Hepatic arterial oxaliplatin infusion plus intravenous chemotherapy in colorectal cancer with inoperable hepatic metastases: a trial of the gastrointestinal group of the Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer.

PURPOSE: Isolated hepatic metastases of colorectal cancer constitute a frequent and serious therapeutic problem that has led to the evaluation of hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of different drugs. Oxaliplatin combined with fluorouracil (FU) and leucovorin is effective in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In this context, a phase II study was conducted to evaluate concomitant administration of oxaliplatin by HAI and intravenous (IV) FU plus leucovorin according to the LV5FU2 protocol (leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), FU 400 mg/m(2) IV bolus, FU 600 mg/m(2) 22-hour continuous infusion on days 1 and 2 every 2 weeks). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had metastatic colorectal cancer that was restricted to the liver and inoperable. The patients were not to have previously received oxaliplatin. After surgical insertion of a catheter in the hepatic artery, patients were treated with oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) HAI combined with FU + leucovorin IV according to the LV5FU2 protocol. Treatment was continued until disease progression or toxicity. Response was evaluated every 2 months. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were included, and 26 patients were treated. Two hundred courses of therapy were administered, and the median number of courses received was eight courses (range, zero to 20 courses). The most frequent toxicity consisted of neutropenia. The main toxicity related to HAI was pain. The intent-to-treat objective response rate was 64% (95% CI, 44% to 81%; 18 of 28 patients). With a median follow-up of 23 months, the median overall and disease-free survival times were 27 and 27 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of oxaliplatin HAI and FU + leucovorin according to the LV5FU2 protocol is feasible and effective in patients presenting with isolated hepatic metastases of colorectal cancer.     

Effects of radiotherapy planning with a dedicated combined PET-CT-simulator of patients with non-small cell lung cancer on dose limiting normal tissues and radiation dose-escalation: a planning study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of radiotherapy planning with a dedicated combined PET-CT simulator of patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients underwent a pre-treatment simulation on a dedicated hybrid PET-CT-simulator. For each patient, two 3D conformal treatment plans were made: one with a CT based PTV and one with a PET-CT based PTV, both to deliver 60Gy in 30 fractions. The maximum tolerable prescribed radiation dose for CT versus PET-CT PTV was calculated based on constraints for the lung, the oesophagus, and the spinal cord, and the Tumour Control Probability (TCP) was estimated. RESULTS: For the same toxicity levels of the lung, oesophagus and spinal cord, the dose could be increased from 55.2+/-2.0Gy with CT planning to 68.9+/-3.3Gy with the use of PET-CT (P=0.002), with corresponding TCP's of 6.3+/-1.5% for CT and 24.0+/-5.6% for PET-CT planning (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a combined dedicated PET-CT-simulator reduced radiation exposure of the oesophagus and the lung, and thus allowed significant radiation dose escalation whilst respecting all relevant normal tissue constraints.     

Lack of efficacy of two consecutive treatments of radioimmunotherapy with 131I-cG250 in patients with metastasized clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A previous activity dose-escalation study using 131I-labeled chimeric monoclonal antibody cG250 in patients with progressive metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) resulted in occasional therapeutic responses. The present study was designed to determine the safety and therapeutic efficacy of two sequential high-dose treatments with 131I-cG250. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 29) with progressive metastatic RCC received a low dose of (131)I-cG250 for assessment of preferential targeting of metastatic lesions, followed by the first radioimmunotherapy (RIT) with 2220 MBq/m2 131I-cG250 (n = 27) 1 week later. If no grade 4 hematologic toxicity was observed, a second low-dose 131I-cG250 (n = 20) was given 3 months later. When blood clearance was not accelerated, a second RIT of 131I-cG250 was administered at an activity-dose of 1110 MBq/m2 (n = 3) or 1665 MBq/m2 (n = 16). Patients were monitored weekly for toxicity, and tumor size was evaluated by computed tomography once every 3 months intervals. RESULTS: The maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of the second RIT was 1,665 MBq/m2 because of dose-limiting hematological toxicity. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, after two RIT treatments, the disease stabilized in five of 29 patients, whereas it remained progressive in 14 of 29 patients. Two patients received no RIT, and eight of 29 received only one 131I-cG250 RIT because of grade 4 hematologic toxicity, formation of human antichimeric antibodies, or disease progression. CONCLUSION: In patients with progressive end-stage RCC, the MTD of the second treatment was 75% of the MTD of the first RIT. In the majority of patients, two cycles of 131I-cG250 could be safely administered without severe toxicity. No objective responses were observed, but occasionally two RIT doses resulted in stabilization of previously progressive disease.     

Considerations on the EU definition of a nanomaterial: Science to support policy making

In recent years, an increasing number of applications and products containing or using nanomaterials have become available. This has raised concerns that some of these materials may introduce new risks for humans or the environment. A clear definition to discriminate nanomaterials from other materials is prerequisite to include provisions for nanomaterials in legislation. In October 2011 the European Commission published the ‘Recommendation on the definition of a nanomaterial’, primarily intended to provide unambiguous criteria to identify materials for which special regulatory provisions might apply, but also to promote consistency on the interpretation of the term ‘nanomaterial’. In this paper, the current status of various regulatory frameworks of the European Union with regard to nanomaterials is described, and major issues relevant for regulation of nanomaterials are discussed. This will contribute to better understanding the implications of the choices policy makers have to make in further regulation of nanomaterials. Potential issues that need to be addressed and areas of research in which science can contribute are indicated. These issues include awareness on situations in which nano-related risks may occur for materials that fall outside the definition, guidance and further development of measurement techniques, and dealing with changes during the life cycle.