Integration of Translational Research in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Research (EORTC) Clinical Trial Cooperative Group Mechanisms

The landscape for cancer research is profoundly different today from that only one decade ago. Basic science is moving rapidly and biotechnological revolutions in molecular targeting and immunology have completely modified the opportunities and concepts for cancer treatment. In contrast to the recent past where cytotoxic molecules were screened in the laboratory and then tested in early clinical studies with toxicity as endpoint instead of the often poorly defined mechanism for its potential anti-tumor effect, we now have entered the age of molecular therapeutics, rationally designed to target "strategic" checkpoints that underlie the malignant phenotype. Translational research in early clinical trials (Phase I and II) is an integral aspect of the development of the new generation of cancer drugs as it is necessary to implement radically different early phase clinical trial design and to validate new biological end-points if the full potential of these new agents is to be realized. The "proof of principle with mechanistic analysis" strategy will allow optimisation of therapy from the beginning, and provide important feedback to pre-clinical drug developers. Translational research is also essential in late (phase III) clinical trials in defining different patient populations that may benefit to differing degrees from new treatments, and thus provide further insight and refine clinical practice in a more and more patient-tailored approach. In this editorial we will discuss the integration of Translational Research in the Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)

Validation and Clinical Utility of a 70-Gene Prognostic Signature for Women With Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Background: A 70-gene signature was previously shown to have prognostic value in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Our goal was to validate the signature in an independent group of patients. Methods: Patients (n = 307, with 137 events after a median follow-up of 13.6 years) from five European centers were divided into high- and low-risk groups based on the gene signature classification and on clinical risk classifications. Patients were assigned to the gene signature low-risk group if their 5-year distant metastasis-free survival probability as estimated by the gene signature was greater than 90%. Patients were assigned to the clinicopathologic low-risk group if their 10-year survival probability, as estimated by Adjuvant! software, was greater than 88% (for estrogen receptor [ER]-positive patients) or 92% (for ER-negative patients). Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated to compare time to distant metastases, disease-free survival, and overall survival in high- versus low-risk groups. Results: The 70-gene signature outperformed the clinicopathologic risk assessment in predicting all endpoints. For time to distant metastases, the gene signature yielded HR = 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35 to 4.00) without adjustment for clinical risk and hazard ratios ranging from 2.13 to 2.15 after adjustment for various estimates of clinical risk; clinicopathologic risk using Adjuvant! software yielded an unadjusted HR = 1.68 (95% CI = 0.92 to 3.07). For overall survival, the gene signature yielded an unadjusted HR = 2.79 (95% CI = 1.60 to 4.87) and adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 2.63 to 2.89; clinicopathologic risk yielded an unadjusted HR = 1.67 (95% CI = 0.93 to 2.98). For patients in the gene signature high-risk group, 10-year overall survival was 0.69 for patients in both the low- and high-clinical risk groups; for patients in the gene signature low-risk group, the 10-year survival rates were 0.88 and 0.89, respectively. Conclusions: The 70-gene signature adds independent prognostic information to clinicopathologic risk assessment for patients with early breast cance

Phase II Study of Biweekly Plitidepsin as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urothelium

The objective of this exploratory, open-label, single-arm, phase II clinical trial was to evaluate plitidepsin (5 mg/m2) administered as a 3-hour continuous intravenous infusion every two weeks to patients with locally advanced/metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium who relapsed/progressed after first-line chemotherapy. Treatment cycles were repeated for up to 12 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient refusal or treatment delay for >2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate according to RECIST. Secondary endpoints were the rate of SD lasting ≥ 6 months and time-to-event variables. Toxicity was assessed using NCI-CTC v. 3.0. Twenty-one patients received 57 treatment cycles. No objective tumor responses occurred. SD lasting <6 months was observed in two of 18 evaluable patients. With a median follow-up of 4.6 months, the median PFR and the median OS were 1.4 months and 2.3 months, respectively. The most common AEs were mild to moderate nausea, fatigue, myalgia and anorexia. Anemia, lymphopenia, and increases in transaminases, alkaline phosphatase and creatinine were the most frequent laboratory abnormalities. No severe neutropenia occurred. Treatment was feasible and generally well tolerated in this patient population; however the lack of antitumor activity precludes further studies of plitidepsin in this setting

A Phase II Trial of Sorafenib in Metastatic Melanoma with Tissue Correlates

Sorafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma was explored in this multi-institutional phase II study. In correlative studies the impact of sorafenib on cyclin D1 and Ki67 was assessed. mutational status and clinical activity. No significant changes in expression of cyclin D1 or Ki67 with sorafenib treatment were demonstrable in the 15 patients with pre-and post-treatment tumor samples. mutational status of the tumor was not associated with clinical activity and no significant effect of sorafenib on cyclin D1 or Ki67 was seen, suggesting that sorafenib is not an effective BRAF inhibitor or that additional signaling pathways are equally important in the patients who benefit from sorafenib

Adjuvant or radical fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for patients with pituitary functional and nonfunctional macroadenoma

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT) for patients with pituitary macroadenoma (PMA).Methods and Materials: Between March 2000 and March 2009, 27 patients (male to female ratio, 1.25) with PMA underwent SFRT (median dose, 50.4 Gy). Mean age of the patients was 56.5 years (range, 20.3 - 77.4). In all but one patient, SFRT was administered for salvage treatment after surgical resection (transphenoidal resection in 23, transphenoidal resection followed by craniotomy in 2 and multiple transphenoidal resections in another patient). In 10 (37%) patients, the PMAs were functional (3 ACTH-secreting, 3 prolactinomas, 2 growth hormone-secreting and 2 multiple hormone-secretion). Three (11.1%) and 9 (33.3%) patients had PMA abutting and compressing the optic chiasm, respectively. Mean tumor volume was 2.9 +/- 4.6 cm(3). Eighteen (66.7%) patients had hypopituitarism prior to SFRT. The mean follow-up period after SFRT was 72.4 +/- 37.2 months.Results: Tumor size decreased for 6 (22.2%) patients and remained unchanged for 19 (70.4%) other patients. Two (7.4%) patients had tumor growth inside the prescribed treatment volume. The estimated 5-year tumor growth control was 95.5% after SFRT. Biochemical remission occurred in 3 (30%) patients with functional PMA. Two patients with normal anterior pituitary function before SFRT developed new deficits 25 and 65 months after treatment. The 5-year survival without new anterior pituitary deficit was thus 95.8%. Five patients with visual field defect had improved visual function and 1 patient with no visual defect prior to SFRT, but an optic chiasm abutting tumor, had a decline in visual function. The estimated 5-year vision and pituitary function preservation rates were 93.2% and 95.8%, respectively.Conclusions: SFRT is a safe and effective treatment for patients with PMA, although longer follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. In this study, approximately 1 patient with visual field defect out of two had an improved visual

NEOadjuvant therapy monitoring with PET and CT in Esophageal Cancer (NEOPEC-trial)

Contains fulltext : 70883.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the preferred treatment of potentially curable esophageal cancer. To improve long term patient outcome, many institutes apply neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In a large proportion of patients no response to chemoradiotherapy is achieved. These patients suffer from toxic and ineffective neoadjuvant treatment, while appropriate surgical therapy is delayed. For this reason a diagnostic test that allows for accurate prediction of tumor response early during chemoradiotherapy is of crucial importance. CT-scan and endoscopic ultrasound have limited accuracy in predicting histopathologic tumor response. Data suggest that metabolic changes in tumor tissue as measured by FDG-PET predict response better. This study aims to compare FDG-PET and CT-scan for the early prediction of non-response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: Prognostic accuracy study, embedded in a randomized multicenter Dutch trial comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for 5 weeks followed by surgery versus surgery alone for esophageal cancer. This prognostic accuracy study is performed only in the neoadjuvant arm of the randomized trial. In 6 centers, 150 consecutive patients will be included over a 3 year period. FDG-PET and CT-scan will be performed before and 2 weeks after the start of the chemoradiotherapy. All patients complete the 5 weeks regimen of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, regardless the test results. Pathological examination of the surgical resection specimen will be used as reference standard. Responders are defined as patients with < 10% viable residual tumor cells (Mandard-score).Difference in accuracy (area under ROC curve) and negative predictive value between FDG-PET and CT-scan are primary endpoints. Furthermore, an economic evaluation will be performed, comparing survival and costs associated with the use of FDG-PET (or CT-scan) to predict tumor response with survival and costs of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy without prediction of response (reference strategy). DISCUSSION: The NEOPEC-trial could be the first sufficiently powered study that helps justify implementation of FDG-PET for response-monitoring in patients with esophageal cancer in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45750457

Measuring the clinical response: what does it mean? (Erratum vol 38, pg 1817-1823, 2002)

The clinical response to treatment is an important indicator of the therapeutic effect of anticancer agents. Its value and interpretation has to be carefully considered within the context that it is used. In daily practice, response assessment is combined with other indicators of the patient’s condition to contribute to the decision-making process. In clinical trials, it is widely used to identify and quantify the anti-tumour activity of new agents. In this context, response evaluation is conducted on the basis of strict predefined criteria such as the World Health Organization (WHO) or Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. The RECIST criteria have recently been proposed and offer a detailed guidance to perform a response evaluation. Clinical response is also used as an indicator of therapeutic efficacy in combination with other indicators. Its value as a surrogate indicator of a survival benefit remains unclear in most instances and can hardly be established within the framework of a single randomised trial. With the development of new anticancer agents that behave differently to cytotoxics, clinical benefit will have to integrate concepts of disease stabilisation or time to progression. Over the next decade, oncologists will be able to assess the biological response before the clinical response, and a lot of work and energy will have to be dedicated to assess the predictive and, possibly, the prognostic value of the biological response with regard to the clinical response, as well as more definitive measures of clinical benefit