Final analysis of the randomized trial on imatinib as an adjuvant in localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) from the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG), the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG), UNICANCER, French Sarcoma Group (FSG), Italian Sarcoma Group (ISG), and Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS)☆.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus no further therapy after R0-R1 surgery in localized, high/intermediate-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) patients. Interim analysis results were published in 2015 upon recommendation from an independent data review committee. We report the final outcome of the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial carried out at 112 hospitals in 12 countries. Patients were randomized to 2 years of imatinib, 400 mg daily, or no further therapy after surgery. The primary endpoint was imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS), while relapse-free survival (RFS), relapse-free interval (RFI), overall survival (OS) and toxicity were secondary endpoints. Adjusting for the interim analyses, results on IFFS were assessed on a 4.3% significance level; for the other endpoints, 5% was used. RESULTS: Nine hundred and eight patients were randomized between January 2005 and October 2008: 454 to imatinib and 454 to observation; 835 patients were eligible. With a median follow-up of 9.1 years, 5 (10)-year IFFS was 87% (75%) in the imatinib arm versus 83% (74%) in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95.7% confidence interval (CI) (0.65; 1.15), P = 0.31]; RFS was 70% versus 63% at 5 years and 63% versus 61% at 10 years, [HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.57; 0.89), P = 0.002]; OS was 93% versus 92% at 5 years and 80% versus 78% at 10 years [HR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.65; 1.21), P = 0.43]. Among 526 patients with high-risk GIST by local pathology, 10-year IFFS and RFS were 69% versus 61%, and 48% versus 43%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With 9.1 years of follow-up, a trend toward better long-term IFFS in imatinib-treated patients was observed in the high-risk subgroup. Although the difference was not statistically significant and the surrogacy value of such an endpoint is not validated, this may be seen as supporting the results reported by the Scandinavian/German trial, showing a sustained small but significant long-term OS benefit in high-risk GIST patients treated with 3 years of adjuvant imatinib.

Preoperative cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel with or without radiotherapy after poor early response to cisplatin and fluorouracil for resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma (AGITG DOCTOR): results from a multicentre, randomised controlled phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with oesophageal/gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (EAC) not showing early metabolic response (EMR) to chemotherapy have poorer survival and histological response rates <5%. We investigated whether tailoring neoadjuvant therapy can improve outcomes in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable EAC were enrolled and randomised into two single-arm, multicentre phase II trials. After induction cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CF), all were assessed by day 15 positron emission tomography (PET). Patients with an EMR [maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax) ≥35% reduction from baseline to day 15 PET] received a second CF cycle then oesophagectomy. Non-responders were randomised 1 : 1 to two cycles of CF and docetaxel (DCF, n = 31) or DCF + 45 Gy radiotherapy (DCFRT, n = 35) then oesophagectomy. The primary end point was major histological response (<10% residual tumour) in the oesophagectomy specimen; secondary end points were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and locoregional recurrence (LR). RESULTS: Of 124 patients recruited, major histological response was achieved in 3/45 (7%) with EMR, 6/30 (20%) DCF, and 22/35 (63%) DCFRT patients. Grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 12/45 (27%) EMR (CF), 13/31 (42%) DCF, and 25/35 (71%) DCFRT patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. LR by 3 years was seen in 5/45 (11%) EMR, 10/31 (32%) DCF, and 4/35 (11%) DCFRT patients. PFS [95% confidence interval (CI)] at 36 months was 47% (31% to 61%) for EMR, 29% (15% to 45%) for DCF, and 46% (29% to 61%) for DCFRT patients. OS (95% CI) at 60 months was 53% (37% to 67%) for EMR, 31% (16% to 48%) for DCF, and 46% (29% to 61%) for DCFRT patients. CONCLUSIONS: EMR is associated with favourable OS, PFS, and low LR. For non-responders, the addition of docetaxel augmented histological response rates, but OS, PFS, and LR remained inferior compared with responders. DCFRT improved histological response and PFS/LR outcomes, matching the EMR group. Early PET/CT has the potential to tailor therapy for patients not showing an early response to chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12609000665235.

TACTIC: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm phase II trial of panitumumab, cisplatin, and gemcitabine in biliary tract cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase II TACTIC trial prospectively selected patients with KRAS wild-type advanced biliary tract cancer for first-line treatment with panitumumab and combination chemotherapy. METHODS: Of 78 patients screened, 85 % had KRAS wild-type tumours and 48 were enrolled. Participants received cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or request to discontinue. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks (complete response, partial response, or stable disease). CBR of 70 % was considered to be of clinical interest. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, overall survival, CA19.9 response and safety. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients had a clinical benefit at 12 weeks, an actuarial rate of 80 % (95 % CI 65-89 %). 46 % had a complete or partial response. Median progression-free survival was 8.0 months (95 % CI 5.1-9.9) and median overall survival 11.9 months (95 % CI 7.4-15.8). Infection accounted for 27 % of the grade 3 or 4 toxicity, with rash (13 %), fatigue (13 %), and hypomagnesemia (10 %) among the more common grade 3 or 4 non-haematological toxicities. CONCLUSION: A marker-driven approach to patient selection was feasible in advanced biliary tract cancer in an Australian population. The combination of panitumumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in KRAS wild-type cancers was generally well tolerated and showed promising clinical efficacy. Further exploration of anti-EGFR therapy in a more selected population is warranted.

Oxaliplatin and 5-FU/folinic acid (modified FOLFOX6) with or without aflibercept in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the AFFIRM study.

BACKGROUND: The combination of aflibercept with FOLFIRI has been shown to significantly prolong overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on oxaliplatin-based therapy. This trial evaluated the addition of aflibercept to oxaliplatin-based first-line treatment of patients with mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRC were randomized to receive first-line therapy with mFOLFOX6 plus aflibercept (4 mg/kg) or mFOLFOX6 alone. The primary end point of this phase II study was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 months in each arm. The analysis of efficacy between the arms was a pre-planned secondary analysis. RESULTS: Of 236 randomized patients, 227 and 235 patients were evaluable for the primary efficacy analysis and safety, respectively. The probabilities of being progression-free at 12 months were 25.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.2-34.4] for the aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 arm and 21.2% (95% CI 12.2-30.3) for the mFOLFOX6 arm. The median PFS was 8.48 months (95% CI 7.89-9.92) for the aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 arm and 8.77 months (95% CI 7.62-9.27) for the mFOLFOX6 arm; the hazard ratio of aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 versus mFOLFOX6 was 1.00 (95% CI 0.74-1.36). The response rates were 49.1% (95% CI 39.7-58.6) and 45.9% (95% CI 36.4-55.7) for patients treated with and without aflibercept, respectively. The most frequent treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) excluding laboratory abnormalities reported for aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 versus mFOLFOX6 were neuropathy (16.8% versus 17.2%) and diarrhea (13.4% versus 5.2%). Neutropenia grade 3/4 occurred in 36.1% versus 29.3%. The most common vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition class-effect grade 3/4 AEs for aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 versus mFOLFOX6 were hypertension (35.3% versus 1.7%), proteinuria (9.2% versus 0%), deep vein thrombosis (5.9% versus 0.9%) and pulmonary embolism (5.9% versus 5.2%). CONCLUSION: No difference in PFS rate was observed between treatment groups. Adding aflibercept to first-line mFOLFOX6 did not increase efficacy but was associated with higher toxicity. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00851084, www.clinicaltrials.gov, EudraCT 2008-004178-41.

Location of colon cancer (right-sided versus left-sided) as a prognostic factor and a predictor of benefit from cetuximab in NCIC CO.17.

BACKGROUND: Right- and left-sided colon cancers (RC, LC) differ with respect to biology, pathology and epidemiology. Previous data suggest a mortality difference between RC and LC. We examined if primary tumour side also predicts for outcome in chemotherapy refractory, metastatic colon cancer (MCC). We also compared RC versus LC as a predictor of efficacy of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition with cetuximab. METHODS: Reanalyzing NCIC CO.17 trial (cetuximab versus best supportive care [BSC]), we coded the primary tumour side as RC (caecum to transverse colon) or LC (splenic flexure to rectosigmoid). The association between tumour side and baseline characteristics was assessed. Cox regression models determined factors affecting overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Patients with RC (150/399) had more poorly differentiated, mutant KRAS, mutated PIK3CA and wild-type BRAF tumours, fewer liver and lung metastases, and shorter interval between diagnosis and study entry. Among BSC patients, tumour side was not prognostic for PFS (hazard ratios (HR) 1.07 [0.79-1.44], p = 0.67) or OS (HR 0.96 [0.70-1.31], p = 0.78). Among wild-type KRAS patients, those with LC had significantly improved PFS when treated with cetuximab compared to BSC (median 5.4 versus 1.8 months, HR 0.28 [0.18-0.45], p < 0.0001), whereas those with RC did not (median 1.9 versus 1.9 months, HR 0.73 [0.42-1.27], p = 0.26), [interaction p = 0.002]. CONCLUSION: In refractory MCC, tumour location within the colon is not prognostic, but is strongly predictive of PFS benefit from cetuximab therapy. Additional research is needed to understand the molecular differences between RC and LC and their interaction with EGFR inhibition.

Epiregulin gene expression as a biomarker of benefit from cetuximab in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anti-EGFR antibody, cetuximab, improves overall survival (OS) in K-ras wild-type chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer. Epidermal growth factor receptor ligand epiregulin (EREG) gene expression may further predict cetuximab benefit. METHODS: Tumour samples from a phase III clinical trial of cetuximab plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC alone (CO.17) were analysed for EREG mRNA gene expression. Predictive effects of high vs low EREG on OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were examined for treatment-biomarker interaction. RESULTS: Both EREG and K-ras status were ascertained in 385 (193 cetuximab, 192 BSC) tumour samples. Within the high EREG and K-ras wild-type status ('co-biomarker')-positive group (n=139, 36%), median PFS was 5.4 vs 1.9 months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.31; P<0.0001), and median OS was 9.8 vs 5.1 months (HR 0.43; P<0.001) for cetuximab vs BSC, respectively. In the rest (n=246, 64%), PFS (HR 0.82; P=0.12) and OS (HR 0.90; P=0.45) were not significantly different. Test for treatment interaction showed a larger cetuximab effect on OS (HR 0.52; P=0.007) and PFS (HR 0.49; P=0.001) in the co-biomarker-positive group. CONCLUSION: In pre-treated K-ras wild-type status colorectal cancer, patients with high EREG gene expression appear to benefit more from cetuximab therapy compared with low expression. Epiregulin as a selective biomarker requires further evaluation.

Association of hypomagnesemia with inferior survival in a phase III, randomized study of cetuximab plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone: NCIC CTG/AGITG CO.17.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab-induced hypomagnesemia has been associated with improved clinical outcomes in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). We explored this relationship from a randomized clinical trial of cetuximab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with pretreated advanced CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Day 28 hypomagnesemia grade (0 versus ≥1) and percent reduction (<20% versus ≥20%) of Mg from baseline was correlated with outcome. RESULTS: The median percentage Mg reduction at day 28 was 10% (-42.4% to 63.0%) for cetuximab (N = 260) versus 0% (-21.1% to 25%) for BSC (N = 251) [P < 0.0001]. Grade ≥1 hypomagnesemia and ≥20% reduction from baseline at day 28 were associated with worse overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio, HR 1.61 (95% CI 1.12-2.33), P = 0.01 and 2.08 (95% CI 1.32-3.29), P = 0.002, respectively] in multivariate analysis including grade of rash (0-1 versus 2+). Dyspnea (grade ≥3) was more common in patients with ≥20% versus < 20% Mg reduction (68% versus 45%; P = 0.02) and grade 3/4 anorexia were higher in patients with grade ≥1 hypomagnesemia (81% versus 63%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to prior reports, cetuximab-induced hypomagnesemia was associated with poor OS, even after adjustment for grade of rash.

The role of biological agents in the resection of colorectal liver metastases.

Surgically resecting liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CLMs) offers the only potentially curative option. Chemotherapy-induced downsizing of CLMs increases the proportion of patients with resectable metastases. Several recent studies have reported that adding a biological agent such as cetuximab, panitumumab or bevacizumab to chemotherapy could further increase response and resectability rates. This overview discusses the reported resection rates for biological agents combined with chemotherapy and the difficulties of cross-trial comparisons, the pre-, peri- and postoperative roles of biological agents, particularly with regards to comparisons of surgical complications, and ongoing clinical trials in which the resectability of CLMs is a predefined end point. Currently, targeted therapies combined with chemotherapy probably increase the resection rate of CLMs, although this has been shown in only one phase III randomised study and it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of the different available biological agents in terms of converting unresectable CLMs to resectable lesions. Available data for each of them are discussed. More data from phase III trials are expected to confirm the utility of the different biological agents in converting patients with unresectable CLMs to a resectable status.

Phase I trial of docetaxel, cisplatin and concurrent radical radiotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced oesophageal cancer (LAEC) is associated with poor survival and more effective treatments are needed. The aim of this phase I trial was to assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a novel weekly docetaxel and cisplatin regimen concurrent with radical radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients with unresectable, non-metastatic LAEC were eligible. Treatment comprised docetaxel 15-30 mg m(-2) per week and cisplatin 15-30 mg m(-2) per week in six planned dose levels (DLs) in 3-6 patient cohorts with 50 Gy radiotherapy in 25 fractions. Maximum tolerated dose was based on defined dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during therapy and 2 weeks post therapy. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients were enrolled. There were two DLTs: grade 3 fever in DL1 (docetaxel 15 mg m(-2), cisplatin 15 mg m(-2)) and grade 3 nausea in DL2 (20 mg m(-2), 15 mg m(-2)). These DLs were each expanded to six patients without further DLTs. The most common acute toxicity was grade 3 radiation oesophagitis (37.5%). There were no grade 4 toxicities, and haematologic toxicity was minimal. Cisplatin and docetaxel dose intensity was 100% at the highest dose level (DL6). A MTD was not reached in this trial. Tumour overall response rate was 50% (33% complete, 17% partial). CONCLUSION: Cisplatin and docetaxel each 30 mg m(-2) per week concurrent with 50 Gy radiotherapy is recommended for use in phase II clinical trials in oesophageal cancer.

A phase I trial of Capecitabine+Gemcitabine with radical radiation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Standard chemoradiotherapy with infusional 5FU for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) has limited efficacy in this disease. The combination of Capecitabine (Cap) and Gemcitabine (Gem) are synergistic and are potent radiosensitisers. The aim of this phase I trial was thus to determine the highest administered dose of the Cap plus Gem combination with radical radiotherapy (RT) for LAPC. Patients had LAPC, adequate organ function, ECOG PS 0-1. During RT, Gem was escalated from 20-50 mg m(-2) day(-1) (twice per week), and Cap 800-2000 mg m(-2) day(-1) (b.i.d, days 1-5 of each week). Radiotherapy 50.4 Gy/28 fractions/5.5 weeks, using 3D-conformal techniques. Three patients were entered to each dose level (DL). Dose-limiting toxicity(s) (DLTs) were based on treatment-related toxicities. Twenty patients were accrued. Dose level (DL) 1: Cap/Gem; 800/20 mg m(-2) day(-1) (3 patients), DL2: 1000/20 (12 patients), DL3: 1300/30 (5 patients). Dose-limiting toxicities were observed in DL3; grade 3 dehydration (1 patient) and grade 3 diarrhoea and dehydration (1 patient). Dose level 2 was the recommend phase 2 dose. Disease control rate was 75%: PR=15%, SD=60%. Median overall survival was 11.2 months. The addition of Cap and Gem to radical RT was feasible and active and achieved at relatively low doses.

Pancreatic cancer--is the wall crumbling?

In spite of advances made in the management of the other more common cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, significant progress in the treatment of pancreatic cancer remains elusive, more so with the recent negative results of several much anticipated randomized trials. Gemcitabine has been a standard treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer since it was shown a decade ago to result in a superior clinical benefit response and survival compared with bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Since then, clinical trials have explored the pharmacokinetic modulation of gemcitabine by fixed dose administration and the combination of gemcitabine with other cytotoxics or the biological 'targeted' agents. Against a background of numerous negative randomized trials of gemcitabine-based combination treatment, two trials have recently reported modest survival improvements with the use of combination treatment: the United Kingdom National Cancer Research GEMCAP trial of gemcitabine with the orally administered precursor of 5-FU-capecitabine and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group PA.3 trial in which the tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib was used with gemcitabine. This review will summarize the results of several recent randomized trials of combination treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer and discuss their implications for clinical practice and for future research in this disease.

A phase I/II trial of celecoxib with chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The study's aim was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of celecoxib combined with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced oesophageal cancer (OC). METHODS: CRT comprised of 5FU (1000 mg/m(2)/day, days 1-4, weeks 1 & 5), cisplatin (75 mg/m(2), days 1 & 29) and radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions or 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions). Celecoxib was given daily during CRT at one of five doses (200 mg bd to 600 mg bd). Three to six patients were assigned per dose. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were recruited before trial closure due to external safety concerns regarding celecoxib. Median follow up was 17 months (95% CI 9 - >39). The highest administered dose was 400 mg bd (n=4) with one dose-limiting toxicity at this level: grade 3 rash. Five (38%) and 8(62%) patients had grade 3 non-haematological and haematological toxicities respectively. No grade 4 toxicities occurred. Radiological response rate was 54% (n=7: all CR). Six patients had resection with one pathological CR. Median progression-free and overall survival were 8.8 (95% CI 5.1 - >24.8) and 19.6 months (95% CI 7.3 - >39) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A MTD was not reached. The regimen was tolerable, indicating that celecoxib can be safely administered with CRT for locally advanced OC.

Systemic or regional chemotherapy for liver metastases from colorectal cancer: has the wheel stopped spinning?

The optimal management of patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer is confounded by the large number of options available. In addition to ablative therapy (surgery, cryosurgery, radiofrequency ablation, etc.), chemotherapy plays a key role in the management of these patients. With more effective systemic therapy, some commentators have questioned the role of intra-arterial chemotherapy. However, a careful review of the literature,as well as ongoing research efforts, suggest that this approach remains an important option for patients and physicians to consider in appropriately selected patients for both first- and second-line therapy in advanced disease as well as for adjuvant therapy following resection of liver metastases.

A phase I trial of preoperative radiotherapy and capecitabine for locally advanced, potentially resectable rectal cancer.

The purpose of the study was to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of oral capecitabine, combined with concurrent, standard preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, when given twice daily, from Monday to Friday throughout the course of radiotherapy, for locally advanced potentially resectable rectal cancer. Maximum-tolerated dose was defined as the total (given in two equally divided doses) oral dose of capecitabine that caused treatment-related grade 3 or 4 toxicity in one-third or more of the patients treated. Radiotherapy involved 50.4 Gy given in 28 fractions in 5 weeks and 3 days. Eligible patients had a newly diagnosed clinical stage T3-4 N0-2 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma located within 12 cm of the anal verge suitable for curative resection. Surgery was performed 4-6 weeks from completion of preoperative chemoradiotherapy. In all, 28 patients were enrolled in the study at predefined dose levels: 850 mg m(-2) day(-1) (n=3), 1000 mg m(-2) day(-1) (n=6), 1250 mg m(-2) day(-1) (n=3), 1650 mg m(-2) day(-1) (n=3), 1800 mg m(-2) day(-1) (n=8) and 2000 mg m(-2) day(-1) (n=5). The mean age was 62.3 years (range: 33-80 years). Five patients were female and 23 male. The median distance of tumour from the anal verge was 6 cm (range: 1-11 cm). Endorectal ultrasound was performed in 93% of patients. A total of 26 patients (93%) had T3 disease and two patients had resectable T4 disease. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) developed in one patient at dose level 1000 mg m(-2) day(-1) (RTOG grade 3 cystitis). Two of the five patients at dose level 2000 mg m(-2) day(-1) had a total of three DLT (grade 3 perineal skin reaction, grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 dehydration). Dose escalation of capecitabine was ceased at 2000 mg m(-2) day(-1) after reaching MTD. None of the eight patients at dose level 1800 mg m(-2) day(-1) developed DLT. All except one patient underwent surgery. A total of 15 patients had the clinical T stage reduced by at least one stage in pathologic specimens. Five patients (19%) achieved a pathologic complete response. We conclude that the MTD of capecitabine was reached at a dose level of 2000 mg m(-2) day(-1), given as 1000 mg m(-2) twice daily, from Monday to Friday throughout the course of preoperative pelvic irradiation of 50.4 Gy. For patients with resectable rectal cancer receiving concurrent, full dose radiotherapy, the recommended dose of capecitabine for further study is 1800 mg m(-2) day(-1) when given in this schedule.

Induction of insulin-like growth factor binding protein expression by ICI 182,780 in a tamoxifen-resistant human breast cancer cell line.

Earlier studies in our laboratory demonstrated that the steroidal antiestrogen ICI 182,780 is very effective in abolishing the tamoxifen-resistant proliferation of MCF 7/5-23 cells. In addition, preliminary binding studies showed that ICI 182,780 increased the binding of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I to the MCF 7/5-23 cells, although this finding was not the result of an increase in the expression of the insulin-like growth factor-I receptor (IGF-IR). Hence, we reasoned that the inhibition of tamoxifen-resistant cell growth by ICI 182,780 might have been due to increased expression of insulin-like growth factor binding proteins (IGFBPs). We observed the up-regulation of non-insulin-suppressible IGF-I binding in both the tamoxifen-sensitive MCF 7/5-21 cell line (1.5-fold) and the tamoxifen-resistant MCF 7/5-23 cell line (2.5-fold) after 5 days of treatment with ICI 182,780 (10(-7) M) in serum-free medium, suggesting a role for cell-associated IGFBPs. Affinity cross-linking experiments confirmed the presence of an IGF-I:IGFBP complex of approximately 38-kDa in tamoxifen or ICI 182,780-treated cells. Western ligand blots showed higher levels of a soluble 30-kDa IGFBP in media conditioned by either of the subclones that had been treated with ICI 182,780, an effect consistently opposed by estrogen (E2: 10(-9) M). RT-PCR showed higher levels of IGFBP-5 mRNA than any of the other known IGFBPs, suggesting that this was the major IGFBP subtype. The protein was subsequently identified by Western immunoblotting as IGFBP-5. In conclusion, we postulate that this may be a mechanism contributing to the greater potency of ICI 182,780 in the growth inhibition of the MCF 7/5-23, tamoxifen-resistant cell line.

Overview of docetaxel (Taxotere)/cisplatin combination in non-small cell lung cancer.

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is effective in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although it prolongs survival only modestly. Single-agent docetaxel (Taxotere; Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, Antony, France) is highly active against NSCLC. The activity and tolerability of two docetaxel/ cisplatin regimens were therefore investigated in two multicenter phase II studies, one in Australia and one in France. Chemotherapy-naive patients with inoperable NSCLC received either docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 3 weekly (n = 47; Australian study) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for three cycles then every 6 weeks (n = 51; French study). The majority of the population (74%) had metastatic disease. Seventy-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy. Overall response rates were 36% (95% confidence interval, 25 to 47) in all evaluable patients and 34% in patients with metastases. Median duration of response was 6 months, with a 4-month median time to progression. Median survival time was 9 months, with a 1-year survival rate of 34%. A median of four (range, one to nine) treatment cycles were administered. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 14% of patients. Severe infection, which occurred in less than 7% of patients, led to two toxic deaths. Other severe toxicities were rare, with severe stomatitis and severe neurosensory side effects reported in 2% and 1%, respectively, of treated patients. No severe fluid retention occurred. Docetaxel/cisplatin, administered as two different schedules, is well tolerated and exhibits efficacy in the range of the most established combinations in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.