Severe combined hyperlipidaemia and retinal lipid infiltration in a patient with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Severe combined hyperlipidaemia has occasionally been associated with infiltration of tissues in addition to arteries and the skin. We report a woman with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and severe combined hyperlipidaemia who developed retinal lipid infiltration, resulting in blindness. A 61-year-old woman with a 15-year history of Type 2 DM was admitted following a two-week history of progressive visual loss. Examination identified lipid infiltration into the retina. Phenotypically she had severe combined hyperlipidaemia with elevated IDL cholesterol and a broad beta band on lipoprotein electrophoresis, raising the possibility of familial dysbetalipoproteinaemia. However, gene sequencing analysis indicated that the patient was homozygous for the E3/E3 allele of the ApoE gene with no mutations detected in either the coding region or intron-exon boundaries. Her lipid profile improved following dietary therapy and gemfibrozil treatment, but this had little effect on either her fundal appearances or her visual acuity. Type 2 DM plays a vital role both in allowing expression of severe combined hyperlipoproteinaemia, in addition to serving as a risk factor for complications such as tissue infiltration

The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab when added to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin-C, in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Australasian phase III MAX study

Background: Based on the clinical data, bevacizumab has been approved in Australia and globally for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. However, limited evidence exists for its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to capecitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, using data from the prospective economic evaluation conducted alongside the MAX trial. Methods: Individual patient level data on resource use and progression free survival were prospectively collected in the phase III MAX trial. Resource use data were collected for the period between randomisation and disease progression, and unit costs were assigned from the perspective of the Australian health care funder. Effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted progression free survival years, with utility scores obtained from both the community valued EQ-5D questionnaire and the patient valued UBQ-C questionnaire. Progression free survival was used as a secondary effectiveness measure. Results: The addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine monotherapy cost approximately $192,156 (95$135,619 to $326,894) per quality adjusted progression free survival year gained when using publicly listed pharmaceutical prices and utility values from the EQ-5D questionnaire. This decreased to$149,455 (95% CI, $100,356 to$245,910) when values from the UBQ-C questionnaire were applied. The incremental cost per progression free survival year was $145,059 (95$106,703 to $233,225). Conclusions: Bevacizumab was not found to be cost effective at its listed price, based on results from the MAX trial.Roche Products Pty Lt

The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab when added to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin-C, in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Australasian phase III MAX study

Background: Based on the clinical data, bevacizumab has been approved in Australia and globally for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. However, limited evidence exists for its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to capecitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, using data from the prospective economic evaluation conducted alongside the MAX trial. Methods: Individual patient level data on resource use and progression free survival were prospectively collected in the phase III MAX trial. Resource use data were collected for the period between randomisation and disease progression, and unit costs were assigned from the perspective of the Australian health care funder. Effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted progression free survival years, with utility scores obtained from both the community valued EQ-5D questionnaire and the patient valued UBQ-C questionnaire. Progression free survival was used as a secondary effectiveness measure. Results: The addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine monotherapy cost approximately $192,156 (95$135,619 to $326,894) per quality adjusted progression free survival year gained when using publicly listed pharmaceutical prices and utility values from the EQ-5D questionnaire. This decreased to$149,455 (95% CI, $100,356 to$245,910) when values from the UBQ-C questionnaire were applied. The incremental cost per progression free survival year was $145,059 (95$106,703 to $233,225). Conclusions: Bevacizumab was not found to be cost effective at its listed price, based on results from the MAX trial.Roche Products Pty Lt

Safety and pharmacokinetics of motesanib in combination with gemcitabine and erlotinib for the treatment of solid tumors: a phase 1b study

Background: This phase 1b study assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and pharmacokinetics of motesanib (a small-molecule antagonist of VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3; platelet-derived growth factor receptor; and Kit) administered once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) in combination with erlotinib and gemcitabine in patients with solid tumors. Methods: Patients received weekly intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and erlotinib (100 mg QD) alone (control cohort) or in combination with motesanib (50 mg QD, 75 mg BID, 125 mg QD, or 100 mg QD; cohorts 1-4); or erlotinib (150 mg QD) in combination with motesanib (100 or 125 mg QD; cohorts 5 and 6). Results: Fifty-six patients were enrolled and received protocol-specified treatment. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 11 patients in cohorts 1 (n = 2), 2 (n = 4), 3 (n = 3), and 6 (n = 2). The MTD of motesanib in combination with gemcitabine and erlotinib was 100 mg QD. Motesanib 125 mg QD was tolerable only in combination with erlotinib alone. Frequently occurring motesanib-related adverse events included diarrhea (n = 19), nausea (n = 18), vomiting (n = 13), and fatigue (n = 12), which were mostly of worst grade < 3. The pharmacokinetics of motesanib was not markedly affected by coadministration of gemcitabine and erlotinib, or erlotinib alone. Erlotinib exposure, however, appeared lower after coadministration with gemcitabine and/or motesanib. Of 49 evaluable patients, 1 had a confirmed partial response and 26 had stable disease. Conclusions: Treatment with motesanib 100 mg QD plus erlotinib and gemcitabine was tolerable. Motesanib 125 mg QD was tolerable only in combination with erlotinib alone.Dusan Kotasek, Niall Tebbutt, Jayesh Desai, Stephen Welch, Lillian L Siu, Sheryl McCoy, Yu-Nien Sun, Jessica Johnson, Adeboye H Adewoye and Timothy Pric

Can we accurately report PTEN status in advanced colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND: Loss of phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) function evaluated by loss of PTEN protein expression on immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been reported as both prognostic in metastatic colorectal cancer and predictive of response to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies although results remain uncertain. Difficulties in the methodological assessment of PTEN are likely to be a major contributor to recent conflicting results. METHODS: We assessed loss of PTEN function in 51 colorectal cancer specimens using Taqman® copy number variation (CNV) and IHC. Two blinded pathologists performed independent IHC assessment on each specimen and inter-observer variability of IHC assessment and concordance of IHC versus Taqman® CNV was assessed. RESULTS: Concordance between pathologists (PTEN loss vs no loss) on IHC assessment was 37/51 (73%). In specimens with concordant IHC assessment, concordance between IHC and Taqman® copy number in PTEN loss assessment was 25/37 (68%). CONCLUSION: Assessment PTEN loss in colorectal cancer is limited by the inter-observer variability of IHC, and discordance of CNV with loss of protein expression. An understanding of the genetic mechanisms of PTEN loss and implementation of improved and standardized methodologies of PTEN assessment are required to clarify the role of PTEN as a biomarker in colorectal cancer

Gastrointestinal perforation in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastases receiving bevacizumab

AIM To investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal disease. METHODS We compared rates of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and peritoneal disease receiving first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in three distinct cohorts: (1) the AGITG MAX trial (Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing capecitabine vs capecitabine and bevacizumab vs capecitabine, bevacizumab and mitomycinC); (2) the prospective Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab); and (3) two cancer centres in New South Wales, Australia [Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre (NSWCC) from January 2005 to Decenber 2012, (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab). For the AGITG MAX trial capecitabine was compared to the other two arms (capecitabine/bevacizumab and capecitabine/bevacizumab/mitomycinC). In the AGITG MAX trial and the TRACC registry rates of gastrointestinal perforation were also collected in patients who did not have peritoneal metastases. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, chemotherapy duration, and overall survival. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS Eighty-four MAX, 179 TRACC and 69 NSWCC patients had peritoneal disease. There were no gastrointestinal perforations recorded in either the MAX subgroup or the NSWCC cohorts. Of the patients without peritoneal disease in the MAX trial, 4/300 (1.3%) in the bevacizumab arms had gastrointestinal perforations compared to 1/123 (0.8%) in the capecitabine alone arm. In the TRACC registry 3/126 (2.4%) patients who had received bevacizumab had a gastrointestinal perforation compared to 1/53 (1.9%) in the chemotherapy alone arm. In a further analysis of patients without peritoneal metastases in the TRACC registry, the rate of gastrointestinal perforations was 9/369 (2.4%) in the chemotherapy/bevacizumab group and 5/177 (2.8%) in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with improved progression-free survival in all three cohorts: MAX 6.9 m vs 4.9 m, HR = 0.64 (95%CI: 0.42-1.02); P = 0.063; TRACC 9.1 m vs 5.5 m, HR = 0.61 (95%CI: 0.37-0.86); P = 0.009; NSWCC 8.7 m vs 6.8 m, HR = 0.75 (95%CI: 0.43-1.32); P = 0.32. Chemotherapy duration was similar across the groups. CONCLUSION Patients with peritoneal disease do not appear to have an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations when receiving first-line therapy with bevacizumab compared to systemic therapy alone

Irinotecan or FOLFIRI for 2nd line colorectal

Background Second-line treatment with irinotecan for advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs survival. It is uncertain whether irinotecan is better administered with 5- fluorouracil or alone in patients previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine. We compared toxicity (particularly diarrhoea), quality of life, and efficacy of combination chemotherapy and irinotecan in these patients. Methods In DaVINCI, a randomised phase II trial, patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomly allocated to: combination therapy (FOLFIRI), irinotecan (180 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, day 1), 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2 IV bolus and 2400 mg/m2 by 46-hour infusion from day 1) and folinic acid (20 mg/m2 IV bolus, day 1), 2-weekly; or single-agent, irinotecan (350 mg/m2 IV over 90 min), 3-weekly. Toxicity was evaluated every treatment cycle; QOL and response 6 weekly. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results were also combined with those of other trials. Findings We randomised 44 patients to combination and 45 to single-agent. The most common toxicity was complete alopecia (single-agent 37%, combination 14%, P<0.02). Eight patients in the irinotecan arm and 4 in the combination arm had grade 3–4 diarrhoea (P=0.24). The treatment groups did not differ significantly in overall QOL changes, response rate, or progression free or overall survival. In a systematic review of 29 trials of second-line irinotecan-based treatment, single-agent irinotecan was associated with more diarrhoea and alopecia than the combination, but efficacy was similar. Interpretation Combination treatment compared with single-agent irinotecan appears to reduce the rateof complete alopecia and diarrhoea without compromising efficacy on clinical outcomes.Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Grou

Efficacy and safety results from IMblaze370, a randomised Phase III study comparing atezolizumab+cobimetinib and atezolizumab monotherapy vs regorafenib in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

n/

Outcomes of Older Patients (≥ 70 Years) Treated With Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Chemorefractory Colorectal Cancer: Retrospective Analysis of NCIC CTG CO.17 and CO.20

© 2018 Elsevier Inc. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This author accepted manuscript is made available following 12 month embargo from date of publication (November 2018) in accordance with the publisher’s archiving policyBackground The safety and efficacy of targeted therapy in older patients (≥ 70 years) with metastatic colorectal cancer is not well evaluated. Patients and Methods Outcomes of older patients (including overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], toxicity, and quality of life [QoL]) were compared to young patients using data from 2 large previously reported clinical trials, CO.17 (cetuximab vs. best supportive care) and CO.20 (cetuximab plus placebo vs. cetuximab plus brivanib). Only patients with wild-type KRAS tumors were included. Results A total of 251 (26.3%) of 955 patients were ≥ 70 years old. No significant differences in OS, PFS, or grade 3/4 adverse events were observed between older and younger patients treated with cetuximab (or cetuximab with placebo) in either trial. Younger patients trended toward superior OS in both CO.17 (hazard ratio = 1.80; P = .16) and CO.20 (hazard ratio = 1.34; P = .07). QoL maintenance favored younger patients in CO.17 (3.6 vs. 5.7 months; P = .046) but no difference of QoL maintenance was observed in the larger CO.20 trial (1.7 vs. 1.8 months; P = .64). Combination therapy of cetuximab and brivanib was significantly more toxic in older adults (87% vs. 77%; P = .03). Conclusion OS, PFS, and toxicities were similar between older and younger patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer when treated with cetuximab. Both age groups likely experience similar QoL maintenance with cetuximab. Dual targeted therapy was significantly more toxic in older patients