Improving the anticancer effect of afatinib and microRNA by using lipid polymeric nanoparticles conjugated with dual pH-responsive and targeting peptides.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of resistance to chemotherapy or target therapy, tumor metastasis, and systemic toxicity caused by available anticancer drugs hamper the successful colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment. The rise in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR; human epidermal growth factor receptor 1; HER1) expression and enhanced phosphorylation of HER2 and HER3 are associated with tumor resistance, metastasis and invasion, thus resulting in poor outcome of anti-CRC therapy. The use of afatinib, a pan-HER inhibitor, is a potential therapeutic approach for resistant CRC. Additionally, miR-139 has been reported to be negatively correlated with chemoresistance, metastasis, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) of CRC. Hence, we develop a nanoparticle formulation consisting of a polymer core to carry afatinib or miR-139, which is surrounded by lipids modified with a targeting ligand and a pH-sensitive penetrating peptide to improve the anticancer effect of cargos against CRC cells. RESULTS: Our findings show that this formulation displays a spherical shape with core/shell structure, homogeneous particle size distribution and negative zeta potential. The prepared formulations demonstrate a pH-sensitive release profile and an enhanced uptake of cargos into human colorectal adenocarcinoma Caco-2 cells in response to the acidic pH. This nanoparticle formulation incorporating afatinib and miR-139 exhibits low toxicity to normal cells but shows a better inhibitory effect on Caco-2 cells than other formulations. Moreover, the encapsulation of afatinib and miR-139 in peptide-modified nanoparticles remarkably induces apoptosis and inhibits migration and resistance of Caco-2 cells via suppression of pan-HER tyrosine kinase/multidrug resistance/metastasis pathways. CONCLUSION: This study proposes a multifunctional nanoparticle formulation for targeted modulation of apoptosis/EGFR/HER/EMT/resistance/progression pathways to increase the sensitivity of colon cancer cells to afatinib.

Enhancing Anticancer Effect of Gefitinib across the Blood-Brain Barrier Model Using Liposomes Modified with One α-Helical Cell-Penetrating Peptide or Glutathione and Tween 80.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), such as gefitinib, have been demonstrated to effectively treat the patients of extracranial non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, these patients often develop brain metastasis (BM) during their disease course. The major obstacle to treat BM is the limited penetration of anticancer drugs across the blood-brain barrier (BBB). In the present study, we utilized gefitinib-loaded liposomes with different modifications to improve gefitinib delivery across the in vitro BBB model of bEnd.3 cells. Gefitinib was encapsulated in small unilamellar liposomes modified with glutathione (GSH) and Tween 80 (SUV-G+T; one ligand plus one surfactant) or RF (SUV-RF; one α-helical cell-penetrating peptide). GSH, Tween 80, and RF were tested by the sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay to find their non-cytotoxic concentrations on bEnd.3 cells. The enhancement on gefitinib across the BBB was evaluated by cytotoxicity assay on human lung adenocarcinoma PC9 cells under the bEnd.3 cells grown on the transwell inserts. Our findings showed that gefitinib incorporated in SUV-G+T or SUV-RF across the bEnd.3 cells significantly reduced the viability of PC9 cells more than that of free gefitinib. Furthermore, SUV-RF showed no cytotoxicity on bEnd.3 cells and did not affect the transendothelial electrical resistance (TEER) and transendothelial permeability of sodium fluorescein across the BBB model. Moreover, flow cytometry and confocal laser scanning microscopy were employed to evaluate the endocytosis pathways of SUV-RF. The results indicated that the uptake into bEnd.3 cells was mainly through adsorptive-mediated mechanism via electrostatic interaction and partially through clathrin-mediated endocytosis. In conclusion, cell penetrating peptide-conjugated SUV-RF shed light on improving drug transport across the BBB via modulating the transcytosis pathway(s).

Chlorhexidine for the prevention of bloodstream infection associated with totally implantable venous ports in patients with solid cancers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the preventive effects of topical skin disinfection with chlorhexidine on bloodstream infection (BSI) associated with totally implantable venous port (Port-A). METHODS: Two consecutive cohorts of solid cancer patients were prospectively followed for the occurrence of Port-A associated BSI (PABSI). The first cohort used povidone-iodine as topical skin disinfection and the second cohort used chlorhexidine. The primary endpoint was the time to first PABSI. Propensity score analysis was applied. The preventive effects of chlorhexidine were analyzed by Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: There were 396 patients (81,752 catheter-days) in the iodine cohort and 497 (99,977 catheter-days) in the chlorhexidine cohort. Gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens to cause first episode of PABSI (iodine cohort (I) vs chlorhexidine cohort (C) and 0.404 vs 0.450 per 1,000 catheter-day), followed by Gram-positive bacteria (I vs C and 0.269 vs 0.110 per 1,000 catheter-day), and fungi (I vs C and 0.098 vs 0.070 per 1,000 catheter-day). Three hundred forty-three patients were selected from each cohort by propensity score match analysis. Chlorhexidine use was associated with a significant improvement on time to first PABSI caused by Gram-positive bacteria (log-rank test, p=0.00175; HR=0.35, 95 % CI, 0.14-0.85, p=0.02). No significant preventive effects of chlorhexidine on time to first PABSI caused by Gram-negative bacteria or fungi was found. CONCLUSIONS: Chlorhexidine topical skin disinfection may prevent PABSI caused by Gram-positive bacteria in patients with solid cancers. The nonsignificant effect on preventing overall PABSI may be attributed to the high incidence of Gram-negative bacteria related PABSI.

RESILIENT Part 2: A Randomized, Open-Label Phase III Study of Liposomal Irinotecan Versus Topotecan in Adults With Relapsed Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III RESILIENT trial compared second-line liposomal irinotecan with topotecan in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with SCLC and progression on or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous (IV) liposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m2 every 2 weeks in a 6-week cycle) or IV topotecan (1.5 mg/m2 daily for 5 consecutive days, every 3 weeks in a 6-week cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Among 461 randomly assigned patients, 229 received liposomal irinotecan and 232 received topotecan. The median follow-up was 18.4 months. The median OS was 7.9 months with liposomal irinotecan versus 8.3 months with topotecan (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.37]; P = .31). The median PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) was 4.0 months with liposomal irinotecan and 3.3 months with topotecan (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.20]; nominal P = .71); ORR per BICR was 44.1% (95% CI, 37.6 to 50.8) and 21.6% (16.4 to 27.4), respectively. Overall, 42.0% and 83.4% of patients receiving liposomal irinotecan and topotecan, respectively, experienced grade ≥3 related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The most common grade ≥3 related TEAEs were diarrhea (13.7%), neutropenia (8.0%), and decreased neutrophil count (4.4%) with liposomal irinotecan and neutropenia (51.6%), anemia (30.9%), and leukopenia (29.1%) with topotecan. CONCLUSION: Liposomal irinotecan and topotecan demonstrated similar median OS and PFS in patients with relapsed SCLC. Although the primary end point of OS was not met, liposomal irinotecan demonstrated a higher ORR than topotecan. The safety profile of liposomal irinotecan was consistent with its known safety profile; no new safety concerns emerged.

Symptom and quality of life benefit of afatinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients previously treated with erlotinib or gefitinib: results of a randomized phase IIb/III trial (LUX-Lung 1).

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported symptom and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefit of afatinib, a novel, irreversible, ErbB Family Blocker, was investigated in a double-blind, randomized, phase IIb/III trial (LUX-Lung 1). METHODS: Five hundred and eighty-five patients with lung adenocarcinoma (stage IIIb/IV), who had progressed after chemotherapy (1-2 lines) and at least 12 weeks of erlotinib or gefitinib, were randomized (2:1) to receive either afatinib plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Symptom and HRQoL benefit were measured using the lung cancer-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (QLQ-C30/LC13) and EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Non-small-cell lung cancer-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, and pain) were prespecified using three preplanned analyses (percentage of patients improved/worsened/stable, change in scores over time, and time to deterioration of scores). RESULTS: Compared with patients on placebo, a significantly higher proportion of afatinib-treated patients showed an improvement in cough (p < 0.0001), dyspnea (p = 0.006), and pain (p < 0.0001). Afatinib also significantly improved the mean scores over time for cough (p < 0.0001), dyspnea (p = 0.0161), and pain (p = 0.0056); significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (p < 0.001); and showed a trend in delaying dyspnea (p = 0.170) and pain (p = 0.287). Consistent with the adverse-event profile of afatinib, a significantly (p < 0.05) higher proportion of afatinib-treated patients showed worsening of diarrhea, sore mouth, dysphagia, and appetite scores. However, compared with placebo, afatinib significantly (p < 0.05) improved QoL assessed with the EQ-5D questionnaire and global health status/QoL, physical functioning, and fatigue, which were assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires. CONCLUSION: In the LUX-Lung 1 trial, the addition of afatinib to BSC significantly improved non-small-cell lung cancer-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, and pain), fatigue, physical functioning, and HRQoL and significantly delayed time to deterioration of cough.

Symptom control and quality of life in LUX-Lung 3: a phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) benefits were investigated in a randomized, phase III trial of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred forty-five patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2:1 to afatinib 40 mg per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin/pemetrexed. Lung cancer symptoms and health-related QoL were assessed every 21 days until progression using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and Lung Cancer-13 questionnaires. Analyses of cough, dyspnea, and pain were preplanned, including percentage of patients who improved on therapy, time to deterioration of symptoms, and change in symptoms over time. RESULTS: Questionnaire compliance was high. Compared with chemotherapy, afatinib significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.87; P = .007) and dyspnea (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93; P = .015), but not pain (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.10; P = .19). More patients on afatinib (64%) versus chemotherapy (50%) experienced improvements in dyspnea scores (P = .010). Differences in mean scores over time significantly favored afatinib over chemotherapy for cough (P < .001) and dyspnea (P < .001). Afatinib showed significantly better mean scores over time in global health status/QoL (P = .015) and physical (P < .001), role (P = .004), and cognitive (P = .007) functioning compared with chemotherapy. Fatigue and nausea were worse with chemotherapy, whereas diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse with afatinib (all P < .01). CONCLUSION: In patients with lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, first-line afatinib was associated with better control of cough and dyspnea compared with chemotherapy, although diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse. Global health status/QoL was also improved over time with afatinib compared with chemotherapy.