Jane Bryce

Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of EGFR inhibitor-associated dermatologic toxicities

BackgroundEpidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) produce various dermatologic side effects in the majority of patients, and guidelines are crucial for the prevention and treatment of these untoward events. The purpose of this panel was to develop evidence-based recommendations for EGFRI-associated dermatologic toxicities.MethodsA multinational, interdisciplinary panel of experts in supportive care in cancer reviewed pertinent studies using established criteria in order to develop first-generation recommendations for EGFRI-associated dermatologic toxicities.ResultsProphylactic and reactive recommendations for papulopustular (acneiform) rash, hair changes, radiation dermatitis, pruritus, mucositis, xerosis/fissures, and paronychia are presented, as well as general dermatologic recommendations when possible.ConclusionPrevention and management of EGFRI-related dermatologic toxicities is critical to maintain patients’ health-related quality of life and dose intensity of antineoplastic regimens. More rigorous investigation of these toxicities is warranted to improve preventive and treatment strategies.

Vandetanib (ZD6474), a Dual Inhibitor of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor (VEGFR) and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Tyrosine Kinases: Current Status and Future Directions

Vandetanib is a novel, orally available inhibitor of different intracellular signaling pathways involved in tumor growth, progression, and angiogenesis: vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and REarranged during Transfection tyrosine kinase activity. Phase I clinical trials have shown that vandetanib is well tolerated as a single agent at daily doses < or =300 mg. In the phase II setting, negative results were observed with vandetanib in small cell lung cancer, metastatic breast cancer, and multiple myeloma. In contrast, three randomized phase II studies showed that vandetanib prolonged the progression-free survival (PFS) time of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as a single agent when compared with gefitinib or when added to chemotherapy. Rash, diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, and asymptomatic QTc prolongation were the most common adverse events. Antitumor activity was also observed in medullary thyroid cancer. Four randomized phase III clinical trials in NSCLC are exploring the efficacy of vandetanib in combination with docetaxel, the Zactima in cOmbination with Docetaxel In non-small cell lung Cancer (ZODIAC) trial, or with pemetrexed, the Zactima Efficacy with Alimta in Lung cancer (ZEAL) trial, or as a single agent, the Zactima Efficacy when Studied versus Tarceva (ZEST) and the Zactima Efficacy trial for NSCLC Patients with History of EGFR-TKI chemo-Resistance (ZEPHYR) trials. Based on a press release by the sponsor of these trials, the PFS time was longer with vandetanib in the ZODIAC and ZEAL trials; the ZEST trial was negative for its primary superiority analysis, but was successful according to a preplanned noninferiority analysis of PFS. Ongoing phase II and III clinical trials will better define the appropriate schedule, the optimal setting of evaluation, and the safety of long-term use of vandetanib.

Patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of toxicity of anticancer treatments

Symptomatic toxicities associated with anticancer treatments, such as nausea and vomiting, are frequently underreported by clinicians, even when data are prospectively collected within clinical trials. Such underreporting can result in an underestimation of the absolute rate of toxicity, which is highly relevant information for patients and their physicians in clinical practice, and for regulatory authorities. Systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been demonstrated to be a valid, reliable, feasible and precise approach to tabulating symptomatic toxicities and enables symptoms that are missed by clinicians to be detected. In this Perspectives, the barriers and challenges that should be addressed when considering broad integration of PRO toxicity monitoring in oncology clinical trials are discussed, including challenges related to data collection logistics, analytical approaches, and resource utilization. Instruments conceived to enable description of treatment-related adverse effects, from the patient perspective, bring the potential to improve risk-versus-benefit analyses in clinical research, and to provide patients with accurate information, on the basis of previous experiences of their peers.

Gefitinib in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer

Gefitinib is an oral, reversible, tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) that plays a key role in the biology of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase I studies indicated that the recommended dose of gefitinib was 250 mg/day. Rash, diarrhea, and nausea were the most common adverse events. The positive results obtained in early phase 2 clinical trials with gefitinib were not confirmed in large phase 3 trials in unselected patients with advanced NSCLC. The subsequent discovery that the presence of somatic mutations in the kinase domain of EGFR strongly correlates with increased responsiveness to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors prompted phase 2 and 3 trials with gefitinib in the first line-treatment of EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The results of these trials have demonstrated the efficacy of gefitinib that can be now considered as the standard first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC harbouring activating EGFR mutations.

Cetuximab in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Cetuximab is a chimeric human–mouse anti-EGF receptor monoclonal antibody. In Phase I studies, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed with cetuximab as a single agent or combined with chemotherapy; pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses supported 250 mg/m2 weekly administration. Skin toxicity, diarrhea and fatigue were the most common toxicities. The positive results obtained in Phase II trials in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer prompted two randomized Phase III trials evaluating cetuximab in addition to first-line chemotherapy. Both trials showed a small benefit in overall survival for the experimental treatment, which was considered insufficient by the EMA for marketing approval. However, a subgroup analysis of the FLEX Phase III trial recently demonstrated a larger survival benefit from the experimental treatment in patients with high immunohistochemical EGF receptor expression. This finding, if confirmed prospectively, could represent a new opportunity for positioning cetuximab into the standard treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma.

Time spent for activation of non-profit studies in oncology in Italy.

Aim The aim of this paper is to describe the time spent to activate oncological non-profit clinical trials promoted in Italy by the National Cancer Institute of Naples, following the implementation of recent European laws. Methodology Data about the process of activation of 5 non-profit multicentre clinical trials were prospectively collected through a web-based system. The impact of European guidelines was assessed by comparing the efficiency of the process between applications started before and after the decree introducing in Italy the Clinical Trial Application form (MD-CTA). Outcomes of the descriptive analyses were the time to EC opinion, the time to administrative agreement signature after a positive EC opinion, and the cumulative percentage of submissions that came to closure (either positive or negative) within four subsequent time cohorts. Principal Findings From March 2007 to October 2009, 202 applications were submitted to 107 centres. Forty-four (59%) applications of those submitted before were successful, compared to 71 (55%) of those submitted after MD-CTA. Most of the failures were due to missing EC response (27% and 22%) or administrative reasons (10% and 16%, before and after, respectively); very few (4% and 7%) were due to EC refusal. The impact of the MD-CTA on time to EC opinion looked positive (median 4.1 vs 2.4 months, before and after, respectively) but a subgroup analysis revealed that the impact was limited to a comparison biased by the selection of EC. After a positive EC opinion, there was no difference before and after MD-CTA in the time to administrative agreement signature (median 3.6 and 3.8 months, respectively). A trend to shortening time to closure of the whole submission process over the time was evident, with 58% of the applications coming to closure within 6 months from submission in the most recent cohort. Conclusions In our experience there is reassuring evidence of a trend toward shortening the time spent to activate non-profit clinical trials in Italy, but the whole process still remains inefficient. Efforts should be made to improve the process, also focusing on administrative procedures.

Prospective clinical trials of biotherapies in solid tumors: a 5-year survey.

Purpose: To review the content and quality of prospective clinical trials of biotherapies in solid tumors. Methods: Data were collected from the literature between 1990 and 2002 on general study characteristics, patient and disease factors, study methodology, and factors related to completeness of reporting. Quality of phase II studies was evaluated by an ad hoc questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, contingency tables, and the χ-square test were applied. Results: A total of 334 studies were selected, of which about three quarters were multicenter, with 42.5% reporting phase I, 42.2% phase II or I/II, and 11.9% phase III or II/III studies. Only 13.7% were randomized, and a study design emphasizing statistical analysis was lacking in as many as one third. The assessment of biological endpoints was stated as the primary or secondary goal in half of these studies. Melanoma (17.1%), renal carcinoma (11.1%), gastrointestinal neoplasms (11.1%), and lymphomas (6.3%) were the most studied diseases. Immunotherapies accounted for 182 studies; the remaining 152 reported other biotherapies. Patients with (1) advanced disease (P=0.003), (2) heavily pretreated neoplasms (P<0.0001), (3) poor performance status (PS<2) (P<0.0001), were more frequently enrolled in studies of biotherapy. Biotherapies were less frequently evaluated in phase III studies (7/152) compared with immunotherapies (33/182) (P<0.0001). A statistical study design was more frequently identified in biotherapy trials (127/152) compared with immunotherapy trials (98/182) (P<0.0001). Biological endpoints were less frequently evaluated in phase III studies in both biotherapies (100% no vs 0% yes) and immunotherapies (81.8% no vs 18.2% yes) (P=0.01, for biotherapies; P<0.0001, for immunotherapies). Phase I immunotherapy studies more frequently applied biological or molecular criteria for patient selection (41.1%) than phase II (29.3%) and III (3.1%) studies (P<0.0001). Conclusions: The very wide diversity in modalities of conducting and reporting clinical trials of biotherapies of solid tumors and the presence of some methodological pitfalls suggest that the methodological standards for conducting and publishing clinical trials in biotherapies should be improved to enhance the reliability of the body of published data.

Anticancer effect of bisphosphonates: new insights from clinical trials and preclinical evidence.

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are cornerstones in the treatment of patients with compromised skeletal integrity (either cancer related or not). However, a major indication for BPs use remains the treatment of patients with advanced cancer metastatic to the bone. Recently, several observations derived from clinical trials, primarily aimed at establishing the impact of BPs on the bone health of cancer patients, suggested a potential role for these agents as direct anti-tumor drugs. Consequently, a series of preclinical works were produced with the aim of clarifying the mechanism underlying this observed effect. However, the impact of such data is still under debate owing to the intrinsic weakness of observations from trials not adequately powered to support them. In conclusion, the entire matter remains one of the most intriguing in oncology, and data from ongoing and planned future studies will surely provide us with more information on the great potential of BPs in the adjuvant setting.

Vinorelbine for non-small cell lung cancer

Importance of the field: Vinorelbine is a ‘third-generation’ vinca alkaloid approved for the treatment of NSCLC. The introduction of ‘third-generation’ drugs (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, taxanes) in platinum combination improved survival of patients with advanced NSCLC, with substantially similar results among the different drugs. Treatment toxicities are considerable in this setting. Areas covered in this review: This narrative review reports a synthesis of evidence available from published clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the activity and safety of vinorelbine, used as single agent or in combination chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC, from 1990 to 2009. What the reader will gain: When vinorelbine was administered in a weekly schedule without interruptions, the most common toxicity was neutropenia that often precluded administration of the drug, therefore, reducing the dose intensity. A schedule providing administration of vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks seemed to improve the tolerability of the drug. Tolerability of the drug did not result lower in the elderly subset. None of the other ‘third-generation’ drugs were clearly better tolerated than vinorelbine. Moreover, in the adjuvant setting, vinorelbine is the only third-generation drug that demonstrated, in combination with cisplatin, a consistent improvement in survival on a long-term basis. Take home message: Vinorelbine is an active and generally manageable therapeutic option for the treatment of both early and advanced NSCLC.

Randomized Controlled Trial Testing the Efficacy of Platinum-Free Interval Prolongation in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: The MITO-8, MaNGO, BGOG-Ov1, AGO-Ovar2.16, ENGOT-Ov1, GCIG Study.

Purpose Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) for patients with progressing ovarian cancer (OC) is more effective with a longer time interval from previous platinum treatment (platinum-free interval [PFI]). In 1999, it was hypothesized that prolonging PFI with single-agent non-PBC (NPBC) may offer a strategy to improve overall outcome. MITO-8 aimed to verify this hypothesis commonly used in clinical practice although it has not been prospectively tested. Methods MITO-8 is an open-label, prospective, randomized, superiority trial. Patients with OC who experienced disease progression 6 to 12 months after their last platinum treatment were randomly assigned 1:1 to the experimental sequence of NPBC followed by PBC at subsequent relapse or the standard reverse treatment sequence. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end point. Results Two hundred fifteen patients were enrolled (standard arm [n = 108]; experimental arm [n = 107]). The trial ended before planned because of slow enrollment. PFI was prolonged in the experimental arm (median, 7.8 v 0.01 months). There was no OS benefit in the experimental arm (median, 21.8 v 24.5 months; hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.94; P = .06). Progression-free survival after the sequence was significantly shorter in the experimental arm (median, 12.8 v 16.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.92; P = .025). Global quality-of-life change after three cycles was worse in the experimental arm. Slight differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. Conclusion MITO-8 supports the recommendation that PBC not be delayed in favor of an NPBC in patients with partially platinum-sensitive OC. PBC should be used as a control arm in future trials of new drugs in this setting.