Search

Previous data suggest that lipophilic statins such as fluvastatin and N-bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid, both inhibitors of the mevalonate metabolic pathway, have anti-cancer effects in vitro and in patients. We have examined the effect of fluvastatin alone and in combination with zoledronic acid in the ATP-based tumour chemosensitivity assay (ATP-TCA) for effects on breast and ovarian cancer tumour-derived cells. Both zoledronic acid and fluvastatin showed activity in the ATP-TCA against breast and ovarian cancer, though fluvastatin alone was less active, particularly against breast cancer. The combination of zoledronic acid and fluvastatin was more active than either single agent in the ATP-TCA with some synergy against breast and ovarian cancer tumour-derived cells. Sequential drug experiments showed that pre-treatment of ovarian tumour cells with fluvastatin resulted in decreased sensitivity to zoledronic acid. Addition of mevalonate pathway components with zoledronic acid with or without fluvastatin showed little effect, while mevalonate did reduced inhibition due to fluvastatin. These data suggest that the combination of zoledronic acid and fluvastatin may have activity against breast and ovarian cancer based on direct anti-cancer cell effects. A clinical trial to test this is in preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Comprehensive data from prospective clinical trials have led to a high level of evidence establishing CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine treatment (CDK4/6i + ET) as a standard for the treatment of HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive (HER2- HR+) breast cancer patients in the first-line advanced therapy setting. Data on patient populations that have been treated in the real-world setting may provide an insight into changes of patient characteristics and prognosis over time. Methods The data were extracted from the prospective real-world registry PRAEGNANT (NCT02338167). Patients had to have HER2- HR+ advanced breast cancer in the first-line metastatic setting. The chosen therapies were described as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to the given therapies and time periods during which they were indicated. Results CDK4/6 inhibitors have been rapidly implemented since their introduction in November 2016. In recent years (2018 - 2022), about 70 - 80% of the patient population have been treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors, while endocrine monotherapy was given to about 10% and chemotherapy to about 15% of all patients. The prognosis was worst in patients treated with chemotherapy. Recently, mainly patients with a good prognosis are being treated with endocrine monotherapy, and patients who are treated with chemotherapy have an unfavorable prognosis. The PFS and OS of patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET have remained similar over time despite changes in patient characteristics. Conclusion A treatment with CDK4/6i + ET has rapidly become the therapy standard for patients in the first-line advanced breast cancer setting. After the implementation of CDK4/6i + ET, endocrine monotherapy is only given to patients with a very favorable prognosis, while chemotherapy is provided to patients with a rather unfavorable prognosis. These changes in patient characteristics did not seem to influence the prognosis of patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest T. E. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. P. A. F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma, and Teva; his institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. D. L. has received honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Teva, Loreal, GSK, MSD, Roche, onkowissen, High5MD and AstraZeneca. A. D. H. has received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, and Roche. V. M. has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, and Seattle Genetics and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, and Nektar. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss Meditec, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Agendia, Gilead, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo and Genomic Health/Exact Sciences and travel support from Tesaro and Daiichi Sankyo; he owns stocks of Theraclion and Phaon scientific. H. T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, and Pfizer and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. J. E. has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Tesaro; contracted research from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Odonate; and travel support from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Tesaro. M. Wa. received grants from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Roche, MSD, and Novartis during the conduct of the study. E. B. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, and onkowissen.de. P. W. has received honoraria for scientific talks and grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, Celgene, GSK, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Teva, Eisai, Clovis, and Tesaro. C. H. has received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Onkovis. C. M. K. has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Onkotrakt, PharmaMar, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro, Hilotherm, and NewCo; research grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, Immunomedics, MSD, NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Reimser, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; and travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Immunomedics, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Tesaro, and Teva Oncology. R. W. has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Esai, Exact Science, Nanostring, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva, and Viatris. M. U. has received honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, Teva Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Clovis Oncology, and Seattle Genetics. L. L. M. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Eisai for advisory boards, lectures and travel support. W. J. has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo. F. A. T. has received honoraria from GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Tesaro and travel expenses from GSK. M. We. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. M. P. L. has received honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Pierre-Fabre, PharmaMar, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, Samantree, Sysmex, pfm and medac for advisory boards, lectures, and travel support. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, and AstraZeneca. T. N. F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Teva, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and MSD. A. S. received research grants from Celgene, Roche, honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, Clinsol, Connectmedica, Gilead, GSK, I-MED, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, Metaplan, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen.de, Promedicis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Streamedup, Teva, Tesaro, Thieme and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. All others (A. H., P. H., P. K., H.-M. E., M. M., D. H., L. H., M. W.B, S. U., D. W.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).)

Introduction: In a prospective non-interventional study involving 2,173 patients, we showed that use of the oral fixed combination of netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg (NEPA) for prevention of chemotherapy (Ctx)-induced nausea and vomiting has beneficial effects on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with various types of cancers receiving highly or moderately emetogenic Ctx. Here, we report on the effects on QoL, effectiveness, and tolerability of NEPA in patients with breast cancer exposed to anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based Ctx., Methods: This is a post hoc subanalysis of a prospective non-interventional study in 1,197 patients with breast cancer receiving up to 3 cycles of doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide and NEPA. NEPA administration was per the summary of product characteristics., Results: In cycle 1 of Ctx, a large proportion of patients (84%) reported "no impact on daily life" (NIDL) due to vomiting; 53% of patients reported NIDL due to nausea. The complete response rate was 86/88/81% in the acute/delayed/overall phase in cycle 1, and NEPA was well tolerated throughout the study., Conclusion: The real-world beneficial effects of NEPA prophylaxis on QoL were confirmed for patients with breast cancer receiving AC. NEPA was effective with a good safety profile in this patient population in clinical practice., Competing Interests: J.S.: honoraria, travel expenses, RIEMSER Pharma GmbH. C.M.K.: honoraria, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Mundipharma, Pfizer, PharmaMar, RIEMSER, Roche, Tesaro; consulting or advisory role, Amgen, Axios, Eli Lilly, Hilotherm, Mundipharma, NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, RIEMSER, Roche, Tesaro; research funding, AstraZeneca, Axios, MSD Sharp & Dohme (Merck), NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, RIEMSER, Seattle Genetics, Immunomedics; travel, accommodations, expenses, Amgen, Hexal, Immunomedics, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Tesaro, Teva Oncology. C.H.: advisory board, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche. S.B.: lectures, studies and support for congress participation, Amgen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Lilly, Clovis, GSK, Onkovis, AstraZeneca, MSD. M.H.: honoraria, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, iOMEDICO, MMF, Amgen; research funding, RIEMSER, Indivumed. J.K.-S. and D.R.: nothing to disclose. E.F.: RIEMSER employee. M.K.: ad board, travel grant, Helsinn Healthcare, RIEMSER Pharma GmbH., (Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: Treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy (CDK4/6i + ET) is a standard for patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR + HER2-) breast cancer (BC). However, real-world data on the implementation of therapy usage, efficacy, and toxicity have not yet been reported., Methods: The PRAEGNANT registry was used to identify advanced HR + HER2- BC patients (n = 1136). The use of chemotherapy, ET, everolimus + ET, and CDK4/6i + ET was analyzed for first-line, second-line, and third-line therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also compared between patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy. Also toxicity was assessed., Results: CDK4/6i + ET use increased from 38.5% to 62.7% in the first 2 years after CDK4/6i treatment became available (November 2016). Chemotherapy and ET monotherapy use decreased from 2015 to 2018 from 42.2% to 27.2% and from 53% to 9.5%, respectively. In this early analysis no statistically significant differences were found comparing CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy patients with regard to PFS and OS. Leukopenia was was seen in 11.3% of patients under CDK4/6i + ET and 0.5% under ET monotherapy., Conclusions: In clinical practice, CDK4/6i + ET has been rapidly implemented. A group of patients with a more unfavorable prognosis was possibly treated in the real-world setting than in the reported randomized clinical trials. The available data suggest that longer follow-up times and a larger sample size are required in order to identify differences in survival outcomes. Studies should be supported that investigate whether chemotherapy can be avoided or delayed in this patient population by using CDK4/6i + ET., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest A.S. received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed GmbH, Celgene, ClinSol Research GmbH, Connectmedica Sp.Z o.o., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie GmbH, if-kongress management gmbh, I-MED Institute GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Medicultus GmbH, med publico GmbH, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, onkowissen.de GmbH, Pfizer GmbH, Schattauer Verlag GmbH, Promedicis GmbH, Tesaro Bio Germany GmbH, W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH. J.E. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and TEVA and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, TEVA, and Pierre Fabre. D.L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Teva. M.W.B reports support from Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, Eisai, paid to his institution. E.B. received honoraria from Novartis, Celgene, Riemser, Pfizer, Hexal, Amgen, onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. P.A.F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. T.N.F. reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daichii Sankyo, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. P.H. received honoraria, unrestricted educational grants and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. A.D.H. received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. C.H. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Oncovis, Roche, and Pfizer. J.H. received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Lilly, travel grants from Novartis and research grants from Novartis, Celgene. E.R. reports personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Pierre Fabre and Riemer, non-financial support from Olympus GmbH, personal fees from Riemser, outside the submitted work. W.J. received research grants and honoroaria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Chugai, Roche, Genomic-Health, AstraZeneca, Lilly. H.-C.K. received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, and Genomic Health. C.M.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Axios, Roche, Teva, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, NewCo, Pfizer, Riemser, and ZytoService, research grants from Amgen, Axios, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, NewCo, Pfizer, and ZytoService, and travel support from Amgen, Paxman Inc., PharmaMar, and Pfizer. M.P.L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Genomic Health, Tesaro and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, medac and Eisai. V.M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Janssen-Cilag and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro and Nektar. N.N. received consultancy honoraria from Janssen-Cilag and travel support from Novartis. F.O. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Cellex, Chugai, Gilead, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro, Teva. H.T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, TEVA, and Pfizer and travel support. F.-A. T. received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Genomic Health and Novartis. C.T. received honoraria from Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. M.U. reports support paid to his institution from Abbvie, Amgen GmbH München, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Celgene GmbH München, Daiji Sankyo, Eisai GmbH München, Janssen Cilag, Johnsen&Johnsen, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics GmbH Zürich, Odonate, Pfizer GmbH Berlin, PUMA Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach Wyhlen, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sividon Diagnostics Köln, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. und. Berlin(.)P.W. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, TEVA, Eisai Clovis and Tesaro. She participated in advisory boards of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, TEVA, Eisai Clovis and Tesaro. Her institution received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Clovis and Tesaro. R.W. received honoraria from Agendia, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Esai, Genomic Health, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PumaBiotechnolgogy, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva. M.W. received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis. S.Y.B. reports personal fees from Novartis and Pfizer, both outside the submitted work. All remaining authors (J.S., E.K., M.G., L.H., B.V., D.W.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Eligibility criteria are a critical part of clinical trials, as they define the patient population under investigation. Besides certain patient characteristics, clinical trials often include biomarker testing for eligibility. However, patient-identification mostly relies on the trial site itself and is often a time-consuming procedure, which could result in missing out on potentially eligible patients. Pre-selection of those patients using a registry could facilitate the process of eligibility testing and increase the number of identified patients. One aim with the PRAEGNANT registry (NCT02338167) is to identify patients for therapies based on clinical and molecular data. Here, we report eligibility testing for the SHERBOC trial using the German PRAEGNANT registry., Methods: Heregulin (HRG) has been reported to identify patients with better responses to therapy with the anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody seribantumab (MM-121). The SHERBOC trial investigated adding seribantumab (MM-121) to standard therapy in patients with advanced HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive) breast cancer and HRG overexpression. The PRAEGNANT registry was used for identification and tumor testing, helping to link potential HRG positive patients to the trial. Patients enrolled in PRAEGNANT have invasive and metastatic or locally advanced, inoperable breast cancer. Patients eligible for SHERBOC were identified by using the registry. Study aims were to describe the HRG positivity rate, screening procedures, and patient characteristics associated with inclusion and exclusion criteria., Results: Among 2769 unselected advanced breast cancer patients, 650 were HER2-negative, HR-positive and currently receiving first- or second-line treatment, thus potentially eligible for SHERBOC at the end of current treatment; 125 patients also met further clinical eligibility criteria (e.g. menopausal status, ECOG). In the first/second treatment lines, patients selected for SHERBOC based on further eligibility criteria had a more favorable prognosis than those not selected. HRG status was tested in 38 patients, 14 of whom (36.8%) proved to be HRG-positive., Conclusion: Using a real-world breast cancer registry allowed identification of potentially eligible patients for SHERBOC focusing on patients with HER3 overexpressing, HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This approach may provide insights into differences between patients eligible or non-eligible for clinical trials., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials, NCT02338167 , Registered 14 January 2015 - retrospectively registered.

The Advanced Breast Cancer Fifth International Consensus Conference (ABC5) which focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of advanced breast cancer was held in Lisbon on November 14 - 16, 2019. The aim of the conference is to standardize the treatment of advanced breast cancer worldwide using evidence-based data and to ensure that patients with advanced breast disease anywhere in the world are treated appropriately and have access to the latest therapies. This year, the emphasis was on new developments and study results from patients with advanced breast cancer as well as precision medicine. The collaboration with patient advocates from all over the globe is also an important goal of the ABC Conference, which is why the international ABC panel also included a number of patient advocates. We present a commentary on the voting results of the ABC5 panelists in Lisbon by a working group of German breast cancer specialists together with the implications for routine clinical care in Germany. The commentary is based on the recommendations of the Breast Commission of the German Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO). This commentary is useful, it includes country-specific features for the ABC consensus., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt Prof. Michael Untch: honoraria paid to his employer (for adboard participation, presentations) and travel grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Janssen Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly International, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sividon Diagnostics, Teva Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. PD Dr. med. Rachel Würstlein received honoraria from Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genomic Health, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, NanoString, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva. Prof. Diana Lüftner received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Esai, Genomic Health, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro Bio, Teva. Renate Haidinger has no conflict of interest. Prof. Peter A. Fasching received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myelo Therapeutics, Eisai, Puma, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and his institution received research funding from BionTech and Cepheid. Prof. Christoph Thomssen received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, MEDA, Novartis, Roche, Tesaro, Vifor. Prof. Nadia Harbeck received honoraria for lectures and/or consultancy work from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics. Dr. med. Doris Augustin has no conflict of interest. Dr. med. Susanne Briest has no conflict of interest. Dr. med. Johannes Ettl received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Teva and travel grants from Celgene, Lily, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Pierre Fabre. Prof. Frank Förster received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD, Celgene. Dr. med. Christian Kurbacher received honoraria from Amgen, Axios, Eli Lilly, Hilotherm, Mundipharma, NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro. Research funding from AstraZeneca, Axios, MSD Sharp & Dohme, NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Riemser, Seattle Genetics. Honoraria from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Mundipharma, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro; travel grants and other expenses from Amgen, Hexal, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Tesaro, Teva Oncology. Prof. Hans-Joachim Lück has no conflict of interest. Dr. med. Norbert Marschner received speakerʼs fees from Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Clovis, GSK, Amgen, Mylan, Eisai, Mundipharma, Novella, SEAGEN, and travel grants from Lilly, Roche. Dr. med. Lothar Müller received travel grants from octapharm and Medac. Prof. Volkmar Müller received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, and honoraria for consultancy work from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, Nektar. Dr. med. Isabel Radke received honoraria and/or travel grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Teva. Prof. Eugen Ruckhäberle received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pharma Mar, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Clovis Oncology, Teva. Dr. med. Iris Scheffen received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Eva Schumacher-Wulf has no conflict of interest. Dr. med. Moritz Schwoerer received honoraria for adboard participation from Roche. Dr. med. Dieter Steinfeld-Birg received honoraria from Amgen, Hexal, Roche, Teva, Novartis. Dr. med. Katja Ziegler-Löhr received honoraria from Celgene, Novartis, Oncovis, Roche, Tesaro./ Prof. Michael Untch: Honorare an den Arbeitgeber (für Adboard-Teilnahme, Präsentationen) und Reiseunterstützung von Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Janssen Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly International, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sividon Diagnostics, Teva Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. PD Dr. med. Rachel Würstlein erhielt Honorar von Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genomic Health, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, NanoString, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva. Prof. Diana Lüftner erhielt Honorar von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Esai, Genomic Health, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro Bio, Teva. Renate Haidinger hat keinen Interessenkonflikt. Prof. Peter A. Fasching erhielt Honorare von Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myelo Therapeutics, Eisai, Puma, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca und seine Institution erhielt Forschungsunterstützung von BionTech und Cepheid. Prof. Christoph Thomssen erhielt Honorar von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, MEDA, Novartis, Roche, Tesaro, Vifor. Prof. Nadia Harbeck erhielt Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratung von Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics. Dr. med. Doris Augustin hat keinen Interessenkonflikt. Dr. med. Susanne Briest hat keinen Interessenkonflikt. Dr. med. Johannes Ettl erhielt Honorar von AstraZeneca, Roche, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Teva und Reiseunterstützung von Celgene, Lily, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Pierre Fabre. Prof. Frank Förster erhielt Honorar von Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD, Celgene. Dr. med. Christian Kurbacher erhielt Honorar von Amgen, Axios, Eli Lilly, Hilotherm, Mundipharma, NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro. Forschungsunterstützung von AstraZeneca, Axios, MSD Sharp & Dohme, NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Riemser, Seattle Genetics. Honorare von Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Mundipharma, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro; Reiseunterstützung und sonstige Ausgaben von Amgen, Hexal, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Tesaro, Teva Oncology. Prof. Hans-Joachim Lück hat keinen Interessenkonflikt. Dr. med. Norbert Marschner erhielt Vortragshonorare von Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Clovis, GSK, Amgen, Mylan, Eisai, Mundipharma, Novella, SEAGEN und Reisekostenerstattung von Lilly, Roche. Dr. med. Lothar Müller erhielt Reiseunterstützung von octapharm und Medac. Prof. Volkmar Müller erhielt Honorar von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, und Beratungshonorar von Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, Nektar. Dr. med. Isabel Radke erhielt Honorar und/oder Reiseunterstützung von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Teva. Prof. Eugen Ruckhäberle erhielt Honorar von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pharma Mar, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Clovis Oncology, Teva. Dr. med. Iris Scheffen erhielt Honorar von Amgen, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Eva Schumacher-Wulf hat keinen Interessenkonflikt. Dr. med. Moritz Schwoerer erhielt Honorar für Adboard-Teilnahme von Roche. Dr. med. Dieter Steinfeld-Birg erhielt Honorar von Amgen, Hexal, Roche, Teva, Novartis. Dr. med. Katja Ziegler-Löhr erhielt Honorar von Celgene, Novartis, Oncovis, Roche, Tesaro.

Background: The objective of the IMPROVE study was patients' preference for either endocrine-based therapy or combined chemo- and anti-angiogenic therapy in advanced HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer., Methods: In this randomized, cross-over phase IV study, 77 patients were recruited in 26 sites in Germany. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cap+Bev) as first-line therapy followed by cross-over to everolimus plus exemestane (Eve+Exe) as second-line therapy (Arm A) or the reverse sequence (Arm B). The primary endpoint was patients' preference for either regimen, assessed by the Patient Preference Questionnaire 12 weeks after cross-over. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QoL)., Results: 61.5% of patients preferred Cap+Bev (p = 0.1653), whereas 15.4% preferred Eve+Exe and 23.1% were indecisive. Physicians showed a similar tendency towards Cap+Bev (58.1%) as the preferred regimen versus Eve+Exe (32.3%). Median first-line PFS was longer for Cap+Bev than for Eve+Exe (11.1 months versus 3.5 months). Median second-line PFS was similar between Cap+Bev and Eve+Exe (3.6 months versus 3.7 months). Median OS was comparable between Arm A (28.8 months) and Arm B (24.7 months). 73.0% and 52.6% (first-/second-line, Cap+Bev) and 54.1% and 52.9% (first-/second-line, Eve+Exe) of patients experienced grade 3/4 TEAEs. No treatment-related deaths occurred. QoL and treatment satisfaction were not significantly different between arms or treatment lines., Conclusions: Patients tended to favor Cap+Bev over Eve+Exe, which was in line with physicians' preference. Cap+Bev showed superior first-line PFS, while QoL was similar in both arms. No new safety signals were reported., Trial Registration: EudraCT No: 2013-005329-22. Registered on 19 August 20.

The 5th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC5) took place on November 14-16, 2019, in Lisbon, Portugal. Its aim is to standardize the treatment of advanced breast cancer based on the available evidence and to ensure that all breast cancer patients worldwide receive adequate treatment and access to new therapies. This year, the conference focused on developments and study results in the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer as well as precision medicine. As in previous years, patient advocates from around the world were integrated into the ABC conference and had seats on the ABC consensus panel. In the present paper, a working group of German breast cancer experts comments on the results of the on-site ABC5 consensus votes by ABC panelists regarding their applicability for routine treatment in Germany. These comments take the recommendations of the Breast Committee of the Gynecological Oncology Working Group ( Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie ; AGO) into account. The report and assessment presented here pertain to the preliminary results of the ABC5 consensus. The final version of the statements will be published in Annals of Oncology and The Breast ., Competing Interests: Prof. Christoph Thomssen received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, MEDA, Novartis, Roche, Tesaro, and Vifor. Prof. Diana Lüftner received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Loreal, Teva, Tesaro, and Eli Lilly. Prof. Michael Untch received honoraria to the employer (for AdBoard participation, presentations) and travel grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Janssen Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly International, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sividon Diagnostics, and TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. Renate Haidinger, Dr. med. Doris Augustin, Dr. med. Susanne Briest, Dr. med. Lidia Perlova-Griff, Prof. Hans-Joachim Lück, Dr. med. Norbert Marschner, and Eva Schumacher-Wulf have no conflict of interests. PD Dr. med. Rachel Würstlein received honoraria from Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genomic Health, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, NanoString, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, and Teva. Prof. Nadia Harbeck received honoraria for consulting and/or lectures from Agendia, Amgen, Astra Zeneca Celgene, Genomic Health, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. med. Johannes Ettl received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, TEVA and travel support from Celgene, Lily, Novartis, Pfizer, TEVA, and Pierre Fabre. Prof. Peter A. Fasching received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, TEVA, Marck Sharp and Dohme, Myelo Therapeutics, Macrogenics, Eisai, Puma, Lilly, Novartis, and AstraZeneca and he received grant from BioTech, Cepheid, and Novartis. Prof. Frank Förster received honoraria for consulting and/or lectures from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD, and Celgene. Dr. med. Christian Kurbacher received honoraria for a consulting or advisory role from Amgen, Axios, Eli Lilly, Hilotherm, Mundipharma, NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro; research funding from AstraZeneca, Axios, MSD Sharp and Dohme, NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Riemser, and Seattle Genetics; honoraria from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Mundipharma, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Riemser, Roche, and Tesaro; and a travel grant, accommodations and expenses from Amgen, Hexal, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Tesaro, and TEVA Oncology. Dr. med. Lothar Müller received travel grants from octapharm and Medac. Prof. Volkmar Müller received honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Teva and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, and Nektar. Dr. med. Isabel Radke received honoraria and/or travel grants from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, and Teva. Prof. Eugen Ruckhäberle received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pharma Mar, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Clovis Oncology, and Teva. Dr. med. Iris Scheffen received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. med. Moritz Schwoerer received honoraria for adboard participation from Roche. Dr. med. Dieter Steinfeld-Birg received honoraria for studies and/or consulting from Amgen, Hexal, Roche, Teva, and Novartis. Dr. med. Katja Ziegler-Löhr received honoraria from Celgene, Novartis, Oncovis, Roche, Tesaro., (Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Breast cancer and its treatments are associated with a detrimental effect on bone health. Here we report the results of an exploratory analysis assessing changes in levels of biomarkers of bone metabolism in patients enrolled in the phase IIIb 4EVER study., Methods: The 4EVER trial investigated everolimus in combination with exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. In this prespecified exploratory analysis, changes in biomarkers of bone turnover were assessed in patients from baseline to weeks 4, 12, and 24. The serum bone markers assessed were procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX), osteocalcin, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-vitamin D). On-treatment changes in bone markers over time were described per subgroup of interest and efficacy outcomes., Results: Bone marker data were available for 241 of 299 enrolled patients. At the final assessment, P1NP, osteocalcin, PTH, 25-OH-vitamin D (all P  < 0.001), and CTX ( P  = 0.036) were significantly decreased from baseline values per the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. At the last assessment (24 weeks or earlier), levels of serum CTX and PTH were significantly lower ( P  = 0.009 and P  = 0.034, respectively) among patients with vs. without prior antiresorptive treatment (ART). Serum CTX levels were significantly lower ( P  < 0.001), and 25-OH-vitamin D concentrations significantly higher ( P  = 0.029), at the last postbaseline assessment in patients receiving concomitant ART vs. those without ART. Changes from baseline in PTH and 25-OH-vitamin D concentrations to the final assessment were significantly smaller in patients with prior ART. Lower baseline serum concentrations of osteocalcin and PTH were associated with clinical response (partial vs. non-response) at 24 weeks. High serum levels of CTX and P1NP at baseline were risk factors for progression at 12 weeks., Conclusions: These exploratory analyses support use of everolimus plus exemestane for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer, and add to the body of evidence suggesting a potentially favorable impact of everolimus on bone turnover., Trial Registration: NCT01626222. Registered 22 June 2012 , https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01626222.

Background/aim: The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) has become a widely used option in breast reconstruction. A great deal of literature is available, totaling over 3,200 ADM reconstructions. Head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend® and Tutomesh® are not yet reported. These are the first comparative clinical data reported on the use of Tutomesh® in breast reconstruction. Postoperative complication rates and costs for these devices were evaluated., Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a 2-year experience with both SurgiMend® - fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix and Tutomesh® - a bovine pericardium collagen membrane in breast reconstruction in 45 cases from 2014-2015., Results: Forty-five patients received a total of 45 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend® (18 cases; 40%) or Tutomesh® (27 cases; 60%). Gross complication rates were 27.8% for SurgiMend® and 37.0% for Tutomesh® including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, red breast syndrome and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery did not differ significantly in patients treated with SurgiMend® (0 cases, 0%) compared to Tutomesh® (1 case, 3.7%)., Conclusion: This retrospective analysis shows similar overall clinical complication rates for Tutomesh® and SurgiMend®. Severe complication rates are comparable to those reported in literature for both products. Although the retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact, it is possible to opt for the cheaper alternative (Tutomesh®)., (Copyright© 2017, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Catumaxomab (CATU) is a trifunctional antibody approved for intraperitoneal (i.p.) treatment of malignant ascites (MA) related to carcinomas expressing the epithelial cell-adhesion molecule (EpCAM). CATU is mostly given to hospitalized patients, although outpatient treatment seems appropriate in selected individuals. This observational trial sought to obtain more detailed information regarding the feasibility of CATU in outpatients with MA related to various gynecologic tumors, including epithelial ovarian (EOC) and metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Materials and Methods: A total of 30 patients were included, 17 with EOC, 7 with MBC, and 6 with other malignancies. The patients had failed a median of 5 (range 1-12) previous systemic treatments. CATU was administered via an indwelling i.p. catheter at four increasing doses (i.e., 10, 20, 50, and 150 µg) given at 4-day intervals over 2 weeks. Toxicities were scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03. Puncture-free survival (PuFS) was calculated from the start of CATU until the next puncture for MA, death, or loss to follow-up. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the start of CATU to death from any reason or loss to follow-up. We also investigated various clinical parameters to predict PuFS and OS. These included age, tumor type, performance status, intensity of pretreatment, presence of extraperitoneal metastases, relative lymphocyte count at baseline, patient adherence to therapy, and the patients' ability to undergo systemic treatment after CATU., Results: CATU was exclusively given on an outpatient basis, and 19 patients (63.3%) received all four planned i.p. instillations. Toxicity was the reason for discontinuation in only 2 patients. Toxicity was generally manageable, with abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, fatigue, and fever the predominant adverse effects. Secondary hospitalization was necessary for 7 patients (23.3%), with a general deteriorated condition in 5 and fever/infection or abdominal pain in 1 patient each. Subsequent systemic treatment was possible in 11 patients (36.7%). Only 5 patients (16.7%) required a second puncture after i.p. CATU. The median PuFS was 56 days, and the median OS was 79.5 days. Positive predictors of both PuFS and OS were performance status, absence of extraperitoneal tumor, the capability to receive all four CATU infusions, and the ability to undergo subsequent systemic treatment., Conclusion: Outpatient i.p. CATU therapy for MA related to various gynecologic carcinomas is safe and effective in producing good ascites control in most individuals, allowing for subsequent systemic therapy in a substantial proportion of patients., Implications for Practice: Intraperitoneal treatment with the trifunctional antibody catumaxomab (CATU) was possible in a selected population of 30 outpatients with malignant ascites due to epithelial female genital tract or breast carcinoma. Toxicity was largely manageable. Patients in good condition at baseline, without extraperitoneal tumor and/or liver metastases, and with the ability to complete all four planned CATU instillations and the capability of undergoing subsequent systemic therapy benefited the most in terms of both puncture-free and overall survival. Outpatient i.p. CATU is safe and effective in a selected group of patients with malignant ascites due to various gynecologic malignancies and could be cost-saving compared with an inpatient approach., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Background: It is well known that the acceptance of the fetoplacental unit in human pregnancy requires maternal immune tolerance, which is thought to be regulated locally by the placenta. Therefore an anti-inflammatory cytokine such as IL-10 plays a critical role in different pregnancy disorders including preeclampsia. In the present study, we examined the expression of both proinflammatory (TNF-alpha, IL-1beta, IL-2) and immunoregulatory (IL-6, IL-10) cytokines from normal term and preeclamptic patients in human trophoblast cultures., Methods: Eleven patients with preeclampsia and 11 patients with a normal pregnancy at term were included in the study. Trophoblast cells isolated from placentas were cultured up to 48 h under standard tissue culture conditions and cytokine release was determined by ELISA. IL-10 synthesis was significantly decreased in the third trimester in preeclamptic patients in comparison with the control group., Results: There were no significant differences in IL-1beta, IL-2, IL-6 or TNF-alpha expression but a significant alteration in IL-10 release in trophoblast cultures in vitro in term placentas from preeclamptic patients compared with normal pregnancy., Conclusions: Because IL-10 is a potent regulator of anti-inflammatory immune response these abnormalities may be associated with the inadequate placental development in preeclampsia.

Background: We wished to evaluate the clinical response following ATP-Tumor Chemosensitivity Assay (ATP-TCA) directed salvage chemotherapy in a series of UK patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The results are compared with that of a similar assay used in a different country in terms of evaluability and clinical endpoints., Methods: From November 1998 to November 2001, 46 patients with pre-treated, advanced ovarian cancer were given a total of 56 courses of chemotherapy based on in-vitro ATP-TCA responses obtained from fresh tumor samples or ascites. Forty-four patients were evaluable for results. Of these, 18 patients had clinically platinum resistant disease (relapse < 6 months after first course of chemotherapy). There was evidence of cisplatin resistance in 31 patients from their first ATP-TCA. Response to treatment was assessed by radiology, clinical assessment and tumor marker level (CA 125)., Results: The overall response rate was 59% (33/56) per course of chemotherapy, including 12 complete responses, 21 partial responses, 6 with stable disease, and 15 with progressive disease. Two patients were not evaluable for response having received just one cycle of chemotherapy: if these were excluded the response rate is 61%. Fifteen patients are still alive. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.6 months per course of chemotherapy; median overall survival (OAS) for each patient following the start of TCA-directed therapy was 10.4 months (95% confidence interval 7.9-12.8 months)., Conclusion: The results show similar response rates to previous studies using ATP-TCA directed therapy in recurrent ovarian cancer. The assay shows high evaluability and this study adds weight to the reproducibility of results from different centres.

Treatment of choroidal melanoma by chemotherapy is usually unsuccessful, with response rates of less than 1% reported for dacarbazine (DTIC)-containing regimens which show 20% or more response rates in skin melanoma. Recently, we reported the activity of several cytotoxic agents against primary choroidal melanoma in an ATP-based tumour chemosensitivity assay (ATP-TCA). In this study, we have used the same method to examine the sensitivity of choroidal melanoma to combinations suggested by our earlier study. Tumour material from 36 enucleated eyes was tested against a battery of single agents and combinations which showed some activity in the previous study. The combination of treosulfan with gemcitabine or cytosine arabinoside showed consistent activity in 70% and 86% of cases, respectively. Paclitaxel was also active, particularly in combination with treosulfan (47%) or mitoxantrone (33%). Addition of paclitaxel to the combination of treosulfan + cytosine analogue added little increased sensitivity. For treosulfan + cytosine arabinoside, further sequence and timing experiments showed that simultaneous administration gave the greatest suppression, with minor loss of inhibition if the cytosine analogue was given 24 h after the treosulfan. Administration of cytosine analogue 24 h before treosulfan produced considerably less inhibition at any concentration. While we have so far been unable to study metastatic tumour from choroidal melanoma patients, the combination of treosulfan with gemcitabine or cytosine arabinoside shows activity ex vivo against primary tumour tissue. Clinical trials are in progress.

This report describes preclinical and early clinical investigations of the mitoxantrone/paclitaxel combination (NT) for patients with platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. The preclinical activity of NT was studied ex vivo, evaluating native tumor specimens with the ATP tumor chemosensitivity assay. Of 24 tumors tested, 20 (83%) were sensitive to NT, whereas 7 (29%) responded to mitoxantrone and 8 (33%) responded to paclitaxel. In the majority of tumors assayed (19 of 24), potentiating or major independent effects between both agents were found. Subsequently, a clinical pilot trial of NT was initiated for patients with platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. Patients had failed one to four (median, two) prior chemotherapy regimens. In 11 cases, NT was administered every three weeks with 8 mg/m2 mito-xantrone and 180 mg/m2 paclitaxel (NT-I). Seven patients were treated biweekly with 6 mg/m2 mitoxantrone and weekly with 100 mg/m2 paclitaxel (NT-II). During 92 NT courses, myelosuppression with leucopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia was the limiting toxicity, occurring more frequently with NT-II. No patient required hospitalization due to any life-threatening complication. Five complete and nine partial remissions were observed with both NT-I and NT-II, accounting for an overall 78% response rate, with a median progression-free survival of 40 weeks. One patient showed early progression during therapy. Currently, three patients (NT-I, two; NT-II, one) have died due to progressive relapsed ovarian cancer, so that the median overall survival is not reached after a median follow-up of 40.5+ weeks. Both schedules were found to be equal in terms of response rate and overall survival. NT is highly active and practical for salvage treatment of ovarian cancer. NT-II may be preferred due to both clinical activity and patients' acceptance. However, NT-I seems to be a less myelotoxic alternative. Both schedules warrant further clinical investigation.

An ATP luminescence assay (TCA 100) was used to measure chemotherapeutic drug sensitivity and resistance of dissociated tumor cells cultured for 6 days in serum-free medium and 96-well polypropylene microplates. Studies were performed with surgical, needle biopsy, pleural, or ascitic fluid specimens using 10,000-20,000 cells/well. ATP measurements were used to determine tumor growth inhibition. Single agent and drug combinations were evaluated using the area under the curve and 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) results for a series of test drug concentrations. The ATP luminometry method had high sensitivity, linearity, and precision for measuring the activity of single agents and drug combinations. Assay reproducibility was high with intraassay and interassay coefficients of variation of 10-15% for percentage of tumor growth inhibition, 5-10% for area under curve, and 15-20% for IC50 results. Good correlation (r = 0.93) between the area under the curve, and IC50 results was observed. Cytological studies with 124 specimens demonstrated selective growth of malignant cells in the serum-free culture system. Studies with malignant and benign specimens also showed selective growth of malignant cells in the serum-free medium used for assay. The assay had a success rate of 87% based on criteria for specimen histopathology, magnitude of cell growth, and dose-response drug activity. Cisplatin results for ovarian carcinoma are presented for 81 specimens from 70 untreated patients and 33 specimens from 30 refractory patients. A model for interpretation of these results based on the correlation of clinical response with the area under the curve and IC50 results indicates that the assay has > 90% accuracy for cisplatin resistance of ovarian carcinoma. Additional studies are in progress to evaluate the clinical efficacy of this assay.

Bone scintigraphy of a 40-yr-old patient suffering from primary breast cancer suggested the possibility of diffuse metastases. Bone marrow scintigraphy using 99mTc-labeled monoclonal antibodies (BW 250/183) demonstrated diffuse destruction of bone marrow due to metastatic disease and consecutive bone marrow extension. Bone marrow scintigraphy was highly sensitive in detecting progression of disease in this asymptomatic patient.