Search

We reported a case of measles-induced acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) in a 40-year-old immunocompetent adult. The patient presented a week after the development of respiratory symptoms and a cutaneous rash, and was admitted to hospital for altered mental status. Blood tests showed hyperleukocytosis, thrombopenia and cytolysis. A lumbar puncture was consistent with acute meningitis and the patient was initially treated with antiviral and wide broad-spectrum antibiotics. Serology and PCR for measles came back positive., Learning Points: Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) associated with measles infection is not uncommon.Clinical suspicion must be based on the presence of measles infection or recent vaccination.A normal CT scan does not rule out the disease but magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not required to confirm the diagnosis., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interests: The Authors declare that there are no competing interests., (© EFIM 2020.)

Introduction: Type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor is deregulated in solid tumors. Cixutumumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor, was investigated in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin in the frontline setting., Methods: In this open-label, phase II study, patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC and a performance status of 0 to 1 were randomized (1:1) to receive 20 mg/kg cixutumumab, 500 mg/m 2 pemetrexed, and 75 mg/m 2 cisplatin (cixutumumab [n = 87]) or pemetrexed and cisplatin (control [n = 85]). Eligible patients received pemetrexed-based maintenance therapy with cixutumumab (cixutumumab arm) or without it (control arm). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points assessed overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard model. Exploratory correlative analyses were also performed., Results: The mean age of the intent-to-treat population (n = 172) was 59 years (range 32-83). Median progression-free survival was 5.45 months with cixutumumab versus 5.22 months in the control (hazard ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.61; p = 0.44). Median overall survival was 11.33 months with cixutumumab versus 10.38 months in the control (hazard ratio = 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.36). Objective response rate did not differ between treatments (p = 0.338). Grade 3 or 4 hyperglycemia occurred at a higher rate with cixutumumab than in the control (9.4% versus 1.2%). One death possibly related to cixutumumab occurred., Conclusions: Efficacy was not improved in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC when cixutumumab was added to pemetrexed/cisplatin. Combination therapy was well tolerated and no new safety concerns were reported., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This randomized open-label phase II study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib in combination with pemetrexed compared with the standard cisplatin/pemetrexed doublet in patients with previously untreated, advanced, nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: Patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus either oral pazopanib 800 mg daily or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks up to six cycles. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: The study was terminated after 106 of 150 patients were randomized due to a higher incidence of adverse events leading to withdrawal from the study and severe and fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. At the time enrolment was discontinued, there were three fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm, including ileus, tumor embolism, and bronchopneumonia/sepsis. Treatment with pazopanib/pemetrexed was discontinued resulting in more PFS data censored for patients in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than those in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. There was no statistically significant difference between the pazopanib/pemetrexed and cisplatin/pemetrexed arms for PFS (median PFS, 25.0 versus 22.9 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.43%-1.28%; p = 0.26) or objective response rate (23% versus 34%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -30.6% to 7.2%; p = 0.21)., Conclusion: The combination of pazopanib/pemetrexed in first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer showed some antitumor activity but had unacceptable levels of toxicity.

Purpose: The EORTC 08062 phase II randomised trial investigated the activity and safety of single agent amrubicin, cisplatin combined with amrubicin, and cisplatin combined with etoposide as first line treatment in extensive disease (ED) small cell lung cancer (SCLC)., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients with previously untreated ED-SCLC, WHO performance status (PS) 0-2 and measurable disease were randomised to 3 weekly cycles of either amrubicin alone 45mg/m(2) i.v. day(d) 1-3 (A), cisplatin 60mg/m(2) i.v. d1 and amrubicin 40mg/m(2) i.v. d1-3 (PA), or cisplatin 75mg/m(2) i.v. d1 and etoposide 100mg/m(2) d1, d2-3 i.v./po (PE). The primary end-point was overall response rate (ORR) as assessed by local investigators (RECIST1.0 criteria). Secondary end-points were treatment toxicity, progression-free survival and overall survival., Results: The number of randomised/eligible patients who started treatment was 33/28 in A, 33/30 in PA and 33/30 in PE, respectively. Grade (G) ⩾3 haematological toxicity in A, PA and PE was neutropenia (73%, 73%, 69%); thrombocytopenia (17%, 15%, 9.4%), anaemia (10%, 15%, 3.1%) and febrile neutropenia (13%, 18%, 6%). Early deaths, including treatment related, occurred in 1, 3 and 3 patients in A, PA and PE arms, respectively. Cardiac toxicity did not differ among the 3 arms. Out of 88 eligible patients who started treatment, ORR was 61%, (90% 1-sided confidence intervals [CI] 47-100%), 77% (CI 64-100%) and 63%, (CI 50-100%) for A, PA and PE respectively., Conclusion: All regimens were active and PA met the criteria for further investigation, despite slightly higher haematological toxicity., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This randomized phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new taxane, larotaxel (XRP9881), in combination with either cisplatin or gemcitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with nonirradiable stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer to select the combination having the most promising antitumor activity., Methods: Patients received either larotaxel (50 mg/m) as a 1-hour infusion, followed by a 1-hour infusion of cisplatin (75 mg/m), every 3 weeks (arm A), or gemcitabine (800 mg/m) as a 30 minute infusion, on days 1 and 8, and larotaxel (60 mg/m) as a 1-hour infusion, on day 8 (following gemcitabine), every 3 weeks (arm B). The primary end point was the objective response rate (per-protocol population)., Results: Thirty-two patients were randomized to arm A and 30 to arm B. The response rate was higher in arm A compared with arm B in both the per-protocol (26.7% versus 18.2%) and intention-to-treat (28.1% versus 13.3%) populations. In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival for arm A versus arm B was 4.7 versus 3.3 months and median overall survival was 8.6 versus 7.3 months, respectively. Fifty percent of patients in arm A and 66.7% in arm B experienced at least one National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria grade 3/4 adverse event and grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in 46.9% and 41.4% of patients, respectively., Conclusions: Both larotaxel combinations were effective and manageable, however all measured efficacy parameters (response rate, progression free survival, and survival) seemed to favor the combination with cisplatin.

Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to measure the objective tumor response rate following treatment with indisulam [E7070; N-(3-chloro-7-indolyl)-1,4-benzenedisulfonamide] as second-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The secondary aims were to determine progression-free survival, to assess the safety and tolerability of indisulam, and to study its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile., Experimental Design: Patients were randomized to receive indisulam every 3 weeks either as a single i.v. dose of 700 mg/m(2) on day one (dx1) or 130 mg/m(2) given on days 1 to 5 inclusive as a daily infusion (dx5). All patients had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy., Results: Forty-four patients were randomized. Only minor responses were seen. Myelosuppression, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lethargy were the most common toxicities and were more frequent in the dx1 arm. The pharmacokinetics of indisulam in each treatment schedule were adequately described using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model and were mostly consistent with the results of the phase I program. Flow cytometric analysis of endobronchial and metastatic disease revealed a reduction in the fraction of cycling cells and an increase in apoptosis following indisulam compared with pretreatment levels., Conclusions: We conclude that, despite evidence of tumor-specific indisulam-induced apoptosis, neither of these treatment schedules has single-agent activity as second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

Purpose: The incidence of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) has risen steadily over the last decades along with the increasing frequency of adenocarcinomas. BAC is relatively resistant to commonly used chemotherapy regimens. A phase II study with single agent paclitaxel in patients with stages IIIB, IV or recurrent BAC was performed., Experimental Design: Patients with BAC with at least one target bidimensionally measurable lesion staged as unresectable stages IIIB, IV or recurrent disease, not previously irradiated; ECOG performance status 0-2; life expectancy greater than 3 months; age range between 18 and 75, received paclitaxel at a dose of 200 mg/m2 i.v. as 3h continuous infusion on day 1 every 21 days. Treatment was continued until progression or up to a maximum of six cycles., Results: Nineteen patients were eligible. Median number of cycles was 3 (range 0-6); 35% of patients received the planned six cycles of chemotherapy. One patient died of unrelated cause before the start of treatment. Both hematological and non-hematological toxicities were generally mild. Only one partial response (PR) was observed among the 18 eligible patients who started protocol treatment, with a response rate of 5.6% (95% CI: 0.1-27.3%). After an independent review, two PR were confirmed, for a response rate of 11.1% (95% CI: 1.4-34.7%); nine patients had stable disease (50.0%), three patients had progressive disease (11.1%) and four patients were not assessable (22.2%). Median survival was 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.8-14.5) and 1-year survival was 35.0% (95% CI: 14.1-55.8). Median progression free survival for all patients was 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.5-6.0). The study was terminated due to the low response rate., Conclusions: Paclitaxel as single agent in stages IIIB-IV BAC was well tolerated and manageable but of limited efficacy. BAC should not be excluded from trials of new forms of chemotherapy.

We observed oat-cell lung carcinoma in a man who presented with diabetes insipidus. The chest radiograph showed a suspect nodule within a context of major nicotine addiction. Histopathological examination of the transbronchial biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of oat-cell carcinoma. Brain CT revealed metastasis to the pituitary gland and the pituitary stalk. Vasopressin was undetectable. This case illustrates an uncommon clinical presentation of small-cell lung carcinoma. Oat-cell carcinoma can modify osmoregulation in two different ways. Only sporadic cases of neurogenic diabetes insipidus due to the primary involvement of small-cell lung carcinoma have been reported. More often, this type of lung tumor is associated with inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the activity and toxicity of a combined regimen of topotecan and cisplatin in "sensitive" (s) and "refractory" (r) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients treated previously., Experimental Design: Patients with measurable SCLC and progressive disease after one first-line regimen were eligible for the study. Patients were enrolled in two separate groups: r group (patients who failed first-line treatment <3 months from treatment discontinuation) and s group (patients who responded to first-line treatment and progressed >or=3 months after treatment discontinuation). Cisplatin was given i.v. at the dose of 60 mg/m(2) on day 1, and topotecan was administered as a daily i.v. infusion at the dose of 0.75 mg/m(2) from day 1 to 5, every 3 weeks., Results: A total of 110 eligible (68 s and 42 r) patients were enrolled from 24 institutions. The main patient characteristics were as follows: median age 60 (s) and 55 (r) years, median performance status 1 for both (s) and (r). Seventy-four percent (s) and 67% (r) had extensive stage disease, including 22% and 36%, respectively, with brain metastases. A total of 398 chemotherapy courses were administered [median 4 (s) and 3 (r) per patient]. The most frequent and serious toxicity was myelosuppression. Grade IV neutropenia occurred in 62% (s) and 49% (r) of patients, with a 19% (s) and 15% (r) incidence of febrile neutropenia, and grade IV thrombocytopenia in 54% (s) and 44% (r). Most of these toxicities occurred during the first chemotherapy course and led to topotecan dose reduction and/or delay in the following courses. Grade III-IV nonhematological toxicity was uncommon. Five deaths possibly related to toxicity occurred among s patients only. Objective responses have been documented in 20 s patients, 19 partial responses and 1 complete response, (29.4% response rate; 95% confidence interval, 19-42), whereas, among r patients, 10 partial responses have been observed (23.8% response rate; 95% confidence interval, 12-39). Median survival for s and r was 6.4 and 6.1 months, respectively., Conclusions: The combination of cisplatin and topotecan, at this dose and schedule, shows activity and promising results in patients with refractory SCLC, with reversible myelosuppression being the main side effect. Additional development of this regimen, using better-tolerated schedules, is warranted in patients with refractory SCLC.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as first- and second-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) under routine clinical conditions. Two hundred and three patients with advanced NSCLC received docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (1-h intravenous infusion) every 3 weeks, with oral corticosteroid pre-medication, of whom 173 were eligible. Median age was 60 (29-78) years and median Karnofsky performance status was 80% (60-100). A total of 77% of patients had metastatic disease, 33% had bone metastases and 18% had liver metastases. The treatment was second-line or more for 72 patients (35%). Overall response rates in the eligible population were 19.7% [95% CI, 12.5-23.0] for both treatments, 22.6% for first-line treatment and 13.8% for second-line treatment. Median survival was 8.3 months and 1-year survival was 35% for the overall population (8.7 months and 38%, respectively, for patients receiving first-line treatment and 7.2 months and 27%, respectively, for patients receiving second-line treatment). Neutropenia, grade 3 and 4, occurred in 57% of the cycles and 5% of patients experienced febrile neutropenia. Alopecia (62% of patients), neuro-sensory symptoms (32%), asthenia (28%), diarrhea (22%), nausea (22%) and nail disorders (20%) were the most common non-hematological adverse effects. A total of 33% of patients suffered fluid retention, despite the use of corticosteroid pre-medication, but this was only severe in 1.5% of patients. It was possible to confirm the efficacy of docetaxel as a single agent for first- and second-line chemotherapy in a large patient population treated in a community setting.