First-line gefitinib in Caucasian EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients: a phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND Phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study (NCT01203917) to assess efficacy and safety/tolerability of first-line gefitinib in Caucasian patients with stage IIIA/B/IV, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Treatment: gefitinib 250 mg day(-1) until progression. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety/tolerability. Pre-planned exploratory objective: EGFR mutation analysis in matched tumour and plasma samples. RESULTS Of 1060 screened patients with NSCLC (859 known mutation status; 118 positive, mutation frequency 14%), 106 with EGFR sensitising mutations were enrolled (female 70.8%; adenocarcinoma 97.2%; never-smoker 64.2%). At data cutoff: ORR 69.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5-77.7), DCR 90.6% (95% CI 83.5-94.8), median PFS 9.7 months (95% CI 8.5-11.0), median OS 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-NC; 27% maturity). Most common adverse events (AEs; any grade): rash (44.9%), diarrhoea (30.8%); CTC (Common Toxicity Criteria) grade 3/4 AEs: 15%; SAEs: 19%. Baseline plasma 1 samples were available in 803 patients (784 known mutation status; 82 positive; mutation frequency 10%). Plasma 1 EGFR mutation test sensitivity: 65.7% (95% CI 55.8-74.7). CONCLUSION First-line gefitinib was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Plasma samples could be considered for mutation analysis if tumour tissue is unavailable.

Study of the effectiveness of first-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma.

The emergence of novel drugs corresponds with the determination of the effectiveness of the current treatments used in clinical practice. A retrospective observational study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of first-line treatments and to test the influence of the prognostic factors established using the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the analysis of Mekhail's study for two or more metastatic sites. The primary endpoints were median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) times. A total of 65 patients were enrolled and the mPFS and mOS of the patients treated with sunitinib (n=51) were 9.0 and 20.1 months, respectively, and for the patients treated with temsirolimus (n=14) these were 3.0 and 6.2 months, respectively. In the poor-prognosis (PP) group, a difference of 1.2 months (P=0.049) was found in mPFS depending on the first-line treatment. A difference of 4.1 months (P=0.023) was also found in mPFS when classified by histology (clear verses non-clear cell) in the sunitinib-treatment group. When stratified by the prognostic group, differences of >7 months (P<0.001) were found between the groups. Therefore, it was concluded that the effectiveness of the treatments was reduced compared to previous studies and differences were found in the PP group when classified by first-line drug and histology. Additionally, the influence of prognostic factors on OS and the value of stratifying patients using these factors have been confirmed.

EMT and EGFR in CTCs cytokeratin negative non-metastatic breast cancer.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are frequently associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT).The objective of this study was to detect EMT phenotype through Vimentin (VIM) and Slug expression in cytokeratin (CK)-negative CTCs in non-metastatic breast cancer patients and to determine the importance of EGFR in the EMT phenomenon. In CK-negative CTCs samples, both VIM and Slug markers were co-expressed in the most of patients. Among patients EGFR+, half of them were positive for these EMT markers. Furthermore, after a systemic treatment 68% of patients switched from CK- to CK+ CTCs. In our experimental model we found that activation of EGFR signaling by its ligand on MCF-7 cells is sufficient to increase EMT phenotypes, to inhibit apoptotic events and to induce the loss of CK expression. The simultaneous detection of both EGFR and EMT markers in CTCs may improve prognostic or predictive information in patients with operable breast cancer.

First-line gefitinib in Caucasian EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients: a phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study (NCT01203917) to assess efficacy and safety/tolerability of first-line gefitinib in Caucasian patients with stage IIIA/B/IV, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: TREATMENT: gefitinib 250 mg day(-1) until progression. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety/tolerability. Pre-planned exploratory objective: EGFR mutation analysis in matched tumour and plasma samples. RESULTS: Of 1060 screened patients with NSCLC (859 known mutation status; 118 positive, mutation frequency 14%), 106 with EGFR sensitising mutations were enrolled (female 70.8%; adenocarcinoma 97.2%; never-smoker 64.2%). At data cutoff: ORR 69.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5-77.7), DCR 90.6% (95% CI 83.5-94.8), median PFS 9.7 months (95% CI 8.5-11.0), median OS 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-NC; 27% maturity). Most common adverse events (AEs; any grade): rash (44.9%), diarrhoea (30.8%); CTC (Common Toxicity Criteria) grade 3/4 AEs: 15%; SAEs: 19%. Baseline plasma 1 samples were available in 803 patients (784 known mutation status; 82 positive; mutation frequency 10%). Plasma 1 EGFR mutation test sensitivity: 65.7% (95% CI 55.8-74.7). CONCLUSION: First-line gefitinib was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Plasma samples could be considered for mutation analysis if tumour tissue is unavailable.

Dapagliflozina

Dapagliflozin is a new oral antidiabetic agent whose mechanism of action increases renal glucose excretion, independently of insulin secretion or insulin action. The efficacy of dapagliflozin is dependent on renal function. The use of dapagliflozin has been licensed to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as: - monotherapy when diet and exercise alone do not provide adequate glycaemic control in patients for whom the use of metformin is considered inappropriate due to intolerance. - Add-on combination therapy with other glucose-lowering agents including insulin, when these, together with diet and exercise, do not provide adequate glycaemic control. Funding has been restricted to the use of dapagliflozin, prior approval, as dual therapy in combination with metformin. This report aims to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, rate the added therapeutic value of dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes mellitus and identify its current place in therapy. A systematic literature search was carried out, for the purpose of this evaluation, using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and IDIS databases as well as other secondary sources of evidence-based medicine, therapeutic bulletins and national and international drug agencies. Following the critical reading and analysis of the selected articles, a summary is made out of the scientific evidence available, using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria. Only one randomised clinical trial, out of the ten trials found, was considered to be a suitable comparison (versus a dual therapy in combination with the sulfonylurea glipizide in patients inadequately controlled with metformin, diet and exercise). No trials have evaluated variables of relevance to patients, except for safety variables. The main efficacy variable in the trials was the change from baseline in HbA1c, except for a study which evaluated the change from baseline in total body weight as main variable. Baseline characteristics of the patients enrolled in the trials significantly differ from those of the population with diabetes in our society which tend to be of an older age and have a longer history of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The major limitation of dapagliflozin derives from its mechanism of action, since its efficacy decreases as renal function declines. The use of dapagliflozin is not recommended in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment ((CrCl<60ml/min or GFG <60 ml/min/1.73 m2) nor in elderly patients, in which a decrease in renal function can be expected. The assessment of safety includes the incidence and rate of discontinuations due to adverse events, episodes of hypoglycaemia, signs or symptoms of genital and urinary tract infections, dehydration, hypovolaemia and hypotension. Further pharmacoepidemiological studies are to be carried out to clarify the long-term effects of dapagliflozin on renal function and the potential effect in the development of breast and bladder tumours. Dapagliflozin as monotherapy has not been evaluated against adequate comparators (sulfonylureas, pioglitazone, gliptins). In combination therapy with metformin, the efficacy of dapagliflozin was shown to be non-inferior to glipizide plus metformin, resulting in a mean reduction of 0.52% in HbA1c, with a difference of 0.00 among both groups (95% CI: -0.11 a 0.11). There are no comparative data against other second-line treatment options. As shown in the studies, the overall incidence of adverse events with dapagliflozin as monotherapy (21.5%) was similar to that observed with placebo, and greater to that observed with metformin (15.4%). Hypoglycaemia of any type was the adverse event more frequently reported. The incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events observed in most of the studies was low. The overall incidence of adverse events observed in the study that compared dapagliflozin+metformin against glipizide+metformin was similar for both groups (27%) and incidence of hypoglycaemic events with dapagliflozin (3.5%) was significantly lower to that observed with glipizide (40.8%). Reductions of body weight of about 2 to 3 kg and a slight decrease in blood pressure (1 to 5 mmHg) have been observed in all studies in the groups treated with dapagliflozin together with diet and exercise. Dosing scheme (every 24 hours) is similar to other oral antidiabetic agents and its cost is similar to that for gliptines and higher to that for sulfonylureas or generic pioglitazone. Funding has been limited to the use of dapagliflozin as dual therapy regimen in combination with metformin as an option for patients with contraindication or intolerance to sulfonylureas, such a those experiencing frequent hypoglycaemic events, weight loss associated risks, as long as they are under 75 years of age and have no moderate to severe renal impairment. In the light of the above, we consider dapagliflozin means no therapeutic innovation in the therapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus over other therapeutic alternatives available.