Are strong opioids equally effective and safe in the treatment of chronic cancer pain? A multicenter randomized phase IV 'real life' trial on the variability of response to opioids.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines tend to consider morphine and morphine-like opioids comparable and interchangeable in the treatment of chronic cancer pain, but individual responses can vary. This study compared the analgesic efficacy, changes of therapy and safety profile over time of four strong opioids given for cancer pain. PATIENT AND METHODS: In this four-arm multicenter, randomized, comparative, of superiority, phase IV trial, oncological patients with moderate to severe pain requiring WHO step III opioids were randomly assigned to receive oral morphine or oxycodone or transdermal fentanyl or buprenorphine for 28 days. At each visit, pain intensity, modifications of therapy and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of nonresponders, meaning patients with worse or unchanged average pain intensity (API) between the first and last visit, measured on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. (NCT01809106). RESULTS: Forty-four centers participated in the trial and recruited 520 patients. Worst pain intensity and API decreased over 4 weeks with no significant differences between drugs. Nonresponders ranged from 11.5% (morphine) to 14.4% (buprenorphine). Appreciable changes were made in the treatment schedules over time. Each group required increases in the daily dose, from 32.7% (morphine) to 121.2% (transdermal fentanyl). Patients requiring adjuvant analgesics ranged from 68.9% (morphine) to 81.6% (oxycodone), switches varied from 22.1% (morphine) to 12% (oxycodone), discontinuation of treatment from 27% ( morphine) to 14.5% (fentanyl). ADRs were similar except for effects on the nervous system, which significantly prevailed with morphine. CONCLUSION: The main findings were the similarity in pain control, response rates and main adverse reactions among opioids. Changes in therapy schedules were notable over time. A considerable proportion of patients were nonresponders or poor responders. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01809106 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01809106?term=cerp&rank=2).

Molecular cloning of YlPMR1, a S. cerevisiae PMR1 homologue encoding a novel P-type secretory pathway Ca2+ -ATPase, in the yeast Yarrowia lipolytica.

A novel P-type ATPase gene, Saccharomyces cerevisiae PMR1 homologue (YlPMR1), has been cloned and sequenced in the yeast, Yarrowia lipolytica. The putative gene product has 928 amino acids with a calculated molecular mass of 100050 Da and a pI of 5.15. The deduced amino-acid sequence analysis demonstrated that the cloned gene product contains all 10 of the conserved regions in P-type ATPases and exhibits 55% amino-acid identity to the S. cerevisiae PMR1 gene product; however, it shows a relatively lower homology to PMCA (24%) and SERCA (33%), confirming the presence of a third class of Ca2+-ATPase (secretory pathway Ca2+-ATPase, SPCA). The YlPMR1-disrupted strain shows defective growth in low Ca2+ or EGTA-containing medium. In fact, a longer lag time (60 h) was observed in YlPMR1-defective mutant cells during cultivation in EGTA-containing YPD medium. These growth defects were overcome by adding Ca2+ and Mn2+ into the medium. Interestingly, whereas Mn2+ inhibits growth of the control strain, it significantly improves the growth of YlPMR1-disrupted cells. These results suggest an involvement of the YlPMR1 gene product in Ca2+ and Mn2+ ion homeostasis in Y. lipolytica.

Amifostine plus cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer: a multicenter phase II study.

PURPOSE: to evaluate the activity and toxicity of the combination cisplatin plus vinorelbine plus amifostine in advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: a two-stage Simon design was applied. To proceed after the first stage, responses from seven of 19 patients were needed. Overall, 17 responses from 40 treated patients were required to comply with the design parameter. Inclusion criteria were cyto-histologically proven stage IIIB-IV NSCLC; age of 70 years or less; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less; normal cardiac, hepatic, renal and bone marrow functions; and no previous chemotherapy. Patients were staged by physical examination, biochemistry, chest radiograph, brain, thoracic and abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans, and bone scan. All patients received cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) intravenously (iv) day 1, vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) iv days 1-8-15-22, amifostine 740 mg/m(2) iv day 1 every 4 weeks up to six cycles. Eleven of 40 enrolled patients were stage IIIB and 29 stage IV, with a median age of 57 years (range, 38-70 years). RESULTS: all patients were evaluable for response and toxicity (intention to treat analysis). We observed 20 (50%) objective responses, with four (10%) complete responses. Median time to progression was 20 weeks, and median survival was 45 weeks. The toxicity was manageable. The reported main toxicities were neutropenia grade 4 in 10% of patients, grade 1 and grade 3 nephrotoxicity both in 5% of patients and grade 1 amifostine-related hypotension in 15% of patients. CONCLUSION: these data show that cisplatin plus vinorelbine plus amifostine is an active and feaseable regimen in stage IIIB-IV NSCLC. A phase III trial comparing cisplatin plus vinorelbine versus cisplatin plus vinorelbine plus amifostine in advanced NSCLC is warranted.