A phase 2 study of panitumumab with irinotecan as salvage therapy in chemorefractory KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Targeted agents are standard treatment for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in the first- and second-line settings. This phase 2 study determined the benefit of targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with panitumumab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory patients. METHODS: KRAS exon-2 wild-type patients failing prior irinotecan received panitumumab (6 mg/kg) and irinotecan (180 mg/m²) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). KRAS exon-2 status was evaluated centrally, along with NRAS, BRAF mutations, epiregulin, amphiregulin, PTEN and EGFR copy number status, and correlated with efficacy. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were treated. Among the 46 wild-type RAS patients, the ORR was 15.2% (seven partial responses), with median PFS of 3.8 months (95% CI 2.7-4.3) and median OS of 12.5 months (95% CI 6.7-15.9). Wild-type BRAF patients showed a 13.0% response rate. No significant correlations between response and baseline biomarker expression were identified. Common grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea and rash (18.0% each), hypomagnesaemia and asthenia (8.2% each). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of panitumumab to irinotecan as salvage therapy is feasible but has limited activity in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. No biomarkers predictive of response were identified.

Role of Kras status in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a TTD group cooperative study.

BACKGROUND: In the MACRO study, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomised to first-line treatment with 6 cycles of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab followed by either single-agent bevacizumab or XELOX plus bevacizumab until disease progression. An additional retrospective analysis was performed to define the prognostic value of tumour KRAS status on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: KRAS data (tumour KRAS status and type of mutation) were collected by questionnaire from participating centres that performed KRAS analyses. These data were then cross-referenced with efficacy data for relevant patients in the MACRO study database. KRAS status was analysed in 394 of the 480 patients (82.1%) in the MACRO study. Wild-type (WT) KRAS tumours were found in 219 patients (56%) and mutant (MT) KRAS in 175 patients (44%). Median PFS was 10.9 months for patients with WT KRAS and 9.4 months for patients with MT KRAS tumours (p=0.0038; HR: 1.40; 95% CI:1.12-1.77). The difference in OS was also significant: 26.7 months versus 18.0 months for WT versus MT KRAS, respectively (p=0.0002; HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.23-1.96). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that KRAS was an independent variable for both PFS and OS. Responses were observed in 126 patients (57.5%) with WT KRAS tumours and 76 patients (43.4%) with MT KRAS tumours (p=0.0054; OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.18-2.64). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This analysis of the MACRO study suggests a prognostic role for tumour KRAS status in patients with mCRC treated with XELOX plus bevacizumab. For both PFS and OS, KRAS status was an independent factor in univariate and multivariate analyses.

Circulating tumor cell count is a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors study.

BACKGROUND: The Maintenance in Colorectal Cancer trial was a phase III study to assess maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. An ancillary study was conducted to evaluate the circulating tumor cell (CTC) count as a prognostic and/or predictive marker for efficacy endpoints. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty patients were included. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after three cycles. CTC enumeration was carried out using the CellSearch® System (Veridex LLC, Raritan, NJ). Computed tomography scans were performed at cycle 3 and 6 and every 12 weeks thereafter for tumor response assessment. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival (PFS) interval for patients with a CTC count ≥3 at baseline was 7.8 months, versus the 12.0 months achieved by patients with a CTC count <3 (p = .0002). The median overall survival (OS) time was 17.7 months for patients with a CTC count ≥3, compared with 25.1 months for patients with a lower count (p = .0059). After three cycles, the median PFS interval for patients with a low CTC count was 10.8 months, significantly longer than the 7.5 months for patients with a high CTC count (p = .005). The median OS time for patients with a CTC count <3 was significantly longer than for patients with a CTC count ≥3, 25.1 months versus 16.2 months, respectively (p = .0095). CONCLUSIONS: The CTC count is a strong prognostic factor for PFS and OS outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

First-line XELOX plus bevacizumab followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or single-agent bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase III MACRO TTD study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab alone with those of bevacizumab and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as maintenance treatment following induction chemotherapy with XELOX plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n = 239; bevacizumab, n = 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0-53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients.

Addition of bevacizumab to XELOX induction therapy plus concomitant capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy in magnetic resonance imaging-defined poor-prognosis locally advanced rectal cancer: the AVACROSS study.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision is standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. This approach, however, focuses on local disease control and delays systemic treatment. Induction chemotherapy has the advantage of earlier administration of systemic therapy and may improve distant control. The objective of the current study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of adding bevacizumab to induction chemotherapy followed by preoperative bevacizumab-based chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had high-risk rectal adenocarcinoma defined by magnetic resonance imaging criteria. Treatment consisted of four 21-day cycles of bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) and XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin), followed by concomitant radiotherapy (50.4 Gy) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) and capecitabine (825 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-15). Surgery was scheduled for 6-8 weeks after chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR). RESULTS: Between July 2007 and July 2008, 47 patients were recruited. Among 45 patients who underwent surgery, pCR was achieved in 16 patients (36%; 95% confidence interval: 22.29%-51.27%), and an additional 17 patients (38%) had Dworak tumor regression grade 3. R0 resection was performed in 44 patients (98%). Most grade 3/4 adverse events occurred during the induction phase and included diarrhea (11%), asthenia (4%), neutropenia (6%), and thrombocytopenia (4%). Eleven patients (24%) required surgical reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of bevacizumab to induction chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy is feasible, with impressive activity and manageable toxicity. However, caution is recommended regarding surgical complications.

Cetuximab given every 2 weeks plus irinotecan is an active and safe option for previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We gathered data from multiple institutions on the cetuximab regimen of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: 126 patients from 19 centers were included from July 2006 to July 2007 in this prospective non-controlled study. Irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients with Karnofsky >or=70 received cetuximab 500 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks (q2w) in combination with irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) q2w until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the progression-free rate at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Median age was 65 years; 65.9% male; colon/rectum 64.3/34.1%; Karnofsky status or=90% in 45.3/54.7% of the patients. The progression-free rate was 42.7 (95% CI 32.8-52.6) and 22.4% (95% CI 14.2-30.7) at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively. The main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were: diarrhea 13.5% and acne-like rash 10.3%. No grade 3 or 4 infusional or allergic reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The progression-free rates confirm that cetuximab q2w in combination with irinotecan is an option, and is as active and safe as the standard weekly regimen.

Early intervention with epoetin beta prevents severe anaemia in patients with solid tumours receiving platinum-based chemotherapy: results of the NeoPrevent study.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is common during platinum-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of epoetin beta in the prevention of severe anaemia in patients with solid tumours receiving concomitant platinum therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm study, patients (n = 255) with solid tumours and haemoglobin (Hb) levels 1 g/dl from baseline) plus patients whose Hb levels remained +/- 1 g/dl of baseline throughout the study] was observed in 234 patients (92%). Response to epoetin beta was rapid. Of the 159 patients achieving a Hb response, 139 (87%) had Hb levels > 1 g/dl of baseline within 4 weeks of treatment initiation. Mean Hb levels had improved from 10.8 +/- 1.0 g/dl at baseline to 12.2 +/- 1.8 g/dl by the final visit. Quality of life measured by linear analogue scale assessment significantly (P < 0.01) improved in patients achieving a Hb response (n = 159). CONCLUSIONS: Epoetin beta effectively prevents anaemia in most patients with solid tumours receiving concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy.

Prospective randomized phase III trial of etoposide/cisplatin versus high-dose epirubicin/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer.

High-dose epirubicin plus cisplatin was compared with the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Four hundred two previously untreated patients with SCLC were randomized to receive etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 or epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles. Patients were stratified according to treatment center and extent of disease (limited disease, n = 207; extensive disease, n = 195). Patients with limited disease were treated with thoracic radiation therapy after completion of chemotherapy, and those who exhibited a complete response were advised to receive prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint was survival, and secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), response, toxicity, and costs. Patient characteristics were generally well balanced in the 2 arms, even though more patients in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm had > 5% weight loss and poor Karnofsky performance index compared with the etoposide/cisplatin arm. One hundred thirty-four patients (66.3%) in the etoposide/cisplatin arm and 126 (63.0%) in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm received all 6 planned cycles of chemotherapy. Response rate, TTP, and survival did not differ significantly between the 2 arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and toxic deaths occurred more frequently in the etoposide/cisplatin arm. Epirubicin/cisplatin showed a similar activity with a slightly lower toxicity profile than the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin. The epirubicin/cisplatin regimen may be recommended in the treatment of SCLC.

Toxic epidermal necrolysis in patients receiving anticonvulsants and cranial irradiation: a risk to consider.

Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is an infrequent disease but with a high mortality rate. It is a mucocutaneous reaction resulting from hypersensitivity to a variety of agents including most anticonvulsants. Many patients with primary or metastatic intracranial tumours receive anticonvulsants for seizure prophylaxis despite their efficacy not having been clearly demonstrated. Moreover, several cases have been reported in the literature in which serious adverse drug reactions such as TEN and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) have occurred following anticonvulsants exposure. In some of these cases the effect of radiation therapy and the tapering of steroid dose on the pathogenesis of these reactions have been highlighted. We report, here, a case of TEN that appeared in a patient receiving phenytoin, and shortly after the end of cranial and thoracic irradiation therapy for brain metastases of non-small cell lung cancer. Clinical considerations about diagnosis of SJS and TEN are presented. The use of prophylactic anticonvulsants is also discussed as well as a review of the literature.

Gemcitabine and carboplatin in advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract: an alternative therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based combinations are considered to be the standard treatment for advanced transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. Many of the patients are elderly with concomitant diseases or impaired renal function. We studied the tolerance and activity of the gemcitabine/carboplatin combination as a therapeutic alternative. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic TCC of the urothelium were treated with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1 and 8 and carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 5 on Day 1 every 21 days. Patients with creatinine clearance of 30 mL/min or above and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) scores 60 or above were enrolled. RESULTS: A total of 227 cycles were administered to 41 patients, with an average of 5.5 cycles per patient (range, 1-8 cycles). Creatinine clearance was below 60 mL/min in 54% of patients, KPS was 70 or below in 37% of patients, and 37% of patients were 70 years old or older. Hematologic toxicity was mainly Grade 3/4 neutropenia in 63%, Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 32%, and Grade 3/4 anemia in 54% of patients. There were only three episodes of febrile neutropenia and one death from neutropenic sepsis. Nonhematologic toxicity was mild, with asthenia as the most frequently reported event. We obtained 6 complete and 17 partial responses, for an overall response rate of 56.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.6-71.6%). Progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.7-8.5) and median survival was 10.1 months (95% CI, 8.8-12.2). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine plus carboplatin achieves a similar result to doublets using cisplatin. It has an acceptable toxicity profile and enables patients with impaired renal function and/or poor performance status and elderly patients to be treated.