Phase II study of single agent capecitabine in the treatment of metastatic non-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine the safety of single agent capecitabine, a pro-drug of 5FU, in patients with metastatic non-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). METHODS: Multicentre phase II, first-line study design. Oral capecitabine was administered on days 1-14 of 3-week cycles. RESULTS: Treatment was safe and well tolerated. Common toxicities were diarrhoea and fatigue. CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence to support the use of capecitabine as a substitute for infusional 5FU in the management of NETs

Efficacy and safety of long-acting pasireotide or everolimus alone or in combination in patients with advanced carcinoids of the lung and thymus (LUNA): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND: There are no data from prospective studies focused exclusively on patients with advanced lung and thymic carcinoids. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of long-acting pasireotide and everolimus, administered alone or in combination, in patients with advanced carcinoids of the lung or thymus. METHODS: LUNA was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial of adult patients (aged >18 years) with advanced (unresectable or metastatic), well differentiated carcinoid tumours of the lung or thymus, with radiological progression within 12 months before randomisation, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. At each centre, the investigator or their designee registered each patient using an interactive voice recognition system into one of the three treatment groups. The randomisation allocation sequence was generated by an external company; patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive treatment with long-acting pasireotide (60 mg intramuscularly every 28 days), everolimus (10 mg orally once daily), or both in combination, for the core 12-month treatment period. Patients were stratified by carcinoid type (typical vs atypical) and line of study treatment (first line vs others). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients progression-free at month 9, defined as the proportion of patients with overall lesion assessment at month 9 showing a complete response, partial response, or stable disease according to local Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01563354. The extension phase of the study is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 16, 2013, and Sept 30, 2014, 124 patients were enrolled from 36 centres in nine countries: 41 were allocated to the long-acting pasireotide group, 42 to the everolimus group, and 41 to the combination group. At month 9, the proportion of patients with an overall lesion assessment of complete response, partial response, or stable disease was 16 of 41 patients (39·0%, 95% CI 24·2-55·5) in the long-acting pasireotide group, 14 of 42 patients (33·3%, 19·6-49·5) in the everolimus group, and 24 of 41 patients (58·5%, 42·1-73·7) in the combination group. The most common grade 1-2 adverse events with a suspected association with long-acting pasireotide monotherapy were diarrhoea (15 [37%] of 41), hyperglycaemia (17 [41%]), and weight loss (8 [20%]); those with a suspected association with everolimus monotherapy were stomatitis (26 [62%] of 42) and diarrhoea (16 [38%]); and those suspected to be associated with combination treatment were hyperglycaemia (27 [66%] of 41]), diarrhoea (19 [46%]), and asthenia (8 [20%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events with a suspected association with long-acting pasireotide monotherapy were γ-glutamyltransferase increased (four [10%] of 41 patients), diarrhoea (three [7%]), and hyperglycaemia (three [7%]); those for everolimus were hyperglycaemia (seven [17%] of 42 patients), stomatitis (four [10%]), and diarrhoea (three [7%]); those for combination treatment were hyperglycaemia (nine [22%] of 41 patients) and diarrhoea (four [10%]). 11 patients died during the core 12-month treatment phase or up to 56 days after the last study treatment exposure date: two (5%) of 41 in the long-acting pasireotide group, six (14%) of 42 in the everolimus group, and three (7%) of 41 in the combination group. No deaths were suspected to be related to long-acting pasireotide treatment. One death in the everolimus group (acute kidney injury associated with diarrhoea), and two deaths in the combination group (diarrhoea and urinary sepsis in one patient, and acute renal failure and respiratory failure in one patient) were suspected to be related to everolimus treatment. In the latter patient, acute renal failure was not suspected to be related to everolimus treatment, but respiratory failure was suspected to be related. INTERPRETATION: The study met the primary endpoint in all three treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with the known safety profiles of these agents. Further studies are needed to confirm the antitumour efficacy of the combination of a somatostatin analogue with everolimus in lung and thymic carcinoids. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG

Presurgical systemic treatment of nonmetastatic breast cancer: facts and open questions

There are several advantages of administering primary systemic therapy (PST) instead of adjuvant therapy in the management of early breast cancer patients: (a) PST allows for a quantifiable evaluation of the sensitivity or resistance of any treated case and (b) the response assessment offers the opportunity to "cross over" to a different regimen for an individual patient, leading to more flexible, "tailored" therapies. Indeed, these advantages are tenable if one assumes that the primary tumor response serves as a surrogate marker of the efficacy of PST in terms of survival. Unfortunately, this has not yet been validated. The data that are actually available show that both clinical complete response (cCR) and pathological (p)CR have prognostic significance. pCR after chemotherapy has a greater prognostic impact than cCR; however, it is frequently observed in a subset of tumors-such as those that are estrogen receptor negative, are human epidermal growth factor receptor positive, and have elevated proliferative activity-but occurs rarely in their human epidermal growth factor receptor-2/neu counterparts. cCR is more sensitive than pCR, but its assessment presents many hindrances. cCR after chemotherapy can predict early on which tumors are destined to undergo pCR, suggesting a role for this endpoint guiding further treatment decisions early on. The pCR rate in small randomized PST studies comparing chemotherapy with chemotherapy plus trastuzumab was able to predict the difference in survival observed in large, randomized adjuvant trials with a similar study design. Conversely pCR cannot predict the outcome benefit of patients undergoing different hormonal therapies. In conclusion, pCR may be a reliable surrogate endpoint for PST efficacy in a subset of patients undergoing chemotherapy