Flavia Longo

Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC. METHODS We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (> 18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥ 6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2)) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥ 1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225. FINDINGS Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5-5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25-0·54; p < 0·0001). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (11 [13%] of 84 patients given erlotinib vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes. INTERPRETATION Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. FUNDING Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Temática de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer.

Erlotinib versus docetaxel as second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and wild-type EGFR tumours (TAILOR): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Erlotinib is registered for treatment of all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its efficacy for treatment of patients whose tumours are EGFR wild-type-which includes most patients-is still contentious. We assessed the efficacy of erlotinib compared with a standard second-line chemotherapy in such patients. METHODS We did this randomised controlled trial in 52 Italian hospitals. We enrolled patients who had metastatic NSCLC, had had platinum-based chemotherapy, and had wild-type EGFR as assessed by direct sequencing. Patients were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) to receive either erlotinib orally 150 mg/day or docetaxel intravenously 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days or 35 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15, every 28 days. Randomisation was stratified by centre, stage, type of first-line chemotherapy, and performance status. Patients and investigators who gave treatments or assessed outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation, investigators who analysed results were. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00637910. FINDINGS We screened 702 patients, of whom we genotyped 540. 222 patients were enrolled (110 assigned to docetaxel vs 112 assigned to erlotinib). Median overall survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 5·8-10·9) with docetaxel versus 5·4 months (4·5-6·8) with erlotinib (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·53-1·00; p=0·05). Progression-free survival was significantly better with docetaxel than with erlotinib: median progression-free survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 2·4-3·8) with docetaxel versus 2·4 months (2·1-2·6) with erlotinib (adjusted HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·02). The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were: low absolute neutrophil count (21 [20%] of 104 in the docetaxel group vs none of 107 in the erlotinib group), skin toxic effects (none vs 15 [14%]), and asthenia (ten [10%] vs six [6%]). INTERPRETATION Our results show that chemotherapy is more effective than erlotinib for second-line treatment for previously treated patients with NSCLC who have wild-type EGFR tumours.

Combination of aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis in lung cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy

Introduction:  With repeated courses of chemotherapy, chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) becomes progressively more difficult to control. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the antiemetic efficacy of the triple combination aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone could be sustained for up to six cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) (cisplatin ≥ 50 mg/m2).

Epigenetic control of gene expression: Potential implications for cancer treatment

Epigenetic changes are defined as inherited modifications that are not present in DNA sequence. Gene expression is regulated at various levels and not only in response to DNA modifications. Examples of epigenetic control are DNA methylation, histone deacetylation and mi-RNA expression. Methylation of several tumor suppressor gene promoters is responsible for their silencing and thus potentially sustain cancerogenesis. Similarly, histone deacetylation can lead to oncogene activation. mi-RNA are small (18-20 nucleotides) non-coding RNA fragments capable of inhibiting other m-RNA, ultimately altering the balance in oncogene and tumor suppressor gene expression. It has been shown that growth of several tumor types can be stimulated by epigenetic changes in various phases of cancerogenesis, and drugs able to interfere with these mechanisms can have a positive impact on tumor progression. As matter of fact, epigenetic changes are dynamic and can be reversed by epigenetic inhibitors. Recently, methyltransferase and histone deacetylase inhibitors have attracted the attention of researchers and clinicians as they potentially provide alternative therapeutic options in some cancers. Drugs that inhibit DNA methylation or histone deacetylation have been studied for the reactivation of tumor suppressor genes and repression of cancer cell growth. Epigenetic inhibitors work alone or in combination with other therapeutic agents. To date, a number of epigenetic inhibitors have been approved for cancer treatment. The main challenge in the field of epigenetic inhibitors is their lack of specificity. In this review article we describe their mechanisms of action and potential in cancer treatment.

Capecitabine versus Bolus Fluorouracil plus Leucovorin (Folinic Acid) as Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients with Dukes' C Colon Cancer : Economic Evaluation in an Italian NHS Setting

Background and objective:In the recent X-ACT (Xeloda in Adjuvant Colon cancer Therapy) trial, oral capecitabine (Xeloda®) demonstrated superior efficacy and an improved safety profile compared with infused fluorouracil + leucovorin (folinic acid) [FU+LV] in patients with Dukes’ C colorectal cancer. We used the X-ACT results to determine the cost effectiveness of capecitabine compared with FU+LV from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS).Methods:Medical resource use data were collected throughout the treatment period. Unit costs for drug administration, hospitalization, emergency room visits and concomitant medications were obtained using Italian published sources. A health-state transition model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-month (QALM) gains in the intent-to-treat population (1004 and 983 patients in the capecitabine and FU+LV arms, respectively). Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5%. Costs were calculated in €s (2005 values).Results:Administration of capecitabine required fewer clinic visits per patient than FU+LV (7.35 vs 28.0, respectively). Mean acquisition costs per patient for capecitabine were higher than for FU+LV (€2533 vs €231, respectively), but this difference was offset by the difference in mean chemotherapy administration costs per patient for FU+LV (€4338, compared with €152 for capecitabine). Mean total hospital days and medication costs for treatment-related adverse events were higher for FU+LV than for capecitabine (€352 vs €78, respectively). The cost of emergency room visits for the treatment of adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. With respect to the lifetime horizon, compared with FU+LV, capecitabine is projected to increase QALMs by a mean 6.5 months, with overall cost savings of €2234 over the treatment period. These findings show that capecitabine is an economically dominant treatment in this setting.Conclusions:Adjuvant capecitabine for patients with Dukes’ C colon cancer has the same activity in terms of outcome when compared with FU+LV but is a lower cost option from the economic perspective of the Italian NHS.

Value of KRAS as prognostic or predictive marker in NSCLC: results from the TAILOR trial

BACKGROUND The prognostic and predictive role of KRAS mutations in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still unclear. TAILOR prospectively assessed the prognostic and predictive value of KRAS mutations in NSCLC patients treated with erlotinib or docetaxel in second line. PATIENTS AND METHODS NSCLC patients from 52 Italian hospitals were genotyped for KRAS and EGFR mutational status in two independent laboratories. Wild-type EGFR patients (N = 218) received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and were randomly allocated at progression to erlotinib or docetaxel. Overall survival (OS) according to KRAS mutational status was the primary end point. RESULTS KRAS mutations were present in 23% of TAILOR randomized cases. The presence of a KRAS mutation did not adversely affect progression-free (PFS) or overall (OS) survival [hazard ratio (HR) PFS = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.41, P = 0.977; OS = 1.24, 95% CI 0.87-1.77, P = 0.233], nor influenced treatment outcome (test for interaction: OS P = 0.965; PFS P = 0.417). Patients randomized to docetaxel treatment experienced longer survival independently from the KRAS mutational status of their tumors (HR: mutated KRAS 0.81, 95% CI 0.45-1.47; wild-type KRAS 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.10). CONCLUSION In TAILOR, KRAS was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit for either docetaxel or erlotinib. Docetaxel remains superior independently from KRAS status for second-line treatment in EGFR wild-type advanced NSCLC patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT00637910.

Rationale for Treatment and Study Design of TAILOR: A Randomized Phase III Trial of Second-line Erlotinib Versus Docetaxel in the Treatment of Patients Affected by Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With the Absence of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations

We present the rationale and study design of the Tarceva Italian Lung Optimization trial phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial on efficacy of second-line therapies in different subgroups of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients identified using molecular and clinical evaluations. To date, we can assume that advanced NSCLC epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated patients benefit from EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as gefitinib and erlotinib, whereas their role in the treatment of patients who do not have EGFR mutations is controversial. The aim of this study is to assess whether it is possible to optimize second-line treatment in NSCLC patients with absence of EGFR mutations. Moreover, the predictive value of the K-ras mutation, EGFR protein expression, and EGFR gene copy number, as well as a smoking habit and histotype for determining a different effect of erlotinib compared with chemotherapy will be assessed in patients who do not have EGFR mutations. The primary endpoint is overall survival; the secondary endpoints are progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, and toxicity. We have planned to collect blood samples to identify different prognosis-related polymorphisms and to assess their sensitivity and specificity in the detection of EGFR and K-ras mutations with respect to histologic samples.

Role of KRAS-LCS6 polymorphism in advanced NSCLC patients treated with erlotinib or docetaxel in second line treatment (TAILOR).

MicroRNAs were described to target mRNA and regulate the transcription of genes involved in processes de-regulated in tumorigenesis, such as proliferation, differentiation and survival. In particular, the miRNA let-7 has been suggested to regulate the expression of the KRAS gene, a common mutated gene in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), through a let-7 complementary site (LCS) in 3′UTR of KRAS mRNA. We have reported the analysis performed on the role of the polymorphism located in the KRAS-LCS (rs61764370) which is involved in the disruption of the let-7 complementary site in NSCLC patients enrolled within the TAILOR trial, a randomised trial comparing erlotinib versus docetaxel in second line treatment. In our cohort of patients, KRAS-LCS6 polymorphism did not have any impact on both overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) and was not associated with any patient’s baseline characteristics included in the study. Overall, patients had a better prognosis when treated with docetaxel instead of erlotinib for both OS and PFS. Considering KRAS-LCS6 status, the TG/GG patients had a benefit from docetaxel treatment (HR(docetaxel vs erlotinib) = 0.35, 95% CI 0.15–0.79, p = 0.011) compared with the TT patients (HR(docetaxel vs erlotinib) = 0.72, 95% CI 0.52–1.01, p = 0.056) in terms of PFS.

A case of mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis testis, with involvement of the pleura and peritoneum.

Mesothelioma is a rare tumor that has increased in incidence in the last decades. It arises most frequently from the lining of the pleural surface, but cases originating in the peritoneum, pericardium and tunica vaginalis testis have been reported in the literature. We report on a case of mesothelioma that originated from the tunica vaginalis testis, involving also the pleura and peritoneum.

2544 Abiraterone acetate in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. A retrospective “Real Life” analysis of activity and safety

androgen (CYP17) biosynthesis inhibitor, which showed to improve overall survival (HR = 0.646) in mCRPC patients progressing after docetaxel. In this retrospective analysis we assessed the safety and efficacy of AA in patients affected with mCRPC progressing after chemotherapy, treated in the routinary clinical practice, in several Italian Oncologic Units, after the approval of the drug from the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA).