Epidemiology and natural history of central venous access device use and infusion pump function in the NO16966 trial

Background: Central venous access devices in fluoropyrimidine therapy are associated with complications; however, reliable data are lacking regarding their natural history, associated complications and infusion pump performance in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.<p></p> Methods: We assessed device placement, use during treatment, associated clinical outcomes and infusion pump perfomance in the NO16966 trial.<p></p> Results: Device replacement was more common with FOLFOX-4 (5-fluorouracil (5-FU)+oxaliplatin) than XELOX (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) (14.1% vs 5.1%). Baseline device-associated events and post-baseline removal-/placement-related events occurred more frequently with FOLFOX-4 than XELOX (11.5% vs 2.4% and 8.5% vs 2.1%). Pump malfunctions, primarily infusion accelerations in 16% of patients, occurred within 1.6–4.3% of cycles. Fluoropyrimidine-associated grade 3/4 toxicity was increased in FOLFOX-4-treated patients experiencing a malfunction compared with those who did not (97 out of 155 vs 452 out of 825 patients), predominantly with increased grade 3/4 neutropenia (53.5% vs 39.8%). Febrile neutropenia rates were comparable between patient cohorts±malfunction. Efficacy outcomes were similar in patient cohorts±malfunction.<p></p> Conclusions: Central venous access device removal or replacement was common and more frequent in patients receiving FOLFOX-4. Pump malfunctions were also common and were associated with increased rates of grade 3/4 haematological adverse events. Oral fluoropyrimidine-based regimens may be preferable to infusional 5-FU based on these findings

Phase i trial of axitinib combined with platinum doublets in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and other solid tumours

BACKGROUND: This phase I dose-finding trial evaluated safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of axitinib, a potent and selective secondgeneration inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, combined with platinum doublets in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other solid tumours. METHODS: In all, 49 patients received axitinib 5mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with paclitaxel/carboplatin or gemcitabine/cisplatin in 3-week cycles. Following determination of the maximum tolerated dose, a squamous cell NSCLC expansion cohort was enroled and received axitinib 5mg b.i.d. with paclitaxel/carboplatin. RESULTS: Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities: febrile neutropenia (n¼1) in the paclitaxel/carboplatin cohort and fatigue (n¼1) in the gemcitabine/cisplatin cohort. Common nonhaematologic treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (36.7%), diarrhoea (34.7%) and fatigue (28.6%). No gradeX3 haemoptysis occurred among 12 patients with squamous cell NSCLC. The objective response rate was 37.0% for patients receiving axitinib/paclitaxel/carboplatin (n¼27) and 23.8% for patients receiving axitinib/gemcitabine/cisplatin (n¼21). Pharmacokinetics of axitinib and chemotherapeutic agents were similar when administered alone or in combination. CONCLUSION: Axitinib 5mg b.i.d. may be combined with standard paclitaxel/carboplatin or gemcitabine/cisplatin regimens without evidence of overt drug–drug interactions. Both combinations demonstrated clinical efficacy and were well tolerated.This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Support was provided in part by National Institutes of Health grant P30 CA006927 to the Fox Chase Cancer Center. We thank the patients who participated in this study and the physicians who referred them, as well as the study coordinators and data managers, Shelley Mayfield and Carol Martins at Pfizer Inc. for support of the study conduct, and Gamal ElSawah, Pfizer Medical Affairs, for his review of the manuscript. Medical writing support was provided by Joanna Bloom, of UBC Scientific Solutions (Southport, CT, USA) and Christine Arris at ACUMED (Tytherington, UK) and was funded by Pfizer In

Association of progression-free survival with patient-reported outcomes and survival: results from a randomised phase 3 trial of panitumumab

In a randomised phase 3 trial, panitumumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This analysis characterises the association of PFS with CRC symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and overall survival (OS). CRC symptoms (NCCN/FACT CRC symptom index, FCSI) and HRQoL (EQ-5D) were assessed for 207 panitumumab patients and 184 best supportive care (BSC) patients who had at least one post-baseline patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment. Patients alive at week 8 were included in the PRO and OS analyses and categorised by their week 8 progression status as follows: no progressive disease (no PD; best response of at least stable disease) vs progressive disease (PD). Standard imputation methods were used to assign missing values. Significantly more patients were progression free at weeks 8–24 with panitumumab vs BSC. After excluding responders, a significant difference in PFS remained favouring panitumumab (HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.52–0.77; P<0.0001). At week 8, lack of disease progression was associated with significantly and clinically meaningful lower CRC symptomatology for both treatment groups and higher HRQoL for panitumumab patients only. Overall survival favoured no PD patients vs PD patients alive at week 8. Lack of disease progression was associated with better symptom control, HRQoL, and OS

Effect of bevacizumab in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of four randomized studies

Background: Bevacizumab is frequently combined with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The relative benefit of bevacizumab in older patients has not been widely studied and is of interest. Patients and methods: This retrospective analysis used data from three first-line randomized controlled studies and one second-line randomized controlled study of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in medically fit (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1) patients with mCRC. Overall survival (OS) and on-treatment progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed in patients aged greater than 65, greater than or equal to 65, and greater than or equal to 70 years. Results were compared using unstratified hazard ratios (HRs). Grade 3-5 adverse events were also assessed. Results: Bevacizumab statistically significantly improved PFS [HR 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.68] and OS (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.97) in patients aged greater than or equal to 65 years; patients aged greater than or equal to 70 years had similar improvements. Benefits were consistent across the studies, irrespective of setting, bevacizumab dose, or chemotherapy regimen. Increases in thromboembolic events were observed in patients aged greater than or equal to 65 and greater than or equal to 70 years in the bevacizumab group compared with the control group, mainly as a result of increases in arterial thromboembolic events. No other substantial age-related increases in grade 3-5 adverse events were observed. Conclusions: In medically fit older patients, bevacizumab provides similar PFS and OS benefits as in younger patients

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment

The treatment of colorectal cancer is rapidly becoming a significant financial burden to health-care systems within economically developed nations. A current challenge for oncologists and health-care payers is to integrate new, often high-cost, biologic therapies into clinical practice. Inherent to this process is the consideration of cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan with an appropriate comparator from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. This economic evaluation is a trial-based study of cetuximab vs active/best supportive care. Effectiveness estimates for the treatment groups were modelled from key clinical trials. Cunningham et al (2004) compared cetuximab/irinotecan with cetuximab monotherapy; Cunningham et al (1998) compared irinotecan monotherapy in a second-line setting with supportive care. Modelling was necessary owing to an absence of head-to-head clinical trial data of cetuximab/irinotecan vs current standard care. Costs were calculated for the study drugs received, associated administration, palliative chemotherapy for patients in the standard care arm and other nonchemotherapy resources. The discounted life-expectancy of patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan was 0.91 life-years, and 0.47 discounted life-years for patients receiving active/best supportive care. Patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan accumulated mean additional costs of £18 901 per patient relative to the comparator arm, with £11 802 attributable to cetuximab. The incremental cost per life-year gained with cetuximab/irinotecan therapy compared with active/best supportive care was £42 975. The incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained was £57 608. The incremental cost per life-year gained for cetuximab/irinotecan is relatively high compared with other health-care interventions. However, this result should be considered in the context of a number of factors specific to the treated patient population

Raltitrexed (Tomudex) administration in patients with relapsed metastatic colorectal cancer after weekly irinotecan/5-Fluorouracil/Leucovorin chemotherapy

PURPOSE: The present study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of Raltitrexed, a specific thymidilate synthase inhibitor, in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACC) in relapse (>8 weeks) after a prior response or disease stabilization to first-line chemotherapy combination with lrinotecan+5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)+Leucovorin (LV). METHODS: Twenty-five patients with metastatic ACC entered; 17 males/8 females, median age 61 (range: 47–70), median Karnovsky PS: 80 (70–90), and sites of metastases; liver: 21, lung: 4, lymph nodes: 7, peritoneal: 5 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months, were entered in the present pilot study. All patients had progressed after prior chemotherapy with lrinotecan+5-FU+LV. Raltitrexed was administered at a dose of 3 mg/m(2) i.v. every 21 days. RESULTS: Three patients (12%) achieved a partial response (PR), 8 (32%) had stable disease (SD), and the remaining 14 (56%) developed progressive disease (PD). Median time-to-progression (TTP) was 5.5 months (range, 2–8.5), and median overall survival (OS) 8 months (range, 4.0–12.5). Toxicity was generally mild; it consisted mainly of myelosuppression; neutropenia grade 1–2: 52%-grade 3: 28%, and anemia grade 1–2 only: 36%. Mild mucositis grade 1–2 occured in 13.5% of patients and was the principal non-hematologic toxicity. CONCLUSION: Response to treatment with Raltitrexed is limited in patients with ACC failing after an initial response or non-progression to the weekly lrinotecan+5-FU+LV combination. However, it appears that a limited number of patients with PR/SD may derive clinical benefit, but final proof would require a randomized study

Severe skin reaction secondary to concomitant radiotherapy plus cetuximab

The therapeutic use of monoclonal antibodies against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is specifically associated with dermatologic reactions of variable severity. Recent evidence suggests superiority of the EGFR inhibitor (EGFRI) cetuximab plus radiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Although not documented in a study population, several reports indicate a possible overlap between radiation dermatitis and the EGFRI-induced skin rash. We here present a case of severe skin reaction secondary to the addition of cetuximab to radiotherapy