Modified-BEP Chemotherapy in Patients With Germ-Cell Tumors Treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVES: Bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) is the most common and successful chemotherapy regimen for germ-cell tumor (GCT) patients, accompanied by a bleomycin-induced dose-dependent lung toxicity in certain patients. In an attempt to reduce bleomycin-toxicity, we developed a modified-BEP (mBEP) regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2008 and February 2018, 182 unselected mainly testicular GCT patients (39 with adjuvant purpose and 143 with curative purpose) received a tri-weekly 5-day hospitalization schedule with bleomycin 15 U intravenous (IV) push on day 1 and 10 U IV continuous infusion over 12 hours on days 1 to 3, cisplatin 20 mg/m IV, and etoposide 100 mg/m IV on days 1 to 5. Pulmonary toxicity was assessed through chest computed tomography scan and clinical monitoring. RESULTS: Median number of mBEP cycles was 3 (range: 1 to 4). In the curative setting, according to the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) prognostic system, 112, 21, and 9 patients had good-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk class, respectively; 66 (46%) patients had complete response (CR), 67 (47%) had partial response (52 of whom became CR afterwards), 6 (4%) had stable disease (that in 3 became CR afterwards), 3 (2%) progressed, and 1 (1%) died of brain stroke. At a median follow-up of 2.67 years (interquartile range: 1.23-5.00 y), 1 and 5-year overall survival and progression-free survival were 99% and 95%, and 90% and 88%, respectively. In the entire patient population, there was grade 3/4 neutropenia in 92 patients (51%), febrile neutropenia in 11 patients (6%), grade 1/2 nausea in 74 patients (41%), and no death due to pulmonary toxicity. CONCLUSION: In GCT patients, our mBEP-schedule would suggest an effective treatment modality without suffering meaningful pulmonary toxicity.

Is there still a role for sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of sorafenib over other targeted agents.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has largely improved over the last decade, due to the availability of several targeted agents (TAs). Sorafenib was the first TA to report a benefit in terms of PFS in this disease, and it has largely been used as a comparator in randomized trials. We tested its activity compared to other TAs by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ASCO university websites were searched for randomized phase II or III trials that compared other TAs to sorafenib in mRCC. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The measured outcomes were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the overall response rate (ORR). Sub-analyses were performed for MSKCC prognostic groups and lines of therapy. RESULTS: A total of 3094 patients were evaluable for PFS. Other TAs significantly reduce the risk of progression compared to sorafenib (HR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85; p<0.001). This difference remains significant in patients in a good prognostic group with respect to both first- (HR=0.61; 95%CI, 0.44-0.85; p=0.003) and second-line therapy (HR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; p<0.001). No significant differences were, however, found in patients with an intermediate prognosis in terms of both first- (HR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00; p=0.05) and second-line treatment (HR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.07; p=0.21). In 2922 patients evaluable for OS, no significant difference was found between other TAs and sorafenib (HR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.18; p=0.18). A benefit was also not identified when the analysis was limited to patients treated with first or subsequent lines of therapy or in patients previously treated with sunitinib. Significant differences were found in terms of the ORR in the 2963 evaluable patients favoring other TAs (RR=1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.76; p<0.001). This difference remain significant when a sub-analysis was performed per line of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Other TAs improve PFS but not OS when compared to sorafenib. The use of sorafenib in patients with an intermediate prognosis, especially in second-line therapy, does not have a detrimental effect on PFS and might be an option for certain patients.

Successful treatment with GEMOX in patient with metastatic pancreatic adenosquamous carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenosquamous carcinoma (PASC) is a rare subtype of pancreatic cancer characterized by a dual histological component and aggressive behavior. This form is not well known, its histogenesis is uncertain, and there are different opinions on the diagnostic histopathological criteria. The differential diagnosis with more common ductal adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, squamous or adenosquamous metastases is complex. The available therapies do not improve the poor prognosis and it is difficult to find long-term survivors (more than 1 year), even after demolitive surgery with complementary therapies. CASE REPORT: We report a case of advanced PASC with excellent progression-free survival and overall survival, 20 months and 29 months, respectively. Furthermore, an almost complete response was obtained to first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine/oxaliplatin (GEMOX) followed by maintenance gemcitabine. CONCLUSION: GEMOX followed by gemcitabine as maintenance could be an effective treatment for this pancreatic entity. Further reports are needed to confirm this outcome.