Chemotherapy-associated thromboembolic risk in cancer outpatients and effect of nadroparin thromboprophylaxis: results of a retrospective analysis of the PROTECHT study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy are at increased risk of thrombosis. Nadroparin has been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of venous and arterial thrombotic events (TEs) by about 50% in cancer outpatients receiving chemotherapy. The aims of this retrospective analysis were to evaluate the thromboembolic risk and the benefit of thromboprophylaxis according to type of chemotherapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cancer outpatients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of nadroparin or placebo. The incidence of symptomatic TEs was assessed according to the type of chemotherapy. Results were reported as risk ratios with associated 95% CI and two-tailed probability values.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>769 and 381 patients have been evaluated in the nadroparin and placebo group, respectively. In the absence of thromboprophylaxis, the highest rate of TEs was found in patients receiving gemcitabine- (8.1%) or cisplatin-based chemotherapy (7.0%). The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin or carboplatin increased the risk to 10.2%. Thromboprophylaxis reduced TE risk by 68% in patients receiving gemcitabine; with a further decrease to 78% in those receiving a combination of gemcitabine and platinum.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This retrospective analysis confirms that patients undergoing chemotherapy including gemcitabine, platinum analogues or their combination are at higher risk of TEs. Our results also suggest that outpatients receiving chemotherapy regimens including these agents might achieve an increased benefit from thromboprophylaxis with nadroparin. Clinical Trial registration number: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00951574">NCT 00951574</a></p

Fibrinogen: a novel predictor of responsiveness in metastatic melanoma patients treated with bio-chemotherapy: IMI (italian melanoma inter-group) trial

PURPOSE: To evaluate a panel of pretreatment clinical and laboratory parameters in metastatic melanoma (MM) in order to verify their impact on response and survival in a single prospective multi-institutional phase III study comparing out-patient chemotherapy (CT) vs bioCT. METHODS: A total of 176 patients were randomised to receive CT (cisplatin, dacarbazine, optional carmustine) or bioCT (the same CT followed by subcutaneous IL-2 plus intramuscular α-IFN-2b). Pretreatment total leucocytes, lymphocytes, eosinophyls, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), erytrosedimentation rate (ESR), and fibrinogen were analyzed. Some clinical parameters (performance status, age, sex, and disease site) were also considered. As we found a positive trend for bio-CT with no statistical significance in OR (25.3% vs 20.2%) and OS (11 Mo vs 9.5 Mo), all analyses are stratified by treatment arm. RESULTS: In univariate analysis, higher value of lymphocytes percentage (P < .0001), lower value of total leucocytes (P=.005), CRP (P=.003), LHD (P < .0001), ESR (P < .027), fibrinogen (P < .0001), and no liver disease were strongly related to a better survival. In a multivariate analysis, using the Cox proportional hazards model, only fibrinogen (P=.004), LDH (P=.009) and liver disease (P=.04) were found to have an independent role on clinical outcome in metastatic melanoma patients. CONCLUSION: Liver disease and higher LDH and fibrinogen levels had an important impact on survival in MM patients. In particular, fibrinogen has been recently reconsidered both for its determinant role in the host hemostatic system, and for its capability to provide protection against NK and LAK-cell-induced lysis. These observations could have some important implications for therapeutic approaches, in particular when immunological strategies are used

Duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer

BACKGROUND Since 2004, a regimen of 6 months of treatment with oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine has been standard adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. However, since oxaliplatin is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, a shorter duration of therapy could spare toxic effects and health expenditures. METHODS We performed a prospective, preplanned, pooled analysis of six randomized, phase 3 trials that were conducted concurrently to evaluate the noninferiority of adjuvant therapy with either FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) administered for 3 months, as compared with 6 months. The primary end point was the rate of disease-free survival at 3 years. Noninferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of therapy could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.12. RESULTS After 3263 events of disease recurrence or death had been reported in 12,834 patients, the noninferiority of 3 months of treatment versus 6 months was not confirmed in the overall study population (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15). Noninferiority of the shorter regimen was seen for CAPOX (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.06) but not for FOLFOX (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.26). In an exploratory analysis of the combined regimens, among the patients with T1, T2, or T3 and N1 cancers, 3 months of therapy was noninferior to 6 months, with a 3-year rate of disease-free survival of 83.1% and 83.3%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12). Among patients with cancers that were classified as T4, N2, or both, the disease-free survival rate for a 6-month duration of therapy was superior to that for a 3-month duration (64.4% vs. 62.7%) for the combined treatments (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P=0.01 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stage III colon cancer receiving adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX or CAPOX, noninferiority of 3 months of therapy, as compared with 6 months, was not confirmed in the overall population. However, in patients treated with CAPOX, 3 months of therapy was as effective as 6 months, particularly in the lower-risk subgroup. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.

The IDEA (International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy) Collaboration: Prospective Combined Analysis of Phase III Trials Investigating Duration of Adjuvant Therapy with the FOLFOX (FOLFOX4 or Modified FOLFOX6) or XELOX (3 versus 6 months) Regimen for Patients with Stage III Colon Cancer: Trial Design and Current Status

The International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) collaboration was established to prospectively combine and analyze data from several randomized trials conducted around the world to answer whether a three-month course of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy (FOLFOX4/modified FOLFOX6 or XELOX) is non-inferior to the current standard six-month treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer, with a primary endpoint of three years disease-free survival. The IDEA steering committee comprises two members from each group coordinating an individual trial and two members from a secretariat who coordinate combining of the data and management of the joint analysis. Members of the IDEA agreed to combine the data from their individual trials to enable definitive analysis consisting of at least 10,500 patients. With accrual of 8,797 patients at the end of February 2013, the IDEA is on track to achieve its accrual objective of at least 10,500 patients by the end of 2013

Nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine combination is more effective than gemcitabine alone in locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer - A GISCAD phase II randomized trial

The role of combination chemotherapy has not yet been established in unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) lacking dedicated randomized trials

Position Paper of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology on Early Palliative Care in Oncology Practice (Simultaneous Care)

n/

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) gene copy number (GCN) correlates with clinical activity of irinotecan-cetuximab in K-RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: a fluorescence in situ (FISH) and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>K-RAS wild type colorectal tumors show an improved response rate to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. Nevertheless 70% to 40% of these patients still does not seem to benefit from this therapeutic approach. FISH EGFR GCN has been previously demonstrated to correlate with clinical outcome of colorectal cancer treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. CISH also seemed able to provide accurate EGFR GCN information with the advantage of a simpler and reproducible technique involving immunohistochemistry and light microscopy. Based on these findings we investigated the correlation between both FISH and CISH EGFR GCN and clinical outcome in K-RAS wild-type colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan-cetuximab.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with advanced K-RAS wild-type, colorectal cancer receiving irinotecan-cetuximab after failure of irinotecan-based chemotherapy were eligible.</p> <p>A cut-off value for EGFR GCN of 2.6 and 2.12 for FISH and CISH respectively was derived from ROC curve analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-four patients were available for analysis. We observed a partial remission in 9 (60%) and 2 (9%) cases with a FISH EGFR GCN ≥ 2.6 and < 2.6 respectively (p = 0.002) and in 10 (36%) and 1 (6%) cases with a CISH EGFR GCN ≥ 2.12 and < 2.12 respectively (p = 0.03). Median TTP was 7.7 and 6.4 months in patients showing increased FISH and CISH EGFR GCN whereas it was 2.9 and 3.1 months in those with low FISH and CISH EGFR GCN (p = 0.04 and 0.02 respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>FISH and CISH EGFR GCN may both represent effective tools for a further patients selection in K-RAS wild-type colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab.</p

Treatment breaks in first line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Background Intermittent systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) may improve quality of life without compromising overall survival (OS). We aimed to use individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) from multiple randomised controlled trials evaluating intermittent strategies to inform clinical practice. We also aimed to validate whether thrombocytosis as a predictive biomarker identified patients with significantly reduced OS receiving a complete treatment break. Patients and Methods An IPDMA of intermittent strategy impact on survival was undertaken, including all relevant trials in which data were available. Intermittent strategies were classified into two groups: a planned stopping of all therapy (“treatment break strategy”; 6 trials; 2,907 patients) or to the same treatment omitting oxaliplatin (“maintenance strategy”; 3 trials; 1,271 patients). The primary analysis sample was of patients successfully completing induction therapy. Additionally, a pre-planned analysis of the predictive value of thrombocytosis on survival under a continuous versus an intermittent strategy was undertaken. Results All trials had comparable inclusion criteria. The overall IPDMA of intermittent therapy versus continuous therapy demonstrated no detriment in OS (HR=1.03 [95% CI 0.93-1.14]), whether from complete break (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.87-1.26]) or maintenance strategies (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.87-1.13]). Thrombocytosis was confirmed as a marker of poor prognosis in aCRC, but did not predict for OS detriment from treatment break strategies (interaction HR=0.97 [95% CI 0.66-1.40] compared to continuous therapy). Conclusion The highest levels of evidence from this IPMDA indicate no detriment in survival for patients receiving an intermittent therapy strategy, either for maintenance or complete break strategies. Although, thrombocytosis is confirmed as a marker of poor prognosis, it is not predictive of poor outcome for patients treated with intermittent therapy. An intermittent chemotherapy strategy can therefore be applied irrespective of baseline platelet count and does not result in inferior OS compared to continuous chemotherapy

Meta-analysis of randomized trials: evaluation of benefit from gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy applied in advanced pancreatic cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Single-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is a standard treatment for advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. This study examines the question whether GEM-based combination chemotherapy can further improve treatment efficacy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate randomized trials comparing GEM versus GEM+X (X = cytotoxic agent). Fifteen trials including 4465 patients were eligible for an analysis of overall survival, the primary end-point of this investigation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The meta-analysis revealed a significant survival benefit for GEM+X with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85 – 0.97, p = 0.004). The overall test for heterogeneity resulted in p = 0.82 (I²= 0%). The analysis of platinum-based combinations indicated a HR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76 – 0.96, p = 0.010), while for fluoropyrimidine-based combinations the HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81 – 0.99, p = 0.030). No risk reduction was observed in the group of trials combining GEM with irinotecan, exatecan or pemetrexed (HR = 0.99). A meta-analysis of the trials with adequate information on baseline performance status (PS) was performed in five trials with 1682 patients. This analysis indicated that patients with a good PS had a marked survival benefit when receiving combination chemotherapy (HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67 – 0.87; p < 0.0001). By contrast, application of combination chemotherapy to patients with an initially poor PS appeared to be ineffective (HR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.90 – 1.29, p = 0.40).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The meta-analysis of randomized trials indicated a significant survival benefit when GEM was either combined with platinum analogs or fluoropyrimidines. Based on a preliminary subgroup analysis (representing 38% of all patients included in this meta-analysis), pancreatic cancer patients with a good PS appear to benefit from GEM-based cytotoxic combinations, whereas patients with a poor PS seem to have no survival benefit from combination chemotherapy.</p