11 research outputs found
Italian Survey on adjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (ISA)
Background: A recent pooled analysis of randomized trials indicated significant improvement in overall survival from cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), depending on disease stage (only in stages II and III) and PS (≤1). Post-operative radiotherapy (RT) is optional for pN2 tumours. Patients and methods: To evaluate opinions and daily clinical practice of Italian Oncologists about adjuvant treatment of NSCLC, a 46-item questionnaire was delivered via e-mail. Results: Seventy-eight physicians from 68 Centers (out of 98 contacted) returned their questionnaire. Seventy-four, 86, 94, and 78% of them give the indication for adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA, IIB, IIIA, and IIIB disease, respectively and 14% in stage IB disease. Stage, PS, and age are taken into consideration evaluating adjuvant approach by 97, 95 and 73%, respectively. Cisplatin-vinorelbine (64%) and cisplatin-gemcitabine (33%), for 4 cycles (81%), are the preferred regimens, while 32% use different regimens. Ninety-two percent indicate RT in pN2 disease and/or positive resection margins. Real Number of patients Needed to Treat (NNT) is probably not completely known/understood and/or used by physicians. Conclusions: A substantial adherence between clinical daily practice in Italy and scientific progresses is described in this paper, even with some discordances regarding the most appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy regimen. © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd
Lack of dendritic cell mobilization into the peripheral blood of cancer patients following standard- or high-dose chemotherapy plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.
BACKGROUND: Dendritic cells (DC), the most specialized antigen-presenting cells, can be detected in the peripheral blood (PB) and divided into two subsets of populations, DC1 and DC2, endowed with different functions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on DC release and on their subsets of three regimens utilized to mobilize CD34+ cells into the PB in cancer patients and in normal CD34+ cell donors.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The mobilizing sequences were: standard-dose epirubicin+taxol+granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; 15 patients with advanced breast cancer), high-dose cyclophosphamide (CTX)+G-CSF (10 patients with breast cancer patients and 7 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, NHL), and G-CSF alone (5 normal donors of CD34+ cells for allogeneic transplantation). Comparative data were obtained from the steady-state PB of 20 healthy volunteers. For flow cytometric analysis, DC were gated as negative for specific lineage markers (CD3, CD11b, CD14, CD16, CD56, CD19, CD20, CD34) and positive for HLA-DR. The DC1 and DC2 subsets were defined as CD11c and CDw123 positive, respectively.
RESULTS: The percentages of DC at baseline and the time of CD34+ cell peak were: 0.48 and 0.51 for standard-dose chemotherapy (CT); 0.55 and 0.63 for breast cancer after high-dose CTX+G-CSF; 0.53 and 0.71 for NHL after high-dose CTX+G-CSF; and 0.51 and 0.54 for normal donors of CD34+ cells after G-CSF alone (all p=n.s.). Mean DC1/DC2 ratios in each study group at the time of CD34+ cell peak were 0.10, 0.12, and 0.18, respectively. Finally, in the group of healthy volunteers, the percentage of circulating DC was 0.95 and the mean DC1/DC2 ratio was 1.28.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first report that demonstrates that both standard-dose or high-dose CT, when utilized together with G-CSF, do not induce DC mobilization into the PB, whereas a reversed DC1/DC2 ratio is observed. Furthermore, a lack of significant DC mobilization after G-CSF alone was also seen, in contrast to what was previously observed by others. These data should be taken in account when evaluating clinical correlations between DC number and CPC engraftment in both the transplantation setting, when monitoring the effects on the immune system of combinations of new drugs and/or cytokines, and when high numbers of DC are required for both experimental and clinical applications
Patterns of treatment and outcome of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive/HER2 receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer: a real-world multicentre Italian study
Background: The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) has proven to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Few data are available regarding the efficacy of such a regimen outside the clinical trials. Patients and methods: This is a multicentre prospective real-world experience aimed at verifying the outcome of palbociclib plus ET in an unselected population of MBC patients. The primary aim was the clinical benefit rate (CBR); secondary aims were the median PFS, overall survival (OS) and safety. Patients received palbociclib plus letrozole 2.5 mg (cohort A) or fulvestrant 500 mg (cohort B). Results: In total, 191 patients (92 in cohort A, 99 in cohort B) were enrolled and treated, and 182 were evaluable for the analysis. Median age was 62 years (range 47–79); 54% had visceral involvement; 28% of patients had previously performed one treatment line (including chemotherapy and ET), 22.6% two lines and 15.9% three. An overall response rate of 34.6% was observed with 11 (6.0%) complete responses and 52 (28.6%) partial responses. Stable disease was achieved by 78 patients (42.9%) with an overall CBR of 59.8%. At a median follow-up of 24 months (range 6–32), median PFS was 13 months without significant differences between the cohorts. When analysed according to treatment line, PFS values were significantly prolonged when palbociclib-based therapy was administered as first-line treatment (14.0 months), to decrease progressively in second and subsequent lines (11.7 and 6.7 months, respectively). Median OS was 25 months, ranging from 28.0 months in 1st line to 18.0 and 13.0 months in 2nd and subsequent lines, respectively. Conclusions: Our data indicate that palbociclib plus ET is active and safe in HR+/HER2− MBC, also suggesting a better performance of the combinations in earlier treatment lines
Efficacy of Metronomic Oral Vinorelbine, Cyclophosphamide, and Capecitabine vs Weekly Intravenous Paclitaxel in Patients With Estrogen Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: Final Results From the Phase 2 METEORA-II Randomized Clinical Trial
Importance: In spite of the effectiveness of endocrine therapy plus cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors as the first-line treatment for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2 [formerly HER2/neu])-negative (ER+/ERBB2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), patients eventually develop resistance, and eventually most will receive chemotherapy. The METEORA-II trial compared a metronomic all-oral treatment with intravenous (IV) chemotherapy. Objective: To compare the efficacy of the oral vinorelbine plus cyclophosphamide plus capecitabine (VEX) regimen vs weekly IV paclitaxel among patients with ER+/ERBB2- MBC who are candidates for chemotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2 randomized clinical trial including 140 women 18 years and older (randomized 1:1) with ER+/ERBB2- MBC was carried out from September 13, 2017, to January 14, 2021 at 15 centers in Italy. Eligible patients could have received 1 prior line of chemotherapy for MBC and/or 2 lines of endocrine therapy (including CDK4/6 inhibitors). Interventions: In 4-week cycles, patients received either metronomic oral VEX or weekly IV paclitaxel. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was investigator-assessed time to treatment failure (TTF) defined as the interval between the date of randomization to the end of treatment (because of disease progression or lack of tolerability or because further trial treatment was declined). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (complete or partial response or stable disease lasting for at least 24 weeks). Results: In total, 133 patients received either VEX (n = 70) or paclitaxel (n = 63) in 4-weekly cycles. The median age was 61 (range, 30-80) years. The VEX treatment significantly prolonged TTF vs paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.88; P = .008), median TTF was 8.3 (95% CI, 5.6-11.1) months for VEX vs 5.7 (95% CI, 4.1-6.1) months for paclitaxel, and the 12-month TTF was 34.3% for VEX vs 8.6% for paclitaxel. The median PFS was 11.1 (95% CI, 8.3-13.8) months vs 6.9 (95% CI, 5.4-10.1) months favoring VEX (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.96, P = .03). The 12-month PFS was 43.5% for VEX vs 21.9% for paclitaxel. No difference in OS was found. The TF event for 55.6% of patients was progression of disease; for 23% it was AEs. More patients assigned to VEX had at least 1 grade 3 or 4 targeted adverse event (VEX, 42.9%; 95% CI, 31.1%-55.3% vs paclitaxel, 28.6%; 95% CI, 17.9%-41.3%), but essentially no alopecia. Conclusion and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found significantly prolonged TTF and PFS for oral VEX but no improvement in OS compared with intravenous paclitaxel, despite increased but still manageable toxic effects. The VEX regimen may provide more prolonged disease control than weekly paclitaxel for ER+/ERBB2- MBC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02954055
Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) and dexamethasone for prevention of emesis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide: A multi-cycle, phase II study
Background: NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle. Methods: In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2-4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined. Results: Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65-0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4). Conclusion: The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was maintained over multiple cycles of adjuvant AC for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence also suggests that patients achieving a CR during the overall period gain high protection even against very late CINV events in each chemotherapy cycle
Oral chemotherapy and patient perspective in solid tumors: a national survey by the Italian association of medical oncology
Aim: To assess patient perception toward oral chemotherapy for solid tumors, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology performed a large multi-institutional national survey. Methods: A 17-item anonymous questionnaire including 7 general and 10 investigational questions with free-text, single-choice, or multiple-choice answers was administered. Analysis of response distribution according to predefined factors was described by summary measures and conducted by.2 test and other nonparametric tests. Results: From January to June 2010, 581 patients completed the questionnaire; data of 404 patients constituted the final study sample. Three groups could be distinguished according to treatment: IV chemotherapy (IV group, n = 313), oral chemotherapy (oral group, n = 48), or combined therapy (combined group, n = 43). Thirty-one (72%) patients in the combined group and 187 (60%) in the IV group expressed preference for oral therapy (p = 0.028). Limitations in family and work commitment were more frequently perceived by patients on IV than oral chemotherapy (147 (47%) vs 14 (29%) patients, p<0.05, and 134 (43%) vs 11 (23%) patients, p<0.05). A total of 134 (43%) patients on IV chemotherapy versus 15 (31%) patients in the oral group did not point out any limitation for number of tablets per day (p = 0.004). Conclusions: We observed a propensity from the patient perspective in favor of oral chemotherapy that was considered to have a lower impact on family and work commitments than IV chemotherapy. The treatment that patients were taking when the questionnaire was administered likely influenced their perception and related results
Erratum: Natural History of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Bone Metastases (Scientific Reports (2015) 5 (18670) DOI: 10.1038/srep18670)
Erratum for Natural History of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Bone Metastase
Metronomic chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer patients in the real world practice: Final results of the VICTOR-6 study
Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) refers to the minimum biologically effective dose of a chemotherapy agent given as a continuous dosing regimen, with no prolonged drug-free breaks, that leads to antitumor activity. Aim of the present study is to describe the use of mCHT in a retrospective cohort of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients in order to collect data regarding the different types and regimens of drugs employed, their efficacy and safety. Between January 2011 and December 2016, data of 584 metastatic breast cancer patients treated with mCHT were collected. The use of VRL-based regimens increased during the time of observation (2011: 16.8% - 2016: 29.8%), as well as CTX-based ones (2011: 17.1% - 2016: 25.6%), whereas CAPE-based and MTX-based regimens remained stable. In the 1st-line setting, the highest ORR and DCR were observed for VRL-based regimens (single agent: 44% and 88%; combination: 36.7% and 82.4%, respectively). Assuming VRL-single agent as the referee treatment (median PFS: 7.2 months, 95% CI: 5.3–10.3), the longest median PFS were observed in VRL-combination regimens (9.5, 95%CI 88.8–11.3, HR = 0.72) and in CAPE-single agent (10.7, 95%CI 8.3–15.8, HR = 0.70). The VICTOR-6 study provides new data coming from the real-life setting, by adding new information regarding the use of mCHT as an option of treatment for MBC patients
Metronomic chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer patients in the real world practice: Final results of the VICTOR-6 study
Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) refers to the minimum biologically effective dose of a chemotherapy agent given as a continuous dosing regimen, with no prolonged drug-free breaks, that leads to antitumor activity. Aim of the present study is to describe the use of mCHT in a retrospective cohort of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients in order to collect data regarding the different types and regimens of drugs employed, their efficacy and safety. Between January 2011 and December 2016, data of 584 metastatic breast cancer patients treated with mCHT were collected. The use of VRL-based regimens increased during the time of observation (2011: 16.8% - 2016: 29.8%), as well as CTX-based ones (2011: 17.1% - 2016: 25.6%), whereas CAPE-based and MTX-based regimens remained stable. In the 1st-line setting, the highest ORR and DCR were observed for VRL-based regimens (single agent: 44% and 88%; combination: 36.7% and 82.4%, respectively). Assuming VRL-single agent as the referee treatment (median PFS: 7.2 months, 95% CI: 5.3–10.3), the longest median PFS were observed in VRL-combination regimens (9.5, 95%CI 88.8–11.3, HR = 0.72) and in CAPE-single agent (10.7, 95%CI 8.3–15.8, HR = 0.70). The VICTOR-6 study provides new data coming from the real-life setting, by adding new information regarding the use of mCHT as an option of treatment for MBC patients