Nuclear Protein of the Testis Midline Carcinoma Masquerading as a Primary Mediastinal Seminoma.

Nuclear protein of the testis (NUT) midline carcinomas are rare aggressive carcinomas characterized by chromosomal rearrangements that involve the gene encoding the NUT. This article reviews the clinicopathologic features and the differential diagnosis of these malignancies.

An international multicenter randomized controlled trial of G17DT in patients with pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate G17DT, an immunogen producing neutralizing antibodies against the tumor growth factors amidated and glycine-extended forms of gastrin-17, in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, group-sequential multicenter trial of G17DT in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer unsuitable for or unwilling to take chemotherapy. Inclusion criteria were a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher and a life expectancy of more than 2 months. Patients received G17DT or placebo emulsion at weeks 0, 1, 3, 24, and 52. The primary end point was survival, and secondary end points were tolerability, Karnofsky performance. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients were recruited: 79 G17DT and 75 placebo. A final analysis of the intention-to-treat population, using a proportional hazards model, stratifying by disease stage and adjusting for interim analysis, gave a hazard ratio for mortality of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.10, P = 0.138; G17DT/placebo). A conventional analysis without adjustment for disease stage or interim analysis, censoring for chemotherapy and excluding protocol violators, gave median survival periods of 151 (G17DT) and 82 days (placebo) (log-rank test, P = 0.03).Patients developing anti-G17DT responses (73.8%) survived longer than nonresponders or those on placebo (median survival, 176 vs 63 vs 83; log-rank test, P = 0.003). G17DT was well tolerated.

Phase III study of gefitinib compared with intravenous methotrexate for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [corrected].

PURPOSE: To compare survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) treated with gefitinib 250 or 500 mg/day or standard methotrexate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred eighty-six patients with recurrent SCCHN were randomly assigned to oral gefitinib 250 mg/day, gefitinib 500 mg/day, or methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) intravenously weekly. Primary end point was overall survival, secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), safety, symptom improvement, and quality of life (QOL). Exploratory end points included association of efficacy with epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number and other biomarkers. RESULTS: Neither gefitinib 250 nor 500 mg/day improved overall survival compared with methotrexate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.57; P = .12; and HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.43; P = .39, respectively). In the gefitinib 250 mg/day, 500 mg/day, and methotrexate groups, respectively, median overall survival was 5.6, 6.0, and 6.7 months; ORRs (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were 2.7%, 7.6% and 3.9%, with no statistically significant difference between either gefitinib arm and methotrexate. No unexpected adverse events were observed, except for tumor hemorrhage-type events with gefitinib (8.9%, gefitinib 250 mg/day; 11.4%, gefitinib 500 mg/day; 1.9%, methotrexate). QOL improvement rates (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head & Neck total score) were 13.4%, 18.0%, and 6.0% for gefitinib 250 mg/day, 500 mg/day, and methotrexate, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, while responses with gefitinib were seen, neither gefitinib 250 nor 500 mg/day improved overall survival compared with methotrexate. With the exception of tumor hemorrhage-type events with gefitinib, the adverse event profiles were generally consistent with those previously observed.

A randomised Phase III trial of glufosfamide compared with best supportive care in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine.

PURPOSE: There are currently no approved therapies for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine. This Phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of glufosfamide as compared with best supportive care (BSC) in this patient population. METHODS: Patients were randomised to glufosfamide plus BSC or to BSC alone with baseline performance status as a stratification factor. The primary end-point was overall survival. RESULTS: Three hundred and three patients were randomised: 148 to glufosfamide plus BSC and 155 to BSC alone. There was an 18% increase in overall survival for glufosfamide that was not statistically significant: hazard ratio (HR) 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.08, p=0.19). Median survival was 105 (range 5-875) days for glufosfamide and 84 (range 2+ to 761) days for BSC. Grade 3/4 creatinine increase occurred in 6 patients on glufosfamide, including 4 with dosing errors. CONCLUSION: These results suggest low activity of glufosfamide in this very refractory patient population.

Phase III study of N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl) phenoxy]ethanamine (BMS-217380-01) combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in metastatic/recurrent breast cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA.19.

PURPOSE: N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine (DPPE; tesmilifene) is a novel agent that augments chemotherapy cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo. A phase II trial combining DPPE and doxorubicin (DOX) in metastatic breast carcinoma showed increased response over that expected with DOX. We report a phase III trial comparing DOX with DPPE plus DOX in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Anthracycline-naive women with measurable metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive, every 21 days, either DOX 60 mg/m(2) intravenously or DOX during the last 20 minutes of an 80-minute infusion of DPPE (5.3 mg/kg), in both cases to cumulative DOX doses of 450 mg/m(2). Patients receiving DPPE were aggressively premedicated to ameliorate toxicity. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and response duration (RD), quality of life (QOL), toxicity, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A planned interim analysis failed to detect an RR difference more than 5%. The study was closed to additional accrual and all DPPE was discontinued. The final analysis was conducted as planned after 256 progression events (median follow-up, 20.5 months). There was no significant difference in RR, RD, or PFS between arms. DPPE plus DOX was statistically superior to DOX in OS (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; P =.021). DPPE plus DOX was associated with more gastrointestinal and CNS toxicity. No consistent influence on QOL was detected. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated no advantage in RR, RD, or PFS but significantly superior OS for DPPE plus DOX. Additional studies of DPPE are warranted.