Randomized, controlled trial investigating short-term health-related quality of life with doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Group, Investigational Drug Branch for Breast Cancer and the New Drug Development Group Study.

PURPOSE: To compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as first-line chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 275) with anthracycline-naive measurable metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Dose escalation of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) was planned at cycle 2 to reach equivalent myelosuppression in the two groups. HRQOL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and the EORTC Breast Module at baseline and the start of cycles 2, 4, and 6, and 3 months after the last cycle. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of the patients (n = 219) completed a baseline measure. However, there were no statistically significant differences in HRQOL between the two treatment groups. In both groups, selected aspects of HRQOL were impaired over time, with increased fatigue, although some clinically significant improvements in emotional functioning were seen, as well as a reduction in pain over time. Overall, global quality of life was maintained in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: This information is important when advising women patients of the expected HRQOL consequences of treatment regimens and should help clinicians and their patients make informed treatment decisions.

Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 Multicenter Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life. RESULTS: A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm. CONCLUSION: No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen

Promising results with exemestane in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a randomized phase II EORTC trial with a tamoxifen control.

Because tamoxifen (TAM), a nonsteroidal antiestrogen, is routinely used in the adjuvant setting, other hormone therapies are needed as alternatives for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Currently, exemestane (EXE) and other antiaromatase agents are indicated for use in patients who experience failure of TAM. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, TAM-controlled (20 mg/day), phase II trial, we examined the activity and tolerability of EXE 25 mg/day for the first-line treatment of MBC in postmenopausal women. Exemestane was well tolerated and demonstrated substantial first-line antitumor activity based on intent-to-treat analysis of peer-reviewed responses. In the EXE arm, values for complete, partial, and objective response, clinical benefit, and time to tumor progression (TTP) exceeded those reported for TAM although no statistical comparison was made. Based on these encouraging results, a phase III trial will compare EXE and TAM.

The effect of exemestane on serum lipid profile in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer: a companion study to EORTC Trial 10951, 'Randomized phase II study in first line hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer with exemestane or tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients'.

BACKGROUND: The impact of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on non-cancer-related outcomes, which are known to be affected by oestrogens, has become increasingly important in postmenopausal women with hormone-dependent breast cancer. So far, data related to the effect of AIs on lipid profile in postmenopausal women is scarce. This study, as a companion substudy of an EORTC phase II trial (10951), evaluated the impact of exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inactivator, on the lipid profile of postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EORTC trial 10951 randomised 122 postmenopausal breast cancer patients to exemestane (E) 25 mg (n = 62) or tamoxifen (T) 20 mg (n = 60) once daily as a first-line treatment in the metastatic setting. Exemestane showed promising results in all the primary efficacy end points of the trial (response rate, clinical benefit rate and response duration), and it was well tolerated with low incidence of serious toxicity. As a secondary end point of this phase II trial, serum triglycerides (TRG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), total cholesterol (TC), lipoprotein a (Lip a), and apolipoproteins (Apo) B and A1 were measured at baseline and while on therapy (at 8, 24 and 48 weeks) to assess the impact of exemestane and tamoxifen on serum lipid profiles. Of the 122 randomised patients, those who had baseline and at least one other lipid assessment are included in the present analysis. The patients who received concomitant drugs that could affect lipid profile are included only if these drugs were administered throughout the study treatment. Increase or decrease in lipid parameters within 20% of baseline were considered as non-significant and thus unchanged. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (36 in both arms) were included in the statistical analysis. The majority of patients had abnormal TC and normal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels at baseline. Neither exemestane nor tamoxifen had adverse effects on TC, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B or Lip a levels at 8, 24 and 48 weeks of treatment. Exemestane and tamoxifen had opposite effects on TRG levels: exemestane lowered while tamoxifen increased TRG levels over time. There were too few patients with normal baseline TC and abnormal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels to allow for assessment of E's impact on these subsets. The atherogenic risk determined by Apo A1:Apo B and TC:HDL ratios remained unchanged throughout the treatment period in both the E and T arms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, exemestane has no detrimental effect on cholesterol levels and the atherogenic indices, which are well-known risk factors for coronary artery disease. In addition, it has a beneficial effect on TRG levels. These data, coupled with E's excellent efficacy and tolerability, support further exploration of its potential in the metastatic, adjuvant and chemopreventive setting.

Differential scanning calorimetry in life science: thermodynamics, stability, molecular recognition and application in drug design

All biological phenomena depend on molecular recognition, which is either intermolecular like in ligand binding to a macromolecule or intramolecular like in protein folding. As a result, understanding the relationship between the structure of proteins and the energetics of their stability and binding with others (bio)molecules is a very interesting point in biochemistry and biotechnology. It is essential to the engineering of stable proteins and to the structure-based design of pharmaceutical ligands. The parameter generally used to characterize the stability of a system (the folded and unfolded state of the protein for example) is the equilibrium constant (K) or the free energy (deltaG(o)), which is the sum of enthalpic (deltaH(o)) and entropic (deltaS(o)) terms. These parameters are temperature dependent through the heat capacity change (deltaCp). The thermodynamic parameters deltaH(o) and deltaCp can be derived from spectroscopic experiments, using the van't Hoff method, or measured directly using calorimetry. Along with isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) is a powerful method, less described than ITC, for measuring directly the thermodynamic parameters which characterize biomolecules. In this article, we summarize the principal thermodynamics parameters, describe the DSC approach and review some systems to which it has been applied. DSC is much used for the study of the stability and the folding of biomolecules, but it can also be applied in order to understand biomolecular interactions and can thus be an interesting technique in the process of drug design.

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.