Chemotherapy intensification in patients with advanced seminoma and adverse prognostic factors.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to identify factors which influence survival in patients with disseminated seminoma in the good prognostic group according to IGCCCG, as well as to evaluate the impact of treatment intensification in patients with negative prognostic factors. METHODS: We analyzed the database of the patients with metastatic seminoma who had received treatment at our department from 1986 to 2005. Inclusion criteria were as follows: morphologically verified seminoma; favorable prognosis according to IGCCCG; modern chemotherapy regimen (EP ± bleomycin); AFP level <15 IU/ml; and HCG level <300 mIU/ml. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: With median follow-up 83 months, 5-year OS rate was 91% in 206 patients. Only three negative prognostic factors were associated with OS: retroperitoneal lymph nodes >5 cm (p < 0.01), pulmonary metastases (p < 0.01) and LDH level ≥ 2.25 × ULN (p = 0.01). In view of the obtained data, we have changed our treatment approach since 2005. In case of any negative prognostic factors, we administered an intensified CT regimen--4BEP or 3BEP + 1EP. Prospective phase of the study included 34 patients with unfavorable prognosis. We observed an increase of 5-year OS rate in the intensified CT group in comparison with the standard CT group in patients with unfavorable prognostic from 85 to 100%. CONCLUSION: Administration of 4 cycles of induction CT (4BEP or 3BEP + 1EP) in patients with metastatic seminoma who have LDH level ≥ 2.25 ULN, and/or retroperitoneal lymph nodes >5 cm and/or pulmonary metastases results in decreased disease progression rate and significant gain in OS.

Prognostic factors and efficacy of different chemotherapeutic regimens in patients with mediastinal nonseminomatous germ cell tumors.

PURPOSE: Patients (pts) with mediastinal nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (MNGCT) are belonged to poor prognostic group by IGCCCG. We retrospectively studied the prognostic factors and efficacy of different chemotherapeutic regimen in pts with MNGCT. METHODS: We analyzed data on 61 pts with MNGCT. Conditional induction chemotherapy BEP was performed in 38 %, TBEP-in 28 %, CBOP-in 28 %, accelerated (two weekly) version of BEP-in 6 % pts. Based on similar efficacy of CBOP and TBEP regimens, we combines pts with CPOB and TBEP regimen in one group-55.8 % and different variants of BEP regimen in the second group-44.2 %. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to determine independent factors, which influenced on overall survival. RESULTS: We revealed the following independent negative prognostic factors: age ≥ 24 years (p = 0.07), size of the primary mediastinal tumor ≥19 cm (p = 0.03). Median overall survival (OS) has not been reached, and 2-year OS was 66 % in pts with good prognosis (age < 24 years and/or size of mediastinal tumor < 19 cm) versus 15 months and 40 % in pts with poor prognosis (p = 0.03). Objective marker negative response was revealed more often in pts with CPOB/TBEP group: 26/34 (76.5 %) versus 14/27 (52 %), p = 0.08. Median OS was also higher in pts with CPOB/TBEP group: nonreached versus 15 months (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: CPOB and TBEP regimen were significantly associated with better outcome in pts with MNGCT. Age ≥ 24 years and size of the primary mediastinal tumor ≥ 19 cm were found as independent negative prognostic factors.

Effect of the timing of orchiectomy on survival in patients with metastatic germ cell tumors of testis.

OBJECTIVES: Classically, orchiectomy (OE) is the first step of treatment in patients with metastatic germ cell tumors (mGCTs) of testis. However, some patients have severe symptoms of disease, which require immediate beginning of chemotherapy (CT) followed by OE. This retrospective analysis was performed to find the effect of time constraints of delayed OE on survival in patients with mGCT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed the data of 1,483 CT-naive patients with advanced mGCT of the testis treated in our Department from 1986 to 2009. Delayed OE was performed on 71 (4.8%) patients: seminoma in 8 patients (11.2%), nonseminomatous tumor in 50 patients (70.4%), and unknown tumor histology in 13 patients (18.4%). Twenty percent, 40%, and 40% of patients belonged to good, intermediate, and poor International Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group prognostic groups, respectively. Median time from the beginning of the CT to OE was 18 (range, 1-250) days. OE was performed on 39 (55%), 21 (29.5%), and 11 (15.5%) patients during cycle 1, cycle 2 to completion of CT, and after the finishing of induction CT, respectively. Median follow-up time was 156 (range, 3-241) months. Etoposide and cisplatin-based CTs were received by 66 patients (93%). RESULTS: Three-year overall survival (OS) of all 1,483 patients was 75%. An excellent primary tumor response to CT was observed among the patients, who had delayed OE after completion of CT (n = 11): only mature teratoma (n = 4) and tumor necrosis (n = 7) were found. The 3-year OS in patients with delayed OE was 63%. OE performed after completion of CT was associated with better prognosis. The 3-year OS in patients with delayed OE performed during the cycle 1 (group 1) was 67%, cycle 2 to completion of CT (group 2) was 39%, and after finishing of CT (group 3) was 88% (groups 1 vs. 3: hazard ratio 3.7, 95% confidence interval 0.69-10.1, P = 0.15; groups 2 vs. 3: P = 0.01, hazard ratio 8.1, 95% confidence interval 1.32-18.,72). It seems that if OE had been performed during CT, the beginning of the successive cycle was delayed and dose intensity of CT was decreased. CONCLUSIONS: In case of severe symptoms of disease, which require an immediate start of CT, performing OE simultaneously with other surgeries after completion of induction CT was associated with better OS, when compared with performing OE during induction CT.

Randomized, multicenter, phase II study of CO-101 versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: including a prospective evaluation of the role of hENT1 in gemcitabine or CO-101 sensitivity.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine requires transporter proteins to cross cell membranes. Low expression of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1) may result in gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). CO-101, a lipid-drug conjugate of gemcitabine, was rationally designed to enter cells independently of hENT1. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether CO-101 improved survival versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic PDAC (mPDAC) with low hENT1. The study also tested the hypothesis that gemcitabine is more active in patients with mPDAC tumors with high versus low hENT1 expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to CO-101 or gemcitabine, after providing a metastasis sample for blinded hENT1 assessment. An immunohistochemistry test measuring tumor hENT1 was developed. To dichotomize the population, an hENT1 cutoff value was defined using primary PDAC samples from an adjuvant trial, and a high/low cutoff was applied. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the low hENT1 subgroup. RESULTS: Of 367 patients enrolled, hENT1 status was measured in 358 patients (97.5%). Two hundred thirty-two (64.8%) of 358 patients were hENT1 low. There was no difference in OS between treatments in the low hENT1 subgroup or overall, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.994 (95% CI, 0.746 to 1.326) and 1.072 (95% CI, 0.856 to 1.344), respectively. The toxicity profiles in both arms were similar. Within the gemcitabine arm, there was no difference in survival between the high and low hENT1 subgroups (HR, 1.147; 95% CI, 0.809 to 1.626). CONCLUSION: CO-101 is not superior to gemcitabine in patients with mPDAC and low tumor hENT1. Metastasis hENT1 expression did not predict gemcitabine outcome.

Randomized phase III placebo-controlled trial of letrozole plus oral temsirolimus as first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent data showed improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when adding everolimus to exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer experiencing recurrence/progression after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Here, we report clinical outcomes of combining the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor temsirolimus with letrozole in AI-naive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase III randomized placebo-controlled study tested efficacy/safety of first-line oral letrozole 2.5 mg daily/temsirolimus 30 mg daily (5 days every 2 weeks) versus letrozole/placebo in 1,112 patients with AI-naive, hormone receptor-positive advanced disease. An independent data monitoring committee recommended study termination for futility at the second preplanned interim analysis (382 PFS events). RESULTS: Patients were balanced (median age, 63 years; 10% stage III, 40% had received adjuvant endocrine therapy). Those on letrozole/temsirolimus experienced more grade 3 to 4 events (37% v 24%). There was no overall improvement in primary end point PFS (median, 9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.07; P = .25) nor in the 40% patient subset with prior adjuvant endocrine therapy. An exploratory analysis showed improved PFS favoring letrozole/temsirolimus in patients ≤ age 65 years (9.0 v 5.6 months; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.93; P = .009), which was separately examined by an exploratory analysis of 5-month PFS using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot methodology (P = .003). CONCLUSION: Adding temsirolimus to letrozole did not improve PFS as first-line therapy in patients with AI-naive advanced breast cancer. Exploratory analyses of benefit in younger postmenopausal patients require external confirmation.

Late relapses (>2 years) in patients with stage I testicular germ cell tumors: predictive factors and survival.

OBJECTIVES: Late relapses (>2 years) after completion of chemotherapy are rare and often platinum-resistant. There are limited data concerning late relapses in chemotherapy-naïve patients with stage I germ cell tumors. This retrospective analysis was performed to compare the outcome between patients with stage I germ cell tumors, who had late (≥2 years) and early (≥3 months and <2 years) relapse after orchiectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed data of 1,069 chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced germ cell tumors of testis treated in our department from 1986 to 2008. All patients had cisplatin- and etoposide-based chemotherapy. We identified 169 (15.8%) patients with prior stage I disease, who had not received adjuvant treatment: 140 and 29 patients had early and late relapse, respectively. Among patients with late relapse, pure seminoma was revealed in 14 patients, and nonseminoma in 15 patients. Median follow-up time for 169 patients was 35 (range, 2-218) months. RESULTS: Patients with late relapse were older, 35 years (23-57) and had more frequent pure seminoma in primary tumor, 14/29 (48.3%), than patients with early relapse, 30 years (16-63) (P = 0.0008) and 46/140 (32,8%, P = 0.08), respectively. At the time of disease progression, both groups were very similar according to well-known prognostic factors including IGCCCG classification. The only difference was larger size of retroperitoneal lymph nodes in late (9 cm) than in early relapse (4 cm, P < 0.0001). The outcome in patients with late relapse was significantly worse than in patients with early relapse: complete response rate after induction chemotherapy was 20.7% (6/29) vs. 42.1% (59/140) (P = 0.01), 3-year progression-free survival 66% vs. 84% (P = 0.02, HR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-8.8) and 3-year overall survival, 72% vs. 88% (P = 0.04, HR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.05-10.25), respectively. In patients with pure seminoma, this difference in overall survival was even more significant: 65% vs. 91% (P = 0.04, HR = 3.8, 95% CI 1.06-32.4). CONCLUSIONS: Late relapses following stage I germ cell tumors were associated with seminoma, older age, and worse outcome after induction chemotherapy.

Randomized phase III study comparing paclitaxel-bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) to standard BEP in intermediate-prognosis germ-cell cancer: intergroup study EORTC 30983.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of four cycles of paclitaxel-bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (T-BEP) to four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) in previously untreated patients with intermediate-prognosis germ-cell cancer (GCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either T-BEP or standard BEP. Patients assigned to the T-BEP group received paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) in a 3-hour infusion. Patients who were administered T-BEP received primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis. The study was designed as a randomized open-label phase II/III study. To show a 10% improvement in 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), the study aimed to recruit 498 patients but closed with 337 patients as a result of slow accrual. RESULTS: Accrual was from November 1998 to April 2009. A total of 169 patients were administered BEP, and 168 patients were administered T-BEP. Thirteen patients in both arms were ineligible, mainly as a result of a good prognosis of GCC (eight patients administered BEP; six patients administered T-BEP) or a poor prognosis of GCC (one patient administered BEP; four patients administered T-BEP). PFS at 3 years (intent to treat) was 79.4% in the T-BEP group versus 71.1% in the BEP group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; CI, 0.47 to 1.13; P [log-rank test] = 0.153). PFS at 3 years in all eligible patients was 82.7% versus 70.1%, respectively (HR, 0.60; CI: 0.37 to 0.97) and was statistically significant (P = 0.03). Overall survival was not statistically different. CONCLUSION: T-BEP administered with G-CSF seems to be a safe and effective treatment regimen for patients with intermediate-prognosis GCC. However, the study recruited a smaller-than-planned number of patients and included 7.7% ineligible patients. The primary analysis of the trial could not demonstrate statistical superiority of T-BEP for PFS. When ineligible patients were excluded, the analysis of all eligible patients demonstrated a 12% superior 3-year PFS with T-BEP, which was statistically significant.

Randomized double-blind phase 2 trial of 3 doses of TAS-108 in patients with advanced or metastatic postmenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate 3 different doses of (7α)-21-(4-[(diethylamino)methyl]-2 methoxyphenoxy)-7 methyl-19 norpregna-1,3,5(10)-trien-3-ol 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylate (TAS-108) in patients with recurrent, hormone-responsive breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter study, TAS-108 was administered daily at a dose of 40 mg, 80 mg, or 120 mg to postmenopausal patients with locally advanced, or inoperable, or metastatic hormone-receptor positive breast cancer. The primary efficacy outcome was clinical benefit (CB), defined as the total number of patients who achieved a complete response, a partial response, or stable disease for ≥24 weeks. The study was a 2-stage design in which 19 patients per dose group were planned in the first stage. If at least 3 patients in any dose group achieved a CB, then that dose group was to be allowed to continue enrolling for the second stage, and the group could include up to a total of 60 patients. RESULTS: The 40-mg and 80-mg groups met the criterion and enrolled patients into the second stage. In the 40-mg group, there were 13 CB events in 60 patients (21.7%); and, in the 80-mg group, there were 12 CB events in 60 patients (20%). The 120-mg daily dose was stopped early, because it failed to achieve the criterion. For the 40-mg and 80-mg groups, the median time to progression was 15.0 weeks and 15.9 weeks, respectively. Only 1 drug-related serious adverse event (grade 3 hyperglycemia) was reported. CONCLUSIONS: TAS-108 at 40 mg and 80 mg daily demonstrated clinical activity with an encouraging duration of benefit. Because of its superior safety profile, TAS-108 40 mg daily is recommended for further development.

Multicenter phase III comparison of cisplatin/S-1 with cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma study: the FLAGS trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma need more efficacious and safer treatments than established today. S-1, a contemporary oral fluoropyrimidine, can provide that advantage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was conducted in 24 countries and 146 centers. One thousand fifty-three patients were stratified (center, number of metastatic sites, prior adjuvant therapy, and measurable cancer) and randomly assigned. Patients received either S-1 at 50 mg/m(2) divided in two daily doses for 21 days and cisplatin at 75 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, repeated every 28 days (527 patients) or infusional fluorouracil at 1,000 mg/m(2)/24 hours for 120 hours and cisplatin at 100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, repeated every 28 days (526 patients). The primary end point was superiority in overall survival (OS) from cisplatin/S-1 compared with cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil in patients with advanced, untreated gastric, or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. The secondary end points were response rate, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, and safety. RESULTS: The median OS was 8.6 months in the cisplatin/S-1 arm and 7.9 months in the cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil arm (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.05; P = .20). Significant safety advantages were observed in the cisplatin/S-1 arm compared with the cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil arm for the rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (32.3% v 63.6%), complicated neutropenia (5.0% v 14.4%), stomatitis (1.3% v 13.6%), hypokalemia (3.6% v 10.8%), and treatment-related deaths (2.5% v 4.9%; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Cisplatin/S-1 did not prolong OS of patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma compared with cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil, but it did result in a significantly improved safety profile.

A phase II study of pemetrexed and carboplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed and carboplatin have demonstrated activity in breast cancer. Their potential synergism in experimental models and the proven efficacy of pemetrexed/platinum in other indications make pemetrexed/carboplatin an attractive combination in breast cancer. Thus, this two-stage, sequential, open-label, multicenter, phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed plus carboplatin as first-line therapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients >or= 18 years with a histologic/cytologic diagnosis and no prior chemotherapy for LABC or MBC received pemetrexed 600 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC 5.0 on day 1 every 21 days with folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation. RESULTS: From June 2003 to April 2005, 50 patients with stage IIIB (30.0%) and stage IV (70.0%) disease were enrolled at 3 study centers. Twenty-eight percent of patients previously received adjuvant chemotherapy, 46.0% had visceral metastases, and 36.0% had >or=3 organs involved. Partial responses (RECIST criteria) were achieved in 27 (54.0%) patients (ORR = 54.0%; 95% CI, 39.3-68.2%). The median response duration was 11.1 months (95% CI, 6.5-14.0 months) and the median time to disease progression was 10.3 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.6 months). CTC hematologic toxicities were grade 3/4 neutropenia (58.0%/28.0%) and grade 3 thrombocytopenia (10.0%) and anemia (18.0%). Two (4.0%) patients had febrile neutropenia, 1 of whom died. No grade 4 non-hematologic toxicities occurred. Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities were ALT (4.0%) and AST elevation, and edema, fatigue, pruritus, rash/desquamation, and renal toxicity (2.0% each). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that the combination of pemetrexed and carboplatin has promising efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. Further assessment of this combination in a randomized trial of various breast cancer patient populations is warranted.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis by the selective neurokinin-1 antagonists, L-758,298 and MK-869.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that antiemetic therapy with a triple combination of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist MK-869, a serotonin (5-HT(3)) antagonist, and dexamethasone provides enhanced control of cisplatin-induced emesis compared with standard therapy regimens. The authors compared the antiemetic activity of a dual combination of MK-869 and dexamethasone with that of a standard dual combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone to characterize further the efficacy and tolerability profile of MK-869. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active agent-controlled study of 177 cisplatin-naïve patients with malignant disease. On Day 1, MK-869 was given intravenously as its water-soluble prodrug, L-758,298. Patients were randomized to one of three groups as follows. Group I received L-758,298 100 mg intravenously (i.v.), then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by 300 mg MK-869 (tablet) orally on Days 2-5; Group II received L-758,298 100 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5; and Group III received ondansetron 32 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5. Emesis was recorded over Days 1-5 in a diary. Nausea was assessed every 24 hours by visual analog scale. Additional medication was available for emesis or nausea at any time. The primary efficacy parameters of interest were the proportion of patients without emesis and the proportion without emesis or rescue therapy on Day 1 (acute phase) and on Days 2-5 (delayed phase). RESULTS: No serious adverse events were attributed to L-758,298 or MK-869. On Day 1, the proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication were 44% of patients in Group I, 36% of patients in Group II, 40% of patients in Groups I and II combined, and 83% of patients in Group III (P < 0.001 for Group III vs. the combined Groups I and II). The proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication on Days 2-5 were 59% of patients in Group I, 46% of patients in Group II, and 38% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I vs. Group III). The proportions of patients who were without emesis on Day 1 were 49% of patients in Group I, 47% of patients in Group II, and 84% of patients in Group III (P < 0.01 for Group I or II vs. Group III). On Days 2-5, however, the proportions of patients who were without emesis on Days 2-5 were 65% of patients in Group I, 61% of patients in Group II, and 41% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I or II vs. Group III). Nausea scores in the acute phase were lower for Group III than for Group I, Group II, or Groups I and II combined (P < 0.05), although there was no significant difference among groups either for the delayed phase or overall for Days 1-5. CONCLUSIONS: Although the L-758,298 and dexamethasone combination reduced acute (Day 1) emesis compared with historic rates, dual therapy with ondansetron and dexamethasone was superior in controlling acute emesis. Continued dosing with MK-869 may enhance control of other measures of delayed emesis, such as the use of rescue medication, although confirmation is required before a definitive conclusion may be drawn. MK-869 given as dual therapy with dexamethasone was superior to ondansetron with dexamethasone for the control of delayed emesis (Days 2-5) and control of the need for rescue medication on Days 2-5.