Edoardo Francini

Immunity feedback and clinical outcome in colon cancer patients undergoing chemoimmunotherapy with gemcitabine + FOLFOX followed by subcutaneous granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor and aldesleukin (GOLFIG-1 Trial).

Purpose: GOLFIG chemoimmunotherapy regimen proved to be a safe and very active chemoimmunotherapy regimen in advanced colon cancer patients. We have thus investigated the immunobiological feedback to the treatment and its possible correlation with the clinical outcome of these patients. Experimental Design: This clinical and immunologic study involved 46 patients, 27 males and 19 females, enrolled in the GOLFIG-1 phase II trial who received gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 on days 2 and 16), levofolinic acid (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, 15, and 16), and 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2 as a bolus, and 800 mg/m2 as a 24-hour infusion on days 1, 2, 15, and 16) followed by s.c. granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (100 μg, on days 3-7) and interleukin 2 (0.5 × 106 IU twice a day on days 8-14 and 17-29). Results: The regimen was confirmed to be safe and very active in pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. A subgroup analysis of these patients revealed a prolonged time to progression and survival in six patients who developed late signs of autoimmunity. A multivariate analysis validated the occurrence of autoimmunity signs as an independent predictor of favorable outcome. A parallel immunologic study detected in the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of these patients a progressive increase in lymphocyte and eosinophil counts, amplification in central memory, a marked depletion of immunosuppressive regulatory T cells, and activation of colon cancer–specific cytotoxic T cells. Conclusions: Our results suggest that immunity feedback to GOLFIG regimen and its antitumor activity are tightly correlated.

Weekly high-dose calcitriol and docetaxel in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer previously exposed to docetaxel.

To evaluate the activity and tolerability of weekly high‐dose calcitriol and docetaxel in patients with metastatic hormone‐refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) previously exposed to docetaxel, as patients who progress after docetaxel treatment might be considered for second‐line chemotherapy, but with no standard salvage therapy available we hypothesised that high‐dose calcitriol might restore sensitivity to chemotherapy.

FOLFOX-4 Stop and Go and Capecitabine Maintenance Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Objective: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC) usually receive FOLFOX-4, or other oxaliplatin (L-HOP)-based regimens, until the occurrence of progressive disease, with an increase in the incidence of neurotoxicity which is correlated to the cumulative dose of L-HOP. The aim of this study was to evaluate if FOLFOX-4 stop and go and capecitabine maintenance chemotherapy is associated with a low incidence of severe neurotoxicity in the treatment of MCC patients. Methods: Thirty-three patients were treated with FOLFOX-4 (L-HOP 85 mg/m2 day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, 5-fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2 and 22 h 600 mg/m2 days 1 and 2, every 2 weeks). Patients who achieved objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) then received oral capecitabine 2,500 mg/m2 days 1–14 every 3 weeks; L-HOP was reintroduced as soon as progression occurred. Results: Twenty-eight of the 29 patients who achieved OR or SD then received capecitabine. FOLFOX-4 was reintroduced in 18 patients (56.2%). The median response duration (RD) was 9.2 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.6 months. Twenty-eight patients (87.5%) had peripheral neuropathy during treatment, but grade 3 neurotoxicity was observed in only 1 patient (3.1%). Conclusions: FOLFOX-4 stop and go and capecitabine maintenance chemotherapy was associated with a very low incidence of grade 3 neurotoxicity. Although the number of patients enrolled was far too low for a definite conclusion, RD and PFS were comparable to those usually reported in the treatment of MCC patients.

CEA and CA19.9 as Early Predictors of Progression in Advanced/Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Receiving Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy and Bevacizumab

We evaluated the changes of the tumor markers CEA and CA19.9 as early predictors of progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients participating in a clinical study and receiving chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Bev). Seventy-two patients had high baseline CEA or CA19.9 serum levels. By ROC analyses, the areas under the curves were 0.83 for variable CEA cutoff values for distinguishing progressive disease (PD) versus stable disease (SD)/partial remission (PR)/complete remission (CR), and 0.80 for variable CA19.9 cutoff values for distinguishing PD versus SD/PR/CR. Rises in CEA and CA19.9 may early signal the occurrence of progression in mCRC patients receiving chemotherapy and Bev.

No clear evidence of a clinical benefit of a sequential therapy regimen with abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men in most western countries. New agents for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) developed in the past 3 years include abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ), which inhibit signaling by and synthesis of androgens, respectively. Because they share the same target, potential clinical cross-resistance between AA and E is possible. In this review, we discuss the results of clinical studies in which CRPC patients were treated with AA and E either separately or in sequence after first-line treatment with docetaxel. Our review suggests that sequential administration of AA and E in either order has limited activity after docetaxel therapy. Prospective studies that further examine sequential treatments with AA and E are warranted.

Bevacizumab and Weekly Docetaxel in Patients with Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer Previously Exposed to Docetaxel

Background. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the activity and tolerability of docetaxel (D) and bevacizumab (Bev) in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) previously exposed to D. Methods. Treatment consisted of D 30 mg/m2 i.v. for four consecutive weekly administrations followed by a 2-week rest interval, in addition to Bev 5 mg/kg i.v. every 2 weeks. Results. Forty-three patients were enrolled: a PSA response was observed in 27 patients (62.7%, 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.91), and a palliative response was achieved in 31 patients (72.1%, 95%CI: 0.48 to 1.02). After a median followup of 11.3 months, only five patients had died. The regimen was generally well tolerated. Conclusion. Weekly D + biweekly Bev seems to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with metastatic CRPC previously exposed to D-based chemotherapy.

The third line of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer patients: Option or strategy?

New agents for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) developed in the past 3 years include cabaziataxel (Cbz), abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (E). In this review, the results of clinical studies in which one of these drugs is included as the third line of treatment are discussed. Our review suggests that AA and E have limited activity, while Cbz seems to retain its efficacy. Prospective studies that further examine sequential treatments are warranted.

Efficacy and safety analysis of once per cycle pegfilgrastim and daily lenograstim in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy FEC 100: a pilot study.

Background Neutropenia is a common toxicity in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this prospective pilot study, we compared the efficacy and safety profiles of pegfilgrastim administered subcutaneously once per cycle and lenograstim administered subcutaneously daily six times per cycle, for primary neutropenia prophylaxis in women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Materials and methods Twenty women were enrolled. All patients received epirubicin 100 mg/m2 with 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 on day 1 and every 21 days thereafter, according to the FEC 100 chemotherapy regimen. Eight patients received a single dose of pegfilgrastim on day 2, while 12 patients were treated with daily administration of lenograstim from days five to ten. Absolute neutrophil count and duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia were monitored using seriated blood samples. The incidence of bone pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS). Results The incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia was 75% in patients who received pegfilgrastim, and 25% in patients who received lenograstim. One case of febrile neutropenia was shown in pegfilgrastim patients. The mean duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia was 2 days in pegfilgrastim group versus 1.4 days in the lenograstim group. Bone pain was present in 37.5% of pegfilgrastim patients versus 58.3% of lenograstim patients. The mean duration of bone pain in the pegfilgrastim group was 4 days versus 6 days in the lenograstim group. Conclusion In our experience, a single injection of pegfilgrastim was less effective for controlling neutropenia than six daily injections of lenograstim. The safety profiles of pegfilgrastim and lenograstim were similar with a lower incidence of bone pain in patients treated with pegfilgrastim.

Capecitabine as third-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failing immunotherapy.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of capecitabine as third-line treatment in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma for whom immunotherapy had failed. Twenty-one patients with metastatic clear renal cell carcinoma were enrolled. Capecitabine was administered orally twice daily at a dosage of 2500 mg/m2 for 14 days, followed by 7 days of rest. The median number of administered cycles was five (1–13). One patient (4.8%) achieved a remission after eight treatment cycles. Stable disease was observed in nine patients (42.8%), whereas 11 progressed (52.4%). The estimated median time to progression was 3.6 months (confidence interval: 1.4 to 5.2). The estimated median overall survival was 7.2 months (confidence interval: 4.6 to 8.8). The regimen was well tolerated and no unexpected toxic effects were observed. Capecitabine as third-line treatment showed a favourable toxicity profile, but exhibited low activity in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma after failing immunotherapy.

Epirubicin-based compared with docetaxel-based chemotherapy for advanced gastric carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Docetaxel or Epirubicin-based regimens are both approved for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer. We perform a systemic review with metanalysis to evaluate the efficacy and toxicities of docetaxel-based chemotherapy compared with epirubicin-containing regimens. A metaanalysis of randomized studies in accordance with the preference guidelines for reported items in systematic reviews and meta-analyses is performed in which the databases of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the ASCO University Meeting were searched for relevant publications. The primary outcome was efficacy, the secondary toxicities. A total of 553 cases were included in the meta-analysis; 278 received epirubicin-based treatment and 313 received docetaxel. The pooled risk ratio to achieve an objective response and a disease control rate were 1.08 (95% CI 0.85-1.37; P=0.52) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.75-1.08; P=0.27) respectively. EPI arm showed a decrease in the risk of neutropenia, anemia, fatigue, asthenia and diarrhea, paraesthesia; docetaxel arm showed a decrease in the risk of leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, anorexia, nausea, nausea-vomiting, stomatitis and neutropenic fever. The results of our study suggest a similar activity of docetaxel and epirubicin-based chemotherapeutic regimens in metastatic gastric cancer. Other parameters as, comorbidity, concomitant diseases and prior therapies should be taken into account to address the clinicians choice in selecting the best therapeutical approach for any single patient.