Would screening for lung cancer benefit 75- to 84-year-old residents of the United States?

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that screening for lung cancer improved overall survival (OS) and reduced lung cancer mortality in the 55- to 74-year-old age group by increasing the proportion of cancers detected at an early stage. Because of the increasing life expectancy of the American population, we investigated whether screening for lung cancer might benefit men and women aged 75-84 years. MATERIALS/METHODS: Rates of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 2000 to 2009 were calculated in both younger and older age groups using the surveillance epidemiology and end reporting database. OS and lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) in patients with Stage I NSCLC diagnosed from 2004 to 2009 were analyzed to determine the effects of age and treatment. RESULTS: The per capita incidence of NSCLC decreased in the 55-74 cohort, but increased in the 75-84 cohort over the study period. Crude lung cancer death rates in the two age groups who had no specific treatment were 39.5 and 44.9%, respectively. These rates fell in both age groups when increasingly aggressive treatment was used. Rates of OS and LCSS improved significantly with increasingly aggressive treatment in the 75-84 age group. The survival benefits of increasingly aggressive treatment in 75- to 84-year-old females did not differ from their counterparts in the younger cohort. CONCLUSION: Screening for lung cancer might be of benefit to individuals at increased risk of lung cancer in the 75-84 age group. The survival benefits of aggressive therapy are similar in females between 55-74 and 75-84 years old.

Circulating interleukin-8 levels explain breast cancer osteolysis in mice and humans.

Skeletal metastases of breast cancer and subsequent osteolysis connote a dramatic change in the prognosis for the patient and significantly increase the morbidity associated with disease. The cytokine interleukin 8 (IL-8/CXCL8) is able to directly stimulate osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption in mouse models of breast cancer bone metastasis. In this study, we determined whether circulating levels of IL-8 were associated with increased bone resorption and breast cancer bone metastasis in patients and investigated IL-8 action in vitro and in vivo in mice. Using breast cancer patient plasma (36 patients), we identified significantly elevated IL-8 levels in bone metastasis patients compared with patients lacking bone metastasis (p<0.05), as well as a correlation between plasma IL-8 and increased bone resorption (p<0.05), as measured by NTx levels. In a total of 22 ER+ and 15 ER- primary invasive ductal carcinomas, all cases examined stained positive for IL-8 expression. In vitro, human MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MET breast cancer cell lines secrete two distinct IL-8 isoforms, both of which were found to stimulate osteoclastogenesis. However, the more osteolytic MDA-MET-derived full length IL-8(1-77) had significantly higher potency than the non-osteolytic MDA-MB-231-derived IL-8(6-77), via the CXCR1 receptor. MDA-MET breast cancer cells were injected into the tibia of nude mice and 7days later treated daily with a neutralizing IL-8 monoclonal antibody. All tumor-injected mice receiving no antibody developed large osteolytic bone tumors, whereas 83% of the IL-8 antibody-treated mice had no evidence of tumor at the end of 28days and had significantly increased survival. The pro-osteoclastogenic activity of IL-8 in vivo was confirmed when transgenic mice expressing human IL-8 were examined and found to have a profound osteopenic phenotype, with elevated bone resorption and inherently low bone mass. Collectively, these data suggest that IL-8 plays an important role in breast cancer osteolysis and that anti-IL-8 therapy may be useful in the treatment of the skeletal related events associated with breast cancer.

Impact of genetic targets on prostate cancer therapy.

Given the global incidence of prostate cancer and its sociological impact, it remains a challenging disease to clinicians and researchers alike. In the last few years several new drugs have been added to the armamentarium of prostate cancer therapy and offers survival benefit to patients with prostate cancer. However, effective drugs are still needed that offer extended survival benefit and alter the natural history of the disease. Recent efforts have focused on better understanding the underlying biology and genetic heterogeneity of the disease and identified novel targets that can be utilized for drug development and therapeutics in the future. In this review we present an overview of the genetic landscape of prostate cancer, novel targets in the prostate cancer therapy and the results of key clinical trials of these novel drugs.

Phase I study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib with weekly paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To establish the maximum tolerated dose of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib (Sarasar, Schering-Plough Corp., Kenilworth, NJ) in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors. Tolerability, pharmacokinetics, safety, and dose-limiting toxicity were characterized. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were enrolled from January 2000 to May 2001. Lonafarnib was administered continuously orally twice daily at doses of 100, 125, and 150 mg in combination with paclitaxel at doses of 40, 60, or 80 mg/m(2) i.v. over 1 h weekly in 28-day cycles in a phase I design. Plasma samples for determinations of lonafarnib and paclitaxel concentrations were collected at selected time points. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled. The maximum tolerated dose (the dose level below where dose-limiting toxicity occurred and the recommended phase II dose) was lonafarnib 125 mg/m(2) twice daily and paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) weekly. Dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia with or without fever, which occurred in two of three patients treated at the lonafarnib 150 mg twice daily dose level. Diarrhea was a common side effect of lonafarnib but usually was mild to moderate in severity and could be controlled with standard medication without lonafarnib dose adjustment. Other reported adverse events included nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and taste changes. These adverse events were neither more frequent nor more severe than would be expected with paclitaxel alone. There were no apparent pharmacokinetic interactions between weekly paclitaxel and continuous twice-daily lonafarnib. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended dose of lonafarnib for phase II trials is 125 mg orally twice daily when combined with weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2). The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia.