Effect of Nintedanib (Bibf 1120) Combined with Standard 2Nd-Line Docetaxel in Nsclc Patients Who Received Prior Pemetrexed in Lume-Lung 1: a Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial

n/

Systematic Review of topotecan (Hycamtin) in relapsed small cell lung cancer

Background: To undertake a systematic review of the available data for oral and intravenous topotecan in adults with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) for whom re-treatment with the first line regimen is not considered appropriate. Methods: We searched six databases from 1980 up to March 2009 for relevant trials regardless of language or publication status. Relevant studies included any randomised trial of any chemotherapeutic treatment against any comparator in this licensed indication. Where possible we used apposite quantitative methods. Where meta-analysis was considered unsuitable for some or all of the data, we employed a narrative synthesis method. For indirect comparisons we used the method of Bucher et al., where available data allowed it, otherwise we used narrative descriptions. Results: Seven unique studies met the inclusion criteria, four of which could be used in our analyses. These included one study comparing oral topotecan plus best supportive care (BSC) to BSC alone, one study comparing intravenous topotecan to cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and vincristine (CAV), and two studies comparing oral topotecan with intravenous topotecan. All four studies appear to be well conducted and with low risk of bias. Oral topotecan plus BSC has advantages over BSC alone in terms of survival (hazard ratio = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87) and quality of life (EQ-5 D difference: 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.25). Intravenous topotecan was at least as effective as CAV in the treatment of patients with recurrent small-cell lung cancer and resulted in improved quality-of-life with respect to several symptoms. CAV was associated with significantly less grade 4 thrombocytopenia compared with IV topotecan (risk ratio = 5.83; 95% CI, 2.35 to 14.42). Survival (hazard ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25) and response (pooled risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.85) data were similar for the oral and IV topotecan groups. Symptom control was also very similar between the trials and between the oral and IV groups. Toxicity data showed a significant difference in favour of oral topotecan for neutropenia (pooled risk ratio = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.89). Indirect evidence showed that oral topotecan was at least as good as or better than CAV on all outcomes (survival, response rates, toxicities, and symptoms) that allowed indirect comparisons, with the only exception being grade four thrombocytopenia which occurred less often on CAV treatment. Conclusions: Concerning topotecan both the oral and intravenous options have similar efficacy, and patient preference may be a decisive factor if the choice would be between the two formulations. The best trial evidence for decision making, because it was tested versus best supportive care, exists for oral topotecan. Indirectly, because we have two head-to-head comparisons of oral versus intravenous topotecan, and one comparison of intravenous topotecan versus CAV in similar patients as in the trial against best supportive care, one might infer that IV topotecan and CAV could also be superior to best supportive care, and that oral topotecan has similar effects to CAV with possibly better symptom control. From the evidence discussed above, it is evident that oral topotecan has similar efficacy to IV topotecan (direct comparison) and CAV (indirect comparison). There is no further evidence base of direct or possible indirect comparisons for other comparators than CAV of either oral or IV topotecan

Oral cancer treatment: developments in chemotherapy and beyond

Oncology is one of the few areas of medicine where most patients are treated intravenously rather than receiving oral drugs. Recently, several oral anti-cancer drugs have been approved and there are many more in development. Oral chemotherapy is attractive because of its convenience and ease of administration, particularly in the palliative setting. With an increasing number of oral agents emerging, we can expect to see a rapid rise in the use of oral chemotherapy in years to come. This article reviews recent developments in oral chemotherapy, both of traditional cytotoxics and novel, targeted agents, from the viewpoint of patients, physicians, drug developers and health-care providers

Efficacy and safety of nintedanib (NIN)/docetaxel (DOC) in patients with lung adenocarcinoma: Further analyses from the LUME-Lung 1 study

Background: NIN is a triple angiokinase inhibitor approved in the EU in combination with DOC for the treatment of adenocarcinoma non-small cell lung cancer patients after first-line therapy (FLT). A continuous linear correlation between overall survival (OS) benefit with NIN and the predictive marker “time from start of FLT” (TSFLT) has been observed in adenocarcinoma patients. Methods: First, analyses were conducted of European adenocarcinoma patients, who comprise the majority of the population from the Phase III LUME-Lung 1 trial comparing NIN/DOC with placebo (PLA)/DOC (NCT00805194). Second, in order to further characterise time from FLT, analyses were conducted in adenocarcinoma populations defined by the dichotomisation at appropriate cut-points of TSFLT or progressive disease (PD) as best response to FLT. Analyses based on “time from end of FLT” (TEFLT) as described in other clinical trials were also performed

A phase i pharmacokinetic study of the vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin (AVE8062) and docetaxel in advanced solid tumours

Background: The vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin shows synergy with docetaxel in vivo. Recommended phase II doses were determined in a dose escalation study in advanced solid tumours. Methods: Ombrabulin (30-min infusion, day 1) followed by docetaxel (1-h infusion, day 2) every 3 weeks was explored. Ombrabulin was escalated from 11.5 to 42 mg m -2 with 75 mg m -2 docetaxel, then from 30 to 35 mg m -2 with 100 mg m -2 docetaxel. Recommended phase II dose cohorts were expanded. Results: Fifty-eight patients were treated. Recommended phase II doses were 35 mg m -2 ombrabulin with 75 mg m -2 docetaxel (35/75 mg m -2; 13 patients) and 30 mg m -2 ombrabulin with 100 mg m -2 docetaxel (30/100 mg m -2; 16 patients). Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 fatigue (two patients; 42/75, 35/100), grade 3 neutropaenic infection (25/75), grade 3 headache (42/75), grade 4 febrile neutropaenia (30/100), and grade 3 thrombosis (35/100). Toxicities were consistent with each agent; mild nausea/vomiting, asthaenia/fatigue, alopecia, and anaemia were common, as were neutropaenia and leukopaenia. Diarrhoea, nail disorders and neurological symptoms were frequent at 100 mg m -2 docetaxel. Pharmacokinetic analyses did not show any relevant drug interactions. Ten patients had partial responses (seven at 30 mg m -2 ombrabulin), eight lasting >3 months. Conclusions: Sequential administration of ombrabulin with 75 or 100 mg m -2 docetaxel every 3 weeks is feasible

Novel IgG-degrading enzymes of the IgdE protease family link substrate specificity to host tropism of <i>Streptococcus</i> species

Recently we have discovered an IgG degrading enzyme of the endemic pig pathogen S. suis designated IgdE that is highly specific for porcine IgG. This protease is the founding member of a novel cysteine protease family assigned C113 in the MEROPS peptidase database. Bioinformatical analyses revealed putative members of the IgdE protease family in eight other Streptococcus species. The genes of the putative IgdE family proteases of S. agalactiae, S. porcinus, S. pseudoporcinus and S. equi subsp. zooepidemicus were cloned for production of recombinant protein into expression vectors. Recombinant proteins of all four IgdE family proteases were proteolytically active against IgG of the respective Streptococcus species hosts, but not against IgG from other tested species or other classes of immunoglobulins, thereby linking the substrate specificity to the known host tropism. The novel IgdE family proteases of S. agalactiae, S. pseudoporcinus and S. equi showed IgG subtype specificity, i.e. IgdE from S. agalactiae and S. pseudoporcinus cleaved human IgG1, while IgdE from S. equi was subtype specific for equine IgG7. Porcine IgG subtype specificities of the IgdE family proteases of S. porcinus and S. pseudoporcinus remain to be determined. Cleavage of porcine IgG by IgdE of S. pseudoporcinus is suggested to be an evolutionary remaining activity reflecting ancestry of the human pathogen to the porcine pathogen S. porcinus. The IgG subtype specificity of bacterial proteases indicates the special importance of these IgG subtypes in counteracting infection or colonization and opportunistic streptococci neutralize such antibodies through expression of IgdE family proteases as putative immune evasion factors. We suggest that IgdE family proteases might be valid vaccine targets against streptococci of both human and veterinary medical concerns and could also be of therapeutic as well as biotechnological use