Search

Purpose Abemaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with fulvestrant in women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy. Methods MONARCH 3 is a double-blind, randomized phase III study of abemaciclib or placebo plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in 493 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. Patients received abemaciclib or placebo (150 mg twice daily continuous schedule) plus either 1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole, daily. The primary objective was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included response evaluation and safety. A planned interim analysis occurred after 189 events. Results Median progression-free survival was significantly prolonged in the abemaciclib arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.72; P = .000021; median: not reached in the abemaciclib arm, 14.7 months in the placebo arm). In patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was 59% in the abemaciclib arm and 44% in the placebo arm ( P = .004). In the abemaciclib arm, diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect (81.3%) but was mainly grade 1 (44.6%). Comparing abemaciclib and placebo, the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21.1% v 1.2%), diarrhea (9.5% v 1.2%), and leukopenia (7.6% v 0.6%). Conclusion Abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor was effective as initial therapy, significantly improving progression-free survival and objective response rate and demonstrating a tolerable safety profile in women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Purpose MONARCH 2 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703) compared the efficacy and safety of abemaciclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, plus fulvestrant with fulvestrant alone in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients and Methods MONARCH 2 was a global, double-blind, phase III study of women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who had progressed while receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), ≤ 12 months from the end of adjuvant ET, or while receiving first-line ET for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo (150 mg twice daily) on a continuous schedule and fulvestrant (500 mg, per label). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and key secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, clinical benefit rate, quality of life, and safety. Results Between August 2014 and December 2015, 669 patients were randomly assigned to receive abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (n = 446) or placebo plus fulvestrant (n = 223). Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly extended PFS versus fulvestrant alone (median, 16.4 v 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.553; 95% CI, 0.449 to 0.681; P < .001). In patients with measurable disease, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant achieved an ORR of 48.1% (95% CI, 42.6% to 53.6%) compared with 21.3% (95% CI, 15.1% to 27.6%) in the control arm. The most common adverse events in the abemaciclib versus placebo arms were diarrhea (86.4% v 24.7%), neutropenia (46.0% v 4.0%), nausea (45.1% v 22.9%), and fatigue (39.9% v 26.9%). Conclusions Abemaciclib at 150 mg twice daily plus fulvestrant was effective, significantly improving PFS and ORR and demonstrating a tolerable safety profile in women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who progressed while receiving ET.

Background: Home-based care in oncology is mainly reserved for patients at the end of life. Regulations regarding home delivery of cytotoxics differ across Europe, with a notable lack of practice guidelines in most countries. This has led to a lack of data addressing the feasibility of home-based administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, pemetrexed is approved as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy. In this setting, patients have the potential to be treated long-term with maintenance therapy, which, in the absence of unacceptable toxicity, is continued until disease progression. The favourable safety profile of pemetrexed and the ease of its administration by 10-minute intravenous infusion every 3 weeks make this drug a suitable candidate for administration in a home setting., Methods: Literature and regulations relevant to the home-based delivery of cytotoxic therapy were reviewed, and a phase II feasibility study of home administration of pemetrexed maintenance therapy was designed. At least 50 patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 and no progressive disease after four cycles of platinum-based first-line therapy are required to allow investigation of the feasibility of home-based administration of pemetrexed maintenance therapy (500 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity). Feasibility is being assessed as adherence to the home-based administration process (primary endpoint), patient safety, impact on patients' quality of life, patient and physician satisfaction with home care, and healthcare resource use and costs. Enrolment of patients from the UK and Sweden, where home-based care is relatively well developed, commenced in December 2011., Discussion: This feasibility study addresses an important aspect of maintenance therapy, that is, patient comfort during protracted home-based chemotherapy. The study design requires unusual methodology and specific logistics to address outcomes relevant to the home-delivery approach. This article presents a study design that offers a novel and reproducible model for home-based chemotherapy, and provides an up-to-date overview of the literature regarding this type of treatment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01473563.

The synergistic activity of pemetrexed with platinum agents in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the renal safety of carboplatin suggest a balanced benefit/risk profile for this combination in elderly patients. This multicenter, single-arm, phase II study included 62 patients (≥70 years) with chemonaïve advanced NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and assigned to receive 6 cycles of 3-weekly pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC 5. The primary endpoint was objective tumor response rate (ORR). Sixty-two patients received at least one dose of chemotherapy. Median age was 76.4 years [70.2-86] and all patients had PS 0 (16.1%) or PS 1 (83.9%). Stage IIIb disease in 21% patients and stage IV in 79% patients. Non-squamous cell carcinoma in 66.1% patients (adenocarcinoma 51.6%, large cell carcinoma 8.1%, other 6.5%) and squamous cell carcinoma in 33.9% patients. ORR was 28.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.58-43.26), all were partial responses. Stable disease rate was 42.9%. Grade 3/4 toxicities related to study drugs were: asthenia 16.1%, anorexia 4.8%, diarrhea 3.2%, neutropenia 51.6%, leucopenia 30.7%, thrombocytopenia 29%, anemia 19.4%. One related fatal septic shock occurred. In advanced NSCLC, pemetrexed use is restricted to non-squamous histology. The combination pemetrexed-carboplatin could be a valuable treatment option in elderly patients. Neutropenia was the most common toxicity. The ORR is within the range of data reported for pemetrexed-carboplatin in the general NSCLC population (24-31%)., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This is a phase I, escalating-dose trial targeting exclusively patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), investigating pemetrexed and fixed-dose cisplatin concurrently administered with high-dose radiotherapy (RT) after induction chemotherapy (CT). Primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose of pemetrexed., Patients and Materials: Patients with unresected stage III NSCLC, planned V20 ≤ 35%, and FEV ≥ 1.3 L, were treated every 21 days for 2 cycles (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2; cisplatin 75 mg/m2), followed by 2 cycles of concurrent CT-RT: pemetrexed starting dose was 400 mg/m2, escalated up to 800 mg/m2 per 100mg/m2 dose level (DL), cisplatin at 75 mg/m2 and RT at fixed dose of 66 Gy/33 fractions., Results: Nine of 10 enrolled patients (age range 46-68 years; 6 men; ECOG PS 0 [6 patients], PS 1 [4]; stage IIIA [1], IIIB [9]; 6 adenocarcinomas, 3 squamous cell carcinomas, 1 large cell carcinoma) were entered on 3 DLs. Dose escalation of pemetrexed was conducted up to 600 mg/m2 based on the independent safety monitoring board recommendation. One dose-limiting toxicity occurred at DL3: Grade 4 septic shock. Grade 3 related toxicities: 2 neutropenia at DL3, 2 lymphopenia per DL (3 recurrent), 2 leukopenia (1 recurrent) at DL3, 1 gastric pain (DL3), 1 nausea and 1 recurrent vomiting (DL2). No Grade 3/4 radiation-related toxicities were observed. No toxic death was observed. Disease control rate was 77.7% (1 CR, 4 PR, 2 SD). One-year survival rate was 90%., Conclusions: This phase I report of pemetrexed is dedicated to NSCLC with induction therapy and fixed high-dose RT. Pemetrexed at 500 mg/m2, concurrently given with cisplatin and RT was well tolerated and appears to be the only third-generation agent that can likely be recommended safely at full dose in future trials with concurrent RT., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

On April 2009, a new swine-origin A(H1N1) influenza virus, A(H1N1)v, was identified in the United States. Today (June 12, 2009), more than 29,000 cases have been reported in the world, and 73 in France. This is the first report of secondary transmission in France. The three patients presented with common influenza signs including cough, fever, and sore throat. The incubation period could last from two to four days; it should be kept in mind that the first international data mentioned one to seven days. The buildup and maintenance of an infectious focus involve secondary transmissions.

Management of cancer in the older-aged patient is an increasingly common problem in our occidental societies. Cancer is a disease primarily of older persons: over 60% of all cases of cancer are diagnosed after age 65 - an age group that constitutes less than 20% of the western population and the risk of persons over 65 years of age developing cancer is at least 10 times that of those under 65. Cancer in older persons may be considered a different disease from cancer in the younger in that way that biology of the host could influence the growth of cancer, that the management of the disease deserved an individualized approach. Indeed, the normal process of aging is associated with a progressive age-related reduction in function of many organs, including losses such as renal, pulmonary, cardiac, immune, hepatic, haematological, muscles, osseous, sight, hearing and brain functions. The consequences of these changes with age, added to comorbid diseases, have major implications on toxicities of anti-cancer therapies, surgery, radiotherapy as well as chemotherapy. However chronologic age should not be used as a guide to cancer therapy. Performance status and physiologic performance of the older patient are of prime importance to decide and conduct chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity can concern major effects, inducing severe impairments of vital functions: systolic or diastolic function, hypertension, rhythmic or conducting pathology, Elsewhere, cardiac and vascular aging induces alterations, which concern roughly the same points and are enhanced by vascular risk factors. We wish to analyse the correlation and increase of the consequences of the first one toward the second one and the safe attitude we must have for those patients (prevention and early treatment). Echocardiography seems to have more and more a major status to assess cardiac function, chiefly in systolic and diastolic manor. We insist on the interest of stress echo for assessment of impaired contractility and for evaluation of vascular risk in ischemic disease. We suggest a vulnerability score to predict the risk of complication due to chemotherapy.