Epicure: a European epidemiological study of patients with an advanced or metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (UC) having progressed to a platinum-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based systemic chemotherapy is considered the backbone for management of advanced urothelial carcinomas. However there is a lack of real world data on the use of such chemotherapy regimens, on patient profiles and on management after treatment failure. METHODS: Fifty-one randomly selected physicians from 4 European countries registered 218 consecutive patients in progression or relapse following a first platinum-based chemotherapy. Patient characteristics, tumor history and treatment regimens, as well as the considerations of physicians on the management of urothelial carcinoma were recorded. RESULTS: A systemic platinum-based regimen had been administered as the initial chemotherapy in 216 patients: 15 in the neoadjuvant setting, 61 in adjuvant therapy conditions, 137 in first-line advanced setting and 3 in other conditions. Of these patients, 76 (35 %) were initially considered as cisplatin-unfit, mainly because of renal impairment (52 patients). After platinum failure, renal impairment was observed in 44 % of patients, ECOG Performance Status ≥ 2 in 17 %, hemoglobinemia < 10 g/dL in 16 %, hepatic metastases in 13 %. 80 % of these patients received further anticancer therapy. Immediately after failure of adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy, most subsequent anticancer treatments were chemotherapy doublets (35/58), whereas after therapy failure in the advanced setting most patients receiving further anticancer drugs were treated with a single agent (80/114). After first progression to chemotherapy, treatment decisions were mainly driven by Performance Status and prior response to chemotherapy (>30 % patients). The most frequent all-settings second anticancer therapy regimen was vinflunine (70 % of single-agent and 42 % of all subsequent treatments), the main reasons evoked by physicians (>1 out of 4) being survival benefit, safety and phase III evidence. CONCLUSION: In this daily practice experience, a majority of patients with urothelial carcinoma previously treated with a platinum-based therapy received a second chemotherapy regimen, most often a single agent after an initial chemotherapy in the advanced setting and preferably a cytotoxic combination after a neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Performance Status and prior response to chemotherapy were the main drivers of further treatment decisions.

Phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with ifosfamide in patients with advanced sarcoma: a Spanish group for research on sarcomas (GEIS) study.

BACKGROUND: This phase I trial assessed safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), dose limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose and recommended dose (RD) of the combination of sorafenib plus ifosfamide in patients with advanced sarcoma. METHODS: Twelve sarcoma patients (9 soft-tissue, 3 bone sarcoma) were treated with sorafenib plus ifosfamide (starting doses 200 mg bid and 6 g/m(2) respectively). A 3 + 3 dose escalation design with cohorts of 3-6 patients was used. A study to assess the in vitro efficacy of the combination was also conducted. RESULTS: Three DLTs were observed: fatigue grade 4 with sorafenib 400 mg bid plus ifosfamide 6 g/m(2) and encephalopathy and emesis grade 3 with sorafenib 400 mg bid plus ifosfamide 7.5 g/m(2). Other toxicities included diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, neutropenia, skin rash and thrombocytopenia. There were no relevant effects on PK of sorafenib but an increase in ifosfamide active metabolite 4-hydroxy-ifosfamide was observed. Eight patients achieved stable disease lasting more than 12 weeks. An additive effect was observed in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: RD was sorafenib 400 mg bid plus ifosfamide 6 g/m(2), allowing administration of active doses of both agents. Limited preliminary antitumor activity was also observed. A phase II study is currently ongoing.

Patient-reported outcomes in a phase III, randomized study of sunitinib versus interferon-{alpha} as first-line systemic therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a European population.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of sunitinib versus interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha) treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 304 mRCC patients (European cohort) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off) or IFN-alpha (9 million units s.c. injection three times/week). The following questionnaires were completed (days 1 and 28 per cycle): Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index and the EuroQol Group's EQ-5D self-report questionnaire (EQ-5D). Results correspond to an ongoing trial with progression-free survival time as primary end point, and patients were still being followed up. Data were analyzed using repeated measures mixed effects models (MEMs) that allow the inclusion of initial differences and uncompleted repeated measures, with the assumption of data missing at random. Six-cycle results were included. RESULTS: Results consistently showed that patients in sunitinib group experienced statistically significantly milder kidney-related symptoms, better cancer-specific HRQoL and general health status (in social utility scores) during the study period as measured by these patient-reported outcome end points. No statistical differences between groups were found on the FACT-G physical well-being subscale or the EQ-5D VAS values. CONCLUSIONS: Results from MEM showed the sunitinib's benefit on HRQoL compared with IFN-alpha.