D. Spooner

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND The role of adjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer remains uncertain. The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC) assessed the roles of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in a randomised study. METHODS After resection, patients were randomly assigned to adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (20 Gy in ten daily fractions over 2 weeks with 500 mg/m(2) fluorouracil intravenously on days 1-3, repeated after 2 weeks) or chemotherapy (intravenous fluorouracil 425 mg/m(2) and folinic acid 20 mg/m(2) daily for 5 days, monthly for 6 months). Clinicians could randomise patients into a two-by-two factorial design (observation, chemoradiotherapy alone, chemotherapy alone, or both) or into one of the main treatment comparisons (chemoradiotherapy versus no chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy). The primary endpoint was death, and all analyses were by intention to treat. Findings 541 eligible patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were randomised: 285 in the two-by-two factorial design (70 chemoradiotherapy, 74 chemotherapy, 72 both, 69 observation); a further 68 patients were randomly assigned chemoradiotherapy or no chemoradiotherapy and 188 chemotherapy or no chemotherapy. Median follow-up of the 227 (42%) patients still alive was 10 months (range 0-62). Overall results showed no benefit for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (median survival 15.5 months in 175 patients with chemoradiotherapy vs 16.1 months in 178 patients without; hazard ratio 1.18 [95% CI 0.90-1.55], p=0.24). There was evidence of a survival benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy (median survival 19.7 months in 238 patients with chemotherapy vs 14.0 months in 235 patients without; hazard ratio 0.66 [0.52-0.83], p=0.0005). Interpretation This study showed no survival benefit for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy but revealed a potential benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy, justifying further randomised controlled trials of adjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer.

Influence of resection margins on survival for patients with pancreatic cancer treated by adjuvant chemoradiation and/or chemotherapy in the ESPAC-1 randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveTo assess the influence of resection margins on survival for patients with resected pancreatic cancer treated within the context of the adjuvant European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer-1 (ESPAC-1) study. Summary Background DataPancreatic cancer is associated with a poor long-term survival rate of only 10% to 15% after resection. Patients with positive microscopic resection margins (R1) have a worse survival, but it is not known how they fare in adjuvant studies. MethodsESPAC-1, the largest randomized adjuvant study of resectable pancreatic cancer ever performed, set out to look at the roles of chemoradiation and chemotherapy. Randomization was stratified prospectively by resection margin status. ResultsOf 541 patients with a median follow-up of 10 months, 101 (19%) had R1 resections. Resection margin status was confirmed as an influential prognostic factor, with a median survival of 10.9 months for R1 versus 16.9 months months for patients with R0 margins. Resection margin status remained an independent factor in a Cox proportional hazards model only in the absence of tumor grade and nodal status. There was a survival benefit for chemotherapy but not chemoradiation, irrespective of R0/R1 status. The median survival was 19.7 months with chemotherapy versus 14.0 months without. For patients with R0 margins, chemotherapy produced longer survival compared with to no chemotherapy. This difference was less apparent for the smaller subgroup of R1 patients, but there was no significant heterogeneity between the R0 and R1 groups. ConclusionsResection margin-positive pancreatic tumors represent a biologically more aggressive cancer; these patients benefit from resection and adjuvant chemotherapy but not chemoradiation. The magnitude of benefit for chemotherapy treatment is reduced for patients with R1 margins versus those with R0 margins. Patients with R1 tumors should be included in future trials of adjuvant treatments and randomization and analysis should be stratified by this significant prognostic factor.

A comparison of two short intensive adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in operable osteosarcoma of limbs in children and young adults: the first study of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup.

PURPOSE A randomized pilot study was undertaken to assess the acute and chronic toxicities of two short intensive chemotherapy regimens, and to evaluate the feasibility of conservative surgery in this setting. Additional aims were to determine the clinical and radiologic response and the degree of histologic necrosis after chemotherapy. With extension of the study, eventual accrual was sufficient to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between July 1983 and December 1986, the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup (EOI) entered 198 eligible patients with classic high-grade extremity osteosarcoma onto a randomized trial that compared doxorubicin (DOX) 25 mg/m2/d times three, intravenous (IV) bolus plus cisplatin (CDDP) 100 mg/m2, 24 hour infusion, every 3 weeks times six; the same combination was preceded 10 days earlier by high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) 8 g/m2, 6-hour infusion, every 4.5 weeks times four. In the majority of patients (179), chemotherapy was commenced after biopsy; definitive surgery was scheduled at 9 weeks in both groups. RESULTS Toxicities for both regimens did not differ substantially from those that occurred in other trials of adjuvant chemotherapy in osteosarcoma. Local recurrence (9%) and surgical complications (18%) after conservative surgery were acceptable. With a median follow-up of 53 months, DFS at 5 years is superior (P = .02) for DOX/CDDP, 57% versus 41%, although OS, 64% versus 50%, is not different significantly (P = .10). In a subset of 66 patients for whom pathologic data on the resected specimen were available, DFS (P = .003) and OS (P = .008) were better for those who demonstrated > or = 90% necrosis. CONCLUSION A brief intensive chemotherapy regimen of DOX/CDDP has produced excellent long-term results, which are similar to those that have been achieved in cooperative group studies of longer, more complex multiagent chemotherapy, and provide the basis for a direct comparison in the next EOI study.

Results of randomised studies of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) with two different ifosfamide regimens in first- and second-line chemotherapy in advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients.

The aim of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of two regimens of ifosfamide in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma patients given as first- and second-line chemotherapy. Two different schedules of ifosfamide were investigated in a randomised manner: Ifosfamide was given either at a dose of 5 g/m(2) over 24 h (5 g/m(2)/1 day), every 3 weeks or at a dose of 3 g/m(2) per day, administered over 4 h on three consecutive days (3 g/m(2)/3 days), every 3 weeks. Both schedules were given as first-line or second-line chemotherapy. A total of 182 patients was entered, 103 in first- and 79 in second-line, of whom 8 patients were ineligible, 5 in the first- and 3 in the second-line study. Most patients had a leiomyosarcoma, 46 of the 98 in the first-line and 34 of the 76 in the second-line. The two study arms were well balanced in both the first- and second-lines with respect to sex, age and performance status. In first-line treatment, 5 g/m(2)/1 day yielded five partial responses (PR) (Response Rate (RR) 10%), versus 12 PR (RR 25%) for the 3 g/m(2)/3 days. As second-line treatment, the 24-h infusion yielded: one CR and one PR (RR 6%) and the 3-day schedule one CR and two PR (RR 8%). Survival did not differ between the two regimens. The major World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 and 4 toxicities encountered were: leucopenia in 19% of all courses in the first-line and 32% in the second-line with the 5 g/m(2)/1 day, while for the 3 g/m(2)/3 days schedule the rates were 57 and 63% respectively. Grade 3 or 4 infections were seen in 4% of patients treated with 5 g/m(2)/1 day first-line and 10% of patients given 3 g/m(2)/3 days, both as first- and second-lines. No such infections were seen in patients receiving 5 g/m(2)/1 day as second line treatment. In advanced soft-tissue sarcomas in the first-line, ifosfamide 3 g/m(2), given over 4 h on three consecutive days, is an active regimen with acceptable toxicity while the 5 g/m(2) over 24 hours schedule resulted in a disappointing response rate.

Hypoxia-regulated carbonic anhydrase IX expression is associated with poor survival in patients with invasive breast cancer

Tumour hypoxia is a microenvironmental factor related to poor response to radiation, chemotherapy, genetic instability, selection for resistance to apoptosis, and increased risk of invasion and metastasis. Hypoxia-regulated carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX) has been studied in various tumour sites and its expression has been correlated with the clinical outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation of CA IX expression with outcome in patients with invasive breast cancer. We conducted a retrospective study examining the effects of carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX) on survival in patients with breast cancer. To facilitate the screening of multiple tissue blocks from each patient, tissue microarrays were prepared containing between two and five representative samples of tumour per patient. Immunohistochemistry was used to examine expression of CA IX in patients with breast cancer. The study includes a cohort of 144 unselected patients with early invasive breast cancer who underwent surgery, and had CA IX expression and follow-up data available for analysis. At the time of analysis, there were 28 deaths and median follow-up of 48 months with 96% of patients having at least 2 years of follow-up. CA IX was negative for 107 patients (17 deaths) and positive for 37 patients (11 deaths). Kaplan–Meier survival curves show that survival was superior in the CA IX-negative group with a 2-year survival of 97% for negatives and 83% for positives (log-rank test P=0.01). Allowing for potential prognostic variables in a Cox regression analysis, CA IX remained a significant independent predictor of survival (P=0.035). This study showed in both univariate and multivariate analysis that survival is significantly inferior in patients with tumour expressing CA IX. Prospective studies are underway to investigate this correlation in clinical trial setting.

A phase I/II study of gemcitabine and fractionated cisplatin in an outpatient setting using a 21-day schedule in patients with advanced and metastatic bladder cancer

A randomised phase III trial of MVAC (methotrexate, vincristine, doxorubicin, cisplatin) vs gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) (G 1000 mg m−2 days 1, 8, and 15 plus C 70 mg m−2 day 2, q 4 wks) indicated GC had similar efficacy and lower toxicity (JCO 2000). Significant haematologic toxicities in the GC arm occurred on day 15, necessitating dose adjustments in 37% of cycles. We conducted a phase I/II dose escalation trial using GC on a 21-day cycle, with G and C split between days 1 and 8. The objective of the study to define maximum-tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), objective response rate, and overall survival. In all, 32 patients with locally advanced, relapsed, or metastatic disease received: dose level 1, G/C 1000/35; level 2, 1100/35; level 3, 1200/35; level 4, 1200/45 mg m−2 (G and C given on days 1 and 8 every 3 wks). A total of 19 patients had glomerular filtration rate <60 ml min−1 and 19 patients had metastatic disease. Dose-limiting toxicity was haematologic (grade 4 thrombocytopenia) at dose level 2. Of 151 cycles, at day 15, platelets were <100 in 61 cycles; neutrophils <0.5, platelets <50 in 26 cycles. Only seven cycles were deferred due to haematological toxicity; four for renal toxicity (chemotherapy instituted posthydration). Overall response rate was 65.5% on an intention-to-treat analysis (75% [21/28] for assessable patients), with four complete responses (12.5%) and 17 partial responses (53%). After the median follow-up of 17.2 months (range 13.1–32.4 months), 12 patients remain alive. The overall median survival was 16 months (range 10.1–26.6 months). G plus C every 3 weeks is active and well tolerated in an outpatient setting, even in patients receiving prior platinum-based regimens and with poor renal reserve.

A randomised phase III cross-over study of tamoxifen versus megestrol acetate in advanced and recurrent breast cancer

139 peri- and postmenopausal women with advanced or recurrent breast cancer who had not received prior hormonal therapy were randomised in an open, cross-over study comparing the synthetic progestogen megestrol acetate with tamoxifen. The response rate (CR/PR) to megestrol acetate (25%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15-35%) was not significantly different from that produced by tamoxifen (33%, CI 22-44%). Time-to-treatment failure was also similar in the two groups. Cross-over treatment was given on progression in 76 cases. Cross-over response (CR/PR) was seen in 3 of 35 patients (9%) receiving megestrol acetate as second-line therapy and in 6 of 41 patients (15%) receiving tamoxifen second-line. There was no significant difference in survival between the groups (P = 0.17) with median survival times of 24 and 32 months for the megestrol acetate and tamoxifen groups, respectively. The toxicity profile of the two drugs was different, although significant toxicity was rare with either agent. Megestrol acetate is an effective treatment for advanced breast cancer in older women when used either as first- or second-line treatment. Cross-over response is seen following both treatments. Given that most patients now receive tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment, megestrol acetate would appear to be one of the logical choices for patients who find the side-effects of tamoxifen unacceptable and for those who relapse on tamoxifen with further hormone therapy being clinically indicated.

Steroid receptors, pS2 and cathepsin D in early clinically node-negative breast cancer

Four oestrogen-regulated proteins of reported prognostic value, oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), pS2 and cathepsin D (Cat D), have been quantified by immunoassays, and the latter studied by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in primary tumours from clinically node-negative early breast cancer patients, entered into a trial of breast conservation therapy in which all the patients received adjuvant tamoxifen. ER, PR and pS2 significantly co-correlated but none correlated with Cat D. ER, PR and pS2, but not Cat D, were significantly associated with tumour size and grade, although Cat D tended to show an inverse relationship with the latter. Cat D (radioimmunoassay) in pmol/mg significantly correlated with the IHC score for Cat D in carcinoma cells as well as the number of Cat D-expressing macrophages. At a median follow-up of only 16 months, recurrence was significantly more common in patients with tumours having negative status for ER, PR and pS2 but was not associated with Cat D status.

NEAT: National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial - toxicity, delivered dose intensity and quality of life

The NEAT trial reported considerable benefit for ECMF (epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil) of 28% for relapse-free survival (RFS) and 30% for overall survival (OS), when compared with classical CMF in early breast cancer. To assess tolerability, toxicity, dose intensity and quality of life (QoL) analyses were undertaken. All 2021 eligible patients had common toxicity criteria (CTC), delivered chemotherapy and supportive treatments details and long-term morbidities recorded. The QoL substudy used multiple validated measures. ECMF produced low CTC scores, although higher than CMF for nausea, vomiting, alopecia, constipation, stomatitis (P<0.001), infection (P=0.001) and fatigue (P=0.03). Supportive treatments required, however, were similar across randomised treatments. On-treatment deaths were more common with CMF (13) than ECMF(5). Optimal course-delivered dose intensity (CDDI ⩾85%) was received more often by ECMF patients (83 vs 76%: P=0.0002), and was associated with better RFS (P=0.0006). QoL over 2 years was equivalent across treatments, despite minimally worse side effects for ECMF during treatment. ECMF benefit spanned all levels of toxicity, CDDI and QoL. There are no reported acute myeloid leukaemias or cardiac dysfunctions. ECMF is tolerable, deliverable, and significantly more effective than CMF, with no serious long-term toxicity or QoL detriment.

Molecularly Targeted Therapeutics for Breast Cancer

Thomas Beatson’s celebrated description in 1896 of bilateral oophorectomy as effective therapy for premenopausal breast cancer could be considered as the first demonstration of response of any cancer to a‘targeted therapy.’ At that time, however, the understanding of the mechanism of the intervention was minimal. In recent years a host of new rationally designed, molecularly targeted cancer therapies have been introduced from both large pharmaceutic and small biotechnology companies, and the portfolio of new targeted treatments in the pipeline appears to be unending. The existence of this array of potential new therapies is the result of a prodigious effort in the researching and defining of the molecular components of the cancer phenotype, and the subsequent rational design of agents to target candidate pathways. Experience with endocrine therapy has shown that targeted therapies require the target to be not merely expressed in the cancer phenotype, but important in regulating growth of cancer cells. We may well look back at many of the current targeted therapy trials as unrealistically simplistic in failing to adequately and define the target phenotype. This approach risk3s rejecting highly active treatments for a small subgroup of a study population where minimal activity is present for the majority. The future for breast cancer therapy is promising, but it is important to be prepared for disappointment, as early success in animal models cannot guarantee a successful human therapy. Stunning results such as the adjuvant trastuzumab trials are likely to remain the exceptions rather that the rule, and most gains will be modest advances.A better understanding of the molecular biology of cancer may also aid in guiding the most appropriate use of existing therapies such as conventional chemotherapy. This knowledge will facilitate the rational selection of drug combinations and/or sequencing based on their mechanisms of action at a molecular level.The aim of this paper is to review the current state-of-the-art in novel targeted therapies for breast cancer based on an understanding of this disease at the molecular level, with particular reference to those agents entering the clinic.