Late Release of Circulating Endothelial Cells and Endothelial Progenitor Cells after Chemotherapy Predicts Response and Survival in Cancer Patients

We and others have previously demonstrated that the acute release of progenitor cells in response to chemotherapy actually reduces the efficacy of the chemotherapy. Here, we take these data further and investigate the clinical relevance of circulating endothelial (progenitor) cells (CE(P)Cs) and modulatory cytokines in patients after chemotherapy with relation to progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS). Patients treated with various chemotherapeutics were included. Blood sampling was performed at baseline, 4 hours, and 7 and 21 days after chemotherapy. The mononuclear cell fraction was analyzed for CE(P)C by FACS analysis. Plasma was analyzed for cytokines by ELISA or Luminex technique. CE(P)Cs were correlated with response and PFS/OS using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. We measured CE(P)Cs and cytokines in 71 patients. Only patients treated with paclitaxel showed an immediate increase in endothelial progenitor cell 4 hours after start of treatment. These immediate changes did not correlate with response or survival. After 7 and 21 days of chemotherapy, a large and consistent increase in CE(P)C was found (P < .01), independent of the type of chemotherapy. Changes in CE(P)C levels at day 7 correlated with an increase in tumor volume after three cycles of chemotherapy and predicted PFS/OS, regardless of the tumor type or chemotherapy. These findings indicate that the late release of CE(P)C is a common phenomenon after chemotherapeutic treatment. The correlation with a clinical response and survival provides further support for the biologic relevance of these cells in patients' prognosis and stresses their possible use as a therapeutic target

Identifying patients with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for genetic counselling : non-randomised comparison of two case-finding strategies in primary care

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend genetic counselling and DNA testing (GCT) for patients with ovarian cancer and survivors of ovarian cancer. Finding survivors of ovarian cancer is challenging. Detecting and referring them for GCT via primary care, to allow proper screening recommendations for patients and their family, may be a solution. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and acceptance of two pilot strategies directed at case finding women with a history of ovarian cancer for referral for GCT by their GP. DESIGN AND SETTING: Non-randomised comparison of the pilot implementation of two case-finding strategies for women with a history of ovarian cancer in Dutch primary care from May 2016 to April 2017. METHOD: Strategy A (unsupported) asked GPs to identify and refer eligible patients with a history of ovarian cancer. Strategy B (ICT-supported) provided GPs with information and communication technology (ICT) support to identify patients with a history of ovarian cancer electronically. The effectiveness of each strategy was assessed as the proportion of patients who were approached, referred for GCT, and seen by the clinical geneticist. Acceptance of each strategy was assessed by the intervention uptake of GP practices and GP and patient questionnaires. RESULTS: Nineteen out of 30 (63%) patients identified with a history of ovarian cancer were deemed eligible for referral for strategy A, and 39 out of 94 (41%) for strategy B. For each strategy, eight patients were referred and five (63%) were seen for GCT. The intervention uptake by GP practices was 31% (11 out of 36) for strategy A and 46% (21 out of 46) for strategy B. GPs considered 'relevance' and 'workability' as facilitators across both strategies whereas, for strategy B, technical barriers hindered implementation. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and acceptance of both strategies for case finding of survivors of ovarian cancer in primary care for GCT is promising, but larger studies are required before wide-scale implementation is warranted

Clinical and Pharmacologic Study of the Novel Prodrug Delimotecan (MEN 4901/T-0128) in Patients with Solid Tumors

Purpose: To investigate i.v. administration of delimotecan (MEN 4901/T-0128), a carboxymethyldextran polymer prodrug of the active camptothecin derivative T-2513, and to assess the maximum tolerated dose, safety profile, clinical pharmacology, and antitumor activity of delimotecan and metabolites. Experimental Design: Patients with solid tumors refractory to standard therapy received i.v. delimotecan as 3-hour infusion once every 6 weeks. The starting dose was 150 mg/m(2), followed by an accelerated dose escalation with at least one patient per dose level. The pharmacokinetics of delimotecan, T-2513, and its metabolites, SN-38, SN-38G, T-1335, T-0055, and T-3921, were assessed in plasma and urine, and their pharmacodynamics were determined by measuring the effect of the treatment on hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity. Results: Twenty-two patients received 35 courses. Dose-limiting toxicities were observed at 5,400 mg/m(2) (n = 1), 3,600 mg/m(2) (n = 1), and 2,400 mg/m(2) (n = 2). The dose level of 1,800 mg/m(2) was determined as maximum tolerated dose. Two partial responses were observed in patients with anal cancer (1800 mg/m(2)) and head and neck cancer (2400 mg/m(2)). Delimotecan had a long terminal half-life of 109 h, and relatively high exposures to T-2513 and SN-38 were obtained. The percentage decrease in WBC and absolute neutrophil count significantly correlated with the dose of delimotecan. Conclusions: Based on its preliminary antitumor activity, safety profile, and pharmacokinetic profile, we recommend to evaluate delimotecan given as 3-hour infusion once every 6 weeks at a dose level of 1,800 mg/m(2) in a phase II study