Designing personalised cancer treatments

The concept of personalised medicine for cancer is not new. It arguably began with the attempts by Salmon and Hamburger to produce a viable cellular chemosensitivity assay in the 1970s, and continues to this day. While clonogenic assays soon fell out of favour due to their high failure rate, other cellular assays fared better and although they have not entered widespread clinical practice, they have proved to be very useful research tools. For instance, the ATP-based chemosensitivity assay was developed in the early 1990s and is highly standardised. It has proved useful for evaluating new drugs and combinations, and in recent years has been used to understand the molecular basis of drug resistance and sensitivity to anti-cancer drugs. Recent developments allow unparalleled genotyping and phenotyping of tumours, providing a plethora of targets for the development of new cancer treatments. However, validation of such targets and new agents to permit translation to the clinic remains difficult. There has been one major disappointment in that cell lines, though useful, do not often reflect the behaviour of their parent cancers with sufficient fidelity to be useful. Low passage cell lines — either in culture or xenografts are being used to overcome some of these issues, but have several problems of their own. Primary cell culture remains useful, but large tumours are likely to receive neo-adjuvant treatment before removal and that limits the tumour types that can be studied. The development of new treatments remains difficult and prediction of the clinical efficacy of new treatments from pre-clinical data is as hard as ever. One lesson has certainly been that one cannot buck the biology — and that understanding the genome alone is not sufficient to guarantee success. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the development of EGFR inhibitors. Despite overexpression of EGFR by many tumour types, only those with activating EGFR mutations and an inability to circumvent EGFR blockade have proved susceptible to treatment. The challenge is how to use advanced molecular understanding with limited cellular assay information to improve both drug development and the design of companion diagnostics to guide their use. This has the capacity to remove much of the guesswork from the process and should improve success rates

Designing personalised cancer treatments

The concept of personalised medicine for cancer is not new. It arguably began with the attempts by Salmon and Hamburger to produce a viable cellular chemosensitivity assay in the 1970s, and continues to this day. While clonogenic assays soon fell out of favour due to their high failure rate, other cellular assays fared better and although they have not entered widespread clinical practice, they have proved to be very useful research tools. For instance, the ATP-based chemosensitivity assay was developed in the early 1990s and is highly standardised. It has proved useful for evaluating new drugs and combinations, and in recent years has been used to understand the molecular basis of drug resistance and sensitivity to anti-cancer drugs. Recent developments allow unparalleled genotyping and phenotyping of tumours, providing a plethora of targets for the development of new cancer treatments. However, validation of such targets and new agents to permit translation to the clinic remains difficult. There has been one major disappointment in that cell lines, though useful, do not often reflect the behaviour of their parent cancers with sufficient fidelity to be useful. Low passage cell lines — either in culture or xenografts are being used to overcome some of these issues, but have several problems of their own. Primary cell culture remains useful, but large tumours are likely to receive neo-adjuvant treatment before removal and that limits the tumour types that can be studied. The development of new treatments remains difficult and prediction of the clinical efficacy of new treatments from pre-clinical data is as hard as ever. One lesson has certainly been that one cannot buck the biology — and that understanding the genome alone is not sufficient to guarantee success. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the development of EGFR inhibitors. Despite overexpression of EGFR by many tumour types, only those with activating EGFR mutations and an inability to circumvent EGFR blockade have proved susceptible to treatment. The challenge is how to use advanced molecular understanding with limited cellular assay information to improve both drug development and the design of companion diagnostics to guide their use. This has the capacity to remove much of the guesswork from the process and should improve success rates

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and treosulfan in relapsed stage IV cutaneous malignant melanoma patients

To evaluate the efficacy of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and treosulfan (CGT) in 91 patients with pretreated relapsed AJCC stage IV cutaneous malignant melanoma. Patients in relapse after first-, second-, or third-line therapy received 40 mg m−2 intravenous (i.v.) cisplatin, 1000 mg m−2 i.v. gemcitabine, and 2500 mg m−2 i.v. treosulfan on days 1 and 8. Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and treosulfan therapy was repeated every 5 weeks until progression of disease occurred. A maximum of 11 CGT cycles (mean, two cycles) was administered per patient. Four patients (4%) showed a partial response; 15 (17%) patients had stable disease; and 72 (79%) patients progressed upon first re-evaluation. Overall survival of all 91 patients was 6 months (2-year survival rate, 7%). Patients with partial remission or stable disease exhibited a median overall survival of 11 months (2-year survival rate, 36%), while patients with disease progression upon first re-evaluation had a median overall survival of 5 months (2-year survival rate, 0%). Treatment with CGT was efficient in one-fifth of the pretreated relapsed stage IV melanoma patients achieving disease stabilisation or partial remission with prolonged but limited survival

Phase I trial combining gemcitabine and treosulfan in advanced cutaneous and uveal melanoma patients

Gemcitabine and treosulfan are DNA-damaging agents. Preclinical studies suggest that synergism exists when melanoma cells are exposed to both drugs concurrently. We conducted a phase I trial in advanced melanoma patients to determine the optimal dose of gemcitabine to be combined with treosulfan. Cohorts of three patients received increasing doses of gemcitabine, commencing at 0.5 g m−2, followed by a fixed dose of 5.0 g m−2 treosulfan on day one of a 21-day cycle. Patients alternately received a first cycle of single-agent gemcitabine or treosulfan before subsequent cycles of both drugs. Peripheral blood lymphocytes were collected in cycles 1 and 2 at various time points until 48 h post-treatment. The single-cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) assay was used to measure chemotherapy-induced DNA damage. A total of 27 patients were enrolled, no objective responses were observed, but two uveal melanoma patients had minor responses. Dose-limiting myelosuppression was reached at 3.0 g m−2 gemcitabine. DNA single-strand breaks were detected 4 h post-gemcitabine, repaired by 24 h. DNA interstrand crosslinks were detected 4 h post-treosulfan, fully removed by 48 h. Following combination chemotherapy, treosulfan-induced DNA crosslinks persisted, still being detectable 48 h post-treatment, supporting the hypothesis that gemcitabine potentiates treosulfan-induced cytotoxicity. The recommended regimen for further study is 2.5 g m−2 gemcitabine combined with 5.0 g m−2 treosulfan

Local therapy of cancer with free IL-2

This is a position paper about the therapeutic effects of locally applied free IL-2 in the treatment of cancer. Local therapy: IL-2 therapy of cancer was originally introduced as a systemic therapy. This therapy led to about 20% objective responses. Systemic therapy however was very toxic due to the vascular leakage syndrome. Nevertheless, this treatment was a break-through in cancer immunotherapy and stimulated some interesting questions: Supposing that the mechanism of IL-2 treatment is both proliferation and tumoricidal activity of the tumor infiltrating cells, then locally applied IL-2 should result in a much higher local IL-2 concentration than systemic IL-2 application. Consequently a greater beneficial effect could be expected after local IL-2 application (peritumoral = juxtatumoral, intratumoral, intra-arterial, intracavitary, or intratracheal = inhalation). Free IL-2: Many groups have tried to prepare a more effective IL-2 formulation than free IL-2. Examples are slow release systems, insertion of the IL-2 gene into a tumor cell causing prolonged IL-2 release. However, logistically free IL-2 is much easier to apply; hence we concentrated in this review and in most of our experiments on the use of free IL-2. Local therapy with free IL-2 may be effective against transplanted tumors in experimental animals, and against various spontaneous carcinomas, sarcomas, and melanoma in veterinary and human cancer patients. It may induce rejection of very large, metastasized tumor loads, for instance advanced clinical tumors. The effects of even a single IL-2 application may be impressive. Not each tumor or tumor type is sensitive to local IL-2 application. For instance transplanted EL4 lymphoma or TLX9 lymphoma were not sensitive in our hands. Also the extent of sensitivity differs: In Bovine Ocular Squamous Cell Carcinoma (BOSCC) often a complete regression is obtained, whereas with the Bovine Vulval Papilloma and Carcinoma Complex (BVPCC) mainly stable disease is attained. Analysis of the results of local IL-2 therapy in 288 cases of cancer in human patients shows that there were 27% Complete Regressions (CR), 23% Partial Regressions (PR), 18% Stable Disease (SD), and 32% Progressive Disease (PD). In all tumors analyzed, local IL-2 therapy was more effective than systemic IL-2 treatment. Intratumoral IL-2 applications are more effective than peritumoral application or application at a distant site. Tumor regression induced by intratumoral IL-2 application may be a fast process (requiring about a week) in the case of a highly vascular tumor since IL-2 induces vascular leakage/edema and consequently massive tumor necrosis. The latter then stimulates an immune response. In less vascular tumors or less vascular tumor sites, regression may require 9–20 months; this regression is mainly caused by a cytotoxic leukocyte reaction. Hence the disadvantageous vascular leakage syndrome complicating systemic treatment is however advantageous in local treatment, since local edema may initiate tumor necrosis. Thus the therapeutic effect of local IL-2 treatment is not primarily based on tumor immunity, but tumor immunity seems to be useful as a secondary component of the IL-2 induced local processes. If local IL-2 is combined with surgery, radiotherapy or local chemotherapy the therapeutic effect is usually greater than with either therapy alone. Hence local free IL-2 application can be recommended as an addition to standard treatment protocols. Local treatment with free IL-2 is straightforward and can readily be applied even during surgical interventions. Local IL-2 treatment is usually without serious side effects and besides minor complaints it is generally well supported. Only small quantities of IL-2 are required. Hence the therapy is relatively cheap. A single IL-2 application of 4.5 million U IL-2 costs about 70 Euros. Thus combined local treatment may offer an alternative in those circumstances when more expensive forms of treatment are not available, for instance in resource poor countries