Search

Background: Options in second-line therapy after doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for metastatic/advanced leiomyosarcoma include gemcitabine (G), trabectedin and pazopanib (P) monotherapy. Currently, no combination therapy is better than monotherapy. LMS03 is an open-label multicentre single-group phase II study designed to assess the efficacy and tolerance of G + P in the second-line setting., Patients and Methods: Patients (pts), ECOG ≤2, with metastatic leiomyosarcomas (LMS) after first-line doxorubicin chemotherapy failure were eligible. Pts were treated with G 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 of each 21 days (maximum eight cycles), in combination with oral daily P (800 mg), until disease progression/toxicity. 9-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was the primary endpoint. Inacceptable and promising 9-month PFS rates were defined, in the intent-to-treat population, as 32% and 44%., Results: 106 pts were included with a mean age of 59.8 years and an ECOG 0 in 63.5%; the primary tumour site was uterus in 61%. Pts were treated with P + G for a median of 3.8 mo, and P for a median of 4.2 mo. The 9-month PFS rate was 32.1% (95% CI 23.1-41.1). After a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.6-8.2), and the overall survival was 22.4 months (95% CI 16.9-26.5). The best response was 23.8%. The most frequent reported grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological., Conclusions: LMS03 failed to show that second-line therapy, with gemcitabine combined with pazopanib, followed by pazopanib alone, was beneficial for advanced LMS patients. Eudract N°2011-001308-36 and NCT01442662., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To assess the role of first-line Molecular Targeted Therapies (MTTs) in Advanced chordoma (AC) patients., Methods: Retrospective study of 80 patients treated between January 2004 and December 2015 at 15 major French Sarcoma or Neurooncology Centres., Results: The sex ratio M/F was 46/34. The median age was 59 (6-86) years. The primary sites were the sacrum (50, 62.5%), mobile spine (12, 15.0%), and skull base (18, 22.5%). Metastases were present in 28 patients (36.0%). The first line of MTTs consisted of imatinib (62, 77.5%), sorafenib (11, 13.7%), erlotinib (5, 6.3%), sunitinib (1, 1.2%) and temsirolimus (1, 1.2%). The reported responses were: partial response (5, 6.3%), stable disease (58, 72.5%), or progressive disease (10, 12.5%). Symptomatic improvement was seen in 28/66 assessable patients (42.4%) and was associated with an objective response occurrence (p = 0.005), imatinib (p = 0.020) or erlotinib use (p = 0.028). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4°months (95% CI, [6.8-16.1]). Two independent factors of poor prognosis for PFS were identified: a skull-based primary location (HR = 2.5, p = 0.019), and the interval between diagnosis and MTT of <52months (HR = 2.8, p < 0.001). The median overall survival (OS) was 4.4°years (95% CI, [3.8-5.6]). Four independent factors of poor prognosis for OS were identified: the presence of liver metastases (HR = 13.2, p < 0.001), pain requiring opioids (HR = 2.9, p = 0.012), skull-based primary location (HR = 19.7, p < 0.001), and prior radiotherapy (photon alone) (HR = 2.5, p = 0.024). The PFS and OS did not significantly differ between the MTT., Conclusions: The prognostic factors identified require validation in an independent database but are potently useful to guide treatment decisions and design further clinical trials., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Imatinib has dramatically improved the prognosis of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). Clinical trial data showed that patients with trough imatinib plasma concentrations (Cmin) below 1100 ng/ml (quartile 1) had shorter time to progression, but no threshold has been defined. The main objective of this study was to investigate in advanced GIST whether a Cmin threshold value associated with a longer progression-free survival (PFS) could be specified. This would be the first step leading to therapeutic drug monitoring of imatinib in GIST., Patients and Methods: Advanced GIST patients (n=96) treated with imatinib 400 mg/d (41 stomach, 34 small bowel, and 21 other primary site localisations) were prospectively included in this real-life setting study. Routine plasma level testing imatinib (Cmin) and clinical data of were recorded prospectively., Results: Small bowel localisation was associated with an increased relative risk of progression of 3.09 versus stomach localisation (p=0.0255). Mean Cmin (±standard deviation) was 868 (±536) ng/ml with 75% inter-individual and 26% intra-patient variability. A Cmin threshold of 760 ng/ml defined by log-rank test was associated with longer PFS for the whole population (p=0.0256) and for both stomach (p=0.043) and small bowel (p=0.049) localisations when analysed separately. Multivariate Cox regression analysis found that Cmin above 760 ng/ml was associated with 65% reduction risk of progression (p=0.0271) in the whole population independently of the anatomical localisation., Conclusion: Concentration of imatinib significantly influences duration of tumour control treatment in GIST patients with a Cmin threshold of 760 ng/ml associated with prolonged PFS in real-life setting., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The added value of tumoural genomic profiles to conventional clinico-biological factors to predict progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was prospectively investigated in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) treated in the BFR14 study., Methods: Of the 434 included patients, mutational analysis was performed in 322 patients. Survival analysis was performed in patients with validated mutational status., Results: Mutational status was validated in 228 patients. We identified 196 patients with tumours harbouring 200 KIT alterations (exon 11: 173 patients, exon 9: 22 patients, exon 17: 3 patients, exon 13: 2 patients; 4 patients had double KIT mutations), 6 patients with PDGFRA mutations and 26 patients with wild-type (WT) GIST genotype. On a median follow-up of 73 months, median PFS/OS were 12.3/54.9 months for WT GIST, 12.6/55 months for KIT exon 9, and 39.4 months/not reached (69.1% at 5 years) for KIT exon 11. Tumour size, female gender, KIT exon 11 mutations and CD34 positivity were independent prognostic factors for a higher PFS. A higher OS was predicted by performance status (PS) <2, low neutrophil and normal lymphocyte counts, KIT exon 11 mutations, non-advanced tumour and female gender. KIT exon 11 mutations at codons 557-558 showed better tumour response (p=0.028) but shorter PFS (p=0.0176)., Conclusions: In GIST patients, presence of a KIT exon 11 mutation is an independent prognostic factor for PFS and OS, along with gender, PS, tumour size, lymphocyte and neutrophil counts. Subsets of exon 11 mutations are associated with significantly different response patterns and PFS., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We report the results of a randomised phase II trial of docetaxel tested as a single agent in patients with recurrent head and neck cancer using methotrexate as a control arm to validate the results. Eligibility criteria included: histologically-confirmed squamous cell carcinoma, measurable disease, adequate haematological, renal and hepatic functions, no prior chemotherapy for recurrent cancer, signed informed consent. 40 mg/m2 methotrexate was given as a short weekly bolus i.v. injection, and 40 mg/m2 docetaxel was administered as a one hour weekly infusion. A total of 57 patients were randomised based on a ratio of 2/1:37 and 20 patients received docetaxel and methotrexate, respectively. Patient characteristics included 49 males and 8 females; the median age was 59 years (range: 43-82 years). Twenty-eight patients had a local-regional relapse and 29 had distant metastasis, the median disease-free interval was 7.9 months (range: 0-165 months). For patients treated with docetaxel, the following grade 3-4 toxicities occurred: neutropenia (12.5%) with febrile neutropenia in one patient (1%), anaemia (19%) mucositis (9%) and ungueal toxicity (9%). In the methotrexate arm, the grade 3-4 toxicities were: anaemia (15%) and mucositis (5%). The response rate was significantly higher in the docetaxel arm with 27% (95% confidence interval (CI): 21.7-32.3%) of objective responses versus 15% (95% CI: 11.2-18.8%) in the methotrexate arm. Overall survival and time to progression were super-imposable between the docetaxel and methotrexate treatments. Docetaxel given as a weekly infusion has a high activity in patients with head and neck cancer. A phase III trial is needed to test if this translates into a survival benefit for docetaxel use.

The comparative saliva/plasma pharmacokinetics of topotecan were investigated in 13 patients with metastatic epithelial ovarian cancer receiving topotecan (30-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion) on a five consecutive day schedule every 3 weeks. During the first and the second courses of treatment, each patient underwent pharmacokinetic evaluation. Quantitation of the total topotecan (lactone plus carboxylate form) was assessed by a highly specific high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method. Large patient-to-patient variations in the plasma and saliva concentrations were observed. Plasma and saliva pharmacokinetics could be described using a biexponential pattern. From the saliva data, the half-life of the terminal part of the curve was 2.64 h, it was of the same order of magnitude as the topotecan elimination half-life determined from the plasma data, 3.18 h. Topotecan concentrations were higher in the saliva than in the plasma, the saliva/plasma concentration ratio averaged 2.31 and the ratio area under the parotid saliva (AUC(s)) over plasma (AUC(p)) concentration-time curve (AUC(s)/AUC(p)) averaged 2.11. For each individual, a significant relationship was found between topotecan concentrations in the saliva and in the plasma, the coefficients of correlation ranged from 0.75 to 0.92 according to the patient. Myelosuppression, especially granulocytopenia was the most frequent toxicity encountered during the trial. The percent decrease in the leucocyte count, absolute neutrophil count and platelet count were related to the AUCp/day using sigmoidal E(max) models. The high values of the Hill constant found reflect the very steep AUC-haematoxicity relationship observed. In most cases, abdominal pain occurred in patients presenting high saliva concentrations. One patient with high salivary concentrations (mean S/P ratio=4.60) had grade 1 mucositis. In conclusion, the concentration of topotecan in saliva appeared to be useful as an indirect, non-invasive estimation of the levels of topotecan in the plasma; thus, saliva concentrations could be a good predictor of the behaviour of topotecan in the body.

This multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of single intravenous doses of dolasetron mesilate and granisetron in the prevention of acute emesis and nausea due to high-dose (> or = 80 mg/m2) cisplatin. Single intravenous doses of 1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg of dolasetron mesilate or 3 mg of granisetron hydrochloride were administered in a volume of 50 ml over a 5-min period, beginning 30 min prior to cisplatin (> or = 80 mg/m2) administration. The number and timing of emetic episodes, time to administration of escape anti-emetic medication, severity of nausea by visual analogue scale (VAS), and safety were monitored for 24 h after the start of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Investigators' evaluations of overall efficacy and patients' satisfaction with therapy were recorded at the end of the 24-h study period. Of the 474 patients evaluable for efficacy, complete responses were achieved by 54, 47 and 48% of patients given dolasetron mesilate 1.8 mg/kg, dolasetron mesilate 2.4 mg/kg and granisetron, respectively. Statistically, treatment groups had comparable complete and complete plus major responses, times to first emesis, and use of escape medication; patient maximum nausea severity and treatment satisfaction ratings; and physician nausea severity and overall efficacy assessments. For the majority of efficacy endpoints, 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron mesilate produced numerically superior responses compared with the 2.4 mg/kg dose. Gender and prior chemotherapy were significant predictors of complete response; males and chemotherapy-naive patients had higher responses. The overall incidences of adverse events were comparable among the treatment groups; headache and diarrhoea were most common. In conclusion, 1.8 and 2.4 mg/kg of dolasetron mesilate and granisetron (3 mg) were equally effective in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. In addition, because no additional benefit was observed with 2.4 mg/kg of dolasetron mesilate and numerically greater responses were observed with the 1.8 mg/kg dose, the lower dose of 1.8 mg/kg is optimal for further clinical development.

We report the first double-blind, randomised, crossover study comparing granisetron and ondansetron as antiemetics in cancer chemotherapy. Patients receiving two cycles of identical chemotherapy fractionated over 5 days were given either granisetron (3 mg/day) or ondansetron (24 mg/day) on each day of chemotherapy, using a double-dummy technique to preserve study blindness. Patients then crossed over to the other therapy. 309 patients (237 male) completed the crossover: 260 received cisplatin (mean dose 19.2 mg/m2/day) and 49 received ifosfamide (mean dose 1415 mg/m2/day). Primary efficacy variables were prospectively defined as complete response (no vomiting and mild or absent nausea) over 5 days, and patient preference. Both agents achieved good control of emetic symptoms with 5-day complete response rates of 44.0% on granisetron and 39.8% on ondansetron [95% confidence interval (CI) for odds ratio 0.8, 1.9]. Complete response rates were very similar in patients receiving either cisplatin (40.8% granisetron, 37.6% ondansetron) or ifosfamide (61.2% granisetron, 51.0% ondansetron). There was a statistically significant difference in patient preference in favour of granisetron, 105 patients preferred granisetron, 79 preferred ondansetron, 121 had no preference (P = 0.048: 95% CI for odds ratio 1.00, 1.84). Single daily doses of granisetron (3 mg/day) appeared similarly effective and well tolerated to three daily doses of ondansetron (8 mg three times daily) in prevention of emesis induced by 5-day fractionated chemotherapy, however, significantly more patients preferred granisetron.

119 patients with metastatic melanoma received fotemustine 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and dacarbazine 250 mg/m2 on days 15-18. After a 5-week rest, fotemustine 100 mg/m2 on day 1 and dacarbazine 250 mg/m2 on days 2-5 was given every 3-4 weeks. 12 complete responses (11.6%) and 16 partial responses were observed in 103 evaluable patients (response rate 27.2%). The median duration of response was 21.5+ weeks (8+ to 53+). The response rate was 26.3% in CNS, 18.2% in visceral sites and 37.5% in non-visceral sites. The toxicity was mainly haematological: grade III-IV leukopenia in 27.4% and thrombocytopenia in 23.4%. The response rate was lower than that in 63 patients previously reported. The present series had a higher median age (54 vs. 40 years) without any differences in other population variables. However, activity on CNS metastases and on non-visceral sites was confirmed. Haematological toxicity was about 50% lower than that with fotemustine alone. Hence, this is an active outpatient regimen for metastatic melanoma, especially against cerebral and non-visceral metastases.

A single-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was carried out in 28 patients with malignant disease, naive to chemotherapy, receiving cisplatin at a mean dose in excess of 80 mg/m2. Patients were randomized into two groups, receiving either granisetron (40 micrograms/kg) or placebo. Patients in both groups who experienced symptoms of vomiting and nausea were given up to a further three 40 micrograms/kg doses of granisetron on an open-label basis, allowing the assessment of granisetron as an intervention anti-emetic in the placebo group. Following granisetron administration, 13 (93%) patients had no vomiting or nausea in the first 24 h, a significant difference compared with the one patient in the placebo group who remained free from vomiting and had only mild nausea in the same period (P less than 0.001). As a single intervention agent, granisetron achieved control or improvement of existing symptoms in the remaining members of the placebo group.