Gefitinib (ZD1839): therapy in selected patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)?

PURPOSE: To evaluate response rate, toxicity and epidermal growth factor (EGFR) mutations and gene copy number as outcome predictive factors in Italian patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with gefitinib (Iressa) in an expanded access program (EAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 137 patients with advanced NSCLC received gefitinib as first line treatment or after failure of chemotherapy. In 43 cases, tissue specimens were available for EGFR status evaluation: immunohistochemical (IHC) for EGFR, fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) or Chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH)-(ISH) analysis for EGFR and HER2 gene copy number, and PCR-DNA sequencing for mutational analysis of EGFR were performed. RESULTS: In the study population, response rate (PR) was 13%; disease stabilization (DS) 26%; overall disease control rate 39%; median survival 6.3 months and time to progression 2.7 months. Toxicity was mild (G3 skin toxicity in 3% and G3 liver toxicity in 4% of patients). An EGFR-mutation was detected in 9/43 patients: Eight deletions in exon 19 and 1 missense mutation in exon 21. Increased gene copy number for EGFR and/or HER2 was detected in 17/43 patients. Response rate was significantly higher in women, non-smokers, in mutation carriers than in wild type carriers, in EGFR-trisomy/polysomy carriers and HER2-trisomy/polysomy carriers. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, response rate and toxicity to gefitinib treatment were consistent with previously reported data for whites. Female gender, absence of smoking history, EGFR-mutations, EGFR and HER2-polysomy were significantly associated with response to gefitinib therapy in NSCLC patients.

Fractionated dose of cisplatin (CDDP) and vinorelbine (VNB) chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is increasing among the elderly representing about 30% of NSCLC patients over 70 years old. The aim of this study was to evaluate the response, survival and tolerability of a modified schedule with cisplatin-vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Between November 2001 and March 2003, 30 patients were included into the study. Median age was 73 (range 70-77). Male/female 27/3 (90%/10%); 60% of patients were stage IV at diagnosis and only one patient presented with brain metastasis. Treatment consisted of cisplatin 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. RESULTS: A total of 120 cycles were administered with a median of four cycles per patient. The most relevant WHO toxicities were: neutropenia grade 3 in 6 (20%) patients and grade 4 in 13 (43%) patients. There were three (10%) treatment-related deaths: two caused by neutropenic fever and one due to acute pulmonary oedema. No other relevant hematological and non-hematological toxicities occurred. By intention-to-treat analysis, 10 patients (33%) showed stable disease and 10 patients (33%) showed a partial response while 10 patients (33%) showed treatment failure. Median survival time was 7.4 months; 1-year survival was 36.6% and median time to progression was 5.14 months. CONCLUSION: At this dose and schedule, the combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin obtained a response rate and survival comparable to the most active regimens. Non-hematologic toxicity was mild while neutropenia was the most relevant toxicity.

Second-line chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with small-cell lung cancer pretreated with platinum and etoposide: a single institution phase II trial.

PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of a combined regimen of weekly paclitaxel and gemcitabine was tested in patients with refractory and sensitive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: Treatment consisted of paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Of the 31 patients enrolled, 10 had refractory and 21 had sensitive disease. Objective responses occurred in 8 patients (26%), including 2 out of 10 patients with refractory- and 6 out of 21 patients with sensitive SCLC. Median time to progression and median survival were 9.4 and 32 weeks, respectively. RESULTS: The schedule was very well tolerated, with grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia in 26% of the patients, grade 3 neutropenia in 26%, grade 3-4 asthenia in 13% and grade 1-2 sensory neuropathy in 32%. CONCLUSION: To conclude, this weekly schedule of paclitaxel and gemcitabine was found to have moderate activity in platinum-etoposide pretreated SCLC patients and a favorable toxicity profile.

Variation in gynecological oncology follow-up practice: attributable to cancer centers or to patient characteristics? A Piedmont Regional Oncology Network Study.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Although guidelines recommend minimalist follow-up, there is wide variability in gynecological oncology practice. The aims of this study were to describe between-center differences in the follow-up of endometrial, ovarian, and uterine cervical cancer; to identify the determinants of test prescription; to estimate the related costs; and to assess the weight of center habits and patient characteristics as sources of unexplained variability. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: The medical records of patients treated between August 2004 and July 2005 for gynecological malignancies and followed up for the detection of recurrent disease were retrospectively collected from 29 centers of the Piedmont Oncology Network. Multivariate multilevel analyses were performed to study the determinants of test prescription and costs. RESULTS: Analyses were performed on 351 patients (median follow-up: 578 days). The unexplained variability in computed tomography prescriptions (26%), ultrasound prescriptions (17%), and total cost of follow-up (15%) can be attributed to center habits, independenty of the clinical characteristics of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the unexplained variability in the follow-up for gynecological malignancies is attributable to different habits of centers belonging to a cancer network. These results prompted us to design a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare minimalist versus intensive follow-up programs in endometrial cancer.