Improved efficacy response attributed to diagnostic selection – Interim results of the phase 1 experience from ALKA-372-001

n/

Safety profile and treatment response of everolimus in different solid tumors : an observational study

Aim: Only few efforts have been taken to investigate the potential existence of disease-specific differences in the safety profile of everolimus. We analyze here the correlation between different patient and tumor characteristics on the safety profile of this molecule. Information on treatment response is also provided. Methods: Consecutive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) or biliary tract cancer were included in this retrospective study. All patients received everolimus 10 mg/day or 5 mg/day. Clinical assessments were performed every 3 weeks. Results: In total, 98 patients were enrolled: 51 with mRCC, 25 with pNET and 22 with biliary tract cancer. The incidence of toxicities (any grade) was 76% with mRCC, 64% with pNET and 95% with biliary tract cancer. Patients with biliary tract cancer also presented a higher frequency of severe toxicities: 64 versus 18% with mRCC and 32% with pNET. Multivariate analysis disclosed that biliary tract cancer (odds ratio [OR]: 23.8; 95% CI: 6.0-117.8; p < 0.0001) is a predictive factor for the development of toxicities during everolimus treatment. No correlations between liver metastasis and toxicities were identified. Disease control rate (DCR) was 45% in mRCC patients, 96% in pNET and 50% for biliary tract cancer patients. pNET tumors were associated with a higher DCR than the mRCC and biliary tract cancer (OR vs mRCC: 66.7; 95% CI: 6.2-276.5; p = 0.004; OR vs biliary tract cancer: 2.6; 95% CI: 0.5-14.2; p = 0.025). Conclusion: This study suggests that the safety profile of everolimus is acceptable in patients with either mRCC or pNET. In addition, the onset of toxicities is associated with an improved DCR. In patients with biliary tract cancer, everolimus is safe but associated with a higher incidence of adverse events

XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin): Active first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Purpose. Capecitabine has demonstrated high efficacy as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Oxaliplatin shows synergy with fluorouracil (FU), with little toxicity overlap. The XELOX regimen (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin), established in a previous dose-finding study, should improve on infused oxaliplatin with FU and leucovorin (FOLFOX) regimens. The present studies further characterize efficacy and safety of the XELOX regimen. Patients and Methods. The antitumor activity of XELOX was investigated in a colon cancer xenograft model. Patients with MCRC received first-line XELOX in 3-week treatment cycles: intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) (day 1) followed by oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily (day 1, evening, to day 15, morning). Results. A preclinical study confirmed that capecitabine has supra-additive activity with oxaliplatin. In the clinical study, 53 of 96 patients (55%) achieved an objective response, and 30 (31 %) experienced disease stabilization for greater than or equal to 3 months following treatment. After 24 months' minimum follow-up, median time to disease progression (TTP) and median overall survival were 7.7 and 19.5 months, respectively. XELOX safety was predictable and similar to the FOLFOX4 regimen, except that myelosuppression was uncommon with XELOX (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, 7%). Most adverse events were mild to moderate, the most common being acute sensory neuropathy (85%). Sixty-day, all-cause mortality was 2%. Conclusion. XELOX is a highly effective first-line treatment for MCRC. Response rates, TTP, and overall survival are similar to those observed with FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin combinations. XELOX provides a more convenient regimen, likely to be preferred by both patients and healthcare providers. Capecitabine has the potential to replace FU/LV in combination with oxaliplatin for MCRC