Dose-dense paclitaxel versus docetaxel following FEC as adjuvant chemotherapy in axillary node-positive early breast cancer: a multicenter randomized study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG).

Adding a taxane to anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy prolongs survival in node-positive early breast cancer. However, which is the preferable taxane in a dose-dense regimen remains unknown. We conducted a randomized study to compare the efficacy of dose-dense paclitaxel versus docetaxel following 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-positive early breast cancer. Following surgery women with HER2-negative breast cancer and at least one infiltrated axillary lymph node were randomized to receive four cycles of FEC (700/75/700 mg/m(2)) followed by four cycles of either paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)). All cycles were administered every 14 days with G-CSF support. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 years. Between 2004 and 2007, 481 women were randomized to paclitaxel (n = 241) and docetaxel (n = 240). After a median follow-up of 6 years, 51 (21%) and 48 (20%) women experienced disease relapse (p = 0.753) and there was no significant difference in DFS between the paclitaxel- and docetaxel-treated groups (3-year DFS 87.4 vs. 88.3%, respectively; median DFS not reached; p = 0.633). Toxicities were manageable, with grade 2-4 neutropenia in 21 versus 31% (p = 0.01), thrombocytopenia 0.8 versus 3.4% (p = 0.06), any grade neurotoxicity 17 versus 7.5% (p = 0.35) and onycholysis 4.9 versus 12.1% (p = 0.03) for patients receiving paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. There were no toxic deaths. Dose-dense paclitaxel versus docetaxel after FEC as adjuvant chemotherapy results in a similar 3-year DFS rate in women with axillary node-positive early breast cancer. Due to its more favorable toxicity profile, paclitaxel is the taxane of choice in this setting.

Sequential administration of the native TERT572 cryptic peptide enhances the immune response initiated by its optimized variant TERT(572Y) in cancer patients.

The aim of this study was to investigate the best administration of telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT572), an human leukocyte antigen-A*0201-restricted cryptic epitope of telomerase, and its optimized variant TERT(572Y) to elicit specific T cell immune responses in cancer patients. Forty-eight cancer patients with chemo-resistant tumors received 2 subcutaneous injections of TERT(572Y) at 2 mg followed at random by 4 subcutaneous injections of either TERT572 or TERT(572Y) peptides at 2 mg every 3 weeks. Specific immune response was evaluated by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot. T cell responses after the sixth vaccination were detected more frequently (44% vs. 17%), and with higher number of peptide-specific reactive T cells (60 T cells/2 × 10(5) peripheral blood mononuclear cell vs. 10 T cells/2 × 10(5) peripheral blood mononuclear cell, P=0.04), and higher avidity in the patients who received 4 more vaccinations with the TERT572 peptide compared with patients who received only TERT(572Y) vaccinations. These results demonstrate that the best vaccination schedule involves first the administration of the optimized TERT(572Y) followed by the native TERT572 peptides in patients who are candidates for cancer immunotherapy.

A multicenter randomized phase II study of the irinotecan/gemcitabine doublet versus irinotecan monotherapy in previously treated patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety profile of irinotecan (I) versus the combination of irinotecan/gemcitabine (IG) as second-line treatment of patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). TREATMENT: Patients with SCLC who have received at least one chemotherapy regimen were randomized to receive either the IG regimen (gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) intravenous (i.v.) on days 1 and 8 and irinotecan 300mg/m(2) i.v. on day 8) or I monotherapy (300mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1) both every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled in the IG and 31 in the I arm. Due to slow accrual an early closure of the study was decided. Response rate was significantly higher in the IG than in I arm (23.7% vs. 0%; p=0.004). The median time to progression (TTP) was 3.9 months (range: 0.5-14.5 months; 95% CI: 1.4-6.6) and 1.7 months (range: 0.5-9.9 months; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3) (p=0.010) for the IG and I arms, respectively. There was no difference in terms of median overall survival between the two arms (6.8 months and 4.6 months for the IG and I arm, respectively). The most frequent toxicities were grade III/IV neutropenia and grade III/IV diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Although the IG regimen seems to be more active than the I monotherapy, the premature closure of the study prevents the drawing of definitive conclusions.