The role of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resected pancreatic cancer: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis

Background: In patients undergoing surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer prognosis still remains poor. The role of adjuvant treatment strategies (including chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy) following resection of pancreatic cancer remains controversial. Methods: A Medline-based literature search was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated adjuvant chemotherapy after complete macroscopic resection for cancer of the exocrine pancreas. Five trials of adjuvant chemotherapy were eligible and critically reviewed for this article. A meta-analysis (based on published data) was performed with survival (median survival time and 5-year survival rate) being the primary endpoint. Results: For the meta-analysis, 482 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group and 469 patients to the control group. The meta-analysis estimate for prolongation of median survival time for patients in the chemotherapy group was 3 months (95% CI 0.3-5.7 months, p = 0.03). The difference in 5-year survival rate was estimated with 3.1% between the chemotherapy and the control group (95% CI -4.6 to 10.8%, p > 10.05). Conclusion: Currently available data from randomized trials indicate that adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer may substantially prolong disease-free survival and cause a moderate increase in overall survival. In the current meta-analysis, a significant survival benefit was only seen with regard to median survival, but not for the 5-year survival rate. The optimal chemotherapy regimen in the adjuvant setting as well as individualized treatment strategies (also including modern chemoradiotherapy regimens) still remain to be defined. Copyright (C) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

The management of cancer in the elderly: targeted therapies in oncology

Cancer is universally considered a disease of ageing. Today the management of elderly cancer patients poses many specific problems and it should be revisited in the light of the most recent advances in both diagnosis and treatment of human malignancies. In particular, the potential use of novel therapeutic options, based on therapeutic agents raised against molecular targets (the so called targeted therapy), appears to be promising in this clinical settings especially in view of the limited side-effects. The mainstays of cancer treatment during the twentieth century were surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. However, surgery is not curative in metastatic disease, radiation and chemotherapy are limited by side effects because they can't discriminate between healthy and cancerous cells. When key molecular changes responsible for malignant transformation were identified (e.g. growth factors and their receptors), it was hoped that new targeted agents, by inhibiting cancer-specific pathways, would spare normal cells and thereby offer improved safety benefits and a higher therapeutic index over standard chemotherapeutics. The most common targeted therapies used in clinical practice, i.e. monoclonal antibodies and small molecules, are described

"Poker" association of weekly alternating 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, bevacizumab and oxaliplatin (FIr-B/FOx) in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase II study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This phase II study investigated efficacy and safety of weekly alternating Bevacizumab (BEV)/Irinotecan (CPT-11) or Oxaliplatin (OHP) associated to weekly 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma (MCRC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Simon two-step design: delta 20% (p₀50%, p₁70%), power 80%, α 5%, β 20%. Projected objective responses (ORR): I step, 8/15 patients (pts); II step 26/43 pts. Schedule: weekly 12 h-timed-flat-infusion/5-FU 900 mg/m², days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23; CPT-11 160 mg/m²plus BEV 5 mg/kg, days 1,15; OHP at three dose-levels, 60-70-80 mg/m², days 8, 22; every 4 weeks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty consecutive, unselected pts < 75 years were enrolled: median age 63; young-elderly (yE) 24 (48%); liver metastases (LM) 33 pts, 66% Achieved OHP recommended dose, 80 mg/m². ORR 82% intent-to-treat and 84% as-treated analysis. Median progression-free survival 12 months. Equivalent efficacy was obtained in yE pts. Liver metastasectomies were performed in 26% of all pts and in 39% of pts with LM. After a median follow-up of 21 months, median overall survival was 28 months. Cumulative G3-4 toxicities per patient: diarrhea 28%, mucositis 6%, neutropenia 10%, hypertension 2%. They were equivalent in yE pts. Limiting toxicity syndromes (LTS), consisting of the dose-limiting toxicity, associated or not to G2 or limiting toxicities: 44% overall, 46% in yE. Multiple versus single site LTS, respectively: overall, 24% versus 20%; yE pts, 37.5% versus 8%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Poker combination shows high activity and efficacy in first line treatment of MCRC. It increases liver metastasectomies rate and can be safely administered.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Sperimentazione Clinica dei Medicinali (OsSC) Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) Numero EudraCT 2007-004946-34</p

Association between long-term neuro-toxicities in testicular cancer survivors and polymorphisms in glutathione-s-transferase-P1 and -M1, a retrospective cross sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To assess the impact of polymorphisms in Glutathione S-transferase (GST) -P1, -M1, and -T1 on self-reported chemotherapy-induced long-term toxicities in testicular cancer survivors (TCSs).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 238 TCSs, who had received cisplatin-based chemotherapy at median twelve years earlier, had participated in a long-term follow-up survey which assessed the prevalence of self-reported paresthesias in fingers/toes, Raynaud-like phenomena in fingers/toes, tinnitus, and hearing impairment. From all TCSs lymphocyte-derived DNA was analyzed for the functional A→G polymorphism at bp 304 in <it>GSTP1</it>, and deletions in <it>GST-M1 </it>and <it>GST-T1</it>. Evaluation of associations between GST polymorphisms and self-reported toxicities included adjustment for prior treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All six evaluated toxicities were significantly associated with the cumulative dose of cisplatin and/or bleomycin. Compared to TCSs with either <it>GSTP1-AG </it>or <it>GSTP1</it>-<it>AA</it>, the 37 TCSs with the genotype <it>GSTP1-GG</it>, were significantly less bothered by paresthesias in fingers and toes (p = 0.039, OR 0.46 [0.22–0.96] and p = 0.023, OR 0.42 [0.20–0.88], respectively), and tinnitus (p = 0.008, OR 0.33 [0.14–0.74]). Furthermore, absence of functional GSTM1 protected against hearing impairment (p = 0.025, OR 1.81 [1.08–3.03]).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In TCSs long-term self-reported chemotherapy-induced toxicities are associated with functional polymorphisms in <it>GSTP1 </it>and <it>GSTM1</it>. Hypothetically, absence of GST-M1 leaves more glutathione as substrate for the co-expressed GST-P1. Also intracellular inactivation of pro-apoptotic mediators represents a possible explanation of our findings. Genotyping of these GSTs might be a welcomed step towards a more individualized treatment of patients with metastatic testicular cancer.</p

Potent antitumor effects of bevacizumab in a microenvironment-dependent human lymphoma mouse model

We established a mouse model of microenvironment-dependent human lymphoma, and assessed the therapeutic potential of bevacizumab, an antitumor agent acting on the microenvironment. NOD/Shi-scid, IL-2Rγnull (NOG) mice were used as recipients of primary tumor cells from a patient with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), which engraft and proliferate in a microenvironment-dependent manner. The lymphoma cells could be serially transplanted in NOG mice, but could not be maintained in in vitro cultures. Injection of bevacizumab together with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone) significantly increased necrosis and decreased vascularization in the tumor, compared with CHOP alone. Levels of human soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL2R) in the serum of bevacizumab+CHOP-treated mice (reflecting the DLBCL tumor burden) were significantly lower than in CHOP recipients. Mice receiving bevacizumab monotherapy also showed significant benefit in terms of tumor necrosis and vascularization, as well as decreased serum sIL2R concentrations. The present DLBCL model reflects the human DLBCL in vivo environment more appropriately than current mouse models using established tumor cell lines. This is the first report to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab in such a tumor microenvironment-dependent model. Bevacizumab may be a potential treatment strategy for DLBCL patients

Toxicity associated with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in colorectal cancer before and after an institutional policy of capecitabine dose reduction

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) is an established treatment option in colorectal cancer, but can be associated with severe toxicities. METHODS: Following reporting of severe diarrhoea and dehydration with capecitabine 2000 mg m(-2) per day plus oxaliplatin every 3 weeks (CAPOX 2000) in 2006, we instituted a policy change to reduce capecitabine dose to 1700 mg m(-2) per day (CAPOX 1700). We undertook a retrospective analysis comparing toxicities encountered before and after this dose change. RESULTS: Of the 400 patients treated, no significant differences were seen between the CAPOX 2000 and CAPOX 1700 in grades 3 and 4 diarrhoea (21% vs 19%; P=0.80), stomatitis (0% vs 1%; P=0.50) or grades 2-4 hand foot syndrome (16% vs 11%; P=0.18). Grades 3 and 4 neutropenia (9.5% vs 3.5%; P=0.03) and all grades hyperbilirubinaemia (60% vs 40%; P<0.0001) were significantly reduced with CAPOX 1700. Rates of hospitalisation due to toxicities were not different between two groups (13% vs 11%; P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: No clinically or statistically significant differences in gastrointestinal toxicities or hospitalisation rate were seen after reducing our routine capecitabine dose from CAPOX 2000 to CAPOX 1700.We acknowledge National Health Service funding to the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre

A randomized multi-center phase II trial of the angiogenesis inhibitor Cilengitide (EMD 121974) and gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic treatment is believed to have at least cystostatic effects in highly vascularized tumours like pancreatic cancer. In this study, the treatment effects of the angiogenesis inhibitor Cilengitide and gemcitabine were compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A multi-national, open-label, controlled, randomized, parallel-group, phase II pilot study was conducted in 20 centers in 7 countries. Cilengitide was administered at 600 mg/m(2 )twice weekly for 4 weeks per cycle and gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m(2 )for 3 weeks followed by a week of rest per cycle. The planned treatment period was 6 four-week cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, quality of life (QoL), effects on biological markers of disease (CA 19.9) and angiogenesis (vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor), and safety. An ancillary study investigated the pharmacokinetics of both drugs in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were randomized. The median overall survival was 6.7 months for Cilengitide and gemcitabine and 7.7 months for gemcitabine alone. The median PFS times were 3.6 months and 3.8 months, respectively. The overall response rates were 17% and 14%, and the tumor growth control rates were 54% and 56%, respectively. Changes in the levels of CA 19.9 went in line with the clinical course of the disease, but no apparent relationships were seen with the biological markers of angiogenesis. QoL and safety evaluations were comparable between treatment groups. Pharmacokinetic studies showed no influence of gemcitabine on the pharmacokinetic parameters of Cilengitide and vice versa. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically important differences observed regarding efficacy, safety and QoL between the groups. The observations lay in the range of other clinical studies in this setting. The combination regimen was well tolerated with no adverse effects on the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of either agent