Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

First-line treatment of advanced/metastatic melanoma with anti-PD-1 antibodies: multicenter experience in Poland.

Aim: To evaluate treatment results in advanced/metastatic melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in routine practice in oncology centers in Poland. Methods: Multicenter retrospective analysis included 499 patients with unresectable/metastatic (stage IIIC-IV) melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 in first-line therapy. Results: Estimated median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 19.9 and 7.9 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed that ECOG 0, no brain metastases, normal lactate dehydrogenase level and occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were statistically significantly associated with improved OS and PFS. Any irAE occurred in 24% of patients. Grade 3 or Grade 4 irAEs occurred in 6% of patients. Conclusion: Analysis revealed a slightly worse OS in real-world treatment in comparison to clinical trials (KEYNOTE-006 and CheckMate 066). Polish population treatment results are similar to other studies of real-world data. PFS and ORR are similar in our research and clinical trials.

Real-world treatment practice in patients with advanced melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment outcomes of patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma were poor before the use of new therapeutic options. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted among 287 patients with unresectable stage III and stage IV melanoma treated at the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology Cracow Branch, from 2013 to 2019. All enrolled patients were treated with immunotherapy (IT; consisting of pembrolizumab/nivolumab, or ipilimumab) or target therapy (TT; consisting of vemurafenib ±cobimetinib or dabrafenib ±trametinib) in at least one treatment line. RESULTS: mutation was detected in 152 (55%) patients. In general, the majority of patients (92%) were in very good or good condition (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] 0 or 1). Brain metastasis was detected in 64 (22%) patients. Median OS and PFS in the experimental group from the beginning of the first-line treatment were 14.9 and 6.7 months, respectively. Across the study population, as a first-line treatment patients received IT, TT as well as CHT, and the median OS was 19.2, 12.6 and 15.9 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed that normal LDH levels, no brain metastases, ECOG 0, and objective response to the treatment were strong predictors of longer OS. For PFS, absence of brain metastases, ECOG 0, and treatment response were found to be predictive factors on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of new therapies for the treatment of patients with advanced/disseminated melanoma significantly prolonged survival in this group of patients. Nevertheless, further studies should be conducted to assess the effectiveness of various sequences of treatment.

Adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: 10-year follow-up of the phase 3 randomised BCIRG 001 trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared standard adjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy with anthracycline-taxane combination chemotherapy in women with operable node-positive breast cancer. Here we report the final, 10-year follow-up analysis of disease-free survival, overall survival, and long-term safety. METHODS: BCIRG 001 was an open label, phase 3, multicentre trial in which 1491 patients aged 18-70 years with node-positive, early breast cancer and a Karnofsky score of 80% or more were randomly assigned to adjuvant treatment with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) or fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was stratified according to institution and number of involved axillary lymph nodes per patient (one to three vs four or more). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint and was defined as the interval between randomisation and breast cancer relapse, second primary cancer, or death, whichever occurred first. Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. BCIRG 001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00688740. FINDINGS: Enrolement took place between June 11, 1997 and June 3, 1999; 745 patients were assigned to receive TAC and 746 patients were assigned to receive FAC. After a median follow-up of 124 months (IQR 90-126), disease-free survival was 62% (95% CI 58-65) for patients in the TAC group and 55% (51-59) for patients in the FAC group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·68-0·93; log-rank p=0·0043). 10-year overall survival was 76% (95% CI 72-79) for patients in the TAC group and 69% (65-72) for patients in the FAC group (HR 0·74, 0·61-0·90; log-rank p=0·0020). TAC improved disease-free survival relative to FAC irrespective of nodal, hormone receptor, and HER2 status, although not all differences were significant in these subgroup analyses. Grade 3-4 heart failure occurred in 26 (3%) patients in the TAC group and 17 (2%) patients in the FAC group, and caused death in two patients in the TAC group and four patients in the FAC group. A substantial decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (defined as a relative decrease from baseline of 20% or more) was seen in 58 (17%) patients who received TAC and 41 (15%) patients who received FAC. Six patients who received TAC developed leukaemia or myelodysplasia, as did three patients who received FAC. INTERPRETATION: Our results provide evidence that the initial therapeutic outcomes seen at the 5-year follow-up with a docetaxel-containing adjuvant regimen are maintained at 10 years. However, a substantial percentage of patients had a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction, probably caused by anthracycline therapy, which warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer: follow-up analysis from the randomized 'FIRST' study.

Fulvestrant fIRst-line Study comparing endocrine Treatments is a phase II, randomized, open-label study comparing fulvestrant 500 mg with anastrozole 1 mg as first-line endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer. At data cut-off, only 36 % of patients had progressed and the median time to progression (TTP) had not been reached for fulvestrant. Here, we report follow-up data for TTP for fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg. Key inclusion criteria were postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive and/or progesterone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and no prior endocrine therapy. Key exclusion criteria were presence of life-threatening metastases and prior treatment with a non-approved drug. Fulvestrant was administered 500 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 14 of month 1; anastrozole was administered 1 mg/day. TTP was defined by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.0 before data cut-off for the primary analysis, and investigator opinion after data cut-off. Best overall response to subsequent therapy and serious adverse events are also reported. In total, 205 patients received fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 102) or anastrozole (n = 103). Follow-up analysis was performed when 79.5 % of patients had discontinued study treatment. Median TTP was 23.4 months for fulvestrant versus 13.1 months for anastrozole; a 34 % reduction in risk of progression (hazard ratio 0.66; 95 % confidence interval: 0.47, 0.92; P = 0.01). Best overall response to subsequent therapy and clinical benefit rate for subsequent endocrine therapy was similar between the treatment groups. No new safety concerns for fulvestrant 500 mg were documented. These longer-term, follow-up results confirm efficacy benefit for fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole as first-line endocrine therapy for HR+ advanced breast cancer in terms of TTP, and, importantly, show similar best overall response rates to subsequent endocrine therapy.

Diagnostic, predictive and prognostic verification of DNA flow cytometric measurements performed at diagnosis for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma adult patients.

More than ten years ago we made first attempts at valuating a prognostic power of flow cytometric DNA measurement results for patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In multivariate overall survival analysis, S-phase fraction (SPF) showed to be the only independent prognostic factor within the group of patients with low grade lymphomas. In this paper, we have tried to check our previous results in a greater group of patients with longer follow-up, within the specific types of B-cell and T/NK-cell lymphomas verified and classified according to criteria of the WHO 2008 classification. The study was performed on the material obtained from biopsies (85% of lymph nodes) of 484 NHL patients. Patients were diagnosed from 1991 to 2007. The medium follow-up time for living patients was 69 months (range: 25-202 months). All specimens were verified histologically and immunohistochemically. Ploidy and SPF were determined by flow cytometry on fresh tissue obtained during the diagnostic procedure. The diagnostic importance of ploidy and SPF has been confirmed. Ploidy had no predictive or prognostic impact in any of the NHL types, whereas SPF was found to be an independent predictive or prognostic factor in B-CLL/SLL, DLBCL and ALCL.

The possibility of lapatinib treatment for breast cancer patients with central nervous system metastases. Case study and literature review.

In patients with breast cancer with overexpression of the HER2 receptor, during treatment with trastuzumab, in 30% of cases brain metastases are observed. The use of lapatinib with capecitabine (L + C) seems to be an efficacious method of curing patients in whom the spread of cancer in this location has occurred. In a patient aged 52 treated by the L + C scheme a stabilization of changes in the brain was noted, lingering for 17 months. The tolerance of the treatment was good. Grade 2 hand-foot syndrome on the NCI 2,0 scale, nausea, a first degree increase in transaminase levels and first degree diarrhea were observed. No hematological or cardiac complications were observed. In the third phase test comparing capecitabine with capecitabine and lapatinib in patients with advanced breast cancer, adding lapatinib to capecitabine significantly prolonged the time until progression and contributed to lessening of the amount of progression of the condition into the central nervous system. Recently published studies showed 6% remission of metastases to the central nervous system in patients with advanced breast cancer with brain metastases treated with lapatinib and 20-21% in patients receiving lapatinib with capecitabine. Future studies evaluating the effectiveness of lapatinib in patients with spread into the central nervous system should include the evaluation of lapatinib in association with cytostatics able to break through the blood-brain barrier. Lapatinib should also be tested in association with brain radiation, considering the results of preclinical studies indicating that it may work as a radiation sensitizer.

Motesanib, or open-label bevacizumab, in combination with paclitaxel, as first-line treatment for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has a crucial role in angiogenesis, and is a valid target in metastatic breast cancer. Motesanib is an investigational oral inhibitor of VEGF receptors. We aimed to determine whether treatment with motesanib plus paclitaxel is better than placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Between Dec 1, 2006, and July 4, 2008, patients with untreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned (using a randomisation list created by personnel not associated with the study) in a 1:1:1 ratio to paclitaxel (90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks) plus either masked motesanib 125 mg orally once per day (n=91), masked placebo orally once per day (n=94), or open-label bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (n=97), after stratification according to adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (taxane-containing regimens vs other regimens vs none), number of metastatic sites (<3 vs ≥3), and hormone receptor status (positive vs negative). Placebo was provided as a replica of motesanib 25 mg tablets. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) based on the population as assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00356681. FINDINGS: ORRs for the motesanib group and the placebo group did not differ significantly (49%vs 41%; absolute difference 8% [95% CI -6 to 22]; p=0.31). The ORR in the bevacizumab group (52%) was similar to that in the motesanib group. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events included diarrhoea (18 of 92 patients in the motesanib group, none of 89 patients in the placebo group, and four of 96 patients in the bevacizumab group), fatigue (11, eight, and six), hypertension (11, one, and seven), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (ten, seven, and 19). More patients in the motesanib group had serious adverse events than did those in the placebo or bevacizumab groups (34, 26, and 21 patients, respectively); the most common of these in the motesanib group were gastrointestinal in nature. INTERPRETATION: Data from this trial do not support the further investigation of motesanib at this dose and schedule in this population. FUNDING: Amgen.

Multicenter phase III randomized trial comparing docetaxel and trastuzumab with docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HER2-gene-amplified metastatic breast cancer (BCIRG 007 study): two highly active therapeutic regimens.

PURPOSE: Docetaxel-trastuzumab (TH) is effective therapy for HER2-amplified metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Preclinical findings of synergy between docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH) prompted a phase III randomized trial comparing TCH with TH in patients with HER2-amplified MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred sixty-three patients were randomly assigned to receive eight 3-week cycles of TH (trastuzumab plus docetaxel 100 mg/m(2)) or TCH (trastuzumab plus carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve 6 and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2)). Trastuzumab was given at 4 mg/kg loading dose followed by a 2 mg/kg dose once per week during chemotherapy, and then 6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks until progression. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were balanced between groups. There was no significant difference between TH and TCH in terms of the primary end point, time to progression (medians of 11.1 and 10.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.914; 95% CI, 0.694 to 1.203; P = .57), response rate (72% for both groups), or overall survival (medians of 37.1 and 37.4 months, respectively; P = .99). Rates of grades 3 or 4 adverse effects for TH and TCH, respectively, were neutropenic-related complications, 29% and 23%; thrombocytopenia, 2% and 15%; anemia, 5% and 11%; sensory neuropathy, 3% and 0.8%; fatigue, 5% and 12%; peripheral edema, 3.8% and 1.5%; and diarrhea, 2% and 10%. Two patients given TCH died of sepsis, and one patient given TH experienced sudden cardiac death. Absolute left ventricular ejection fraction decline > 15% was seen in 5.5% of patients on the TH arm and 6.7% of patients on the TCH arm. CONCLUSION: Adding carboplatin did not enhance TH antitumor activity.TH (docetaxel, 100 mg/m(2)) and TCH (docetaxel, 75 mg/m(2)) demonstrated efficacy with acceptable toxicity in women with HER2-amplified MBC.

[The case of giant rhabdomyosarcoma of the head and neck and meagre symptomatology]. / Przypadek olbrzymiego miesaka prazkowanokomórkowego glowy i szyi o skapoobjawowym przebiegu klinicznym.

The case of the 27-year old patient with huge tumour of the right parotid gland was shown in this article. The right parotid gland, the right parapharyngeal space, region of the right maxillary sinus and the right temporal lobe of the brain were involved. Histopathological examination revealed alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma. The epidemiology, diagnostic problems and therapy were described.

Results of a phase II study comparing three dosing regimens of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (FINDER2).

The Faslodex Investigation of Dose evaluation in Estrogen Receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FINDER)2 study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of three fulvestrant dosing regimens. FINDER2 enrolled Western postmenopausal women recurring or progressing after prior endocrine therapy. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints: time to progression (TTP), clinical benefit rate (CBR), tolerability, and PK parameters. Patients were randomized to receive fulvestrant: 250 mg/month (approved dose [AD]); 250 mg plus loading dose (loading dose [LD]; 500 mg on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and monthly thereafter); or 500 mg (high dose [HD]; 500 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 14 of Month 1). Treatment continued until disease progression or discontinuation. 144 patients were randomized: fulvestrant AD (n = 47); LD (n = 51); HD (n = 46). ORRs were: 8.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4, 20.4%), 5.9% (1.2, 16.2%), and 15.2% (6.3, 28.9%) in the AD, LD, and HD arms, respectively. CBRs were: 31.9% (95% CI: 19.1, 47.1%), 47.1% (32.9, 61.5%), and 47.8% (32.9, 63.1%) for the AD, LD, and HD arms, respectively. Median TTP (months) was numerically longer for HD (6.0) and LD (6.1) versus AD (3.1). Tolerability was similar across dosing regimens. Steady-state plasma fulvestrant concentrations were predictable and achieved earlier with LD and HD. While there appeared to be a trend toward improved efficacy with HD and LD versus AD, no significant differences could be shown. A parallel study (FINDER1) has reported similar findings in Japanese patients.

Trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal Doxorubicin in recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) with that of PLD alone in women with recurrent ovarian cancer after failure of first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women > or = 18 years, stratified by performance status (0 to 1 v 2) and platinum sensitivity, were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of PLD 30 mg/m(2) followed by a 3-hour infusion of trabectedin 1.1 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks or PLD 50 mg/m(2) every 4 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology assessment. RESULTS: Patients (N = 672) were randomly assigned to trabectedin/PLD (n = 337) or PLD (n = 335). Median PFS was 7.3 months with trabectedin/PLD v 5.8 months with PLD (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.96; P = .0190). For platinum-sensitive patients, median PFS was 9.2 months v 7.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.95; P = .0170). Overall response rate (ORR) was 27.6% for trabectedin/PLD v 18.8% for PLD (P = .0080); for platinum-sensitive patients, it was 35.3% v 22.6% (P = .0042), respectively. ORR, PFS, and overall survival among platinum-resistant patients were not statistically different. Neutropenia was more common with trabectedin/PLD. Grade 3 to 4 transaminase elevations were also more common with the combination but were transient and noncumulative. Hand-foot syndrome and mucositis were less frequent with trabectedin/PLD than with PLD alone. CONCLUSION: When combined with PLD, trabectedin improves PFS and ORR over PLD alone with acceptable tolerance in the second-line treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer.

Phase II study of oral vinorelbine in combination with capecitabine as second line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes.

PURPOSE: Effective treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant/refractory to anthracyclines and/or taxanes are limited. Intravenous and oral combination of vinorelbine (VRL) and capecitabine were shown to be feasible and effective in first-line MBC. In order to evaluate the activity of the combination of an all oral regimen in a more advanced setting, we investigated a regimen combining oral VRL and capecitabine in a phase II study as second-line chemotherapy of MBC patients previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients (median age 52 years) with MBC received the combination of oral VRL 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) bid given from day 1 to day 14 in an open-label, international, multicentre, phase II study. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR) evaluated by an independent panel review. Secondary objectives included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life. RESULTS: All the patients had received prior chemotherapy with anthracyclines and taxanes, 75% were refractory/resistant to anthracycline and/or taxane, 72.5% presented with visceral involvement and the last prior chemotherapy for 87.5% of the patients was for advanced disease setting. The median number of administered cycles per patient was 4 (range 1-31). Eight responses were documented and validated by an independent panel review, yielding RRs of 20% [95% CI: 9-35.6] in the intent-to-treat (treated) population and 23.5% [95% CI: 10.7-41.2] in the 34 evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 3.4 months [95% CI: 2.3-5.5] and 11.3 months [95% CI: 8.1-16.4], respectively. The principal toxicities were anaemia, neutropenia (rarely complicated; only one patient experienced febrile neutropenia), fatigue and gastrointestinal toxicities with very few grade 3-4 non-haematological toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: In second-line treatment of MBC patients previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes, oral VRL plus capecitabine is a safe regimen with an efficacy comparable to the other available combination regimens used in this heavily and resistant/refractory (75% of patients) pre-treated patients' population. Moreover, this well-tolerated combination offers the advantages of an all oral regimen.

A multicenter, single-arm phase II study of pemetrexed plus doxorubicin administered every 21 days in patients with advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Doxorubicin and pemetrexed have both shown single-agent activity in breast cancer. Preclinical and clinical evidence indicates that a combination of the 2 agents might have an additive or synergistic effect. A phase II trial was initiated to assess the antitumor activity and safety of pemetrexed plus doxorubicin in women with advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Anthracycline-naive patients with advanced breast cancer received doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) (both intravenously) on day 1 of 21-day cycles, as first-line therapy, with standard vitamin supplementation. Seventy-nine women were enrolled (median age, 55.3 years). Seventy-six patients (96.2%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of < or = 1. RESULTS: At baseline, 35 patients (44.3%) had visceral metastases. Three (4.2%) patients were HER2/neu positive, and 30 (42.3%) patients were HER2/ neu negative. The objective response rate was 55.7% (95% exact CI, 44.1%-66.9%), including 2 (2.5%) complete responses. Median progression-free survival was 8 months (95% CI, 6.5-13.3 months). Two-year survival rate was 61.7% (95% CI, 49.7%-71.6%). Grade 3/4 drug-related toxicities in > or = 10% patients included neutropenia (24.1%) and leukopenia (10.1%). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced breast cancer, the combination of doxorubicin plus pemetrexed was well tolerated and showed promising antitumor activity that warrants further study.

Activity of fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: results from the FIRST study.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical activity of the pure antiestrogen fulvestrant at 500 mg/mo (double the approved dose) with the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole as first-line endocrine therapy for advanced hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: FIRST (Fulvestrant First-Line Study Comparing Endocrine Treatments) is a phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of a fulvestrant high-dose (HD) regimen (500 mg/mo plus 500 mg on day 14 of month 1) versus anastrozole (1 mg/d). The primary efficacy end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as the proportion of patients experiencing an objective response (OR) or stable disease for > or = 24 weeks. The primary analysis was performed 6 months after the last patient was randomly assigned. RESULTS: CBR was similar for fulvestrant HD (n = 102) and anastrozole (n = 103), 72.5% v 67.0%, respectively (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.38; P = .386). Objective response rate (ORR) was also similar between treatments: fulvestrant HD, 36.0%; anastrozole, 35.5%. Time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer for fulvestrant versus anastrozole (median TTP not reached for fulvestrant HD v 12.5 months for anastrozole; hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.00; P = .0496). Duration of OR and CB also numerically favored fulvestrant HD. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of prespecified adverse events. CONCLUSION: First-line fulvestrant HD was at least as effective as anastrozole for CBR and ORR and was associated with significantly longer TTP. Fulvestrant HD was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of anastrozole.

Efficacy and safety of casopitant mesylate, a neurokinin 1 (NK1)-receptor antagonist, in prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a clinical management problem after treatment with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We therefore designed and carried out a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess whether a three-drug antiemetic regimen of ondansetron, dexamethasone, and the neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate was able to prevent acute and delayed CINV events in patients naive to chemotherapy with a malignant solid tumour who were scheduled to receive cisplatin-based HEC regimens. METHODS: The study was done between Nov 6, 2006, and Oct 9, 2007, in 77 participating centres in 22 countries. All 810 patients enrolled in the trial received dexamethasone and ondansetron. Patients were randomly assigned to also receive placebo (n=269), single oral dose of casopitant mesylate (150 mg oral, n=271), or 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate (90 mg intravenous on day 1 plus 50 mg oral on days 2 and 3, n=270). Randomisation was done using a central telephone system at the study level, because some centres were expected to recruit only a few patients during the study period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no vomiting, retching, or use of rescue medications) in the first 120 h after receiving HEC. Efficacy analysis was done on the modified intention-to-treat population (n=800), which included all patients who received placebo or study drug and HEC (n=265 control, n=266 single-dose oral casopitant mesylate, n=269 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate). Safety was reported in 802 patients who received either placebo or study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00431236. FINDINGS: Significantly more patients in each casopitant group achieved complete response in cycle 1 of HEC treatment than did those in the control group (175 [66%] patients in the control group, 228 [86%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group [p<0.0001 vs control], and 214 [80%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group (p=0.0004 vs control]). This improvement was sustained over multiple cycles of HEC. Adverse events occurred in 205 (77%) patients in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group and 203 (75%) patients in the 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate group compared with 194 (73%) of patients in the control group. The most common serious adverse events were neutropenia (n=5 [3%] in the control group, n=3 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=11 [4%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), febrile neutropenia (n=1 [<1%] in the control group, n=4 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=6 [2%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), and dehydration (n=4 [2%] in the control group, n=2 [<1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=1 [<1%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group). INTERPRETATION: A three-drug regimen including a single oral dose or 3-day intravenous plus oral regimen of casopitant mesylate plus dexamethasone and ondansetron significantly reduced CINV events in patients receiving HEC compared with a two-drug regimen of dexamethasone and ondansetron. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Survival without toxicity for cisplatin plus pemetrexed versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine in chemonaïve patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a risk-benefit analysis of a large phase III study.

BACKGROUND: In a large phase III study, cisplatin and pemetrexed had non-inferior efficacy and better tolerability compared with cisplatin and gemcitabine in chemonaïve patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current analysis characterised the clinical benefit (i.e. survival) relative to clinical risk (i.e. drug-related toxicity) of the doublets. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1669 patients (of 1725 randomised) received 500 mg/m(2) pemetrexed IV followed by 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin IV on day 1 or gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day 1, administered every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles. Survival without toxicity (i.e. clinical benefit to risk) was defined as the time from randomisation to the first occurrence of any grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity or death, and was analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods. RESULTS: In the overall patient population, survival without grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity was significantly longer for patients treated with cisplatin and pemetrexed versus cisplatin and gemcitabine (HR=0.70; P<0.001), as was survival without grade 4 drug-related toxicity (HR=0.83; P<0.001). For patients with non-squamous NSCLC, survival without toxicity with cisplatin and pemetrexed was superior to cisplatin and gemcitabine for grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity (HR=0.64; P<0.001) and for grade 4 drug-related toxicity (HR=0.77; P<0.001), whereas no treatment-arm difference was observed in the squamous subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-squamous NSCLC treated with front-line cisplatin and pemetrexed have superior survival without toxicity (i.e. clinical benefit-to-risk profile) compared with patients treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine.

Gemcitabine plus Paclitaxel versus Paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer and prior anthracycline treatment.

PURPOSE: The objective of this phase III global study was to compare the efficacy of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel (GT) versus paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer. It was designed as a pivotal study for the approval of G for a breast cancer treatment indication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who relapsed after adjuvant anthracyclines were randomly assigned to gemcitabine,1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel, 175 mg/m(2) on day 1; or, to paclitaxel at same dose on day 1 (both arms administered every 21 days, unblinded). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) and secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), response rate (RR), progression-free survival, response duration, and toxicity. This final OS analysis was planned at 380 deaths. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients were randomly assigned to GT and 263 to paclitaxel. Median survival on GT was 18.6 months versus 15.8 months on paclitaxel (log-rank P = . 0489), with an adjusted Cox hazard ratio of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P = .0187). The TTP was longer (6.14 v 3.98 months; log-rank P = .0002) and the RR was better (41.4% v 26.2%; P = .0002) on GT. There was more grade 3 to 4 neutropenia on GT and grade 2 to 4 fatigue and neuropathy were slightly more prevalent on GT. CONCLUSION: This phase III study documents a role for gemcitabine in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy. The results establish GT as a reasonable choice for women who require cytoreduction with manageable toxicities and validate ongoing testing of GT in the adjuvant setting.

A phase II study of Tg4010 (Mva-Muc1-Il2) in association with chemotherapy in patients with stage III/IV Non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: TG4010 is a recombinant viral vector expressing both the tumor-associated antigen MUC1 and Interleukine-2. This vector is based on the modified virus of Ankara, a significantly attenuated strain of vaccinia virus. TG4010 has been designed to induce or amplify a cellular immune response directed against tumor cells expressing MUC1. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized phase II study has explored two schedules of the combination of TG4010 with first line chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer. In Arm 1, TG4010 was combined upfront with cisplatin (100 mg/m day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m day 1 and day 8). In Arm 2, patients were treated with TG4010 monotherapy until disease progression, followed by TG4010 plus the same chemotherapy as in Arm1. Response rate was evaluated according to RECIST. Median time to progression and median overall survival were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were enrolled, 44 in Arm 1 and 21 in Arm 2, in accordance with the two stage Simon design of the statistical plan. In Arm 1, partial response was observed in 13 patients out of 37 evaluable patients (29.5% of the intent to treat population, 35.1% of the evaluable patients). In Arm 2, two patients experienced stable disease for more than 6 months with TG4010 alone (up to 211 days), in the subsequent combination with chemotherapy, one complete and one partial response were observed out of 14 evaluable patients. Arm 2 did not meet the criteria for moving forward to second stage. The median time to progression was 4.8 months for Arm 1. The median overall survival was 12.7 months for Arm 1 and 14.9 for Arm 2. One year survival rate was 53% for Arm 1 and 60% for Arm 2. TG4010 was well tolerated, mild to moderate injection site reactions, flu-like symptoms, and fatigue being the most frequent adverse reactions. A MUC1-specific cellular immune response was observed in lymphocyte samples from all responding patients evaluable for immunology. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of TG4010 with standard chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer is feasible and shows encouraging results. A randomized study evaluating the addition of TG4010 to first line chemotherapy in this population is in progress.

Effects of palliative treatment with temozolomide in patients with high-grade gliomas.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the results of treatment with temozolomide in patients with high-grade gliomas who no longer benefit from surgical treatment and radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The retrospective analysis included 51 patients treated between 2001 and 2007 in the Centre of Oncology in Kraków. Glioblastoma multiforme was histologically diagnosed in 24 (47%) patients; anaplastic astrocytomas and other grade III gliomas (according to WHO classification) were diagnosed in 27 (53%) patients. Patients received 1-11 cycles of treatment with temozolomide - 210 cycles were given in total. Forty-five patients were eligible for efficacy assessment because 6 patients received only one chemotherapy cycle (due to rapid progression of the glioma). RESULTS: According to the radiological assessment, 6 patients (13%) had an objective response and a further 16 patients (36%) had stabilization of the glioma. Subjective improvement was noted in 26 patients (58%), and neurological improvement was observed in 14 patients (31%). The median survival in the whole group was 41 weeks (40 weeks in patients with glioblastoma multiforme and 54 weeks in patients with anaplastic gliomas). One-year overall survival in the above-mentioned groups was 40.7%, 22%, and 50%, respectively. Two-year overall survival was 16%, 8%, and 20.9%, respectively. Adverse events were observed during 73 (35%) cycles of treatment and prompted a dose reduction in 12 (24.5%) patients. The most frequent adverse events were: thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, nausea and vomiting. Adverse events did not lead to treatment withdrawal in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Objective benefit from the temozolomide treatment (stabilization or objective remission) was observed in 49% of patients irrespective of histological diagnosis. Tolerability of treatment with temozolomide in patients with high-grade gliomas is good.