The Early Access and the Potential Cost Savings by the Compassionate Use of Onco-haematological Drugs: Results from the Italian Study Compass-O.

BACKGROUND: Compassionate drug use (CDU) provides early access to not yet authorised medicines and is funded by pharmaceutical companies. The observational retrospective study Compass-O monitored the CDU of onco-haematological drugs, managed by seven Italian units for cytotoxic drug preparations (Unità Farmaci Antiblastici [UFA]), between 1 January, 2016 and 31 December, 2021. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the CDU of onco-haematological drugs managed by seven Italian UFA, between 2016 and 2021. METHODS: The seven UFA provided anonymised data concerning CDU approved in the study period. The early access and potential cost savings for the National Health System (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale [SSN]) were analysed for CDU concerning drug-therapeutic indication combinations with complete data and reimbursed by SSN up to December 2023 (date of study execution), according to the executive decision of the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco [AIFA]). Both analyses distinguished solid/liquid tumours and categorised the combinations as innovative (fully/conditionally) or non-innovative based on AIFA assessments. RESULTS: Compass-O collected 783 CDU authorisations, with 572 (73.1%) analysable in terms of early access and cost savings. On average, early access amounted to 514 days and the total cost savings was €376,115,801. Compassionate drug use approvals involved mainly solid tumours (93.7% vs 6.3% for liquid tumours), and the combination of trastuzumab emtansine-breast cancer was the most dispensed (n = 73; early access = 426 days; potential cost savings: €610,388). Out of 572 CDU approvals, 200 (35%) were innovative drug-therapeutic indication combinations, with 598 days of early access and a total potential saving of €113,124,069. CONCLUSIONS: The study Compass-O showed a significant economic burden of CDU and a relevant need for early access, particularly for innovative drugs. However, there is currently no structured monitoring of CDU in Italy, suggesting the need for a national observatory, of which Compass-O can be the pilot phase.

Pharmacy Workload in Clinical Trial Management: A Preliminary Complexity Assessment Tool for Sponsored Oncology and Haematology Trials.

Investigational drug services need to be organised in a structured approach, especially for sites with a large number of ongoing clinical trials. The aim of this study was to develop a tool to assess the complexity of pharmacy involvement in a sponsored oncology clinical trial. Categorisation into ordinal complexity categories was used to assess the complexity of the clinical trials for consistent pharmacy grant applications. The 15 items of the tool were divided into three sections, and individual item scores were agreed upon among four pharmacists with experience in the conduct of clinical trials at two different centres. A final version of the tool, named Pharm-CAT, was approved. The pharmacists were instructed to use Pharm-CAT to assign a score to each new sponsored trial. To determine the cut-offs for the complexity categories, the scores were sorted in ascending order and the cut-offs corresponding to the first and third tertiles of the score distribution were selected. To verify the reproducibility of the results, Pharm-CAT was applied by two pharmacists independently for each trial. Pharm-CAT proved to be user-friendly. Sixty clinical trials were evaluated and a total of 120 scores were recorded. Low-complexity scores ranged from 0 to 19, medium-complexity scores ranged from 20 to 25, and high-complexity scores were 26 or higher. The average score recorded was 22.88 points. Prospective multicentre validation of Pharm-CAT is needed to confirm its applicability.

Assessing Lexical and Syntactic Comprehension in Deaf Signing Adults.

Among the existing sign language assessment tools, only a small number can be used in clinical settings. This contribution aims at presenting three comprehension assessment tests (two lexical and one syntactic) that offer a solid basis to build tools to assess language impairments in deaf signing adults. We provide the material and guidelines, based on psychometric analyses of the items, to make these tests suitable for clinical assessment. They are available for French Sign Language and Italian Sign Language. So far, the three tests were administered to three groups of deaf participants based on age of exposure (AoE) to sign language: native (AoE from birth), early (AoE = from 1 to 5 years), and late (AoE = from 6 to 15 years) signers. The results showed that the three tests are easy for the typical deaf signing population, and therefore, they can be adapted into tests that assess a deaf signing population with language impairments. Moreover, the results of the syntactic test reveal a categorial difference between native and non-native signers and therefore show the need for baselines that mirror the effect of AoE to sign language when assessing language competence, in particular in clinical assessment.

On the Reliability of the Notion of Native Signer and Its Risks.

Who is a native signer? Since around 95% of deaf infants are born into a hearing family, deaf signers are exposed to a sign language at various moments of their life, and not only from birth. Moreover, the linguistic input they are exposed to is not always a fully fledged natural sign language. In this situation, is the notion of native signer as someone exposed to language from birth of any use? We review the results of the first large-scale cross-linguistic investigation on the effects of age of exposure to sign language. This research involved about 45 Deaf adult signers in each of three sign languages (Catalan Sign Language, French Sign Language, and Italian Sign Language). Across the three languages, participants were divided into three groups - those exposed from birth, those between 1 and 5 years of age, and those exposed between 6 and 15 years of age - and received a battery of tests designed for each language targeting various aspects of morphosyntactic competence. In particular, the tests focused on both those morphosyntactic phenomena that are known from the spoken language literature to be good detectors of language impairment or delay (i.e., wh-interrogatives and relative clauses) and on morphosyntactic phenomena that are sign language specific (i.e., role shift and directional verbs). The results showed a clear effect of being native, with significant differences across languages and tests between signers exposed to sign language from birth and those exposed in the 1st years of life. This confirms the life-long importance of language exposure from birth and the reliability of the notion of "nativeness", at least for syntax. On the other hand, while in most domains the differences observed between populations might be differences in performance, for some specific constructions, signers belonging to the three groups may have different grammars. This latter finding challenges the generalized use of native signers' grammar as the baseline for language description and language assessment.

An Integrated Model to Improve Medication Reconciliation in Oncology: Prospective Interventional Study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate medication reconciliation reduces the risk of drug incompatibilities and adverse events that can occur during transitions in care. Community pharmacies (CPs) are a crucial part of the health care system and could be involved in collecting essential information on conventional and supplementary drugs used at home. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to establish an alliance between our cancer institute, Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST), and CPs, the latter entrusted with the completion of a pharmacological recognition survey. We also aimed to integrate the national information technology (IT) platform of CPs with the electronic medical records of IRST. METHODS: Cancer patients undergoing antiblastic treatments were invited to select a CP taking part in the study and to complete the pharmacological recognition step. The information collected by the pharmacist was sent to the electronic medical records of IRST through the new IT platform, after which the oncologist performed the reconciliation process. RESULTS: A total of 66 CPs completed surveys for 134 patients. An average of 5.9 drugs per patient was used at home, with 12 or more used in the most advanced age groups. Moreover, 60% (80/134) of the patients used nonconventional products or critical foods. Some potential interactions between nonconventional medications and cancer treatments were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In the PROF-1 (Progetto di Rete in Oncologia con le Farmacie di comunità della Romagna) study, an alliance was created between our cancer center and CPs to improve medication reconciliation, and a new integrated IT platform was validated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04796142; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04796142.

Is it possible to conduct clinical trials during a pandemic? The example of a trial of hydroxychloroquine.

OBJECTIVES: to examine the factors that, in the context of the current pandemic, have influenced the conduct of a randomized clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine in Italy. DESIGN: the trend of enrolment in the PROTECT study, "A randomized study with Hydroxychloroquine versus observational support for prevention or early phase treatment of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)" (Eudract number: 2020-001501-24, NCT04363827), conducted in the period from May to September 2020, was analysed to evaluate the possible association of the enrolment rate with the amount of information published in the national and local press on hydroxychloroquine. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: the PROTECT clinical study is an Italian interventional superiority study, open label, with cluster randomization, aimed at evaluating whether treatment with hydroxychloroquine can reduce the percentage of symptomatic subjects compared to observation only in a population of subjects exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus consisting of cohabitants/contacts of COVID-19 patients and asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic subjects diagnosed with COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: the number of asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 patients and the number of contacts/cohabitants of COVID-19 patients enrolled in the Protect study from May to September 2020. RESULTS: from May to September 2020, the number of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 enrolled in the PROTECT clinical trial showed a decrease consistent with the number of news on hydroxychloroquine appearing in the national and local press, starting from the time when the first criticisms of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine were made known; the number of contacts/cohabitants of COVID-19 patients showed a more marked and more timely decrease. CONCLUSIONS: in the context determined by the current COVID-19 pandemic, conducting a controlled clinical trial is strongly influenced by public opinion on scientific issues. Adherence to a clinical study can become highly problematic and invalidate the possibility of answering a scientific question and the validity of a project. In the current pandemic situation, randomized controlled trials may not always be the optimal tool to reach the expected scientific evidence, due to a number of problems. It is preferable to use a sequential or adaptive design. Furthermore, study protocols should implement innovative approaches that also include the involvement of participants in the decision-making process. In any case, the influence of public information on scientific issues is an extremely important factor to consider in the design of clinical trials in exceptional situations such as a pandemic.

Prospective Observational Study Comparing Calcium and Sodium Levofolinate in Combination with 5-Fluorouracil in the FOLFIRI Regimen.

LESSONS LEARNED: The use of sodium levofolinate (Na-Lev) is safe in combination with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil in patients with gastrointestinal tumors treated with the FOLFIRI regimen. A comparison with calcium levofolinate (Ca-Lev) showed a similar toxicity profile. The advantages of Na-Lev over Ca-Lev might be the faster drug preparation and the shorter time of drug administration. BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to compare the safety profiles of sodium levofolinate (Na-Lev) and calcium levofolinate (Ca-Lev) in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the FOLFIRI regimen and to measure the organizational impact of the introduction of Na-Lev on drug production and administration. METHODS: The study opened in November 2015 and closed in August 2019. Patients with gastrointestinal cancers who were candidates for treatment with the FOLFIRI regimen were included in this nonrandomized study. Age ≥18 years, life expectancy >3 months, adequate bone marrow reserve, adequate hepatic and renal function, and an ECOG performance status of 0-2 were required. Patients in the Ca-Lev arm received a 2-hour infusion of Ca-Lev followed by 5-FU, whereas those in the Na-Lev arm received Na-Lev and 5-FU administered in a single 48-hour pump. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled, 30 in each arm. Patient characteristics were balanced. Grade (G)1-2 adverse events occurred in 18 (60.0%) and 19 (63.4%) patients of Na-Lev and Ca-Lev cohorts, respectively, whereas G3-4 adverse events occurred in 12 (40.0%) and 11 (36.6%) patients, respectively. The use of Na-Lev enabled us to save approximately 13 minutes for drug preparation and 2 hours for treatment administration, per patient per cycle. CONCLUSION: Na-Lev showed a reassuring toxicity profile and a favorable impact on drug preparation and administration.

Hydroxychloroquine as Prophylaxis for COVID-19: A Review.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide has led to a desperate search for effective drugs and vaccines. There are still no approved agents for disease prophylaxis. We thus decided to use a drug repositioning strategy to perform a state-of-the-art review of a promising but controversial drug, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in an effort to provide an objective, scientific and methodologically correct overview of its potential prophylactic role. The advantage of using known drugs is that their toxicity profile is well known and there are fewer commercial interests (e.g., expired patents), thus allowing the scientific community to be freer of constraints. The main disadvantage is that the economic resources are almost always insufficient to promote large multinational clinical trials. In the present study, we reviewed the literature and available data on the prophylactic use of HCQ. We also took an in-depth look at all the published clinical data on the drug and examined ongoing clinical trials (CTs) from the most important CT repositories to identify a supporting rationale for HCQ prophylactic use. Our search revealed a substantial amount of preclinical data but a lack of clinical data, highlighting the need to further assess the translational impact of in vitro data in a clinical setting. We identified 77 CTs using a multiplicity of HCQ schedules, which clearly indicates that we are still far from reaching a standard of care. The majority of the CTs (92%) are randomized and 53% are being conducted in a phase 3 or 2/3 setting. The comparator is placebo or control in 55 (77%) of the randomized studies. Forty-eight (62%) CTs expect to enroll up to 1,000 subjects and 50 (71%) plan to recruit healthcare workers (HCW). With regard to drug schedules, 45 (58.5%) CTs have planned a loading dose, while 18 (23.4%) have not; the loading dose is 800 mg in 19 trials (42.2%), 400 mg in 19 (42.2%), 600 mg in 4 (8.9%) and 1,200 mg in 1 (2.2%). Forty trials include at least one daily schedule, while 19 have at least one weekly schedule. Forty-one (53.2%) will have a treatment duration of more than 30 days. Awaiting further developments that can only derive from the results of these prospective randomized CTs, the take-home message of our review is that a correct methodological approach is the key to understanding whether prophylactic HCQ can really represent an effective strategy in preventing COVID-19.

PROTECT Trial: A cluster-randomized study with hydroxychloroquine versus observational support for prevention or early-phase treatment of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Hydroxychloroquine has shown to have antiviral activity in vitro against coronaviruses, specifically SARS-CoV-2. It is believed to block virus infection by increasing endosomal pH required for virus cell fusion and glycosylation of viral surface proteins. In addition to its antiviral activity, hydroxychloroquine has an immune-modulating activity that may synergistically enhance its antiviral effect in vivo, making it a potentially promising drug for the prevention and the cure of SARS-CoV-19. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to assess whether it can be used safely to treat COVID-19 patients or to prevent infection. The main objective of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for (I) the prevention of COVID-19 or related symptoms in SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, such as as household members/contacts of COVID-19 patients and (II) the treatment of early-phase asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 patients. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a controlled, open label, cluster-randomized, superiority trial with parallel group design. Subjects will be randomized either to receive hydroxychloroquine or to observation (2:1). PARTICIPANTS: SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects, including household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients and healthcare professionals (Group 1) or patients with COVID-19 (positive PCR test on a rhinopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2), asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic in home situations who are not undergoing treatment with any anti COVID-19 medication (Group 2), will be enrolled. Paucisymptomatic patients are defined as patients with a low number of mild symptoms. All subjects must be aged ≥18 years, male or female, must be willing and able to give informed consent and must not have any contraindications to take hydroxychloroquine (intolerance or previous toxicity for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, bradycardia or reduction in heart rhythm with arrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, retinopathy, congestive heart failure with use of diuretics, favism or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, diabetes type 1, major comorbidities such as advanced chronic kidney disease or dialysis therapy, known history of ventricular arrhythmia, any oncologic/hematologic malignancy, severe neurological and mental illness, current use of medications with known significant drug-drug interactions, and known prolonged QT syndrome or current use of drugs with known QT prolongation). The study is monocentric and will be conducted at Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS. Subjects will be enrolled from a large epidemic region (North-Central Italy). The Public Health Departments of several Italian regions will collaborate by identifying potentially eligible subjects. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The participants will be randomized (2:1 randomization) to receive either hydroxychloroquine (Arm A) or to Observation (Arm B). Hydroxychloroquine will be administered with the following schedule: Group1: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1, followed by a weekly dose of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily on days 8, 15 and 22, for a total of one month of treatment. Group 2: A loading dose hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily for a total of 5-7 days. The comparator in this trial is observation given that currently neither treatment is administered to asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic subjects, nor prophylaxis is available for contacts. Hydroxychloroquine will be shipped to subjects within 24 hours of randomization. Given the extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, only telephonic interviews will be carried out and electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (ePRO) completed. During treatment, each subject will be contacted every other day for the first week and weekly thereafter (Group 2) or weekly (Group 1) by a study physician to assess early onset of any COVID-19 symptom or any adverse reaction to hydroxychloroquine and to check subject compliance. Furthermore, all subjects will receive periodic ePROs which may be completed through smartphone or tablets to record drug self-administration and onset of any symptom or adverse event. All subjects will be followed up for a total of 6 months by periodic telephonic interviews and ePROs. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint/outcome measure for this trial is: for Group 1, the proportion of subjects who become symptomatic and/or swab-positive in each arm within one month of randomization; for Group 2, the proportion of subjects who become swab-negative in each arm within 14 days of randomization. RANDOMIZATION: All household members and/or contacts of each COVID-19 index case, and the COVID-19 patient himself/herself, fulfilling all inclusion criteria will be grouped into a single cluster and this cluster will be randomized (2:1) to either arm A or arm B. Information on each subject will be recorded in specific data records. Randomization lists will be stratified according to the following factors regarding COVID-19 index cases: 1. COVID-19 risk level on the basis of province of residence (high vs. low/intermediate); 2. Index case is a healthcare professional (yes vs.no) 3. Index case with COVID-19 treatment (yes vs. no) An independent statistician not otherwise involved in the trial will generate the allocation sequence, and COVID-19 response teams will be unaware of the allocation of clusters. Randomization will be performed through an interactive web-based electronic data-capturing database. An Independent Data Monitoring Committee has been established. BLINDING (MASKING): This study is open label. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): For Group 1, a sample size of about 2000 SARS-CoV-2-exposed subjects such as household members and/or contacts of COVID-19 patients will take part in the study. Assuming around 1.5-2.0 asymptomatic household members and/or contacts for each COVID-19 patient, we expect to identify approximately 1000-1300 COVID-19 index cases to be randomized. An interim analysis on efficacy is planned using standard alpha-spending function. For Group 2, sufficient power for primary objective (negative swab within 14 days of randomization) will be reached given a sample size of 300 asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic COVID-19 subjects in home situations not treated for COVID-19 (25%-30% of about 1000-1300 expected index cases). Since up to date reduced evidence about COVID-19 infection epidemiology, the continuous update of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the sample size estimation could be updated after a one third of population will be recruited and eventually modified according to a substantial protocol amendment. An interim analysis at 100 enrolled COVID-19 patients is planned. We have planned a Generalized Estimating Equation analysis, which is more efficient than a cluster level analysis, to take advantage of subject-specific covariates. The above reported sample size analysis is therefore to be considered conservative. TRIAL STATUS: The current version of the PROTECT trial protocol is 'Final version, 15 April 2020'. The study started on 9th May 2020. The first patient was enrolled on 14th May 2020. Recruitment is expected to last through September 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PROTECT trial is registered in the EudraCT database (no. 2020-001501-24) and in ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04363827 ), date of registration 24 April 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full PROTECT protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol (Protocol final version, 15th April 2020). The study protocol has been reported in accordance with Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Evaluating the appropriateness of chemotherapy in a low-resource cancer centre in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the appropriateness of chemotherapy use at the Oncology Department of the Bugando Medical Centre of Mwanza, Tanzania. METHODS: The study was an observational prevalence-based study designed to evaluate a single-chemotherapy cycle during a defined time period for a cross-section of patients at varying stages of their clinical history. The sample included 103 consecutive subjects who were treated during January-March 2017 and had at least one previous cycle. Chemotherapy treatment omissions, cycle delays, and dose reductions and their causes were recorded using a standard form that included demographic, anthropometric, and clinical items. The data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: There were 59 males (57.3%) and 44 females (42.7%). Ninety-four patients were aged ≥18 years. Considering cancer type/site, there were 23 distinct groups of patients. The recorded number of drugs in the chemotherapy regimens varied between one and five. The median cycle number was three (range: 2-11). Sixty-eight (66.0%) patients were treated in a standard fashion. For the remaining, cycle delay and dose reduction were the most common cause for nonstandard treatment. Hematologic toxicity was responsible for the greater part of cycle delays, whereas dose reductions were accounted for by a larger spectrum of causes. Overall, toxicity explained 21/35 (60.0%) patients receiving nonstandard treatment. The distribution of toxic events was skewed toward grade 1 and grade 2. CONCLUSIONS: The observed level of appropriateness of chemotherapy was encouraging. The proportion of patients experiencing severe toxic effects was lower than expected.

IntegoTM infusion system: cost effectiveness analysis focusing on dosimetry, sterility and management.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers across Europe are facing an ever-growing demand in clinical PET referrals. Currently, it is estimated that the administration of the PET tracer accounts for approximately 40% of the unitary PET procedure reimbursement (uPETr). Although the cost of PET/CT is highly dependent on the radiopharmaceutical cost itself, little is known about the economic impact of the utilized administration method and the repercussions on staff radiation exposure. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of automatic injection/fractionation system Intego™ (Bayer HealthCare, MEDRAD Europe, Netherlands) for istaff radiation exposure reduction and to validate its use with 18F-choline (FCH). METHODS: In order to validate Intego™ use with FCH we analyzed sterility, radioactivity fractionation accuracy and radiation protection for staff. We analyzed Intego™ impact on examination costs and its impact on organization efficiency. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was estimated as the incremental cost to reduce staff radiationexposure. RESULTS: According to our data, Intego™ ensures both sterility and accuracy of FCH doses' activity, reducing, at the same time, the exposure to radiation either whole body and at the extremities (94% and 75% respectively for the technicians and complete reduction for physicians). Intego™'s variable unit costs are higher than the SA (respectively 1.8% and 0.4% of PET reimbursement), while staff costs are significantly higher with SA (respectively 0.27% and 1.57% of unitary PET reimbursement [uPETr]). In our simulation, based on a 2,450 PET yearly output, the differential costs were slightly higher by using Intego™™ (+ 14%). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was equal to 1.1, i.e. the healthcare provider pays an additional cost of 0.38% of uPETr to obtain a significant reduction of staff radiation exposure (-4.5 µS). CONCLUSIONS: Intego™, for its favorable results in terms of cost effectiveness, could be a useful tool in a nuclear medicine department, limiting the staff radiation exposure.

Phase II Study of Dehydroepiandrosterone in Androgen Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: The androgen receptor (AR) is present in most breast cancers (BC), but its exploitation as a therapeutic target has been limited.This study explored the activity of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), a precursor being transformed into androgens within BC cells, in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (to block DHEA conversion into estrogens), in a two-stage phase II study in patients with AR-positive/estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative metastatic BC.Although well tolerated, only 1 of 12 patients obtained a prolonged clinical benefit, and the study was closed after its first stage for poor activity. BACKGROUND: Androgen receptors (AR) are expressed in most breast cancers, and AR-agonists have some activity in these neoplasms. We investigated the safety and activity of the androgen precursor dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) in patients with AR-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: A two-stage phase II study was conducted in two patient cohorts, one with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (resistant to AIs) and the other with triple-negative MBC. DHEA 100 mg/day was administered orally. The combination with an AI aimed to prevent the conversion of DHEA into estrogens. The main endpoint was the clinical benefit rate. The triple-negative cohort was closed early. RESULTS: Twelve patients with ER-positive MBC were enrolled. DHEA-related adverse events, reported in four patients, included grade 2 fatigue, erythema, and transaminitis, and grade 1 drowsiness and musculoskeletal pain. Clinical benefit was observed in one patient with ER-positive disease whose tumor had AR gene amplification. There was wide inter- and intra-patient variation in serum levels of DHEA and its metabolites. CONCLUSION: DHEA showed excellent safety but poor activity in MBC. Although dose and patient selection could be improved, high serum level variability may hamper further DHEA development in this setting.

Clinical utility of fulvestrant in the treatment of breast cancer: a report on the emerging clinical evidence.

Fulvestrant is the first selective estrogen receptor (ER) downregulator available in clinical practice. It is a pure antiestrogen with no agonistic effects, leading to degradation of ER alpha, with activity in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer (BC) models. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies and several postmarketing clinical trials led to the definition of the optimal dose at 500 mg intramuscularly on days 1, 15, and 29 and then every 28 days. Targeting ER alpha, fulvestrant is a cornerstone of treatment in luminal BCs, whose growth is largely driven by the ER pathway. In endocrine therapy-naïve patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2- advanced BC (ABC), fulvestrant yielded significantly longer progression-free survival compared to anastrozole in the Phase III FALCON study. Due to its mechanism of action and pharmacokinetic properties, fulvestrant is an ideal backbone for combination therapies. Preclinical studies have shown synergism with drugs acting on signaling pathways involved in the development of endocrine resistance, among which the cyclin D/cyclin-dependent kinase 4-6/retinoblastoma pathway and the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, contributing to overcoming or delaying endocrine resistance. In the Phase III PALOMA-3 trial, a combination of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib with fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival over fulvestrant alone in women with hormone receptor positive, HER2- ABC progressing during prior endocrine therapy. This led to approval of the combination in this clinical setting. Similar results were obtained with abemaciclib and ribociclib. Combination with pan-PI3K inhibitors, though showing some efficacy, was hampered by the toxicity of these agents, and studies in combinations with more selective inhibitors of the α-catalytic subunit of PI3K are ongoing. Fulvestrant has shown partial activity also in patients with tumors harboring mutations of the ESR1 gene. It is thus a key drug in the treatment of ABC, whose role in combination with new targeted agents is still evolving.

Quantification of dehydroepiandrosterone in human serum on a routine basis: development and validation of a tandem mass spectrometry method based on a surrogate analyte.

In the clinical laboratories, dehydroepiandrostenedione (DHEA) is usually quantified by immunoassay-based methods, which are often affected by cross-reactivity with endogenous interferences, such as 4-androsten-3ß-ol-17-one. The interfering compounds lead to a poor accuracy of the measurements, mainly at a low concentration level. The present paper describes a validated method based on tandem mass spectrometry coupled to liquid chromatography, for the accurate quantification of DHEA in serum. The peculiarity of this method is the use of calibrators and quality controls prepared by adding measured amounts of DHEA-D5, a stable isotope-labeled analogue of DHEA, to real serum from healthy subjects. DHEA-D5 is used in place of DHEA, which is usually present in unstripped serum at physiological levels, as it has the same basic structure, provides an equivalent instrumental response, and can be easily distinguish by DHEA by mass spectrometry due to its different m/z value. The method proved to be sensitive, with a LLOD of 0.09 ng/mL and a LLOQ of 0.23 ng/mL, and selective, with overall performances that allow its use on a routine basis.

Phase Ib dose-finding trial of lapatinib plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Combination of anthracyclines with trastuzumab is hampered by cardiotoxicity. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and lapatinib could represent a safer alternative to combination therapy. METHODS: In this phase Ib study with 3 + 3 dose escalation design, patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer received pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 plus lapatinib 1250 (level 1) or 1500 (level 2) mg/day orally on days 1-21 of each 21-day cycle. The aims were to establish the maximum tolerated dose at first cycle, and the activity and safety of multiple cycles. RESULTS: Nine patients out of 11 enrolled were evaluable: 3 at level 1 and 6 at level 2. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred at dose level 1, while 1 (grade 3 diarrhea) occurred at dose level 2, leading to the expansion of this cohort to 6 patients, with no further dose-limiting toxicities. Main grade 1-2 toxicities at first cycle were leucopenia, diarrhea, elevated transaminases, mucositis. Three patients had grade 3 toxicities at subsequent cycles, including colitis, anorexia, stomatitis plus hand-foot syndrome. One partial response, 5 disease stabilizations, and 3 disease progressions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and lapatinib is feasible and potentially active in pretreated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02131506 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Sorafenib for the treatment of breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer treatment includes many options depending on the tumor clinicopathological profile, which groups breast cancer into various subtypes. Bevacizumab is currently the only drug capable of targeting angiogenesis in breast cancer. Sorafenib has also been studied in combination with other agents. Areas covered: Pharmacological aspects of sorafenib, including results from preclinical studies on breast cancer cells; findings about clinical efficacy and safety in both single-arm and randomized clinical trials; ongoing trials. Expert opinion: Since sorafenib as a single agent has shown limited efficacy in breast cancer, its combination with other drugs is under investigation. Dose reduction is the main challenge when sorafenib is combined with chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. Although randomized phase-II trials on sorafenib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone have shown potential benefits in progression-free survival, preliminary results from a phase-III study in combination with capecitabine are negative. The definitive results of this trial and results from other ongoing phase-II trials will determine further developments of sorafenib in breast cancer. Although these additional data could help determine the most appropriate dose, drug combination and patient settings, a confirmation of the preliminary negative results reported in the phase-III trial are likely to discourage further use of sorafenib in breast cancer, given its non-negligible toxicity, lack of predicting markers, and the number of more promising drugs for breast cancer.

Long-term complete response in a patient with liver metastases from breast cancer treated with metronomic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have shown that several chemotherapeutic agents at low doses may affect the vascular system. Here we report the case of a patient with long-term cancer control by metronomic chemotherapy. CASE PRESENTATION: A 62-year-old woman with breast cancer underwent a left mastectomy in July 2007. For a liver metastasis she was given first-line chemotherapy with doxorubicin plus paclitaxel every 21 days. A CT scan after the sixth cycle showed a partial response. It was decided to stop the treatment with doxorubicin and paclitaxel, and start metronomic therapy with cyclophosphamide 50 mg daily orally and methotrexate 2.5 mg twice daily, 2 days a week. After 6 months of this maintenance treatment, CT scan showed a complete response. We examined the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) in histological sections of the primary tumor of our patient, finding evidence of overexpression of the receptor. The metronomic treatment is still ongoing, and after 60 months the patient maintains a complete response. CONCLUSION: This clinical case highlights how suitable metronomic chemotherapy can be used as maintenance therapy, allowing long-term treatment with no significant toxicity. This case suggests that the level of VEGFR2 is predictive of best response to antiangiogenic therapy.

177 Lu-Dota-octreotate radionuclide therapy of advanced gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: results from a phase II study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the activity and safety profile of (177)Lu-Dotatate peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (Lu-PRRT) in patients with advanced, well-differentiated (G1-G2) gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs). METHODS: Forty-three patients with radiological tumor progression at baseline and a positive Octreoscan® completed the treatment with Lu-PRRT, resulting in the cumulative activity of 18.5 or 27.8 GBq in five cycles. Total activity was scheduled on the basis of kidney function or bone marrow reserve. RESULTS: Twenty-five (58 %) patients were treated with a "standard" Lu-PRRT full dosage (FD) of 25.7 GBq (range 22.2-27.8), while the remaining 18 patients (42 %) who, at enrolment, showed a higher probability of developing kidney or bone marrow toxicity received a reduced dosage (RD) of 18.4 GBq (range 14.4-20.4). According to SWOG criteria, the overall response was complete response (CR) in (7 %) cases and stable disease (SD) in 33 (77 %), with a disease control rate (DCR) of 84 %. Median response duration was 25 months (range 7-50). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 36 months (95 % CI 24-nr), and median overall survival (OS) has not yet been reached. Remarkably, none of the patients, including those at a higher risk of toxicity, showed side-effects after either dosage of Lu-PRRT. CONCLUSION: Lu-PRRT was shown to be an effective therapeutic option in our patients with advanced progressive GI-NETs, showing an 84 % DCR (95 % CI 73-95) that lasted for 25 months and a PFS of 36 months. Both activities of 27.8 GBq and 18.5 GBq proved safe and effective in all patients, including those with a higher probability of developing kidney or bone marrow toxicity.