The status of platinum anticancer drugs in the clinic and in clinical trials

Since its approval in 1979 cisplatin has become an important component in chemotherapy regimes for the treatment of ovarian, testicular, lung and bladder cancers, as well as lymphomas, myelomas and melanoma. Unfortunately its continued use is greatly limited by severe dose limiting side effects and intrinsic or acquired drug resistance. Over the last 30 years, 23 other platinum-based drugs have entered clinical trials with only two (carboplatin and oxaliplatin) of these gaining international marketing approval, and another three (nedaplatin, lobaplatin and heptaplatin) gaining approval in individual nations. During this time there have been more failures than successes with the development of 14 drugs being halted during clinical trials. Currently there are four drugs in the various phases of clinical trial (satraplatin, picoplatin, LipoplatinTM and ProLindacTM). No new small molecule platinum drug has entered clinical trials since 1999 which is representative of a shift in focus away from drug design and towards drug delivery in the last decade. In this perspective article we update the status of platinum anticancer drugs currently approved for use, those undergoing clinical trials and those discontinued during clinical trials, and discuss the results in the context of where we believe the field will develop over the next decade

A case of renal artery thrombosis with renal infarction

Renal artery thrombosis is a rare, but serious and often misdiagnosed, condition. Emergency physicians and other physicians need to consider this diagnosis in unexplained flank pain, especially in patients with risk factors for this disease. In this case report, the authors review a case of renal infarction caused by renal artery thrombosis in a patient with risk factors for thrombosis but no previous history of thromboembolism. A review of scholarly articles was performed and the case is discussed in the context of the current knowledge of this condition. Common presenting symptoms, features of the history and risk factors will all be discussed herein. Diagnostic evaluation of flank pain in the setting of the suspicion of renal infarction will be discussed, including the modalities of high-resolution computed tomography, renal angiography, scintography and ultrasound. Acute management and prognosis will also be discussed

A phase II/III randomized study to compare the efficacy and safety of rigosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND: Rigosertib (ON 01910.Na), a first-in-class Ras mimetic and small-molecule inhibitor of multiple signaling pathways including polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), has shown efficacy in preclinical pancreatic cancer models. In this study, rigosertib was assessed in combination with gemcitabine in patients with treatment-naïve metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle plus rigosertib 1800 mg/m(2) via 2-h continuous IV infusions given twice weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle (RIG + GEM) versus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks in a 4-week cycle (GEM). RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were enrolled globally and randomly assigned to RIG + GEM (106 patients) or GEM (54). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (8% in the RIG + GEM group versus 6% in the GEM group), hyponatremia (17% versus 4%), and anemia (8% versus 4%). The median overall survival was 6.1 months for RIG + GEM versus 6.4 months for GEM [hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.81]. The median progression-free survival was 3.4 months for both groups (HR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.36). The partial response rate was 19% versus 13% for RIG + GEM versus GEM, respectively. Of 64 tumor samples sent for molecular analysis, 47 were adequate for multiplex genetic testing and 41 were positive for mutations. The majority of cases had KRAS gene mutations (40 cases). Other mutations detected included TP53 (13 cases) and PIK3CA (1 case). No correlation between mutational status and efficacy was detected. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of RIG + GEM failed to demonstrate an improvement in survival or response compared with GEM in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Rigosertib showed a similar safety profile to that seen in previous trials using the IV formulation