugs had supplemental indications (331 in total) in the United States and 87 had supplemental indications (206 in total) in the EU. Overall median review duration from submission to approval subtracting the clock stop period was 39 weeks in the United States, 44 weeks in the EU, and 44 weeks in Switzerland. When review times within each drug were compared, the European Medicines Agency took a median of 3.7 weeks (IQR, -6.7 to 14.9 weeks) longer than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Swissmedic a median of 0.3 weeks (IQR, -10.6 to 15.3 weeks) longer. Median total review duration for supplemental indications was 26 weeks in the United States and 40 weeks in the EU. Applications were submitted a median of 1.3 and 17.9 weeks later in the EU and Switzerland, respectively, than in the United States. The regression analysis showed small differences in submission times between the United States and the EU (-2.1 weeks [95% CI, -11.7 to 7.6 weeks]) and larger differences between the United States and Switzerland (33.0 weeks [CI, 23.1 to 42.8 weeks]). It would be beneficial for patients if differences in submission times between the United States and Europe continue to be minimized.

A decade comparison of regulatory decision patterns for oncology products to all other non-oncology products among Swissmedic, European Medicines Agency, and US Food and Drug Administration.

Consensus of regulatory decisions on the same Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) are critical for stakeholders. In this context, regulatory decision patterns from the Swissmedic (SMC), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were analyzed for hemato-oncology products (OP) and non-oncology products (NOP). We compared 336 SMC regulatory decisions between 2009 and 2018 on new active substances with the EMA and the FDA for OP (n = 77) and NOP (n = 259) regarding approval rates, consensus, and divergent decisions. For OP MAA, we analyzed the underlying reasons for divergent decisions; for consensus decisions, the similarity and strictness of labeling. For OP, the approval rate for the SMC was 88.4%, the EMA 91.3%, and the FDA 95.7%. For NOP, the SMC had an approval rate of 86.2%, the EMA of 93.8%, and the FDA of 88.8%. The consensus decision rate among agencies was 88.4% for OP and 84.4% for NOP. The main clinical driver for divergent decisions for OP was nonrandomized trial design and low patient numbers. Comparing the approved indication wordings, the highest similarity was between the SMC and the EMA, and lowest for the FDA and the EMA. Investigating label strictness, the FDA numerically had the highest but not-statistically significant number of strict labels. The approval rate stratified by disease area (OP and NOP) differed among the SMC, the EMA, and the FDA. High concordance in regulatory decisions was observed between agencies for OP as well as NOP. Reasons for divergent decisions regarding OP were mainly due to scientific uncertainties. Comparing strictness of indications, numerical but no statistically significant differences were observed between agencies.

Comparative Expedited Regulatory Programs of U.S Food & Drug Administration and Project Orbis Partners.

Project Orbis was initiated in May 2019 by the Oncology Center of Excellence to facilitate faster patient access to innovative cancer therapies by providing a framework for concurrent submissions and review of oncology products among international partners. Since its inception, Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Canada's Health Canada (HC), Singapore's Health Sciences Authority (HSA), Switzerland's Swissmedic (SMC), Brazil's National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and most recently Israel's Ministry of Health (IMoH) Medical Technologies, Health Information, Innovation and Research (MTIIR) Directorate, have joined Project Orbis. While each country has its own expedited review pathways to bring promising therapies to patients, there are some similarities and differences in pathways and timelines. FDA's fast-track designation and MHRA's marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances (MAEC) allow non-clinical and limited clinical evidence to support approval under these programs. HC's Extraordinary Use New Drug (EUND) pathway allows granting exceptional use authorization with limited clinical evidence. ANVISA, HSA, MTIIR, and TGA do not have standard pathways that allow non-clinical evidence and limited clinical evidence. While there is no definite regulatory pathway for HSA, the current framework for approval does allow flexibility in the type of data (non-clinical or clinical) required to demonstrate the benefit-risk profile of a product. HSA may register a product if the agency is satisfied that the overall benefit outweighs the risk. All Project Orbis Partner (POP) countries have similar programs to the FDA accelerated approval program except ANVISA. Although HSA and MTIIR do not have defined pathways for accelerated approval programs, there are opportunities to request accelerated approval per these agencies. All POP countries have pathways like the FDA priority review except MHRA. Priority review timelines for new drugs range from 120 to 264 calendar days (cd). Standard review timelines for new drugs range from 180 to 365 cd.

FDA Approval Summary: Osimertinib for Adjuvant Treatment of Surgically Resected Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, a Collaborative Project Orbis Review.

On December 18, 2020, the FDA approved osimertinib as adjuvant therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors have EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 (L858R) mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The approval was based on the ADAURA study, in which 682 patients with NSCLC were randomized to receive osimertinib (n = 339) or placebo (n = 343). Disease-free survival (DFS) in the overall population (stage IB-IIIA) was improved for patients who received osimertinib, with an HR of 0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15-0.27; P < 0.0001. Median DFS was not reached for the osimertinib arm compared with 27.5 months (95% CI, 22.0-35.0) for patients receiving placebo. Overall survival data were not mature at the time of the approval. This application was reviewed under FDA's Project Orbis, in collaboration with Australia Therapeutic Goods Administration, Brazil ANVISA, Health Canada, Singapore Health Sciences Authority, Switzerland Swissmedic, and the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. This is the first targeted therapy adjuvant approval for NSCLC and has practice-changing implications.

Project Orbis: Global Collaborative Review Program.

In 2019, the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence launched Project Orbis, a global collaborative review program to facilitate faster patient access to innovative cancer therapies across multiple countries. Project Orbis aims for concurrent submission, review, and regulatory action for high-impact clinically significant marketing applications among the participating partner countries. Current Project Orbis partners (POP) include the regulatory health authorities (RHA) of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Singapore, and Switzerland. Project Orbis leverages the existing scientific and regulatory partnerships between the various RHA under mutual confidentiality agreements. While FDA serves as the primary coordinator for application selection and review, each country remains fully independent on their final regulatory decision. In the first year of Project Orbis (June 2019 to June 2020), a total of 60 oncology marketing applications were received, representing 16 unique projects, and resulting in 38 approvals. New molecular entities, also known as new active substances, comprised 28% of the received marketing applications. The median time gap between FDA and Orbis submission dates was 0.6 months with a range of -0.8 to 9.0 months. Across the program, the median time-to-approval was similar between FDA (4.2 months, range 0.9-6.9, N = 18) and the POP (4.4 months, range 1.7-6.8, N = 20). Participating countries have signified a strong commitment for continuation and growth of the program. Project Orbis expansion considerations include the addition of more countries and management of more complex applications.

Girdin (GIV) Expression as a Prognostic Marker of Recurrence in Mismatch Repair-Proficient Stage II Colon Cancer.

PURPOSE: Prognostic markers that identify patients with stage II colon cancers who are at the risk of recurrence are essential to personalize therapy. We evaluated the potential of GIV/Girdin as a predictor of recurrence risk in such patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Expression of full-length GIV was evaluated by IHC using a newly developed mAb together with a mismatch repair (MMR)-specific antibody panel in three stage II colon cancer patient cohorts, that is, a training (n = 192), test (n = 317), and validation (n = 181) cohort, with clinical follow-up data. Recurrence risk stratification models were established in the training cohort of T3, proficient MMR (pMMR) patients without chemotherapy and subsequently validated. RESULTS: For T3 pMMR tumors, GIV expression and the presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were the only factors predicting recurrence in both training (GIV: HR, 2.78, P = 0.013; LVI: HR, 2.54, P = 0.025) and combined test and validation (pooled) cohorts (GIV: HR, 1.85, P = 0.019; LVI: HR, 2.52, P = 0.0004). A risk model based on GIV expression and LVI status classified patients into high- or low-risk groups; 3-year recurrence-free survival was significantly lower in the high-risk versus low-risk group across all cohorts [Training: 52.3% vs. 84.8%; HR, 3.74, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.50-9.32; Test: 85.9% vs. 97.9%, HR, 7.83, 95% CI, 1.03-59.54; validation: 59.4% vs. 84.4%, HR, 3.71, 95% CI, 1.24-11.12]. CONCLUSIONS: GIV expression status predicts recurrence risk in patients with T3 pMMR stage II colon cancer. A risk model combining GIV expression and LVI status information further enhances prediction of recurrence. Further validation studies are warranted before GIV status can be routinely included in patient management algorithms. Clin Cancer Res; 22(14); 3488-98. ©2016 AACR.

The Value of In Vitro Diagnostic Testing in Medical Practice: A Status Report.

BACKGROUND: In vitro diagnostic (IVD) investigations are indispensable for routine patient management. Appropriate testing allows early-stage interventions, reducing late-stage healthcare expenditure (HCE). AIM: To investigate HCE on IVDs in two developed markets and to assess the perceived value of IVDs on clinical decision-making. Physician-perceived HCE on IVD was evaluated, as well as desired features of new diagnostic markers. METHODS: Past and current HCE on IVD was calculated for the US and Germany. A total of 79 US/German oncologists and cardiologists were interviewed to assess the number of cases where: physicians ask for IVDs; IVDs are used for initial diagnosis, treatment monitoring, or post-treatment; and decision-making is based on an IVD test result. A sample of 201 US and German oncologists and cardiologists was questioned regarding the proportion of HCE they believed to be attributable to IVD testing. After disclosing the actual IVD HCE, the physician's perception of the appropriateness of the amount was captured. Finally, the association between physician-rated impact of IVD on decision-making and perceived contribution of IVD expenditure on overall HCE was assessed. RESULTS: IVD costs account for 2.3% and 1.4% of total HCE in the US and Germany. Most physicians (81%) believed that the actual HCE on IVDs was >5%; 19% rated the spending correctly (0-4%, p<0.001). When informed of the actual amount, 64% of physicians rated this as appropriate (p<0.0001); 66% of decision-making was based on IVD. Significantly, more physicians asked for either additional clinical or combined clinical/health economic data than for the product (test/platform) alone (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a poor awareness of actual HCE on IVD, but a high attributable value of diagnostic procedures for patient management. New markers should deliver actionable and medically relevant information, to guide decision-making and foster improved patient outcomes.

Immunohistochemical expression of HER2 in breast cancer: socioeconomic impact of inaccurate tests.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for patients with breast cancer (BC) is guided by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. The patient's HER2 status is assessed using US Food and Drug Administration-approved in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunohistochemical (IHC) tests and laboratory-developed IVD tests. We analysed HER2 testing accuracy using data from the Nordic Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (NordiQC) HER2 IHC programme; results were used in an economic BC treatment model. METHODS: Data were obtained from NordiQC HER2 BC surveys performed from 2008 to 2012. False-negative (FN) and false-positive (FP) rates for approved and laboratory-developed IVDs were used to estimate direct costs, loss of survival, productivity benefit and quality-adjusted life-years. In the absence of consistent and accessible clinical and economic data from countries participating in the NordiQC programme, United States productivity data, healthcare costs and patient numbers were used as a surrogate in order to estimate the potential impact of selecting an approved or laboratory-developed IVDs. RESULTS: In total, 1703 tests were performed. Pooled FN rates were 11% for approved IVDs and 25% for laboratory-developed IVDs; FP rates were 0% and 5%, respectively. Using these FP and FN rates in the economic model and applying them to the United States BC population, approved IVD tests would result in better clinical outcomes, i.e., better survival and fewer disease recurrences/progressions, and lower costs, i.e., total direct costs and lost productivity, versus laboratory-developed IVD tests. Every $1 saved by laboratories by using cheaper reagents could potentially result in approximately $6 additional costs to the healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that incorrect HER2 test results have far-reaching clinical and economic consequences.

Venous thromboembolic events with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a pooled analysis of patients in randomized phase II and III studies.

PURPOSE: Thromboembolism is a major source of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The contribution of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy to these events remains controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were available for 6,055 patients in 10 randomized studies. Unadjusted and exposure-adjusted incidence of venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) was estimated for the overall population and by tumor type. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for development of VTE. The safety of anticoagulant therapy in patients undergoing bevacizumab treatment was also examined. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant increases in the unadjusted or exposure-adjusted incidences of all-grade VTEs for bevacizumab versus controls in the overall population or by tumor type. The unadjusted incidence in the overall population was 10.9% with bevacizumab versus 9.8% with controls (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.35; P = .13); the rate per 100 patient-years was 18.5 for bevacizumab and 20.3 for controls (rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.06; P =.23). Incidences of grade 3 to 5 events were similar in both groups. Several risk factors for VTEs were identified, including tumor type, older age, poorer performance status, VTE history, and baseline oral anticoagulant use. No interactions between bevacizumab treatment and these factors were observed. For patients who had a VTE and received full-dose anticoagulation therapy, the risk of severe bleeding was low (< 1%) and unaffected by bevacizumab treatment. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy did not statistically significantly increase the risk of VTEs versus chemotherapy alone. The risk for VTEs is driven predominantly by tumor and host factors.

Effect of bevacizumab in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of four randomized studies.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is frequently combined with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The relative benefit of bevacizumab in older patients has not been widely studied and is of interest. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis used data from three first-line randomized controlled studies and one second-line randomized controlled study of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in medically fit (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1) patients with mCRC. Overall survival (OS) and on-treatment progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed in patients aged <65, > or =65, and > or =70 years. Results were compared using unstratified hazard ratios (HRs). Grade 3-5 adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: Bevacizumab statistically significantly improved PFS [HR 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.68] and OS (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.97) in patients aged > or =65 years; patients aged > or =70 years had similar improvements. Benefits were consistent across the studies, irrespective of setting, bevacizumab dose, or chemotherapy regimen. Increases in thromboembolic events were observed in patients aged > or =65 and > or =70 years in the bevacizumab group compared with the control group, mainly as a result of increases in arterial thromboembolic events. No other substantial age-related increases in grade 3-5 adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In medically fit older patients, bevacizumab provides similar PFS and OS benefits as in younger patients.

Bevacizumab safety in patients with central nervous system metastases.

PURPOSE: Patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases were excluded from bevacizumab trials following a case of fatal cerebral hemorrhage in a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma in 1997. Safety information for bevacizumab-treated patients with CNS metastases was reviewed to determine whether general exclusion of these patients from bevacizumab treatment is still justified. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A retrospective exploratory analysis was conducted using datasets from 13 randomized controlled phase II/III trials (dataset A), two open-label single-arm safety trials (dataset B), and two prospective studies including patients with treated CNS metastases (dataset C). In datasets A and B, known CNS metastasis was an exclusion criterion; patients with CNS metastasis had unrecognized CNS metastases at study entry or developed them during the trial. All reported cerebral hemorrhage grades in patients with CNS metastases were quantified. RESULTS: In dataset A, occult brain metastases were identified in 187 of 8,443 patients (91 in bevacizumab arms and 96 in non-bevacizumab arms). Three bevacizumab-treated patients (3.3%) developed grade 4 cerebral hemorrhage, whereas one control-arm patient (1.0%) developed grade 5 cerebral hemorrhage. In dataset B, 321 of 4,382 patients had initially occult CNS metastases, in whom two grade 1 and one grade 3 cerebral hemorrhage (0.9%) were reported. In 131 patients with treated CNS metastases in dataset C, one bevacizumab-treated patient (0.8%) developed grade 2 cerebral hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected population, patients with CNS metastases are at similar risk of developing cerebral hemorrhage, independent of bevacizumab therapy. Consequently, such patients with CNS metastases from advanced/metastatic breast cancer, non-small cell lung carcinoma, and renal and colorectal cancer should not be generally excluded from bevacizumab therapy or clinical trials.

Gene expression profiling for molecular distinction and characterization of laser captured primary lung cancers.

METHODS: We examined gene expression profiles of tumor cells from 29 untreated patients with lung cancer (10 adenocarcinomas (AC), 10 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), and 9 small cell lung cancer (SCLC)) in comparison to 5 samples of normal lung tissue (NT). The European and American methodological quality guidelines for microarray experiments were followed, including the stipulated use of laser capture microdissection for separation and purification of the lung cancer tumor cells from surrounding tissue. RESULTS: Based on differentially expressed genes, different lung cancer samples could be distinguished from each other and from normal lung tissue using hierarchical clustering. Comparing AC, SCC and SCLC with NT, we found 205, 335 and 404 genes, respectively, that were at least 2-fold differentially expressed (estimated false discovery rate: < 2.6%). Different lung cancer subtypes had distinct molecular phenotypes, which also reflected their biological characteristics. Differentially expressed genes in human lung tumors which may be of relevance in the respective lung cancer subtypes were corroborated by quantitative real-time PCR. Genetic programming (GP) was performed to construct a classifier for distinguishing between AC, SCC, SCLC, and NT. Forty genes, that could be used to correctly classify the tumor or NT samples, have been identified. In addition, all samples from an independent test set of 13 further tumors (AC or SCC) were also correctly classified. CONCLUSION: The data from this research identified potential candidate genes which could be used as the basis for the development of diagnostic tools and lung tumor type-specific targeted therapies.

Tumor immune escape by the loss of homeostatic chemokine expression.

The novel keratinocyte-specific chemokine CCL27 plays a critical role in the organization of skin-associated immune responses by regulating T cell homing under homeostatic and inflammatory conditions. Here we demonstrate that human keratinocyte-derived skin tumors may evade T cell-mediated antitumor immune responses by down-regulating the expression of CCL27 through the activation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-Ras-MAPK-signaling pathways. Compared with healthy skin, CCL27 mRNA and protein expression was progressively lost in transformed keratinocytes of actinic keratoses and basal and squamous cell carcinomas. In vivo, precancerous skin lesions as well as cutaneous carcinomas showed significantly elevated levels of phosphorylated ERK compared with normal skin, suggesting the activation of EGFR-Ras signaling pathways in keratinocyte-derived malignancies. In vitro, exogenous stimulation of the EGFR-Ras signaling pathway through EGF or transfection of the dominant-active form of the Ras oncogene (H-RasV12) suppressed whereas an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor increased CCL27 mRNA and protein production in keratinocytes. In mice, neutralization of CCL27 led to decreased leukocyte recruitment to cutaneous tumor sites and significantly enhanced primary tumor growth. Collectively, our data identify a mechanism of skin tumors to evade host antitumor immune responses.

Coexpression of fragile histidine triad and c-kit is relevant for prediction of survival in patients with small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a retrospective analysis of 195 patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), we examined the prognostic value of a coexpression of fragile histidine triad (FHIT) protein and c-kit on patient's survival. METHODS: As assessed by immunohistochemistry using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections, tumors of 195 patients with SCLC were evaluated for FHIT and c-kit coexpression. RESULTS: Coexpression of FHIT and c-kit was observed in 53.3%; a positive expression of either FHIT or c-kit was found in 40.5%. Complete lack of FHIT and c-kit (6.2%) was associated with a significantly shorter survival time for the patients with a mean of 122 +/- 45 days compared with 468 +/- 89 days for patients with lung cancer coexpressing FHIT and c-kit (P = 0.0011). The proportion of FHIT- and c-kit-positive cells within a tumor was also related to survival time. Patients with tumors with a proportion between 0% to 25% of FHIT- and c-kit-positive cells had the worst survival of 157 +/- 34 days compared with 496 +/- 95 days for patients showing >25% FHIT- and c-kit-positive cells (P = 0.0002). Further, variables associated with shorter survival times were low performance status, elevated lactate dehydrogenase level, and advanced tumor stage according to tumor-node-metastasis classification. Multivariate analysis using Cox regression model, including 11 variables, confirmed the prognostic significance of a combined expression of FHIT and c-kit next to tumor stage, performance status, and lactate dehydrogenase level. CONCLUSIONS: Differential FHIT and c-kit expression was of prognostic relevance for survival in patients with SCLC and therefore provide useful variables for therapeutic decisions.

Dendritic cells as potential adjuvant for immunotherapy in adrenocortical carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy associated with a dismal prognosis. Dendritic cells (DCs) are professional antigen-presenting cells leading to an antitumour immune response. The aim of this study was to elaborate two methods of antigen delivery to DCs and to evaluate an immunotherapy protocol in ACC patients. DESIGN/PATIENTS: Autologous DCs were pulsed with autologous tumour lysate (TL). Fusion of DCs with tumour cells was based on a polyethylene glycol method. Two patients with metastasized hypersecretory ACC were vaccinated twice. MEASUREMENTS: In vitro data were quantified by measurement of PBMC (peripheral blood mononuclear cell) responses and cytokine secretion and by flow cytometry analyses. Clinical response was monitored by CT scan of tumour mass and measurement of angiogenic factors. RESULTS: The maximum loading of TL was obtained at 24 h as 48.2% (+/- 26.8%) of DCs were TL-positive. The DC/tumour cell fusion efficacy was approximately 45% as shown by double positive staining for ACTH receptor and DC-specific CD83. In vivo DC vaccination resulted in positive delayed-type hypersensitivity skin reactions reflecting specific memory T-lymphocyte reaction. In vitro analyses revealed specific T-cell proliferation in patient 1 (stimulation index: 5.7 compared to pretreatment) and induction of cytotoxic granzyme B secreting T cells in patient 2 (0.41% CD8 + cells vs. 0.06% pretreatment) as indicators of specific cytotoxic T cells. Although angiogenic serum markers could be stabilized, no impact on tumour growth could be observed. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that autologous dendritic cells induce antigen-specific Th1 immunity in adrenocortical carcinoma. The clinical outcome, however, was not improved in the patients studied here.

The influence of the pituitary tumor transforming gene-1 (PTTG-1) on survival of patients with small cell lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: PTTG-1 (pituitary tumor transforming gene) is a novel oncogene that is overexpressed in tumors, such as pituitary adenoma, breast and gastrointestinal cancers as well as in leukemia. In this study, we examined the role of PTTG-1 expression in lung cancer with regard to histological subtype, the correlation of PTTG-1 to clinical parameters and relation on patients' survival. METHODS: Expression of PTTG-1 was examined immunohistochemically on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections of 136 patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 91 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), retrospectively. The intensity of PTTG-1 expression as well as the proportion of PTTG-1 positive cells within a tumor was used for univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: PTTG-1 expression was observed in 64% of SCLC tumors and in 97.8% of NSCLC tumors. In patients with SCLC, negative or low PTTG-1 expression was associated with a shorter mean survival time compared with patients with strong PTTG-1 expression (265 +/- 18 days vs. 379 +/- 66 days; p = 0.0291). Using the Cox regression model for multivariate analysis, PTTG-1 expression was a significant predictor for survival next to performance status, tumor stage, LDH and hemoglobin. In contrast, in patients with NSCLC an inverse correlation between survival and PTTG-1 expression was seen. Strong PTTG-1 expression was associated with a shorter mean survival of 306 +/- 58 days compared with 463 +/- 55 days for those patients with no or low PTTG-1 intensities (p = 0.0386). Further, PTTG-1 expression was associated with a more aggressive NSCLC phenotype with an advanced pathological stage, extensive lymph node metastases, distant metastases and increased LDH level. Multivariate analysis using Cox regression confirmed the prognostic relevance of PTTG-1 expression next to performance status and tumor stage in patients with NSCLC. CONCLUSION: Lung cancers belong to the group of tumors expressing PTTG-1. Dependent on the histological subtype of lung cancer, PTTG-1 expression was associated with a better outcome in patients with SCLC and a rather unfavourable outcome for patients with NSCLCs. These results may reflect the varying role of PTTG-1 in the pathophysiology of the different histological subtypes of lung cancer.

A single dose of 6 or 12 mg of pegfilgrastim for peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization results in similar yields of CD34+ progenitors in patients with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Current regimens for peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma are based on daily subcutaneous injections of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) starting shortly after cytotoxic therapy. Recently a polyethylene glycol-conjugated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) was introduced that has a substantially longer t(1/2) than the original formula. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The use of pegfilgrastim was examined at two dose levels for PBPC mobilization in patients with Stage II or III multiple myeloma. Four days after cytotoxic therapy with cyclophosphamide (4 g/m(2)), a single dose of either 6 mg pegfilgrastim (n = 15) or 12 mg pegfilgrastim (n = 15) or daily doses of 8 microg per kg unconjugated G-CSF (n = 15) were administered. The number of circulating CD34+ cells was determined during white blood cell (WBC) recovery, and PBPC harvesting was performed by large-volume apheresis. RESULTS: Pegfilgrastim was equally potent at 6 and 12 mg with regard to mobilization and yield of CD34+ cells. No dose dependence was observed because CD34+ cell concentration peaks were 131 and 85 per microL, respectively, and CD34+ cell yield was 10.2 x 10(6) and 7.4 x 10(6) per kg of body weight, respectively. Pegfilgrastim in either dose was associated with a more rapid WBC recovery (p = 0.03) and an earlier performance of the first apheresis procedure (p < 0.05) in comparison to unconjugated G-CSF. No difference regarding CD34+ cell maximum and yield could be observed. CONCLUSION: A single dose of 6 mg pegfilgrastim is equally potent as 12 mg for mobilization and harvest of PBPCs in patients with multiple myeloma. Because no dose dependency was seen at these dose levels, this might be also true for even smaller doses.