Phase I trial to evaluate the tumor and normal tissue uptake, radiation dosimetry and safety of (111)In-DTPA-human epidermal growth factor in patients with metastatic EGFR-positive breast cancer.

The safety, pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of (111)In-DTPA-hEGF, an Auger electron-emitting radiopharmaceutical, were evaluated in a first-in-human trial. Dose escalation was performed in patients with EGFR-positive metastatic breast cancer who had received ≥2 prior courses of systemic treatment. (111)In-DTPA-hEGF (0.25 mg) was administered once intravenously (i.v.). Blood was collected for biochemistry/hematology testing and pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity analyses at selected times post injection (p.i.). Whole body planar images were acquired at 1, 4-6, 24 and 72 h p.i. and SPECT images at 24 and/or 72 h p.i. Macrodosimetry (MIRD) for the whole body and organs was estimated using OLINDA. Correlative radiological imaging was obtained at baseline, 1 and 3 months and then 6 monthly. Toxicity was scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)v2.0. Sixteen patients, median age 47 yr (range, 35-59), received (111)In-DTPA-hEGF as follows: 357-434 MBq (7), 754-805 MBq (3), 1,241-1,527 MBq (3) and 2,030-2,290 MBq (3). Fifteen were evaluable for toxicity. The commonest adverse events (AE) were flushing, chills, nausea, and vomiting occurring during or immediately p.i. One patient experienced Grade 3 thrombocytopenia (attributed to bone marrow infiltration by cancer). There were no other Grade 3 or 4 AEs. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Clear accumulation of radiopharmaceutical in at least one known site of disease was observed in 47% of patients. (111)In-DTPA-hEGF was cleared biexponentially from the blood with α-phase T½ of 0.16 ± 0.03 h and ß-phase T½ of 9.41 ± 1.93 h. (111)In-DTPA-hEGF was not immunogenic. The mean radiation dose estimates in mGy/MBq for whole body, liver, kidneys, spleen and thyroid were 0.08, 0.86, 0.74, 0.37 and 0.30, respectively. No objective antitumor responses were observed at the doses studied. In summary, administered amounts of up to 2,290 MBq (0.25 mg) of (111)In-DTPA-hEGF were well tolerated as a single i.v. injection.

Mucinous tumor of the appendix with limited peritoneal spread: is there a role for expectant observation?

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is now the standard management for mucinous tumors of appendiceal origin at many centers. We examined the role of expectant observation (EO) in patients who had undergone an initial resection at the time of referral to our center and who had limited residual disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients referred to Mount Sinai/Princess Margaret Hospitals, Toronto, for consideration of surgical management of peritoneal malignancy between January 1998 and December 2009. One hundred and three patients with primary mucinous appendiceal malignancy were identified. EO, consisting of regularly scheduled imaging and clinical review, was selected for asymptomatic patients with low-grade tumor and no/limited disease on imaging. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined. RESULTS: Management consisted of supportive care in 7 patients, systemic chemotherapy in 7, referral for CRS with HIPEC in 8, CRS without HIPEC at our center in 51, and EO in 30. In the CRS group, 5-year OS was 74 % and PFS was 56 %; both OS and PFS were predicted by extent of residual disease after cytoreduction (p = 0.014 and p = 0.011, respectively). In the EO group, 5-year OS and PFS were 95 and 82 %, respectively. Two patients in the EO group subsequently underwent CRS for progression on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In well-selected patients who have undergone initial resection for low-grade mucinous tumor of the appendix with limited peritoneal spread, a formal program of observation can result in excellent 5-year OS and PFS. Longer-term follow-up will help define the benefits and risks of this approach.

A phase II study of capecitabine, irinotecan, and bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous phase III studies raised concern about the safety of the combination of capecitabine and irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a single arm phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab in combination with dose-reduced capecitabine and irinotecan in patients with previously untreated mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC were eligible. Capecitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14 days and dose was reduced to 750 mg/m2 for patients over 65. Irinotecan was given at 200 mg/m2 and bevacizumab was given at 7.5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1. The treatment cycle was repeated every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival, response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled, the median age was 58, and 54% were ECOG 0. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events included hand-foot syndrome (14%), neutropenia (12%), and diarrhea (10%). Response rate was 51% and disease control rate (response and stable disease) was 98%. Median PFS was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-13.7), and 6 month PFS was 90% (95% CI: 77-98%). CONCLUSION: With modest dose reductions, the combination of capecitabine, irinotecan, and bevacizumab was well tolerated and resulted in favorable outcomes for patients with previously untreated mCRC.