Prognosis of Malignant Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma (MAPP-Prono Study): A European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (MPP) are characterized by prognostic heterogeneity. Our objective was to look for prognostic parameters of overall survival (OS) in MPP patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study of MPP characterized by a neck-thoraco-abdomino-pelvic CT or MRI at the time of malignancy diagnosis in European centers between 1998 and 2010. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine patients from 18 European centers were included. Main characteristics of patients with MPP were: primary pheochromocytoma in 53% of patients; tumor- or hormone-related symptoms in 57% or 58% of cases; positive plasma or urine hormones in 81% of patients; identification of a mutation in SDHB in 42% of cases. Metastatic sites included bone (64%), lymph node (40%), lung (29%), and liver (26%); mean time between initial and malignancy diagnosis was 43 months (range, 0 to 614). Median follow-up was 68 months and median survival 6.7 years. Using univariate analysis, better survival was associated with head and neck paraganglioma, age <40 years, metanephrines less than fivefold the upper limits of the normal range, and low proliferative index. In multivariate analysis, hypersecretion [hazard ratio 3.02 (1.65 to 5.55); P = 0.0004] was identified as an independent significant prognostic factor of worst OS. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not confirm SDHB mutations as a major prognostic parameter in MPP and suggest additional key molecular events involved in MPP tumor progression. Aside from SDHB mutation, the biology of aggressive MPP remains to be understood.

EGFR mutant allelic-specific imbalance assessment in routine samples of non-small cell lung cancer.

In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene may undergo both mutations and copy number gains. EGFR mutant allele-specific imbalance (MASI) occurs when the ratio of mutant-to-wild-type alleles increases significantly. In this study, by using a previously validated microfluidic-chip-based technology, EGFR-MASI occurred in 25/67 mutant cases (37%), being more frequently associated with EGFR exon 19 deletions (p=0.033). In a subset of 49 treated patients, we assessed whether MASI is a modifier of anti-EGFR treatment benefit. The difference in progression-free survival and overall survival between EGFR-MASI-positive and EGFR-MASI-negative groups of patients did not show a statistical significance. In conclusion, EGFR-MASI is a significant event in NSCLC, specifically associated with EGFR exon 19 deletions. However, EGFR-MASI does not seem to play a role in predicting the response to first-generation EGFR small molecules inhibitors.

Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin plus vindesine and mitomycin C in stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung carcinoma: a prospective randomized study.

PURPOSE: To compare a regimen of vinorelbine and cisplatin (VC) to the combination of mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main endpoits were analysis of objective response rates, toxicity, time to progression, and overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 247 eligible patients were randomized to receive (a) vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks, or (b) mitomycin c 8 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1, vindesine 3 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks. In subsequent cycles vindesine was given every other week. For both treatments a maximum of six cycles was planned. Patients with performance status 0-2 according to the ECOG scale were enrolled. Response and toxicity were evaluated according to the WHO criteria. Analysis of clinical efficacy was performed according to an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy were observed between the two chemotherapy regimens. The overall objective response rates were 39% (95% CL, 31-49%) in the VC arm and 42% (95% CL, 33-51%) in the MVP arm (P=0.13). Median time to progression was 4.2 and 4.5 months for the MVP arm and the VC arm, respectively. Median overall survival was 7 months in the VC arm and 8 months in the MVP one (log-rank test, P=0.898). These differences were not statistically significant. However, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly higher in the MVP arm than in the VC (P=0.0001; P=0.0002). Grade 3 alopecia was more frequent in the MVP arm than in the VC one (P<0.001), which was associated with higher rate of phlebitis (P=0.037). CONCLUSION: Data achieved in this study suggest that the vinorelbine-cisplatin doublet is similar to the three-drug MVP regimen in term of overall response rate, time to progressive disease, and overall survival. However, hematological toxicity and alopecia are more frequent and severe in the MVP regimen which therefore appears to be less tolerable than the VC regimen. The combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin may be considered as a reference treatment for future studies on the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

First-line cisplatin with docetaxel or vinorelbine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a quality of life directed phase II randomized trial of Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) has gained greater importance in the management of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer due to the palliative nature of treatment. Docetaxel (DCT) and cisplatin (CDDP) doublet has been reported to be associated to a better QoL than the weekly vinorelbine (VNR) and CDDP regimen. Recently a newer more tolerated schedule of the VNR/CDDP regimen has been published and is widely employed in medical practice. The impact of these regimens on patients' QoL as well as symptoms control and type and grading chemo-related side-effects has been compared prospectically. METHODS: Patients received CDDP 75 mg/m(2) plus DCT 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 every weeks (arm A) or CDDP 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus VNR 30 mg/m(2) day 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (arm B). G-CSF and/or EPO were employed as needed. Health-related QoL was assessed at entry and after every cycle by the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and LC13 questionnaires, toxicity by the NCI-NCCN CTC vs 2, and intent-to-treat objective response by the Recist criteria. RESULTS: The QoL questionnaires were completed by 37 pts (88%) in the DCT/CDDP arm and 39 pts (87%) in the VNR/CDDP one. Baseline mean scores and rates at which pts failed to complete QoL assessment were similar in the two arms. Global health status of the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale and specific symptoms control (LC13 module) improved during treatment without any statistically significant difference between the two arms. Emotional functioning remained stable in both groups during treatment, whereas physical and role improved slightly. In the DCT/CDDP arm 14 pts (33%; 95%CL 24-40%) had PR, and 10 (24%) SD for a 57% TGCR. In the VNR/CDDP arm 12 pts (27%) achieved PR, 18 (41%) SD a 68% TGCR. Differences were not statistically significant. Median time-to-progression was 4.2 months in the DCT/CDDP arm and 4.5 months in the VNR/CDDP one, and median overall survival was 12.1 (range 1-26+ months) and 12.5 months (range 1-28+ months) for DCT/CDDP and VNR/CDDP arms, respectively. Febrile neutropenia rate was higher in the VNR/CDDP arm (p=0.02) as well as G3-4 anemia (p=0.005) and G-CSF/EPO use (p=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Global and specific health-related QoL data similar in both treatment groups with no statistically significant difference. Efficacy measures, overall response rate, time-to-progression and overall survival were equivalent in both arms. However, severe anemia and febrile neutropenia are statistically more frequent in the VNR/CDDP arm than in the DCT/CDDP one. These data should be considered in treatment decision-making for pts with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and for the design of future trials with chemotherapy plus biologics.