Extended RAS analysis and correlation with overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the KRAS gene can be detected in about 70-90% of pancreatic cancer (PC) cases. Whether these mutations have a prognostic or predictive value remains elusive. Furthermore, the clinical relevance of the extended RAS (KRAS+NRAS) mutational status is unclear in PC. METHODS: We prospectively defined a PC patient population who received erlotinib-free chemotherapy regimens. A statistically significant difference between KRAS wild-type and KRAS mutated tumours in at least 160 patients in this population would support the assumption of a rather prognostic role of KRAS. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-eight tumour samples were collected from prospective clinical studies and successfully analysed for the extended RAS status: 37 tumours were KRAS wild-type (21%), whereas 141 (79%) carried a KRAS mutation; 132 of these mutations were found in KRAS exon 2 (74%), whereas only 9 mutations (5%) were detected in KRAS exon 3. Within KRAS exon 4 and NRAS exons 2-4, no mutations were apparent. There was no significant difference in overall survival for KRAS wild-type vs mutant patients (9.9 vs 8.3 months, P=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Together with the results of the AIO-PK-0104-trial, the present analysis supports the notion that KRAS mutation status is rather predictive than prognostic in advanced PC.

Impact of hand-foot skin reaction on treatment outcome in patients receiving capecitabine plus erlotinib for advanced pancreatic cancer: a subgroup analysis from AIO-PK0104.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced skin toxicity may correlate with treatment efficacy in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or biological agents. The correlation of the capecitabine-associated hand-foot skin reaction (HFS) on outcome parameters in pancreatic cancer (PC) has not yet been investigated. METHODS: Within the multicentre phase III AIO-PK0104 trial, patients with confirmed advanced PC were randomly assigned to first-line treatment with either capecitabine plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm A) or gemcitabine plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm B). A cross-over to either gemcitabine (arm A) or capecitabine (arm B) was performed after failure of the first-line regimen. Data on skin toxicity were correlated with efficacy study endpoints using uni- and multivariate analyses. To control for guarantee-time bias (GTB), we focused on subgroup analyses of patients who had completed two and three or more treatment cycles. RESULTS: Of 281 randomised patients, skin toxicity data were available for 255 patients. Median time to capecitabine-attributed HFS was two cycles, 36 of 47 (77%) HFS events had been observed by the end of treatment cycle three. Considering HFS during first-line treatment in 101 patients treated with capecitabine for at least two cycles within the capecitabine plus erlotinib arm, time to treatment failure after first- and second-line therapy (TTF2) and overall survival (OS) both were significantly prolonged for the 44 patients (44%) with HFS compared to 57 patients without HFS (56%) (TTF2: 7.8 vs. 3.8 months, HR 0.50, p = 0.001; OS: 10.4 vs. 5.9 months, HR 0.55, p = 0.005). A subgroup analysis of 70 patients on treatment with capecitabine for at least three cycles showed similar results (TTF2: 8.3 vs. 4.4 months, HR 0.53, p = 0.010; OS: 10.4 vs. 6.7 months, HR 0.62, p = 0.056). CONCLUSION: The present subgroup analysis from AIO-PK0104 suggests that HFS may serve as an independent clinical predictor for treatment outcome in capecitabine-treated patients with advanced PC.

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie' (AIO-PK0104).

OBJECTIVE: AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine. METHODS: 281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients. RESULTS: Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received 2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2-4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib.

Capecitabine and bevacizumab for non-resectable metastatic colorectal cancer patients: final results from phase II AIO KRK 0105 trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab for patients (pts) with non-resectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), although clinical data in this particular patient group are lacking. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with non-resectable mCRC were to receive capecitabine (1,250 mg/sqm bid d1-14 oral) and bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v.) every 3 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: 82 pts were included: 40 female, median age 70 (range 50-86). ECOG PS 0/1/2 was 38/52/10%, respectively. Synchronous metastases were present in 58 pts. 16 pts had primary tumor in situ. Median treatment duration was 4.1 months (6 cycles). Toxicity was generally mild. ORR was 38%, with 5 complete and 23 partial responses. Median PFS was 7.0 months [95% CI (5.0-9.1)] and OS 17.9 months [95% CI (14.6-21.6)]. Second- and third-line systemic therapy was given to 57% and 33% of pts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Besides the favourable tolerability, PFS and OS were shorter than reported by other trials. Careful patient selection for upfront capecitabine and bevacizumab is essential.

Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy is regarded as a standard perioperative treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer. We investigated the efficacy and safety of substituting fluorouracil with the oral prodrug capecitabine. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial began in March, 2002, as an adjuvant trial comparing capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy with fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy, in patients aged 18 years or older with pathological stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer from 35 German institutions. Patients in the capecitabine group were scheduled to receive two cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) days 1-14, repeated day 22), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) days 1-38), then three cycles of capecitabine. Patients in the fluorouracil group received two cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) days 1-5, repeated day 29), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 225 mg/m(2) daily), then two cycles of bolus fluorouracil. The protocol was amended in March, 2005, to allow a neoadjuvant cohort in which patients in the capecitabine group received chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) daily) followed by radical surgery and five cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) per day for 14 days) and patients in the fluorouracil group received chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 1000 mg/m(2) days 1-5 and 29-33) followed by radical surgery and four cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) for 5 days). Patients were randomly assigned to treatment group in a 1:1 ratio using permuted blocks, with stratification by centre and tumour stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analyses were done based on all patients with post-randomisation data. Non-inferiority of capecitabine in terms of 5-year overall survival was tested with a 12·5% margin. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500993. FINDINGS: Between March, 2002, and December, 2007, 401 patients were randomly allocated; 392 patients were evaluable (197 in the capecitabine group, 195 in the fluorouracil group), with a median follow-up of 52 months (IQR 41-72). 5-year overall survival in the capecitabine group was non-inferior to that in the fluorouracil group (76% [95% CI 67-82] vs 67% [58-74]; p=0·0004; post-hoc test for superiority p=0·05). 3-year disease-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-81) in the capecitabine group and 67% (59-73) in the fluorouracil group (p=0·07). Similar numbers of patients had local recurrences in each group (12 [6%] in the capecitabine group vs 14 [7%] in the fluorouracil group, p=0·67), but fewer patients developed distant metastases in the capecitabine group (37 [19%] vs 54 [28%]; p=0·04). Diarrhoea was the most common adverse event in both groups (any grade: 104 [53%] patients in the capecitabine group vs 85 [44%] in the fluorouracil group; grade 3-4: 17 [9%] vs four [2%]). Patients in the capecitabine group had more hand-foot skin reactions (62 [31%] any grade, four [2%] grade 3-4 vs three [2%] any grade, no grade 3-4), fatigue (55 [28%] any grade, no grade 3-4 vs 29 [15%], two [1%] grade 3-4), and proctitis (31 [16%] any grade, one [<1%] grade 3-4 vs ten [5%], one [<1%] grade 3-4) than did those in the fluorouracil group, whereas leucopenia was more frequent with fluorouracil than with capecitabine (68 [35%] any grade, 16 [8%] grade 3-4 vs 50 [25%] any grade, three [2%] grade 3-4). INTERPRETATION: Capecitabine could replace fluorouracil in adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. FUNDING: Roche Pharma AG (Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany).

Erlotinib 150 mg daily plus chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: an interim safety analysis of a multicenter, randomized, cross-over phase III trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie'.

To date, only limited toxicity data are available for the combination of erlotinib with either capecitabine or gemcitabine as front-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Within a randomized phase III trial, 281 treatment-naive patients were randomly assigned between capecitabine (2000 mg/m/day, for 14 days, once every 3 weeks) plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm A) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m as a 30-min infusion) plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm B). In case of treatment failure, patients were crossed over to a second-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was the time to treatment failure of second-line therapy (TTF2). This interim analysis of toxicity contains safety data from the first 127 randomized patients. During first-line therapy, patients received a median number of three treatment cycles (range 0-13) in both the arms. Regarding chemotherapy, a treatment delay was observed in 12% of the cycles in arm A and in 22% of the cycles in arm B. Dose reductions of the cytostatic drug were performed in 18 and 27% of treatment cycles, respectively. Erlotinib dose reductions were performed in 6 and 11% of all cycles. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity was <10% in both the arms; major grade 3/4 toxicities in arms A and B were diarrhea (9 vs. 7%), skin rash (4 vs. 12%), and hand-foot syndrome (7 vs. 0%). No treatment-related death was observed. In conclusion, this interim safety analysis suggests that treatment with erlotinib 150 mg/day is feasible in combination with capecitabine or gemcitabine.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: The role of adjuvant therapy in resectable pancreatic cancer is still uncertain, and no recommended standard exists. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine administered after complete resection of pancreatic cancer improves disease-free survival by 6 months or more. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Open, multicenter, randomized controlled phase 3 trial with stratification for resection, tumor, and node status. Conducted from July 1998 to December 2004 in the outpatient setting at 88 academic and community-based oncology centers in Germany and Austria. A total of 368 patients with gross complete (R0 or R1) resection of pancreatic cancer and no prior radiation or chemotherapy were enrolled into 2 groups. INTERVENTION: Patients received adjuvant chemotherapy with 6 cycles of gemcitabine on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (n = 179), or observation ([control] n = 175). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point was disease-free survival, and secondary end points were overall survival, toxicity, and quality of life. Survival analysis was based on all eligible patients (intention-to-treat). RESULTS: More than 80% of patients had R0 resection. The median number of chemotherapy cycles in the gemcitabine group was 6 (range, 0-6). Grade 3 or 4 toxicities rarely occurred with no difference in quality of life (by Spitzer index) between groups. During median follow-up of 53 months, 133 patients (74%) in the gemcitabine group and 161 patients (92%) in the control group developed recurrent disease. Median disease-free survival was 13.4 months in the gemcitabine group (95% confidence interval, 11.4-15.3) and 6.9 months in the control group (95% confidence interval, 6.1-7.8; P<.001, log-rank). Estimated disease-free survival at 3 and 5 years was 23.5% and 16.5% in the gemcitabine group, and 7.5% and 5.5% in the control group, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the effect of gemcitabine on disease-free survival was significant in patients with either R0 or R1 resection. There was no difference in overall survival between the gemcitabine group (median, 22.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 18.4-25.8; estimated survival, 34% at 3 years and 22.5% at 5 years) and the control group (median, 20.2 months; 95% confidence interval, 17-23.4; estimated survival, 20.5% at 3 years and 11.5% at 5 years; P = .06, log-rank). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative gemcitabine significantly delayed the development of recurrent disease after complete resection of pancreatic cancer compared with observation alone. These results support the use of gemcitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy in resectable carcinoma of the pancreas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN34802808.

Extensive Use of Interventional Therapies Improves Survival in Unresectable or Recurrent Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

Aim. To assess the outcomes of patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (ICC) treated by a tailored therapeutic approach, combining systemic with advanced image-guided local or locoregional therapies. Materials and Methods. Treatment followed an algorithm established by a multidisciplinary GI-tumor team. Treatment options comprised ablation (RFA, CT-guided brachytherapy) or locoregional techniques (TACE, radioembolization, i.a. chemotherapy). Results. Median survival was 33.1 months from time of diagnosis and 16.0 months from first therapy. UICC stage analysis showed a median survival of 15.9 months for stage I, 9 months for IIIa, 18.4 months for IIIc, and 13 months for IV. Only the number of lesions, baseline serum CEA and serum CA19-9, and objective response (RECIST) were independently associated with survival. Extrahepatic metastases had no influence. Conclusion. Patients with unresectable ICC may benefit from hepatic tumor control provided by local or locoregional therapies. Future prospective study formats should focus on supplementing systemic therapy by classes of interventions ("toolbox") rather than specific techniques, that is, local ablation leading to complete tumor destruction (such as RFA) or locoregional treatment leading to partial remission (such as radioembolization). This trial is registered with German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsche Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS-ID: DRKS00006237.

Haemorrhagic Complications and Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Interventional Tumour Ablations: The Impact of Peri-interventional Thrombosis Prophylaxis.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the rates of haemorrhagic and thrombotic complications in patients undergoing interventional tumour ablation with and without peri-interventional low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thrombosis prophylaxis. METHODS: Patients presented with primary and secondary neoplastic lesions in the liver, lung, kidney, lymph nodes and other locations. A total of 781 tumour ablations (radiofrequency ablation, n = 112; interstitial brachytherapy, n = 669) were performed in 446 patients over 22 months; 260 were conducted under peri-interventional thrombosis prophylaxis with LMWH (H-group;) and 521 without this (NH-group, in 143 of these, LMWH was given post-interventionally). RESULTS: Sixty-three bleeding events occurred. There were significantly more bleedings in the H-group than in the NH-group (all interventions, 11.66 and 6.26 %, p = 0.0127; liver ablations, 12.73 and 7.1 %, p = 0.0416). The rate of bleeding events Grade ≥ III in all procedures was greater by a factor of >2.6 in the H-group than in the NH-group (4.64 and 1.73 %, p = 0.0243). In liver tumour ablations, the corresponding factor was about 3.3 (5.23 and 1.54 %, p = 0.028). In uni- and multivariate analyses including covariates, the only factor constantly and significantly associated with the rate of haemorrhage events was peri-interventional LMWH prophylaxis. Only one symptomatic lung embolism occurred in the entire cohort (NH-group). The 30- and 90-day mortalities were significantly greater in the H-group than in the NH-group. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-interventional LMWH thrombosis prophylaxis should be considered with caution. The rate of clinically relevant thrombotic events was extremely low.

Phase I/II dose-escalation study of pemetrexed plus irinotecan in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed and irinotecan have demonstrated antitumor activity as single agents in lung, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal cancer (CRC). The distinct mechanisms of action and patterns of resistance displayed by pemetrexed and irinotecan make them attractive agents for combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase I/II, nonrandomized, open-labeled, single-arm study was composed of 3 segments. The initial phase II portion of the study enrolled 23 patients with advanced CRC who had received 1 previous dose of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy for advanced disease. Because of poorer than anticipated efficacy, a phase I dose-escalation study using vitamin supplementation (n = 12) was added to the original protocol. The phase II dose-escalation portion of the study enrolled 36 patients (64% with previous oxaliplatin-based therapy) who received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 followed by irinotecan 300 mg/m2 on day 1, every 21 days. RESULTS: For the 35 evaluable patients in the phase II dose-escalation study, the objective response rate was 11.4% (95% confidence interval, 3.2%-26.7%); there was 1 patient with a complete response, 3 with partial responses, and 17 with stable disease. Three of four responders had received previous oxaliplatin-based combination therapy. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included leukopenia (5.6%), anemia (2.8%), and thrombocytopenia (2.8%). Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included diarrhea (11.1%), increased aminotransferase levels (8.3%), nausea (8.3%), febrile neutropenia (5.6%), vomiting (5.6%), and reduced creatinine clearance (2.8%). CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed plus irinotecan appears to be at least as active as FOLFIRI (leucovorin/5-FU/irinotecan) for second-line therapy of CRC following 5-FU-based combination chemotherapy. Further studies are warranted.

Thymidylate synthase and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase mRNA expression levels: predictors for survival in colorectal cancer patients receiving adjuvant 5-fluorouracil.

PURPOSE: Despite adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) therapy, approximately 30% of patients with International Union against Cancer stage II and III colorectal cancer develop recurrence. In this study, we determined the prognostic value of thymidylate synthase (TS) and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) expression in colorectal cancer patients treated with adjuvant 5-FU. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A real-time reverse transcription-PCR technique for quantitation of relative gene expression from paraffin-embedded specimen was established first. In a second step, archival paraffin-embedded primary tumor tissue of 309 patients who participated in adjuvant colorectal cancer trials was analyzed for TS and DPD mRNA expression. RESULTS: TS mRNA expression determined by real-time reverse transcription-PCR correlated with TS protein levels determined by TS immunoblot and immunohistochemistry in cultured colon cancer cell lines and paraffin-embedded primary tumor tissue. TS mRNA levels in fresh-frozen tissues also correlated with TS mRNA levels in corresponding paraffin sections. Among the patients receiving adjuvant 5-FU therapy, those with high TS survived longer than those with low TS, and in each TS subgroup, the ones with low DPD survived longer than the ones with high DPD levels. Multiple Cox regression analysis showed that besides tumor stage (P = 0.010), only the combination of TS and DPD expression turned out to be an independent prognostic factor for survival (P = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that TS and DPD quantitation may be helpful to evaluate prognosis of patients receiving adjuvant 5-FU and that patients with high TS and low DPD may benefit from adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy.

Association of time to recurrence with thymidylate synthase and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase mRNA expression in stage II and III colorectal cancer.

Patients with International Union Against Cancer (UICC) stage IIb and III colon cancer and stage II and III rectal cancer may receive adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). High levels of thymidylate synthase (TS) and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) have been associated with resistance to 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of TS and DPD mRNA levels with recurrence-free survival in patients with colorectal cancer who are receiving adjuvant 5-FU-based chemotherapy. TS and DPD mRNA quantitation was retrospectively performed in primary colorectal cancer specimens from patients receiving adjuvant 5-FU using a reverse transcription- polymerase chain reaction technique. The median TS mRNA level in patients with a recurrence (n = 142) was 0.68, and in patients without a recurrence (n = 206) the median level was 0.80 (P < 0.01). Patients with a recurrence who had a low TS level (TS < or = 0.9; n = 102) had a median recurrence-free survival of 18 months (range 3.0 to 54 months), and those with a high TS level (TS > 0.9; n = 40) had a median recurrence-free survival of 11 months (range 1.7 to 53 months; P = 0.0024). There was no difference in the median recurrence-free survival of patients with low and high DPD mRNA levels. The TS mRNA level may be a useful marker to predict the time to recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer who are receiving adjuvant 5-FU treatment.

Matched-pair comparison of radioembolization plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone for chemotherapy refractory liver-dominant colorectal metastases.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate overall survival after radioembolization or best supportive care (BSC) in patients with chemotherapy-refractory liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: This was a matched-pair comparison of patients who received radioembolization plus BSC or BSC alone for extensive liver disease. Twenty-nine patients who received radioembolization were retrospectively matched with a contemporary cohort of >500 patients who received BSC from 3 centers in Germany. Using clinical databases, patients were initially matched for prior treatments and tumor burden and then 29 patients were consecutively identified with two or more of four matching criteria: synchronous/metachronous metastases, tumor burden, increased ALP, and/or CEA >200 U/ml. Survival was calculated from date of progression before radioembolization or BSC by using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Of 29 patients in each study arm, 16 pairs (55.2%) matched for all four criteria, and 11 pairs (37.9%) matched three criteria. Patients in both groups had a similar performance status (Karnofsky index, median 80% [range, 60-100%]). Compared with BSC alone, radioembolization prolonged survival (median, 8.3 vs. 3.5 months; P < 0.001) with a hazard ratio of 0.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.55; P < 0.001) in a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. Treatment-related adverse events following radioembolization included: grade 1-2 fatigue (n = 20, 69%), grade 1 abdominal pain/nausea (n = 14, 48.3%), and grade 2 gastrointestinal ulceration (n = 3, 10.3%). Three cases of grade 3 radiation-induced liver disease were symptomatically managed. CONCLUSIONS: Radioembolization offers a promising addition to BSC in treatment-refractory patients for whom there are limited options. Survival was prolonged and adverse events were generally mild-to-moderate in nature and manageable.

Rituximab added to first-line mitoxantrone, chlorambucil, and prednisolone chemotherapy followed by interferon maintenance prolongs survival in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma: an East German Study Group Hematology and Oncology Study.

PURPOSE: Rituximab has been shown to be active in follicular lymphoma (FL), both as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy. We conducted a randomized trial comparing mitoxantrone, chlorambucil, and prednisolone (MCP) chemotherapy plus rituximab with MCP alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with stage III or IV CD20+ indolent or mantle cell lymphoma were randomly assigned to either eight 28-day cycles of MCP plus rituximab (R-MCP; n = 181) or eight cycles of MCP alone (n = 177). All patients who achieved a complete or partial remission were treated with interferon maintenance until relapse. Herein, we report the results from the primary analysis population of patients with FL, who constituted the majority of patients (56%) recruited to the trial (n = 201; R-MCP, n = 105; MCP, n = 96). RESULTS: Rates of overall and complete response were significantly higher in the R-MCP arm than the MCP arm (overall response, 92% v 75%, respectively; P = .0009; complete response, 50% v 25%, respectively; P = .004). With a median follow-up time of 47 months, median event-free survival (EFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were significantly prolonged with R-MCP compared with MCP (EFS, not reached v 26 months, respectively; P < .0001; PFS, not reached v 28.8 months, respectively; P < .0001), and overall survival (OS) was significantly improved with R-MCP compared with MCP (4-year OS rate, 87% v 74%, respectively; P = .0096). CONCLUSION: The R-MCP regimen significantly improves complete and overall response rates, EFS, PFS, and OS in patients with previously untreated advanced FL, without a clinically significant increase in toxicity.

A multicentre phase II study on gefitinib in taxane- and anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is considered to be a viable drug target in a variety of solid tumors. The clinical benefit and safety of the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib ('Iressa')1 was evaluated in this Phase II, multicentre study of patients with taxane and anthracycline pretreated, metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Gefitinib (500 mg/day) was given to 58 patients until disease progression. Primary endpoint was the clinical response rate to the study treatment. RESULTS: One patient (1.7%) had objective partial tumor response of her liver and pleural metastasis. Fifty-seven patients (98.3%) were non-responders with 52 patients (89.7%) having progressive disease and five patients (8.6%) were not evaluable. Two patients reported a significant improvement in pain at metastatic sites (1 liver, 1 bone). The median time to progression was 61 days (95% CI : 54-82 days) and the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 6 months at trial closure was 1.8% (95% CI : 0.0-5.2%). The median survival time was 357 days (95% CI : 257-441 days). Fifty-four patients (93.1%) discontinued study medication prematurely due to disease progression and three (5.2%) due to adverse events (diarrhea, pruritus, peripheral edema). CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib monotherapy at 500 mg daily did not appear to be efficacious in the treatment of heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients. It was well tolerated and the side effect profile was as expected from current knowledge of the drug. There was no correlation between EGFR expression and response in this study.