Search

Purpose: Early results from the phase II MEDIOLA study (NCT02734004) in germline BRCA1- and/or BRCA2-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) showed promising efficacy and safety with olaparib plus durvalumab. We report efficacy and safety of olaparib plus durvalumab in an expansion cohort of women with gBRCAm PSROC (gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort) and two cohorts with non-gBRCAm PSROC, one of which also received bevacizumab (non-gBRCAm doublet and triplet cohorts)., Patients and Methods: In this open-label, multicenter study, PARP inhibitor-naïve patients received olaparib plus durvalumab treatment until disease progression; the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort also received bevacizumab. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR; gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort), disease control rate (DCR) at 24 weeks (non-gBRCAm cohorts), and safety (all cohorts)., Results: The full analysis and safety analysis sets comprised 51, 32, and 31 patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively. ORR was 92.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 81.1-97.8] in the gBRCAm expansion doublet cohort (primary endpoint); DCR at 24 weeks was 28.1% (90% CI, 15.5-43.9) in the non-gBRCAm doublet cohort (primary endpoint) and 74.2% (90% CI, 58.2-86.5) in the non-gBRCAm triplet cohort (primary endpoint). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 47.1%, 65.6%, and 61.3% of patients in the gBRCAm expansion doublet, non-gBRCAm doublet, and non-gBRCAm triplet cohorts, respectively, most commonly anemia., Conclusions: Olaparib plus durvalumab continued to show notable clinical activity in women with gBRCAm PSROC. Olaparib plus durvalumab with bevacizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in women with non-gBRCAm PSROC. No new safety signals were identified., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, the modelled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) is an early indicator of the tumour intrinsic chemosensitivity. We assessed the prognostic and surrogate values of KELIM with respect to those of surgery outcome (based on post-operative residual lesions) in the Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) individual patient data meta-analysis MAOV (Meta-Analysis in OVarian cancer) built before the emergence of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors., Methods: The dataset was split into learning and validation cohorts (ratio 1:2). The individual modelled KELIM values were estimated, standardised by the median value, then scored as unfavourable (<1.0) or favourable (≥1.0). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses were performed with a two-step meta-analytic approach and surrogacy through a two-level meta-analytic model., Results: KELIM was assessed in 5884 patients from eight first-line trials (learning, 1962; validation, 3922). A favourable KELIM score was significantly associated with longer OS (validation set, median, 78.8 versus 28.4 months, hazard-ratios [HR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.50, C-index 0.68), and longer PFS (validation set, median 30.5 versus 9.8 months, HR 0.49, 95% CI, 0.45-0.54, C-index 0.68), as were International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and debulking surgery outcome. Three prognostic groups were identified based on the surgery outcome and KELIM score, with large differences in OS (105.1, ∼45.0, and 22.1 months) and PFS (58.1, ∼15.0, and 8.0 months). Surrogacy for OS and for PFS was not established., Conclusion: KELIM is an independent prognostic biomarker for survival, complementary to surgery outcome, representing a new determinant of first-line treatment success., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Benoit You has received compensation for his advisory role for MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK-TESARO, BAYER, Roche-Genentech, ECS Progastrine, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology and Merck Serono. Rosalind Glasspool declares personal financial interests for her advisory role for AstraZeneca, MSD, Clovis Oncology, GSK/Tesaro and Immunogen. She also has received compensation for speaker fees and funding to attend medical conferences from TSK/Tesaro, and consultancy fees from Sotio. Anna Tinker has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Eisai, a research grant from AstraZeneca and declares her role within the advisory committee and speaker’s bureau of GSK. Kristina Lindemann has received compensation for her advisory role for GSK, AstraZeneca and Eisai, and a research grant from GSK. Isabelle Ray-Coquard declares personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Clovis Oncology, Mersana, Deciphera, Eisai, Amgen, BMS, Onxena, Aravive and Roche. Mansoor Raza Mirza has received compensation for his advisory role for AstraZeneca, Biocad, GSK, Karyopharm, Merck, Roche and Zailab. He also received financial interest from Karyopharm as a member of the board of directors and related to stocks and shares. Julien Péron declares compensation from Fab’entech for advisory role; from Eisai as invited speaker, consultant and member of board of directors and from Lilly as invited speaker. He also has received research funding from Roche. Iain McNeish has received compensation for his advisory role for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Roche and ScannCell. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 primary analysis, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of surgical status. Prespecified, exploratory analyses by molecular biomarker status showed substantial benefit in patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD; BRCAm and/or genomic instability). We report the prespecified final overall survival (OS) analysis, including analyses by HRD status., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily; up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; 15 months total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. Analysis of OS, a key secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing, was planned for ∼60% maturity or 3 years after the primary analysis., Results: After median follow-up of 61.7 and 61.9 months in the olaparib and placebo arms, respectively, median OS was 56.5 versus 51.6 months in the intention-to-treat population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.12; P = 0.4118]. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 105 (19.6%) olaparib patients versus 123 (45.7%) placebo patients. In the HRD-positive population, OS was longer with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85; 5-year OS rate, 65.5% versus 48.4%); at 5 years, updated PFS also showed a higher proportion of olaparib plus bevacizumab patients without relapse (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32-0.54; 5-year PFS rate, 46.1% versus 19.2%). Myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, aplastic anemia, and new primary malignancy incidence remained low and balanced between arms., Conclusions: Olaparib plus bevacizumab provided clinically meaningful OS improvement for first-line patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer. These prespecified exploratory analyses demonstrated improvement despite a high proportion of patients in the placebo arm receiving poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors after progression, confirming the combination as one of the standards of care in this setting with the potential to enhance cure., Competing Interests: Disclosure IRC reports honoraria (personal) from AbbVie, Agenus, Advaxis, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis; honoraria (institution) from GSK, MSD, Roche, and BMS; advisory/consulting fees from AbbVie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersana, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis; research grant/funding (self) from MSD, Roche, and BMS; research grant/funding (institution) from MSD, Roche, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sereno; and travel support from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK. AL reports grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi; consulting fees from Seattle Genetics; honoraria/reimbursement and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; advisory board fees or continuing medical education from Ability Pharma, Biocad, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, TouchCongress, and Zentalis; support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ARIEL4 and TROPHIMMUNE. SP reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, GSK, and PharmaMar; and research funding (institution) from Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. AGM reports advisory/consultancy fees (personal) from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Hedera Dx, Illumina, ImmunoGen, MSD, Macrogenics, Mersana, Novartis, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, Regeneron, Sotio, and Sutro; speaker bureau fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, MSD, Novocure, Takeda, Zai Lab, and Clovis; research grant/funding (institution) from Roche, Novartis, GSK, and Aravive; and steering committee member (personal) for MSD. CM reports honoraria/consulting fees (personal) from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Seagen; participation on an advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, MSD, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Seagen; and travel expenses from Roche and AstraZeneca. SN reports honoraria (self) from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Mochida, MSD, Takeda, and Terumo; and research grant (self) from AstraZeneca. IV reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazzpharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; contracted research funding (via KULeuven) from Oncoinvent AS; corporate sponsored research funding from Amgen and Roche; and accommodation and travel expenses from Karyopharm. NC reports research grants from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, MSD, GSK, and Eisai; honoraria for advisory boards from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD, GSK, Tesaro, Pfizer, BIOCAD, ImmunoGen, Mersana Therapeutics, Eisai, and OncXerna Therapeutics; and is a steering committee member on ESMO clinical guidelines and a scientific committee chair for Acto Onlus. JM reports honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK. FS reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK Tesaro, MSD, Sandoz (Novartis), and Clovis Oncology; and institutional financial support from Roche, GSK Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, MSD, Incyte, and Agenus. JS reports grants or contracts from Roche Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, GSK, Lilly, Tesaro, consulting fees from Tesaro, Merck, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche Pharma, GSK, MSD, Eisai, Novocure, Oncoinvent, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Tesaro, GSK, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bayer, Roche, PharmaMar, Vifor Pharma, Hexal AG, Novartis Pharma. DL reports consultancy fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, Novartis, and Seagen; membership on an advisory board (personal) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, Oncoinvest, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; and travel support from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GSK. EMGA reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca–MSD, Clovis Oncology, GSK–Tesaro, PharmaMar, and Roche; speaker bureau/expert testimony honorarium from AstraZeneca–MSD, PharmaMar, Roche, GSK–Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; and travel support from Roche, GSK–Tesaro, and Baxter. GB reports consulting or advisory board roles for AstraZeneca, Roche, and GSK; and has received funding for medical conferences from AstraZeneca, Roche, and GSK. CLP reports advisory/consultancy honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Daiichi–Sanko; and other travel/accommodation/medical congress expenses from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and MSD. PB reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK; and congress and travel support from GSK and PharmaMar. AL reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Tesaro; speaker honoraria from Clovis Oncology and Roche; and participation in a medical congress for Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Lilly, and Roche. AB reports honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Tesaro. JM reports advisory board fees (personal) from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Eli Lilly; and non-financial traveling facilities from Pfizer. AEB reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and GSK; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca and Olympus; and participation in a medical congress for PharmaMar and AstraZeneca. MR reports advisory board fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Immunocore; advisory board fees and research grant (personal/institution) from MSD; and research grant (institution) from BMS. TWPS reports honoraria (advisory role, expert testimony and lectures, participation in clinical trials, other financial relationships, e.g. travel) from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, MSD, NCO, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. CD reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Eisai, and AstraZeneca. DD reports consulting or advisory roles (personal) for AstraZeneca, GSK/Tesaro, Roche, Eisai Germany, and MSD Oncology; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, GSK/Tesaro, MSD, Intuitive Surgical, and KLS Martin. BY reports consulting fees (personal) from MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK–Tesaro, Bayer, Roche–Genentech, ECS Progastrin, Novartis, LEK, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, Merck Serono, BMS, SEAGEN, and Myriad. EPL reports lecture fees, speaker’s bureau fees, and travel support from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, and Roche; lecture fees from Clovis Oncology, Incyte, and Pfizer; and is employed by ARCAGY Research. PH reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis Oncology, Stryker, MSD Oncology, Zai Lab, Lilly, Sotio, Eisai, and GSK; consulting/advisory roles from AstraZeneca, Roche, Tesaro, Merck, GSK, Clovis Oncology, and Immunogen; and research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, and Clovis Oncology. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common human malignancy. In most cases, BCC has slow progression and can be definitively cured by surgery or radiotherapy. However, in rare cases, it can become locally advanced or, even more rarely, metastatic. The alternative recommended treatments are Sonic Hedgehog pathway inhibitors; however, the response is often short-lived., Methods: This was a phase 2 basket study (NCT03012581) evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in a cohort of 32 advanced BCC patients, enrolled after failure of Sonic Hedgehog inhibitors, including 29 laBCC (91%) and 3 mBCC (9%)., Results: Compared to previously published studies, our population consisted of severe patients with a poor prognosis because they had already received multiple lines of treatment: all patients received previous Sonic Hedgehog inhibitors, 53% of patients already had chemotherapy and 75% radiotherapy. At 12 weeks, we reported 3.1% of complete responses, 18.8% of partial responses, and 43.8% of stable diseases. The best response rate to nivolumab reached 12.5% of complete responses (four patients), 18.8% of partial responses (three patients), and 43.8% of stable diseases (14 patients). Adverse events (AE) were mostly grade 2 or 3, slightly different to the adverse events observed in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (higher rate of diabetes, no thyroid dysfunction)., Conclusion: Nivolumab is a relevant therapeutic option for patients with advanced relapsing/refractory BCC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Caroline Gaudy Marquestre has declared payment for lectures/presentations/writings from BMS and MSD, and support for attending meetings from MSD, BMS and Jansen. Aurelien Marabelle has declared support for the present manuscript from Unicancer and Gustave Roussy Institute, grants or contract from BMS, MSD and Sanofi, consulting fees from Sanofi, payment for lectures/presentations/writings from BMS and MSD, support for attending meetings from BMS and MSD, participation on Advisory Board with MSD, have leadership role in the board of the French Immune-Therapy for Cancer scholar society. Marie Beylot-Barry has declared payment for lectures/presentations/writings from Sun Pharma. Nicole Basset-Seguin has declared consulting fees from Regeneron/Sanofi and Sun Pharma, payments for lectures/presentations/writings from Regeneron/Sanofi and Sun Pharma, support for attending meetings from Regeneron/Sanofi and Sun Pharma, and have participated on Advisory Board for Regeneron/Sanofi and Sun Pharma. Philippe Saiag has declared consulting fees from BMS outside the topic of this study. Philippe Jamme has declared consulting fees from BMS, support for attending meetings from Pierre Fabre, and have participated on Advisory Board with Pierre Fabre, BMS and Novartis. Celeste Lebbe has declared support for the present manuscript from Amgen, BMS, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; she have declared consulting fees from Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche; payments for lectures/presentations/writings from Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche; payment for expert testimony form Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche; support for attending meetings from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi. Laurent Mortier has provided time for consulting and participation to scientific advisory boards of the following compagnies: Sun pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and MSD, and have participated in congress with the same companies., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In ovarian carcinomas, the likelihood of disease cure following first-line medical-surgical treatment has been poorly addressed. The objective was to: (a) assess the likelihood of long-term disease-free (LDF) > 5 years; and (b) evaluate the impact of the tumour primary chemosensitivity (assessed with the modelled CA-125 KELIM) with respect to disease stage, and completeness of debulking surgery., Methods: Three Phase III trial datasets (AGO-OVAR 9; AGO-OVAR 7; ICON-7) were retrospectively investigated in an "adjuvant dataset", whilst the Netherlands Cancer Registry was used in a "neoadjuvant dataset". The prognostic values of KELIM, disease stage and surgery outcomes regarding the likelihood of LDF were assessed using univariate/multivariate analyses., Results: Of 2029 patients in the "adjuvant dataset", 82 (4.0%) experienced LDF (Stage I-II: 25.9%; III: 2.1%; IV: 0.5%). Multivariate analyses identified disease stage and KELIM (OR = 4.24) as independent prognostic factors. Among the 1452 patients from the "neoadjuvant dataset", 36 (2.4%) had LDF (Stage II-III: 3.3%; IV: 1.3%). Using multivariate tests, high-risk diseases (OR = 0.18) and KELIM (OR = 2.96) were significant., Conclusion: The probability of LDF > 5 years after first-line treatment in 3486 patients (<4%) was lower than thought. These data could represent a reference for future studies meant to assess progress related to PARP inhibitors., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are commonly given to limit chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, but, in case of weekly chemotherapy such as eribulin, their administration schedules remain empirical., Objectives: This pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) study was conducted to establish the effect of different G-CSF regimens on neutropenia's incidence for patients treated by eribulin, to propose an optimal G-CSF dosing schedule., Methods: A population PK/PD model was developed to describe absolute neutrophil counts' (ANC) time course in 87 cancer patients receiving eribulin. The structural model considered ANC dynamics, neutropenic effect of eribulin and stimulating effect of G-CSF. Final model estimates were used to calculate neutropenia's incidence following different G-CSF dosing schedules for 1000 virtual subjects., Results: The final model successfully described most of the ANC time course for all patients. Simulations showed that a single G-CSF administration 48 h after each eribulin injection reduced the risk of severe neutropenia from 29.7 to 5.2%. Five days of G-CSF only after the second eribulin injection or no G-CSF administration induces similar incidence of neutropenia., Conclusion: Simulations showed a single G-CSF administration 48 h after the end of each eribulin injection seems to be the optimal schedule to reduce eribulin-induced neutropenia. However, the new administration scheme should be tested in real life to evaluate its pertinence., Trial Registration: Eudract 2015-001753-32, 2015/01/26., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

NK cells are cytotoxic lymphocytes displaying strong antimetastatic activity. Mouse models and in vitro studies suggest a prominent role of the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) kinase in the control of NK cell homeostasis and antitumor functions. However, mTOR inhibitors are used as chemotherapies in several cancer settings. The impact of such treatments on patients' NK cells is unknown. We thus performed immunophenotyping of circulating NK cells from metastatic breast cancer patients treated with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus over a three-month period. Everolimus treatment resulted in inhibition of mTORC1 activity in peripheral NK cells, whereas mTORC2 activity was preserved. NK cell homeostasis was profoundly altered with a contraction of the NK cell pool and an overall decrease in their maturation. Phenotype and function of the remaining NK cell population was less affected. This is, to our knowledge, the first in vivo characterization of the role of mTOR in human NK cells., (Copyright © 2021 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.)

How to overcome the cell membrane barriers and achieve release payloads efficiently in the cytoplasm have been major challenges for anticancer drug delivery and therapeutic effects with nanosystems. In this study, bovine serum albumin (BSA) was modified with folate acid and histamine, which was then used as the nanocarrier for the antitumor agent doxorubicin (DOX). The DOX-loaded nanoparticles (DOX/FBH-NPs) were prepared via a crosslinking method, and the release of DOX from these nanoparticles (NPs) exhibited pH/reduction-responsive behaviors in vitro. These NPs interacted with the folate receptor overexpressed on the cell membrane of 4 T1 cells and achieved enhanced endocytosis. Afterwards, these NPs exhibited pH-responsiveness within endo-lysosomes and escaped from endosomes due to the "proton sponge" effect, and then completed release of DOX was triggered by high concentration of glutathione (GSH) in cytoplasm. Thus, DOX/FBH-NPs exhibited excellent cytotoxicity against 4 T1 cells in vitro. Benefited from the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect and folate receptor-mediated endocytosis, these NPs gained satisfied tumor-targeting effects in vivo and efficient delivery of DOX to tumor tissues. As a result, these NPs exhibited enhanced antitumor effects and reduced side effects in vivo. In conclusion, these BSA-based NPs modified with both folate acid and histamine showed enhanced tumor-targeting effects in vivo with good biocompatibility and intracellular pH/reduction-responsive behaviors, providing a promising strategy for the efficient delivery of antitumor agents., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Cell membrane- covered drug-delivery nanoplatforms have been garnering attention because of their enhanced bio-interfacing capabilities that originate from source cells. In this top-down technique, nanoparticles (NPs) are covered by various membrane coatings, including membranes from specialized cells or hybrid membranes that combine the capacities of different types of cell membranes. Here, hybrid membrane-coated doxorubicin (Dox)-loaded poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) NPs (DPLGA@[RAW-4T1] NPs) were fabricated by fusing membrane components derived from RAW264.7(RAW) and 4T1 cells (4T1). These NPs were used to treat lung metastases originating from breast cancer. This study indicates that the coupling of NPs with a hybrid membrane derived from macrophage and cancer cells has several advantages, such as the tendency to accumulate at sites of inflammation, ability to target specific metastasis, homogenous tumor targeting abilities in vitro, and markedly enhanced multi-target capability in a lung metastasis model in vivo. The DPLGA@[RAW-4T1] NPs exhibited excellent chemotherapeutic potential with approximately 88.9% anti-metastasis efficacy following treatment of breast cancer-derived lung metastases. These NPs were robust and displayed the multi-targeting abilities of hybrid membranes. This study provides a promising biomimetic nanoplatform for effective treatment of breast cancer metastasis.

Background: Determining the optimal biological dose (OBD) has been described as an alternative strategy to the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) for identifying the recommended phase II trial doses (RP2Ds) of phase I anti-cancer therapies. However, the clinical relevance is still unknown. An extensive review was performed to assess if the OBDs defined in early-phase trials were useful for subsequent drug development and approvals., Methods: All the molecular targeted therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in solid oncology or in haematological malignancies before July 2018 were listed through the National Cancer Institute Database. The early-phase trial publications investigating these drugs as single agents were retrieved and analysed to identify the drugs for which OBDs were reported. The publications of subsequent pivotal efficacy clinical trials leading to the approvals were retrieved, and OBDs compared with the final labelled doses and dosing schedules., Results: A total of 87 early-phase trial publications were analysed, corresponding to 81 FDA-approved targeted therapies. OBDs were reported for 40% (32/81) of these drugs (19 small molecules, 13 monoclonal antibodies). MTDs were not identified for 59% (19/32) of molecules. When the OBDs were selected as the RP2Ds (18/32 molecules), the final FDA-approved doses were consistent with the OBDs for 83% of the drugs, which is much higher than the previously reported 58% rate when MTDs were chosen as the RP2Ds., Conclusion: Although still poorly investigated, the OBD may be a relevant and complementary end-point for early-phase trials of targeted therapies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Antimitograms are prototype in vitro tests for evaluating chemotherapeutic efficacy using patient-derived primary cancer cells. These tests might help optimize treatment from a pharmacodynamic standpoint by guiding treatment selection. However, they are technically challenging and require refinements and trials to demonstrate benefit to be widely used. In this study, we performed simulations aimed at exploring how to validate antimitograms and how to complement them by pharmacokinetic optimization. A generic model of advanced cancer, including pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic monitoring, was used to link dosing schedules with progression-free survival (PFS), as built from previously validated modules. This model was used to explore different possible situations in terms of pharmacokinetic variability, pharmacodynamic variability, and antimitogram performance. The model recapitulated tumor dynamics and standalone therapeutic drug monitoring efficacy consistent with published clinical results. Simulations showed that combining pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic optimization should increase PFS in a synergistic fashion. Simulated data were then used to compute required clinical trial sizes, which were 30% to 90% smaller when pharmacokinetic optimization was added to pharmacodynamic optimization. This improvement was observed even when pharmacokinetic optimization alone exhibited only modest benefit. Overall, our work illustrates the synergy derived from combining antimitograms with therapeutic drug monitoring, permitting a disproportionate reduction of the trial size required to prove a benefit on PFS. Accordingly, we suggest that strategies with benefits too small for standalone clinical trials could be validated in combination in a similar manner. Significance: This work offers a method to reduce the number of patients needed for a clinical trial to prove the hypothesized benefit of a drug to progression-free survival, possibly easing opportunities to evaluate combinations. Cancer Res; 78(7); 1873-82. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Backround:Patients with metastatic endometrial carcinoma have a poor prognosis and PIK3CA mutations and amplifications are common in these cancers. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the pure PI3K inhibitor BKM120 in advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma., Methods: This phase II, multicentre, single-arm, double strata (histological low grade (LG) or high grade (HG)) open-label study enrolled patients with histologically confirmed advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma who had received not more than one prior chemotherapy regimen. Patients received initially BKM120 100 mg tablets once daily. Primary end points were proportion of patients free of progression at 2 months (HG strata) or at 3 months (LG strata), objective response rate (ORR), and safety., Results: A total of 40 patients were enrolled, of whom 16 patients had received BKM120 at 100 mg. Because of high toxicities (cutaneous rash (54%), depressive events (47%), and anxiety (40%), the IDMC has proposed to stop recruitment at 100 mg and to continue the clinical trial with a lower dose of 60 mg per day. In addition, 24 patients (median age 67 years old) were newly enrolled (14 in the LG strata and 10 in the HG strata). Rate of nonprogression at 2 months in the HG strata was 70% and at 3 months was 60% in the LG strata. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients is 4.5 months (CI 95% 2.8-6.1), and the median PFS for LG strata is 8.3 months compared with 3.8 months for the HG strata. No response was reported. At 60 mg per day, the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were hyperglycaemia (58%), cognitive (31%), digestive (28%), hepatic liver functions (26%), and rash (23%). The most commonly reported treatment-related grade ⩾3 AEs were HTA (17%), hyperglycaemia (17%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (24%). Five patients (21%) stopped BKM120 for toxicity., Conclusions: The BKM120 was associated with an unfavourable safety profile and minimal antitumour activity in monotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma. The clinical trial was stopped before end of recruitment for toxicity., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest except F Joly who declares NOVARTIS board expert.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent a major source of information on treatment-related adverse events (AEs). In this study, we reviewed the use and the reporting methods of aggregated-AEs (A-AEs) outcomes in RCTs reports published in oncology and compared that to the expectations of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) membership., Methods: RCTs reports published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed regarding the reporting of A-AEs-outcomes. A-AEs were defined as summary outcome combining several related AEs, usually grouped by organ system e.g. cardiac-AEs, dermatologic-AEs. Trial characteristics associated with the use of A-AEs outcomes were investigated. The expectation of EORTC members concerning A-AEs utilisation was queried through a survey., Results: Among 325 RCTs published between 2007 and 2011, 94 (29%) included one or more A-AE outcomes. A clear description of the nature of AEs included in such aggregations was provided in 19 articles (20%). No description of A-AEs was conversely provided in the other 75 articles (80%). The most commonly used A-AEs-outcomes were dermatologic-AEs (45%) and cardiac-AEs (33%). In multivariate analysis, the use of A-AEs outcomes was more frequent when trials were conducted in Europe (p = 0.038) and in trials performed on colon/rectal cancers (p = 0.016). Finally, there is no consensus of EORTC members regarding the utilisation of A-AEs but a majority of them (88%) felt that a clear description of A-AEs should systematically be reported., Conclusions: The use of A-AEs is infrequent in oncology RCT manuscripts although their use is accepted by most clinicians. However, a clear definition of A-AEs is strongly recommended if they are to be used in order to avoid a loss of important details about drug toxicities that is useful to clinicians., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Determination of drug safety and tolerability is usually based on the frequency of certain key adverse events (AEs) rather than the frequency of all-grade toxicities. We assessed the reporting of key AEs in oncology randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and compared that with the expectations of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) membership., Materials and Methods: RCTs reports published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed regarding the reporting of key AEs, namely: grade 3/4 AEs, grade 5 AEs, and AEs resulting in study withdrawal or in dose reduction. Study characteristics associated with better reporting of key AEs were investigated. Finally, a survey was conducted among the EORTC membership to determine their expectations on key AEs reporting., Results: Although the frequency of grade 3/4 was reported in most reports (96%), only 17% of them described the reporting threshold above which grade 3/4 AEs were included for reporting, raising the possibility that important but less frequent grade 3/4 AEs might be underreported. Frequency and nature of grade 5 AEs were adequately reported in 161 (50%) of manuscripts; AEs leading to study withdrawal in 61 manuscripts (19%); and AEs leading to dose reduction in 43 manuscripts (13%). In contrast, most EORTC members expected a comprehensive reporting of grade 5 AEs (96% of EORTC member's responses), AEs leading to study withdrawal (86%) and AEs leading to dose reduction (70%). In multivariate analysis, frequencies of grade 5 AEs were less frequently reported in European trials (P = 0.004). Frequencies of AEs leading to withdrawals were more frequently reported in trials funded by industry (P = 0.005) and in trials including patients with breast or urological cancers (P = 0.006)., Conclusions: These findings suggest that current practice of key AEs reporting remains highly variable and sometimes inadequate in oncology RCTs reports. Current standards for safety reporting in RCTs should be revised to emphasize the importance of key AEs reporting., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

What Is Known and Objectives: In cancer care, clinical pharmacists contribute to improving prevention and management of drug-related problems (DRPs). The 3-year EPICC study (Evaluation of Pharmaceutical Intervention in Cancer Care) aimed to collect and analyse pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) in oncology., Methods: The free online version of the French Society of Clinical Pharmacy (SFPC) coding system, ACT-IP, was used, supplemented by a standardized dedicated cancer-care decision tree., Results: A total of 29,589 medication orders (77,004 anticancer drug preparations) were analysed. Eight hundred and ninety-four PIs were recorded. ACT-IP identified 54·1% of DRPs as concerning over- or underdosage. The standardized dedicated cancer-care decision tree identified the three principal causes of dosage problems: 50·2% due to miscalculation, 20% to omission of dose adjustment and 12% to poor choice of antineoplastic regimen. About 13·8% of DRPs were adverse effects and 3·9% were drug-drug interactions. The decision tree showed that 22% of adverse events could be circumvented by a switch within the same drug family and 72% of drug-drug interactions would have led to increased neoplastic toxicity., Discussion: Pharmaceutical analysis of prescription forms contributes to medication safety in cancer care, and the present dedicated decision tree highlights additional information about DRPs and PIs. The DRP rate (3% of prescriptions) was consistent with the literature. The pharmacist has a role to play in optimizing the management of patients with cancer in terms of dose adjustment, drug toxicity management, improvement of administration and drug-drug interactions., What Is New and Conclusion: This study, highlighting PIs in cancer care, is the first of this scale in terms of number of prescriptions analysed (nearly 30 000). Results demonstrated the specificity of DRPs and PIs for patients with cancer and the value of a dedicated coding system in cancer care., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

What Is Known and Objective: Medication errors (ME) in oncology are known to cause serious iatrogenic complications. However, MEs still occur at each step in the anticancer chemotherapy process, particularly when injections are prepared in the hospital pharmacy. This study assessed whether a ME simulation program would help prevent ME-associated iatrogenic complications., Methods: The 5-month prospective study, consisting of three phases, was undertaken in the centralized pharmaceutical unit of a university hospital of Lyon, France. During the first simulation phase, 25 instruction sheets each containing one simulated error were inserted among various instruction sheets issued to blinded technicians. The second phase consisted of activity aimed at raising pharmacy technicians' awareness of risk of medication errors associated with antineoplastic drugs. The third phase consisted of re-enacting the error simulation process 3 months after the awareness campaign. The rate and severity of undetected medication errors were measured during the two simulation (first and third) phases. The potential seriousness of the ME was assessed using the NCC MERP(®) index., Results and Discussion: The rate of undetected medication errors decreased from 12 in the first simulation phase (48%) to five in the second simulation phase (20%, P = 0.04). The number of potential deaths due to administration of a faulty preparation decreased from three to zero. Awareness of iatrogenic risk through error simulation allowed pharmacy technicians to improve their ability to identify errors., What Is New and Conclusion: This study is the first demonstration of the successful application of a simulation-based learning tool for reducing errors in the preparation of injectable anticancer drugs. Such a program should form part of the continuous quality improvement of risk management strategies for cancer patients., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

At the end of the dose escalation step of phase I trials in oncology, it is increasingly frequent to include patients in expansion cohorts. However, the objective of the expansion cohorts, the number of patients included and their justification are insufficiently explained in the protocols. These cohorts are sometimes of considerable size. The aim of this article is to outline the methodology of expansion cohorts in order to provide recommendations for their planning in practice. This work has been undertaken in collaboration with the statisticians of the early phase investigation centers (CLIP(2)), supported by INCA. First, we have outlined the recent articles published on the expansion cohorts in phase I. We then proposed recommendations, in terms of objectives and number of patients to be included, to guide investigators and facilitate the use of these expansion cohorts in practice. Manji et al. have identified 149 phase I clinical trials using expansion cohorts in oncology with a review of the literature between 2006 and 2011 (Manji et al., 2013). Objectives of the expansion cohort were reported in 111 trials (74%). In these trials, safety was the most reported objective (80% of trials), followed by efficacy (45%). According to this review, the number of patients included in these cohorts was insufficiently justified. This result was confirmed by the study of literature that we conducted over the period 2011-2014. We propose to define the number of patients to be included in expansion cohorts in terms of (1) their objectives, (2) the statistical criteria and (3) the clinical context of the trial. The toxicity study remains the primary objective to evaluate in the expansion phase. In some contexts, the activity study is considered as co-primary objective, either for identifying preliminary signs of activity in studies like screening, or for studying the activity when the target population is known. This study is then considered as phase I/II, and experience plans of phase II can be adapted for planning expansion cohorts. Recommendations for the size of expansion cohorts are proposed. Despite the exploratory character of the expansion cohort, a justification of their size based on assumptions statistically defined is recommended in order to provide an interpretable conclusion and to quantify the risk of errors., (Copyright © 2014 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with advanced metastatic disease are often treated aggressively with multiple lines of chemotherapy, even in the last month of life. The benefit of such an approach remains uncertain. The objective of the study was to investigate whether Ruta graveolens 9c homeopathic medicine can improve quality of life (QoL) and tumour progression in patients with advanced cancer., Material and Methods: This was a single-centre, open-label, uncontrolled, pilot study. Patients (>18-years, life-expectancy ≥3 months, performance status ≤2) with locally-advanced solid tumours or metastases, previously treated with all available standard anti-cancer treatments were recruited. Oral treatment consisted of two 1-mL ampoules of Ruta graveolens (9c dilution) given daily for a minimum of 8 weeks, or until tumour and/or clinical progression. Primary outcome was QoL measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures were anxiety/depression measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), WHO performance status (PS), tumour progression assessed using RECIST criteria and tumour markers, survival and tolerance., Results: Thirty-one patients were included (mean age: 64.3 years). Mean duration of treatment was 3.3 months (median: 2.1). QoL global health status improved significantly between baseline and week 8 (P < 0.001) and week 16 (P = 0.035), but was at the limit of significance (P = 0.057) at the end of the study. There was no significant change in anxiety/depression or PS during treatment. Ruta graveolens 9c had no obvious effect on tumour progression. Median survival was 6.7 months [95%CI: 4.8-14.9]. Ruta graveolens 9c was well-tolerated., Conclusion: Some patients treated with Ruta graveolens 9c had a transitory improvement in QoL, but the effectiveness of this treatment remains to be confirmed in further studies., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Even though anticancer drugs are prepared in dedicated pharmaceutical units, nurses remain exposed to cytotoxic agents during administration to patients., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess this occupational exposure during the intravenous line-purging procedure at the patient's bedside before administration in oncology departments., Methods: This prospective study was conducted over a 4-week period in the hematology and oncology departments at a university hospital. Amounts of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on the surface of nurses' gloves were measured after the intravenous line purge of the infusion bag and the connection to the patient. For this purpose, gloves were washed with sterile water, following a validated procedure. Quantification of the 2 drugs into the water was performed using LC-MS/MS., Results: After 59 chemotherapy administrations, 30.5% of gloves were contaminated. Despite extremely low volumes of contamination (0.08-6.28 µL), amounts collected ranged from 190 to 2500 ng per pair of gloves that tested positive for doxorubicin (median, 1600 ng) and from 130 to 32,600 ng with cyclophosphamide (median, 2700 ng)., Conclusions: The intravenous line purge preceding antineoplastic infusion bag administration is a potential source of contamination in nurses. Contaminations appear to be invisible but frequent (in >30% of cases). Therefore, intravenous line purging performed under appropriately safe conditions should be mandated in pharmaceutical units dedicated to injectable-drug preparation. This measure should be included as a standard hospital practice as a matter of urgency., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Oxaliplatin-based regimens induce a potential risk of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR), with incidence varying from 10% to 25% and lack of clearly identified risk factors. The present study aimed to assess incidence and risk factors in HSR., Methods: All patients treated with oxaliplatin in the Medical Oncology Department of the Lyon Sud University Hospital (Hospices Civils de Lyon, France) from October 2004 to January 2011 were enrolled. Incidence and severity of HSR were analyzed retrospectively and the potential clinicopathological covariates were tested on univariate and multivariate analysis., Results: A total of 1,221 doses of oxaliplatin were administered for 191 patients, 8.9% of whom experienced an HSR. Seventeen HSRs were observed, with 1.6% grade 3 and no grade 4 events. The first reaction appeared after a median of 3 oxaliplatin infusions. Using univariate analysis, HSR was associated with younger age (mean age, 56.2 years; p = 0.04), female gender (p = 0.01) and prior exposure to platinum salts (p = 0.02). No increased risk was associated with mean dose or with presence of atopic background. Multivariate analysis confirmed that women were at higher risk of oxaliplatin HSR than men (p < 0.05). Reintroduction of oxaliplatin was effective in 64.7% of hypersensitive patients using an appropriate premedication strategy. Patients who experienced a grade 3 HSR were not rechallenged., Conclusion: The risk of developing oxaliplatin HSR should not be underestimated (8.9% of patients). The medical team's vigilance should be increased with women, younger patients and patients with prior exposure to platinum salts.

Purpose: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidance was extended in 2004 to provide a set of 10 specific and comprehensive guidelines regarding adverse event (AE) reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Limited data exist regarding adherence to these guidelines in publications of oncology RCTs., Methods: All phase III RCTs published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed using a 16-point AE reporting quality score (AERQS) based on the 2004 CONSORT extension. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify features associated with improved reporting quality., Results: A total of 325 RCTs were reviewed. The mean AERQS was 10.1 on a 16-point scale. The most common items that were poorly reported were the methodology of AE collection (adequately reported in only 10% of studies), the description of AE characteristics leading to withdrawals (15%), and whether AEs are attributed to trial interventions (38%). Even when reported, the methods of AE collection and analysis were highly heterogeneous. The multivariable regression model revealed that industry funding, intercontinental trials, and trials in the metastatic setting were predictors of higher AERQS. The quality of AE reporting did not improve significantly over time and was not better among articles published in journals with a high impact factor., Conclusion: Our findings show that some methodologic aspects of AE collection and analysis were poorly reported. Given the importance of AEs in evaluating new treatments, authors should be encouraged to adhere to the 2004 CONSORT guidelines regarding AE reporting.

Background: To reduce the occurrence of medication errors, a systemic approach was developed combining anti-neoplastic medication error reviews and morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs). We report the first experience of implementing this strategy in oncology., Methods: The case reports submitted to combined reviews were prepared by physicians and pharmacists, and medication error(s) were described and chronological and root-cause analyses were performed., Results: Ten combined reviews were conducted, which involved the departments of haematology, medical oncology, pneumology, gastroenterology and clinical oncology pharmacy. A total of 91 errors were analysed, of which 3 had reached the patient. Thirty-four corrective actions were proposed; 53% consisted of changes in practice, 35% in procedural reminders and 12% in on-ward education sessions., Conclusions: The combination of medication error reviews and M&MCs appears to be an efficient means of improving cancer patient safety and personnel proficiency. This multidisciplinary work is indispensable to improve future patient management through the critical analysis of past medical errors.

Aim: The majority of medication errors that harm patients relate to the prescribing process. Our study aimed to identify the predictors of prescription errors involving anticancer chemotherapy agents., Methods: All consecutive antineoplastic prescriptions from June 2006 to May 2008 were analysed, with medication errors being captured. Potential risk factors for medication prescribing errors were defined in relation to the patient, chemotherapy regimen and hospital organisation. The relationship between these risk factors and observed medication errors or dose medication errors was assessed by univariate and multivariate logistic-regression analyses., Results: Among the 17,150 chemotherapy prescriptions, 540 contained at least one error (3.15%). The following independent predictors of risk of medication errors were identified: patients with a body surface area >2m(2) (odds ratio (OR): 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.67, p=0.04), protocols with more than three drugs (OR: 1.91, 95%CI 1.59-2.31, p<0.001), protocols involving carboplatin (OR: 2.33, 95%CI 1.85-2.95, p<0.001), protocols requiring at least one modification by the physician (OR: 1.32, 95%CI 1.09-1.61, p=0.005), inpatient care (OR: 1.58, 95%CI 1.28-1.93, p<0.001) and prescriptions by a resident physician (OR: 1.83, 95%CI 1.50-2.22, p<0.001). The risk of medication dose prescribing errors was significantly associated with three independent factors: protocols involving carboplatin (OR: 4.47, 95%CI 3.45-5.79, p<0.001), protocols with more than three drugs (OR: 2.4, 95%CI 1.92-3.00, p<0.001) and protocols requiring at least one modification (OR: 1.33, 95%CI 1.04-1.69, p=0.02)., Conclusion: In this epidemiologic study, the independent risk factors identified should be targeted for preventive measures in order to improve anticancer agent prescriptions and reduce the risk of medication errors., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In designing phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the expected magnitude of the benefit of the experimental therapy (δ) determines the number of patients required and the number of person-years of follow-up. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate how reliably δ approximates the observed benefit (B) in RCTs that evaluated cancer treatment., Methods: RCTs evaluating systemic therapy in adult cancer patients published in 10 journals from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009, were identified. Data were extracted from each publication independently by two investigators. The related-samples Sign test was used to determine whether the median difference between δ and B was statistically significant in different study subsets and was two-sided., Results: A total of 253 RCTs met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Regardless of whether benefit was defined as proportional change (median difference between δ and B = -13.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -21.0% to -8.0%), absolute change (median difference between δ and B = -8.0%, 95% CI = -9.9% to -5.1%), or median increase in a time-to-event endpoint (median difference between δ and B = -1.4 months, 95% CI = -2.1 to -0.8 months), δ was consistently and statistically significantly larger than B (P < .001, for each, respectively). This relationship between δ and B was independent of year of publication, industry funding, management by cooperative trial groups, type of control arm, type of experimental arm, disease site, adjuvant treatment, or treatment for advanced disease, and likely contributed to the high proportion of negative RCTs (158 [62.5%] of 253 studies)., Conclusions: Investigators consistently make overly optimistic assumptions regarding treatment benefits when designing RCTs. Attempts to reduce the number of negative RCTs should focus on more realistic estimations of δ. Increased use of interim analyses, certain adaptive trial designs, and better biological characterization of patients are potential ways of mitigating this problem.

Over the last decade, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been firmly established as essential drugs for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Cetuximab and panitumumab have been approved by American and European drug agencies. This review aims at exploring the main outcomes of clinical studies performed during their clinical development, from phase I to III trials, and hence at giving a comprehensive review of the scientific rational and up-to-date evidence sustaining the use of these drugs. Many areas are still under active investigation such as administration schedules, their efficacy in comparison with bevacizumab, their role in adjuvant therapy, molecular predictors, and management of side effects., (2012 American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background: In spite of increasing efforts to enhance patient safety, medication errors in hospitalised patients are still relatively common, but with potentially severe consequences. This study aimed to assess antineoplastic medication errors in both affected patients and intercepted cases in terms of frequency, severity for patients, and costs., Methods: A 1-year prospective study was conducted in order to identify the medication errors that occurred during chemotherapy treatment of cancer patients at a French university hospital. The severity and potential consequences of intercepted errors were independently assessed by two physicians. A cost analysis was performed using a simulation of potential hospital stays, with estimations based on the costs of diagnosis-related groups., Results: Among the 6, 607 antineoplastic prescriptions, 341 (5.2%) contained at least one error, corresponding to a total of 449 medication errors. However, most errors (n = 436) were intercepted before medication was administered to the patients. Prescription errors represented 91% of errors, followed by pharmaceutical (8%) and administration errors (1%). According to an independent estimation, 13.4% of avoided errors would have resulted in temporary injury and 2.6% in permanent damage, while 2.6% would have compromised the vital prognosis of the patient, with four to eight deaths thus being avoided. Overall, 13 medication errors reached the patient without causing damage, although two patients required enhanced monitoring. If the intercepted errors had not been discovered, they would have resulted in 216 additional days of hospitalisation and cost an estimated annual total of 92,907€, comprising 69,248€ (74%) in hospital stays and 23,658€ (26%) in additional drugs., Conclusion: Our findings point to the very small number of chemotherapy errors that actually reach patients, although problems in the chemotherapy ordering process are frequent, with the potential for being dangerous and costly.

Purpose: Nimotuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody which inhibits the ligand-dependent activation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). We conducted a phase I trial to assess the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of escalating doses of nimotuzumab administered alone in patients with advanced solid cancers patients., Experimental Design: Patients were treated with escalating doses of weekly intravenous nimotuzumab at doses ranging between 100 and 800 mg. Tumor and skin biopsies were done before start of treatment and repeated 3 weeks after to assess immunohistochemical expression of EGFR and its downstream components., Results: Seventeen patients were enrolled, including 1 patient never treated. Although 1 dose-limiting-toxicity (DLT) was observed at 100 mg (grade 3 fatigue), nimotuzumab dose was escalated to 800 mg with no other DLT. No grade 4 toxicity was observed. Only 3 patients developed a grade 1 acneiform rash (18.7%). One patient achieved a partial response (6.2%) and 8 patients had stable disease (50.0%). The median TTP was 2.4 months. No significant changes in EGFR, AKT, ERK and Ki67 immuno-stainings were observed between pre- and on-treatment tumor or skin biopsies., Conclusion: Nimotuzumab could be safety administered up to 800 mg with manageable toxicity. No relationships were found between pharmacodynamic effects on EGFR downstream signaling pathways and drug efficacy or toxicity.

The aim here was to explore the potential of pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) and physiopathological parameters in explaining the primary effects of an anti-cancer treatment that targets cells in a specific cell cycle phase. The authors applied a theoretical multi-scale disease model of tumour growth that integrates cancer processes at the cellular and tissue scales. The mathematical model at the cell level relies on a dynamic description of cell cycle regulation while the model at the tissue level is based on fluid mechanics considerations. Simulations show that the number of target cells oscillates as the tumour grows after a first cycle of chemotherapy. Both treatment effect and tumour growth processes drive these oscillations. Nonetheless, results indicate that parameters related to physiopathological processes may have greater relevance than classical drug-related parameters in determining the efficacy of a chemotherapy treatment protocol. Physiopathological parameters, in particular those related to cell cycle regulation, may be integrated in PK/PD models aimed at optimising the delivery of phase-specific cytotoxic treatments.

Life expectancy increasing and cancer incidence rising with age, geriatric and cancer care will become a significant medical, public health, challenge. It is possible that the lack of efficacy of cancer therapies in the elderly may simply be due to the fact that physicians reduce anticancer drug doses empirically, in order to avoid "putative" toxicities that might arise as a result of alterations of physiological functions or as a result of co-morbidities generally present within this population. However, many authors have demonstrated that some patients over 70 years old could tolerate and obtain same benefit from therapies as younger adults, when some who are frail need less aggressive therapies. It is imperative that decisions regarding the management of cancer in older persons should be based upon the individual needs and fitness of the patient, and not based on chronological age. The main difficulty is the lack of scientific references on optimal treatment-dosing in the elderly, and we cannot extrapolate, as it stands, the information from younger patient. Indeed, aging is associated with multidimensional changes, including alteration of physiological status, comorbidities and polymedications. These changes may lead to pharmacokinetic (PK) modifications, namely in absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of drugs as well as pharmacodynamic (PD) modifications. Prospective studies need to be implemented in the elderly in order to study in depth the PK and PD properties of the drugs used for these patients, and establish PK-PD relationships in this specific population. Such studies have been successfully conducted in the elderly, some of them leading to dose recommendations. This paper detail the different sources of PK-PD variability in the elderly, some practical considerations regarding the design of studies using the population approach, as well as some examples of studies performed in the elderly. We conclude with some recommendations in this population at risk.

Mammalian sterile 20-like kinase 1 (Mst1) is an ubiquitously expressed serine/threonine kinase, and its activation results in cell apoptosis. Recent studies suggest that Mst1 may function as a tumor suppressor. Here, we reported that heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70), which is thought to protect cells against cellular stress, has been identified as an Mst1-interacting protein, in a yeast two-hybrid screen of human adult prostate cDNA library with a dominant-negative Mst1 (K59R) as bait. The interaction of Mst1 with Hsp70 was confirmed by coimmunoprecipitation in both cotransfected HEK293 cells and prostate cancer cells. Hsp70 colocalized with Mst1 in the cytoplasm of LNCaP cells. The interaction sites with Mst1 consisted of NH(2)-terminal ATPase domain in Hsp70, whereas the inhibitory domain of Mst1 mediates the binding of Hsp70 in Mst1. Overexpression of Hsp70 mediates proteasomal degradation of Mst1 in a Hsp70 interacting protein (CHIP)-dependent manner. Furthermore, the proapoptotic effect of Mst1 was markedly inhibited by overexpression of Hsp70 or CHIP. Most strikingly, in response to the treatment of anticancer drug cisplatin, the induction of Hsp70 expression is higher in the androgen-independent DU145 cells compared with the androgen-dependent LNCaP cells. The higher levels of Hsp70 induction and subsequent Mst1 degradation mediate cisplatin resistance in prostate cancer DU145 cells. Moreover, overexpression of Mst1 sensitizes prostate cancer cells to cisplatin treatment. These findings implicate that Mst1, a downstream target of Hsp70, may be developed as a target for sensitizing hormone-refractory prostate cancers to chemotherapy.

Anticancer chemotherapies are responsible for numerous adverse events. Among these, hematological toxicity is one of the main causes for ending treatment. These toxicities decrease production of red blood cells (anemia), production of white blood cells (neutropenia or granulocytopenia), and production of platelets (thrombocytopenia), which may be life-threatening to the patient. Preventing such discontinuation would be valuable for treating patients more effectively. In order to achieve this goal, numerous mathematical and physiological or semiphysiological models have been developed. The complexity of models has increased over the years, from empiric E(max) models to mechanistic models including physiological mechanisms such as feedback control. This review discusses several approaches of modelling hematological toxicities illustrated with some examples: pharmacodynamic models for the hematological toxicity of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, melphalan, paclitaxel, topotecan, and indisulam.

We present a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations used to quantify the complex dynamics of the interactions between tumor growth, vasculature generation, and antiangiogenic treatment. The primary dataset consists of longitudinal tumor size measurements (1,371 total observations) in 105 colorectal tumor-bearing mice. Mice received single or combination administration of sunitinib, an antiangiogenic agent, and/or irinotecan, a cytotoxic agent. Depending on the dataset, parameter estimation was performed either using a mixed-effect approach or by nonlinear least squares. Through a log-likelihood ratio test, we conclude that there is a potential synergistic interaction between sunitinib when administered in combination with irinotecan in preclinical settings. Model simulations were then compared to data from a follow-up preclinical experiment. We conclude that the model has predictive value in identifying the therapeutic window in which the timing between the administrations of these two drugs is most effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a review of the analytical methods available for analysis of serum tumor marker decline during treatment. The methodologies, strengths and limitations of the approaches used to assess kinetics of traditional serum tumor markers are reviewed. The experience gained with the many studies reported so far may help in selecting the best approaches for novel circulating biomarkers.Changes in serum tumor biomarkers may indicate treatment efficacy. Traditional tumor markers may soon be replaced by novel serum biomarkers, such as circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor nucleic acids. Given their promising predictive values, studies of their kinetics are warranted. Many methodologies meant to assess kinetics of traditional marker kinetics during anticancer treatment have been reported. Here, we review the methodologies, the advantages and the limitations of the analytical approaches reported in the literature. Strategies based on a single time point were first used (baseline value, normalization, nadir, threshold at a time t), followed by approaches based on two or more time points [half-life (HL), percentage decrease, time-to-events…]. Heterogeneities in methodologies and lack of consideration of inter- and intra-individual variability may account for the inconsistencies and the poor utility in routine. More recently, strategies based on a population kinetics approach and mathematical modeling have been reported. The identification of equations describing individual kinetic profiles of biomarkers may be an alternative strategy despite its complexity and higher number of necessary measurements. Validation studies are required. Efforts should be made to standardize biomarker kinetic analysis methodologies to ensure the optimized development of novel serum biomarkers and avoid the pitfalls of traditional markers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Antiangiogenic drugs were developed with the aim to inhibit the formation of intratumoral blood vessels and in consequence the growth of solid tumors. As these drugs are generally combined with classical cytotoxic drugs in the treatment of cancer patients, finding the optimal combinations remains a complex challenge due to possible interactions of the antiangiogenic compound with the hemodynamic property of the treated tumor. To analyze this problem, we developed a multi-scale model of vascular tumor growth combining a molecular model of VEGF signaling pathways and a tissue model of the tumor expansion including the dynamics of cellular and tissue processes of tumor growth and response to treatments. We addressed the potential impact of antiangiogenic drug by defining a new index of vasculature quality which depends on the balance between stable and unstable vessels within the tumor mass. Our goal was to investigate the interactions between a chemotherapy and a antiangiogenic treatment, and, by simulating the model, to identify the optimal delay of chemotherapy delivery after the administration of the antiangiogenic compound. This theoretical analysis could be used in the future to optimize antiangiogenic drug delivery in preclinical settings and to facilitate the translation from preclinical to clinical studies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]