Endocrine therapies for patients with recurrent breast cancer: predictive factors for responses to first- and second-line endocrine therapies

Breast cancer patients have been treated with four different hormonal agents, antiestrogen, progestin, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist and aromatase inhibitor, during the past 7 years in Japan. To investigate the efficacy of these agents for the treatment of recurrent breast cancer patients, we conducted a retrospective multi-institute survey in Japan. The clinico-pathological data of 131 patients, who received endocrine therapy as first-line treatment between 1993 and 1998, were collected from seven institutes. The median age of the patients was 55 (range 27-92) years, 75% of their primary tumors were estrogen receptor (ER)-positive or unknown, and 95% of the dominant metastatic sites were bone, soft tissue or lungs. The objective response rate to first-line endocrine therapy was 42.7%, and that to second-line therapy 42.5% (17 of 40 patients). Multiple regression analyses of predictive factors for a response to first- and second-line endocrine therapies indicated two independent factors, ER status of the primary tumors and dominant site of metastasis, for the former, and one independent factor, a response to first-line endocrine therapy, for the latter. Analysis of relationships between sequences of use of hormonal agents and objective response rates revealed that the choice of first-line hormonal agent did not influence the overall efficacy of first- and second-line endocrine therapies. Overall survival after first recurrence in patients with tumors exhibiting an objective response or stable disease to first-line endocrine therapy was significantly better than that in patients with tumors exhibiting progressive disease (p < 0.01). These findings suggest that an adequate selection of recurrent breast cancer patients referring the ER status, dominant site of metastasis and a prior response to endocrine therapy may contribute to better clinical outcomes of the patients.     

Current status and controversial issues concerning endocrine therapy for patients with recurrent breast cancer in Japan

Background  Four different endocrine therapeutic agents have been used in Japan since 1996. However, a consensus regarding proper use of these agents has not yet been established. Therefore, a questionaire survey of Japanese breast cancer authorities on endocrine therapy and a multi-institute survey to investigate the efficacy of a single first-line endocrine therapy for recurrent breast cancer were conducted. Methods and Patients  A total of 279 questionaires were sent to the Councilors of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society. The clinico-pathological data of 77 breast cancer patients who underwent a single first-line endocrine therapy were collected from five institutes. Results  The response rate to this questionaire survey was 67.4%. The results show that many authorities consider that: 1) both ER and PgR in primary tumors should be measured, 2) patient age, the disease-free interval and postoperative adjuvant therapy do not provide enough information for the selection of endocrine therapies, 3) antiestrogen and LH-RH agonists should be used as first-line endocrine therapies, 4) combined endocrine therapies, such as an antiestrogen plus an LH-RH agonist, should be used, 5) the optimal sequence of use of endocrine therapeutic agents is most controversial. The objective response rate to first-line endocrine therapies was 40.3% and the duration of response was over 15 months. The objective response rate to second-line endocrine therapies was 42.1%. A multiple regression analysis of predictive factors for the efficacy of first-line endocrine therapies indicated two factors, the disease-free interval and dominant site of metastasis, to be significant. Conclusions  This questionaire survey suggests that clinical trials to investigate the optimal sequence of use of endocrine therapies and to clarify the usefulness of combined endocrine therapies should be conducted. Single first-or second-line endocrine therapies for recurrent breast cancer are effective and should be carried out by general clinicians.     

Sensitivity to further endocrine therapy is retained following progression on first-line fulvestrant

Summary There is a need for new endocrine agents that lack cross-resistance with currently available treatments to extend the endocrine treatment window and delay the need for cytotoxic chemotherapy. This retrospective analysis evaluated the response of postmenopausal patients with previously untreated metastatic/locally advanced breast cancer to further endocrine treatment following progression on first-line fulvestrant or tamoxifen. Patients received fulvestrant 250 mg (intramuscular injection every 28 days) plus matching tamoxifen placebo (once daily), or tamoxifen 20 mg (orally once daily) plus matching fulvestrant placebo (every 28 days) in a double-blind, randomized, phase III trial. Treatment continued until disease progression or withdrawal, when further endocrine therapy was initiated (at the treating physician’s discretion). Information regarding subsequent therapies and responses was obtained by follow-up questionnaire. Two-hundred-and-forty-five questionnaires were returned (from 587 patients), 149 of which yielded follow-up data on patients receiving second-line endocrine therapy following fulvestrant (n=83) and tamoxifen (n=66). Second-line therapy produced objective responses (OR) in 6/44 (13.6%) and clinical benefit (CB) in 25/44 (56.8%) patients who had CB with fulvestrant and produced OR in 5/41 (12.2%) patients and CB in 27/41 (65.8%) patients who had CB with first-line tamoxifen. For patients deriving no CB from trial therapy, second-line therapy produced OR in 3/39 (7.7%) and CB in 15/39 (38.5%) patients in the fulvestrant group and OR in 4/25 (16.0%) and CB in 12/25 (48.0%) patients in the tamoxifen group. Results from this questionnaire-based study suggest that postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who respond to first-line fulvestrant or tamoxifen retain sensitivity to subsequent endocrine therapy.     

p53 expression status is a significant molecular marker in predicting the time to endocrine therapy failure in recurrent breast cancer: a cohort study

Background Hormone receptor status has been one of the most important factors in predicting the response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients. However, half of those patients with estrogen receptor-positive tumors do not respond to endocrine therapy. There have been no universal factors for predicting resistance to endocrine therapy in this population. Recently, p53 status has been extensively used as a predictive factor for response to systemic therapy, because tumor cells lacking p53 function do not respond to systemic therapy due to a failure in apoptosis. We therefore studied the relationship between the efficacy of endocrine therapy and biological factors, including p53. Methods The expression of p53, Ki67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2 was examined by immunostaining in the primary tumors of 53 patients who received endocrine therapy for recurrent or advanced breast cancer. The following clinical factors were also analyzed: site treated, disease-free interval, and response to first-line endocrine therapy. To evaluate the significance of these factors, time to endocrine therapy failure (TTEF), or the total duration of sequential endocrine therapies was adopted as representing the clinical outcome. Results The median TTEF was 16.1 months (range, 2.5–89.9 months). Multivariate analysis showed significantly reduced TTEF associated with no response to first-line endocrine therapy (P = 0.006 and P = 0.002 in all patients and in recurrent patients, respectively) and associated with positive p53 expression (P = 0.066 and P = 0.004, respectively). Conclusion p53 expression status was a significant molecular marker as well as the response to first-line endocrine therapy for predicting TTEF in recurrent breast cancer with hormone-sensitive disease.     

Outcome of First Salvage Therapy in Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Relapsing After First-line Fludarabine,Cyclophosphamide, and Rituximab

Patients receiving salvage therapy for relapsed CLL following first-line FCR have overall response rates of 60% and median survival of 38 months. We describe pre-treatment characteristics predicting for outcome after salvage therapies. Patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy had better response rates and duration compared to antibody therapy alone.Brief AbstractChemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) is an effective initial therapy with an estimated 40% relapse rate at 6 years. There is no consensus salvage therapy for relapsed patients. All patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who relapsed or were refractory following first-line FCR administered between July 1999 and December 2003 were included for analysis. Patients with Richter's transformation were excluded. We analyzed the impact of pre-treatment characteristics (Table 1) and response duration following FCR on responses and survival after salvage therapy. Response outcomes were analyzed using 1996 National Cancer Institute response criteria. Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were calculated using the method of Kaplan and Meier. Of 300 patients treated with first-line FCR, 111 patients (37%) have required salvage therapy. Median age at relapse was 61 years, and 36% of patients had Rai stage III or IV disease (Table 1). The salvage regimen included antibody alone, chemoimmunotherapy, or novel therapeutic approaches including lenalidomide. Responses included 17% CR, 12% nodular PR, and 32% PR with an overall response (OR) of 60%. Median OS was 38 months, and median TTF was 9 months. Rai stage III/IV disease, β2M > 4 mg/L, deletion of 17p by fluorescence in situ hybridization and TTF < 12 months following FCR were associated with significantly shorter TTF and OS following first salvage. Patients treated with single-antibody therapy had low response rates (CR/nPR, 9%; OR, 44%) and short TTF (6 months). Combination of alemtuzumab and rituximab improved responses (CR/nPR, 50%; OR, 75%) but did not improve TTF (8 months). Patients treated with FCR or CFAR (cyclophosphamide/fludarabine/alemtuzumab/rituximab) demonstrated good responses (CR/nPR, 50%; OR, 83%) with improved TTF (20 months) but no significant improvement in OS (44 months) compared to patients receiving antibody only (OS, 41 months). Patients who relapse after FCR can be successfully retreated with a similar chemoimmunotherapy regimen (FCR, CFAR) with reasonable response rates and remission duration; however, chemoimmunotherapy does not appear to improve OS over antibody therapy alone in first salvage.     

A comparison of the efficacy of aromatase inhibitors in second-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer

Randomized clinical trials have established the role of third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) (letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane) as standard treatment for patients with hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer who have experienced disease progression with antiestrogen therapy. Significant gains in clinical efficacy and improved tolerability over progestins (megestrol acetate) and the first-generation AI aminoglutethimide have positioned these agents above previous therapies. Estrogen receptor (ER) status remains the best predictive determinant of endocrine response, and further randomized trials with properly selected patient populations may distinguish individual AIs within this class. A recently completed, randomized, head-to-head phase III trial of letrozole versus anastrozole as second-line endocrine therapy demonstrated a significant difference in objective response rate for letrozole compared with anastrozole (19% versus 12%, respectively; P = 0.014), with similar time to progression. The improved efficacy and safety of AIs as second-line endocrine therapies has spawned trials of their use as first-line endocrine therapy versus tamoxifen for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Based on favorable results from these trials, letrozole and anastrozole have also been approved for use as first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.     

The association of clinical outcome to first-line VEGF-targeted therapy with clinical outcome to second-line VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients

There are many active drugs to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who progress through their first-line vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor. Many clinicians choose a second-line VEGF inhibitor based on the type of response to first-line VEGF inhibitor, without data supporting this practice. This study was conducted to determine the association of response to second-line VEGF inhibitor with response to first-line VEGF inhibitor. All mRCC patients in participating centers of the International mRCC Database Consortium who were treated from January 2004 through June 2011 with a second-line VEGF inhibitor after failure of a different first-line VEGF inhibitor were retrospectively identified. The primary outcome is objective response rate (ORR) and the secondary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS) in each line of therapy. Of 1,602 total database patients, 464 patients received a first- and second-line VEGF inhibitor. The ORR to first-line therapy was 22 %, and the ORR to second-line therapy was 11 %. The ORR to second-line therapy was not different among patients achieving partial response versus stable disease versus progressive disease to first-line therapy (14 % vs. 10 % vs. 11 %, respectively; chi-squared trend test p?=?0.17). The median PFS on first-line VEGF-targeted therapy was 7.5 months (95 % CI, 6.6–8.1), and the median PFS on second-line VEGF inhibitor was 3.9 months (95 % CI, 3.6–4.5). There was no correlation between first-line and second-line PFS (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.025; p?=?0.59). The clinical response to a second-line VEGF inhibitor is not dependent on response to the first-line VEGF-inhibitor. Further studies are needed to define clinical parameters that predict response to second-line therapy to optimize the sequence of VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic RCC patients.     

Efficacy of First-line Chemotherapy Affects the Second-Line Setting Response in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background: Chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for the majority of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver mutations and many receive therapies beyond first-line. Secondline chemotherapy has been disappointing both in terms of response rate and survival and we know relatively little about the prognostic factors. Materials and Methods: One thousand and eight patients with advanced NSCLC who received second-line chemotherapy after progression were reviewed in Shanghai PulmonaryHospital, China, from September 2005 to July 2010. We analyzed the effects of potential prognostic factors on the outcomes of second-line chemotherapy (overall response rate, ORR; progression free survival, PFS; overall survival, OS). Results: The response and progression free survival of first-line chemotherapy affects the ORR, PFS and OS of second-line chemotherapy (ORR: CR/PR 15.4%, SD 10.1%, PD2.3%, p<0.001; PFS: CR/PR 3.80 months, SD 2.77 months, PD 2.03 months, p<0.001; OS: CR/PR 11.60 months, SD 10.33 months, PD 6.57 months, p=0.578, p<0.001, p<0.001, respectively). On multivariate analysis, better response to first-line therapy (CR/PR: HR=0.751, p=0.002; SD: HR=0.781, p=0.021) and progression within 3-6 months (HR=0.626, p<0.001), together with adenocarcinoma (HR=0.815, p=0.017), without liver metastasis (HR=0.541, p=0.001), never-smoker(HR=0.772, p=0.001), and ECOG PS 0-1 (HR=0.745, p=0.021) were predictors for good OS following secondline chemotherapy. Conclusions: Patients who responded to first-line chemotherapy had a better outcome after second-line therapy for advanced NSCLC, and the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy, period of progression, histology, liver metastasis, smoking status and ECOG PS were independent prognostic factors for OS.     

Management of refractory myeloma: a review

Management of refractory myeloma represents a common and challenging clinical problem. Approximately 30% to 50% of patients with multiple myeloma do not respond to first-line therapy, and those who initially achieve a remission will eventually relapse. Surprisingly, there is no routinely accepted approach to patients with refractory disease. Therefore, we review the literature in an attempt to provide an overview of the published results and outline our treatment recommendations for such patients. We suggest the following: (1) for truly resistant patients (ie, those who clearly progress with initial therapy), administration of high-dose or pulsed glucocorticosteroids is the best treatment, with an expected response of 40% (defined as a greater than or equal to 50% reduction in monoclonal [M]-protein concentration); (2) for patients who relapse during therapy or relapse within 6 months of stopping the initial treatment, the VAD regimen (vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone) is one of the most effective salvage therapies, resulting in an approximately 75% response rate (greater than or equal to 50% reduction in M-protein concentration); (3) for patients who relapse within more than 6 months of stopping therapy (unmaintained remission), reinitiation of the initial therapy represents an excellent alternative, leading to recontrol in 60% to 70% of patients (greater than or equal to 50% reduction in M-protein concentration). If progression is observed or if there is response and then relapse in this setting, VAD chemotherapy can be administered again. (4) Patients who fail second-line salvage therapies should enter well-designed clinical trials to evaluate new treatment modalities. If this is not feasible, alpha-interferon or "systemic" radiotherapy are recommended in selected cases.     

Considerations for second-line therapy of non-small cell lung cancer

For patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a good functional status, platinum-based first-line chemotherapy improves quality of life, reduces disease-related symptoms, and improves survival. The addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel in the first-line setting has been shown to produce a higher response rate and longer progression-free survival and overall survival times than with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Despite these therapies, all patients inevitably experience disease progression. There are currently three agents approved for treating patients who progress after one prior regimen: docetaxel, pemetrexed, and erlotinib. Erlotinib is also indicated for patients who progress after two prior regimens. These agents appear to have similar efficacies in terms of response and overall survival, but have significantly different toxicity profiles. Currently, the choice of agent depends on a number of factors, including the patient's comorbidities, toxicity from previous treatments, the risk for neutropenia, smoking history, and patient preference. A better understanding of prognostic factors in the second-line setting may allow clinicians to better select patients for second-line therapy, and lead to better-designed second-line trials. Patients with a good performance status in second-line trials have a median survival duration of approximately 9 months, and may receive two second-line therapies during the course of their treatment. Several new agents have shown activity in phase II trials, and may be integrated into second-line therapy as single agents or in combination with current agents in the future.     

Chemotherapy versus combination of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer. A prospective randomized study

One hundred-forty-five postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer entered a prospective randomized trial comparing treatment A (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil; CMF) with treatment B (the same chemotherapy plus tamoxifen; CMF plus T). Patients on treatment A had T added to CMF at the time of progression or relapse (second-line CMF plus T). One hundred thirty-three cases were evaluable. Considering response rate to first-line treatment, CMF plus T appeared to be significantly superior to CMF alone (74 versus 51%, respectively; P less than 0.01). Median time to failure to first-line treatments, considering all patients, was longer in CMF plus T than in CMF arm (48 and 24 weeks, respectively; P = 0.06). Considering patients showing objective remission, median duration of response to CMF was similar to that of CMF plus T (47 and 51 weeks, respectively). Twelve of 39 evaluable women treated with second-line CMF plus T showed objective responses (31%). Median time to failure to treatment procedures scheduled in arm A (CMF leads to CMF + T) was longer than that to treatment in arm B (CMF plus T) (56 and 48 weeks, respectively; P = 0.08). Median survival was longer in patients randomized to treatment A (111 weeks) than in patients randomized to treatment B (78 weeks), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.25). It can be concluded from this study that a combination of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy is significantly more active than chemotherapy alone in inducing an objective remission. This strategy of treatment is advisable in situations urgently requiring a clinical response. However, as a sequence of chemical and endocrine therapy induced a longer time to development of progressive disease and a better survival, sequential therapy is advisable for common clinical use.     

Safety and efficacy of cetuximab-chemotherapy combination in Saudi patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab-based combination chemotherapy (CBCC) proved safe and effective as second-line strategy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This prospective phase-II study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of CBCC as first-, second- or third-line among Saudi patients with mCRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRC were offered CBCC to assess time-to-disease progression (TTP), response rate and duration, overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were eligible and their median age was 51 years. Seven patients received CBCC as first-line and 12 as second- or third-line. Responses: 11 (58%) partial responses, 5 (26%) stable disease and 3 (16%) disease progressions. The median response duration was 4.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.4-5.2 months]. The median TTP was 6.8 months (95% CI: 2-13.9 months) for all 19 patients compared to 9.3 months (95% CI: 3.9-14.6 months) for the seven patients who received CBCC as first-line. The median OS for the entire population was 12.3 months (95% CI could not be determined). On the other hand, while the median OS for those who received CBCC as first-line have not been reached, the median OS for those who received CBCC after failure of other salvage therapies was 12.3 months (95% CI: 3.2-21.4 months). CBCC was generally tolerable. One patient had a severe hypersensitivity reaction and another fatal cardiac arrest. CONCLUSION: CBCC is active with an acceptable safety profile. Until results from phase-III clinical trials are available, using CBCC as first-line is probably justified.     

High-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation for adult patients with Hodgkin's disease who do not enter remission after induction chemotherapy: results in 175 patients reported to the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Lymphoma Working Party.

PURPOSE: To investigate the results of high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in adults with Hodgkin's disease who do not enter remission after induction therapy, to determine overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), and to identify prognostic factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 175 patients reported to the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation between November 1979 and October 1995. One hundred were male and 75 were female, with a median age of 26.5 years. Responses to first-line therapy were defined as progressive disease (PD) in 88 and stable/minimally responsive disease (SD/MR) in 87. Seventy-five patients received ASCT after failure of one induction regimen. Second-line therapy was given to the remaining 100 patients. Response to second-line therapy was PD in 34 and SD/MR in 66. OS and PFS rates were determined, and prognostic factors were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Responses to high-dose therapy and ASCT were complete response (30%), partial response (28%), no response (14%), PD (14%), and toxic death (14%). Actuarial 5-year OS and PFS rates were 36% and 32%, respectively. In univariate analysis for PFS and OS, adverse factors were use of a second-line chemotherapy regimen and interval of more than 18 months between diagnosis and ASCT. In multivariate analysis, the interval between diagnosis and ASCT maintained prognostic significance for OS. Response to the chemotherapy regimen given immediately before ASCT had no predictive value. CONCLUSION: High-dose therapy and ASCT is an effective treatment strategy for patients with Hodgkin's disease for whom induction chemotherapy fails. Outcome was equivalent for those with obvious PD or SD/MR in response to the regimen given immediately before high-dose therapy. Prospective randomized studies are required to compare this approach with conventional-dose salvage therapy.     

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer in a Real-world Clinical Practice Setting in the United States

BackgroundClinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of several life-prolonging therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); however, real-world data on their use, survival effect, and safety are limited. Using electronic health record data from the Flatiron Health database, we studied real-world treatment patterns and health outcomes in patients with mCRPC.Patients and MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, non-interventional cohort analysis of electronic health record data of patients with confirmed mCRPC between January 2013 and September 2017. The primary objective was to describe real-world treatment patterns, including treatment type, duration, and sequencing. Secondary objectives included describing patient characteristics and clinical outcomes.ResultsOf 2559 patients with mCRPC, 1980 (77%) received at least 1 line of life-prolonging therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, sipuleucel-T, or radium-223). Of patients receiving first-line therapy, 49% received second-line therapy, and of these, 43% received third-line therapy. Abiraterone/prednisone and enzalutamide accounted for 65% of first-line therapies and 54% of second-line therapies. Docetaxel was the most common third-line therapy (24%). Back-to-back use of abiraterone/prednisone and enzalutamide was common. Radium-223 monotherapy use was 2% in the first-line setting, 3% in the second-line setting, and 8% in the third-line setting. The median overall survival was longer in patients who received life-prolonging therapies (23.7 months; 95% confidence interval: 22.3-25.1 months) than in those who did not (10.1 months; 95% confidence interval: 9.1-11.5 months).ConclusionThese real-world insights on over 2500 patients with mCRPC supplement findings from randomized controlled trials and may help to inform clinical trial design, treatment guidelines, and clinical decision-making.     

All-trans retinoic acid and interferon-alpha in the treatment of a patient with resistant metastatic osteosarcoma

BACKGROUND: A boy age 14 years who was in complete remission from Stage IIB small cell osteosarcoma, which was misdiagnosed as Ewing sarcoma and consequently was treated, developed inoperable lung metastases when he was off therapy. He received second-line treatment for recurrent Ewing sarcoma, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and obtained only a temporary response. A compassionate treatment with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and interferon-alpha (IFNalpha) was then undertaken. METHODS: The patient initially was treated according to the national SE91 protocol for nonmetastatic Ewing sarcoma. After a bilateral pulmonary recurrence, he received second-line chemotherapy and irradiation of the largest metastasis, with a temporary partial response. The patient was then treated with a combination of oral ATRA (90 mg/m(2) for 3 days per week) and subcutaneous IFNalpha (3 x 10(6) U/m(2) 5 days per week) for 4 months. The same therapy also was administered for the control of residual disease after surgery for a total duration of 1 year of ATRA/IFN treatment. During the first 3 weeks of therapy, ATRA pharmacokinetics were studied. RESULTS: After progression of the patient's disease, despite the administration of first-line and second-line chemotherapy, combined treatment with ATRA/IFNalpha yielded a partial remission, which allowed surgical resection of the largest metastasis. The same therapy was effective in preventing tumor recurrence after incomplete removal of the remaining metastases. Treatment was well tolerated, and the patient is in stable complete remission 14 months after the end of therapy. The pharmacokinetics results confirmed the indication of an intermittent schedule for oral ATRA therapy. CONCLUSIONS: ATRA/IFNalpha treatment may be considered as an alternative approach in the treatment of patients with metastatic osteosarcoma who have disease that is resistant to conventional chemotherapy and in the treatment of patients with minimal tumor residue.     

Chemotherapy for patients with non-curative advanced or recurrent gastric cancer in our hospital

In our hospital, beginning in April 2005, chemotherapy for non-curative advanced or recurrent gastric cancer was integrated, and 9 regimens including 6 combination therapies were prepared. First-line chemotherapy mainly focusing on TS-1 plus docetaxel combination therapy(S-1+DOC)was done. Second-line and subsequent chemotherapy treatments were chosen by the doctor in charge. 78.6% of second-line chemotherapy was monotherapy. Median survival time(MST)since first-line chemotherapy was 15.6 months, and 1-year survival rate since first-line chemotherapy was 65.0%. MST since the start of first-line S-1+DOC was over 16.4 months, and 1-year survival rate since this therapy start was 69.0%. The good results were ascribed to following: 1. good response rate(30.4%), prolonged time to progression(TTP)(6.1 months), and good control against adverse events at first-line chemotherapy; 2. good shift rate of second-line chemotherapy from the first-line one(82.4%); and 3. good disease control rate(78.6%), prolonged TTP(7.0 months), and good control against adverse events at second-line chemotherapy. In patients with peritoneal metastasis, however, despite the prolonged TTP of 8.7 months by first-line chemotherapy, MST since first-line chemotherapy was poor at 11.1 months. Thus, improvement of second-line or subsequent chemotherapy is warranted.     

First-line chemotherapy rechallenge after relapse in small cell lung cancer

Summary Response to second-line therapy in relapsing patients with small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) is often claimed to be evidence in favour of non-cross resistance. Fifteen patients with SCLC who had relapsed off treatment after responding to initial first-line chemotherapy were retreated with the same regiment at relapse. Ten (67%) achieved a further partial response. Median response duration was only 3 months (range 2–4 months), but similar poor results have been reported for most studies using second-line chemotherapy. Relapse in SCLC does not necessarily imply complete clinical resistance to first-line chemotherapy, and strict clinical criteria are required to demonstrate true non-cross resistance     

Secondary treatment and predictive factors for second-line chemotherapy after first-line oxaliplatin-based therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer

Two consecutive studies have evaluated the efficacy of oxaliplatin combined with the Nordic bolus schedule of 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid as first-line treatment in metastatic non-resectable colorectal cancer. One hundred and twelve patients were followed after end of first-line treatment and any secondary therapy registered. Fifty-three patients (47%) did not receive second-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy. The main reason was too poor performance status (59%). These patients had a median survival of only 1.7 months after progression of first-line therapy. The best predictive factors at start of first-line chemotherapy for receiving later second-line chemotherapy were performance status and alkaline phosphatase level. Fifty-nine patients (53%) received irinotecan-based second-line therapy. Four (7%) patients had a partial response, and 28 (52%) had stable disease. Median progression-free survival after second-line chemotherapy was 4.1 months and median survival 9.5 months. Median survival after first-line chemotherapy and secondary liver surgery was 34 months and five-year disease-free survival 8%. Survival among patients receiving both first- and second-line chemotherapy was 20.8 months, but only 8.9 months in patients not receiving second-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Poor performance status or elevated alkaline phosphatase level at start of first-line chemotherapy predicts whether second-line chemotherapy will be given or not.     

晚期胃癌不同一线及后线治疗方案的疗效对比分析北大核心

目的:分析晚期胃癌(advanced gastric cancer, AGC)一线及后线治疗方案的疗效及生存情况,为指导AGC的系统治疗及全程管理提供依据。方法:收集我院肿瘤科2015年01月至2019年12月收治的AGC患者的临床特征、辅助检查资料、治疗相关资料、疗效评估、疾病转归等相关临床资料,建立数据库,分析不同一线及后线治疗方案的疗效,以及不同人群、进行不同线数化疗的患者总生存期(overall survival, OS)的差异。结果:一线治疗总体客观缓解率(objective response rate, ORR)为37.6%,疾病控制率(disease control rate, DCR)为83.9%;二线治疗ORR为9.5%,DCR为44.6%;三线及以上治疗ORR为0%,DCR为15.2%。总体人群一线治疗中位无进展生存(median progression-free survival, mPFS)时间为7.0个月,中位总生存(medianoverall survival,mOS)时间为15.6个月;二线治疗mPFS时间为3.0个月,mOS时间为7.2个月。一线化疗采取含铂方案与含紫杉方案对比,mPFS分别为7.0个月、4.5个月(P=0.041),mOS分别为16.0个月、9.0个月(P=0.061);二线含紫杉方案与含伊立替康方案对比,mPFS分别为2.6个月、4.0个月(P=0.531),mOS分别为7.0个月、6.5个月(P=0.822)。仅进行一线治疗、一线+二线治疗、一线+二线+三线及以上治疗的AGC患者mOS分别为14.0个月、14.0个月及20.0个月,进行三线及以上治疗的患者mOS优于进行一线+二线治疗的患者(P=0.001)。一线方案中采用两药或三药及以上、有无免疫治疗对患者的mPFS及mOS无影响,且二线治疗中有无联合免疫治疗对患者的mPFS及mOS也无影响。结论:含铂双药方案疗效较佳,应作为AGC患者一线治疗的优选方案;二线及后线化疗有效率较低,二线化疗方案紫杉类与伊立替康疗效无差异;在非选择AGC人群中,一线及二线治疗中联合免疫治疗未见改善生存,化疗仍然是基石。