A phase II study of erlotinib in gemcitabine refractory advanced pancreatic cancer

BackgroundErlotinib induced skin toxicity has been associated with clinical benefit in several tumour types. This phase II study evaluated the efficacy of erlotinib, dose escalated to rash, in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine.MethodsErlotinib was given at an initial dose of 150 mg/day, and the dose was escalated by 50 mg every 2 weeks (to a maximum of 300 mg/day) until >grade 1 rash or other dose limiting toxicities occurred. Erlotinib pharmacokinetics were performed, and baseline tumour tissue was collected for mutational analysis and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression. The primary end-point was the disease control rate (objective response and stable disease >8 weeks).ResultsFifty-one patients were accrued, and 49 received treatment. Dose-escalation to 200–300 mg of erlotinib was possible in 9/49 (18%) patients. The most common ⩾grade 3 adverse events included fatigue (6%), rash (4%) and diarrhoea (4%). Thirty-seven patients were evaluable for response, and the best response was stable disease in 12 patients (32% (95% confidence interval (CI) 17–47%)). Disease control was observed in nine patients (24% (95% CI: 10–38%)). Median survival was 3.8 months, and 6 month overall survival rate was 32% (95% CI 19–47%). Mutational analysis and EGFR expression were performed on 29 patients, with 93% having KRAS mutations, none having EGFR mutations, and 86% expressing EGFR. Neither KRAS mutational status nor EGFR expression was associated with survival.ConclusionsErlotinib dose escalated to rash was well tolerated but not associated with significant efficacy in non-selected patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.     

Phase I–IIa study of BMS-690514, an EGFR,HER-2 and -4 and VEGFR-1 to -3 oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor,in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours

PurposeBMS-690514 is a potent, reversible oral inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/HER-1), HER-2 and -4, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs)-1 to -3 offering targeted inhibition of tumour growth and vascularisation in a single agent. This phase I–IIa study was designed to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and assess safety, antitumour activity, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of BMS-690514.Patients and methodsIn phase I, patients with advanced solid tumours received escalating doses of once-daily BMS-690514. In phase IIa, erlotinib-naïve (cohort A) or erlotinib-resistant (cohort B) patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received BMS-690514 once-daily at the MTD.ResultsIn phase I (n = 28), the MTD was determined to be 200 mg daily. BMS-690514 was rapidly absorbed and highly metabolised after repeated oral administration with minimum drug accumulation. In phase IIa (n = 62), the most frequent treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea and acneiform rash. Adverse events that led to >1 discontinuation were diarrhoea (n = 4; 4%) and rash (n = 2; 2%). Disease control (?4 months) and objective response rates, respectively, were 43.3% and 3.3% (cohort A) and 22.6% and 3.2% (cohort B). Six of 21 (29%) NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR achieved disease control versus seven of 10 (70%) patients with EGFR mutations (including T790M). At MTD, BMS-690514 modulated pharmacodynamic biomarkers associated with inhibition of VEGFR- and EGFR-signalling pathways.ConclusionThis phase I–IIa study suggests that BMS-690514 has manageable safety profile and antitumour activity in patients with NSCLC at 200 mg/d, including those with EGFR mutations conferring resistance to erlotinib.     

Genetic variants of the LIN28B gene predict severe radiation pneumonitis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy

BackgroundLIN28 is an RNA-binding protein that not only plays key roles in multiple cellular developmental processes and tumourigenesis, but also is involved in tissue inflammatory response. However, no published study has investigated associations between genetic variants in LIN28 and radiation-induced pneumonitis (RP) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with definitive radiation therapy.MethodsWe genotyped eight potentially functional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of LIN28A (rs11247946 T>C, rs3811464 C>T, rs11581746 T>C, and rs12728900 G>A) and LIN28B (rs314280 G>A, rs12194974 G>A, rs17065417 A>C and rs314276 C>A) in 362 patients with NSCLC, who received definitive radio(chemo)therapy. The associations between RP risk and genotypes were assessed by hazards ratio (HR) in Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with time to event considered with and without adjustment for potential confounders.ResultsMultivariate analyses found that patients carrying LIN28B rs314280 AG and AA/AG or rs314276 AC and AA/AC genotypes had a higher risk of grade ⩾3 RP (for rs314280 AG and AA/AG versus GG, adjusted HR = 2.97 and 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.32–6.72 and 1.01–4.94, P = 0.009 and 0.048, respectively; for rs314276 AC and AA/AC versus CC, adjusted HR = 2.30 and 2.00, 95% CI = 1.24–4.28 and 1.11–3.62, and P = 0.008 and 0.022, respectively). Further stratified analyses showed a more consistent and profound risk in the subgroups of age <65 years, males, stage III/IV, ever smokers, having radio-chemotherapy and mean lung dose (MLD) ⩾19.0 Gy.ConclusionGenetic variants of LIN28B, but not LIN28A, may be biomarkers for susceptibility to severe RP in NSCLC patients. Large, prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.     

An indirect comparison of the toxicity of sunitinib and pazopanib in metastatic clear cell renal cancer

BackgroundBoth sunitinib and pazopanib are widely used as first line therapy in metastatic renal cancer (mRCC). The efficacy of these agents appears similar but they may have distinct toxicity profiles. In this study we compare the severity of symptomatic and asymptomatic toxicity associated with sunitinib and pazopanib.MethodsTwo sequential prospective single arm phase II studies investigated either 12 weeks of sunitinib (n = 43) or pazopanib (n = 34) prior to nephrectomy in untreated mRCC. Toxicity was defined as either symptomatic (hand and foot syndrome, mucositis, nausea, fatigue, diarrhoea, oedema, headache, pain, anorexia and change in taste) or asymptomatic (liver toxicity or haematological toxicity). Pazopanib (800 mg once daily (OD)) and sunitinib (50 mg 4/2) were given. Regular Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) toxicity assessment was performed during the first 12 weeks of therapy.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the overall number of toxic events (grade 1–4) for sunitinib and pazopanib (mean number of toxic events/patients: 1.97 versus 1.96: p > 0.05). Increased grade 2–4 symptomatic toxicity events occurred with sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11–2.56] p < 0.03). Sunitinib was associated with an increased grade 2–4 mucositis (16% versus 0% p = 0.02) and fatigue (42% versus 15% p = 0.01). Pazopanib was associated with more frequent grade 1 diarrhoea (39% versus 12%: p = 0.03). Dose reductions for symptomatic toxicity occurred more frequently with sunitinib (26% versus 6% p < 0.05). There was no difference in the occurrence of asymptomatic toxicity.ConclusionThis indirect analysis suggests sunitinib and pazopanib have distinct toxicity profiles which may help guide patient’s choice. Further comparative data from randomised trials are awaited.     

Phase 1 dose-escalation study of S-222611, an oral reversible dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor of EGFR and HER2, in patients with solid tumours

BackgroundS-222611 is a reversible inhibitor of EGFR, HER2 and HER4 with preclinical activity in models expressing these proteins. We have performed a Phase 1 study to determine safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetic profile (PK) and efficacy in patients with solid tumours expressing EGFR or HER2.Patients and methodsSubjects had advanced tumours not suitable for standard treatment, expressing EGFR or HER2, and/or with amplified HER2. Daily oral doses of S-222611 were escalated from 100 mg to 1600 mg. Full plasma concentration profiles for drug and metabolites were obtained.Results33 patients received S-222611. It was well tolerated, and the most common toxicities, almost all mild (grade 1 or 2), were diarrhoea, fatigue, rash and nausea. Only two dose-limiting toxicities occurred (diarrhoea and rash), which resolved on interruption. MTD was not reached. Plasma exposure increased with dose up to 800 mg, exceeding levels eliciting pre-clinical responses. The plasma terminal half-life was more than 24 h, supporting once daily dosing. Responses were seen over a wide range of doses in oesophageal, breast and renal tumours, including a complete clinical response in a patient with HER2-positive breast carcinoma previously treated with lapatinib and trastuzumab. Four patients have remained on treatment for more than 12 months. Downregulation of pHER3 was seen in paired tumour biopsies from a responding patient.ConclusionsContinuous daily oral S-222611 is well tolerated, modulates oncogenic signalling, and has significant antitumour activity. The recommended Phase 2 dose, based on PK and efficacy, is 800 mg/day.     

A randomised phase III trial of the pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin in advanced colorectal cancer: Results of the Panitumumab,Irinotecan & Ciclosporin in COLOrectal cancer therapy trial (PICCOLO)

BackgroundThe main toxicity of irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is delayed diarrhoea. Intestinal SN-38, released by deconjugation of the parent glucuronide excreted into the bile or produced in situ by intestinal carboxylesterase, is toxic to the intestinal epithelium. The canalicular transport of irinotecan and SN-38G is mediated by ABCC2 (MRP2) and ABCB1 (MDR1) which are both inhibited by ciclosporin. We tested whether irinotecan and ciclosporin was non-inferior for anti-cancer efficacy and superior for toxicity compared with single-agent irinotecan.MethodsSix hundred and seventy-two patients with advanced, measurable CRC following prior fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomised to either irinotecan 3-weekly 350 mg/m² (or 300 mg/m² if age >70 or performance status (PS) = 2) or 3-weekly irinotecan at 140 mg/m² (120 mg/m² if age >70 or PS = 2) with ciclosporin 3 mg/kg t.d.s. for three days by mouth starting on the morning before irinotecan. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 12 weeks. The key secondary end-point was the incidence of grade ?3 diarrhoea within 12 weeks of randomisation.ResultsThe proportion of patients progression-free at 12 weeks with irinotecan was 53.4% compared to 47.2% with irinotecan plus ciclosporin (difference = ?6.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [?13.8%, 1.3%]). Since the lower limit of the 95% CI crossed the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of ?10.6%, non-inferiority of irinotecan plus ciclosporin compared to irinotecan alone was not statistically demonstrated. 15.0% patients developed severe diarrhoea on irinotecan compared to 13.8% on irinotecan plus ciclosporin, a non-significant difference.InterpretationThe pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin does not improve the therapeutic index of irinotecan in advanced CRC.FundingThe trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and supported by Amgen Pharma.     

Prevention of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections in paediatric oncology patients using 70% ethanol locks: A randomised controlled multi-centre trial

BackgroundThe prevention of central venous catheter (CVC) associated bloodstream infections (CABSIs) in paediatric oncology patients is essential. Ethanol locks can eliminate pathogens colonising CVCs and microbial resistance is rare. Aim of this study was to determine whether two hour 70% ethanol locks can reduce CABSI in paediatric oncology patients.MethodsWe conducted a randomised, double blind, multi-centre trial in paediatric oncology patients (1–18 years) with newly inserted CVCs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive two hour ethanol locks (1.5 or 3 ml 70%) or heparin locks (1.5 or 3 ml 100 IU/ml), whenever it was needed to use the CVC, maximum frequency once weekly. Primary outcomes were time to CABSI or death due to CABSI.ResultsWe recruited 307 patients (ethanol, n = 153; heparin, n = 154). In the ethanol group, 16/153 (10%) patients developed a CABSI versus 29/154 (19%) in the heparin group. The incidence of CABSI was 0.77/1000 and 1.46/1000 catheter days respectively (p = 0.039). The number-needed-to-treat was 13. No patients died of CABSI. In particular, Gram-positive CABSIs were reduced (ethanol, n = 8; heparin, n = 21; p = 0.012). Fewer CVCs were removed because of CABSI in the ethanol group (p = 0.077). The ethanol lock patients experienced significantly more transient symptoms compared to the heparin lock patients (maximum grade 2) (nausea, p = 0.030; taste alteration, p < 0.001; dizziness, p = 0.001; blushing, p < 0.001), no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions (SUSAR) occurred.ConclusionsThis is the first randomised controlled trial to show that ethanol locks can prevent CABSI in paediatric oncology patients, in particular CABSI caused by Gram-positive bacteria. Implementation of ethanol locks in clinical practice should be considered.     

443 paediatric cases of malignant melanoma registered with the German Central Malignant Melanoma Registry between 1983 and 2011

BackgroundMalignant melanoma is a very rare paediatric tumour. This study was performed in order to understand clinical features and prognosis of malignant melanoma in children and adolescents.Methods443 patients ⩽18 years of age with malignant melanoma were prospectively registered with the German Central Malignant Melanoma Registry between 1983 and 2011. Cases were collected from 58 participating centres. 276 paediatric cases with a follow-up >3 months were evaluated for survival probabilities and prognostic factors by Kaplan–Meier method.ResultsAge of diagnosis ranged from 3 months to 18 years (median age 16 years). The male to female ratio was 0.8 (202 male, 240 female). Most melanoma were located at the trunk (n = 195) and the lower extremity (n = 114). Patients with >3 months of follow-up (median 55 months) showed an overall survival (OS) of 94.8% in 5 years. Survival according to tumour stage was 98.5% for stage I (n = 190), 91.1% for stage II (n = 39) and 53.0% for stage III/IV tumours (n = 11). Worse outcome was seen in patients with nodular melanoma (OS 77.9%, n = 42) compared to superficial spread histotype (OS 100%, n = 138) or other histotype (OS 96.9%, n = 88) (p < 0.0001), in case of thicker tumours (Clark level IV or V, OS 87.1%, n = 84) compared to thinner tumours (Clark level I, II, III, OS 99.1%, n = 164) (p = 0.0008) and in case of ulceration (OS 65.6%, n = 17) compared to no ulceration (OS 99.2%, n = 182).ConclusionPatient and tumour characteristics in paediatric melanoma patients show no evident differences to adult melanoma cases. The same clinical approach as in adults should be used.     

First-line pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by gefitinib maintenance therapy versus gefitinib monotherapy in East Asian patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A randomised,phase 3 trial

BackgroundIn the Iressa Pan-ASia Study (IPASS), gefitinib claimed improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus carboplatin-paclitaxel in clinically selected lung cancer patients. The primary objective of this study was to assess the PFS of pemetrexed-cisplatin (PC) followed by gefitinib maintenance versus gefitinib monotherapy in an IPASS-like population.MethodsIn this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, eligible patients were ⩾18 years, chemonaïve, East Asian, light ex-smokers/never-smokers with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0–1 and unknown epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status who enrolled at 12 sites in Asia. Patients randomly received (1:1) pemetrexed (500 mg/m²) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m²) for six 21-day cycles, followed by gefitinib maintenance or gefitinib monotherapy (250 mg/day). Patient tissue was retrospectively analysed for EGFR mutations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01017874.FindingsBetween 23rd November 2009 and 27th April 2012, 253 patients entered, and 236 patients were randomly assigned to and treated with PC therapy (N = 114) and gefitinib monotherapy (N = 118). Between-arm baseline characteristics were balanced. PFS was not significantly different between treatment arms (p = 0.217). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63–1.13). The HR should be cautiously interpreted as it was not constant. EGFR mutation status was determined for 74 tissue samples; 50 (67.6%) had mutations. In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, only the treatment-by-EGFR mutation interaction was significant (p = 0.008) for PFS. For the entire treatment period, a higher proportion of patients in the PC/gefitinib arm versus gefitinib experienced possibly drug-related grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events (39 of 114 [34%] versus 19 of 118 [16%]; p = 0.002).InterpretationIn the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, PFS was not significantly different. In the biomarker-assessable population, front-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy was not efficacious in patients with wild-type EGFR. Identification of EGFR mutation status is key in the management of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.FundingEli Lilly and Company.     

A phase I study of daily afatinib,an irreversible ErbB family blocker,in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours

BackgroundThis phase I study evaluated afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, plus paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours likely to express human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER1/EGFR) or HER2.MethodsOral afatinib was combined with intravenous paclitaxel (80 mg/m²; days 1, 8 and 15 every four weeks) starting at 20 mg once daily and escalated to 40 and 50 mg in successive cohorts of ⩾3 patients. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of afatinib combined with paclitaxel. Secondary objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity.ResultsSixteen patients were treated. Dose-limiting toxicities with afatinib 50 mg were fatigue and mucositis. The MTD was determined as afatinib 40 mg with paclitaxel 80 mg/m², which proved tolerable with repeated dosing. Frequent adverse events (AEs) included diarrhoea (94%), fatigue (81%), rash/acne (81%), decreased appetite (69%) and inflammation of mucosal membranes (69%); no grade 4 treatment-related AEs were observed. Five (31%) confirmed partial responses were observed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (n = 3), oesophageal cancer and cholangiocarcinoma; eight (50%) patients remained on study for ⩾6 months. Pharmacokinetic parameters of afatinib and paclitaxel were similar for single administration or in combination.ConclusionsThe MTD and recommended phase II dose of once-daily afatinib combined with paclitaxel 80 mg/m² (days 1, 8 and 15 every four weeks) was 40 mg. AEs at or below this dose were generally manageable with repeated dosing. No pharmacokinetic interactions were observed. This combination demonstrated promising antitumour activity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00809133.     

Influence of comorbidity,age and performance status on treatment efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BackgroundWe investigated the influence of comorbidity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and age on the efficacy and safety profile of cetuximab and irinotecan in elderly irinotecan-pretreated patients with mCRC.Methods497 patients with mCRC were entered in the database of this non-interventional study (NIS). Comorbid conditions were recorded.ResultsA total of 247 and 250 patients aged <65 and >65 years, respectively, with a median age of 66 y were documented; 78% of the patients showed a reduced ECOG status. Grade III/IV toxicities occurred in 18% of patients without any difference between age groups although older patients had more comorbidities with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (p = 0.002). Skin rash was strongly related to response (p = 0.006). Age, line of therapy, ECOG, gender and CCI had no influence on response. The objective response rates were similar: 38.1% for age <65 years versus 36.4% for age >65 years (p = 0.57). Progression-free survival (PFS) did not differ between patients 18–65 years (6.0 months) and patients >65 years (6.2 months; p = 0.99). Only PS had a negative impact on PFS (hazard ratio (HR): 0,499; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34–0.72; p = 0.002), whereas the presence of skin toxicity (grade > 1) influenced PFS and response rate (RR) positively (HR: 2.04; 95% CI, 1.6–2.6; p < 0.001).ConclusionsOnly PS and age had a negative influence on PFS irrespective of CCI or age. There were no significant differences in response rate and safety profile for elderly patients when treated with cetuximab and irinotecan. Comorbidities and age had no influence on efficacy or toxicity.     

High coexpression of both insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGFR-1) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is associated with shorter disease-free survival in resected non-small-cell lung cancer patients

BackgroundInsulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGFR-1) represents a novel molecular target in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). IGFR-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activation is essential to mediate tumor cell survival, proliferation and invasion. We explored the correlation between IGFR-1 and EGFR, their relationship with clinicopathological parameters and their impact on outcome in resected stage I–III NSCLC patients.Patients and methodsTumors from 125 surgical NSCLC patients were evaluated for IGFR-1 and EGFR expression by immunohistochemistry. Kaplan–Meier estimates of survival and time to recurrence were calculated for clinical variables and biologic markers using the Cox model for multivariate analysis.ResultsIGFR-1 protein overexpression was detected in 36.0% of NSCLC patients and was associated with larger tumor size (P = 0.04) but not with other clinical or biological characteristics. EGFR protein overexpression was observed in 55.2% of NSCLC, more frequently in squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) than non-SCC (63.7% versus 36.3%, χ² = 9.8, P = 0.001). IGFR-1 protein expression was associated with EGFR protein expression (P = 0.03). At the multivariate analysis, high coexpression of both IGFR-1 and EGFR was a significant prognostic factor of worse disease-free survival (DFS) (hazard ratio 2.51, P = 0.01).ConclusionA statistically significant association was observed between high coexpression of both IGFR-1 and EGFR and worse DFS in early NSCLC patients.     

Insulin-like growth factor receptor 1 (IGF1R) expression and survival in surgically resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to investigate the prognostic role of insulin-like growth factor receptor 1 (IGF1R) expression in surgically resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patient characteristics and methodsThis retrospective study was conducted in 369 stage I–II–IIIA, surgically resected, NSCLC patients. Patients exposed to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents were excluded. IGF1R expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry in tissue microarray sections.ResultsA positive IGF1R expression (score ≥ 100) was observed in 282 cases (76.4%) and was significantly associated with squamous cell histology (P = 0.04) and with grade III differentiation (P = 0.02). No difference in survival was observed between the positive and negative group when score 100 was used as cut-off for discriminating a positive versus a negative IGF1R result (52 versus 48 months, P = 0.99) or when median value of IGF1R expression was used (45 versus 55 months, P = 0.36). No difference in survival was observed between IGF1R-positive and -negative patients in a subgroup of stage I–II adenocarcinoma (n = 137) with known EGFR mutation and copy number status.ConclusionsIGF1R expression does not represent a prognostic factor in resected NSCLC patients. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma overexpress IGF1R more frequently than patients with nonsquamous histology, justifying the different sensitivity to anti-IGF1R agents observed in clinical trials.     

Cytokine regulation by epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor associated skin toxicity in cancer patients

AimEpidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI) induced skin toxicity has a prognostic value suggesting skin toxicity can be a useful surrogate marker for successful epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition, improved response and survival. But the pathophysiology of EGFRI induced skin toxicity remains elusive. However the involvement of immunological mechanisms has been speculated. This study investigates the possible underlying mechanism of EGFR inhibition associated cytokine production in keratinocytes as well as in patients after treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs).MethodsNormal human epidermal keratinocytes (NHEK) were incubated for 2 and 24 h with different concentrations of EGFRI (erlotinib) for Western blot analysis and cytokine expression analysis, respectively. Inhibition of EGFR, extracellular-signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (Erk 1/2) and c-Jun was examined by Western blot analysis. Cytokine concentrations were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the NHEK cell supernatant and also in the serum of 186 cancer patients who are followed up for EGFRI induced skin rash.ResultsA significant inhibitory effect of EGFRI was seen on EGFR (Y845), Erk 1/2 and c-Jun in a dose dependent manner. Further downstream, increased CC-chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2), CC-chemokine ligand 5 (CCL5) and decreased interleukin-8 (IL-8) or CXCL8 expression was observed in keratinocytes. In EGFRI treated patients, low levels of serum CXCL8 corresponding to stronger EGFR inhibition were associated with a higher grade of skin toxicity (p = 0.0016) and a prolonged overall survival (p = 0.018).ConclusionsThe results obtained in this study indicate that EGFRI can regulate cytokines by modulating EGFR signalling pathway in keratinocytes. Moreover, serum levels of CXCL8 in EGFRI treated patients may be important for individual EGFRI induced skin toxicity and patient’s survival.     

Carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in very platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients: Results from a subset analysis of the CALYPSO phase III trial

AimTo perform a subset analysis of patients with very platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) enrolled in the phase III CALYPSO trial.Patients and methodsThe international non-inferiority trial enrolled women with ROC that relapsed >6 months following first- or second-line platinum- and paclitaxel-based therapies. Patients were randomised to CD [carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD)] or CP (carboplatin–paclitaxel) and stratified by treatment-free interval (TFI). In this analysis, patients with a TFI > 24 months were analysed separately for progression free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint of CALYPSO, overall survival (OS) and safety.ResultsA total of 259 very platinum-sensitive patients were included (n = 131, CD; n = 128, CP). Median PFS was 12.0 months for the CD arm and 12.3 months for CP [HR = 1.05 (95% CI, 0.79–1.40); P = 0.73 for superiority] and median OS was 40.2 months for CD and 43.9 for CP [HR = 1.18 (95% CI 0.85–1.63); P = 0.33 for superiority]. Overall response rates were 42% and 38%, respectively (P = 0.46). Toxicities were more common with CP versus CD, including grade 3/4 neutropenia (40.8% versus 27.5%; P = 0.025), nausea (4.8% versus 3.1%; P = 0.47), allergic reaction (8% versus 3.1%; P = 0.082) sensory neuropathy (4.8% versus 2.3%; P = 0.27) and grade 2 alopecia (88% versus 9.2%; P < 0.001). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (12.2% versus 3.2%; P = 0.007) and mucositis (2.3% versus 0%; P = 0.089) were more common with CD. Grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome occurred rarely with CD (3 patients versus 0 in CP arm; P = 0.089).ConclusionCP and CD were equally effective treatment regimens for patients with very platinum-sensitive ROC. The favourable risk–benefit profile suggests carboplatin–PLD as treatment of choice for these patients.     

Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy Allows Escalation of the Radiation Dose to the Pelvic Lymph Nodes in Patients with Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Results of a Phase I Dose Escalation Study

AimPelvic irradiation in addition to prostate irradiation may improve outcome in locally advanced prostate cancer, but is associated with dose-limiting bowel toxicity. We report the preliminary results of a dose escalation study using intensity-modulated radiotherapy.Materials and methodsEligible patients had high-risk (T3, Gleason ≥8 or prostate-specific antigen ≥20 ng/ml) or lymph node-positive disease. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy was inverse planned giving 70 Gy/35 fractions to the prostate and 50 Gy/55 Gy/60 Gy in sequential cohorts to the pelvis with a 5 Gy boost to positive lymph nodes. Acute and late toxicity were recorded with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and Late Effects Normal Tissue - Subjective Objective Management LENT-SOM scales. Neoadjuvant androgen suppression was given for 3 years. This report concerns the 50 and 55 Gy cohorts.ResultsSeventy-nine men were recruited (25 to 50 Gy/54 to 55 Gy) with a median follow-up of 2 years. Patients were divided into two groups according to the total bowel volume outlined (median 450 cm³). Acute RTOG (≥2) bowel toxicity was 40 and 50% for the 50 and 55 Gy groups and 38 and 51% for bowel volume <450 cm³ and ≥450 cm³, respectively, suggesting both volume and dose relationships for acute effects. Late RTOG diarrhoea ≥grade 2 was only seen with bowel volume ≥450 cm³, but no dose effect was apparent (12%/50 Gy and 10%/55 Gy). LENT-SOM bowel ≥grade 2 toxicity occurred in 22%/50 Gy and 15%/55 Gy. Only one patient had grade 3 toxicity. A dose volume histogram analysis showed increased late RTOG diarrhoea ≥grade 2 with larger bowel volume irradiated, significant for BV40 >124 cm³ (P = 0.04), BV45 >71 cm³ (P = 0.03) and BV60 >2 cm³ (P = 0.01).ConclusionsAcute and late bowel toxicity was acceptably low using a pelvic dose of up to 55 Gy over 7 weeks. Both relate to total pelvic bowel volume and dose volume constraints have been defined.     

Phase I evaluation of cediranib,a selective VEGFR signalling inhibitor,in combination with gefitinib in patients with advanced tumours

AimCediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) signalling. Preclinical and clinical data suggest that inhibition of the VEGFR and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways may be synergistic. Combination treatment with cediranib and gefitinib, an EGFR signalling inhibitor, was evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumours.Patients and methodsNinety patients received treatment in this four-part, open-label study (NCT00502060). The patients received once-daily oral doses of cediranib (20–45 mg) and gefitinib 250 mg (part A1; n = 16) or 500 mg (part B1; n = 44). A cohort expansion phase investigated the potential pharmacokinetic interaction of cediranib 30 mg with gefitinib 250 mg (part A2; n = 15) or 500 mg (part B2; n = 15). The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of cediranib with gefitinib. Secondary assessments included pharmacokinetics, efficacy and pharmacodynamics.ResultsCombination treatment was generally well tolerated; the protocol-defined maximum-tolerated dose of cediranib was 30 mg/day with gefitinib 250 mg/day (part A1) and cediranib 45 mg/day was the maximum dose investigated with gefitinib 500 mg/day (part B1). The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (84 [93%]), anorexia (63 [70%]) and fatigue (60 [67%]). Cediranib pharmacokinetic parameters were not substantially different when given alone or in combination with gefitinib. Gefitinib pharmacokinetic parameters were similar to those seen previously with gefitinib monotherapy. Efficacy results included eight (9%) confirmed partial responses (6 renal; 1 lung; 1 osteosarcoma) and 38 (42%) patients with stable disease. Pharmacodynamic assessments demonstrated changes in levels of VEGF and soluble VEGFR-2 following treatment.ConclusionsCombination treatment was generally well tolerated and showed encouraging antitumour activity in patients with advanced solid tumours. These results merit further exploration.     

A randomised,open-label phase II trial of afatinib versus cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

PurposeThis randomised phase II trial aimed to compare efficacy of the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, with cetuximab in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma (mCRC) with progression following oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based regimens. Efficacy in patients with KRAS mutations was also evaluated.Patients and methodsPatients with KRAS wild-type tumours were randomised 2:1 to afatinib (40 mg/day, increasing to 50 mg/day if minimal toxicity) or cetuximab weekly (400 mg/m² loading dose, then 250 mg/m²/week) according to number of previous chemotherapy lines. All patients with KRAS-mutated tumours received afatinib. Primary end-points were objective response (OR) for the wild-type group and disease control for the KRAS-mutated group. Secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsPatients with KRAS wild-type tumours (n = 50) received afatinib (n = 36) or cetuximab (n = 14). Unconfirmed and confirmed ORs were 3% and 0% for afatinib versus 20% and 13% for cetuximab (odds ratio: 0.122 [P = 0.0735] and <0.001, respectively). Median PFS was 46.0 and 144.5 days for afatinib and cetuximab, respectively. Median OS was 355 days with afatinib but not reached for cetuximab. In the KRAS-mutated group (n = 41), five (12%) patients achieved confirmed disease control (stable disease; P = 0.6394 [comparison versus 10%]); no ORs were reported. Median PFS and OS were 41.0 and 173 days, respectively. Most frequent treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea and rash across groups.ConclusionsThe efficacy of afatinib was inferior to cetuximab in patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC. In patients with KRAS-mutated tumours, disease control was modest with afatinib. Afatinib had a manageable safety profile.     

First-line single-agent panitumumab in frail elderly patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer and poor prognostic factors: A phase II study of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours

BackgroundFrail elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are not candidates for chemotherapy. Monotherapy with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies may be an option for these patients with few systemic toxic effects.Patients and methodsSingle-arm, multicentre, phase II trial including patients ⩾70 years with wild-type (WT) KRAS (exon 2) mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status ⩽ 3, KPC (Köhne Prognostic Classification) – defined intermediate or high risk status, frailty and/or ineligibility for chemotherapy. Patients received panitumumab until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months.ResultsThe study included 33 patients (intention-to-treat (ITT) population). Median age: 81 years; sex: 66.7% male; high-risk KPC status: 45.4%. Median treatment duration was 14 weeks and 6-month PFS rate was 36.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 20.0–52.8). The objective response rate: 9.1% (95% CI: 0–18.9) (all partial responses), and there were 18 stable diseases (54.5%). Median PFS was 4.3 months (95% CI: 2.8–6.4) and median overall survival (OS) was 7.1 months (95% CI: 5.0–12.3). There were no deaths or grade 4–5 adverse events (AEs) related to panitumumab and the most common grade 3-related AE was rash acneiform (15.2%). A significant association between clinical response and RAS status was observed (P = 0.037). In the WT RAS subgroup (WT exons 2, 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS, N = 15), 6-month PFS rate was 53.3% (95% CI: 30.1–75.2) and median PFS and OS were 7.9 and 12.3 months, respectively.ConclusionsSingle-agent panitumumab is active and well tolerated and may be a therapeutic option for high-risk frail elderly patients with WT RAS tumours considered not candidates for chemotherapy (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01126112).     

First-time-in-man and pharmacokinetic study of weekly oral perifosine in patients with solid tumours

AimTo identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of oral perifosine.MethodsPatients with solid tumours received perifosine at dosages ranging from 100–800 mg/week. Eligibility criteria included life expectancy > 12 weeks, WHO performance status ? 2, normal blood, liver and renal functions and no recent anticancer treatment. Drug concentrations were analysed by HPLC–MS/MS.ResultsThirty six patients were recruited (75% males, mean age 54.7 years, performance status 1 in 72.2%). Adverse events included nausea (69.4%), diarrhoea (55.6%), vomiting (52.8%) and abdominal pain (13.9%). Antiemetic regimens including glucocorticoids, dopamine antagonists and 5-HT3-antagonists were used as treatment and/or prophylaxis in 50% of the patients. Though MTD was formally not reached with 800 mg/week, the treatment discontinuation due to diarrhoea and vomiting likely related to perifosine in two cases led to the decision to stop further dose escalation. Pharmacokinetics after a single dose were median t_max = 8.0–24.2 h, median t_1/2 = 81.0–115.9 h and mean_geo CL/f = 0.28–0.43 mL/min/kg. Urinary excretion was below 1%. Perifosine slightly accumulated and steady state was nearly reached after 2–3 weeks.ConclusionOral perifosine was tolerable up to 600 mg/week in cancer patients when administered with meal and prophylactic antiemetics. Based on its half-life of about 4 days, a weekly regimen may be appropriate.