Activity of osimeRTInib in non-small-cell lung Cancer with UNcommon epidermal growth factor receptor mutations: retrospective Observational multicenter study (ARTICUNO).

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib represents the standard of care for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring classical epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, constituting 80%-90% of all EGFR alterations. In the remaining cases, an assorted group of uncommon alterations of EGFR (uEGFR) can be detected, which confer variable sensitivity to previous generations of EGFR inhibitors, overall with lower therapeutic activity. Data on osimertinib in this setting are limited and strongly warranted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The ARTICUNO study retrospectively evaluated data on osimertinib activity from patients with advanced NSCLC harboring uEGFR treated in 21 clinical centers between August 2017 and March 2023. Data analysis was carried out with a descriptive aim. Investigators collected response data according to RECIST version 1.1 criteria. The median duration of response, progression-free survival (mPFS), and overall survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients harboring uEGFR and treated with osimertinib were identified. Patients with 'major' uEGFR, that is, G719X, L861X, and S768I mutations (n = 51), had an overall response rate (ORR) and mPFS of 50% and 9 months, respectively. Variable outcomes were registered in cases with rarer 'minor' mutations (n = 27), with ORR and mPFS of 31% and 4 months, respectively. Among seven patients with exon 20 insertions, ORR was 14%, while the best outcome was registered among patients with compound mutations including at least one classical EGFR mutation (n = 13). Thirty patients presented brain metastases (BMs) and intracranial ORR and mPFS were 58% and 9 months, respectively. Amplification of EGFR or MET, TP53 mutations, and EGFR E709K emerged after osimertinib failure in a dataset of 18 patients with available rebiopsy. CONCLUSION: The ARTICUNO study confirms the activity of osimertinib in patients with uEGFR, especially in those with compound uncommon-common mutations, or major uEGFR, even in the presence of BMs. Alterations at the E709 residue of EGFR are associated with resistance to osimertinib.

Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: a multicenter study on 81 cases.

BACKGROUND: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare disease characterized by a difficult diagnosis, different types of presentation, variable course and poor prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-one patients with MPM observed in 14 Italian oncology institutions from 1982 to 2007 have been examined with the aim of delineating the history of MPM. RESULTS: Presentation symptoms were ascites, abdominal pain, asthenia, weight loss, anorexia, abdominal mass, fever, diarrhea and vomiting in various associations. Computed tomography scan and echotomography signs were ascites, abdominal mass and peritoneal thickening. Peritoneal fluid cytology (61 cases) was positive for mesothelioma in 31 and for malignancy, not mesothelioma, in 13. Laparoscopy was carried out in 40 cases and laparotomy in 36. Thrombocytosis was present in 59 cases. Associated tumors diagnosed during the lifetime were colorectal cancer in two cases and cheek carcinoma, thyroid carcinoma, tongue carcinoma, bladder carcinoma and testicular seminoma. Thirty patients were treated with surgery and 45 with chemotherapy. The median survival time from diagnosis is 13 months. Ascites, fever and vomiting were significative variables at presentation; only vomiting holds significance in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: MPM is a disease with various types of presentation, frequently associated with thrombocytosis, sometimes with other tumors. Survival and diagnosis time can differ in various types of MPM. Prognosis is poor.

Phase II study of cetuximab in combination with cisplatin and docetaxel in patients with untreated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (DOCETUX study).

BACKGROUND: The conventional treatment options for advanced gastric patients remain unsatisfactory in terms of response rate, response duration, toxicity, and overall survival benefit. The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate the activity and safety of cetuximab combined with cisplatin and docetaxel as a first-line treatment for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Untreated patients with histologically confirmed advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma received cetuximab at an initial dose of 400 mg m(-2) i.v. followed by weekly doses of 250 mg m(-2), cisplatin 75 mg m(-2) i.v. on day 1, docetaxel 75 mg m(-2) i.v. on day 1, every 3 weeks, for a maximum of 6 cycles, and then cetuximab maintenance treatment was allowed in patients with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (stomach 81.9% and gastro-oesophageal junction 18.1%; locally advanced disease 4.2%; and metastatic disease 95.8%) were enrolled. The ORR was 41.2% (95% CI, 29.5-52.9). Median time to progression was 5 months (95% CI, 3.7-5.4). Median survival time was 9 months (95% CI, 7-11). The most frequent grades 3-4 toxicity was neutropenia (44.4%). No toxic death was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cetuximab to the cisplatin/docetaxel regimen improved the ORR of the cisplatin/docetaxel doublet in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, but this combination did not improve the TTP and OS. The toxicity of cisplatin/docetaxel chemotherapy was not affected by the addition of cetuximab.

Phase II study of cetuximab in combination with FOLFIRI in patients with untreated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FOLCETUX study).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with FOLFIRI as a first-line treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with confirmed advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma received cetuximab at an initial dose of 400 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m(2), CPT 11 180 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1, LFA 100 mg/m(2) i.v. followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m(2) i.v. bolus, and 600 mg/m(2) i.v. 22-h continuous infusion on days 1 and 2 (FOLFIRI) every 2 weeks, for a maximum of 24 weeks, then cetuximab alone was allowed in patients with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease. Antitumor activity was assessed by computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) at baseline and after 6 weeks, and further by CT alone or CT and PET every 6 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled (median age 63.5 years, range 39-83; median Karnofsky performance status 90, range 70-100; stomach 89.5% and GEJ 10.5%; locally advanced disease 13.2% and metastatic disease 86.8%). All 38 patients were assessed for safety and survival, and 34 patients were assessed for overall response rates (ORR). The ORR was 44.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 27.5% to 60.9%]. The median time-to-progression was 8 months (95% CI 7-9). At the median follow-up time of 11 months, 55.3% of patients were alive, with a median expected survival time of 16 months (95% CI 9-23). Grade 3-4 toxicity included neutropenia (42.1%), acne-like rash (21.1%), diarrhea (7.9%), asthenia (5.3%), stomatitis (5.3%), and hypertransaminasemia (5.3%). There was one (2.6%) treatment-related death. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of cetuximab and FOLFIRI is active in gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma. The higher toxicity appears to be limited to neutropenia.

Second-line chemotherapy with bleomycin, methotrexate, and vinorelbine (BMV) for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head, neck and esophagus (SCC-HN&E) pretreated with a cisplatin-containing regimen: a phase II study.

We evaluated the toxicity and activity of bleomycin, methotrexate and vinorelbine (BMV) combination chemotherapy in cisplatin-pretreated patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head, neck and esophagus (SCC-HN&E) with the aim of identifying a second-line therapy combination and schedule that might offer an improved therapeutic index. BMV (bleomycin 15 I.U., total dose, methotrexate 30 mg/m2, and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2) was administered intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression, to 26 consecutive patients. Clinical and CT-scan evaluations revealed 7 partial responses (PR) 127%, 95% confidence interval: 9.6%-44.4%], and 13 patients with stable disease (SD) [50%]. The mean progression-free survival for patients who achieved a PR or SD was 6.47 months (range 4-13 months), with 75% of these patients experiencing partial relief of symptoms, mainly pain and dysphagia. BMV, administered second-line in an outpatient setting, has activity similar to that of the taxanes, but with a more acceptable toxicity profile including an absence of alopecia.

Controversies in the management of brain metastases: the role of chemotherapy.

The role of chemotherapy (CT) for brain metastases (BrM) is still controversial. Limited life expectancy and presence of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) have been considered as contraindications for relatively aggressive therapies, such as CT. Nevertheless, more recent studies emphasise the possibility that in addition to historical nitrosoureas, also platinum derivatives, etoposide, teniposide, gemcitabine, irinotecan, topotecan and temozolomide can pass the BBB as they are active against selected BrM. Interaction of cytotoxic agents with other drugs may represent a problem in the treatment of BrM. By far, the most important factor conditioning the response to cytotoxic agents is the chemosensitivity of different tumours. CT proved to be effective in patients with BrM from lung cancer, mainly small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, choriocarcinoma and germ cell tumours. In these malignancies the responses to CT are similar to those observed in other metastatic sites. This observation, confirmed by many studies, contrasts with the theory, emphasised in the past, of the brain as a sanctuary. In fact BBB may be important in protecting normal brain tissue and micrometastases from CT, but not when BrM are symptomatic and clinically evident. The clue to the treatment of chemosensitive tumours is to assess the most active drugs and combinations. Cisplatin and etoposide was confirmed to be the treatment of choice in many situations (BrM from lung and also from breast cancer). Newer drugs are now on study: topotecan and temozolomide seem to be particularly promising (alone or in association with other drugs) in the treatment of various BrM (also from melanoma) and could represent an alternative to more widely-used drugs or as second-line treatments.