Gefitinib in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer

Gefitinib is an oral, reversible, tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) that plays a key role in the biology of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase I studies indicated that the recommended dose of gefitinib was 250 mg/day. Rash, diarrhea, and nausea were the most common adverse events. The positive results obtained in early phase 2 clinical trials with gefitinib were not confirmed in large phase 3 trials in unselected patients with advanced NSCLC. The subsequent discovery that the presence of somatic mutations in the kinase domain of EGFR strongly correlates with increased responsiveness to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors prompted phase 2 and 3 trials with gefitinib in the first line-treatment of EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The results of these trials have demonstrated the efficacy of gefitinib that can be now considered as the standard first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC harbouring activating EGFR mutations

A randomized phase 3 study on the optimization of the combination of bevacizumab with FOLFOX/OXXEL in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer-OBELICS (Optimization of BEvacizumab scheduLIng within Chemotherapy Scheme).

BACKGROUND: Despite the improvements in diagnosis and treatment, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second cause of cancer deaths in both sexes. Therefore, research in this field remains of great interest. The approval of bevacizumab, a humanized anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody, in combination with a fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic CRC has changed the oncology practice in this disease. However, the efficacy of bevacizumab-based treatment, has thus far been rather modest. Efforts are ongoing to understand the better way to combine bevacizumab and chemotherapy, and to identify valid predictive biomarkers of benefit to avoid unnecessary and costly therapy to nonresponder patients. The BRANCH study in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer patients showed that varying bevacizumab schedule may impact on the feasibility and efficacy of chemo-radiotherapy. METHODS/DESIGN: OBELICS is a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial comparing in mCRC patients two treatment arms (1:1): standard concomitant administration of bevacizumab with chemotherapy (mFOLFOX/OXXEL regimen) vs experimental sequential bevacizumab given 4 days before chemotherapy, as first or second treatment line. Primary end point is the objective response rate (ORR) measured according to RECIST criteria. A sample size of 230 patients was calculated allowing reliable assessment in all plausible first-second line case-mix conditions, with a 80% statistical power and 2-sided alpha error of 0.05. Secondary endpoints are progression free-survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity and quality of life. The evaluation of the potential predictive role of several circulating biomarkers (circulating endothelial cells and progenitors, VEGF and VEGF-R SNPs, cytokines, microRNAs, free circulating DNA) as well as the value of the early [(18)F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) response, are the objectives of the traslational project. DISCUSSION: Overall this study could optimize bevacizumab scheduling in combination with chemotherapy in mCRC patients. Moreover, correlative studies could improve the knowledge of the mechanisms by which bevacizumab enhance chemotherapy effect and could identify early predictors of response. EudraCT Number: 2011-004997-27 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gove number, NCT01718873

A multicenter randomized phase 4 trial comparing sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The PRECOL trial

Background: Adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is crucial. Unfortunately, 25% of colonoscopies have inadequate bowel cleansing. From a patient perspective, bowel preparation is the main obstacle to colonoscopy. Several low-volume bowel preparations have been formulated to provide more tolerable purgative solutions without loss of efficacy. Objectives: Investigate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Sodium Picosulphate plus Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) vs. Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ASC) solutions in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. Materials and methods: In this phase 4, randomized, multicenter, twoarm trial, adult outpatients received either SPMC or PEG-ASC for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary aims were quality of bowel cleansing (primary endpoint scored according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) and patient acceptance (measured with six visual analogue scales). The study was open for treatment assignment and blinded for primary endpoint assessment. This was done independently with videotaped colonoscopies reviewed by two endoscopists unaware of study arms. A sample size of 525 patients was calculated to recognize a difference of 10% in the proportion of successes between the arms with a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power. Results: Overall 550 subjects (279 assigned to PEG-ASC and 271 assigned to SPMC) represented the analysis population. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate according to BBPS: 94.4% with PEG-ASC and 95.7% with SPMC (P = 0.49). Acceptance and willing to repeat colonoscopy were significantly better for SPMC with all the scales. Compliance was less than full in 6.6 and 9.9% of cases with PEG-ASC and SPMC, respectively (P = 0.17). Nausea and meteorism were significantly more bothersome with PEG-ASC than SPMC. There were no serious adverse events in either group. Conclusion: SPMC and PEG-ASC are not different in terms of efficacy, but SPMC is better tolerated than PEG-ASC. SPMC could be an alternative to lowvolume PEG based purgative solutions for bowel preparation

Phase 1/2 study of valproic acid and short-course radiotherapy plus capecitabine as preoperative treatment in low-moderate risk rectal cancer-V-shoRT-R3 (Valproic acid--short Radiotherapy--rectum 3rd trial).

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is a heterogeneous group of tumors where a risk-adapted therapeutic strategy is needed. Short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) is a more convenient option for LARC patients than preoperative long-course RT plus capecitabine. Histone-deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) have shown activity in combination with RT and chemotherapy in the treatment of solid tumors. Valproic acid (VPA) is an anti-epileptic drug with HDACi and anticancer activity. In preclinical studies, our group showed that the addition of HDACi, including VPA, to capecitabine produces synergistic antitumour effects by up-regulating thymidine phosphorylase (TP), the key enzyme converting capecitabine to 5-FU, and by downregulating thymidylate synthase (TS), the 5-FU target. METHODS/DESIGN: Two parallel phase-1 studies will assess the safety of preoperative SCRT (5 fractions each of 5 Gy, on days 1 to 5) combined with (a) capecitabine alone (increasing dose levels: 500-825 mg/m2/bid), on days 1-21, or (b) capecitabine as above plus VPA (oral daily day -14 to 21, with an intra-patient titration for a target serum level of 50-100 microg/ml) followed by surgery 8 weeks after the end of SCRT, in low-moderate risk RC patients. Also, a randomized phase-2 study will be performed to explore whether the addition of VPA and/or capecitabine to preoperative SCRT might increase pathologic complete tumor regression (TRG1) rate. A sample size of 86 patients (21-22/arm) was calculated under the hypothesis that the addition of capecitabine or VPA to SCRT can improve the TRG1 rate from 5% to 20%, with one-sided alpha = 0.10 and 80% power.Several biomarkers will be evaluated comparing normal mucosa with tumor (TP, TS, VEGF, RAD51, XRCC1, Histones/proteins acetylation, HDAC isoforms) and on blood samples (polymorphisms of DPD, TS, XRCC1, GSTP1, RAD51 and XRCC3, circulating endothelial and progenitors cells; PBMCs-Histones/proteins acetylation). Tumor metabolism will be measured by 18FDG-PET at baseline and 15 days after the beginning of SCRT. DISCUSSION: This project aims to improve the efficacy of preoperative treatment of LARC and to decrease the inconvenience and the cost of standard long-course RT. Correlative studies could identify both prognostic and predictive biomarkers and could add new insight in the mechanism of interaction between VPA, capecitabine and RT.EudraCT Number: 2012-002831-28. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01898104

The Time to Offer Treatments for COVID-19

Introduction: COVID-19 has several overlapping phases. Treatment has focused on the late stage of the disease in hospital. Yet, the continuation of the pandemic is by propagation of the disease in outpatients. The current public health strategy relies solely on vaccines to prevent disease. Areas Covered: We searched the major national registries, pubmed.org, and the preprint servers for all ongoing, completed and published trial results with subject numbers of 100 or more on, and used a targeted search to find announcements of unpublished trial results. As of 2/15/2021, we found 111 publications reporting findings in human studies on 14 classes of agents, and on 9 vaccines. There were 62 randomized controlled studies, the rest retrospective observational analyses. Only 21 publications dealt with outpatient care, the rest all in hospitalized patients. Remdesivir and convalescent plasma have emergency use authorization for hospitalized patients in the U.S.A. There is also support for glucocorticoid treatment of the COVID-19 respiratory distress syndrome. Monoclonal antibodies are authorized for outpatients, but the supply is inadequate to treat all at time of diagnosis. Favipiravir, ivermectin, and interferons are approved in certain countries Expert Opinion: Worldwide vaccination is now underway. Vaccines and antibodies are highly antigen specific and new variants are appearing. There is a need for treatment of outpatients who contract the disease, in addition to mass immunization. We call on public health authorities to authorize treatments with known low risk and potential benefit for use in parallel with mass immunization

Effects on quality of life of weekly docetaxel-based chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: results of a single-centre randomized phase 3 trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To evaluate whether weekly schedules of docetaxel-based chemotherapy were superior to 3-weekly ones in terms of quality of life in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, aged ≤ 70 years, performance status 0-2, chemotherapy-naive for metastatic disease, were eligible. They were randomized to weekly or 3-weekly combination of docetaxel and epirubicin, if they were not treated with adjuvant anthracyclines, or docetaxel and capecitabine, if treated with adjuvant anthracyclines. Primary end-point was global quality of life change at 6-weeks, measured by EORTC QLQ-C30. With two-sided alpha 0.05 and 80% power for 35% effect size, 130 patients per arm were needed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From February 2004 to March 2008, 139 patients were randomized, 70 to weekly and 69 to 3-weekly arm; 129 and 89 patients filled baseline and 6-week questionnaires, respectively. Global quality of life was better in the 3-weekly arm (p = 0.03); patients treated with weekly schedules presented a significantly worsening in role functioning and financial scores (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001). Neutropenia and stomatitis were worse in the 3-weekly arm, where two toxic deaths were observed. Overall response rate was 39.1% and 33.3% in 3-weekly and weekly arms; hazard ratio of progression was 1.29 (95% CI: 0.84-1.97) and hazard ratio of death was 1.38 (95% CI: 0.82-2.30) in the weekly arm.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this trial, the weekly schedules of docetaxel-based chemotherapy appear to be inferior to the 3-weekly one in terms of quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00540800">NCT00540800</a>.</p

Direttiva Europea 2001/20/EC sulla sperimentazione clinica: implicazioni sulla ricerca clinica in Italia

[The European Directive 2001/20/EC on clinical trials in Italy]The European Directive 2001/20/EC legally ensured the implementation of the principles of good clinical practice in clinical trials on medicinal products in Europe. The Directive establishes, specific provisions regarding clinical trials conduction in all Member States, including multicenter trials on human subject involving medicinal products and harmonizes the practice of Independent Ethics Committees (IEC) and administrative provisions. In Italy, the European Directive was implemented by the Legislative Decree 211/2003 that considers three subsequent phases in the activation procedure of multicenter clinical trials: first, the clinical trial application submission to the IEC of both the coordinating and the participating centres as well as the administrative agreement submission to the Competent Authority of participating centres; second, the issuance of the “single” opinion by the IEC of the coordinating centre and, in case of positive opinion, the acceptance or refusal by the IEC of each participating centre; third, in case of acceptance, the trial contracts signature between the coordinating and each participating centre. Moreover, the European Directive defines the time required for issuing of opinion by the IEC. However, the high variability of documentation “centre-specific” required by independent ethics committee (IEC) plays a critical role in the time required for activation of participating centres of multicenter clinical trials. The harmonization of IECs practice in Italy and the reduction of the total number of IECs are the first step to facilitate multicenter clinical trials. Similar efforts should be made to standardize administrative procedures concerning the approval of clinical trials