Addition of either lonidamine or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor does not improve survival in early breast cancer patients treated with high-dose epirubicin and cyclophosphamide.

PURPOSE: Lonidamine (LND) can enhance the activity of anthracyclines in patients with metastatic breast cancer. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was designed to determine whether the association of LND with high-dose epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (EC) could improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with early breast cancer (BC) compared with EC alone. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was added to maintain the EC dose-intensity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From October 1991 to April 1994, 506 patients with stage I/II BC were randomly assigned to four groups: (A) epirubicin 120 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 administered intravenously on day 1 every 21 days for four cycles (124 patients); (B) EC plus LND 450 mg/d administered orally (125 patients); (C) EC plus G-CSF administered subcutaneously (129 patients); (D) EC plus LND plus G-CSF (128 patients). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 55 months. Five-year DFS rate was similar for LND (B+D groups; 69.6%) versus non-LND arms (A+C groups; 70.3%) and G-CSF (C+D groups; 67.2%) versus non-G-CSF arms (A+B groups; 72.9%). Five-year overall survival (OS) was comparable in LND (79.1%) versus non-LND arms (81.3%) and in G-CSF (80.6%) versus non-G-CSF arms (79.6%). DFS and OS distributions in LND and G-CSF arms did not change according to tumor size, node, receptor, and menopausal status. G-CSF dramatically reduced hematologic toxicity without having a significant impact on dose-intensity (98.1% v 95.5% for C+D and A+B groups, respectively). CONCLUSION: EC is active and well tolerated in patients with early breast cancer. The addition of LND or G-CSF does not improve DFS or OS.

Erlotinib and concurrent chemoradiation in pretreated NSCLC patients: radiobiological basis and clinical results.

AIMS: To establish feasibility of the combination of Erlotinib and concurrent chemoradiation in pre-treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding 60 consecutive patients with NSCLC previously treated with chemotherapy alone were prospectically collected. All patients started Erlotinib concurrently with chemotherapy and radiation delivered to primary tumor. These data were retrospectively analyzed (observational study). Feasibility and toxicity were the primary endpoints, with response rate and progression being the secondary ones, while survival data are reported just as exploratory analysis. The EGFR mutational status was recorded in 32% of cases and it was always wild type. RESULTS: Compliance to the combination protocol was good. Grade 3-4 esophagitis and acute lung toxicity occurred in 2% and 8% of patients, respectively. No progressive disease was recorded in the majority of cases (65%). Median OS and PFS were 23.3 and 4.7 months, respectively. Patients not responding to chemotherapy administered prior to chemoradiation achieved an objective response rate of 53.3% and complete response in 13.3% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of Erlotinib to chemoradiation in inoperable NSCLCs is feasible with interesting efficacy profile. These preliminary results warrant further investigation in patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic NSCLC with EGFR mutations.

Whole-breast irradiation: a subgroup analysis of criteria to stratify for prone position treatment.

To select among breast cancer patients and according to breast volume size those who may benefit from 3D conformal radiotherapy after conservative surgery applied with prone-position technique. Thirty-eight patients with early-stage breast cancer were grouped according to the target volume (TV) measured in the supine position: small (≤400 mL), medium (400-700 mL), and large (≥700 ml). An ad-hoc designed and built device was used for prone set-up to displace the contralateral breast away from the tangential field borders. All patients underwent treatment planning computed tomography in both the supine and prone positions. Dosimetric data to explore dose distribution and volume of normal tissue irradiated were calculated for each patient in both positions. Homogeneity index, hot spot areas, the maximum dose, and the lung constraints were significantly reduced in the prone position (p < 0.05). The maximum heart distance and the V(5Gy) did not vary consistently in the 2 positions (p = 0.06 and p = 0.7, respectively). The number of necessary monitor units was significantly higher in the supine position (312 vs. 232, p < 0.0001). The subgroups analysis pointed out the advantage in lung sparing in all TV groups (small, medium and large) for all the evaluated dosimetric constraints (central lung distance, maximum lung distance, and V(5Gy), p < 0.0001). In the small TV group, a dose reduction in nontarget areas of 22% in the prone position was detected (p = 0.056); in the medium and high TV groups, the difference was of about -10% (p = NS). The decrease in hot spot areas in nontarget tissues was 73%, 47%, and 80% for small, medium, and large TVs in the prone position, respectively. Although prone breast radiotherapy is normally proposed in patients with breasts of large dimensions, this study gives evidence of dosimetric benefit in all patient subgroups irrespective of breast volume size.