依维莫司联合全反式维甲酸逆转急性早幼粒细胞白血病细胞耐药的研究

目的探讨依维莫司联合全反式维甲酸(简称维甲酸)逆转急性早幼粒细胞白血病(APL)细胞株NB4-R1耐药的作用。方法应用CD11b染色流式细胞术及硝基四唑氮蓝(NBT)还原实验检测两药联合应用对细胞分化的影响, 流式细胞术检测细胞周期情况, Annexin V/PI双染色检测细胞凋亡情况, 蛋白质印迹法检测自噬相关蛋白微管结合蛋白轻链3(LC3)、Beclin 1及早幼粒白血病-维甲酸受体融合蛋白(PML-RARα)、磷酸化核糖体S6激酶(P-P70S6K)、磷酸化4E结合蛋白1(P-4E-BP1) 等表达水平。结果与维甲酸组比较, 联用组能诱导耐药细胞株NB4-R1细胞的分化, 并将细胞增殖阻止在G ₁期而对细胞凋亡无明显影响。100 nmol/L依维莫司组、1μmol/L维甲酸组、联用组、对照组NB4-R1细胞培养48 h后分化百分率分别为(2.29±0.57)%、(17.06±2.65)%、(54.47±4.91)%、(2.54±0.53)%; 处于G ₁期的细胞百分率分别为(35.20±11.97)%、(33.54±6.25)%、(53.70±8.73)%、(27.40±6.01)%; 四组细胞凋亡细胞百分率分别为(2.30±0.14)%、(2.25±0.21)%、(2.40±0.28)%、(1.95±0.07)%。与维甲酸组比较, 联用组mTOR信号通路下游的P70S6K、4E-BP1分子磷酸化水平下降, LC3-II和Beclin 1的表达上调, 且能部分降解融合蛋白PML-RARα。 结论依维莫司联合维甲酸能诱导NB4-R1细胞分化, 且能阻滞细胞周期而不致细胞凋亡, 其机制可能与依维莫司联合维甲酸抑制mTOR信号通路激活自噬作用从而降解PML-RARα蛋白有关。     

Mechanism of drug resistance in relation to site of metastasis: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in advanced breast cancer according to anticancer strategy

BackgroundBreast cancer is heterogeneous at different levels: biologic subtypes, intratumoral areas, and sites of metastases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) classify metastatic sites as visceral or non-visceral, but this has little influence in treatment decisions, particularly in the absence of clinical urgency. Indeed, it is unclear if response to treatments differs among sites of metastases.Patients and methodsRCTs investigating 3 different anticancer strategies in metastatic breast cancer were identified: (1) new hormonal therapy, (2) new targeted therapies in hormone receptor positive tumours (everolimus or palbociclib), and (3) new anti-HER2 therapies. RCTs reporting hazard ratios (HR) for Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) for sub-groups based on sites of metastases were weighted using generic inverse variance approach, and pooled in meta-analyses using Revman 5.3. Subgroup difference was tested with Chi² statistics.ResultsEleven RCTs (6701 pts.) qualified. There was a significant difference in PFS between women with visceral versus non-visceral metastases when two endocrine strategies were compared, with benefits limited to women with visceral metastases [Pooled HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77–0.95 versus 1.02 (0.88–1.18) for non-visceral; p(difference) = 0.05]. However, combination of an endocrine therapy and a targeted therapy was associated with better PFS compared to endocrine therapy alone for both groups [HR 0.51 (0.43–0.60) versus 0.45 (0.36–0.56) for non-visceral; p(difference) = 0. 36]. Novel HER-2 targeted therapies were associated with significantly better PFS and OS only in visceral metastases [HR 0.59 (0.52–0.66) versus 0.71(0.44–1.13) for non-visceral, p(difference) = 0.45, for PFS; and 0.64 (0.56–0.73) versus 0.82 (0.57 = 1.19) for non-visceral, p(difference) = 0.20, for OS].ConclusionCombination of targeted agents and endocrine therapy results in concordant, superior PFS suggesting targetable endocrine resistance across metastatic sites. Discordant responses with endocrine strategy alone support use of targeted therapy, rather than change in endocrine agent at disease progression. HER2 targeted therapies may be less effective in areas of poor vascularization.     

Radiation recall syndrome in a patient with breast cancer,after introduction of everolimus

The addition of everolimus to exemestane is recommended in patients with HR+ advanced breast cancer with disease recurrence or progression following prior non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors. We report a case of radiation recall syndrome in a breast cancer patient, after introduction of everolimus. A woman with a right breast cancer underwent a mastectomy, then adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation therapy and hormonotherapy. In a phase III trial (UNIRAD protocol), she received everolimus 5 months after radiation therapy. Seven days after introduction, she was suffering from a radiation recall syndrome with exacerbation skin reactions. The exact pathophysiological mechanism of radiation recall syndrome is unknown. The combination of radiation therapy and mTor inhibitor, even sequentially, should be done with caution as several cases have already been reported.     

Use of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE in the treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: Results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study

AimTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus relevant comparators for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumours located in the gastrointestinal tract (GI-NETs) and the pancreas (P-NETs).Materials and methodsA three-state partitioned survival model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus standard of care (high dose Octreotide LAR), everolimus and sunitinib. Effectiveness data for SoC, everolimus and sunitinib were obtained from published Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Given a lack of head-to-head effectiveness data, matching adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were performed to population-adjust [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE survival data based on prognostic factors and derive estimates of relative effectiveness. Health state utilities were estimated from real-world evidence. Drug acquisition costs were taken from nationally published sources (BNF, NICE), and administration costs were based on treatment protocols in [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE studies, combined with nationally published unit costs (PSSRU, DoH reference costs). Incidence of adverse events were estimated using published sources. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both utilities and costs, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were included from an NHS perspective and presented in 2017/18 GBP (and PPP Euros for base case).ResultsIn GI-NETs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE compared to SoC and everolimus was £26,528 (€27,672) and £24,145 (€25,186) per QALY, respectively. In P-NETs, the ICER of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE compared to SoC was £22,146 (€23,101) or £28,038 (€29,251) dependent on matched population, and £21,827 (€22,766) and £15,768 (€16,445) compared to everolimus and sunitinib, respectively.ConclusionsAt a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000, [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for GI-NET and P-NET patients versus relevant treatment comparators (NHS perspective).     

Réirradiation de métastases ganglionnaires d’un adénocarcinome œsogastrique par une technique de tomothérapie associée à de l’évérolimus

Advanced gastric cancer or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer after a failure of first line chemotherapy have poor outcome. Hereby, we present the first patient treated by radiotherapy with concurrent everolimus, a mTor inhibitor, for a reirradiation of metastasis invading left axillary, infraclavicular and supraclavicular lymph nodes in progression despite several lines of chemotherapy. After 6 months of follow-up, this association provided a satisfactory anti-tumor efficiency and tolerance. Nevertheless, clinical trials are needed in order to confirm this strategy for the treatment of gastric cancer metastasis.     

A phase Ib study investigating the combination of everolimus and dovitinib in vascular endothelial growth factor refractory clear cell renal cancer

BackgroundEverolimus (mammalian target of rapmaycin (mTOR) inhibitor) and dovitinib (vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF-2) inhibitor) demonstrate activity in metastatic clear cell renal cancer. The combination of these agents has a broad spectrum of relevant activity. The combination is explored in this phase Ib study.MethodsPatients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer who have failed VEGF targeted therapy were eligible. Up to four cohorts of three to six patients (3+3 design) were treated with escalating doses of everolimus and dovitinib. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). An expansion cohort (n = 15) was investigated to obtain additional efficacy information. Sequential fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) was used as a surrogate marker of response.ResultsOverall 18 patients were recruited into the study. Fifteen patients received the MTD, which was everolimus 5 mg orally (PO) once daily (OD) and dovitinib 200 mg PO day 1–5/7. The MTD was associated with toxicity, which included fatigue, mucositis and diarrhoea in 73%, 53% and 53% (Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 1–4) of patients, respectively. Frequent biochemical abnormalities occurred (such as hypertriglyceridaemia in 67%). Higher doses of the combination were not tolerable due to grade 3 fatigue in 2/3 patients and grade 3 nausea in 1/3 patients within 1 month of therapy. The response rate at the MDT was 1/15 (7%) while the progression free survival for the MTD was 7 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2–11 months). Pharmacokinetic data at the MTD showed stable kinetics with time.ConclusionDovitinib and everolimus had modest activity, but did not meet all of the planned efficacy end-points. Fatigue was the dose limiting toxicity.     

First-Line Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Inhibition in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Analysis of Practice Patterns From the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

Introduction/BackgroundApproval of the mTOR inhibitors for the treatment of mRCC was based on efficacy in poor-risk patients in the first-line setting for temsirolimus and in vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor-refractory patients for everolimus. We strove to characterize temsirolimus and everolimus use and effectiveness in the first-line setting.Patients and MethodsWe performed a retrospective database analysis of mRCC patients who received mTOR inhibitors as first-line targeted therapy. The Kaplan-Meier product-limit method was used to estimate the distribution of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsWe identified 127 mRCC patients who had received a first-line mTOR inhibitor. Temsirolimus was administered in 93 patients (73%) and everolimus in 34 patients (27%). The main reasons for choice of temsirolimus were poor-risk disease (38%), non-clear cell histology (27%), and clinical trial availability (15%), whereas clinical trial (82%) and non-clear cell histology (6%) drove everolimus selection. Of the temsirolimus and everolimus patients, 58% and 32% were poor-risk according to the International mRCC Database Consortium criteria, respectively. The median PFS and OS were 3.4 and 12.5 months and 4.8 and 15.9 months with temsirolimus and everolimus, respectively. Although limited by small numbers, this study characterizes a real-world, international experience with the use of mTOR inhibition in treatment-naive mRCC patients.ConclusionPoor-risk RCC, non-clear cell histology, and clinical trials were the predominant reasons for mTOR inhibitor selection in the front-line setting. Because of the different patient populations in which they were administered, direct comparisons of the front-line efficacy of temsirolimus and everolimus cannot be made.     

An open-label randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of everolimus versus tacrolimus in triple maintenance immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplant patients

Tacrolimus (TAC), a calcineurin inhibitor, and everolimus (EVL), an mTOR inhibitor, have been used as immunosuppressive (ISS) drugs in post-kidney transplantation therapy. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of EVL vs TAC in the ISS maintenance triple therapy. Ninety-seven kidney transplant patients, who received triple maintenance therapy with TAC, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and methyl prednisone (PRED), were evaluated. After four months of post-kidney transplant therapy, 30 patients enrolled in a randomized controlled clinical trial, in which 16 patients received TAC+MMF+PRED (cohort 1), and 14 patients switched to EVL+MMF+PRED (cohort 2). The patients were followed-up for 36 months. Two patients from cohort 1 lost their grafts after one year due to non-adherence. Two patients from cohort 2 had intolerance to mTOR inhibitors and were switched back to TAC from EVL. One case (6.25%) in cohort 1 and three cases (21.43%) in cohort 2 of acute T-cell-mediated rejection was observed. Antibody-mediated acute rejection (ABMAR) was observed in four patients (25.0%) in cohort 1, and antibody-mediated chronic rejection (ABMCR) was observed in two patients (12.50%). One patient from cohort 2 lost the graft after 15 months due to polyomavirus infection. The graft survival rate was 87.50% in cohort 1 and 92.86% in cohort 2. This clinical trial showed that the EVL+MMF+PRED triple maintenance therapy was efficacious compared with TAC during 32 months of follow-up. However, further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of this regimen for long-term graft survival.