Antonio Casado

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Primary Surgery in Stage IIIC or IV Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND Primary debulking surgery before initiation of chemotherapy has been the standard of care for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma, fallopian-tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma to primary debulking surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy or to neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy followed by debulking surgery (so-called interval debulking surgery). RESULTS Of the 670 patients randomly assigned to a study treatment, 632 (94.3%) were eligible and started the treatment. The majority of these patients had extensive stage IIIC or IV disease at primary debulking surgery (metastatic lesions that were larger than 5 cm in diameter in 74.5% of patients and larger than 10 cm in 61.6%). The largest residual tumor was 1 cm or less in diameter in 41.6% of patients after primary debulking and in 80.6% of patients after interval debulking. Postoperative rates of adverse effects and mortality tended to be higher after primary debulking than after interval debulking. The hazard ratio for death (intention-to-treat analysis) in the group assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking, as compared with the group assigned to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy, was 0.98 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.13; P=0.01 for noninferiority), and the hazard ratio for progressive disease was 1.01 (90% CI, 0.89 to 1.15). Complete resection of all macroscopic disease (at primary or interval surgery) was the strongest independent variable in predicting overall survival. CONCLUSIONS Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery was not inferior to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy as a treatment option for patients with bulky stage IIIC or IV ovarian carcinoma in this study. Complete resection of all macroscopic disease, whether performed as primary treatment or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, remains the objective whenever cytoreductive surgery is performed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003636.)

Deletions Affecting Codons 557-558 of the c-KIT Gene Indicate a Poor Prognosis in Patients With Completely Resected Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Study by the Spanish Group for Sarcoma Research (GEIS)

PURPOSE To explore the prognostic value of mutations in c-KIT and PDGFR-alpha genes with respect to relapse-free survival (RFS) in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). We have investigated the prognostic relevance of the type and position of the mutations, in addition to other clinicopathologic factors, in a large series of patients with GIST. METHODS For this study, 162 patients were selected according to the following criteria: completely resected tumors with negative margins attended between 1994 and 2001; no metastasis at diagnosis; tumor larger than 2 cm, c-KIT-positive immunostaining; and no other primary tumors. RESULTS The median follow-up was 42 months for patients free of recurrence. Mutations were detected in 96 tumors (60%): 82 cases involving c-KIT and 14 cases involving PDFGR-alpha. Univariate analysis demonstrated the following as poor prognostic factors for RFS: tumors larger than 10 cm (P < .0001); mitotic count higher than 10 mitoses per 50 high-power fields (P < .0001); high risk index (P < .0001); intestinal GIST location (P = .0041); high cellularity (P < .0001); tumor necrosis (P < .0001); deletions affecting exon 11 (P = .0007); and deletions affecting codons 557 to 558 (P < .0001). After the multivariate analysis, only the high risk index (relative risk [RR], 12.36), high cellularity (RR, 3.97), and deletions affecting codons 557 to 558 of c-KIT (RR, 2.57) corresponded to independent prognostic factors for RFS in GIST patients. CONCLUSION Deletions affecting codons 557 to 558 are relevant for the prognosis of RFS in GIST patients. This critical genetic alteration should be considered to be a new prognostic stratification variable for randomized trials exploring imatinib mesylate in the adjuvant setting in GIST patients.

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: final results of the phase III Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM) trial

BACKGROUND We aimed to compare the additional benefit of gemcitabine when combined with vinorelbine above that of standard vinorelbine treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS In this phase III, multicentre, open-label, randomised study, 252 women with locally recurrent and metastatic breast cancer who had been pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes were randomly assigned single-agent vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8) or gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (1200/30 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8). Both study treatments were administered intravenously every 21 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or stoppage at the request of investigator or patient. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included assessments of response rate, disease duration, overall survival, and characterisation of the toxicity profiles of both regimens. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00128310. FINDINGS Between 2001 and 2005, 252 women were recruited and randomised for treatment. One of these patients was ineligible. Prognostic factors were well balanced between treatment groups (median number of metastatic sites in combination group 2 (range 0-5) and in vinorelbine group 2 (range 1-6); visceral disease in 76% and 75% of patients, respectively). Median progression-free survival was 6.0 months (95% CI 4.8-7.1) for patients given gemcitabine plus vinorelbine and 4.0 months (2.9-5.1) for those assigned vinorelbine; there was 1.9 months of difference (hazard ratio 0.66 [0.50-0.88]; p=0.0028). Overall survival was 15.9 months (12.6-19.1) for the gemcitabine plus vinorelbine group and 16.4 months (11.6-21.0) for the vinorelbine group; there was 0.5 months of difference (hazard ratio 1.04 [0.78-1.39]; p=0.8046). Objective response rates were 36% for patients assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (n=45) and 26% for those assigned vinorelbine (n=33) (p=0.093). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was reported in 75 (61% [52-70]) of the participants assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine, compared with 55 (44% [35-53]) of those assigned vinorelbine alone (p=0.0074). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 13 (11%) of those assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine, and in seven (6%) of those assigned vinorelbine alone (p=0.15). Incidences of grade 3 or 4 non-haematological toxic effects were similar between the two treatment groups. INTERPRETATION Patients with metastatic breast cancer assigned gemcitabine and vinorelbine had better progression-free survival compared with those assigned vinorelbine alone. However, this finding did not translate into a difference in overall survival. Although toxicity was manageable, patients in the combined group had more haematological toxic effects. These factors should be taken into account when deciding which chemotherapy patients should receive.

Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Gemcitabine Plus Dacarbazine Versus Dacarbazine Alone in Patients With Previously Treated Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas Study

PURPOSE To assess the activity and toxicity of the combination of gemcitabine plus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in a randomized, multicenter, phase II study using DTIC alone as a control arm. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously treated advanced STS were randomly assigned to receive either fixed-dose rate gemcitabine (10 mg/m2/min) at 1800 mg/m2 followed by DTIC at 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks, or DTIC alone at 1200 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The primary end point of the study was progression-free rate (PFR) at 3 months. RESULTS From November 2005 to September 2008, 113 patients were included. PFR at 3 months was 56% for gemcitabine plus DTIC versus 37% for DTIC alone (P = .001). Median progression-free survival was 4.2 months versus 2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.86; P = .005), and median overall survival was 16.8 months versus 8.2 months (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.90; P = .014); both favored the arm of gemcitabine plus DTIC. Gemcitabine plus DTIC was also associated with a higher objective response or higher stable disease rate than was DTIC alone (49% v 25%; P = .009). Severe toxicities were uncommon, and treatment discontinuation for toxicity was rare. Granulocytopenia was the more common serious adverse event, but febrile neutropenia was uncommon. Asthenia, emesis, and stomatitis were the most frequent nonhematologic effects. CONCLUSION The combination of gemcitabine and DTIC is active and well tolerated in patients with STS, providing in this phase II randomized trial superior progression-free survival and overall survival than DTIC alone. This regimen constitutes a valuable therapeutic alternative for these patients.

Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Sequential With Concomitant Administration of Doxorubicin and Docetaxel As First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM-9903) Phase III Study

PURPOSE This randomized, multicenter, phase III trial evaluated whether sequential doxorubicin and docetaxel (A-->T) reduced hematological toxicity, especially febrile neutropenia, compared with concomitant (AT) administration as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred forty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days followed by three cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2), every 21 days (A-->T) or six cycles of the combination doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) (AT) every 21 days. Patients previously treated with anthracyclines received two cycles of doxorubicin followed by four cycles of docetaxel (A-->T), or three cycles of AT followed by three cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) every 21 days. RESULTS Febrile neutropenia was less common in the A-->T arm (29.3% of patients, 6.9% of cycles) compared with the AT arm (47.8% of patients, 14.8% of cycles; P =.02 and P =.0004, respectively). Asthenia, diarrhea, and fever occurred more frequently in the AT arm. The overall responses rates were 61% in the A-->T arm (95% CI, 50% to 72%) and 51% in the AT arm (95% CI, 39% to 63%). The median duration of response was 8.7 months (A-->T) and 7.6 months (AT); the median time to progression was 10.5 months (A-->T) and 9.2 months (AT); the median overall survival was 22.3 months (A-->T) and 21.8 months (AT); and no significant differences were found. CONCLUSION A-->T significantly reduced febrile neutropenia compared with AT in MBC patients and maintains comparable antitumoral efficacy. A-->T represents a valid option for the treatment of MBC.

Primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer

Advanced ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis. De-bulking surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy are the cornerstones of the treatment. Primary debulking surgery has been the standard of care in advanced ovarian cancer. Recently a new strategy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery has been developed. In a recently published randomised trial of the EORTC-NCIC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer - National Cancer Institute Canada) in patients with extensive stage IIIc and IV ovarian cancer it was shown that the survival was similar for patients randomised to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking compared to primary debulking surgery, followed by chemotherapy. The post-operative complications and mortality rates were lower after interval debulking than after primary debulking surgery. The most important independent prognostic factor for overall survival was no residual tumour after primary or interval debulking surgery. In some patients obtaining the goal of no residual tumour at interval debulking is difficult due to chemotherapy-induced fibrosis. On the other hand the patients randomised had very extensive stage IIIc and IV disease and in patients with metastases smaller than 5 cm the survival tended to be better after primary debulking surgery. Hence, selection of the correct patients with stage IIIc or IV ovarian cancer for primary debulking or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery is important. Besides imaging with CT, diffusion MRI and/or PET-CT, also laparoscopy can play an important role in the selection of patients. It should be emphasised that the group of patients included in this study had extensive stage IIIc or IV disease. Surgical skills, especially in the upper abdomen, remain pivotal in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. However, very aggressive surgery should be tailored according to the general condition and extent of the disease of the patients. Otherwise, this type of aggressive surgery will result in unnecessary postoperative morbidity and mortality without improving survival. Hence, neoadjuvant chemotherapy should not be an easy way out, but is in some patients with stage IIIc or IV ovarian cancer a better alternative treatment option than primary debulking. According to the current treatment algorithm at the University Hospitals Leuven about 50% of the patients with stage IIIc or IV ovarian cancer are selected for neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Surgical Staging and Treatment of Early Ovarian Cancer: Long-term Analysis From a Randomized Trial

A long-term follow-up analysis of the randomized clinical trial Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Ovarian Neoplasm (ACTION) from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was undertaken to determine whether the original results with a median follow-up of 5.5 years could be verified after longer follow-up with more events. In the ACTION trial, 448 patients with early ovarian cancer were randomly assigned, after surgery, to adjuvant chemotherapy or to observation (no further treatment). The original analysis found that adjuvant chemotherapy improved recurrence-free survival but not overall survival and found in a subgroup analysis that completeness of surgical staging was an independent prognostic factor, with better recurrence-free and overall survival among those with complete (optimal) surgical staging. After a median follow-up of 10.1 years, we analyzed the more mature data from the ACTION trial and found support for most of the main conclusions of the original analysis, except that overall survival after optimal surgical staging was improved, even among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio of death = 1.89, 95% confidence interval = 0.99 to 3.60; overall two-sided log-rank test P = .05). More cancer-specific deaths were observed among nonoptimally staged patients (40 [27%] of the 147 deaths in the observation arm and 11 [14%] of the 76 deaths in the adjuvant chemotherapy arm) than among optimally staged patients (seven [9%] of the 75 deaths in the observation arm and 11 [14%] of the 76 deaths in the adjuvant chemotherapy arm) (two-sided chi(2) test for heterogeneity, P = .06). Thus, completeness of surgical staging in patients with early ovarian cancer was found to be statistically significantly associated with better outcomes, and the benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy appeared to be restricted to patients with nonoptimal surgical staging.

Abagovomab as maintenance therapy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: A phase III trial of the AGO OVAR, COGI, GINECO, and GEICO-the MIMOSA study

PURPOSE To determine whether abagovomab maintenance therapy prolongs recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with ovarian cancer in first clinical remission. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III to IV ovarian cancer in complete clinical remission after primary surgery and platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:1 in a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Abagovomab 2 mg or placebo was administered as 1-mL suspension once every 2 weeks for 6 weeks (induction phase) and then once every 4 weeks (maintenance phase) until recurrence or up to 21 months after random assignment of the last patient. The primary end point was RFS; secondary end points were OS and immunologic response. RESULTS Characteristics of the 888 patients included: mean age, 56.3 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, ≤ 1 in > 99% of patients; serous papillary subtype, 81.5%; stage III, 85.9%; and cancer antigen 125 ≤ 35 U/mL after third cycle, 80.9%. Mean exposure to study treatment (± standard deviation) was 449.7 ± 333.08 days. Hazard ratio (HR) of RFS for the treatment group using tumor size categorization (≤ 1 cm, > 1 cm) was 1.099 (95% CI, 0.919 to 1.315; P = .301). HR of OS using tumor size categorization (≤ 1 cm, > 1 cm) was 1.150 (95% CI, 0.872 to 1.518; P = .322). The most frequently reported type of adverse event was an injection site reaction in 445 patients (50.2%), followed by injection site erythema and fatigue in 227 (25.6%) and 212 patients (23.9%), respectively. By the final visit, median anti-anti-idiotypic antibody level was 493,000.0 ng/mL, indicating a robust response. CONCLUSION Abagovomab administered as repeated monthly injections is safe and induces a measurable immune response. Administration as maintenance therapy for patients with ovarian cancer in first remission does not prolong RFS or OS.

Randomized Phase III Study of Erlotinib Versus Observation in Patients With No Evidence of Disease Progression After First-Line Platin-Based Chemotherapy for Ovarian Carcinoma: A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Gynaecological Cancer Group, and Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Study

PURPOSE This trial evaluated the efficacy of maintenance erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, after first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had high-risk International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I or stage II to IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer and were not selected for EGFR expression. All patients underwent first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) and showed no signs of progression at the end of CT. Patients were randomly assigned to maintenance erlotinib 150 mg orally daily for 2 years or to observation. EGFR immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and mutation analyses were performed in 318 patients. RESULTS Between October 2005 and February 2008, 835 patients were randomly assigned (median follow-up, 51 months). Twenty-six percent of the patients stopped erlotinib as a result of adverse effects (of these, 67% were due to rash). For erlotinib and observation, respectively, the median progression-free survival was 12.7 and 12.4 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.23), and the median overall survival was 50.8 and 59.1 months (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20 months), respectively. No subgroup could be identified with improved effect of erlotinib, based on IHC or FISH for EGFR, or mutations in genes related to the EGFR pathway, or on rash during erlotinib therapy. However, patients with a positive FISH EGFR score had a worse overall survival (46.1 months) than those with a negative score (67.0 months; HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.40; P = .044). Global health/quality-of-life scores showed a significant difference during the first year (P = .0102) in favor of the observation arm. CONCLUSION Maintenance erlotinib after first-line treatment in ovarian cancer did not improve progression-free or overall survival.

Efficacy of Sequential High-Dose Doxorubicin and Ifosfamide Compared With Standard-Dose Doxorubicin in Patients With Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Open-Label Randomized Phase II Study of the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas

PURPOSE To assess the progression-free survival (PFS) and antitumor response to standard-dose doxorubicin compared with sequential dose-dense doxorubicin and ifosfamide in first-line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with measurable advanced soft tissue sarcoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) < 2, between the ages 18 and 65 years, and with adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function were entered in the study. The stratifications were: ECOG PS (0 v 1), location of metastases, and potentially resectable disease. Patients were randomly assigned to either doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) given as a bolus injection every 3 weeks for 6 cycles (arm A) or doxorubicin at 30 mg/m(2) per day for 3 consecutive days once every 2 weeks for 3 cycles followed by ifosfamide at 12.5 g/m(2) delivered by continuous infusion over 5 days once every 3 weeks for 3 cycles with filgastrim or pegfilgastrim support (arm B). RESULTS Between December 2003 and September 2007, 132 patients were entered onto the study. Febrile neutropenia, asthenia, and mucositis were more frequent in the arm B. The interim preplanned analysis for futility allowed the premature closure. Objective responses were observed in 23.4% of assessable patients in arm A and 24.1% in arm B. PFS was 26 weeks in the arm A and 24 weeks in arm B (P = .88). Overall survival did not differ between the two therapeutic arms (P = .14). CONCLUSION Single-agent doxorubicin remains the standard treatment in fit patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma.