Phase ib of sorafenib in combination with everolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors, selected on the basis of molecular targets.

BACKGROUND: Molecular alterations of the PI3K and Ras pathways often occur in human cancer. In this trial, the pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and activity of two drugs inhibiting these pathways-everolimus and sorafenib-were investigated. METHODS: Thirteen patients with progressing solid tumors were treated with everolimus and sorafenib, according to a 3+3 scheme. Patients were selected on the basis of immunohistochemical expression of tumor molecular targets, including phospho-AKT, -p70S6K, and -ERK1/2. RESULTS: The daily recommended dose identified was 2.5 mg of everolimus and 600 mg of sorafenib. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 asthenia and hand-foot skin reaction. No grade 4 adverse events were observed. The most frequent grade 3 toxicities were hypophosphatemia (30.8%), alanine aminotransferase level increase, asthenia, and anorexia (14%). No pharmacokinetic interactions were identified between everolimus and sorafenib. Of 12 evaluable patients, we observed 2 partial responses, with greater than 10% shrinkage in an additional 5 patients. Objective responses were observed in one patient with a thymoma and in one patient with a lung adenocarcinoma. Tumor shrinkage that did not qualify as a partial response was seen in an abdominal leiomyosarcoma and in adenoid cystic carcinomas. CONCLUSION: The combination of everolimus and sorafenib is safe. The tumor activity observed in different tumor types could be the result of the combined action of these drugs as well as the molecular selection of the treated population. Further research is warranted to better investigate drugs simultaneously blocking the PI3K and the Ras pathways and to refine patient selection.

"Waiting and the waiting room: how do you experience them?" emotional implications and suggestions from patients with cancer.

Waiting can increase discomfort. The goal of this study was to identify moods and fears of cancer patients while in a waiting room and to capture their concrete suggestions for an anthropocentric transformation of waiting itself. A 15-item questionnaire was given to 355 patients who came to our Out-patient Oncology Clinic. Eighty-three percent of patients felt that waiting has an emotional cost, 35% were upset by talking about their condition with others while waiting, and 26% suffered a major emotional impact seeing other sick people and witnessing their clinical decline. Eighty-nine percent of patients suggested that alternative activities, such as meetings with professionals, doctors, and psychologists, be organized during the waiting period; 65% suggested fun activities (music therapy, drawing courses, library, TV). Most patients asked to have the freedom to leave the waiting room. This option, feasibly by means of IMs/"beepers," would limit their sense of having a lack of freedom or being robbed of their time. This study highlighted the complexity and heterogeneity of emotional implications that waiting causes in patients with cancer and collected many patients' suggestions about how to create a constructive, free, and personalized waiting period, overcoming the boredom, distress, and psychological suffering it causes.

Paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with recurrent and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

The purpose of this phase II trial was to investigate the use of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), to evaluate tumor response, time to progression, survival, and toxicity of this regimen. Patients with recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC received 175 mg/mq paclitaxel (PTX) administered as a 3-h intravenous infusion on day 1 and 75 mg/mq cisplatin (CDDP) as a 30(') intravenous infusion on day 2; cycles were repeated every 21 days. From February 1997 to February 2000, 36 patients (18 with locoregionally recurrent disease, 8 with deemed inoperable locally advanced disease, and 8 with metastatic disease) with a median age of 60 years (range 38-73 years) were enrolled. The patients evaluable were 34 for toxic effects, length of survival, and tumor response. The overall response was 41.1%, with two (5.8%) complete responders (CR) and 12 (35.3%) partial responders (PR), 10 (29.4%) patients had stable disease and 10 (29.4%) progressed. The median time to progression (TTP) was 5 months (range 1-49 months), and the median overall survival was 11 months (range 1-53 months). The 1-year-, the 2-year-, and the 3-year-survival rate were 38.2, 17.6 and 14.6, respectively. Up to date of the statistical evaluation four patients were still alive. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, transient G3 neutropenia and anaemia occurred in seven (20.5%) and four (11.7%) patients, respectively. The predominant non-haematologic toxicities were alopecia and fatigue: Twenty-three (67.6%) patients had G3 alopecia, two patients (5.8%) G3 fatigue and 10 (29.4%) G2, eight (23.5%) G2 myalgia, eight (23.5%) G2 nausea/vomiting, and two (5.8%) G2 mucositis. There were no G4 toxicity and any treatment-related death. Paclitaxel plus cisplatin combination is an active regimen with an acceptable safety profile in recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. This regimen, according to our opinion, is a valid alternative to infusional fluorouracil (5FU)/cisplatin. In fact up to date we can confirm, in taxane era, that paclitaxel, as single agent or in combination, produce response rates similar to cisplatin/5FU regimen, but with more manageable toxicity, especially in the subset of patients with 0-1 ECOG-PS and incurable or locoregional recurrent HNSCC, with short outpatient administration too.