Kostas Syrigos

Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin Alone or With Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced, Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus gemcitabine/cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage IIIB to IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between February 2007 and March 2009, 904 patients were randomly assigned to daily sorafenib (400 mg twice a day) or matching placebo plus gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) for up to six 21-day cycles. Because of safety findings from the Evaluation of Sorafenib, Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Efficacy in NSCLC (ESCAPE) trial, patients with squamous cell histology were withdrawn from the trial in February 2008 and excluded from analysis. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-progression (TTP). RESULTS The primary analysis population consisted of 772 patients (sorafenib, 385; placebo, 387); the two groups had similar demographic and baseline characteristics. Median OS was similar in the sorafenib and placebo groups (12.4 v 12.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; P = .401). By investigator assessment, sorafenib improved median PFS (6.0 v 5.5 months; HR, 0.83; P = .008) and TTP (6.1 v 5.5 months; HR, 0.73; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 drug-related adverse events more than two-fold higher in the sorafenib group included hand-foot skin reaction (8.6% v 0.3%), fatigue (7.3% v 3.6%), rash (5.7% v 0.5%), and hypertension (4.2% v 1.8%). No unexpected toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION This study did not meet its primary end point of improved OS when sorafenib was added to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Identification of predictive biomarkers is warranted in future trials of sorafenib.

Cell Adhesion Molecules: Role and Clinical Significance in Cancer

ABSTRACT There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that alterations in the adhesion properties of neoplastic cells endow them with an invasive and migratory phenotype. Indeed, changes in the expression or function of cell adhesion molecules have been implicated in all steps of tumor progression, including detachment of tumor cells from the primary site, intravasation into the blood stream, extravasation into distant target organs, and formation of the secondary lesions. This review presents recent data regarding the role of cell adhesion molecules in tumor development and progress with concern to their clinical exploitation as potential biomarkers in neoplastic diseases.

A multicenter phase III trial comparing irinotecan-gemcitabine (IG) with gemcitabine (G) monotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer

Our purpose was to determine the response rate and median and overall survival of gemcitabine as monotherapy versus gemcitabine plus irinotecan in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma who were chemotherapy and radiotherapy naive were enrolled. Patients were centrally randomised at a one-to-one ratio to receive either gemcitabine monotherapy (900 mg m−2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks (arm G), or gemcitabine (days 1 and 8) plus irinotecan (300 mg m−2 on day 8) (arm IG), repeated every 3 weeks. The total number of cycles administered was 255 in the IG arm and 245 in the G arm; the median number of cycles was 3. In all, 145 patients (71 in arm IG and 74 in arm G) were enrolled; 60 and 70 patients from arms IG and G, respectively, were evaluable. A complete clinical response was achieved in three (4.3%) arm G patients; nine (15%) patients in arm IG and four (5.7%) in arm G achieved a partial response. The overall response rate was: arm IG 15% and arm G 10% (95% CI 5.96–24.04 and 95% CI 2.97–17.03, respectively; P=0.387). The median time to tumour progression was 2.8 months and 2.9 months and median survival time was 6.4 and 6.5 months for the IG and G arms, respectively. One-year survival was 24.3% for the IG arm and 21.8% for the G arm. No statistically significant difference was observed comparing gemcitabine monotherapy versus gemcitabine plus irinotecan in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, with respect to overall and 1-year survival.

Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin Versus Docetaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Trial

PURPOSE To compare the activity and tolerability of docetaxel/gemcitabine (DG) and vinorelbine/cisplatin (VC) combinations in chemotherapy-naive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DG (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) [days 1 and 8] plus docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) [day 8]) or VC (vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) [days 1 and 8] plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) [day 8]) and prophylactic recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (150 microg/m(2) subcutaneously [day 9 through 15]) every 3 weeks. Results A total of 413 randomly assigned patients were analyzed for response and toxicity (DG, n = 197; VC, n = 192). Median survival was 9.0 and 9.7 months (P = .965) for DG and VC arms, respectively; the corresponding 1-year survival rates were 34.3% and 40.8%, respectively. Overall response rate was 30% (95% CI, 23.9% to 36.3%) and 39.2% (95% CI, 32.5% to 45.9%; P = .053) for DG and VC, respectively. Toxicity was as follows (DG v VC): grade 2 to 4 anemia, 34% v 55% (P = .0001); grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, 16% v 37% (P = .0001); febrile neutropenia, 6% v 11% (P = .009); and grade 3 to 4 nausea and vomiting, 1% v 15% (P = .003). Nephrotoxicity occurred in 8% and ototoxicity in 2% of VC-treated patients. There were five and six treatment-related deaths in the DG and VC arms, respectively. Quality of life was improved in DG but not in VC patients. CONCLUSION Although the two regimens produced comparable overall survival, the DG regimen had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, DG could be used in the first-line setting of advanced NSCLC, especially for patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin.

The role of mTOR in the management of solid tumors: an overview.

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a key protein kinase controlling signal transduction from various growth factors and upstream proteins to the level of mRNA and ribosome with a regulatory effect on cell cycle progression, cellular proliferation and growth. TOR genes were discovered rather serendipitously while investigating the cause of resistance to immunosuppressant rapamycin in yeast. In normal cells, mTOR controls brilliantly the load of signals from its effectors resulting in a normal cell function. On the contrary, in various diseases and mainly in cancer this balance is lost due to mutations or overactivation of upstream pathways leading to a persistent proliferation and tumor growth. What makes mTOR attractive to researchers seems to be its key position which is on the crossroad of various signal pathways (Ras, PI3K/Akt, TSC, NF-kappaB) towards mRNA, ribosome, protein synthesis and translation of significant molecules, the uncontrolled production of which may lead to tumor proliferation and growth. Inhibition of mTOR by rapamycin (a natural product) or its analogs aims to prevent the deleterious effects of the abnormal signaling, regardless at which point of the signal pathway has the abnormality launched. Here, we will review the physiological functions of mTOR, its association to carcinogenesis and the latest evidence regarding the use of mTOR inhibitors in cancer treatment as well as future trends and aims of research.

2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer: non-small-cell lung cancer first-line/second and further lines of treatment in advanced disease

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, first-line/second and further lines of treatment in advanced disease, early-stage disease and locally advanced disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on first line/second and further lines of treatment in advanced disease.

Phase I/II Trial of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Chemotherapy in Combination with Intravenous Oncolytic Reovirus in Patients with Advanced Malignancies

Purpose: Reovirus type 3 Dearing (RT3D) replicates preferentially in Ras-activated cancers. RT3D shows synergistic in vitro cytotoxicity in combination with platins and taxanes. The purpose of this phase I/II study was to assess RT3D combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with advanced cancers. Experimental Design: Patients were initially treated in a dose-escalating, phase I trial with intravenous RT3D days 1 to 5, carboplatin [area under curve (AUC) 5, day 1] and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2, day 1) 3-weekly. RT3D was escalated through three dose levels: 3 × 109, 1 × 1010, and 3 × 1010 TCID50 in cohorts of three. Primary endpoints were to define the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity and to recommend a dose for phase II studies. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics, immune response, and antitumor activity. A subsequent phase II study using the 3 × 1010 TCID50 dose characterized the response rate in patients with head and neck cancer. Results: Thirty-one heavily pretreated patients received study therapy. There were no dose-limiting toxicities during dose-escalation and most toxicities were grade I/II. Overall effectiveness rates were as follows: one patient had a complete response (3.8%), six patients (23.1%) had partial response, two patients (7.6%) had major clinical responses clinically evaluated in radiation pretreated lesions which are not evaluable by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), nine patients (34.6%) had stable disease, and eight patients (30.8%) had disease progression. Viral shedding was minimal and antiviral immune responses were attenuated compared with previous single-agent data for RT3D. Conclusions: The combination of RT3D plus carboplatin/paclitaxel is well tolerated with evidence of activity in cancer of the head and neck. A randomized phase III study is currently open for recruitment. Clin Cancer Res; 18(7); 2080–9. ©2012 AACR.

Sunitinib: a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor in the era of molecular cancer therapies.

Sunitinib is an oral oxindole multitargeted kinase inhibitor that inhibits certain receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs). These include vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR type 1 and 2), platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFR-alpha and PDGFR-beta), stem cell factor receptor (KIT), FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT3), glial cell-line derived neurotrophic factor receptor (RET) and the receptor of macrophage-colony stimulating factor (CSF1R). Examination of the antitumor effect of sunitinib in a variety of cell lines in vitro suggested an antiproliferative activity that is dependent on the presence of constitutively active RTK targets. The use of sunitinib as first-line therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has improved the overall survival compared with that observed after cytokine therapy, while its administration in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) after progression or intolerance to imatinib achieved an objective response of 7%. Sunitinib is currently approved for the treatment of GISTs in this setting, and as first-line therapy for the treatment of advanced RCC. The relatively long half-life of sunitinib and its major metabolite allow for a once-daily dosing schedule. An interesting antitumor activity of sunitinib was reported in phase II studies of patients with a variety of malignancies, such as hepatocellular cancer, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and non-small cell lung cancer; results of phase III studies are urgently anticipated. Fatigue is one of the most common adverse effects of sunitinib, as 50-70% of patients with advanced RCC and GIST complained of this adverse effect. Other adverse effects are diarrhea, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, oral changes and bleeding events. Most toxicities are reversible and should not result in discontinuation of sunitinib. If necessary, dose adjustments or interruptions should be made. Hypothyroidism has been described in the first 2 weeks of sunitinib therapy and its incidence increases progressively with the duration of therapy. Sunitinib may exert its hypertensive activity through a direct effect on the vasculature, while its most important cardiac adverse effect is left ventricular dysfunction. A variety of skin adverse effects have been described with the use of sunitinib such as hand-foot syndrome, yellow discoloration of the skin, dry skin, subungual splinter hemorrhages, acral erythema, and generalized skin rashes. Administration of sunitinib in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting of patients with RCC and of its combination with chemotherapy and other targeted therapies are currently under intense investigation.

The role of angiogenesis in solid tumours: An overview

Angiogenesis is the physiological process of the formation of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones. Multiple molecules regulate angiogenesis, such as the vascular endothelial growth factor, angiopoietins, the fibroblast growth factor, the platelet-derived growth factor and the transforming growth factor-beta. Angiogenesis plays an important role in the growth, progression and metastasis of a tumour. Inhibiting the angiogenic process or targeting existing tumour vessels can be used for treatment of tumours as an alternative or in parallel with conventional chemotherapy. Many anti-angiogenic factors are under investigation and some are already being used in clinical practice with various results.

Head and neck cancer in the elderly: An overview on the treatment modalities

The percentage of elderly people with head and neck cancers (HNC) is rising due to increasing average lifespan. As with younger patients, elderly patients require a multidisciplinary approach in order to optimise treatment results. The biological, not the chronological, age should be defined individually based on co-morbidities and performance status. A comprehensive geriatric assessment represents the first and essential step for selecting further treatment options. Major improvements have been accomplished in surgical techniques and radiotherapy delivery. Several chemotherapeutic agents and targeted therapies with different toxicity profile are also available. However, the randomised studies that defined the nature of these improvements included only a small proportion of patients older than 65 years. In deciding which treatment strategy would be suitable for an individual elderly patient, we review the literature regarding surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy or their various combinations.