Discovery of novel mutations in the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene associated with toxicity of fluoropyrimidines and viewpoint on preemptive pharmacogenetic screening in patients

Background: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the initial and rate-limiting enzyme of the metabolic pathway of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and other fluoropyrimidines to inactive compounds. For this reason, severe, life-threatening toxicities may occur in patients with deficient DPD activity when administered standard doses of 5-FU and its prodrugs. Materials and methods: We selected three patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma who displayed unexpected severe adverse reactions after treatment with 5-FU and capecitabine. To investigate the possible involvement of deficient variants of the DPD gene (DPYD), a denaturing HPLC (dHPLC) approach followed by target exon sequencing of DPYD was performed on DNA extracted from peripheral blood. Results: Three novel non-synonymous mutations of DPYD, c.2509-2510insC, c.1801G>C, and c.680G>A, were detected in these subjects. Due to the absence of other deficient variants of DPYD and the compatibility of adverse reactions with fluoropyrimidine treatment, the novel variants were associated with a poor-metabolizer phenotype. Conclusions: Stratification of patients on the basis of their genotype may help prevent toxicity, and the large body of evidence about the pathogenesis of fluoropyrimidine-induced adverse reactions strongly encourages the adoption of best practice recommendations to appropriately address this important clinical issue. This approach is of utmost importance within a preventive, prognostic, and personalized approach to patient care in the oncology setting

translational challenges from the 2014 gastrointestinal cancers symposium toward a true tailored therapy through effective research

Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2014, San Francisco, CA, USA, 16–18 January 2014 The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium represents an indisputable occasion for sharing results and research opportunities for investigators around the globe. Across the years along with clinical trials presentations the meeting increasingly acquired a distinct role as a scientific arena for translational research. Also, this year the need for predictive markers for first-generation targeted agents and research about novel biologically driven therapeutic options characterized most of the studies presented. We focus here on reports from the 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium indicating an opportunity for biological selection of either the pharmacological target or the patient population in order to enhance clinical outcome

Rationale and design of MILES-3 and MILES-4 studies: two randomized phase III trials comparing single-agent chemotherapy versus cisplatin-based doublets in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but the efficacy of adding cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy remains to be demonstrated in prospective phase III trials dedicated to elderly patients. Furthermore, the superiority of cisplatin/pemetrexed over cisplatin/gemcitabine in non-squamous NSCLC has not been confirmed prospectively. We present the rationale and design of two open-label, multicenter, randomized phase III trials for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC∶ Multicenter Italian Lung cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES)-3 and MILES-4. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy of adding cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy (both trials) and the efficacy of pemetrexed versus gemcitabine in non-squamous tumors (MILES-4). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Both trials are dedicated to first-line therapy of patients older than 70 years with advanced NSCLC, ECOG performance status 0-1. In the MILES-3 trial, patients are randomized in a 1∶1 ratio to gemcitabine or cisplatin/gemcitabine. In the MILES-4 study patients with non-squamous histology are randomized, in a factorial design with 1∶1∶1∶1 ratio, to four arms: gemcitabine (A), cisplatin/gemcitabine (B), pemetrexed (C), cisplatin/pemetrexed (D). Two comparisons are planned∶ A+C vs B+D to test the role of cisplatin; A+B vs C+D to test the role of pemetrexed. Primary endpoint of both trials is overall survival. Secondary and exploratory endpoints include progression-free survival, response rate, toxicity, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: MILES-3 and MILES-4 results will add important evidence about the role of cisplatin-based doublets and pemetrexed in the first-line therapy of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC

Aflibercept Plus FOLFIRI in the Real-life Setting: Safety and Quality of Life Data From the Italian Patient Cohort of the Aflibercept Safety and Quality-of-Life Program Study

Abstract Background Aflibercept combined with FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan) as second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) significantly improved survival compared with FOLFIRI alone in the pivotal VELOUR (aflibercept vs. placebo in combination with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of an oxaliplatin-based regimen) trial. No quality-of-life assessment was performed in VELOUR; therefore, the ASQoP (Aflibercept Safety and Quality-of-Life Program) trial was designed to capture the safety and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Patients and Methods ASQoP was an international, open-label, single-arm trial evaluating the safety and HRQL of aflibercept combined with FOLFIRI administered in a real-life setting to 781 patients with mCRC, pretreated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen with or without bevacizumab. The Italian subset of ASQoP enrolled 200 patients from 28 institutions. The primary endpoint was safety; HRQL was a secondary endpoint, assessed by validated questionnaires (European quality of life 5-dimension instrument 3-level; European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, version 3; and EORTC-CR29) at baseline, during treatment, and at the end of treatment. Results The median age of the Italian ASQoP population was 63 years; the median number of aflibercept and FOLFIRI cycles was 7. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 97.5% of patients. Hypertension (28.5%), neutropenia (27.5%; from laboratory data), asthenic conditions (20.0%), diarrhea (17.0%), and stomatitis (13.0%) were the most frequent (incidence, ≥ 5%) grade 3/4 toxicities. One toxic death occurred during the study period due to sepsis, without neutropenic complications. No significant worsening of HRQL was shown during treatment. Conclusion Aflibercept combined with FOLFIRI was well tolerated when administered as second-line treatment for patients with mCRC in a real-life setting. It did not affect HRQL and showed similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events as those observed in the VELOUR trial. No new safety signals were identified

Exploratory findings from a prematurely closed international, multicentre, academic trial: RAVELLO, a phase III study of regorafenib versus placebo as maintenance therapy after first-line treatment in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

Background In patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the role of maintenance therapy after first-line treatment with chemotherapy plus antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) is still an object of debate. Methods We assessed the efficacy and safety of regorafenib as a switch maintenance strategy after upfront 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy plus an anti- EGFR MoAb in patients with RAS WT mCRC. RAVELLO was a phase III, international, double-blind, placebocontrolled, academic trial. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival and toxicity. Regorafenib or placebo were administered daily for 3 weeks of 4-week cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, up to 24 months. Results The study was stopped prematurely due to slow accrual and lack of funding after the randomisation of 21 patients: 11 in the regorafenib arm and 10 in the placebo arm. The small sample size precludes any statistical analysis. Toxicity was acceptable and consistent with the known regorafenib safety profile. Median PFS was similar in the two arms. However, a subgroup of patients treated with regorafenib experienced a remarkably long PFS. Three patients were progression free at 9 months in the regorafenib arm versus one patient in the placebo arm, whereas at 12 months two regorafenib-treated patients were still progression free versus none in the placebo arm. Conclusion RAVELLO trial demonstrated that growing financial and bureaucratic hurdles affect the feasibility of independent academic research. Although stopped prematurely and within the limited sample size, RAVELLO suggests that regorafenib has not a major activity in maintenance setting after upfront chemotherapy and anti-EGFR MoAb. However, a subgroup of patients experienced a remarkable long PFS, indicating that a better refinement of the patient population would help to identify subjects that might benefit from a regorafenib personalised approach in the switch maintenance settin

A cost comparison of biologic treatment regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer in Italy

IntroductionBevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody, which, in association with combination chemotherapy regimens, has been shown to be active in metastatic colorectal cancer. Other biologic agents active in the same setting are cetuximab and panitumumab, both of which are monoclonal antibodies directed against the antiepidermal growth factor receptor. The objective of this study was to compare treatment costs of first-line regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer in Italy.MethodsA set of first-line regimens was considered, according to the Italian Association of Medical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines. A targeted review of the literature was undertaken to identify clinical study references for treatment regimens. The total cost of a regimen was calculated in the perspective of the Italian healthcare system summing up drugs, administration, and adverse event costs, based on year 2016 prices and tariffs.ResultsBevacizumab 7.5 mg + capecitabine was the least expensive regimen, with a total cost of €16,754 per patient. When we consider regimens based on FOLFOX, bevacizumab 5 mg + FOLFOX4 was the least expensive (€32,709 per patient), compared to panitumumab + FOLFOX4 (€42,815), cetuximab + FOLFOX4 (€42,725), and cetuximab + FOLFOX (€37,995). If we consider combination regimens based on FOLFIRI, the association of FOLFIRI and bevacizumab was less expensive than regimens that included cetuximab (€28,389 for bevacizumab 5 mg + FOLFIRI and €35,310 for cetuximab + FOLFIRI).ConclusionsFrom the perspective of the Italian health care system, bevacizumab appears to be a convenient option among the first-line regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer. Further study, based on real-world evidence, would be necessary to confirm this result

Cancer: New Needs, New Models. Is It Time for a Community Oncologist? Another Brick in the Wall

Over the last few decades, thanks to early detection, effective drugs, and personalized treatments, the natural history of cancer has radically changed. Thanks to these advances, we have observed how survival of cancer patients has increased, becoming an ever more important goal in cancer care. Effective clinical governance of survivorship care is essential to ensure a successful transition between active and post-treatment life, identifying optimization of healthcare outcomes and quality of life for patients as the primary objectives. For these reasons, potential intervention models must consider these differences to rationalize the available resources, including economic aspects. In this perspective, analyzing the different models proposed in the literature to manage this type of patients, we focus on the possible role of the so-called “community oncologist”. As a trained health professional, also focused on longevity, he could represent the right management solution in all those “intermediate” clinical conditions that arise between the hospital specialist, frequently overworked, and the general practitioner, often biased by the lack of specific expertise