Impact of tumor board recommendations on treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Background/Aims: To identify physician selection factors in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer and how treatment outcome is affected by Tumor Board recommendations. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 213 patients treated for locally advanced head and neck cancer in a single institution was performed. All treatments followed Tumor Board recommendations: 115 patients had chemotherapy and radiation, and 98 patients received postoperative radiation. Patient characteristics, treatment toxicity, locoregional control and survival between these two treat- ment groups were compared. Patient survival was compared with survival data reported in randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Results: There were no differences in comorbidity factors, and T or N stages between the two groups. A statistically significant number of patients with oropharyngeal and oral cavity tumors had chemoradiation and postoperative radiation, respectively (p < 0.0001). Grade 3-4 toxicities during treatment were 48 and 87% for the postoperative radiation and chemoradiation groups, respectively (p = 0.0001). There were no differences in survival, locoregional recurrences and distant metastases between the two groups. Patient survival was comparable to survival rates reported by randomized studies of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Conclusion: Disease sites remained the key determining factor for treatment selection. Multidisciplinary approaches provided optimal treatment outcome for locally advanced head and neck cancer, with overall survival in these patients being comparable to that reported in randomized clinical trials. Copyright © 2008 S. Karger AG.

Mature results of a randomized phase II multicenter study of exemestane versus tamoxifen as first-line hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study. RESULTS: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen.

A dose-finding study of lanreotide (a somatostatin analog) in patients with colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND. Laboratory data suggest that insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGE-1) may stimulate the growth of different human tumors. At least in acromegalic patients, somatostatin (SMS) analogs, such as lanreotide, suppress the serum levels of growth hormone (GH) and IGE-1. METHODS. To evaluate the tolerability and biologic activity of different doses of lanreotide in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma, consecutive groups of 3 patients each were subcutaneous treated with lanreotide at doses of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 mg three times a day for 2 months. In the event of Grade 3 side effects, 3 additional patients were treated with the same dose before the next dose escalation. Serum samples were obtained on Days 0, 15, 30, and 60 for serum GH, IGF-1, and lanreotide assessment. RESULTS. Twenty-four patients were enrolled and all were evaluable. Except for the 3 and 6 mg doses, for which the observation of a Grade 3 side effect required that an additional three patients be treated, it was sufficient to treat 3 patients at each dose. The overall incidence of side effects was as follows: changes in bowel habits, 83%; abdominal cramps, 79%; diarrhea, 17%; vomiting, 17%; nausea, 21%; steatorrhea, 78%; hyperglycemia, 35%; laboratory hypothyroidism, 39%; gallstones, 13%; and weight loss, 17%. No evidence of an increase in the incidence, intensity, or duration of side effects was observed with dose escalation. Serum IGF-1 levels were as follows: Day 13: 63%, 60%, and 67% of the baseline values for the low (12 mg), intermediate (3-4 mg), and high (5- 6 mg) dose groups, respectively; Day 30: 63%, 59%, and 51%, respectively; and Day 60: 73%, 69%, and 47%, respectively. Serum lanreotide levels declined during treatment in all of the dose groups (90 ng/mL on Day 15, and 35 ng/mL on Day 60 for the 5-6 mg group; 10 ng/mL on Day 15, and 1.5 ng/mL on Day 60 for the 1-2 mg group). No antitumor activity or tumor marker reduction was observed. CONCLUSIONS. No increase in toxicity was observed when subcutaneous lanreotide doses were escalated to 6 mg three times a day for 2 months. The highest doses seemed to maintain reduced serum IGF-1 levels; with the lowest doses, a 'rebound' in serum IGF-1 levels was observed during treatment. Nevertheless, intermittent subcutaneous injections do not ensure constant serum drug concentrations over time.