Search

With respect to their association, sequential non-cross-resistant cytostatics could be better tolerated and allow a similar antitumor effect. From January, 1998 to July, 1999, 42 consecutive patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines as adjuvant- or first-line therapy entered a phase II multicenter study where docetaxel (TXT, 100 mg/m2/3 weeks/4 times) was followed by vinorelbine (VNR, 25 mg/m2/10 days/8 times). Median follow-up is 21 months and 22/42 patients have died. Four patients did not complete therapy due to early death, grade 3-4 gastrointestinal mucosytis (2 patients) and grade 3 neurotoxicity during TXT therapy. Overall response rate was 57%, and 5% of patients had stable disease. There were 38% of therapy failures due to non-evaluability (10%) or progressive disease (28%). Median time to progression and survival are 10.1 and 17.1 months. Sequential TXT-VNB is a suitable strategy for MBC patients previously treated with anthracyclines. It avoids haematologic toxicity and allows a good antitumor effect. Careful monitoring of intestinal mucosytis is required.

Several in vitro and animal studies have shown that IL-3 primes hematopoietic stem cells to become more sensitive to later acting growth factors. We wanted to compare the toxicity and the synergistic stimulatory effect of interleukin-3 (IL-3) followed by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CFS) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) on white blood cell (WBC) and platelet counts, after standard-dose chemotherapy (CT) in patients with solid tumors.Fifty consecutive cancer patients with thrombocytopenia and/or leukopenia registered during a previous course of CT were randomized to receive, after the following course, IL-3 (10 microg/kg/day, s.c., day 1-5) followed by G- or GM-CSF (5 microg/kg/day, day 6-8).The nadir of WBC in the cycles supported with the combination of IL-3 and G-CSF was significantly higher than that observed in the CT cycles not supported by growth factors (p0. 005). Furthermore, severe leukopenia was abrogated in all the cycles supported with IL-3+G-CSF, while in the cycles without cytokines, this event was registered in 62.5% of the cases (p0.0005). Finally, the recovery of WBC was achieved a mean of 4 days earlier in the cycles supported with IL-3+G-CSF. As for thrombocytoprotection, no significant differences were evidenced, but severe thrombocytopenia was abrogated in all the cycles supported by IL-3+G-CSF (p0.05). Furthermore, platelet recovery after CT was achieved on average 3.5 days earlier in the IL-3+G-CSF group than in the previous cycles. The nadir of WBC count in the cycles supported by the combination of IL-3 and GM-CSF was significantly higher than that observed in the CT cycles not supported by growth factors (p0.005). Furthermore, severe leukopenia was abrogated in 40% of the cycles supported by IL-3+GM-CSF, while in the cycles without cytokines, this event was registered in 80% of the cases (p0.005). Finally, the recovery of WBC was achieved a mean of 3.5 days earlier in the cycles supported by IL-3+GM-CSF. As far as thrombocytoprotection is concerned, there were no significant differences in the nadir between the cycles supported by the association IL-3+GM-CSF and the cycles not supported by cytokines. However, severe thrombocytopenia was registered in 20% of the cycles not supported by growth factors but in only 10% of the cycles supported by IL-3+GM-CSF (p0.05). Furthermore, platelet recovery after CT was achieved on average 3 days earlier in the IL-3+GM-CSF group. The combination of IL-3 and G-CSF would appear to be more effective than the combination of IL-3 and GM-CSF in the control of both severe thrombocytopenia and leukopenia. Indeed, severe leukopenia was abrogated in all the cycles in arm A, but only in 40% of the cycles in arm B (p0.0005). Furthermore, considering a platelet count below 49

An increasing number of growth factors have been shown to be responsible for the proliferation, survival and enhanced function of many cell types within the hemopoietic system. The action of these hemopoietic growth factors in stimulating cell growth and survival applies both to cells within the progenitor compartment and mature cells. Whether a specific cytokine influences in vivo hematopoietic progenitor cell proliferation or survival depends on cytokine-mediated modulation or target cell cytokine receptors, cell proliferation, and cell death regulator genes and other pathways. To address these issues, particularly in view of the current and future clinical use of hemopoietic growth factors, the Italian Society of Experimental Hematology organized a Meeting in Florence on July 4th, 1996.The material examined in the present review includes full papers and abstracts published in journals covered by the Science Citation Index and Medline. All the participants to the Meeting in Florence have been actively working in the field of biology and clinical application of hemopoietic growth factors. Summaries of their oral presentations at the Florence Meeting are reported in the Appendix to this article.Myelopoietic growth factors particularly granulocyte (G-) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF, have been available for clinical use for only a few years but they have already markedly changed the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, the use of dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens and the practice and safety of autologous stem cell transplantation. While these growth factors have been rapidly introduced as routine agents in the management of cancer patients, they have continued to generate a considerable amount of fundamental research into the biology of hematopoiesis as well as the growth regulation of normal and cancer cells. For instance, one goal of cancer treatment is to protect hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells from the damaging effects of chemotherapy, while maintaining their anticancer action. Any means of preferentially and reversibly suppressing the proliferation of normal hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells while leaving the proliferation of tumor cells and their susceptibility to chemotherapy unmodified, could potentially optimize treatment efficacy. In this field, the possibility of using colony-stimulating factors as myeloprotective agents in dose-intensive chemotherapy to enhance anticancer activity could be an attractive goal of current anti-cancer treatment modalities.

Blood cell transplantation has become a new type of support in high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) for several oncologic and hematologic diseases. Over the last few years the demand for circulating progenitor cell (CPC) collection by blood cell separators has grown dramatically, and transfusion services must manage new CPC programs.A protocol for optimizing the collection and clinical use of CPC is described. The results of 275 harvestings were studied: 128 patients were divided into 5 groups according to tumor type (A: breast cancer; B: Hodgkin's disease; C: non-Hodgkin lymphoma; D: multiple myeloma; E: various solid tumors). An additional group (F) consisted of 11 healthy donors. Factors affecting collection (mobilizing regimen or previous radiation therapy) and side effects were investigated.The mean values of mononuclear cells (MNC x 10(7)/kg) and CD34+ cells (x 10(6)/kg) collected per leukapheresis in the 6 respective groups were: 31.4 and 4.6 in group A; 26.4 and 3.4 in group B; 21.8 and 5.8 in group C; 24.6 and 2.4 in group D; 26.8 and 2.9 in group E; 60 and 6 in group F. Previous chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy were the main factors influencing CPC harvesting. The different chemotherapy regimens employed demonstrated no significant differences in their mobilizing efficacy. Side effects related to leukapheresis were few (2.3% of the procedures) and manageable.CPC collection is feasible in a wide range of clinical situations. Careful clinical evaluation of patients, accurate monitoring of progenitor cell release and collection timing are important for obtaining a sufficient number of CPC for hemopoietic recovery. Previous chemotherapy and radiotherapy are the main factors influencing CPC harvests. The mobilizing regimens employed showed no substantial differences in their efficacy.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are widely used to reduce myelotoxicity of chemotherapy and to allow its regular administration. National and international guidelines regulate their use. The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim/lenograstim in clinical practice, adherence to ASCO and ESMO guidelines, chemotherapy-related complications and adverse reactions.Data from 645 consecutive patients and 3,150 chemotherapy administrations, receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, as primary/secondary prophylaxis or therapeutic use, for the first time during a line of chemotherapy, were recorded from 08/2008 to 08/2011, in 10 Lombardy Italian cancer centers. Patients and chemotherapy administrations data were examined in a multiple logistic regression analysis model.Adherence to guidelines: primary prophylaxis, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim/ lenograstim 66%/47% (P = 0.002); secondary prophylaxis, 19.0%/26.8%; but 56.8%/ 53.6% including patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia with grade 3-4 neutropenia. Correct timing start (administration 24-72 h after chemotherapy): pegfilgrastim and filgrastim/lenograstim, 93.2%/61.5% (P0.0001).Results suggest the more correct administration of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis and timing start, compared to filgrastim/lenograstim. In secondary prophylaxis, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is extended beyond guideline recommendations to support patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia and to guarantee dose intensity. These outcomes suggest both the need of educational activities and the development of predictive tools to better define high risk patients and the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.

In the recent years many studies on the expansion of cord blood (CB)-derived progenitor cells have been performed, whereas less information is available on their cycling status. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cycling status of CB-derived colony-forming cells (CFC) and long-term culture-initiating cells (LTC-IC), and their recruitment into the S-phase of the cell cycle in response to a combination of cytokines.CB-derived CFC and LTC-IC were first quantified by standard clonogenic assay and long-term culture, respectively. In a second set of experiments, CB-derived progenitor cells were incubated with interleukin(IL)-3, stem cell factor (SCF) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and their cell cycle status assessed both by the cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C) suicide approach and by flow cytometric DNA analysis.We found that only small proportions of both CFC and LTC-IC were in the S-phase of the cell cycle. These estimates were confirmed by flow cytometric DNA analysis, which showed that 96% +/- 2% of CB-derived CD34+ cells were in G0/G1 and only 1.6% +/- 0.4% in the S-phase. Staining of CD34+ cells with an anti-statin monoclonal antibody, a marker of the G0 phase, indicated that among CD34+ cells with a flow cytometric DNA content typical of the G0/G1 phase, 68% +/- 7% of cells were in the G0 phase of the cell cycle. Twenty-four hour incubation with IL-3, SCF and G-CSF significantly increased the proportion of cells in the S-phase for both CFC and LTC-IC without inducing any loss in their number. Flow cytometric DNA analysis also showed an increase of CD34+ cells in the S-phase upon continuous exposure to these cytokines.Our findings indicate that: i) a small number of CB-derived CFC and LTC-IC are in the S-phase of the cell cycle; ii) a substantial number of CD34+ cells with a flow cytometric DNA content typical of the G0/G1 fraction are cycling, as they are found in the G1 phase of the cell cycle; iii) 24-hour incubation with IL-3, SCF and G-CSF can drive a proportion of progenitor cells into the S-phase without reducing their number.

Nab-P is widely used in MBC, but limited data from clinical practice are available. This is an open-label, multicentre prospective cohort study prospectively collecting data of MBC pts treated with weekly, or every 3 week administration of Nab-P. For this survey a convenience sample was used. An attempt was made to get at least a sample of 200 pts, which guarantees a standard error of 3.5% for estimation of survival time at 1 year, overall response rate and grade 3-4 toxicity. Overall response rate was 32.1% in the whole population, without any significant difference according to schedule, previous paclitaxel exposure, presence of visceral metastases or line of treatment. Median time to progression was 6 months (95% confidence interval, 1-34), with no differences according to the schedule of treatment. No new data on toxicity were reported. Results from this real life experience suggest that Nab-P can be safely used with both the weekly and the 3-weekly schedule with comparable efficacy, leaving the choice to the physician according to the patient's needs and preference, with a carefully balance between activity and potential toxicity. Background Few data are available regarding efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel in advanced breast cancer patients outside a controlled trial, especially for the weekly schedule. Patients and Methods We prospectively collected data of advanced breast cancer patients who were candidates to be treated with weekly (125 mg/m2 for 3 consecutive weeks followed by a 1-week rest) or every 3 weeks (260 mg/m2) schedules of nab-paclitaxel, according to physician's decision. Results The study enrolled 209 patients, of whom 92 (39.3%) received weekly nab-paclitaxel. The median age was 58 (range, 31-84) years; 21.8% of the patients were classified as triple-negative breast cancer (estrogen-recetor/progesteron-receptor-negative). The median number of cycles was 5.5. The overall response rate was 32.1% in the whole population, without any significant difference according to schedule, previous paclitaxel exposure, presence of visceral metastases, or line of treatment. The median time to disease progression was 6 months (95% confidence interval, 1-34), with no differences according to the schedule of treatment. Severe adverse events (Grade 3-4) were observed in 60.6% of the patients. The main toxicities were alopecia (53.4%), neutropenia (3%), and sensory neuropathy (2.1%). Conclusion Our real-life data indicate that both schedules of nab-paclitaxel are manageable and safe in advanced breast cancer patients, even if previously treated with other taxanes.