Mechanism-based model characterizing bidirectional interaction between PEGylated liposomal CKD-602 (S-CKD602) and monocytes in cancer patients

S-CKD602 is a PEGylated liposomal formulation of CKD-602, a potent topoisomerase I inhibitor. The objective of this study was to characterize the bidirectional pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) interaction between S-CKD602 and monocytes. Plasma concentrations of encapsulated CKD-602 and monocytes counts from 45 patients with solid tumors were collected following intravenous administration of S-CKD602 in the phase I study. The PK-PD models were developed and fit simultaneously to the PK-PD data, using NONMEM®. The monocytopenia after administration of S-CKD602 was described by direct toxicity to monocytes in a mechanism-based model, and by direct toxicity to progenitor cells in bone marrow in a myelosuppression-based model. The nonlinear PK disposition of S-CKD602 was described by linear degradation and irreversible binding to monocytes in the mechanism-based model, and Michaelis-Menten kinetics in the myelosuppression-based model. The mechanism-based PK-PD model characterized the nonlinear PK disposition, and the bidirectional PK-PD interaction between S-CKD602 and monocytes. © 2012 Cárdenas et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd

Results of paclitaxel (day 1 and 8) and carboplatin given on every three weeks in advanced (stage III-IV) non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Both paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin (C) have significant activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The weekly administration of P is active, dose intense, and has a favorable toxicity profile. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 51 consecutive patients receiving C and day 1 and 8 P chemotherapy (CT) regimen in advanced stage NSCLC to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: Patients treated in our institutions having pathologically proven NSCLC, no CNS metastases, adequate organ function and performance status (PS) ECOG 0–2 were given P 112.5 mg/m(2 )intravenously (IV) over 1 hour on day 1 and 8, followed by C AUC 5 IV over 1 hour, repeated in every three weeks. PC was given for maximum of 6 cycles. RESULTS: Median age was 58 (age range 39–77) and 41 patients (80%) were male. PS was 0/1/2 in 29/17/5 patients and stage was IIIA/IIIB/IV in 3/14/34 patients respectively. The median number of cycles administered was 3 (1–6). Seven patients (14%) did not complete the first 3 cycles either due to death, progression, grade 3 hypersensitivity reactions to P or lost to follow up. Best evaluable response was partial response (PR) in 45% and stable disease (SD) in 18%. Twelve patients (24%) received local RT. Thirteen patients (25%) received 2nd line CT at progression. At a median follow-up of 7 months (range, 1–20), 25 (49%) patients died and 35 patients (69%) progressed. Median overall survival (OS) was 11 ± 2 months (95% CI; 6 to 16), 1-year OS ratio was 44%. Median time to progression (TTP) was 6 ± 1 months (95% CI; 4 to 8), 1-year progression free survival (PFS) ratio was 20%. We observed following grade 3 toxicities: asthenia (10%), neuropathy (4%), anorexia (4%), anemia (4%), hypersensitivity to P (2%), nausea/vomiting (2%), diarrhea (2%) and neutropenia (2%). Two patients (4%) died of febrile neutropenia. Doses of CT were reduced or delayed in 12 patients (24%). CONCLUSIONS: P on day 1 and 8 and C every three weeks is practical and fairly well tolerated outpatient regimen. This regimen seems to be comparably active to regimens given once in every three weeks

Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis after Pemetrexed and Cisplatin for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in a Patient with Sharp Syndrome

Background: Pemetrexed is an antifolate drug approved for maintenance and second-line therapy, and, in combination with cisplatin, for first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. The side-effect profile includes fatigue, hematological and gastrointestinal toxicity, an increase in hepatic enzymes, sensory neuropathy, and pulmonary and cutaneous toxicity in various degrees. Case Report: We present the case of a 58-year-old woman with history of Sharp's syndrome and adenocarcinoma of the lung, who developed toxic epidermal necrolysis after the first cycle of pemetrexed, including erythema, bullae, extensive skin denudation, subsequent systemic inflammation and severe deterioration in general condition. The generalized skin lesions occurred primarily in the previous radiation field and responded to immunosuppressive treatment with prednisone. Conclusion: Although skin toxicity is a well-known side effect of pemetrexed, severe skin reactions after pemetrexed administration are rare. Caution should be applied in cases in which pemetrexed is given subsequent to radiation therapy, especially in patients with pre-existing skin diseases

Maintenance therapy in NSCLC: why? To whom? Which agent?

Maintenance therapy is emerging as a treatment strategy in the management of advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Initial trials addressing the question of duration of combination chemotherapy failed to show any overall survival benefit for the prolonged administration over a fixed number of cycles with an increased risk for cumulative toxicity. Nowadays several agents with different ways of administration and a different pattern of toxicity have been formally investigated in the maintenance setting. Maintenance strategies include continuing with an agent already present in the induction regimen or switching to a different one. Taking into consideration that no comparative trials of maintenance with different chemotherapy drugs or targeted agents have been conducted, the choice and the duration of maintenance agents is largely empirical. Furthermore, it is still unknown and it remains an open question if this approach needs to be proposed to every patient in the case of partial/complete response or stable disease after the induction therapy. Here, we critically review available data on maintenance treatment, discussing the possibility to tailor the right treatment to the right patient, in an attempt to optimize costs and benefits of an ever-growing panel of different treatment options

Clinical relevance of "withdrawal therapy" as a form of hormonal manipulation for breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been shown in in-vitro experiments that "withdrawal" of tamoxifen inhibits growth of tumor cells. However, evidence is scarce when this is extrapolated into clinical context. We report our experience to verify the clinical relevance of "withdrawal therapy".</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Breast cancer patients since 1998 who fulfilled the following criteria were selected from the departmental database and the case-notes were retrospectively reviewed: (1) estrogen receptor positive, operable primary breast cancer in elderly (age > 70 years), locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer; (2) disease deemed suitable for treatment by hormonal manipulation; (3) disease assessable by UICC criteria; (4) received "withdrawal" from a prior endocrine agent as a form of therapy; (5) on "withdrawal therapy" for ≥ 6 months unless they progressed prior.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventeen patients with median age of 84.3 (53.7-92.5) had "withdrawal therapy" as second to tenth line of treatment following prior endocrine therapy using tamoxifen (n = 10), an aromatase inhibitor (n = 5), megestrol acetate (n = 1) or fulvestrant (n = 1). Ten patients (58.8%) had clinical benefit (CB) (complete response/partial response/stable disease ≥ 6 months) with a median duration of Clinical Benefit (DoCB) of 10+ (7-27) months. Two patients remain on "withdrawal therapy" at the time of analysis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>"Withdrawal therapy" appears to produce sustained CB in a significant proportion of patients. This applies not only to "withdrawal" from tamoxifen, but also from other categories of endocrine agents. "Withdrawal" from endocrine therapy is, therefore, a viable intercalating option between endocrine agents to minimise resistance and provide additional line of therapy. It should be considered as part of the sequencing of endocrine therapy.</p

Effectiveness of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel as First- and Second-Line Treatment in 61 Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic melanoma have a very unfavorable prognosis with few therapeutic options. Based on previous promising experiences within a clinical trial involving carboplatin and paclitaxel a series of advanced metastatic melanoma patients were treated with this combination. METHODS: Data of all patients with cutaneous metastatic melanoma treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) at our institution between October 2005 and December 2007 were retrospectively evaluated. For all patients a once-every-3-weeks dose-intensified regimen was used. Overall and progression free survival were calculated using the method of Kaplan and Meier. Tumour response was evaluated according to RECIST criteria. RESULTS: 61 patients with cutaneous metastatic melanoma were treated with CP. 20 patients (85% M1c) received CP as first-line treatment, 41 patients (90.2% M1c) had received at least one prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Main toxicities were myelosuppression, fatigue and peripheral neuropathy. Partial responses were noted in 4.9% of patients, stable disease in 23% of patients. No complete response was observed. Median progression free survival was 10 weeks. Median overall survival was 31 weeks. Response, progression-free and overall survival were equivalent in first- and second-line patients. 60 patients of 61 died after a median follow up of 7 months. Median overall survival differed for patients with controlled disease (PR+SD) (49 weeks) compared to patients with progressive disease (18 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with metastatic melanoma a subgroup achieved disease control under CP therapy which may be associated with a survival benefit. This potential advantage has to be weighed against considerable toxicity. Since response rates and survival were not improved in previously untreated patients compared to pretreated patients, CP should thus not be applied as first-line treatment