Bevacizumab in the treatment of NSCLC: patient selection and perspectives

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents about 85% of all lung cancers, and more than half of NSCLCs are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Chemotherapy has reached a plateau in the overall survival curve of about 10 months. Therefore, in last decade novel targeted approaches have been developed to extend survival of these patients, including antiangiogenic treatment. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathway plays a dominant role in stimulating angiogenesis, which is the main process promoting tumor growth and metastasis. Bevacizumab (bev; Avastin®) is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that neutralizes VEGF’s biologic activity through a steric blocking of its binding with VEGF receptor. Currently, bev is the only antiangiogenic agent approved for the first-line treatment of advanced or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC in “bev-eligible� patients. The ineligibility to receive bev is related to its toxicity. In the pivotal trials of bev in NSCLC, fatal bleeding events including pulmonary hemorrhage were observed with rates higher in the chemotherapy-plus-bev group. Therefore, in order to reduce the incidence of severe pulmonary hemorrhage, numerous exclusion criteria have been characteristically applied for bev such as central tumor localization or tumor cavitation, use of anticoagulant therapy, presence of brain metastases, age of patients (elderly). Subsequent studies designed to evaluate the safety of bev have demonstrated that this agent is safe and well tolerated even in those patients subpopulations excluded from pivotal trials. This review outlines the current state-of-the-art on bev use in advanced NSCLC. It also describes patient selection and future perspectives on this antiangiogenic agent

Anticancer oral therapy: Emerging related issues

The use of oral anticancer drugs has shown a steady increase. Most patients prefer anticancer oral therapy to intravenous treatment primarily for the convenience of a home-based therapy, although they require that the efficacy of oral therapy must be equivalent and toxicity not superior than those expected with the intravenous treatment. A better patient compliance, drug tolerability, convenience and possible better efficacy for oral therapy as compared to intravenous emerge as the major reasons to use oral anticancer agents among oncologists. Inter- and intra-individual pharmacokinetic variations in the bioavailability of oral anticancer drugs may be more relevant than for intravenous agents. Compliance is particularly important for oral therapy because it determines the dose-intensity of the treatment and ultimately treatment efficacy and toxicity. Patient stands as the most important determinant of compliance. Possible measures for an active and safe administration of oral therapy include a careful preliminary medical evaluation and selection of patients based on possible barriers to an adequate compliance, pharmacologic issues, patient-focused education, an improvement of the accessibility to healthcare service, as well as the development of home-care nursing symptom-focused interventions. Current evidences show similar quality of life profile between oral and intravenous treatments, although anticancer oral therapy seems to be more convenient in terms of administration and reduced time lost for work or other activities. Regarding cost-effectiveness, current evidences are in favor of oral therapy, mainly due to reduced need of visits and/or day in hospital for the administration of the drug and/or the management of adverse events. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd