Search

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of the dual epidermal growth factor receptor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, vandetanib, in combination with carboplatin and gemcitabine in the first‐line treatment of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma urothelial cancer (UC) who were unsuitable for cisplatin. Patients and methods: From 2011 to 2014, 82 patients were randomised from 16 hospitals across the UK into the TOUCAN double‐blind, placebo‐controlled randomised Phase II trial, receiving six 21‐day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (target area under the concentration versus time curve 4.5, day 1) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8) combined with either oral vandetanib 100 mg or placebo (once daily). Progression‐free survival (PFS; primary endpoint), adverse events, tolerability and feasibility of use, objective response rate and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol analyses were used to analyse the primary endpoint. Results: The 82 patients were randomised 1:1 to vandetanib (n = 40) or placebo (n = 42), and 25 patients (30%) completed six cycles of all allocated treatment. Toxicity Grade ≥3 was experienced in 80% (n = 32) and 76% (n = 32) of patients in the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively. The median PFS was 6.8 and 8.8 months for the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–1.76; P = 0.71); the median OS was 10.8 vs 13.8 months (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.79–2.52; P = 0.88); and radiological response rates were 50% and 55%. Conclusion: There is no evidence that vandetanib improves clinical outcome in this setting. Our present data do not support its adoption as the regimen of choice for first‐line treatment in patients with UC who were unfit for cisplatin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evolving field of personalised medicine is playing an increasingly important role in cancer prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and therapeutics. Its importance in clinical management is demonstrated by the recent introduction into routine clinical practice of various individualised, molecularly targeted therapies with increased efficacy and/or reduced toxicity. The identification of cancer predisposition genes, such as the BRCA genes in breast cancer, permits screening programmes to identify patients 'at-risk' of developing cancer and helps them make decisions on individual risk-modification behaviours. Personalised medicine also plays an increasingly important role in cancer treatment. It is increasingly clear that there are molecularly distinct subtypes of various common cancers, with different therapeutic approaches required for each subtype, for example, the use of the monoclonal antibodies (trastuzumab and cetuximab) in HER2-positive breast cancer and wild-type KRAS colorectal cancer; tyrosine kinase inhibitors (imatinib, gefitinib, erlotinib and crizotinib) in chronic myeloid leukaemia, gastrointestinal stromal tumours and non-small-cell lung cancer and intracellular agents (vemurafenib and olaparib) in metastatic malignant melanoma and ovarian, breast and prostate cancer. The efficacy of various targeted therapies in such disparate tumours suggests that we are entering an era in which treatment decisions will be based on tumour molecular abnormality profile or 'signature,' rather than tumour tissue type or anatomical site of origin, improving patient prognosis and quality of life. This mini review focuses on the role of personalised medicine in cancer prevention and treatment as well as its future direction in oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis data demonstrate a 5% absolute survival benefit for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) using cisplatin-based combination regimens in the radical treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, there are no randomized, controlled trial data on the optimum regimen. Accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (AMVAC) is a dose-intense regimen that has the potential to minimize delays to definitive, potentially curative therapy. A retrospective analysis is presented of the efficacy and toxicity of AMVAC as NAC in patients with MIBC and its impact on the patient pathway. METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients with MIBC were treated with AMVAC as NAC by 2 UK multidisciplinary uro-oncology teams. Three or 4 cycles of AMVAC (methotrexate 30 mg/m2, vinblastine 3 mg/m2, doxorubicin 30 mg/m2, and cisplatin 70 mg/m2) were given at 2-week intervals, with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support, prior to either radical surgery or radical radiotherapy. RESULTS: All planned cycles of chemotherapy were completed, without dose reduction or delay in 84% of patients. All 80 patients subsequently received their planned definitive therapy. Grade 3/4 toxicities were seen in 26% of the 42% of patients for whom toxicity data are available, including 12% grade 3/4 neutropenia. Pathological complete response to AMVAC was seen in 43% of 60 surgical patients. Objective radiological local response was seen in 83% of 57 evaluable patients. Two-year disease-free and overall survival were 65% and 77%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AMVAC is safe and appears to be a well-tolerated and effective NAC regimen for MIBC. It minimizes delays to definitive treatment and produces excellent pathological and radiological response rates. It is an appropriate comparator for future randomized trials. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE To report our experience of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with haematopoietic stem-cell support (HSC) in patients with poor risk, relapsed or refractory germ cell tumours (GCTs), as this treatment might offer effective salvage for patients with disseminated GCTs. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and database for 33 patients with GCT who were treated with HDC with HSC in our centres. RESULTS Thirty-three patients were treated with either one or two cycles of carboplatin and etoposide-based HDC with HSC support, between March 1990 and October 2003. Twenty-six patients (79%) had nonseminomatous GCT, six seminoma (18%), and one (3%) a combined seminoma and teratoma. Twenty patients (60%) had previously had a clinical complete response after previous chemotherapy ± surgery for residual disease. Most patients were treated with HDC for relapsing (49%) or relative refractory disease (30%), but seven (21%) had HDC in the first partial remission. The complete response rate to HDC was 58%. There were two treatment-related deaths (6%). As of April 2005, 18 patients were alive and disease-free with a median (range) follow-up of 72 (0.5–174) months. The 5-year overall and progression-free survival probabilities were 57% and 56%, respectively. The median (range) times to absolute neutrophil count recovery (≥500/µL) were 13 (9–24) and 12 (10–15) days, and for platelet count recovery (≥20 000/µL) were 16 (7–50) and 13 (11–17) days, in the first and second cycles, respectively. CONCLUSION The role of HDC with HSC support in metastatic GCTs remains controversial, and data from randomized controlled trials are needed. Our experience suggests that, in selected patients, this approach might be a useful form of salvage therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on causes of synthetic vascular graft failure. Limitations of human tanned umbilical vein grafts; Problems related to grafts using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE); Need for a policy of duplex vein graft surveillance; Advantages of vein interposition techniques for PTFE grafting.