Overview of the INPRO Project

During the last fifty years remarkable results are achieved in the application of nuclear technology for the production of electricity. Looking ahead to the next fifty years it is clear that the demand for energy will grow considerably and also the requirements for the way the energy will be supplied. Within the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO), the future of the energy demand and supply was explored and several scenario's identified. A leading requirement for energy supply is coming up and will play a crucial role: sustainability of the way the energy supply will be realized. Fulfilling the growing need for energy in developing countries is as well an important issue. Based on these scenario's for the next fifty years, an inventory of requirements for the future of nuclear energy systems has been collected as well a methodology developed by INPRO to assess innovative nuclear systems and fuel cycles. On the base of this assessment, the need for innovations and breakthroughs in existing technology can be defined. To facilitate the deployment of innovative nuclear systems also the infrastructure, technical as well as institutional has to be adjusted to the anticipated changes in the world such as the globalization. As a contribution to the conference the main messages of INPRO will be presented

Irinotecan plus raltitrexed vs raltitrexed alone in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

There is no established second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine failure. In view of the urgent need for such therapy, and since preclinical and phase I clinical data suggest an encouraging, potentially synergistic activity between raltitrexed and irinotecan, the present randomised phase II study was initiated. A total of 38 patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, who progressed while receiving or within 6 months after discontinuation of palliative first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine, were enrolled in this study. They were randomised to 3-weekly courses of raltitrexed 3 mg m−2 on day 1 (arm A) or irinotecan 200 mg m−2 on day 1 plus raltitrexed 3 mg m−2 on day 2 (arm B). The primary study end point was objective response, secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), as well as clinical benefit response in symptomatic patients (n=28). In the combination arm, the IRC-confirmed objective response rate was 16% (three out of 19 patients had a partial remission; 95% CI, 3–40%), which was clearly superior to that in the comparator/control arm with raltitrexed alone, in which no response was obtained. Therefore, the trial was already stopped at the first stage of accrual. Also, the secondary study end points, median PFS (2.5 vs 4.0 months), OS (4.3 vs 6.5 months), and clinical benefit response (8 vs 29%) were superior in the combination arm. The objective and subjective benefits of raltitrexed+irinotecan were not negated by severe, clinically relevant treatment-related toxicities: gastrointestinal symptoms (42 vs 68%), partial alopecia (0 vs 42%), and cholinergic syndrome (0 vs 21%) were more commonly noted in arm B; however, grade 3 adverse events occurred in only three patients in both treatment groups. Our data indicate that combined raltitrexed+irinotecan seems to be an effective salvage regimen in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated pancreatic cancer. The superior response activity, PFS and OS (when compared to raltitrexed), as well as its tolerability and ease of administration suggest that future trials with this combination are warranted

Effective combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel and cisplatin with or without human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and/or erythropoietin in patients with advanced gastric cancer

A phase II trial was performed to determine the antitumour efficacy and tolerance of combined paclitaxel and cisplatin with or without hematopoetic growth factor support in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Forty-five patients with histologically confirmed metastatic gastric cancer were entered in this trial. Treatment consisted of 2-weekly courses of paclitaxel 160 mg per m2 and cisplatin 60 mg per m2 both given on day 1. Depending on absolute neutrophil counts on the days of scheduled chemotherapeutic drug administration (1000–2000 per μl), a 5-day course of human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor 5 μg kg−1 per day was given subcutaneously; in addition, if haemoglobin was <12.0 mg dl−1, erythropoietin 10 000 IU was administered subcutaneously three times per week. The confirmed overall response rate (intent-to-treat) was 44%, including five complete (11%) and 15 partial remissions (33%). Twelve patients had stable disease (27%), 11 (24%) progressed while on chemotherapy, and two patients were not evaluable. The median time to response was 3 months, the median time to progression 7.0 months, and the median survival time was 11.2 months with 12 patients currently alive. Haematologic toxicity was common, though WHO grade 4 neutropenia occurred in only five patients (11%). Apart from total alopecia in 16 patients (36%), severe non-haematologic adverse reactions included grade 3 peripheral neuropathy in six (13%) and anaphylaxis in two patients. In addition, there was one patient each who experienced grade 3 emesis, diarrhea, and infection, respectively. Our data suggest that the combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin with or without G-CSF and/or erythropoietin has promising therapeutic activity in patients with advanced gastric cancer