A. Polyzos

FOLFOXIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) vs FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan) as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC): a multicentre randomised phase III trial from the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG)

To compare the efficacy and toxicity of oxaliplatin (L-OHP) in combination with irinotecan (CPT-11), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) (FOLFOXIRI) vs irinotecan and 5-FU/LV (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). A total of 283 chemotherapy-naïve patients with MCC were enrolled (FOLFIRI arm: n=146; FOLFOXIRI arm: n=137). In the FOLFOXIRI arm, CPT-11 (150 mg m−2) was given on d1, L-OHP (65 mg m−2) on d2, LV (200 mg m−2) on days 2 and 3 and 5-FU (400 mg m−2 as i.v. bolus and 600 mg m−2 as 22 h i.v. continuous infusion) on days 2 and 3. In the FOLFIRI arm, CPT-11 (180 mg m−2) was given on d1 whereas LV and 5-FU were administered in the same way as in the FOLFOXIRI regimen. Both regimens were administered every 2 weeks. There was no difference in terms of overall survival (median OS: 19.5 and 21.5 months, for FOLFIRI and FOLFOXIRI, respectively; P=0.337), median time to disease progression (FOLFIRI: 6.9 and FOLFOXIRI: 8.4 months; P=0.17), response rates (33.6 and 43% for FOLFIRI and FOLFOXIRI, respectively; P=0.168). Patients treated with FOLFOXIRI had a significantly higher incidence of alopecia (P=0.0001), diarrhoea (P=0.0001) and neurosensory toxicity (P=0.001) compared with patients treated with FOLFIRI. The present study failed to demonstrate any superiority of the FOLFOXIRI combination compared with the FOLFIRI regimen, although the observed median OS is one of the best ever reported in the literature.

A multicenter phase III trial comparing irinotecan-gemcitabine (IG) with gemcitabine (G) monotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer

Our purpose was to determine the response rate and median and overall survival of gemcitabine as monotherapy versus gemcitabine plus irinotecan in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma who were chemotherapy and radiotherapy naive were enrolled. Patients were centrally randomised at a one-to-one ratio to receive either gemcitabine monotherapy (900 mg m−2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks (arm G), or gemcitabine (days 1 and 8) plus irinotecan (300 mg m−2 on day 8) (arm IG), repeated every 3 weeks. The total number of cycles administered was 255 in the IG arm and 245 in the G arm; the median number of cycles was 3. In all, 145 patients (71 in arm IG and 74 in arm G) were enrolled; 60 and 70 patients from arms IG and G, respectively, were evaluable. A complete clinical response was achieved in three (4.3%) arm G patients; nine (15%) patients in arm IG and four (5.7%) in arm G achieved a partial response. The overall response rate was: arm IG 15% and arm G 10% (95% CI 5.96–24.04 and 95% CI 2.97–17.03, respectively; P=0.387). The median time to tumour progression was 2.8 months and 2.9 months and median survival time was 6.4 and 6.5 months for the IG and G arms, respectively. One-year survival was 24.3% for the IG arm and 21.8% for the G arm. No statistically significant difference was observed comparing gemcitabine monotherapy versus gemcitabine plus irinotecan in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, with respect to overall and 1-year survival.

Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin As Front-Line Treatment of Patients With Advanced Non—Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase III Trial

PURPOSE To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) or docetaxel (D) alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DC (n = 167; docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 2, and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) 150 microg/m(2)/d on days 3 to 9) or D (n = 152; 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 without rhG-CSF) every 3 weeks. RESULTS The overall response rates were 36.5% for DC (three complete responses and 58 partial responses) and 21.7% for D (one complete response and 32 partial responses; P =.004). The median OS was 10.5 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) and 8.0 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) for DC and D, respectively (P =.200). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 44% and 19% for DC and 43% and 15% for D, respectively. Median times to tumor progression were 4.0 and 2.5 months for DC and D, respectively (P =.580). Grade 2/3 anemia was significantly higher with DC than with D (33% v 16%; P =.0001). Fifteen (9%) DC and 12 (8%) D patients developed febrile neutropenia. Grade 3/4 nausea/vomiting (P =.0001), diarrhea (P =.007), neurotoxicity (P =.017), and nephroroxicity (P =.006) were significantly more common with DC than with D. There were five treatment-related deaths in the DC group and one in the D (P =.098). CONCLUSION DC regimen resulted in a higher response rate but without improvement in median time to tumor progression or OS compared with D. D could be a reasonable front-line chemotherapy for patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Carboplatin Administration Are Common but Not Always Severe: A 10-Year Experience

We have retrospectively evaluated and characterized the hypersensitivity reactions associated with carboplatin administration in ovarian cancer patients treated mainly on an outpatient basis at the Laikon Hospital from 1988 to 1998. A total of 240 patients, who had never been exposed to platinum compounds previously, received carboplatin plus cyclophosphamide (n = 58) or paclitaxel (n = 136) intravenously, and intraperitoneal carboplatin plus intravenous cyclophosphamide (n = 46). The median number of carboplatin courses was 6 (range 3–12) and 5 (range 4–6) for the intravenous and intraperitoneal treatment regimens, respectively. Thirty-two of 194 patients (16%) who were on intravenous carboplatin treatment developed symptoms compatible with a hypersensitivity reaction to carboplatin, that was always verified by manifestation of at least similar symptoms on rechallenging. In contrast, in the group of 46 patients on intraperitoneal carboplatin treatment, no hypersensitivity reaction was ever noticed. Hypersensitivity reactions always occurred after administration of the first 4 intravenous courses of carboplatin; 4, 19, 4, and 5 reactions occurred at the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th courses, respectively. These reactions could be distinguished in: (a) mild hypersensitivity reactions in 20 of 194 patients, which manifested as itching (20 patients) and small area erythema plus erythema of the palms and soles (12 patients), occurring either during intravenous injection when most of the drug scheduled had been administered, or within 3 days, and (b) in severe reactions in 12 of 194 patients, which manifested acutely as itching, diffuse erythroderma, rigor, facial swelling, throat and chest tightness, tachycardia (12 patients) and bronchospasm (2 patients), and hypertension or hypotension in 8 and 4 patients, respectively. With appropriate symptomatic management, discontinuation of carboplatin treatment was not required in patients with mild hypersensitivity reactions, but none of the 12 patients with severe reactions was able to receive a full subsequent dose of carboplatin on rechallenging. However, in 4 of these 12 patients carboplatin was replaced by cisplatin, which was given for 4–6 courses without side effects. These findings indicate that although hypersensitivity reactions are common in general, occurring in almost 1 of every 6 patients treated intravenously with carboplatin, their clinical picture is variable, leading to discontinuation of treatment in only 6% of patients. This is not the case when the intraperitoneal route of carboplatin administration is used when indicated.

Randomized Phase III Study of 1 Month Versus 1 Year of Adjuvant High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b in Patients With Resected High-Risk Melanoma

PURPOSE A high-dose interferon alfa (IFN-alpha) regimen as reported in E1684 was unique for the incorporation of an induction phase of maximally tolerated dosages of intravenous (IV) therapy for the initial 4 weeks. This is the only trial that has shown prolongation of overall survival and relapse-free survival (RFS) in comparison with observation. Analysis of the hazard curves for RFS and overall survival (OS) in E1684 revealed separation of the high-dose and observation arms, suggesting that the induction phase may represent a critical component of this regimen, although this has not been tested prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a prospective randomized study of IV induction therapy versus a full year of high-dose IFN, with primary end points of RFS and OS for patients with stage IIB, IIC, and III melanoma, within 56 days of curative surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive IFN-alpha-2b 15 x 10(6) U/m2 IV x 5/7 days weekly x 4 weeks (arm A) versus the same regimen followed by IFN-alpha-2b 10 x 10(6) U (flat dose) administered subcutaneously three times a week for 48 weeks (arm B). RESULTS Between 1998 and 2004, 364 patients were enrolled (353 eligible: arm A, n = 177; arm B, n = 176). At a median follow-up of 63 months (95% CI, 58.1 to 67.7), the median RFS was 24.1 months versus 27.9 months (P = .9) and the median OS was 64.4 months versus 65.3 months (P = .49). Patients in arm B had more grade 1 to 2 hepatotoxicity, nausea/vomiting, alopecia, and neurologic toxicity. CONCLUSION There were no significant differences in OS and RFS between the regimens of 1 month and 1 year of treatment.

Prognostic significance of the sequential detection of circulating melanoma cells by RT–PCR in high-risk melanoma patients receiving adjuvant interferon

The purpose of this study was to address the prognostic significance of circulating melanoma cells by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in the peripheral blood of stage IIB and III melanoma patients on high-dose adjuvant interferon at multiple sequential time points from initiation of treatment. Tyrosinase mRNA in peripheral blood from these patients was assayed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction prior to initiation of adjuvant interferon, at completion of 1 month of intravenous interferon and at 3 monthly intervals until progression. Four hundred and eighteen blood samples from 60 melanoma patients were analysed. The median follow-up time calculated from the time of inclusion in the study was 23 months (range 2–38 months). Tyrosinase mRNA in blood was detected in 42 (70%) of 60 patients: 16 (76%) of 21 stage IIB patients and 26 (66% ) of 39 stage III patients. The presence of tyrosinase mRNA in blood was correlated with a shorter disease-free survival (P : 0.03) and in multivariante analysis was an indepent prognostic factor for relapse. Patients who seroconverted to a negative reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction after induction treatment had a significantly lower probability of recurrence. The presence of circulating melanoma cells is a marker of a high relapse risk and shorter disease-free survival whether detected postoperatively or during follow-up. Tyrosinase mRNA amplification by reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction may be a useful tool for monitoring the efficacy of adjuvant treatment in stage IIB and III melanoma patients.

Second-line treatment with irinotecan plus cisplatin vs cisplatin of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer pretreated with taxanes and gemcitabine: a multicenter randomised phase II study.

The aim of this study was to compare the irinotecan/cisplatin regimen with cisplatin as second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) pretreated with a taxane/gemcitabine regimen. Patients (n=147) with stage IV NSCLC pretreated with a taxane/gemcitabine regimen were randomly assigned to receive either irinotecan (110 mg m−2, day 1 and 100 mg m−2, day 8) and cisplatin (80 mg m−2, day 8) (IC; n=74) or CDDP (80 mg m−2, day 1) (C; n=73) every 3 weeks. Patients treated with IC and C had a median survival of 7.8 and 8.8 months, respectively (P=0.933). The 1-year survival rate was 34.3% for IC-treated patients and 31.7% for C-treated patients. Coxs regression analysis revealed that response to treatment (hazard ratio (HR)=2.787; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1578–4.922) and performance status (HR=1.865; 95% CI: 1.199–2.872) was independent prognostic factors for survival. Overall response rate was 22.5% (95% CI: 12.8–32.2%) for IC-treated patients and 7.0% (95% CI: 1.15–13.6%) for C-treated patients (P=0.012); tumour growth control (partial remission (PR)+stable disease (SD)) was observed in 26 (38%) IC and 25 (36%) C patients (P=0.878). There was no difference in terms of quality of life between the two chemotherapy arms. The incidence of febrile neutropenia, grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea was significantly higher in the IC- than the C-treated patients. Other toxicities were mild. There were no treatment-related deaths in either arm. The IC regimen did not confer a survival benefit compared with C as second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC pretreated with a taxane/gemcitabine regimen, despite its better efficacy in terms of response rate.

Survivin beyond physiology: Orchestration of multistep carcinogenesis and therapeutic potentials

Survivin, a member of the inhibitor of apoptosis protein family, has been associated with protection from cell apoptosis and regulation of mitosis. Survivin exhibits low to undetectable expression in most finally differentiated adult tissues but is abundantly over-expressed in almost all cancers. The aberrant high expression of survivin in cancers is associated with advanced disease, increased rate of tumor recurrence, abbreviated overall survival and resistance to chemo- and radio- therapy. Survivin touches nearly every aspect of cancer and is involved in the initiation, maintenance and development of tumor. Therefore, its significance in cancer dictates the pursuit for anti-survivin cancer therapies.

Randomised phase-II trial of CAPIRI (capecitabine, irinotecan) plus bevacizumab vs FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan) plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of patients with unresectable/metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

Background:To compare the efficacy and safety of CAPIRI+bevacizumab (Bev) in comparison with FOLFIRI+Bev as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Methods:Patients were randomised to receive either FOLFIRI plus Bev 5 mg kg−1 every 2 weeks (Arm-A) or CAPIRI plus Bev 7.5 mg kg−1 every 3 weeks (Arm-B).Results:Three hundred thirty-three patients (Arm-A=167; Arm-B=166) were enrolled into the study. No difference was observed in median progression-free survival (PFS) (10.0 and 8.9 months; P=0.64), overall survival (25.7 and 27.5 months; P=0.55) or response rates (45.5 and 39.8.7%; P=0.32) for FOLFIRI-Bev and CAPIRI-Bev, respectively. Patients treated with CAPIRI-Bev presented significantly higher incidence of diarrhoea (P=0.005), febrile neutropenia (P=0.003) and hand–foot skin reactions (P=0.02) compared with patients treated with FOLFIRI-Bev. Treatment delays (P=0.05), dose reduction (P<0.001) and treatment discontinuation owing to toxicity (P=0.01) occurred more frequently in the CAPIRI-Bev arm.Conclusion:The PFS of FOLFIRI-BEV is not superior to that observed with the CAPIRI-Bev regimen. CAPIRI-Bev has a less favourable toxicity profile, requiring dose reductions, in order to be considered as an option in first-line treatment of patients with mCRC.

Immunotherapy for advanced melanoma: Fulfilling the promise

The incidence of melanoma is increasing worldwide and despite early detection and intervention, the number of patients dying from metastatic disease continues to rise. The prognosis of advanced melanoma remains poor, with median survival between 6 and 9 months. Over the past thirty years and despite extensive clinical research, the treatment options for metastatic disease were limited and melanoma is still considered as one of the most therapy-resistant malignancies. Single-agent and combination chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, biochemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted agent therapy and combination regimes failed to show significant improvement in overall survival. Recent advances and in-depth understanding of the biology of melanoma, have contributed in the development of new agents. Based on the molecular and immunological background of the disease, the new drugs have shown benefit in overall and progression free survival. As the picture of the disease begins to change, oncologists need to alter their approach to melanoma treatment and consider disease biology together with targeted individualized treatment. In this review the authors attempt to offer an insight in present and past melanoma treatment options, with a focus on the recently approved immunotherapeutic agents and the clinical perspectives of these new weapons against metastatic melanoma.