Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
Br J Cancer ; 124(3): 581-586, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33100327

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Phase 2 SCALOP trial compared gemcitabine with capecitabine-based consolidation chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). METHODS: Thirty-five systematically identified circulating biomarkers were analysed in plasma samples from 60 patients enroled in SCALOP. Each was measured in triplicate at baseline (prior to three cycles of gemcitabine-capecitabine induction chemotherapy) and, for a subset, prior to CRT. Association with overall survival (OS) was determined using univariable Cox regression and optimal thresholds delineating low to high values identified using time-dependent ROC curves. Independence from known prognostic factors was assessed using Spearman correlation and the Wilcoxon rank sum test prior to multivariable Cox regression modelling including independent biomarkers and known prognostic factors. RESULTS: Baseline circulating levels of C-C motif chemokine ligand 5 (CCL5) were significantly associated with OS, independent of other clinicopathological characteristics. Patients with low circulating CCL5 (CCL5low) had a median OS of 18.5 (95% CI 11.76-21.32) months compared to 11.3 (95% CI 9.86-15.51) months in CCL5high; hazard ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.04-8.65; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: CCL5 is an independent prognostic biomarker in LAPC. Given the known role of CCL5 in tumour invasion, metastasis and the induction of an immunosuppressive micro-environment, targeting of CCL5-mediated pathways may offer therapeutic potential in pancreatic cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SCALOP trial was registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987 (registered 29 May 2008).


Assuntos
Biomarcadores Tumorais/sangue , Capecitabina/uso terapêutico , Quimiocina CCL5/sangue , Quimiorradioterapia/métodos , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/sangue , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/terapia , Idoso , Citocinas/sangue , Desoxicitidina/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Humanos , Quimioterapia de Indução , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidade , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patologia , Curva ROC , Análise de Regressão , Resultado do Tratamento , Gencitabina
2.
Lancet Oncol ; 21(3): 345-357, 2020 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32035020

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Capivasertib (AZD5363) is a potent selective oral inhibitor of all three isoforms of the serine/threonine kinase AKT. The FAKTION trial investigated whether the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in patients with aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, postmenopausal women aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor were recruited from 19 hospitals in the UK. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off (starting on cycle 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment allocation was done using an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0·20. Analyses were done by intention to treat. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 140 (76%) were eligible and were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 4·9 months (IQR 1·6-11·6). At the time of primary analysis for progression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progression-free survival events had occurred, 49 (71%) in 69 patients in the capivasertib group compared with 63 (89%) of 71 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0-13·2) in the capivasertib group versus 4·8 months (3·1-7·7) in the placebo group, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (95% CI 0·39-0·84) in favour of the capivasertib group (two-sided p=0·0044; one-sided log rank test p=0·0018). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (22 [32%] of 69 patients in the capivasertib group vs 17 [24%] of 71 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (ten [14%] vs three [4%]), rash (14 [20%] vs 0), infection (four [6%] vs two [3%]), and fatigue (one [1%] vs three [4%]). Serious adverse reactions occurred only in the capivasertib group, and were acute kidney injury (two), diarrhoea (three), rash (two), hyperglycaemia (one), loss of consciousness (one), sepsis (one), and vomiting (one). One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. One further death in the capivasertib group had an unknown cause; all remaining deaths in both groups (19 in the capivasertib group and 31 in the placebo group) were disease related. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in participants who received capivasertib than in those who received placebo. The combination of capivasertib and fulvestrant warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Lobular/tratamento farmacológico , Resistencia a Medicamentos Antineoplásicos/efeitos dos fármacos , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/tratamento farmacológico , Receptores de Estrogênio/metabolismo , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Inibidores da Aromatase/farmacologia , Neoplasias da Mama/metabolismo , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/metabolismo , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/patologia , Carcinoma Lobular/metabolismo , Carcinoma Lobular/patologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Seguimentos , Fulvestranto/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Invasividade Neoplásica , Metástase Neoplásica , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/metabolismo , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , Prognóstico , Pirimidinas/administração & dosagem , Pirróis/administração & dosagem , Terapia de Salvação , Taxa de Sobrevida
3.
Eur Thyroid J ; 10(1): 72-78, 2021 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33777822

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a neuroendocrine tumour and a rare variant of thyroid cancer with different aetiology, presentation and treatment to differentiated thyroid cancer. Currently available thyroid cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) tools focus on issues and treatments more relevant to patients with differentiated thyroid cancer and therefore may not address issues specific to a MTC diagnosis and cancer journey. METHOD: This prospective multicentre randomised study involved 204 MTC patients completing four quality of life questionnaires (QOLQ) and stating their most and least preferred. The questionnaires were a general instrument, the EORTC QLQ-C30, two disease-specific tools, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) thyroid module and the City of Hope Quality of Life Scale/THYROID (amended) and the neuroendocrine questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-GINET21. Patients were randomised to complete the four questionnaires in one of 24 possible orders and then answered questions about which tool they preferred. The primary outcome measure was patients' preferred QoL instrument for describing their concerns and for facilitating communication with their healthcare professional. Secondary analyses looked at differences between preferred QOLQs amongst patient subgroups (WHO performance status [0 and 1+], disease stage: early [T1-3, N0 or N1A], metastatic [T4, any T N1b] and advanced [any T any N M1], and type of MTC [sporadic and inherited]), identification of MTC patients' least preferred questionnaire and clinicians' views on the QoL tools in terms of their ability to highlight problems not otherwise ascertained by a standard clinical review. RESULTS: No evidence of a difference was observed for most preferred QOLQ (p = 0.650). There was however evidence of a difference in least preferred questionnaire in the cohort of 128 patients who stated their least preferred questionnaire (p = 0.042), with 36% (46/128) of patients choosing the EORTC QLQ-GI.NET21 questionnaire. Subgroup analyses showed that there was no evidence of a difference in patients' most preferred questionnaire in sporadic MTC patients (p = 0.637), patients with WHO PS 0 or 1+ (p = 0.844 and p = 0.423) nor when comparing patients with early, advanced local or metastatic disease (p = 0.132, p = 0.463 and p = 0.506, respectively). Similarly, subgroup analyses on patients' least preferred questionnaires showed no evidence of differences in sporadic MTC patients (p = 0.092), patients with WHO PS 0 or 1+ (p = 0.423 and p = 0.276), nor in early or metastatic disease patients (p = 0.682 and p = 0.345, respectively). There was however some evidence to suggest a difference in least preferred questionnaire in patients with advanced local stage disease (p = 0.059), with 43% (16/37) of these patients choosing the EORTC QLQ-GI.NET21 questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: MTC patients regardless of their performance status, disease aetiology and disease burden did not express a preference for any one particular questionnaire suggesting any of the tools studied could be utilized in this patient cohort. The least preferred questionnaire being a gastrointestinal NET specific tool suggests that diarrhoea was not a significant symptom and concern for the population studied.

4.
NPJ Precis Oncol ; 5(1): 61, 2021 Jun 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34188166

RESUMO

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), characterized by dense desmoplastic stroma laid down by pancreatic stellate cells (PSC), has no reliable diagnostic biomarkers for timely detection. A multi-center cohort of PDAC patients and controls (chronic pancreatitis, intra-ductal papillary neoplasms, gallstones and otherwise healthy) donated serum in an ethically approved manner. Serum PTX3 above 4.34 ng/mL has a higher sensitivity (86%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 65-97%) and specificity (86%, 95% CI: 79-91%), positive predictive value (97%) and likelihood ratio (6.05), and is superior when compared to serum CA19-9 and CEA for detection of PDAC. In vitro and ex vivo analyses of PTX3, in human PDAC samples, PSCs, cell lines and transgenic mouse model for PDAC, suggest that PTX3 originates from stromal cells, mainly PSC. In activated PSC, PTX3 secretion could be downregulated by rendering PSC quiescent using all-trans-retinoic acid (ATRA). PTX3 organizes hyaluronan in conjunction with tumor necrosis factor-stimulated gene 6 (TSG-6) and facilitates stellate and cancer cell invasion. In SCALOP clinical trial (ISRCTN96169987) testing chemo-radiotherapy without stromal targeting, PTX3 had no prognostic or predictive role. However, in STARPAC clinical trial (NCT03307148), stromal modulation by ATRA even at first dose is accompanied with serum PTX3 response in patients who later go on to demonstrate disease control but not those in whom the disease progresses. PTX3 is a putative stromally-derived biomarker for PDAC which warrants further testing in prospective, larger, multi-center cohorts and within clinical trials targeting stroma.

5.
Eur J Cancer ; 153: 153-161, 2021 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34157617

RESUMO

AIM: This is the first randomised study to evaluate toxicity and survival outcomes of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for patients with localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma. The initial results showed comparable toxicity between regimens and pathological complete response (pCR) rate favouring CarPacRT. Herein, we report survival, progression patterns, and long-term toxicity after a median follow-up of 40.7 months. METHODS: NeoSCOPE was an open-label, UK multicentre, randomised, phase II trial. Eighty-five patients with resectable OAC or GOJ adenocarcinoma, ≥cT3 and/or ≥cN1 (TNM v7), suitable for neoadjuvant CRT, were recruited between October 2013 and February 2015. Patients were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on Days 1, 15, and 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days of radiotherapy [RT]) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). RT dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Both arms received induction chemotherapy (two cycles oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on Day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on Days 1-21) before CRT. Surgery was performed 6-8 weeks after CRT. The primary end-point was pCR. Secondary end-points were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patterns of progression. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were recruited from 17 UK centres. The median OS was 41.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.6 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% CIs: 0.24-0.95, P = 0.035). The median PFS was 32.6 months (95% CIs: 17.1 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable HR = 0.54, 95% CIs: 0.29-1.01, P = 0.053). In both arms, the distant progression was twice as common as locoregional progression. CONCLUSIONS: OS and PFS favoured neoadjuvant CarPacRT over OxCapRT. Distant was more common than locoregional progression; therefore, priority should be given to optimising the systemic treatment component. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: EudraCT Number: 2012-000640-10; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829.


Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma/tratamento farmacológico , Capecitabina/uso terapêutico , Carboplatina/uso terapêutico , Quimiorradioterapia Adjuvante/métodos , Neoplasias Esofágicas/tratamento farmacológico , Oxaliplatina/uso terapêutico , Paclitaxel/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Capecitabina/farmacologia , Carboplatina/farmacologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Oxaliplatina/farmacologia , Paclitaxel/farmacologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA