Cytoreductive Surgery with Bidirectional Intraoperative Chemotherapy (BDIC) Using Intravenous Ifosfamide Plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Patients with Peritoneal Sarcomatosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal sarcomatosis (PS) is a rare tumor with limited therapeutic options. Bidirectional intraoperative chemotherapy (BDIC) using intravenous ifosfamide and doxorubicin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is an emerging treatment for peritoneal malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with PS who underwent CRS/BDIC using intravenous ifosfamide and HIPEC from January 2017 to July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The last follow-up date was May 2022. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were included. Overall survival (OS) rates at 6, 12, 24, and 48 months after CRS/BDIC were 93.1%, 89.2%, 81.4%, and 73.3%, respectively. As of May 2022, 6 patients (20.6%) had died, including four (13.8%) with a proven recurrent tumor and two with incomplete tumor resection [completeness of cytoreduction (CC)-2 or CC-3]. Of the 20 patients (68.9%) with CC-0 or CC-1, 7 had locoregional tumor recurrence without distant metastasis, whereas the other 13 were alive with no evidence of recurrent tumor in May 2022. Disease recurrence rates were 15% at 6 months and 35% at 12, 24, and 48 months after CRS/BDIC. Clavien-Dindo class ≥ IIIa complications developed in 9 patients (31.0%) with no deaths. Leukopenia occurred in 5 patients (17.2%) and thrombocytopenia in 12 patients (41.3%); these hematologic abnormalities resolved. A total of 9 (31.0%) patients developed nephrotoxicity; all recovered except one, who progressed to chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: CRS/BDIC using intravenous ifosfamide and doxorubicin-based HIPEC is a potentially effective treatment for PS and has an acceptable rate of complications.

In vivo hepatoprotective and nephroprotective effects of Stenocarpus sinuatus leaf extract against ifosfamide-induced toxicity in rats.

Ifosfamide (IFOS) is a broad-spectrum chemotherapeutic agent that has been extensively used for breast cancer and other solid tumors. Unfortunately, its use is associated with toxicities of several organs. Stenocarpus sinuatus is an Australian tree belonging to the Proteaceae family. In the current study, the phytochemical constituents of S. sinuatus methanol leaf extract (SSLE) were assessed. In addition, the protective effect of SSLE against IFOS-induced nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity was evaluated. Rats were randomly divided into six groups: control, IFOS (50 mg/kg), IFOS + SSLE (100 mg/kg), IFOS + SSLE (200 mg/kg), IFOS + SSLE (400 mg/kg), and SSLE (400 mg/kg). Hepatoprotective and nephroprotective potency of SSLE was assessed using different biochemical parameters. The phytochemical investigation resulted in the isolation of four flavonoid glycosides (kaempferol 3-O-ß- d-glucopyranosyl-(1→2)-α- l-rhamnopyranoside, kaempferol 3-O-α-rhamnopyranoside, isorhamnetin 3-O-ß- d-glucopyranosyl-(1→2)-α- l-rhamnopyranoside, and quercetin 3-O-ß- d-glucopyranosyl-(1→2)-α- l-rhamnopyranoside) and a coumarin (scopoletin). This is the first report on the isolated compounds from the genus Stenocarpus. SSLE showed enhancement of kidney and liver functions and reduction of oxidative stress and inflammation. The histopathology of the investigated organs confirmed the protective effect of SSLE. In conclusion, SSLE is considered as a promising candidate that can be used in defense against the toxic effects of IFOS after further clinical trials.

A 51-Year-Old Woman with Advanced Peritoneal Mesothelioma and Stage 3b Chronic Kidney Disease Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Bidirectional Intraperitoneal Cisplatin and Ifosfamide Chemotherapy: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Malignant mesotheliomas are rare, yet highly malignant tumors. Mesotheliomas are tumors that develop from mesothelial surfaces, with the pleura being the most common, followed by the peritoneum. The diagnosis of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is usually established when the disease is advanced, owing to the nonspecific clinical appearance and abdominal symptoms. Initially, MPM was treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, with or without palliative surgery. However, cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with bidirectional intraoperative chemotherapy (BDIC) has recently emerged as a treatment option for MPM. BDIC creates a bidirectional chemotherapy gradient in the peritoneal tumor cells through the simultaneous use of intraperitoneal and intravenous chemotherapy. CRS, combined with BDIC (CRS-BDIC), allows the complete elimination of residual tiny tumor cells after complete removal of the visible tumor nodules. CASE REPORT Herein, we present a case of a 51-year-old woman with MPM and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3b. Her treatment consisted of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy, followed by CRS-BDIC using intraperitoneal cisplatin and doxorubicin, and intravenous ifosfamide. The surgery was successful, with no immediate complications or decline in the patient's kidney function. On follow up 2 months later, the patient denies suffering any chemotherapy-related adverse effects, and her kidney profile remains stable. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, nephrotoxicity, a known adverse effect of cisplatin and ifosfamide, might not be a contraindication for the use of these potentially nephrotoxic drugs in CRS-BDIC in patients with renal impairment.

Chemoradiotherapy plus hyperthermia (CRTH) versus chemoradiotherapy (CRT) alone in neoadjuvant treatment of soft tissue sarcoma: tumor response, treatment toxicity and disease control.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for the management of soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are still preferably delivered sequentially, with or without concurrent hyperthermia. Concurrent delivery of chemo-, radio- and thermotherapy may produce synergistic effects and reduce chemotherapy-free intervals. The few available studies suggest that concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) has a greater local effect. Data on the efficacy and toxicity of adding hyperthermia to CRT (CRTH) are sparse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 101 patients with STS of the extremities and trunk who received CRT (n = 33) or CRTH (n = 68) before resection of macroscopic tumor (CRT: n = 19, CRTH: n = 49) or re-resection following a non-oncological resection, so called 'whoops procedure', (CRT: n = 14, CRTH: n = 19) were included in this retrospective study. CRT consisted of two cycles of doxorubicine (50 mg/m2 on d2) plus ifosfamide (1500 mg/m2 on d1-5, q28) plus radiation doses of up to 60 Gy. Hyperthermia was delivered in two sessions per week. RESULTS: All patients received the minimum dose of 50 Gy. Median doses of ifosfamide and doxorubicin were comparable between CRT (75%/95%) and CRTH (78%/97%). The median number of hyperthermia sessions was seven. There were no differences in acute toxicities. Major wound complications occurred in 15% (CRT) vs. 25% (CRTH) (p = 0.19). In patients with macroscopic disease, the addition of hyperthermia resulted in a tendency toward improved remission: regression ≥90% occurred in 21/48 (CRTH) vs. 4/18 (CRT) patients (p = 0.197). With a median postoperative follow-up of 72 months, 6-year local control and overall survival rates for CRTH vs. CRT alone were 85 vs. 78% (p = 0.938) and 79 vs. 71% (p = 0.215). CONCLUSIONS: Both CRT and CRTH are well tolerated with an expected rate of wound complications. The results suggest that adding hyperthermia may improve tumor response.

Hyperthermia in the treatment of high-risk soft tissue sarcomas: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The therapy of high-risk soft tissue sarcomas (STS) remains an interdisciplinary challenge. Regional hyperthermia (RHT) sparked interest as it has been shown to improve overall survival when added to perioperative chemotherapy (CTX). However, questions arise on how RHT should be optimally integrated into current multi-modal therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies written in English and focused mainly on radiative RHT and superficial hyperthermia were evaluated and included. Studies including patients below the age of 18, with metastatic disease or review articles, were excluded. RESULTS: We identified 15 clinical reports from 1990 until July 2022. Three articles combined RHT + CTX, and twelve focused on combined RHT + radiotherapy (RT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Most treatments were based on invasive thermometry, and less on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based, noninvasive thermometry for STS of the extremities. Perioperative chemotherapy was used for the combination of RHT and CTX, mostly Ifosfamide-based. The effectiveness of RT appeared to be increased by RHT, especially with two RHT sessions/week. The trimodal simultaneous approach of neoadjuvant RHT and CRT was also feasible. No significant toxicity of RHT was reported. CONCLUSIONS: The gathered data strengthen the beneficial role of RHT in the multimodal setting. Further expert consensus and clinical trials are required to determine the optimal integration of RHT in treating STS.

Bidirectional Intraoperative Chemotherapy Using Cisplatin and Ifosfamide for Intraperitoneal Mesothelioma in Severe Renal Impairment: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive neoplasm with a poor prognosis. Bidirectional intraoperative chemotherapy (BDIC) using concurrent intraperitoneal and intravenous chemotherapy in combination with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is an emerging treatment option for selected cases of MPM. It is a locoregional treatment that involves intraoperative chemoperfusion of heated chemotherapy. The administration of systemic along with intraperitoneal chemotherapy allows for a bidirectional chemotherapy gradient in peritoneal tumor cells. The aim of this treatment is eradication of microscopic residual cancer cells after major removal of macroscopic tumor nodules. To date, there is no consensus on the chemotherapeutic regimen that can be used in BDIC to manage MPM in patients with severe renal impairment. Administering intravenous ifosfamide with hyperthermic intraperitoneal cisplatin and doxorubicin is a promising regimen in treating peritoneal mesothelioma. Nephrotoxicity is a dose-limiting adverse effect of cisplatin and ifosfamide. Therefore, dose adjustment is required in patients with renal impairment. CASE REPORT In this report, we describe a 46-year-old female patient with recurrent MPM and severe renal impairment. Her treatment was managed with hyperthermic intraperitoneal cisplatin and doxorubicin along with intravenous ifosfamide following CRS. The cisplatin dose was reduced to 50% and the ifosfamide dose was reduced by 25%. The patient tolerated the procedure well, without deterioration in her renal function. At her 9-month follow-up, she did not report experiencing chemotherapy-related adverse effects, and her kidney function remained stable. CONCLUSIONS Severe renal impairment might not be a contraindication to using potentially nephrotoxic chemotherapeutic agents in CRS-BDIC.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy with and without hyperthermia in retroperitoneal sarcomas: feasibility, efficacy, toxicity, and long-term outcome.

PURPOSE: Retroperitoneal (RPS) sarcomas are associated with poor local and abdominal tumor control. However, the benefit of preoperative radio- or chemotherapy alone for these entities is currently unclear. Moreover, as intermediate- and high-grade sarcomas have a tendency toward early metastasis, exploration of neoadjuvant strategies is of high importance. This analysis reports the results of our 20-year single-institution experience with preoperative neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation. METHODS: From 2000-2019, 27 patients with intermediate- or high-grade RPS (12 dedifferentiated liposarcoma, 10 leiomyosarcoma, 5 others) were treated with radiotherapy (median dose: 50.4 Gy; range 45-75 Gy) and two cycles of chemotherapy (doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 BSA/d3 q28 and ifosfamide 1.5 g/m2 BSA/d1­5 q28) in neoadjuvant intent. Chemotherapy consisted of doxorubicin alone in two cases and ifosfamide alone in one case. Fifteen patients (56%) additionally received deep regional hyperthermia. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 53 months (±56.7 months). 92% of patients received two cycles of chemotherapy as planned and 92% underwent surgery. At 5 and 10 years, abdominal-recurrence-free survival was 74.6% (±10.1%) and 66.3% (±11.9%), distant metastasis-free survival was 67.2% (±9.7%) and 59.7% (±11.1%), and overall survival was 60.3% (±10.5%) and 60.3% (±10.5%), respectively. CTC grade III and IV toxicities were leukocytopenia (85%), thrombocytopenia (33%), and anemia (11%). There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with and without hyperthermia for retroperitoneal sarcomas is feasible and provided high local control of intermediate- and high-grade sarcoma.

Effect of Berberis vulgaris L. root extract on ifosfamide-induced in vivo toxicity and in vitro cytotoxicity.

Ifosfamide is a widely used chemotherapeutic agent having broad-spectrum efficacy against several tumors. However, nephro, hepato, neuro cardio, and hematological toxicities associated with ifosfamide render its use limited. These side effects could range from organ failure to life-threatening situations. The present study aimed to evaluate the attenuating efficiency of Berberis vulgaris root extract (BvRE), a potent nephroprotective, hepatoprotective, and lipid-lowering agent, against ifosfamide-induced toxicities. The study design comprised eight groups of Swiss albino rats to assess different dose regimes of BvRE and ifosfamide. Biochemical analysis of serum (serum albumin, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, total cholesterol, and triglycerides) along with complete blood count was performed. Kidney, liver, brain, and heart tissue homogenates were used to find malondialdehyde, catalase, and glutathione S-transferase levels in addition to the acetylcholinesterase of brain tissue. The results were further validated with the help of the histopathology of the selected organs. HeLa cells were used to assess the effect of BvRE on ifosfamide cytotoxicity in MTT assay. The results revealed that pre- and post-treatment regimens of BvRE, as well as the combination therapy exhibited marked protective effects against ifosfamide-induced nephro, hepato, neuro, and cardiotoxicity. Moreover, ifosfamide depicted a synergistic in vitro cytotoxic effect on HeLa cells in the presence of BvRE. These results corroborate that the combination therapy of ifosfamide with BvRE in cancer treatment can potentiate the anticancer effects of ifosfamide along with the amelioration of its conspicuous side effects.

Early and late adverse renal effects after potentially nephrotoxic treatment for childhood cancer.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in diagnostics and treatment for paediatric malignancies resulted in a major increase in survival. However, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at risk of developing adverse effects caused by multimodal treatment for their malignancy. Nephrotoxicity is a known side effect of several treatments, including cisplatin, carboplatin, ifosfamide, radiotherapy and nephrectomy, and can cause glomerular filtration rate (GFR) impairment, proteinuria, tubulopathy, and hypertension. Evidence about the long-term effects of these treatments on renal function remains inconclusive. It is important to know the risk of, and risk factors for, early and late adverse renal effects, so that ultimately treatment and screening protocols can be adjusted. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing evidence on the effects of potentially nephrotoxic treatment modalities on the prevalence of renal dysfunction in survivors treated for childhood cancer with a median or mean survival of at least one year after cessation of treatment, where possible in comparison with the general population or CCS treated without potentially nephrotoxic treatment. In addition, to evaluate evidence on associated risk factors, such as follow-up duration, age at time of diagnosis and treatment combinations, as well as the effect of doses. SEARCH METHODS: On 31 March 2017 we searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. In addition, we screened reference lists of relevant studies and we searched the congress proceedings of the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) and The American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) from 2010 to 2016/2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Except for case reports, case series and studies including fewer than 20 participants, we included studies with all study designs that reported on renal function (one year or longer after cessation of treatment), in CCS treated before the age of 21 years with cisplatin, carboplatin, ifosfamide, radiation involving the kidney region, a nephrectomy, or a combination of two or more of these treatments. When not all treatment modalities were described or the study group of interest was unclear, a study was not eligible for the evaluation of prevalence. We still included it for the assessment of risk factors if it had performed a multivariable analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction using standardised data collection forms. We performed analyses according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: Apart from the remaining 37 studies included from the original review, the search resulted in the inclusion of 24 new studies. In total, we included 61 studies; 46 for prevalence, six for both prevalence and risk factors, and nine not meeting the inclusion criteria, but assessing risk factors. The 52 studies evaluating the prevalence of renal dysfunction included 13,327 participants of interest, of whom at least 4499 underwent renal function testing. The prevalence of adverse renal effects ranged from 0% to 84%. This variation may be due to diversity of included malignancies, received treatments, reported outcome measures, follow-up duration and the methodological quality of available evidence.Seven out of 52 studies, including 244 participants, reported the prevalence of chronic kidney disease, which ranged from 2.4% to 32%.Of these 52 studies, 36 studied a decreased (estimated) GFR, including at least 432 CCS, and found it was present in 0% to 73.7% of participants. One eligible study reported an increased risk of glomerular dysfunction after concomitant treatment with aminoglycosides and vancomycin in CCS receiving total body irradiation (TBI). Four non-eligible studies assessing a total cohort of CCS, found nephrectomy and (high-dose (HD)) ifosfamide as risk factors for decreased GFR. The majority also reported cisplatin as a risk factor. In addition, two non-eligible studies showed an association of a longer follow-up period with glomerular dysfunction.Twenty-two out of 52 studies, including 851 participants, studied proteinuria, which was present in 3.5% to 84% of participants. Risk factors, analysed by three non-eligible studies, included HD cisplatin, (HD) ifosfamide, TBI, and a combination of nephrectomy and abdominal radiotherapy. However, studies were contradictory and incomparable.Eleven out of 52 studies assessed hypophosphataemia or tubular phosphate reabsorption (TPR), or both. Prevalence ranged between 0% and 36.8% for hypophosphataemia in 287 participants, and from 0% to 62.5% for impaired TPR in 246 participants. One non-eligible study investigated risk factors for hypophosphataemia, but could not find any association.Four out of 52 studies, including 128 CCS, assessed the prevalence of hypomagnesaemia, which ranged between 13.2% and 28.6%. Both non-eligible studies investigating risk factors identified cisplatin as a risk factor. Carboplatin, nephrectomy and follow-up time were other reported risk factors.The prevalence of hypertension ranged from 0% to 50% in 2464 participants (30/52 studies). Risk factors reported by one eligible study were older age at screening and abdominal radiotherapy. A non-eligible study also found long follow-up time as risk factor. Three non-eligible studies showed that a higher body mass index increased the risk of hypertension. Treatment-related risk factors were abdominal radiotherapy and TBI, but studies were inconsistent.Because of the profound heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to perform meta-analyses. Risk of bias was present in all studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of adverse renal effects after treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin, ifosfamide, radiation therapy involving the kidney region, nephrectomy, or any combination of these, ranged from 0% to 84% depending on the study population, received treatment combination, reported outcome measure, follow-up duration and methodological quality. With currently available evidence, it was not possible to draw solid conclusions regarding the prevalence of, and treatment-related risk factors for, specific adverse renal effects. Future studies should focus on adequate study designs and reporting, including large prospective cohort studies with adequate control groups when possible. In addition, these studies should deploy multivariable risk factor analyses to correct for possible confounding. Next to research concerning known nephrotoxic therapies, exploring nephrotoxicity after new therapeutic agents is advised for future studies. Until more evidence becomes available, CCS should preferably be enrolled into long-term follow-up programmes to monitor their renal function and blood pressure.

Phase II trial of ifosfamide in combination with the VEGFR inhibitor sorafenib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a Spanish group for research on sarcomas (GEIS) study.

Background Sorafenib is a potent targeted-therapy that blockades angiogenesis and has demonstrated activity against some sarcoma subtypes. Preclinical studies suggested that treatment with sorafenib plus cytotoxic agents could result in additive efficacy. Methods Patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma, with or without anthracycline pretreatment were included. Patients received oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily starting on Day +2, ifosfamide 2.0 g/m2 iv infusion lasting 4 h on days 1, 2 and 3 with concurrent mesna 400 mg/m2 every three weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or up to a maximum of 6 cycles of ifosfamide (sorafenib could be continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity). Primary objective was progression-free rate (PFR) at 3 and 6 months; secondary objectives were overall response rate (ORR), Progression-free survival (PFS), Overall survival (OS) and safety. This article reports the phase II part of a phase I/II clinical trial. Results Thirty-five patients were enrolled. PFR at 3 and 6 months was 66% (95% CI 48-81) and 37% (95% CI 22-55). Six patients (17%) achieved partial response and 17 (49%) stable disease. Median PFS was 4.8 months (CI 95% 1.94-6.36) and overall survival 16.2 months (95% CI 8.75-NA). Conclusion Treatment with sorafenib plus ifosfamide achieved a significant clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma resistant to anthracyclines, which warrants a more detailed study in randomized clinical trials.

Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Plus Regional Hyperthermia on Long-term Outcomes Among Patients With Localized High-Risk Soft Tissue Sarcoma: The EORTC 62961-ESHO 95 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with soft tissue sarcoma are at risk for local recurrence and distant metastases despite optimal local treatment. Preoperative anthracycline plus ifosfamide chemotherapy improves outcome in common histological subtypes. OBJECTIVE: To analyze whether the previously reported improvement in local progression-free survival by adding regional hyperthermia to neoadjuvant chemotherapy translates into improved survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxic effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus regional hyperthermia. Adult patients (age ≥18 years) with localized soft tissue sarcoma (tumor ≥5 cm, French Federation Nationale des Centers de Lutte Contre le Cancer [FNCLCC] grade 2 or 3, deep) were accrued across 9 centers (6, Germany; 1, Norway; 1, Austria; 1, United States) from July 1997 to November 2006. Follow-up ended December 2014. INTERVENTIONS: After stratification for tumor presentation and site, patients were randomly assigned to either neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisting of doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and etoposide alone, or combined with regional hyperthermia. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was local progression-free survival. Secondary end points included treatment safety and survival, with survival defined from date of randomization to death due to disease or treatment. Patients lost to follow-up were censored at the date of their last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 341 patients were randomized, and 329 (median [range] age, 51 [18-70] years; 147 women, 182 men) were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis. By December 2014, 220 patients (67%; 95% CI, 62%-72%) had experienced disease relapse, and 188 (57%; 95% CI, 52%-62%) had died. Median follow-up was 11.3 years. Compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, adding regional hyperthermia improved local progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.86; P = .002). Patients randomized to chemotherapy plus hyperthermia had prolonged survival rates compared with those randomized to neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .04) with 5-year survival of 62.7% (95% CI, 55.2%-70.1%) vs 51.3% (95% CI, 43.7%-59.0%), respectively, and 10-year survival of 52.6% (95% CI, 44.7%-60.6%) vs 42.7% (95% CI, 35.0%-50.4%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma the addition of regional hyperthermia to neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in increased survival, as well as local progression-free survival. For patients who are candidates for neoadjuvant treatment, adding regional hyperthermia may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003052.

Comparison of Nutrition-Related Adverse Events and Clinical Outcomes Between ICE (Ifosfamide, Carboplatin, and Etoposide) and MCEC (Ranimustine, Carboplatin, Etoposide, and Cyclophosphamide) Therapies as Pretreatment for Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Malignant Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare nutrition-related adverse events and clinical outcomes of ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide regimen (ICE therapy) and ranimustine, carboplatin, etoposide, and cyclophosphamide regimen (MCEC therapy) instituted as pretreatment for autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled patients who underwent autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation between 2007 and 2012. Outcomes were compared between ICE therapy (n=14) and MCEC therapy (n=14) in relation to nutrient balance, engraftment day, and length of hospital stay. In both groups, we compared the timing of nutrition-related adverse events with oral caloric intake, analyzed the correlation between length of hospital stay and duration of parenteral nutrition, and investigated the association between oral caloric intake and the proportion of parenteral nutrition energy in total calorie supply. Five-year survival was compared between the groups. RESULTS Compared with the MCEC group, the ICE group showed significant improvement in oral caloric intake, length of hospital stay, and timing of nutrition-related adverse events and oral calorie intake, but a delay in engraftment. Both groups showed a correlation between duration of parenteral nutrition and length of hospital stay (P=0.0001) and between oral caloric intake (P=0.0017) and parenteral nutrition energy sufficiency rate (r=-0.73, P=0.003; r=-0.76, P=0.002). Five-year survival was not significantly different between the groups (P=0.1355). CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that compared with MCEC therapy, ICE therapy improves nutrition-related adverse events and reduces hospital stay, conserving medical resources, with no significant improvement in long-term survival. The nutritional pathway may serve as a tool for objective evaluation of pretreatment for autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.

Dose adjustment of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide according to kidney function: a retrospective analysis and implications for medication safety.

Clearance of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide depends on kidney function and dosages should be adjusted in patients with renal impairment. However, there is still limited data on the adherence of physicians to dosing recommendations for these drugs in cancer patients with renal impairment. Three thousand four hundred forty-eight prescriptions to 369 patients, treated in the Comprehensive Cancer Center of a German university hospital, were retrospectively evaluated. The administered relative doses of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide were compared with relative doses recommended at the time of prescription according to the patients' creatinine clearance. Cisplatin is contraindicated according to two German summary of product characteristics (SmPC) in patients with a creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min. Nevertheless, 37 cisplatin prescriptions were made for this group of patients (i.e., 2.0% of all cisplatin prescriptions). According to one German SmPC (valid in the year of data analysis), etoposide dosage should be reduced in patients with a creatinine clearance from 15 to 50 mL/min, while it is contraindicated below 15 mL/min. Thirteen etoposide prescriptions were without dose reduction in patients with creatinine clearance from 15 to 50 mL/min (1.5% of all etoposide prescriptions); one patient received etoposide with creatinine clearance below 15 mL/min. In 8.9% of ifosfamide prescriptions, patients did not receive a reduced dose in spite of respective recommendations. Dosages of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide are not always adjusted as recommended in patients with renal impairment. Consistent international dosing recommendations (e.g., in SmPCs), preferentially included in clinical decision support systems, should be developed to tackle this problem.

Análisis de impacto presupuestal de tecnologías para el manejo complementario de quimioterapia en Colombia / Budget impact analysis of technologies for the complementary management of chemotherapy in Colombia

INTRODUCCIÓN: El análisis de impacto presupuestal (AIP) de los medicamentos quimioterapéuticos para el tratamiento de cáncer en Colombia, se desarrolló en el marco del mecanismo técnico científico para la ampliación progresiva del Plan de Beneficios en Salud con cargo a la UPC (PBSUPC) y la definición de la lista de exclusiones, establecido en el artículo 15 de la Ley 1751 de 2015. La quimioterapia tiene un gran impacto en el tratamiento oncológico, la cual es indispensable por su valor terapéutico en varios tipos de cáncer. Esta tecnología puede ser usada sola o junto con otros tratamientos, tales como la cirugía o la radioterapia. La quimioterapia engloba a una gran variedad de fármacos y su objetivo es destruir las células tumorales con el fin de lograr la reducción de la enfermedad, los medicamentos empleados en este tipo de tratamiento se les denomina fármacos antineoplásicos. Cada tipo de tumor canceroso tiene una determinada sensibilidad a estos medicamentos, por lo tanto, es frecuente que el mismo fármaco se pueda emplear en el tratamiento de distintos tumores, variando las dosis o asociándolo a otros fármacos distintos. La quimioterapia puede ser administrada con fines curativos o para aliviar los síntomas y prolongar la supervivencia. La forma de administración de la quimioterapia es por ciclos y esto se logra alternando los periodos de tratamiento con periodos de descanso. Un ciclo es, por lo tanto, el periodo de administración del tratamiento y el de descanso hasta la siguiente administración. El objetivo de este análisis de impacto presupuestal (AIP) es estimar el esfuerzo financiero necesario para la adopción de la quimioterapia en el tratamiento de pacientes con cáncer en Colombia, en un horizonte temporal de tres años. Este documento está conformado por cuatro secciones: en la primera se identifican las tecnologías a evaluar, en la segunda sección se especifica la perspectiva, horizonte temporal y la población sobre la cual se realizó el AIP; en la sección tres se detallan los costos utilizados en el modelo, además de los escenarios planteados por los investigadores; por último, en la sección cuatro se exponen los resultados en los diferentes escenarios planteados Este documento describe la metodología desarrollada para realizar el análisis de impacto presupuestal de 21 tecnologías para el manejo quimioterapéutico del cáncer en Colombia Este informe, sigue los lineamientos propuestos en el Manual para la Elaboración de Análisis de Impacto Presupuestal y en Manual de Participación y Deliberación publicados por IETS. Insumos y método: Esta sección presenta los supuestos, parámetros y métodos utilizados para el modelo de estimación del impacto presupuestal describiendo la siguiente información: Perspectiva: La perspectiva de este AIP es la del tercer pagador el cual en nuestro contexto es el Sistema General de Seguridad Social en Salud (SGSSS). Horizonte temporal: El horizonte temporal de este AIP en el caso base corresponde a un año. Adicionalmente se reportan las estimaciones del impacto presupuestal para los años 2 y 3, bajo el supuesto de inclusión en el PBS en el año 1. Población total: Para el desarrollo de este AIP se parte de la población general afiliada al SGSSS colombiano sin distinción de sexo o edad. ESCENARIOS: Se consideró para la formulación de los escenarios de adopción de las tecnologías evaluadas los siguientes aspectos: 1. Los medicamentos evaluados no son alternativas terapéuticas para las patologías observadas, estas tecnologías sanitarias hacen parte de los protocolos de tratamiento con evidencia científica suficiente que garantizan su efectividad y seguridad clínica y que actualmente se encuentran en las opciones de tratamiento utilizados en la práctica clínica colombiana. 2. Al ser esquemas de tratamiento que hacen parte de protocolos estandarizados de aplicación, sí alguno de los medicamentos es sujeto de recobros ante ADRES, este trámite puede generar barreras de acceso al tratamiento hasta que se efectué la respectiva aprobación. Por lo tanto, no hay certeza de la efectividad clínica si los esquemas de tratamiento son suministrados de forma parcial o incompleta. 3. La elección del esquema de tratamiento obedece a criterios clínicos y a las características evaluadas en el paciente, no se espera una sustitución entre los diferentes esquemas sí se realiza un cambio en el mecanismo de financiamiento. 4. La adopción de las tecnologías evaluadas en este AIP no se espera que se modifiquen de manera importante, debido a que estas tecnologías hacen parte integral de los esquemas de tratamiento y su incorporación en la práctica clínica habitual en el contexto internacional y nacional, data de aproximadamente 10 a 5 años. Tambieén son parte de las opciones de primera línea de tratamiento para estadios tempranos, avanzados y localmente avanzados del paciente diagnosticado con câncer. De acuerdo a las anteriores consideraciones, al incorporar los medicamentos evaluados al PBS con cargo a la UPC, se espera la misma composición del mercado con la adopción de los nuevos medicamentos en el 100% de los tratamientos esperados en la siguiente anualidad. Los resultados esperados en el sistema de salud, en este cambio de financiamiento, se esperan obtener en dos puntos: a) En una mejor oportunidad de acceso a los esquemas de tratamiento en el SGSSS (25). b) En una mejora en la cobertura efectiva de los tratamientos de quimioterapia en pacientes con diagnóstico de cáncer. RESULTADOS: Se muestra el resultado consolidado para las ventiun tecnologías objeto del Análisis de Impacto Presupuestal. La tecnología que genera un mayor impacto es Oxaliplatino, con un valor por persona de $2.363.250,76 usada en 3170 pacientes, para un total de $7.491.504.923,90. El Megestrol es la tecnología con menor impacto, con un costo por persona de $ 383.791,06 y siendo usada en 34 pacientes, tiene un valor total de $ 13.048.896,00. La tretinoina es la tecnología más económica por paciente, con un valor de $ 97.996,50, es usada en 242 personas para un total de $ 23.715.153,00. DISCUSIÓN: En la práctica actual existe un volumen amplio de recobros en el caso de estos medicamentos por usos UNIRS. En algunos casos, los cambios en el mercado farmacéutico, ya sea por el retiro de medicamentos o la llegada de ellos, hace que se modifique indicaciones ya existentes en los registros y que pueden llegar a impactar estos. usos, por ejemplo aquellos casos en los que existe la indicación antineplásico y se cambian por indicaciones especificas, que pueden no considerar condiciones de salud de baja incidencia. Como se ha caracterizado con anterioridad, el mercado de tecnologías sanitarias que se encuentran incluidas al plan de beneficios en salud con cargo a la UPC difiere sustancialmente al mercado de tecnologías sanitarias aún no financiadas por dicho mecanismo. La existencia de las Empresas Administradoras de Planes de Beneficios (EAPB) presume la existencia de un actor que al maximizar su beneficio, es un buen negociador que en cumplimiento de los principios del SGSSS, llega a un precio de equilibrio que maximiza el beneficio social. En cambio, los medicamentos que son sujetos a recobros al ADRES presume un precio fuera de aquel nivel en donde se maximiza al beneficio social, en la medida que no hay una función clara de monopsonio que coteje y negocie un precio de adquisición. En algunos casos puede llegar asumir sobrecostos que las EAPB al ser intermediarias, no tienen incentivos para efectuar un adecuado control. Con el objetivo de estimar el resultado de la incorporación de estos medicamentos al PBS con cargo a la UPC, se asumieron dos escenarios en los cuales la población objetivo del AIP se consideró constante y se asumieron los siguientes supuestos: En el primer escenario se asume que los precios observados en recobros serán el promedio de todas las transacciones de compra en la siguiente anualidad. En el segundo escenario los precios promedio de adquisición de los medicamentos evaluados, corresponden al promedio observado en SISMED como predictor de los precios de equilibrio que pueden generar las EAPB como ente negociador. Se asume que, en promedio, las EAPB son negociadores eficientes que se acercan a un precio de equilibrio que maximiza el bienestar social. Se asume que la población objetivo corresponde al total de posibles pacientes que requieren las tecnologías sanitarias en evaluación, sin que exista demanda insatisfecha para estos esquemas de tratamiento. Para su cálculo, como se presenta en la tabla 09 de los servicios prestados durante el año 2015 y recobrados al FOSYGA en los años 2015 y 2016, se calculó un valor per-cápita de acuerdo con el identificador (cedula de ciudadanía anonimizada) registrado en cada recobro. Luego, este valor es indexado a precios 2016 con el IPC reportado por el DANE a diciembre 31 del año 2015. Este valor será el comparador del precio calculado para cada uno de los medicamentos a partir de SISMED 2016.

Response to anti-programmed cell death protein-1 antibodies in men treated for platinum refractory germ cell cancer relapsed after high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment options for patients with platinum refractory metastatic germ cell tumours (GCT) relapsing after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation are limited and survival is poor. Antibodies directed against programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) are currently assessed within clinical trials. We present updated data on our experience with checkpoint inhibitors as a compassionate use off-label treatment attempt for highly-pretreated patients with GCT and provide an overview of the current literature on PD-L1 expression in this rare tumour entity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed all patients with platinum refractory GCT treated with checkpoint inhibitors at our institutions between 2015 and 2017. Data were retrieved retrospectively from the patient charts. RESULTS: Seven patients were treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Four patients received single-dose treatment and died shortly afterwards due to tumour progression; the remaining three patients received treatment for at least 6 months. No significant treatment toxicity was observed. Long-term tumour response was achieved in two of the three patients, both of them highly positive for PD-L1 staining. INTERPRETATION: We consider checkpoint inhibition to be efficient in carefully selected patients with platinum refractory GCT. However, predictive markers associated with tumour response are not yet known and larger prospective clinical trials are warranted.

Abdominal desmoplastic small round cell tumor without extraperitoneal metastases: Is there a benefit for HIPEC after macroscopically complete cytoreductive surgery?

BACKGROUND: Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Tumor (DSRCT) is a rare disease affecting predominantly children and young adults and for which the benefit of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) after complete cytoreductive surgery (CCRS) remains unknown. METHODS: To identify patients with DSRCT without extraperitoneal metastases (EPM) who underwent CCRS between 1991 and 2015, a retrospective nation-wide survey was conducted by crossing the prospective and retrospective databases of the French Network for Rare Peritoneal Malignancies, French Reference Network in Sarcoma Pathology, French Sarcoma Clinical Network and French Pediatric Cancer Society. RESULTS: Among the 107 patients with DSRCT, 48 had no EPM and underwent CCRS. The median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 9 (range: 2-27). Among these 48 patients, 38 (79%) had pre- and/or postoperative chemotherapy and 23 (48%) postoperative whole abdominopelvic radiotherapy (WAP-RT). Intraperitoneal chemotherapy was administered to 11 patients (23%): two received early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) and nine HIPEC. After a median follow-up of 30 months, the median overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort was 42 months. The 2-y and 5-y OS were 72% and 19%. The 2-y and 5-y disease-free survival (DFS) were 30% and 12%. WAP-RT was the only variable associated with longer peritoneal recurrence-free survival and DFS after CCRS. The influence of HIPEC/EPIC on OS and DFS was not statistically conclusive. CONCLUSION: The benefit of HIPEC is still unknown and should be evaluated in a prospective trial. The value of postoperative WAP-RT seems to be confirmed.

Eficacia y seguridad de mifamurtida en pacientes com diagnóstico de osteosarcoma osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamiento sistémico previo, en el contexto de neoadyuvancia con quimioterapia mapi (metotrexate, doxorrubicina, cisplatino e ifosfamida) / Efficacy and safety of mifamurtide in patients with diagnosis of non-metastatic osteoblastic osteosarcoma without previous systemic treatment, in the context of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with mapi (methotrexate, doxorubicin, cisplatin and ifosfamide)

INTRODUCCIÓN: El presente informe expone la evaluación de tecnología sobre la eficacia y seguridad de mifamurtida, para el tratamiento de pacientes con osteosarcoma (OS) osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamiento sistémico previo, en el contexto de neoadyuvancia com quimioterapia MAPI (metotrexato, doxorrubicina, cisplatino e ifosfamida). El osteosarcoma (OS) es un tumor maligno primario del esqueleto y la neoplasia primaria más común del hueso en niños y adultos jóvenes. Representa aproximadamente el 20% de todos los tumores óseos primarios malignos y el 0.2% de todos los tumores malignos. Su curva de distribución en cuanto a la edad es bimodal, con un primer pico en la adolescencia y otro después de los 65 años. La adición de quimioterapia agresiva adyuvante o neoadyuvante a la cirugía há mejorado considerablemente el pronóstico de los pacientes con enfermedad localizada, incrementando la tasa de curación de pacientes con OS en las extremidades y sin enfermedad metastásica evidente de 10-15% a 50-70%. OBJETIVO: El presente dictamen preliminar expone la evaluación de la tecnología sanitaria de la eficacia y seguridad de mifamurtida, para el tratamiento de pacientes com osteosarcoma (OS) osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamiento sistémico previo, en el contexto de neoadyuvancia con quimioterapia MAPI (metotrexato, doxorrubicina, cisplatino e ifosfamida). TECNOLOGIA SANITARIA DE INTERES: La mifamurtida (Mepact, Takeda) es un compuesto químico biológicamente activo con actividad inmunomoduladora, clasificándose como un adyuvante biológico y perteneciente al grupo farmacoterapéutico de los inmunoestimulantes (36,37) . El compuesto es un derivado totalmente sintético del muramil dipéptido (MDP), el estimulante inmunológico natural más pequeño de las paredes celulares de micobacterias (37) . Al igual que la MDP, la mifamurtida es reconocida por el receptor de reconocimiento de patrones NOD2, localizado en varios tipos de glóbulos blancos, principalmente monocitos y macrófagos. De tal manera, mifamurtida simula una infección bacteriana, resultando en una activación de los macrófagos y un incremento en la producción de TNF-alfa, interleuquina 1, 6, 8 y 12, y moléculas de adhesión (e.g., ICAM-1 y LFA-1). METODOLOGÍA: Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura con respecto a la eficacia y seguridad del uso de mifamurtida para el tratamiento de pacientes con osteosarcoma osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamiento sistémico previo, en el contexto de neoadyuvancia con quimioterapia MAPI (metotrexato, doxorrubicina, cisplatino e ifosfamida). La búsqueda se realizó utilizando las bases de datos: National Library of Medicine (PubMed, 09/2017), Web of Science (WoS, 09/2017), y Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD, 09/2017). Adicionalmente, se amplió la búsqueda revisando la evidencia generada por grupos internacionales que realizan revisiones sistemáticas (RS), evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC), tales como The Cochrane Library (09/2017), The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 08/2017) del Reino Unido, The National Guidelines of Clearinghouse (NGC, 08/2017) de los Estados Unidos, The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN, 08/2017) de Escocia, Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines (08/2017), The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Practice Guidelines de Australia (08/2017), CMA Infobase de la Canadian Medical Association (08/2017), American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guidelines and Recommendations (08/2017) de los Estados Unidos, Guidelines International Network (GIN, 08/2017), New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG, 08/2017) de Nueva Zelanda, Guía Salud de España (08/2017, 08/2017), y el Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud (CENETEC) de México. Esta búsqueda se completo revisando publicaciones de grupos dedicados a la educación, investigación y mejora de la práctica clínica oncológica dentro de América y Europa, como The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 09/2017) de los Estados Unidos, y The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 08/2017). Por último, se completó la búsqueda ingresando a la página web www.clinicaltrials.gov, para así poder identificar ensayos clínicos en elaboración o que no hayan sido publicados aún, y así disminuir el riesgo de sesgo de publicación. RESULTADOS: se llevó a cabo una búsqueda bibliográfica y de evidencia científica hasta setiembre de 2017 relacionada al uso de mifamurtida en el tratamiento de pacientes con osteosarcoma (OS) osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamiento sistémico previo, en el contexto de neoadyuvancia con quimioterapia MAPI (metotrexato, doxorrubicina, cisplatino e ifosfamida). Según las guías consultadas para pacientes con OS no metastásico resecable, referentes al uso de mifamurtida como parte del régimen quimioterapéutico MAPI neoadyuvante (pre-operatorio), no existen recomendaciones generales, unicamente algunas hacen mención al uso de mifamurtida en un contexto de adyuvancia (post-operatorio). El único ensayo clínico que evalúa el uso de mifamurtida dentro del régimen quimioterapéutico MAPI, lo hace en un contexto adyuvante, el cual reporta que no hubo una mejora estadísticamente significativa en relación a la sobreviva libre de eventos (HR 0.78, IC 95%: 0.54 ­ 1.2; p=0.22). Por otro lado, si bien se observó una aparente mejora en relación a la sobrevida global (HR 0.71; IC 95%, 0.52 ­ 0.96, valor p no reportado), es de notar que el límite superior del intervalo de confianza es marginal con respecto al valor nulo de no significancia estadística y que el valor p no ha sido reportado. Asimismo, estos resultados son invalidados por i) interacción observada entre mifamurtida y quimioterapia, afectando el análisis marginal del ensayo, ii) falta de poder estadístico para comparar individualmente los cuatro regímenes quimioterapéuticos evaluados, y iii) aparente falta de poder estadístico para evaluar el efecto de mifamurtida a los regímenes quimioterapéuticos sobre la sobrevida global. Actualmente, no se ha identificado ningún estudio publicado o en proceso dirigido a evaluar los efectos de la mifamurtida neoadyuvante en población con diagnóstico de OS no metastásico. Por lo tanto, no existe evidencia respecto a la eficacia y seguridad de mifamurtida en un contexto pre-operatorio. Se requiere de un ensayo clínico que evalúe la administración de mifamurtida, prévio a la resección del tumor, en la población de interés del presente dictamen. CONCLUSIÓN: El Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación-IETSI no aprueba el uso de mifamurtida para el manejo de los pacientes com diagnóstico de osteosarcoma (OS) osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamento sistémico en el contexto de neoadyuvancia con quimioterapia MAPI.

Eficacia y seguridad de mifamurtida en pacientes con diagnóstico de osteosarcoma osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamiento sistémico previo, en el contexto de adyuvancia con quimioterapia mapi (metotrexate, doxorrubicina, cisplatino e ifosfamida) / Efficacy and safety of mifamurtide in patients diagnosed with non-metastatic osteoblastic osteosarcoma without previous systemic treatment, in the context of adjuvant chemotherapy with mapi (methotrexate, doxorubicin, cisplatin and ifosfamide)

INTRODUCCIÓN: El presente dictamen expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de mifamurtida, para el tratamiento de pacientes con osteosarcoma osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamiento sistémico previo, en el contexto de adyuvancia con quimioterapia MAPI (metotrexato, doxorrubicina, cisplatino e ifosfamida). El osteosarcoma (OS) osteoblástico es un tumor maligno primario del esqueleto y la neoplasia primaria más común del hueso en niños y adultos jóvenes. Representa aproximadamente el 20 % de todos los tumores óseos primarios malignos y el 0.2 % de todos los tumores malignos. Su curva de distribución en cuanto a la edad es bimodal, con un primer pico en la adolescencia y otro después de los 65 años. La adición de quimioterapia a la cirugía ha mejorado considerablemente el pronóstico de los pacientes con enfermedad localizada, incrementando la tasa de curación de pacientes con OS en las extremidades y sin enfermedad metastásica evidente de 10-15 % a 50-70 %. En la actualidad el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud cuenta con metotrexato, doxorrubicina, cisplatino e ifosfamida (MAPI) como opción de régimen quimioterapéutico para OS. Sin embargo, se considera que la adición de mifamurtida al esquema MAPI podría ser de potencial beneficio para los pacientes con osteosarcoma en el contexto de adyuvancia. Así, el presente dictamen preliminar tiene como objetivo evaluar la eficacia y seguridad del uso de mifamurtida en combinación con MAPI en pacientes con osteosarcoma osteoblástico no metastásico que no han recibido tratamiento previo, en el contexto de adyuvancia.TECNOLOGIA SANITARIA DE INTERES: Mifamurtida (Mepact, Takeda) es un compuesto químico biológicamente activo con actividad inmunomoduladora, clasificándose como un adyuvante biológico y perteneciente al grupo farmacoterapéutico de los inmunoestimulantes . El compuesto es un derivado totalmente sintético del muramil dipéptido (MDP), el estimulante inmunológico natural más pequeño de las paredes celulares de las micobacterias (37) . Al igual que la MDP, la mifamurtida es reconocida por el receptor de reconocimiento de patrones NOD2, localizado en varios tipos de glóbulos blancos, principalmente monocitos y macrófagos. De tal manera, mifamurtida simula una infección bacteriana, resultando en una activación de los macrófagos y un incremento en la producción de TNF-alfa, interleuquina 1, 6, 8 y 12, y moléculas de adhesión (e.g., ICAM-1 y LFA-1). Se desconoce el mecanismo de acción antitumoral exacto de la mifamurtida, pero estudios in vitro reportan que ésta induce a los glóbulos blancos a liberar sustancias químicas que matan a las células cancerosas, mas no a las células normales. METODOLOGÍA: Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura con respecto a la eficacia y seguridad del uso de mifamurtida para el tratamiento de pacientes con osteosarcoma osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamiento sistémico previo, en el contexto de adyuvancia con quimioterapia MAPI (metotrexato, doxorrubicina, cisplatino e ifosfamida). La búsqueda se realizó utilizando las bases de datos: National Library of Medicine (PubMed, 09/2017), Web of Science (WoS, 09/2017), y Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD, 09/2017). Adicionalmente, se amplió la búsqueda revisando la evidencia generada por grupos internacionales que realizan revisiones sistemáticas (RS), evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC), tales como The Cochrane Library (09/2017), The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 08/2017) del Reino Unido, The National Guidelines of Clearinghouse (NGC, 08/2017) de los Estados Unidos, The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN, 08/2017) de Escocia, Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines (08/2017), The Royal Childrens Hospital Melbourne Practice Guidelines de Australia (08/2017), CMA Infobase de la Canadian Medical Association (08/2017), American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guidelines and Recommendations (08/2017) de los Estados Unidos, Guidelines International Network (GIN, 08/2017), New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG, 08/2017) de Nueva Zelanda, Guía Salud de España (08/2017, 08/2017), y el Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnológica en Salud (CENETEC) de México. Esta búsqueda se completó revisando publicaciones de grupos dedicados a la educación, investigación y mejora de la práctica clínica oncológica dentro de América y Europa, como The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 09/2017) de los Estados Unidos, y The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 08/2017). Por último, se completó la búsqueda ingresando a la página web www.clinicaltrials.gov, para así poder identificar ensayos clínicos en elaboración o que no hayan sido publicados aún, y así disminuir el riesgo de sesgo de publicación. RESULTADOS: Según las cuatro guías de práctica clínica (GPC) incluidas en el presente dictamen en relación al tratamiento de pacientes con OS no metastásico resecable, tres hacen mención al uso de mifamurtida en un contexto de adyuvancia (post-operatorio) y una no se pronuncia al respecto dado que el compuesto no tiene licencia en el país de publicación de la guía (i.e., no tiene aprobación por la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los Estados Unidos (FDA, por sus siglas en inglés)). Si bien tres GPC hacen mención al uso de mifamurtida, éstas brindan indicaciones discordantes a pesar de basarse en el único ensayo clínico existente (INT-0133) y el mismo artículo que reporta sus hallazgos (Meyers et al., 2008): i) Sociedad Europea de Oncología Médica (SEOM) recomienda su uso como parte de la quimioterapia adyuvante acorde al protocolo del único ensayo clínico existente a la fecha (INT-0133); ii) Grupo de Trabajo de Sarcoma de la Red de Cáncer de Singapur (SCAN, por sus siglas en inglés) reporta que el efecto de la adición de la mifamurtida a la quimioterapia multiagente estándar aún es poco claro; y iii) Sociedad Europea de Oncología Médica (ESMO, por sus siglas en inglés) reporta que no existe un consenso en la Comunidad de Sarcomas sobre el uso de mifamurtida dada las debilidades del único ensayo clínico existente. En relación a las dos evaluaciones de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) evaluadas, el Instituto Nacional de Salud y Cuidados de Excelencia (NICE, por sus siglas en inglés) recomienda el uso de mifamurtida para el tratamiento quimioterapéutico adyuvante de pacientes con OS no metastásico resecable basándose en resultados del único ensayo clínico existente a la fecha (INT-0113) y en la opinión de expertos, y luego de realizarse un descuento en el precio del medicamento. Por otro lado, la ETS de NCCN brinda únicamente un resumen de la evidencia existente respecto al uso de mifamurtida con quimioterapia adyuvante para pacientes con OS no metastásico resecable, mas no emite recomendación alguna sobre su uso. El único ensayo clínico que evalúa el uso de mifamurtida dentro del régimen quimioterapéutico MAPI en un contexto adyuvante, reporta que no existe una diferencia estadísticamente significativa entre mifamurtida más MAPI en relación a MAP (metotrexato, cisplatino y doxorrubicina) solo con respecto a la sobrevida libre de eventos (HR 0.78, IC 95 %: 0.54 ­ 1.2; p=0.22), es de notar que las comparaciones se hicieron en relación al régimen estándar MAP y no MAPI, con lo cual no se podría determinar el efecto neto de la adición de mifamurtida a MAPI, sino de mifamurtida e ifosfamida a MAP. En relación a la sobrevida global (SG) no se presenta el valor p y se observa que el límite superior del intervalo de confianza es marginal al valor nulo de significancia (HR 0.71; IC 95 %, 0.52 ­ 0.96). Adicionalmente se observa i) interacción entre mifamurtida y quimioterapia, afectando el análisis marginal del ensayo, ii) falta de poder estadístico para comparar individualmente los cuatro regímenes quimioterapéuticos evaluados, y iii) la aparente falta de poder estadístico para evaluar el efecto de la adición de mifamurtida a los regímenes quimioterapéuticos en relación a la sobrevida global. Así, el único ensayo clínico que evalúa el efecto de la mifamurtida en pacientes con OS tienen serias limitaciones, las cuales no permiten estimar si existe un real beneficio de la adición de mifamurtida al régimen quimioterapéutico adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: El Instituto de Evaluaciones de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación - IETSI no aprueba el uso de mifamurtida para el manejo de los pacientes con diagnóstico de osteosarcoma osteoblástico no metastásico sin tratamiento sistémico, en el contexto de adyuvancia con quimioterapia MAPI.

Effective local control of advanced soft tissue sarcoma with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery: A single institutional experience.

PURPOSE: There is a sound theoretical basis but little clinical evidence substantiating the benefits of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with two-drug chemotherapy for locally advanced soft tissue sarcomas. Our five-year data on the feasibility and effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with systemically effective doses of adriamycin and ifosfamide combined is presented here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2000 and 2011, 53 patients with UICC (2010) stage I (n=1, 1.9%), II (n=12, 22.7%) or III (n=40, 75.5%) nonmetastatic soft tissue sarcoma received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with ifosfamide (1.5 g/m(2)/day, d1-5, q28) and doxorubicin (50mg/m(2)/day, d3, q28) plus concurrent radiotherapy with a target dose of 50-64 Gy (median 60 Gy). The treatment of 34 patients (64.2%) was combined with hyperthermia. RESULTS: At five years, the local control rate was 89.9% (± 5.7%), distant metastasis-free survival 66.6% (± 7.6%), and survival 83.3% (± 6%). The R0 resection rate was 81.1%. Radiotherapy was completed as planned in all patients and chemotherapy in 42/53 (70.2%). Grades III (n=21, 29.6%) and IV (n=18, 34%) leukopenia was the main acute adverse event. All acute and chronic non-hematologic toxicities were moderate. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for soft tissue sarcoma is associated with good feasibility, manageable acute and late toxicities, and high local efficacy.

Adjuvant Ovarian Suppression, High-dose Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy for Premenopausal Patients with High-risk Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Premenopausal patients with breast cancer and more than 10 positive axillary nodes (BC>10) have a poor prognosis: In these patients the best adjuvant therapy (CT) has not yet been established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two BC>10 received, in sequence, the following adjuvant treatments: luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LH-RH) analog for 5 years; anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy; radiation therapy; platinum-based high-dose CT, with autologous bone marrow transplantation; immunotherapy with interleukin 2 (IL2) and 13-cis retinoic acid (RA); anastrazole given 5 years to estrogen receptor-positive patients. Primary endpoints of the study were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall (OS) survival. A secondary endpoint was toxicity. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 41 years, and the mean number of positive axillary nodes was 14. Estrogen and progesterone receptors were positive in 57% and 29% of patients respectively, while 14% of patients had triple-negative disease. With a median follow-up of 120 months for patients remaining alive at the end of study, median DFS and OS, had not yet been reached. The 20-year DFS and OS rates were 63.8%, and 81.6%, respectively. One to two years after the end of the therapy, three patients had had four full-term pregnancies. CONCLUSION: Treatment with LH-RH analog, high-dose CT, peripheral blood progenitor cells and IL2 with RA for patients with BC>10 is feasible, has moderate toxicity, while preserving ovarian function, seems to improve the expected DFS and OS for these high-risk patients.