[Medical treatment of renal cell carcinoma]. / Les médicaments du cancer du rein.

AIM: To describe drugs used in renal cell carcinoma. METHOD: Pubmed search for efficacy, mode of action and side effects for each molecule. Additional data were searched from the French regulatory agencies websites (HAS and ANSM). RESULTS: Since 2007, a total of three different therapeutic classes in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma are available. These three classes are tyrosine kinase inhibitors with sunitinib and sorafenib, the anti-VEGF antibodies (bevacizumab which is associated with alpha interferon in the treatment of advanced kidney cancer) and mTOR inhibitors with temsirolimus and everolimus. These targeted therapies are a major progress in the treatment of patients with metastatic kidney cancer. The side effects encountered with these molecules are numerous but serious side effects are less than 5% of all reported side effects. CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of molecular mechanisms has enabled the development of new therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In the future, a personalized approach taking into account the biology of each tumor could be created to provide a more targeted treatment.

Hematological recovery and peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization after induction chemotherapy and GM-CSF plus G-CSF in breast cancer.

In order to determine the effect of GM-CSF plus G-CSF in combination in breast cancer patients receiving an effective induction regimen, we compared hematological recovery and peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) mobilization according to colony-stimulating factor (CSF) support. Forty-three breast cancer patients were treated by TNCF (THP-doxorubicin, vinorelbine, cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, D1 to D4) with CSF support: 11 patients received GM-CSF (D5 to D14); 16 patients G-CSF (D5 to D14) and 16 patients GM-CSF (D5-D14) plus G-CSF (D10-D14). Between two subsequent cycles, progenitor cells were assessed daily, from D13 to D17. The WBC count was similar for patients receiving G-CSF alone or GM-CSF plus G-CSF, but significantly greater than that of patients receiving GM-CSF alone (P<0.001). The GM-CSF plus G-CSF combination led to better PBPC mobilization, with significantly different kinetics (P<0.001) and optimal mean values of CFU-GM, CD34+ cells and cells in cycle, at D15 compared to those obtained with G-CSF or GM-CSF alone. The significantly greater PBPC mobilization obtained with a CSF combination by D15 could be of value for PBPC collection and therapeutic reinjection after high-dose chemotherapies.

[First-line chemotherapy in operable breast neoplasms: results of 3 protocols]. / Chimiothérapie première dans les cancers du sein opérables supérieurs à 3 cm: résultats de 3 protocoles.

In order to avoid modified radical mastectomy, a neoadjuvant approach was adopted in our institute for operable bulky breast cancers. From January, 1982, to December, 1995, 288 patients received primary chemotherapy with 3 different regimens (all doses mg/m2): (1) AVCF/AVCFM, 167 patients (adriamycin 30, vincristine 1 d1, cyclophosphamide 300, fluorouracil 400 d2-d5 and methotrexate 20 d2 and d4, every 28 days); (2) NEM, 78 patients (vinorelbine 25, epirubicin 35, methotrexate 20 d1 and d8, every 28 days); and (3) TNCF, 43 patients (THP-adria 20, d1-d3, vinorelbine 25 d1 and d4, cyclophosphamide 300, fluorouracil 400 d1-d4, every 21 days). Evaluation of the response comprised 3 methods: clinical (C), echographic (E), mammographic (M). The overall objective response rate (C: 63/90/93; E: 49/61/85; M: 53/65/83%) is higher with regimens (2) and (3). The complete response rate was increased 2-fold with TNCF but the hematologic toxicity was very superior with this combination. Patients were all operated for (2) and (3), only several for (1), and the breast conservation rate (68/83/79%) was quite similar in the 3 regimens. The pathological complete response rate reached 23% with TNCF. However the impact on patient survival has to be confirmed.