Re-challenge with pemetrexed in advanced mesothelioma: a multi-institutional experience.

BACKGROUND: Although first-line therapy for patients affected by advanced mesothelioma is well established, there is a lack of data regarding the impact of second-line treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of patients affected by advanced mesothelioma, already treated with first-line therapy based on pemetrexed and platin, with a response (partial response or stable disease) lasting at least 6 months, and re-treated with a pemetrexed-based therapy at progression. The primary objective was to describe time to progression and overall survival after re-treatment. RESULTS: Overall across several Italian oncological Institutions we found 30 patients affected by advanced mesothelioma, in progression after a 6-month lasting clinical benefit following a first-line treatment with cisplatin and pemetrexed, and re-challenged with a pemetrexed-based therapy. In these patients we found a disease control rate of 66%, with reduction of pain in 43% of patients. Overall time to progression and survival were promising for a second-line setting of patients with advanced mesothelioma, being 5.1 and 13.6 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our opinion, when a patient has a long-lasting benefit from previous treatment with pemetrexed combined with a platin compound, the same treatment should be offered at progression.

Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer and pleural mesothelioma in an asbestos-exposed population: baseline results of a prospective, nonrandomized feasibility trial--an Alpe-adria Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary Group Study (ATOM 002).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for the early diagnosis of lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma in an asbestos-exposed population. METHODS: Between February 2002 and October 2003, 1,045 volunteers already enrolled in a surveillance program for asbestos-exposed workers and former workers were recruited. The main eligibility criteria were: written informed consent, definite exposure to asbestos, age 40-75, no prior cancer or severe concomitant conditions, no chest CT scan in the past 2 years. A smoking history was not required. After a structured interview, chest X-ray (CXR) and LDCT were performed. Participants with negative examinations were assigned to annual LDCT. Participants with positive findings received high-resolution CT and additional diagnostic workup as appropriate. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the screened population were: median asbestos exposure time, 30 years; median age, 58; median pack-years in smokers/former smokers, 18.5. Thirty-four percent had never smoked. On LDCT, 834 noncalcified nodules were identified in 44% of participants, versus 43 nodules in 4% on CXR. Pleural abnormalities were observed in 44% and 70% of participants by CXR and LDCT, respectively. Overall, LDCT identified nine cases of non-small cell lung cancer-eight stage I, one stage IIA-and one thymic carcinoid, corresponding to 1% of the enrolled population. All cases were radically treated. None had been detected by CXR. No pleural mesothelioma was diagnosed. There were 11 false-positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings first suggest that LDCT may be at least as useful in asbestos workers as in heavy smokers for the early diagnosis of lung cancer; this benefit is evident even in a poor-risk population, with low rates of smoking prevalence and a previous history of radiological surveillance. The role of spiral tomography in screening for pleural mesothelioma remains uncertain.

The role of UGT1A1*28 polymorphism in the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: UGT1A1*28 polymorphism has been associated with decreased glucuronidation of SN38, the active metabolite of irinotecan. This could increase toxicity with this agent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 250 metastatic colorectal cancer patients were treated with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment. UGT1A1*28 polymorphism was investigated with respect to the distribution of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity, objective response rate, and survival. Pharmacokinetics was investigated in a subgroup of patients (71 of 250) who had been analyzed with respect to toxicity and efficacy. RESULTS: UGT1A1*28 polymorphism was associated with a higher risk of grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity (odds ratio [OR], 8.63; 95% CI, 1.31 to 56.55), which was only relevant for the first cycle, and was not seen throughout the whole treatment period for patients with both variant alleles TA7/TA7 compared with wild-type TA6/TA6. The response rate was also higher in TA7/TA7 patients (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.86) compared with TA6/TA6. A nonsignificant survival advantage was observed for TA7/TA7 when compared with TA6/TA6 patients (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.44). Higher response rates were explained by a different pharmacokinetics with higher biliary index [irinotecan area under the curve (AUC)x(SN38 AUC/SN38G AUC)] and lower glucuronidation ratio (SN38G AUC/SN38 AUC) associated with the TA7/TA7 genotype and a higher response rate, indicating that the polymorphism is functionally relevant. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that UGT1A1*28 polymorphism is of some relevance to toxicity; however, it is less important than discussed in previous smaller trials. In particular, the possibility of a dose reduction for irinotecan in patients with a UGT1A1*28 polymorphism is not supported by the result of this analysis.