A randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of everolimus in combination with pasireotide LAR or everolimus alone in advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: COOPERATE-2 trial.

Background: Several studies have demonstrated the antitumor activity of first-generation somatostatin analogs (SSAs), primarily targeting somatostatin receptor (sstr) subtypes 2 and 5, in neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Pasireotide, a second-generation SSA, targets multiple sstr subtypes. We compared the efficacy and safety of pasireotide plus everolimus to everolimus alone in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic NET. Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive a combination of everolimus (10 mg/day, orally) and pasireotide long-acting release (60 mg/28 days, intramuscularly) or everolimus alone (10 mg/day, orally); stratified by prior SSA use, and baseline serum chromogranin A and neuron-specific enolase. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Biomarker response was evaluated in an exploratory analysis. Results: Of 160 patients enrolled, 79 were randomized to the combination arm and 81 to the everolimus arm. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. No significant difference was observed in PFS: 16.8 months in combination arm versus 16.6 months in everolimus arm (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.54). Partial responses were observed in 20.3% versus 6.2% of patients in combination arm versus everolimus arm; however, overall disease control rate was similar (77.2% versus 82.7%, respectively). No significant improvement was observed in median overall survival. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of both the drugs; grade 3 or 4 fasting hyperglycemia was seen in 37% versus 11% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of pasireotide to everolimus was not associated with the improvement in PFS compared with everolimus alone in this study. Further studies to delineate mechanisms by which SSAs slow tumor growth in NET are warranted.

Non-inferiority cancer clinical trials: scope and purposes underlying their design.

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority clinical trials (NIFCTs) aim to demonstrate that the experimental therapy has advantages over the standard of care, with acceptable loss of efficacy. We evaluated the purposes underlying the selection of a non-inferiority design in oncology and the size of their non-inferiority margins (NIFm's). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All NIFCTs of cancer-directed therapies and supportive care agents published in a 10-year period were eligible. Two investigators extracted the data and independently classified the trials by their purpose to choose a non-inferiority design. RESULTS: Seventy-five were included: 43% received funds from industry, overall survival was the most common primary end point and 73% reported positive results. The most frequent purposes underlying the selection of a non-inferiority design were to test more conveniently administered schedules and/or less toxic treatments. In 13 (17%) trials, a clear purpose was not identified. Among the trials that reported a pre-specified NIFm, the median value was 12.5% (range 4%-25%) for trials with binary primary end points and Hazard Ratio of 1.25 (range 1.10-1.50) for trials that used time-to-event primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Cancer NIFCT harbor serious methodological and ethical issues. Many use large NIFm and nearly one-fifth did not state a clear purpose for selecting a non-inferiority design.

Doctor, how long?

This study aimed to quantify the average survival time of cancer patients once terminal sedation was started until death and identify potential variables that may influence their survival time on sedation. This is a retrospective cohort analysis of all consecutive terminal cancer patients who died after starting terminal sedation at public tertiary Brazilian Hospital. A total of 532 cancer patients died in Hospital Estadual Mário Covas during this period and 181 out of them who received terminal sedation were included in this analysis. The median survival was 27 h. By multivariate analysis, increase in the dose of sedative drug during sedation (odds ratio 1.576, 95% CI 1.113-2.232), use of opioids alone for sedation (odds ratio 1.438, 95% CI 1.046-1.977) and dyspnoea as cause of sedation (odds ratio 1.564 95% CI 1.045-2.341) were independent risk factors for a shorter survival time after starting terminal sedation. Sedated, terminal cancer patients usually live about 1 day. We identified risk factors for a shorter sedation period. This study is limited by its retrospective design and by the frequent use of opioids as the main sedative medications. Prospective studies must be carried out in order to validate these data.

Drug interactions in oncology: how common are they?

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) comprise an important problem in medical oncology practice. We systematically reviewed the frequency of DDIs in oncology. METHODS: We searched PubMed for eligible articles and on-line databases for abstracts of major oncology meetings. RESULTS: Eight studies reported on the frequency of DDIs: six evaluated the frequency of potential DDIs, while two studies reported on real DDIs, i.e. interactions that had clinical consequences. Studies of potential DDIs found that approximately one-third of patients are exposed to dangerous drug doublets, with the most common ones involving warfarin and anticonvulsants. One study of real DDIs found that 2% of hospitalized cancer patients had a DDI as the cause of admission. CONCLUSIONS: Drug interactions comprise an important issue in oncology, with approximately one-third of ambulatory cancer patients being at risk of DDIs. Data are limited on the clinical consequences of drug interactions among cancer patients.

Exploring the role of metformin in anticancer treatments: a systematic review.

Many clinical and preclinical studies suggest that metformin has antitumor activity. There are two main mechanisms that justify this effect: its ability to activate AMPK, preventing the gluconeogenesis in the liver and stimulating glucose uptake in muscle (insulin-independent), and its potential to negatively regulate mTOR activity (insulin- dependent). Thus, numerous studies have evaluated its role in cancer risk, prognosis and as an antitumor therapy in different malignancies. The following is a systematic review on the clinical evidence about the effects of metformin in cancer. Uncontrolled studies suggest that metformin is associated with reduced risk of different types of cancers among patients with hyperinsulinemia conditions, such as diabetes and obesity. However, among cancer patients, the literature is conflicting about the real impact of metformin on survival and outcomes of cancer treatments. The effects of metformin in nondiabetic patients remain unknown. Ongoing randomized trials are awaited to prove the true antineoplastic activity of metformin.