Phase III study of 5FU, etoposide and leucovorin (FELV) compared to epirubicin, cisplatin and 5FU (ECF) in previously untreated patients with advanced biliary cancer

The purpose of this study was to determine whether epirubicin, cisplatin and infused 5FU (ECF) improves overall survival (OS) compared to 5FU, etoposide and leucovorin (FELV) in patients with previously untreated advanced biliary cancer in a prospective randomised study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive epirubicin, cisplatin and infused 5FU ECF or bolus 5FU etoposide and leucovorin (FELV). The primary end point was OS with secondary end points of objective response rate (ORR), failure-free survival (FFS), quality of life (QOL) and toxicity. In all, 54 patients were recruited with 27 randomly assigned to each arm. The median OS for ECF was 9.02 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.46–11.51) and FELV 12.03 months (95% CI: 9.3–14.7), P=0.2059. Objective response rates were similar for both arms: ECF 19.2% (95% CI: 6.55–39.3); FELV 15% (95% CI: 3.2–37.9), P=0.72. There was significantly increased grade 3/4 neutropenia with FELV vs ECF (53.8 vs 29.5%, respectively, P=0.020). Symptom resolution was impressive for both regimens. This is the largest reported randomised study to date in this setting. ECF did not improve OS compared to FELV, but was associated with less acute toxicity. These data suggest that chemotherapy can prolong OS and achieve good symptomatic relief in advanced biliary cancer

Phase II trial of oral S-1 combined with gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer

We conducted a phase II trial of gemcitabine with S-1, oral fluorouracil (5-FU) prodrug tegafur combined with two modulators, 5-chloro-2, 4-dihydroxypyridine and potassium oxonate, to evaluate the activity and toxicity of such a combination in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) patients. Patients who had pathologically proven pancreatic cancer with metastatic lesions were eligible candidates for entry into the study. S-1 was given orally (30 mg m−2) b.i.d. for 14 consecutive days and gemcitabine (1000 mg m−2) was given on days 8 and 15. The cycle was repeated every 21 days. We enrolled 33 MPC patients. The median number of cycles was eight (range 1–20). Grade 3–4 toxicities were leucopenia (33%), neutropenia (55%), anaemia (9%), thrombocytopenia (15%), anorexia (6%), fever (9%), and interstitial pneumonia (6%). Objective responses were obtained in 16 patients (one complete response and 15 partial responses; response rate, 48%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 33–65). Median survival and 1-year survival rate were 12.5 months (95% CI, 5.9–19.1) and 54% (95% CI, 36–72), respectively. Combination chemotherapy with GEM and S-1 was well tolerated and yielded a significantly high response rate

Gene expression profiling may improve diagnosis in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary

Carcinomas of unknown primary (CUP) represent between 3 and 10% of malignancies. Treatment with nonspecific chemotherapy is commonly unhelpful and the median survival is between 3 and 6 months. Gene expression microarray (GEM) analysis has demonstrated that molecular signatures can aid in tumour classification and propose foster primaries. In this study, we demonstrate the clinical utility of a diagnostic gene expression profiling tool and discuss its potential implications for patient management strategies. Paraffin tumour samples from 21 cases of ‘true' CUP patients in whom standard investigation had failed to determine a primary site of malignancy were investigated using diagnostic gene profiling. The results were reviewed in the context of histology and clinical history. Classification of tumour origin using the GEM method confirmed the clinicians' suspicion in 16 out of 21 cases. There was a clinical/GEM inconsistency in 4 out of 21 patients and a pathological/GEM inconsistency in 1 patient. The improved diagnoses by the GEM method would have influenced the management in 12 out of 21 cases. Genomic profiling and cancer classification tools represent a promising analytical approach to assist with the management of CUP patients. We propose that GEM diagnosis be considered when the primary clinical algorithm has failed to provide a diagnosis

CT-guided intratumoural administration of cisplatin/epinephrine gel for treatment of malignant liver tumours

To analyze prospectively the interventional and clinical aspects of computed tomography-guided direct intratumoural injection of a novel chemotherapeutic administration and the parenchymal changes of tumour and necrosis in malignant liver tumours. Eight patients with 17 colorectal liver metastases were treated with a mean of 5.1 injections and nine patients with 13 hepatocellular carcinoma nodules with a mean of 3.1 treatments with computed tomography guided local applications of a novel cisplatin/epinephrine gel. This application provides a higher local and lower systemic drug concentration. Volumes of tumour and necrosis prior and after treatment were measured by computer generated volumetric analysis. Contrast enhanced studies verified pretherapeutic viable tumour volumes with a value of 77.4 ml in the metastases and 29.2 ml in the hepatocellular carcinoma nodules. Intratumoural drug application resulted in a significant increase of necrosis and a decrease in viable tumour volume to be 68.3 ml in metastases and 14.5 ml in hepatocellular carcinoma. Local therapy control rate for the follow up to 6 months was 38 and 71% for the group of metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma, respectively. Direct intratumoural injection of cisplatin/epinepthrine injectable gel is a feasible and good tolerated method and results in the development of a statistically significant increase in necrosis in malignant liver tumours. For hepatocellular carcinoma a higher local therapy control rate compared to colorectal metastases can be reported

A randomized multi-center phase II trial of the angiogenesis inhibitor Cilengitide (EMD 121974) and gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic treatment is believed to have at least cystostatic effects in highly vascularized tumours like pancreatic cancer. In this study, the treatment effects of the angiogenesis inhibitor Cilengitide and gemcitabine were compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A multi-national, open-label, controlled, randomized, parallel-group, phase II pilot study was conducted in 20 centers in 7 countries. Cilengitide was administered at 600 mg/m(2 )twice weekly for 4 weeks per cycle and gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m(2 )for 3 weeks followed by a week of rest per cycle. The planned treatment period was 6 four-week cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, quality of life (QoL), effects on biological markers of disease (CA 19.9) and angiogenesis (vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor), and safety. An ancillary study investigated the pharmacokinetics of both drugs in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were randomized. The median overall survival was 6.7 months for Cilengitide and gemcitabine and 7.7 months for gemcitabine alone. The median PFS times were 3.6 months and 3.8 months, respectively. The overall response rates were 17% and 14%, and the tumor growth control rates were 54% and 56%, respectively. Changes in the levels of CA 19.9 went in line with the clinical course of the disease, but no apparent relationships were seen with the biological markers of angiogenesis. QoL and safety evaluations were comparable between treatment groups. Pharmacokinetic studies showed no influence of gemcitabine on the pharmacokinetic parameters of Cilengitide and vice versa. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically important differences observed regarding efficacy, safety and QoL between the groups. The observations lay in the range of other clinical studies in this setting. The combination regimen was well tolerated with no adverse effects on the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of either agent