Search

Purpose Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents a subtype of breast cancer which lacks the expression of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2): TNBC accounts for approximately 20% of newly diagnosed breast cancers and is associated with younger age at diagnosis, greater recurrence risk and shorter survival time. Therapeutic options are very scarce. Aim of the present analysis is to provide further insights into the clinical activity of metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT), in a real-life setting. Methods We used data included in the VICTOR-6 study for the present analysis. VICTOR-6 is an Italian multicentre retrospective cohort study, which collected data of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients who have received mCHT between 2011 and 2016. Amongst the 584 patients included in the study, 97 were triple negative. In 40.2% of the TNBC patients, mCHT was the first chemotherapy treatment, whereas 32.9% had received 2 or more lines of treatment for the metastatic disease. 45.4% out of 97 TNBC patients received a vinorelbine (VRL)-based regimen, which resulted in the most used type of mCHT, followed by cyclophosphamide (CTX)-based regimens (30.9%) and capecitabine (CAPE)-based combinations (22.7%). Results Overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 17.5% and 64.9%, respectively. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.0 months (95% CI: 4.9–7.2) and 12.1 months (95% CI: 9.6–16.7). Median PFS was 6.9 months for CAPE-based regimens (95% CI: 5.0–18.4), 6.1 months (95% CI: 4.0–8.9) for CTX-based and 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.1–9.5) for VRL-based ones. Median OS was 18.2 months (95% CI: 9.1-NE) for CAPE-based regimens and 11.8 months for VRL- (95% CI: 9.3–16.7 and CTX-based ones (95%CI: 8.7–52.8). Tumour response, PFS and OS decreased proportionally in later lines. Conclusion This analysis represents the largest series of TNBC patients treated with mCHT in a real-life setting and provides further insights into the advantages of using this strategy even in this poor prognosis subpopulation.

Background This descriptive, unplanned investigation has been undertaken to report reactions, attitudes and countermeasures which have been put in place and implemented by medical oncology units facing the COVID-19 outbreak in Southern Italy. Materials and methods Data have been retrospectively obtained from the time-related analysis of conversations via a WhatsApp messenger-based group chat between the medical directors belonging to the Italian College of Medical Oncology Directors. Overall number, intensity and time trend of conversations related to reactions during the 4 weeks of observation related to the crucial events which occurred between 24 February and 28 March, 2020 2020 are included. A sentiment analysis of conversations was also carried out. Results We report 956 conversations among 19 medical oncology units related to reactions to the crucial events, such as epidemic spread, Government ordinances and guidelines during the 4 weeks of observation. Data show significant awareness of problems linked to the COVID-19 spread among oncologists and rapid diffusion of countermeasures. Actions taken were correlated time wise to crucial events. A correlation between conversations and the volume of activity of oncology units was found. By analysing the sentiment analysis of raw data, positive emotions were reduced in percentage over the weeks. A significant increase in negative emotions was observed as the outbreak impacted on the healthcare system. Conclusion In our experience, the WhatsApp instant-messaging system seems to be a useful tool to share news and reactions between medical oncologists to rapidly implement necessary health measures and answers to most cancer patients’ needs and queries in the COVID-19 pandemic scenario.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the raltitrexed/5-fluorouracil/levofolinic acid combination regimen as first-line chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer received raltitrexed 2 mg/m(2) i.v. plus levofolinic acid and 5-fluorouracil according to the De Gramont' schedule given every 2 weeks as first-line chemotherapy. Patients were re-evaluated after six cycles and chemotherapy was continued up to tolerance or disease progression. RESULTS: Seventy patients aged >/=65 years were accrued from 11 centers between September 2001 and July 2002. According to the intention-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate was 35% (95% CI 29.5% to 40.5%) including one complete response (1%) and 24 partial responses (34%). Twenty patients (31%) showed a stabilization of disease for a tumor growth control rate of 64% (95% CI 57% to 71%). The median overall survival was 12.5 months and the median time to disease progression was 6.5 months. No toxic deaths or allergic reaction were recorded. Grade 4 toxicities were non-existent. The main hematological toxicity was grade 3 neutropenia, which occurred in 9% of patients, and grade 3 anemia in only one case, while no case of graded 3 thrombocytopenia was observed. Grade 3 non-hematological toxicities were asthenia (11%), transient increase of transaminases (10%) and diarrhea (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the raltitrexed/5-fluorouracil/levolofinic acid combination is an effective and well tolerated regimen for the treatment of elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Its ease of administration and patient's tolerance warrant further investigation over 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid regimens.

Our objective was to identify a new active three-drug combination regimen consisting of paclitaxel (PTX), epirubicin (EPI) and cisplatin as first-line line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian carcinoma. A phase I study was carried out to evaluate the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of PXT and EPI in combination with a fixed dose of cisplatin every 4 weeks. Side-effects were recorded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria. Patients were treated in cohorts of three with fixed-dose cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 and EPI 80 → 100 mg/ m 2 and PXT 100 → 160 mg/m 2 until DLT was reached. Once MTD was identified, a single-step phase II study was therefore carried out to test the clinical activity and panel of toxicity of such regimen. Objective responses were recorded according to the WHO criteria. Time to progression and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. The DLT was myelosuppression and, in more detail, febrile neutropenia, which occurred at the fifth dose level (PTX 140 mg/m 2 , EPI 100 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 80 mg/ m 2 ) in two out of three patients. Other side-effects were grade 3 mucositis in two out of three patients and grade 3 anemia in one case. The combination of cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 plus EPI 80 mg/m 2 and PCT 140 mg/m 2 every 4 weeks was considered as the MTD. In the phase II study a complete response was observed in six patients (33%) and a partial response in nine cases (50%) for an overall response rate of 83% [95% confidence limits (CL) 59-96%]. Median time to progression of patients with measurable disease was 16.4 months. Median OS was not reached after a follow-up of 42 months. This study demonstrated that PTX and EPI can be safely administered in combination with cisplatin to fit patients with advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma. The three-drug regimen of cisplatin 80mg/m 2 , EPI 80mg/m 2 and PTX 140 mg/m 2 every 4 weeks is very active, at least in terms of objective response rate. This level of activity overlaps with the 95% CL of the activity of cisplatin alone; however, it does encourage future trials of the combination.

There were 42 patients with advanced gastrointestinal carcinomas (GA) enrolled in the study. In the Phase I part of the study we identified the MTD of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) in combination with levofolinic acid 100 mg/m2 per week intravenously plus hydroxyurea 1 g/m2 per week given by mouth in 3 refracted doses starting 6 hours after 5FU was administered. This treatment was given weekly for 6 consecutive weeks followed by a 15-day rest period. We were not able to increase 5FU weekly dosage above 700 mg/m2 due to the occurrence of grade 3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity. Thus 5FU was employed at 600 mg/m2 per week for the Phase II part of the study. Among 20 evaluable patients with measurable metastatic colorectal cancer, 1 patient had CR of 6.0+ months and 7 patients had PR with a mean duration of 6.2+ months, for an overall response rate of 40%. Four patients (20%) showed stable disease, and 8 patients progressed. The mean survival of the whole group was 5+ months (range: 3.0-12.8). This treatment was very well tolerated by most patients, with grade 3 diarrhea in 10% of cases and grade 3 vomiting in 20% of patients. Hydroxyurea (HU), employed at this dosage, seems not to increase 5FU/FA-related toxicity. This regimen is quite active in the management of advanced colorectal carcinoma, and may be safely given on an out-patient basis. A Phase III randomized trial may be established if HU improves results achievable with the 5FU-FA combination.

Thirty evaluable patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region previously treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy were treated with a combination of methotrexate, vinblastine, epidoxorubicin, and bleomycin as second-line chemotherapy. Besides surgery and/or radiotherapy all patients had previously received chemotherapy as induction therapy or as palliation for recurrent disease. Only 20% of patients achieved a partial objective response with a mean duration of 5.6 months (range 3.2-6.2), and 30% of patients had a stabilization of disease with a mean duration of 4.2+ months (range 3.8-6.0). Patients who responded had rhinopharyngeal carcinoma, poorly differentiated histology, or they had not been previously treated with radiotherapy. All remaining patients (50%) progressed. Toxicity was significant with grade 3-4 leukopenia in 30% of cases, grade 2-3 mucositis in 40% of patients, and grade 2-3 vomiting in 43% of cases. In consideration of the dismal clinical results and of the significant toxicity recorded, we do not recommend to use this combination as second-line therapy in recurrent head and neck cancer. Further chemotherapy should be reserved to carefully selected cases with a reasonably high chance of response.

Forty patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCHNC) were treated with a combination of levofolinic acid 100 mg/m2+5-fluorouracil 375 mg/m2 in a 4-hour infusion plus cisplatin 20 mg/m2 in a 2-hour infusion for 5 consecutive days, repeated every 21-28 days. In the group of 20 previously untreated patients, a 90% overall response rate (ORR) with a 30% complete response rate (CRR) was obtained. In the group of 20 pretreated patients with recurrent and/or metastatic SCHNC, a 55% ORR with 15% CRR was achieved. This treatment was given on an outpatient basis and was generally very well tolerated with only 2 patients requiring hospitalization. Grade 1-2 gastrointestinal and hematological side effects were the most frequent toxicities. One patient had grade 4 liver toxicity, 1 had grade 4 anemia, and 1 grade 3 neurotoxicity. This treatment seems very active in both previously untreated and pretreated patients. However, in the latter group the mean duration of complete response (12.2+ months) and of partial response (7.4+ months) are, in our opinion, still unsatisfactory.

After informed consent 21 patients with advanced head and neck cancer resistant to folinic acid/5-fluorouracil (FA/5FU + cisplatin) were treated with weekly FA/5FU plus low dose hydroxyurea (HU) to evaluate if HU could further modulate 5FU antineoplastic activity. Five patients achieved a partial response (23.8%) which was short-lived (mean duration 6.5 months). Three patients (14%) had stable disease and 13 (62%) progressed. Among responders, four patients had epidermoidal carcinoma and one had clear cell carcinoma. Treatment was well tolerated and 5FU-related toxicity was not apparently worsened by the addition of HU. The most frequent toxicities were nausea/vomiting (81%), diarrhea (52%) and leukopenia (57%). Grade 3 nausea/vomiting and leukopenia were recorded in only 19 and 9% of cases, respectively. One patient had grade 1 cutaneous toxicity and a second patient showed a hand-foot syndrome. These results suggest that HU may further positively modulate 5FU antineoplastic activity.

Summary Purpose A phase III randomized trial was carried out to compare two schedules of the vinorelbine (VNR)–cisplatin (CDDP) regimen in patients with locally advanced unresectable poor prognosis stage IIIB or metastatic stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and analysis of toxicity, while secondary endpoints included response rates, time-to-progression (TTP) and quality of life (QoL). Patients and methods Eligible patients were randomized to receive: (a) VNR 25 mg/m 2 on day 1, 8 and 15 plus CDDP 100 mg/m 2 on day 1 every 4 weeks or (b) VNR 30 mg/m 2 on day 1 and 8 plus CDDP 80 mg/m 2 on day 1 every 3 weeks. All patients were chemotherapy-naive and had an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0–1. Results Overall 278 patients were enrolled into the trial. Overall response rate was 34% (95% CL 26–42%) in the weekly VNR/CDDP arm, and 32% (95% CL 24–40%) in patients treated with day 1–8 VNR/CDDP without any statistically significant difference. Median TTP was 4.5 and 4.6 months respectively for weekly VNR/CDDP arm and the day 1–8 VNR/CDDP one. This difference was not statistically significant (log-rank test, p = 0.818). Median OS was 9.45 and 10 months respectively for weekly VNR/CDDP arm and the day 1–8 VNR/CDDP one without statistically a significant difference (log-rank test, p = 0.259). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 31 and 36%, and 10 and 11% respectively. The incidence of severe neutropenia (34% versus 68%; p = 0.0001) and of febrile neutropenia (5% versus 12%; p = 0.026), as well as the rate of therapy omissions (10% versus 24%; p = 0.0037) were higher in the weekly VNR/CDDP arm than in the day 1–8 VNR/CDDP one. The weekly VNR/CDDP regimen was associated with a lower received dose intensity in a statistically significant fashion (9% versus 22%; p = 0.0001) and with a lower non-statistically significant quality of life score as compared to the day 1–8 VNR/CDDP schedule. Conclusions The combination of day 1–8 VNR plus CDDP every 3 weeks is less toxic and better tolerated than the regimen of weekly VNR plus CDDP every 4 weeks. The two schedules are equivalent in terms of overall response rate, median time-to-progression and overall survival. The combination of VNR on day 1–8 plus CDDP every 3 weeks may be considered as a reference regimen for the treatment of patients with advanced disease and those who deserve a postoperative therapy, and for future studies.

This retrospective study evaluated the activity and toxicity profile of a regimen of vinorelbine and 5-fluorouracil with levofolinic acid, given to a large series of patients with recurrent or refractory metastatic breast cancer after first-line chemotherapy.Overall, 286 evaluable patients were included in the analysis. Two chemotherapy schedules were reviewed: a) the bolus regimen consisted of levofolinic acid 100 mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil 375 mg/m2, both administered i.v. on days 1,2 and 3, plus vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 i.v. bolus on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; b) the infusional regimen of levofolinic acid 100 mg/m2 given as a 2-hour infusion, followed by 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 i.v. bolus and by 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 administered as 22-hour continuous venous infusion (c.v.i) for 2 days, plus vinorelbine i.v. bolus on days 1 and 8.Overall, twelve patients achieved a complete response (4%; 95%CL 2%-7%) and 115 patients showed a partial response (40%, 95%CL 34%-46%), for an overall response rate of 44% (95CL 39%-50%). Sixty-one patients had stable disease (21%) and 98 patients progressive disease (34%). The tumor growth control rate was 63% (95%CL 60%-71%). Patients with soft tissue metastases as the dominant disease showed the highest response rate (56%), followed by viscera (48%) and bone (33%). The difference in response rate between patients with dominant visceral disease versus those with dominant bone disease was statistically significant (p=0.038). Patients treated with the bolus schedule achieved a 40% overall response rate with a 5% complete response rate, while those who received the infusional regimen had a 48% overall response rate with a 5% complete response rate. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.164). The overall median duration of objective responses was 8.3 months (range 4-14 months), median time to progression of the all series was 6.1 months (range 2-24 months) and the median overall survival was 14.6 months (range 3-32). There was a statistically significant difference in survival among responder and non-responder patients (p=0.0009).The results of this large off-trial analysis confirmed the clinical activity and adverse-event profile reported in controlled clinical trials of the vinorelbine/ 5-fluorouracil with levofolinic acid regimen in clinical practice. This combination regimen was active with a low toxicity burden and, therefore, represents a good therapeutic choice for patients who require second-line chemotherapy.

We conducted a phase II study to determine the activity and tolerability of weekly paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folinic acid plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support in anthracycline-pre-treated or -resistant metastatic breast cancer patients. The phase II study was designed following the Simon optimal-two stage method. Patients received paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 , folinic acid 10 mg/m 2 and bolus infusion of 5-FU 300 mg/m 2 every week plus G-CSF on day 3 for 24 consecutive weeks in the absence of disease progression. From May 1998 to May 2000, 51 patients entered the study. Patients received a median relative dose intensity of 97.5% (range 81-100%). No severe toxicities were observed. Seven patients (14%) experienced neutropenia grade 2. Seven patients (14%) experienced grade 2 anemia. Two patients (4%) experienced severe asthenia. Three out of 50 evaluable patients [6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2-12.6%] showed a complete response, whereas 23 (46%, 95% Cl 32.2-59.8%) had a partial response, with an overall response rate of 52% (95% Cl 38.2-65.8%). In addition, eight patients (15.7%) had stable disease. In the 13 patients untreated for metastatic disease, the overall response rate was 92.3% (Cl 77.8-100), with one complete response and 11 partial responses (84.6% Cl 65-100%). In the whole group, the median time to progression and overall survival were 8 (range 1-18) and 14 months (95% Cl 11-17), respectively. Thus, in metastatic breast cancer patients pre-treated with anthracyclines, the weekly administration of paclitaxel, 5-FU and folinic acid with G-CSF support seems to be extremely tolerable and active.

Thirty-five patients affected by stage III-IV non-small-cell lung carcinomas were treated with ifosfamide 3 gr/m2 plus MESNA as uroprotector on day 1 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 i.v. bolus on day 1 and 8. This cycle was repeated every 21 days. Over a total of 35 evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 34% (95% CL 18-54%). One patient experienced a complete response with a duration of 7.2+ months, and 11 patients a partial response with a mean duration of 5.9+ months. Seven patients had no change and 16 improved. The overall survival was 7.6+ months. Over a total of 145 cycles, the most frequent toxicity was myelosuppression, but grade 3 leukopenia and grade 2 thrombocytopenia were seen only in 14% and 9% of cases, respectively. Only one patient suffered grade 4 leukopenia. Gastrointestinal toxicity was minimal; only five patients (14%) complained of grade 3 vomiting. This combination regimen can be safely given on an outpatient regimen, but it is relatively active in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. However, it should be noted that50% of the patients in this series had a performance status of80 and50% were older than 65 years.

Purpose: we carried out a phase III randomized trial to compare vinorelbine–cisplatin regimen to gemcitabine–cisplatin regimen, and to a sequential administration of gemcitabine–ifosfamide followed by vinorelbine–cisplatin or the opposite sequence of vinorelbine–cisplatin followed by ifosfamide–gemcitabine according to the ‘worst drug rule’ hypothesis in patients with locally advanced unresectable stage IIIB or metastatic stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was survival parameters, while secondary endpoints included analysis of response rates and toxicity. Patients and methods: patients were randomized to receive: (a) gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 plus ifosfamide 1500 mg/m2 on days 8–12 with mesna uroprotection (GI regimen) followed by vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 (GI→VC regimen); (b) the opposite sequence (VC→GI); (c) vinorelbine plus cisplatin as above described (VC regimen); or (d) gemcitabine 1400 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 8 (GC regimen). All regimens were given every 4 weeks. All patients were chemotherapy naive and had a ECOG PS 0-2. Results: 400 patients were enrolled into the trial. Interim analysis after inclusion of 243 patients showed that ORR were 19% in the GI→VC arm, 32% in the inverse sequence arm (CV→GI), 42% in the VC arm, and 30% in the GC arm. The VC arm was statistically superior over the GI→VC arm (p=0.0074), but not over the other regimens. Median TTP was 3.1 months in the GI→VC arm versus 5.0 months in the VC→GI arm (p=0.014). For these reasons the GI→VC and VC→GI arm were closed since the ‘worst drug rule’ hypothesis was rejected. Accrual in the VC and GC arms continued up to 140 and 138 patients respectively. Final ORR were 44% for the VC regimen (4 CR), and 34% for the GC regimen (1 CR). This difference was statistically significant (p=0.032). OS was 9.0 and 8.2 months, respectively, with no statistically significant difference. The 1-year survival rate was 24 and 20%, respectively for VC and GC regimens. As expected the incidence of phlebitis was higher in the VC arm, while thrombocytopenia, flu-like syndrome and asthenia were more frequent in the GC arm. Conclusions: the results of this trial indicate that the combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin and that of gemcitabine and cisplatin are equivalent in terms of median TTP and OS, although the vinorelbine–cisplatin regimen is associated with a higher ORR. Both regimens may be considered as reference treatments for future studies. Moreover, our data reject the ‘worst drug rule’ hypothesis of sequential treatments in NSCCL at least with the combination used in this study.

A phase II trial of etoposide (100 mg/m2) on days 4, 5, 6, doxorubicin (Adriamycin, 20 mg/m2) on days 1, 7, and cisplatin (30 mg/m2) on days 2, 8 (EAP) was carried out in order to reduce toxicity associated with a full-dose EAP regimen for advanced and/or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. Out of 21 evaluable patients, 2 (10%) had a complete response (CR), 7 (33%) had a partial response (PR), 4 (20%) showed no change and 8 progressed (38%). The mean duration of response (CR+PR) was 8.4+ months. Survival of the whole group was 7.5+ months. Treatment was quite well tolerated by most patients on an outpatient basis. Grade 3 vomiting and leukopenia were seen in 30% and 35% of cases respectively. One patient had grade 3 esophagitis, and 1 patient was hospitalized for severe grade 4 febrile leukopenia. Although the EAP regimen cannot be considered a standard therapy for gastric cancer, the EAP schedule employed in this study seems to be better tolerated than those reported by other authors, and can sefely be given on an outpatient basis. © 1994 Springer-Verlag.

Objective: We conducted a multi-institutional phase II study to evaluate the tolerability and activity of a sequential schedule of treatment with doxorubicin and docetaxel in chemotherapy-naive women with advanced breast cancer. Methods: A total of 73 patients with PS (ECOG) 0–2, aged 2 by intravenous (i.v.) 30 min injection on day 1 followed the day after by docetaxel 75 mg/m2, by i.v. 60 min infusion. Cycles were repeated every 28 days. Results: Overall, the median number of administered cycles was 6 (range 1–14). The most common toxicity was hematological, with 56.2% of the patients who experienced grade 3–4 neutropenia. However, febrile neutropenia occurred only in 2.8% of the cases. The median cumulative dose of doxorubicin was 350 mg/m2 (range 50–700 mg/m2). Eleven patients (15.4%) were documented to have >10% but Conclusion: This sequential treatment with doxorubicin and docetaxel is an effective, feasible and a well-tolerated regimen. The main toxicity was neutropenia. The lack of cardiotoxicity is an important advantage of such a doxorubicin-docetaxel combination and it justifies phase III comparative studies with other anthracyclines/taxanes containing schedules in both advanced and early-stage breast cancer.

Purpose: To compare a regimen of vinorelbine and cisplatin (VC) to the combination of mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main endpoits were analysis of objective response rates, toxicity, time to progression, and overall survival. Patients and methods: 247 eligible patients were randomized to receive (a) vinorelbine 25 mg/m 2 intravenous bolus on days 1and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 1 every 4 weeks, or (b) mitomycin c 8 mg/m 2 i.v. on day 1, vindesine 3 mg/m 2 i.v. on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, plus cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 1 every 4 weeks. In subsequent cycles vindesine was given every other week. For both treatments a maximum of six cycles was planned. Patients with performance status 0–2 according to the ECOG scale were enrolled. Response and toxicity were evaluated according to the WHO criteria. Analysis of clinical efficacy was performed according to an intent-to-treat analysis. Results: No statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy were observed between the two chemotherapy regimens. The overall objective response rates were 39% (95% CL, 31–49%) in the VC arm and 42% (95% CL, 33–51%) in the MVP arm ( P =0.13). Median time to progression was 4.2 and 4.5 months for the MVP arm and the VC arm, respectively. Median overall survival was 7 months in the VC arm and 8 months in the MVP one (log–rank test, P =0.898). These differences were not statistically significant. However, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly higher in the MVP arm than in the VC ( P =0.0001; P =0.0002). Grade 3 alopecia was more frequent in the MVP arm than in the VC one ( P P =0.037). Conclusion: Data achieved in this study suggest that the vinorelbine–cisplatin doublet is similar to the three-drug MVP regimen in term of overall response rate, time to progressive disease, and overall survival. However, hematological toxicity and alopecia are more frequent and severe in the MVP regimen which therefore appears to be less tolerable than the VC regimen. The combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin may be considered as a reference treatment for future studies on the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

e11526 Background: Trastuzumab (T) is the standard of care for pts with HER2+ve BC. Relapse after adj T remains a rare event. Since the large use of T in adj setting, becomes crucial to evaluate advantages of retreatment with T for pts who relapsed after treatment in early stage. There is still lack of clinical evidence and poor data from CT to say that there is a benefit in T re-exposure after relapse following adj T. Methods: Since Jun 2006 and Dec 2011, we reviewed pts with early BC treated with T in adj therapy, relapsed and re-treated with T in first line therapy, in 10 departments of medical oncology in Sicily. We aimed to study feasibility, responses and treatment outcome. Results: 62 pts with HER2+ve fulfilled the criteria for this analysis and 47 were evaluated. Pts had a median age of 53 ys (29-79). ER/PgR-ve cases were 16 (34 %). Ki67 was > 20% in 34 pts (74%). 31 pts (64%) had >3 nodes+ve. All the pts received adj therapy with anthra+/-taxane. 55% of pts had >2 metastatic sites. 12 (25,5%) pts were revalued for HER2: 10 pts confirmed 3+ and two pts 2+ were FISH+. Median time from diagnosis to relapse was 25 mos (7 – 36). Median time from last dose of T to relapse was 10 ms (2 – 35). 33 (70,2%) pts and 14 pts (29,8%) had early (< 12 ms) and late progression (≥ 12 ms) respectively after adj T. First line of therapy was T in combination with mono/polychemotherapy in 42 pts (89,3%) and 5 pts (10,6%) respectively. 27 pts (57,4%) had objective responses (CR 5, PR 22) and 7 pts (14,8%) stable disease. 13 pts (27,6%) had progression: all of these pts had early progressive disease after adj T, 9 pts (69,2%) had Ki67>20%, 5 pts (38,4%) were ER/PgR-ve and 8 pts (61,5%) ER/PgR+ve. Median TTP was 4 mos (range 2-7). Median TTP for early and late relapses pts were respectively 3,7 and 4,8 mos, (p = 0,4). Median OS from relapse to death was 23 mos (r 12 – 37). LVSD G1 (EF < 60-50%) was observed only in 7 pts (14%). Conclusions: Our data confirm the feasibility and safety of treatment with T after adj T therapy and is active for a disease control rate in 72,4% of cases. These results demonstrate that relapses after adj T occurred early (

Background. A single-institution, randomized open trial was prospectively performed to compare orally administered granisetron with or without intramuscularly administered methylprednisolone to metoclopramide plus methylprednisolone in the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The effects of antiemetic treatments were evaluated from days 2 to 5 of the first cycle after cisplatin administration among patients who had never before received chemotherapy. Methods. All patients were treated with chemotherapeutic regimens containing cisplatin greater than or equal to 80 mg/m 2 and received antiemetic therapy with granisetron 3 mg intravenously for the control of acute emesis. Patients who responded to treatment during the first 24 hours were randomized to receive (1) metoclopramide (0.5 mg/kg) intramuscularly three times daily plus methylprednisolone (125 mg) intramuscularly once a day or (2) granisetron (1 mg) orally twice daily or (3) oral granisetron (1 mg) orally plus methylprednisolone (125 mg) intramuscularly from days 2 to 5. Results. Of the patients treated with metoclopramide plus methylprednisolone (n = 92), 53% had complete protection from delayed emesis, 16% a major response, 15% a minor response, and 15% no response. Of the patients treated with granisetron alone (n = 84), 33% had a complete response, 21% a major response, 23% a minor response, and 21% no response. In the patients treated with orally administered granisetron plus intramuscularly administered methylprednisolone (n = 86), 47% had a complete response, 17% a major response, 23% a minor response, and 13% no response. These differences reached statistical significance only when the complete response rate achieved in the metoclopramide plus methylprednisolone group was compared with that recorded in the oral granisetron group (P = 0.012). Moreover, the metoclopramide plus methylprednisolone and the orally administered granisetron plus corticosteroid arms were superior to the orally administered granisetron alone arm in preventing nausea (P < 0.038 and P < 0.002, respectively). No extrapyramidal side effects were noted for the granisetron alone and the granisetron plus methylprednisolone arms, whereas 6% of patients treated with metoclopramide had extrapyramidal adverse effects. Headache was recorded in 8% of patients treated with granisetron alone, in 9% treated with granisetron plus methylprednisolone, and in 3% treated with metoclopramide plus methylprednisolone. Conclusions. These data suggest that orally administered granisetron with or without methylprednisolone may be given safely to patients with cancer as prophylactic therapy against delayed emesis after high dose cisplatin therapy. Orally administered granisetron alone was less active than a standard combination of metoclopramide plus methylprednisolone. However, the addition of corticosteroid to orally administered granisetron improved the control of delayed emesis. The efficacy of the combination of metoclopramide plus methylprednisolone and oral granisetron with or without methylprednisolone against delayed emesis still is not entirely satisfactory.

Background. A single‐institution, prospective, randomized open trial was performed to compare ondansetron and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapyrelated nausea and vomiting. The effect of antemetic drugs was analyzed indipendently for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (Study 1), and those treated with moderately emetogenic regimens (Study 2). Methods. In Study 1. 182 patients treated with chemotherapeutic regimens containing high dose cisplatin (more than 70 mg/m2) were randomized to receive 24 mg of ondasentron intravenously (i. v.) or 3 mg of granisetron i. v. for the control of acute emesis. Patients treated with fractionated chemotherapy and those followed‐up for delayed emesis also received 8 mg of ondansetron orally twice a day or 3 mg of granisetron i. v. on the days after Day 1. In Study 2, 164 patients were randomized to receive either 16 mg of ondansetron i. v. or 3 mg of granisetron i. v. to prevent emesis in the first 24 hours. Results. In the ondansetron group in Study 1, a complete response (CR) (i. e., no vomiting, nausea possible) from acute emesis was achieved in 52% of cases, a major response (MR) in 29%, and a minor response (MiR) in 14%. In the granisetron group in Study 1, a CR was seen in 49% of patients, an MR in 24%, and an MiR in 12% Failure was recorded in 5% and 15% of cases in the ondansetron and granisetron groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference in any response category was seen between the two groups. In the ondansetron group, a complete protection from delayed emesis was recorded in 39% of cases, an MR in 32%, an MiR in 21%. and failure in 16%. In the granisetron arm, 36% of the patients had a CR, 22% had an MR, 14% had an MiR, and 14% experienced treatment failure. Again, these differences did not reach statistical significance. In Study 2, no statistical significant difference was observed between the ondansetron arm and the granisetron arm, both for acute and delayed emesis. Both ondansetron and granisetron were tolerated very well by most patients, with no severe side effects. In the group of patients treated with ondansetron, however, the incidence of headache (9%) was higher than in the group treated with granisetron (4%). Conclusions. These data suggest that although both ondansetron and granisetron are very effective drugs for the control of acute emesis, their efficacy against delayed emesis is still not entirely satisfactory. Copyright © 1994 American Cancer Society

Forty patients with chemotherapy-related diarrhea were randomized to receive (i) octreotide 0.5 mg three times per day s.c. or (ii) loperamide 4 mg three times per day p.o. until complete remission of diarrhea was achieved. In the octreotide group 80% of patients showed complete resolution of loose bowel movements within 4 days of therapy, while in the loperamide group this goal was obtained in only 30% of cases (p < 0.001). If after 4 days no benefit was seen, patients were considered to have failed antidiarrheal therapy. Failure was recorded in only one case (5%) treated with s.c. octreotide and in five patients (25%) who received loperamide. The mean duration of antidiarrheal therapy necessary to achieve remission was 3.4 days in the octreotide group and 6.1 days in the loperamide group (p < 0.001). Treatment with octreotide was very well tolerated with mild abdominal pain in 15% of cases and pain in the injection site in 15% of patients. Subcutaneous octreotide is highly effective in the management of chemotherapy-related diarrhea in cancer patients.

Vinorelbine (VNR), 5′-nor-anhydrovinblastine, is a new semi-synthetic vinka alkaloid with selective affinity for mitotic microtubules, which has been shown to be active against several non small cell lung cancer lines in vitro [1]. VNR has been reported to yield a 34.7 % and 20 % overall response rate in patients with squamous cell lung carcinoma and bronchial adenocarcinoma respectively [2]. Moreover, VNR has been shown to be active in advanced breast carcinoma where it may induce a 30–50 % response rate depending on the extent of pretreatment [3]. We tested the activity and toxicity of single agent VNR given on a weekly schedule in a series of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCHNC).

After informed consent, 86 patients with advanced cancer undergoing potentially myelosuppressive cytotoxic chemotherapy were randomized to receive placebo or subcutaneous granulocyte - colony stimulating factor (G- CSF) 5 μg/Kg/day in order to prevent severe neutropenia and its related morbidity. The incidence of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count

Nineteen patients with advanced cancer were randomly allocated to receive: (i) rhEpo 150 UI/kg subcutanously three times/week starting 24 hours after the completion of cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy; or (ii) normal saline. There were 17 patients with advanced head and neck carcinoma and 2 patients with small cell lung cancer. Patients were monitored for hemoglobin level, hematocrit, WBC, PLT and reticulocytes. Patients who received rhEpo overall showed a 7.2 +/- 6.3% mean increase in Hb level over their pretreatment values, while control patients had a 26.4 +/- 12% decrease. This difference was statistically significant (p

The macrocyclic lactone bryostatin-1 was found to exert in vitro antineoplastic activity against several leukemic cell lines, including human K562 erythroleukemia, HL60 promyelocytic leukemia, REH and MOLT-4 lymphoblastic leukemias, CCRFCEM lymphoma, KG-1 myeloid leukemia, and murine P388 lymphocytic leukemia. No statistically significant difference in sensitivity to bryostatin-1 was found between adriamycin-resistant P388 and K526 subclones and their sensitive counterparts. Freshly explanted clonogenic leukemic cells showed a variable sensitivity to bryostatin-1 in 10/12 tested samples. The IC50 of clonogenic leukemic cells was 4 × 10–3 M bryostatin-1, and that of normal marrow CFU-GM was 10–5 M. Leukemic cells exposed to bryostatin-1 showed a variable degree of monocytic differentiation as evaluated by ANAE staining and morphology. Bryostatin-1 is also able to inhibit the growth of CFU-GM from myelodysplastic marrow and to shorten the duration of dysplastic hematopoiesis in liquid culture. In conclusion, these data suggest that bryostatin-1 is a potent antileukemic agent in vitro that may be potentially useful for clinical studies.

Twenty-two patients with advanced head and neck carcinoma were treated with 5FU 400 mg-2 m-1 week and folinic acid 500 mg m-2 week-1 plus CDDP in escalating doses from 20 to 40 mg m-2 week-1 without forced diuresis. Reduced gluthatione at the dose of 1.5 g m-2 was employed to protect patients from CDDP-related nephrotoxicity. The aims of the study were: a) to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of this schedule, and b) to evaluate reduced gluthatione as uroprotector. Out of 20 evaluable patients 14 (70 %) had a major objective response. A CR with a mean duration of 9.0+ months was achieved in 15 % of the patients, a PR of 5.8+ months in 55 % of the patients, while 3 patients had stable disease and 4 progressed. It was possible to escalate CDDP up to 35 mg m-2 week-1, but at the dose of CDDP 40 mg m-2 week-1 the occurrence of grade 2 renal toxicity provoked a severe reduction of dose-intensity. Overall, this treatment has been very well tolerated by most patients with few cases of grade 3 gastrointestinal or hematological toxicity. In conclusion, the schedule seems effective and may be safely given to patients with advanced head and neck cancer on outpatient basis. Reduced gluthatione seems to be able to reduce, at least partially, CDDP-related nephrotoxicity permitting the delivery of higher CDDP doses. © 1992, Humana Press Inc.. All rights reserved.

Summary Purpose Gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) are both active against advanced breast cancer (ABC), being able to induce a median ORR of 25% and 40%, respectively. Because of their different mechanism of action and good tolerability, the combination of GEM and VNR has been tested in ABC. Patients and methods Twenty-nine ABC patients pretreated with anthracycline-taxane were treated with GEM 1000 mg/m2 on day 1, 8, 15, and VNR 25 mg/m2 on day 1 and 8 every twenty-eight days. Analysis of toxicity pattern, response rate, TTP and OS were carried out. Results Twenty-nine patients were enrolled into the trial. The ORR was 48% (95% CI: 29–67): a CR was observed in three patients (10%; 95% CI: 2–27), while eleven patients (38%; 95 CI: 21–58) achieved PR, eight (28%) had a SD, and seven (24%) progressed. Toxicity was mainly hematological and included: grade 3 leukopenia in 48% of cases without episodes of neutropenic fever, grade 3—4 thrombocytopenia in 10%, and grade 2 anemia in 7%. Non-hematological toxicities were mild and rather infrequent. Conclusions The GEM-VNR combination seems to be active in pretreated ABC with an acceptable toxicity pattern, and may well reppresent an interesting therapeutic choice after anthracycline/taxane regimens.

A phase II study in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was carried out to evaluate the clinical activity and toxicity of the chemotherapeutic combination of gemcitabine+vinorelbine (GEM/VNR). Forty-five patients (40 male, 5 female) with a median age of 67 years (range 37–73) and a median ECOG performance status of 1 (range 0–2) were enrolled into the trial. Twenty patients had stage IIIB (two positive supraclavicular nodes and 20 cytologically positive pleural effusion), and 25 had stage IV NSCLC. GEM 1000 mg/m 2 diluted in 250 cc 3 of normal saline was administered iv on days 1, 8, and 15, while VNR was given 30 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks. The median number of courses/patient was 4 (range 3–7). According to an intent-to-treat analysis 2 (4%) patients had a complete response and 16 (36%; 95% CL 22–52%) had a partial response for an overall response rate of 40% (95% CL 26–56%) . Twelve (27%) patients had stable disease and 15 (33%) were considered as treatment failures. Median overall survival of the whole series was 8+ months with 33% of patients alive at 1 year. Toxicity was generally mild. WHO grade 3–4 neutropenia was recorded in 22% of cases, grade 1–3 liver toxicity in 6% of patients and neutropenia-unrelated fever in 9%. This multicentre phase II study suggests that the GEM/VNR combination regimen is an active and well tolerated regimen in patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Larger studies comparing cisplatin-based regimens to new schedules without cisplatin are warranted.

Despite considerable progress achieved in the management of head and neck carcinomas (HNC) in the last decade, the prognosis of patients with advanced squamous cell HNC is still dismal. On the basis of the reported good activity of a new vinca alkaloid derivative, i.e., vinorelbine (VNR), we tested the combination of cisplatin and VNR in a series of patients with recurrent or previously untreated unresectable squamous cell HNC. Thirty-five patients with recurrent or previously untreated unresectable squamous cell HNC were treated with a combination of cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1, plus vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 i.v. push on days 1 and 8. This cycle was repeated every 3 weeks. Analysis of response rates was carried out separately for previously untreated patients, and those with recurrent disease after surgery and/or radiotherapy. In the group of 20 patients with recurrent disease the overall response rate was 55% (95% CL 44-66%), with 3 patients (15%) showing a complete response with a mean duration of 6.2+ months and 8 patients showing a partial response with a mean duration of 8.6+ months. In the group of patients with previously untreated unresectable disease, 13 patients (87%, 95% CL 78-96%) had a major objective response with a complete response rate of 27%. This regimen was quite well tolerated, with meyelosuppression and vomiting being the most frequent toxicities. The occurrence of an acute pain syndrome following vinorelbine administration in 4 patients is noteworthy. In conclusion, this combination is active in advanced squamous cell head and neck carcinoma. However, although it may be recommended in recurrent carcinoma, the complete response rate achieved in previously untreated patients is lower than that reported with other more intensive regimens.

Thirty-seven consecutive patients with advanced and/or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma received a combination of 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 29, 36; epidoxorubicin 75 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1, 29; mitomycin C 10 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1. This cycle was repeated every 8 weeks. Out of a total of 34 evaluable patients, 2 (5.8%) had a complete response and 7 (20.6%) had a partial response with an overall median duration of 40 weeks (range 20-128). The median survival of responding patients was not reached after a mean follow-up of 76 weeks, while that of patients with no change and progressive disease was reached at 36 and 13 weeks respectively. Treatment was generally well tolerated with hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities being the major side-effects. Despite the use of epidoxorubicin 75 mg/m2, the 26.4% (95% confidence limits 16-36%) objective response rate is not satisfactory. Evaluation of more aggressive protocols is strongly recommended within the limits of controlled trials.

In the era of targeted therapies and combined modalities of treatment, scientific research plays a role of paramount importance in improving knowledge of cancer treatment. The aim of this survey was to review the scientific activity of medical oncology units in Sicily and to analyze their needs and possible pitfalls in order to improve future scientific cooperation.The regional section of the Italian Association of medical Oncology (AIOM) approved this survey in November, 2007. A systematic review of scientific activity produced by medical oncology units in Sicily during the last 5 years has been reviewed. papers dealing with solid tumors reported in the pubmed web site have been included in the analysis. Data were reported as absolute number of published papers and impact factor per medical oncology unit and also as a ratio between global impact factor and the number of personnel working in each single unit to analyze scientific production according to the workforce of each institution.We identified a total of 283 papers reported in pubmed between 2004 and march, 2009. The mean number of publications/unit was 10.9 with a range of 0-50. The mean number of publications/year was 11.7 with a range of 0.2-10. The 15 units included in the impact factor evaluation published 252 papers with a total impact factor of 1014.6 points in 5 years with a mean of 63.4 points per institution and a mean of 4.02 points/paper. However only four medical oncology units reported a cumulative 5-year impact factor >100 points.This survey has shown that a minority of medical oncology units in Sicily is constantly involved in clinical research although at different levels of activity. Overall the percentage of patients enrolled in clinical trials is very low. The main reasons for lack of participation in clinical trials include insufficient medical personnel, the absence of a specifically dedicated research unit inside the medical oncology structures and in some cases lack of research experience and of specific interests in this field.

A multi-institutional phase 11 study of the combination of levofolinic acid 100 mg/m2, VP16 120 mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 for 3 consecutive days was carried out on a series of 73 evaluable patients with low performance status affected by locally advanced and/or metastatic gastrointestinal carcinomas. Site of primary tumor were: stomach 26, large bowel 20, pancreas 16, gall-bladder 5, and liver 6. Among patients with gastric carcinoma, 2 patients (8%) had a complete response with a mean duration of 6.8+ months, and 9 (35%) had a partial response with a mean duration of 5.8+ months, for an overall response rate of 43%. Overall response rate was largely unsatisfactory in colorectal carcinoma (20%), pancreatic (12%), gall-bladder and liver carcinomas. The treatment was very well tolerated with no grade 4 toxicity over a total of 267 cycles administered. Grade 3 leukopenia was seen in 25% of cases, and grade 2 thrombocytopenia in 18%. Vomiting never exceeded grade 2. Thus, the ELF regimen is quite active in advanced gastric carcinoma, and may be recommended as palliative treatment of patients who cannot receive intensive chemotherapy. On the other hand, it cannot be considered active in colorectal, pancreatic, gall-bladder and liver carcinomas, and its use should be discouraged in these neoplasms.