Search

In the last five years, everolimus has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) of different origins; its efficacy and safety were explored in the RADIANT trials, the last of which (RADIANT-4) has been recently published (December 2015). Overall, evidence collected from the RADIANT studies holds promise to change clinical practice for the treatment of NETs.In this paper, we comment on the role of everolimus within the therapeutic algorithm for NETs treatment, based on the systematic analysis of the RADIANT trials and our experience., Competing Interests: There is no conflict of interest.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and tolerability of capecitabine administration according to a specific time schedule, combined with adjuvant radiation therapy, in intermediate-risk to high-risk rectal cancer patients treated with an upfront surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade 3 to 4 diarrhea during chemoradiation (CRT)., Materials and Methods: Stage II and III rectal cancer patients received, after total mesorectal excision, 2 cycles of XELOX regimen (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) bid on day 1 to 14, q21), followed by capecitabine (800 mg/m(2) bid daily; 20% dose at 12:00 AM and 80% dose at 12:00 PM) administered continuously during pelvic radiation (total 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, 1.8 Gy daily dose between 2:00 and 4:00 PM). Four additional cycles of XELOX were administered after chemoradiotherapy., Results: Fifty-one radically resected rectal cancer patients were enrolled. All, but one, cases were evaluated for safety of CRT. We reported a grade 3 and 4 diarrhea rate of 14% (7 of 50 patients), whereas no grade 3 and 4 leukopenia was observed. Grade 1 and 2 proctitis was observed in 26 (52%) cases, whereas grade 1 and 2 cystitis in 5 (10%) patients. Only 2 cases of grade 3 proctitis and cystitis were reported, respectively. The CRT phase was feasible and was completed by 43 (84%) patients. Three patients developed actinic enteritis 60 days after the end of the radiotherapy program., Conclusions: Capecitabine timetable administration combined with adjuvant radiation therapy of rectal cancer is well tolerated and feasible. Further investigation of this chronomodulated schedule in terms of efficacy is warranted in neoadjuvant setting.

Abnormal PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway signalling and autocrine activation of the mTOR pathway, mediated through insulin-like growth factor-1, have been implicated in the proliferation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (pNET) cells. Everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, has shown antitumor benefit in pNETs alone and in combination with octreotide LAR in RADIANT-1 and RADIANT-3 studies. Although everolimus-based phase II/III trials have improved progression-free survival for pNET, its use has not impacted on prolonging overall survival. Metformin has recently shown some anti-cancer activity in both in vitro and in vivo studies by its indirect properties to decrease insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) levels and by its antitumour effect to promote AMPK activation and consequently inhibition to TSC1-2/mTOR complex. In light of even more retrospective evidence of metformin's anticancer activity, a prospective evaluation is required to either confirm or discard these preliminary findings. With the aim to evaluate the antiproliferative effect of metformin in combination with everolimus and octreotide LAR in pancreatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor patients, a single arm, prospective, single center phase II study was designed (MetNET-1 trial, NCT 02294006). Forty-three patients are expected to be evaluated. The study is ongoing, and recruitment is estimated to be completed in August 2016. The results will be anticipated in 2017.

Purpose: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) in neuroendocrine tumours' (NETs) treatment., Methods: Forty patients (pts) with advanced NETs were treated. Of these, 13 had untreated poorly differentiated NETs, 27 had well-differentiated NETs in progression after somatostatin analogues. Patients received oxaliplatin e.v. 130 mg/mq i.v. and capecitabine 2,000 mg/mq/die. The primary sites of the disease were: lung (10 pts), pancreas (15 pts), small bowel (8 pts), unknown (1 pt), others (6 pts)., Results: In 13 pts with poorly differentiated NETs objective responses (OR) were: 3 PR (23%), 1 SD (7%), 9 PD (70%). Biochemical responses were 11%. In 27 patients with well-differentiated NETs the OR were: 8 PR (30%), 13 SD (48%) and 6 PD (22%). Biochemical and symptomatic responses were 20 and 50%, respectively., Conclusions: The XELOX regimen is effective and tolerated in well-differentiated NETs after progression following somatostatin analogues.

Purpose: Oxaliplatin (OHP) is a new platinum antineoplastic, while gemcitabine (GEM) is one of the most active drugs against non-small cell carcinoma (NSCLC). The OHP/GEM combination is interesting because the drugs have different mechanisms of action and toxicity profiles. The primary endpoint of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of OHP/GEM combination in non-small cell carcinoma of the lung., Methods: Patients with relapsed NSCLC were treated with fixed dose i.v. GEM (1250 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8; followed on day 1 by i.v. OHP over 3 h, starting from 70 mg/m2 with 20 mg/m2 increments, up to 130 mg/m2. We enrolled 19 patients with eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) status 0/1=13/6; male/female=13/6. All had received first-line and four second-line chemotherapy., Results: Four patients dropped out. At dose level 2, one patient died of pulmonary embolism; at level 3, two patients died of disease progression. One patient at level 3, refused to continue treatment after allergic reaction (high fever episode) during infusion of third cycle. Fifteen patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. According to a priori statistical considerations, three patients in each of the first three treatment levels and six in the last level were evaluable. No G3-4 toxicity was observed at levels 1 and 2. G3 neutropenia and anemia occurred in 8% of cycles at level 3. Six patients entered level 4 (OHP 130 mg/m2) with 22 courses delivered: G3-4 neutropenia occurred in 9%, G1-2 thrombocytopenia in 18%; other toxicities were mainly limited to G1-2 flu-like syndrome in about one third of patients and G1-2 nausea and vomiting in 5% of courses. There was no myelo-DLT at the highest dose level. There was no neurotoxicity at any level. Treatment was delayed in 12% and dose reduced in 26% of courses. There were 2/15 PR., Conclusions: MTD was not reached. OHP and GEM can probably be administered safely at 130 and 1250 mg/m2, respectively, as first-line therapy. The schedule is being used in a phase II trial.