Search

Effective systemic therapies for patients with advanced, progressive neuroendocrine tumours of the lung or gastrointestinal tract are scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus compared with placebo in this patient population.In the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 RADIANT-4 trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with advanced, progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional neuroendocrine tumours of lung or gastrointestinal origin were enrolled from 97 centres in 25 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio by an interactive voice response system to receive everolimus 10 mg per day orally or identical placebo, both with supportive care. Patients were stratified by tumour origin, performance status, and previous somatostatin analogue treatment. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by central radiology review, analysed by intention to treat. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01524783.Between April 3, 2012, and Aug 23, 2013, a total of 302 patients were enrolled, of whom 205 were allocated to everolimus 10 mg per day and 97 to placebo. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·2-13·3) in the everolimus group and 3·9 months (3·6-7·4) in the placebo group. Everolimus was associated with a 52% reduction in the estimated risk of progression or death (hazard ratio [HR] 0·48 [95% CI 0·35-0·67], p0·00001). Although not statistically significant, the results of the first pre-planned interim overall survival analysis indicated that everolimus might be associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·40-1·05], one-sided p=0·037, whereas the boundary for statistical significance was 0·0002). Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were infrequent and included stomatitis (in 18 [9%] of 202 patients in the everolimus group vs 0 of 98 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (15 [7%] vs 2 [2%]), infections (14 [7%] vs 0), anaemia (8 [4%] vs 1 [1%]), fatigue (7 [3%] vs 1 [1%]), and hyperglycaemia (7 [3%] vs 0).Treatment with everolimus was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival in patients with progressive lung or gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours. The safety findings were consistent with the known side-effect profile of everolimus. Everolimus is the first targeted agent to show robust anti-tumour activity with acceptable tolerability across a broad range of neuroendocrine tumours, including those arising from the pancreas, lung, and gastrointestinal tract.Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

BACKGROUND: Information on the treatment of pancreatic endocrine tumours (PETs) comes mostly from small, retrospective, uncontrolled studies. METHODS: Newly diagnosed, histologically proven PETs, observed from June 2004 to March 2007 in 24 Italian centres, were included in a specific dataset. RESULTS: Three-hundred and ten patients (mean age 57.6 years, females 46.6%) were analysed. At the time of recruitment, 262 (84.5%) underwent surgery. The percentage of operated patients was 91.9% and 62.0% in surgical and non-surgical centres, respectively. A curative resection was carried out in 83.6% (n = 219) of cases, a palliative resection (debulking) in 10.7% (n = 28), an exploratory laparotomy in 4.6% (n = 12), and a bypass procedure in 1.1% (n = 3). Laparoscopy was performed in 8.0% (n = 21) of cases. Resection consisted of a pancreatoduodenectomy in 46 cases (21.0%), a distal pancreatectomy in 95 (43.4%), an enucleation in 50 (22.8%), a middle pancreatectomy in 16 (7.3%) and a total pancreatectomy in 12 (5.5%). Liver resection was associated with pancreatic resection in 26 cases (9.9%). Post-operative mortality was 1.5% and morbidity 39.7%, respectively. A curative resection was performed more frequently in asymptomatic, small, non-metastatic, benign and at uncertain behaviour tumours, with low Ki67 values. CONCLUSIONS: This study strongly indicates the fact that surgical resection represents the cornerstone treatment of PETs.

Objectives: Information on pancreatic endocrine tumors (PETs) comes mostly from small, retrospective, uncontrolled studies conducted on highly selected patients. The aim of the study was to describe the clinical and pathological features of PETs in a prospective, multicenter study.Methods: Newly diagnosed, histologically proven, sporadic PETs observed from June 2004 to March 2007 in 24 Italian centers were included in a specific data set.Results: Two hundred ninety-seven patients (mean age 58.614.7 years, females 51.2%, males 48.8%) were analyzed. In 73 cases (24.6%), the tumor was functioning (F) (53 insulinomas, 15 gastrinomas, 5 other syndromes) and in 232 (75.4%) it was non-functioning (NF); in 115 cases (38.7%), the diagnosis was incidental. The median tumor size was 20 mm (range 2-150). NF-PETs were significantly more represented among carcinomas (P0.001). Nodal and liver metastases were detected in 84 (28.3%) and 85 (28.6%) cases, respectively. The presence of liver metastases was significantly higher in the NF-PETs than in the F-PETs (32.1% vs. 17.8%; P0.05), and in the symptomatic than in the asymptomatic patients (34.6% vs. 19.1%; P

The objective of this trial was to evaluate the activity and tolerability of biomodulation of 5-fluorouracil by leucovorin, methotrexate, and platinum in patients with advanced measurable disease. Thirty-five patients with histologically or cytologically proven adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were treated with methotrexate (100 mg/m2 in 500 ml 5% dextrose in a 2-hour infusion, day 1), 5-fluorouracil (800 mg/m2/day, i.v. in continuous infusion from days 2 to 5) plus 1-leucovorin (7.5 mg/m2 given per os every 6 hours, from days 2 to 5) and platinum (60 mg/m2 i.v., day 2), every 28 days. Four partial responses (12%; exact 95% confidence interval: 1-23%) were obtained in 34 evaluable patients with a median survival time of 49 weeks (range, 20-77 weeks). Ten (29%) of 34 patients had stable disease. Median time to treatment failure from the beginning of therapy was 11 weeks (range, 4-59 weeks) and median survival time was 20 weeks (range, 4-77 weeks). The most common grade III-IV toxicities were diarrhea (15%), stomatitis (41%), and vomiting (17%). Hematologic toxicity was mild. There were no therapy-related deaths. In conclusion, this trial did not report an increase or improvement in response rate and survival rates, and this regimen cannot be recommended as effective therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background Complete surgical resection of gastric cancer is potentially curative, but long-term survival is poor. Methods Patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the stomach of stages IB, II, IIIA and B, or IV (T4N2M0) and treated with potentially curative surgery were randomly assigned to follow-up alone or to intravenous treatment with four cycles (repeated every 21 days) of PELF (cisplatin [40 mg/m 2 , on days 1 and 5], epirubicin [30 mg/m 2 , days 1 and 5], L-leucovorin [100 mg/m 2 , days 1-4], and 5-fluorouracil [300 mg/m 2 , days 1-4] in a hospital setting. Frequencies and severity of adverse events were determined. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between the treatment arms using Kaplan-Meier analysis and a Cox proportional hazards regression model. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results From January 1995 through September 2000, 258 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n = 130) or surgery alone (n = 128). Patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Among those who received chemotherapy, grade 3 or 4 toxic effects including vomiting, mucositis, and diarrhea were experienced by 21.1%, 8.4%, and 11.8% of patients, respectively. Leucopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or 4 were experienced by 20.3%, 3.3%, and 4.2% of patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 72.8 months, 128 patients (49.6%) experienced recurrence and 139 (53.9%) deaths were observed, one toxicity-related. Relative to treatment with surgery alone, adjuvant chemotherapy did not increase disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] of recurrence = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [Cl] = 0.66 to 1.27) or overall survival (HR of death = 0.90; 95% Cl = 0.64 to 1.26). Conclusions Our results failed to provide proof of an effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with PELF on overall survival or disease-free survival. The estimated effect of chemotherapy (10% reduction in the hazard of death or relapse) is modest and consistent with the results of meta-analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy without platinum agents.

Patients with histologically confirmed advanced colorectal cancer were randomized to receive folinic acid (FA; 500 mg/mq in 2-hour intravenous infusion) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU; 600 mg/mq given as an intravenous bolus 1 hour after FA), beginning every week for 6 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period, either without hydroxyurea (HU, arm A) or with HU (35 mg/kg per day) given orally in three administrations (every 8 hours) starting 6 hours after 5FU administration (arm B). Six weekly doses were considered one course. One hundred eighty-two patients were randomized in this trial and 162 (89%) were evaluable for response: 81 patients in arm A and 81 patients in arm B. Objective response was observed in 18 (one complete response and 17 partial responses) of 81 evaluable patients (22%; 95% confidence interval, 13-31%) in arm A, and 24 (nine complete responses and 15 partial responses) of 81 patients (30%; 95% confidence interval, 20-40%) in arm B. There was no difference in terms of median time to progression and median survival. Gastrointestinal toxicity was the most frequently observed toxicity in both arms. The double modulation of 5FU, FA plus HU does not appear to be better than the classic 5FU plus FA schedule. This trial confirms that 5FU and FA reached a plateau of 20% to 30%.

In this report we describe the case of a young woman with familial adenomatous polyposis who developed metastatic rectal cancer during pregnancy. At diagnosis, we decided to perform a transabdominal laparoscopic adrenalectomy, because of the high risk of bowel obstruction, and to define the origin of the adrenal gland lesion, suspected to be primary on the basis of imaging results. The histological specimen showed a collision tumor between an adrenal metastasis of a rectal tumor and a primary adrenal gland carcinosarcoma. The peculiarity of the case is due not only to its clinical presentation during pregnancy, but also to the presence of this uncommon adrenal collision tumor. A particular challenge for the clinician is to define the priority between these two tumors: the presence of two distinct and colliding aggressive neoplasms poses a problem in the choice of the best therapeutic approach, also given the impossibility to biopsy all metastatic sites. However, we decided to treat the patient as having a metastatic rectal cancer, because we had a solid histological confirmation of metastases.

Everolimus is a valid therapeutic option for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs); however, data in a real-world setting outside regulatory trials are sparse. The aim of this study was to determine everolimus tolerability and efficacy, in relation to previous treatments, in a compassionate use program. A total of 169 patients with advanced progressive NETs treated with everolimus were enrolled, including 85 with pancreatic NETs (pNETs) and 84 with nonpancreatic NETs (non-pNETs). Previous treatments included somatostatin analogs (92.9%), peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT; 50.3%), chemotherapy (49.7%), and PRRT and chemotherapy (22.8%). Overall, 85.2% of patients experienced adverse events (AEs), which were severe (grade 3–4) in 46.1%. The most frequent severe AEs were pneumonitis (8.3%), thrombocytopenia (7.7%), anemia (5.3%), and renal failure (3.5%). In patients previously treated with PRRT and chemotherapy, a 12-fold increased risk for severe toxicity was observed, with grade 3–4 AEs reported in 86.8% (vs. 34.3% in other patients). In addition, 63.3% of patients required temporarily everolimus discontinuation due to toxicity. Overall, 27.8% of patients died during a median follow-up of 12 months. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 12 months and 32 months, respectively. Similar disease control rates, PFS, and OS were reported in pNETs and non-pNETs. In the real-world setting, everolimus is safe and effective for the treatment of NETs of different origins. Higher severe toxicity occurred in patients previously treated with systemic chemotherapy and PRRT. This finding prompts caution when using this drug in pretreated patients and raises the issue of planning for everolimus before PRRT and chemotherapy in the therapeutic algorithm for advanced NETs.

Objectives: Here, we aim at describing the pattern of care, survival outcome and prognostic factors of ABC patients (pts) receiving third-line chemotherapy. Methods: Institutional registries across three academic medical centers were retrospectively reviewed. Kaplan–Meier estimators were used to calculate survival, the log-rank test to make comparisons, and the Cox proportional hazard models to assess the progostic impact of variables. Results: Among 101 pts included in the analysis. 68 (67.3%), 19 (18.8%) and 14 (13.8%) had intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer, respectively. Atotal of 63 (62.3%) pts received monochemotherapy, while 38 (37.6%) were treated with adoublet. The median OS and PFS were 5 and 3 months, respectively. Disease control rate was achieved in 23 (22.7%) pts, with 2 (2%) partial responses. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 22 (21.7%) pts. At multivariate analysis, ECOG PS (p

Background: The standard approach for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). After nCRT 20% of patients achieve a clinical complete response (pCR) and could be treated with a non-operative management (NOM). Methods: The panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Guidelines on rectal cancer applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach addressing the following question: Should NOM vs. TME be used for patients with rectal cancer with clinical complete response after nCRT? Five outcomes were identified: disease-free survival (DFS), mortality, local recurrence, colostomy rate, and functional outcomes. Results: Nine studies were included in the analysis. A higher risk of disease recurrence was observed in the NOM group compared to the TME group (RR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.08, 2.64) on the other hand, we observed a slightly positive but not significant effect on mortality of NOM (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.46, 1.45). Patients in the NOM group were more likely to experience local recurrence (RR = 5.37, 95% CI 2.56, 11.27) and patients in the TME group were more likely to have a permanent colostomy (RR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.08, 0.29). Only one study evaluated functional outcomes. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low. Conclusions: NOM was found to correlate with a higher risk of local recurrence which did not translate in worse OS and a lower colostomy rate. Due to the paucity of evidences, no recommendations are possible. NOM remains an experimental treatment; thus, patients managed with NOM should be enrolled in clinical trials with a dedicated follow-up schedule.

Summary Background Cytotoxic chemotherapy is generally ineffective in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We assessed the intravenous perfusion of doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in whom previous sorafenib therapy had failed. Methods We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 70 sites in 11 countries. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with one or more previous systemic therapies, including sorafenib, were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg/m2 doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (30 mg/m2 group), 20 mg/m2 doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (20 mg/m2 group), or standard care using a computer-generated randomisation list prepared by the funder and stratified by geographic region. Patients in the experimental groups received perfusion of the drug every 4 weeks and those in the control group received any systemic anticancer therapy (except sorafenib) as per investigator decision. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the population of patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01655693 . Findings Between June 15, 2012, and Jan 27, 2017, 541 patients were screened, of whom 144 were excluded and 397 were randomly assigned to one of the groups (133 to the 30 mg/m2 group; 130 to the 20 mg/m2 group; and 134 to the control group). Median follow-up was 22·7 months (IQR 11·2–34·9). After pooling the doxorubicin groups for the efficacy analysis, median overall survival was 9·1 months (95% CI 8·1–10·4) in the pooled doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles group and 9·0 months (7·1–11·8) in the control group (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·78–1·28], two-sided p=0·99). 227 (94%) of 242 patients who received doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and 100 (75%) of 134 patients in the control group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common drug-related grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (25 [10%] of 242 treated with doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and eight [6%] of 134 in the control group), asthenia (six [2%] and four [3%]), and thrombocytopenia (three [1%] and ten [7%]). Six (2%) patients treated with doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and one (1%) of those in the control group were deemed by investigators to have had a drug-related death. Serious adverse events occurred in 74 (31%) patients who received doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and 48 (36%) in the control group. Interpretation Doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles did not improve overall survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in whom previous sorafenib treatment had failed. Funding Onxeo.

Limited information on salvage treatment in patients affected by pancreatic cancer is available. At failure, about half of the patients present good performance status ( PS) and are candidate for further treatment. Patients > 18 years, PS >= 50, with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine- containing chemotherapy, and progression- free survival ( PFS) < 12 months received a combination of raltitrexed ( 3 mgm (-2)) and oxaliplatin ( 130 mgm (-2)) every 3 weeks until progression, toxicity, or a maximum of six cycles. A total of 41 patients received 137 cycles of chemotherapy. Dose intensity for both drugs was 92% of the intended dose. Main grade 42 toxicity was: neutropenia in five patients ( 12%), thrombocytopenia, liver and vomiting in three ( 7%), fatigue in two ( 5%). In total, 10 patients ( 24%) yielded a partial response, 11 a stable disease. Progression- free survival at 6 months was 14.6%. Median survival was 5.2 months. Survival was significantly longer in patients with previous PFS 46 months and in patients without pancreatic localisation. A clinically relevant improvement of quality of life was observed in numerous domains. Raltitrexed oxaliplatin regimen may constitute a treatment opportunity in gemcitabine- resistant metastatic pancreatic cancer. Previous PFS interval may allow the identification of patients who are more likely to benefit from salvage treatment.

Clinical data suggested that a regimen incorporating doxorubicin to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin may be more effective but probably quite toxic for advanced gastric cancer patients. With the aim to maintain efficacy while reducing toxicity, we compared the activity and safety of a combination of 5-FU, cisplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with a combination of 5-FU, cisplatin and mitomycin-C.Seventy-eight patients were randomised to receive 5-FU (400 mg/m(2) bolus, 600 mg/m(2) 22 h continuous infusion day 1 and 2) and cisplatin (50 mg/m(2) day 1) every 2 weeks, combined either with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (20 mg/m(2) day 1 every two weeks) (arm A) or mitomycin-C (7 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks) (arm B).The overall response rate was 64.1% in arm A and 38.5% in arm B (P = 0.041). The median time to tumour progression and overall survival were 7.93 and 5.14 months (P = 0.04) and 12.1 and 8.3 months (P = 0.02) in arm A and B, respectively. Fourteen patients in arm A and 18 patients in arm B experienced a grade 3/4 toxic effect.A combination of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU can be safely administered in gastric cancer patients with a promising efficacy profile.

Summary Background Patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma have a poor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival with standard treatment. We aimed to assess whether a four-drug regimen could improve 4 month progression-free survival compared with gemcitabine alone. Methods In a randomised multicentre phase III trial, 52 patients were randomly assigned to 40 mg/m 2 cisplatin and 40 mg/m 2 epirubicin both given on day 1, 600 mg/m 2 gemcitabine given intravenously over 1 h on days 1 and 8, and 200 mg/m 2 fluorouracil a day given by continuous infusion on days 1–28 of a 4-week cycle (PEFG regimen), and 47 were assigned to 1000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine given intravenously over 30 min once a week for 7 of 8 consecutive weeks in cycle 1 and for 3 of 4 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint was 4-month progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, objective response, safety, and quality of life. Analyses were by intention to treat. Findings 51 patients assigned PEFG and 46 assigned gemcitabine alone had disease progression. 49 patients in the PEFG group and 46 in the gemcitabine group died from progressive disease. More patients allocated PEFG than gemcitabine alone were alive without progressive disease at 4 months (60% [95% CI 46–72] vs 28% [17–42]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·46 [0·26–0·79]). 1-year overall survival in the PEFG group was 38·5% (25·3–51·7) and in the gemcitabine group was 21·3% (9·6–33·0; HR 0·68 [0·42–1·09]). More patients assigned PEFG showed disease response than did those assigned gemcitabine (38·5% [25·3–51·7] vs 8·5% [0·5–16·5]; odds ratio 6·60 [2·11–20·60], p=0·0008). More patients in the PEFG group had grade 3–4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia than in the gemcitabine group (p Interpretation The PEFG regimen could be considered for treatment of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.