Metastatic bone disease

The skeleton is the first and most common site of distant relapse in breast and prostate carcinomas. Tumor bone disease is responsible for a considerable morbidity, which also makes major demands on resources for healthcare provision. Increased bone resorption in tumor bone disease appears to be essentially mediated by the ostoclasts, explaining why bisphosphonates have been successfully used for the treatment of malignant ostolysis. Hypercalcemia occurs in 10-20% of the patients with advanced cancer, and the uncoupling between bone resorption and bone formation is easily demonstrated by the measurement of bone markers. The differential diagnosis between tumor-induced hypercalcemia and primary hyperparathyroidism is most often easy when using intact parathyroid hormone (PTH) assays; moreover, parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP) determination can be useful in selected cases. The diagnosis of bone metastases is often easy when the patient is symptomatic. The diagnostic usefulness of bone markers is limited, and the available data indicate that bone markers are so far unsuitable for an early diagnosis of neoplastic skeletal involvement on an individual basis. However, by combining bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BALP) or modern bone resorption markers with specific tumor markers, such as PSA or CA15.3, the diagnostic sensitivity of bone markers can be improved. Their degree of elevation correlates with the tumor burden and has been shown to be an independent prognostic factor for several tumors. On the other hand, biochemical markers of bone turnover have the unique potential to simplify and improve the monitoring of metastatic bone disease, which remains a continuous challenge for the oncologist. Peptide-bound cross-links could be quite useful to discriminate between patients progressing early on treatment from those with longer disease control. Also, the diagnostic efficiency of a 50% increase in these markers could identify imminent progression. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

An EORTC phase I study of capecitabine (Xeloda) in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and epirubicin (cex) as primary treatment for large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer.

In breast cancer, chemotherapy regimens that include infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) lead to high response rates, but require central venous access and pumps. To avoid these inconveniences, we substituted infusional 5-FU with capecitabine. The main objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of capecitabine when given in combination with fixed doses of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (100 and 600 mg/m(2) day 1 every (q) 3 weeks) as primary treatment for large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer without distant metastasis. Capecitabine was escalated from 750 mg/m(2) twice a day (bid) to 1250 mg/m(2) bid from day 1 to day 14 in four dose levels. Dose escalation was permitted if 0/3 or 1/6 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). A total of 23 patients were included and 117 courses were administered. At dose level 4, 2 of 2 patients presented DLTs defining the MTD. A high rate of capecitabine treatment modification was required with capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid (dose level 3). 19 patients achieved an objective response (83%). In conclusion, we believe that capecitabine 900 mg/m(2) bid (dose level 2) is the recommended dose in combination with epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2). The acceptable toxicity profile and encouraging activity of this regimen warrant further evaluation.

An EORTC phase I study of epirubicin in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and infusional 5-fu (CEF-infu) as primary treatment of large operable or locally advanced/inflammatory breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The association of continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin (50 mg/m2 q 3 weeks) and a platinum compound (cisplatin or carboplatin) was found to be very active in patients with either locally advanced/inflammatory (LA/I) [1, 2] or large operable (LO) breast cancer (BC) [3]. The same rate of activity in terms of response rate (RR) and response duration was observed in LA/I BC patients when cisplatin was replaced by cyclophosphamide [4]. The dose of epirubicin was either 50 mg/m2 [ 1, 2, 3] or 60 mg/m2/cycle [4]. The main objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of epirubicin when given in combination with fixed doses of cyclophosphamide and infusional 5-fluorouracil (CEF-infu) as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with LO or LA/I BC for a maximum of 6 cycles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had LO or LA/I BC, a performance status 0-1, adequate organ function and were <65 years old. Cyclophosphamide was administered at the dose of 400 mg/m2 day 1 and 8, q 4 weeks and infusional 5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/day was given day 1-28, q 4 weeks. Epirubicin was escalated from 30 to 45 and to 60 mg/m2 day 1 and 8; dose escalation was permitted if 0/3 or 1/6 patients experienced dose limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first 2 cycles of therapy. DLT for epirubicin was defined as febrile neutropenia, grade 4 neutropenia lasting for >7 days, grade 4 thrombocytopenia, or any non-haematological toxicity of CTC grade > or =3, excluding alopecia and plantar-palmar erythrodysesthesia (this toxicity was attributable to infusional 5-fluorouracil and was not considered a DLT of epirubicin). RESULTS: A total of 21 patients, median age 44 years (range 29-63) have been treated. 107 courses have been delivered, with a median number of 5 cycles per patient (range 4-6). DLTs on cycles I and 2 on level 1, 2, 3: grade 3 (G3) mucositis occurred in 1/10 patients treated at the third dose level. An interim analysis showed that G3 PPE occurred in 5/16 pts treated with the 28-day infusional 5-FU schedule at the 3 dose levels. The protocol was subsequently amended to limit the duration of infusional 5-fluorouracil infusion from 4 to 3 weeks. No G3 PPE was detected in 5 patients treated with this new schedule. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes that epirubicin 60mg/m2 day 1 and 8, cyclophosphamide 400mg/m2 day 1 and 8 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/day day 1-21. q 4 weeks is the recommended dose level. Given the encouraging activity of this regimen (15/21 clinical responses) we have replaced infusional 5-fluorouracil by oral capecitabine in a recently activated study.

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.

Doxifluridine and leucovorin: an oral treatment combination in advanced colorectal cancer

Purpose: This study was designed to test the activity and feasibility of an all-oral regimen of levo-leucovorin and doxifluridine (dFUR) in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer and to establish whether the pharmacokinetics of dFUR and fluorouracil (FU) are affected by demographic and/or biologic parameters. Materials and Methods: One hundred eight patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer received orally administered levo-leucovorin 25 mg followed 2 hours later by dFUR 1,200 mg/m2 on days 1 to 5, with the cycle being repeated every 10 days. Results: Among 62 previously untreated patients, two complete responses (CRs) and 18 partial responses (PRs) were observed (overall response rate, 32%; 95% confidence interval, 21% to 45%). The median response duration was 4 months (range, 2 to 13) and the median survival time, 14 months. Among 46 pretreated patients, there were three CRs and three PRs (response rate, 13%; 95% confidence interval, 5% to 26%). In this group of patients, the median response duration was 4 months (range, 1 to 12) and the median survival time, 12 months. No toxic deaths were observed. The only World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 to 4 side effect was diarrhea (32 patients). Conclusion: This regimen is active in previously untreated colorectal cancer patients and combines good compliance with safety. Limited but definite efficacy was also detected in the patients previously treated with FU, which suggests incomplete cross- resistance between the two drugs. The pharmacokinetic results suggest that the conversion rate of dFUR to FU increases between days 1 and 5, but that FU levels remain low in comparison to those measured after classical FU therapy. Under the experimental conditions used in this study, the interpatient variability of pharmacokinetic parameters remains largely unexplained by the tested variables.

Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin given as single agents in first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer (primary end point, progression-free survival ¿PFS) and to explore the degree of cross-resistance between the two agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks, or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus every 3 weeks. Seven courses were planned unless progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred before the seven courses were finished. Patients who progressed within the seven courses underwent early cross-over to the alternative drug, while a delayed cross-over was optional for the remainder of patients at the time of disease progression. RESULTS: Objective response in first-line therapy was significantly better (P =.003) for doxorubicin (response rate ¿RR, 41%) than for paclitaxel (RR, 25%), with doxorubicin achieving a longer median PFS (7.5 months for doxorubicin v 3.9 months for paclitaxel, P <.001). In second-line therapy, cross-over to doxorubicin (91 patients) and to paclitaxel (77 patients) gave response rates of 30% and 16%, respectively. The median survival durations of 18.3 months for doxorubicin and 15.6 months for paclitaxel were not significantly different (P =.38). The doxorubicin arm had greater toxicity, but this was counterbalanced by better symptom control. CONCLUSION: At the dosages and schedules used in the present study, doxorubicin achieves better disease and symptom control than paclitaxel in first-line treatment. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel are not totally cross-resistant, which supports further investigation of these drugs in combination or in sequence, both in advanced disease and in the adjuvant setting.

A randomised phase II study of two different schedules of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in metastatic breast cancer (EORTC-10993).

One hundred and sixteen women with measurable metastatic breast cancer participated in a randomised phase II study of single agent liposomal pegylated doxorubicin (Caelyx) given either as a 60 mg/m2 every 6 weeks (ARM A) or 50 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (ARM B) schedule. Patients were over 65 years of age or, if younger, had refused or been unsuitable for standard anthracyclines. The aims of the study were to evaluate toxicity and dose delivery with the two schedules and obtain further information on the response rate of liposomal pegylated doxorubicin as a single agent in anthracycline nai ve advanced breast cancer. Twenty-six patients had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy (including an anthracycline in 10). Sixteen had received non-anthracycline-based first-line chemotherapy for advanced disease. One hundred and eleven patients were evaluable for toxicity and 106 for response. The delivered dose intensity (DI) was 9.8 mg/m2 (95% CI, 7.2-10.4) with 37 (69%) achieving a DI of >90% on ARM A and 11.9 mg/m2 (95% CI, 7.5-12.8) with 37 (65%) achieving a DI of >90% on ARM B. The adverse event profiles of the two schedules were distinctly different. Mucositis was more common with the every 6 weeks regimen (35% CTC grade 3/4 in ARM A, 14% in ARM B) but palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was more frequent with the every 4 weeks regimen (2% CTC grade 3/4 in ARM A, 16% in ARM B). Confirmed objective partial responses by RECIST criteria were seen with both schedules; 15/51 (29%) on ARM A and 17/56 (31%) on ARM B. Liposomal pegylated doxorubicin showed significant activity in advanced breast cancer with a generally favourable side-effect profile. The high frequency of stomatitis seen with 6 weekly treatment makes this the less preferred of the two schedules tested.

A feasibility study evaluating docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Docetaxel is an active agent in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. We evaluated the feasibility of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens as adjuvant therapies for patients with node-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three consecutive groups of patients with node-positive breast cancer or locally-advanced disease, aged < or = 70 years, received one of the following regimens: a) sequential A-->T-->CMF: doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 3, followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 3, followed by i.v. CMF days 1 + 8 q 4 weeks x 3; b) sequential accelerated A-->T-->CMF: A and T were administered at the same doses q 2 weeks; c) combination therapy: doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 q 3 weeks x 4, followed by CMF x 4. When indicated, radiotherapy was administered during or after CMF, and tamoxifen started after the end of CMF. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients have been treated. Median age was 48 years. A 30% rate of early treatment discontinuation was observed in patients receiving the sequential accelerated therapy (23% during A-->T), due principally to severe skin toxicity. Median relative dose-intensity was 100% in the three treatment arms. The incidence of G3-G4 major toxicities by treated patients, was as follows: skin toxicity a: 5%; b: 27%; c: 0%; stomatitis a: 20%; b: 20%; c: 3%. The incidence of neutropenic fever was a: 30%; b: 13%; c: 48%. After a median follow-up of 18 months, no late toxicity has been reported. CONCLUSIONS: The accelerated sequential A-->T-->CMF treatment is not feasible due to an excess of skin toxicity. The sequential non accelerated and the combination regimens are feasible and under evaluation in a phase III trial of adjuvant therapy.

3-year results of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel has proven efficacy in metastatic breast cancer. In this pilot study, we explored the efficacy/feasibility of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens as adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 1996 till March 1998, four consecutive groups of patients with stages II and III breast cancer, aged < or = 70 years, received one of the following regimens: a) sequential Doxorubicin (A) --> Docetaxel (T) --> CMF (Cyclophosphamide+Methotrexate+5-Fluorouracil): A 75 mg/m q 3 wks x 3, followed by T100 mg/m2 q 3 wks x 3, followed by i.v. CMF Days 1+8 q 4 wks x 3; b) sequential accelerated A --> T --> CMF: A and T administered at the same doses q 2 wks with Lenograstin support; c) combination therapy: A 50 mg/m2 + T 75 mg/m2 q 3 wks x 4, followed by CMF x 4; d) sequential T --> A --> CMF: T and A, administered as in group a), with the reverse sequence. When indicated, radiotherapy was administered during or after CMF, and Tamoxifen after CMF. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were treated. The median age was 48 years (29-66) and the median number of positive axillary nodes was 6 (1-25). Tumors were operable in 94% and locally advanced in 6% of cases. Pathological tumor size was >2 cm in 72% of cases. There were 21 relapses, (18 systemic, 3 locoregional) and 11 patients (12%) have died from disease progression. At median follow-up of 39 months (6-57), overall survival (OS) was 87% (95% CI, 79-94%) and disease-free survival (DFS) was 76% (95% CI, 67%-85%). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of these docetaxel-based regimens, in terms of OS and DFS, appears to be at least as good as standard anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), in similar high-risk patient populations.

The impact of chemotherapy dose density and dose intensity on breast cancer outcome: what have we learned?

Optimising chemotherapy dose density and dose intensity are strategies aimed at improving outcomes in adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer. There are, in theory, at least five models allowing the delivery of a higher overall drug dose intensity. These are reviewed in this article and vary according to three main variables: the dose per course, the interval between doses and the total cumulative dose. Cyclophosphamide, anthracyclines and taxanes are among the most active agents for the treatment of breast cancer and, as such, they have been or are currently the focus of prospective, randomised clinical trials testing some of these dose-intensity models in the adjuvant setting. The results of recent trials suggest that anthracyclines, but not cyclophosphamide, are associated with better outcomes if used at higher doses per course and at higher cumulative doses. However, care has to be taken with premenopausal women where an increased dose of anthracycline per course but a reduced cumulative dose appears to produce a worse outcome. Moreover, decreasing the interval between doses, for anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide, does not seem to provide, so far, additional benefits for women with locally advanced breast cancer. This approach is not feasible with docetaxel, since an increase in dose density induces unwanted side-effects. These results represent our current state of knowledge, but clinical trials are being performed to evaluate further the effect of dose intensity, dose density and cumulative dose of key therapeutic agents on patient outcomes.

Taxanes alone or in combination with anthracyclines as first-line therapy of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) have been sequenced or combined with anthracyclines (doxorubicin or epirubicin) for the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. This meta-analysis uses data from all relevant trials to detect any advantages of taxanes in terms of tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected on eight randomized combination trials comparing anthracyclines + taxanes (+ cyclophosphamide in one trial) with anthracyclines + cyclophosphamide (+ fluorouracil in four trials), and on three single-agent trials comparing taxanes with anthracyclines. Combination trials included 3,034 patients; single-agent trials included 919 patients. RESULTS: Median follow-up of living patients was 43 months, median survival was 19.3 months, and median PFS was 7.1 months. In single-agent trials, response rates were similar in the taxanes (38%) and in the anthracyclines (33%) arms (P = .08). The hazard ratios for taxanes compared with anthracyclines were 1.19 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.36; P = .011) for PFS and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P = .90) for survival. In combination trials, response rates were 57% (10% complete) in taxane-based combinations and 46% (6% complete) in control arms (P < .001). The hazard ratios for taxane-based combinations compared with control arms were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.99; P = .031) for PFS and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.03; P = .24) for survival. CONCLUSION: Taxanes were significantly worse than single-agent anthracyclines in terms of PFS, but not in terms of response rates or survival. Taxane-based combinations were significantly better than anthracycline-based combinations in terms of response rates and PFS, but not in terms of survival.

Workshop summary: Hormonal suppression in the neoadjuvant setting and advanced disease

SCOPUS: cp.j

La place de la chimiothérapie dans le traitement du cancer broncho pulmonaire

Single agent chemotherapy of advanced lung cancer is still unsatisfactory. The most encouraging results have been obtained with high dose intermittent treatment with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate or adriamycin. Combination chemotherapy is probably more efficacious than single agent chemotherapy, especially in oat cell carcinoma. The best treatment schedules give a response rate of approximately 80%. The value of adjuvant chemotherapy is not yet established, but new controlled clinical trials are indicated considering the poor results achieved by surgery and radiotherapy.

Breast cancer

Breast cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer morbidity and mortality. Despite significant advances in treatment of breast cancer a substantial proportion of women affected by this disease succumb to it. Survival of patients with advanced disease, chemoresistant tumors or a suboptimal response to endocrine therapy is significantly shortened. Hence, further understanding of disease pathogenesis is required to enhance the arsenal of approaches to cure this deadly ailment. Recent advances in biochemistry, molecular cell biology and cancer research highlighted the importance of dysregulation of protein synthesis, translation, in the development and progression of tumors. This dysregulation appears to take place at an early stage of translation, called translation initiation, that is a highly controlled and rate-limiting step of the protein synthesis. In this chapter we summarize decades of knowledge accumulated in regards to the role of translation and its regulation in the development and progression of breast cancer. We then extensively discuss applications of this knowledge in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.

ESR/ERS white paper on lung cancer screening

Lung cancer is the most frequently fatal cancer, with poor survival once the disease is advanced. Annual low-dose computed tomography has shown a survival benefit in screening individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Based on the available evidence, the European Society of Radiology and the European Respiratory Society recommend lung cancer screening in comprehensive, quality-assured, longitudinal programmes within a clinical trial or in routine clinical practice at certified multidisciplinary medical centres. Minimum requirements include: standardised operating procedures for low-dose image acquisition, computer-assisted nodule evaluation, and positive screening results and their management; inclusion/exclusion criteria; expectation management; and smoking cessation programmes. Further refinements are recommended to increase quality, outcome and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening: inclusion of risk models, reduction of effective radiation dose, computer-assisted volumetric measurements and assessment of comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vascular calcification). All these requirements should be adjusted to the regional infrastructure and healthcare system, in order to exactly define eligibility using a risk model, nodule management and a quality assurance plan. The establishment of a central registry, including a biobank and an image bank, and preferably on a European level, is strongly encouraged. Key points: • Lung cancer screening using low dose computed tomography reduces mortality. • Leading US medical societies recommend large scale screening for high-risk individuals. • There are no lung cancer screening recommendations or reimbursed screening programmes in Europe as of yet. • The European Society of Radiology and the European Respiratory Society recommend lung cancer screening within a clinical trial or in routine clinical practice at certified multidisciplinary medical centres. • High risk, eligible individuals should be enrolled in comprehensive, quality-controlled longitudinal programmes.