Masitinib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after failure of imatinib: a randomized controlled open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Masitinib is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against the main oncogenic drivers of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Masitinib was evaluated in patients with advanced GIST after imatinib failure or intolerance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with inoperable, advanced imatinib-resistant GIST were randomized (1 : 1) to receive masitinib (12 mg/kg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off) until progression, intolerance, or refusal. Primary efficacy analysis was noncomparative, testing whether masitinib attained a median progression-free survival (PFS) (blind centrally reviewed RECIST) threshold of >3 months according to the lower bound of the 90% unilateral confidence interval (CI). Secondary analyses on overall survival (OS) and PFS were comparative with results presented according to a two-sided 95% CI. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were randomized to receive masitinib (n = 23) or sunitinib (n = 21). Median follow-up was 14 months. Patients receiving masitinib experienced less toxicity than those receiving sunitinib, with significantly lower occurrence of severe adverse events (52% versus 91%, respectively, P = 0.008). Median PFS (central RECIST) for the noncomparative primary analysis in the masitinib treatment arm was 3.71 months (90% CI 3.65). Secondary analyses showed that median OS was significantly longer for patients receiving masitinib followed by post-progression addition of sunitinib when compared against patients treated directly with sunitinib in second-line [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.85, P = 0.016]. This improvement was sustainable as evidenced by 26-month follow-up OS data (HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.16-0.96, P = 0.033); an additional 12.4 months survival advantage being reported for the masitinib treatment arm. Risk of progression while under treatment with masitinib was in the same range as for sunitinib (HR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.2, P = 0.833). CONCLUSIONS: Primary efficacy analysis ensured the masitinib treatment arm could satisfy a prespecified PFS threshold. Secondary efficacy analysis showed that masitinib followed by the standard of care generated a statistically significant survival benefit over standard of care. Encouraging median OS and safety data from this well-controlled and appropriately designed randomized trial indicate a positive benefit-risk ratio. Further development of masitinib in imatinib-resistant/intolerant patients with advanced GIST is warranted.

Negative impact of bone metastasis on outcome in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to determine whether the presence of bone metastases affects outcomes in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) receiving sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of all patients in four academic centers in Belgium and France who started first-line sunitinib (50 mg/day; 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off) between January 2005 and December 2008. Data were collected on known prognostic factors for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and metastatic sites. Response and progression were evaluated by computed tomography scan (according to RECIST). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three patients were identified. With a median follow-up of 40 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were significantly shorter in patients with bone metastases than in those without: respectively, 8.2 versus 19.1 months (P<0.0001) and 19.5 versus 38.5 months (P<0.0001). On multivariate analysis, taking on account platelet count, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, neutrophil count, corrected serum calcium, time from diagnosis to systemic treatment, and the presence of bone metastases, bone metastasis was the independent variable most significantly associated with poor PFS (P<0.0001) and OS (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: The presence of bone metastases in m-ccRCC patients has a significant and clinically relevant negative impact on outcome on sunitinib.

A study of 28 flat bone osteosarcomas: prognostic factors and early and long-term outcome.

Limited information is available on clinical management of Flat Bone Osteosarcomas (FBOS). We retrospectively analysed prognostic factors and outcome. Twenty-eight patients were treated in our institution. Survival curves were obtained by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. The overall survival (OS) rates at 5 and 10 years were 52.4% and 45.8% respectively. The event-free survival (EFS) rates at 5 and 10 years were 41.5%. The factors influencing EFS in univariate analysis were location, metastatic disease at diagnosis, effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histological response and adequate local tumour control. Location, metastatic disease at diagnosis, effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histological response and local recurrence were statistically correlated with OS. Multivariate analysis retained metastatic disease at diagnosis as prognostic factors of EFS and OS. Our results suggest a more favourable outcome of FBOS as the use of a treatment scheme based on the protocols for long bone osteosarcomas. However, an adequate local treatment is essential to ensure a better outcome.

How to select targeted therapy in renal cell cancer.

Treatment of renal cell carcinoma has dramatically changed in the past 5 years, with the approval of six new drugs since 2006. Although treatment algorithms have been reported and updated every year since 2006, the choice of targeted therapy is not always easy. Selecting a targeted agent in metastatic renal cell carcinoma should take into account various parameters, including the status of the disease, the histology, the status of the patient and finally the availability of the drugs in each country. In addition, in front of every patient, the physician will need to raise important questions such as whether the patient should be treated, should receive surgery and also what is his prognosis. The different options are described here.

[New drugs in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer]. / Nouvelles thérapeutiques du cancer de la prostate métastatique résistant à la castration.

Despite that greater knowledge of prostate cancer biology has led to the isolation of many new and promising targets, treatment of metastatic prostate cancer is still challenging. New agents targeting these molecules are currently under development in large randomized phase III trials, to improve overall survival and the quality of life of patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostatic cancer (CRPC). Cytotoxic chemotherapy (docetaxel-based chemotherapy) demonstrated clinical benefit on overall survival, but could be improved. Drugs targeting directly or not the androgen receptor such as abiraterone or new specific peripheral anti-androgens (MDV3100) are very promising. Bone targeted therapies (endothelin1 receptor A inhibitor, RANK ligant, metabolic irradiation) are also very promising and are in development in large phase III trials. Antiangiogenic therapies could also be effective in CRPC. Autologous vaccin against prostatic acid phosphatase seems to prolong overall survival and other vaccin and immunotherapy strategies are in development (anti-CTLA4 antibody). A recent analogue of thalidomide, probably more efficient, lenalidomide is also in development.

Human gammadelta T cells express a higher TCR/CD3 complex density than alphabeta T cells.

The aim of our study was to compare CD3 expression on gammadelta T cells and alphabeta T cells in human patients. The antigen density of TCR and CD3 on both subsets was assessed by a quantitative method in eight patients. In parallel, we developed and validated a reliable direct tricolor staining protocol that we tested on samples from hospitalized and healthy individuals (n = 60). Our results demonstrate that human gammadelta T cells constitutively express approximately twofold more of the TCR/CD3 complex than alphabeta T cells. We suggest that this enhanced expression of the TCR/CD3 complex could contribute to the higher reactivity of gammadelta T cells compared to alphabeta T cells. These clinical laboratory results confirm the fundamental data described elsewhere. gammadelta T cells deserve further clinical investigations to understand their precise role in human immunity.