UZ Leuven

Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, Khayat D, Bleiberg H, Santoro A, Bets D, Mueser M, Harstrick A, Verslype C, Chau I, Van Cutsem E. N Engl J Med 2004; 51:1337-1345.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which participates in signaling pathways that are deregulated in cancer cells, commonly appears on colorectal-cancer cells. Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody that specifically blocks the EGFR. We compared the efficacy of cetuximab in combination with irinotecan with that of cetuximab alone in metastatic colorectal cancer that was refractory to treatment with irinotecan. METHODS: We randomly assigned 329 patients whose disease had progressed during or within three months after treatment with an irinotecan-based regimen to receive either cetuximab and irinotecan (at the same dose and schedule as in a prestudy regimen [218 patients]) or cetuximab monotherapy (111 patients). In cases of disease progression, the addition of irinotecan to cetuximab monotherapy was permitted. The patients were evaluated radiologically for tumor response and were also evaluated for the time to tumor progression, survival, and side effects of treatment. RESULTS: The rate of response in the combination-therapy group was significantly higher than that in the monotherapy group (22.9 percent [95 percent confidence interval, 17.5 to 29.1 percent] vs. 10.8 percent [95 percent confidence interval, 5.7 to 18.1 percent], P=0.007). The median time to progression was significantly greater in the combination-therapy group (4.1 vs. 1.5 months, P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The median survival time was 8.6 months in the combination-therapy group and 6.9 months in the monotherapy group (P=0.48). Toxic effects were more frequent in the combination-therapy group, but their severity and incidence were similar to those that would be expected with irinotecan alone. CONCLUSIONS: Cetuximab has clinically significant activity when given alone or in combination with irinotecan in patients with irinotecan-refractory colorectal cancer.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus tipifarnib compared with gemcitabine plus placebo in advanced pancreatic cancer. Van Cutsem E, Van De Velde H, Karasek P, Oettle H, Vervenne WL, Szawlowski A, Schöffski P, Post S, Verslype C, Neumann H, Safran H, Humblet Y, Perez Ruixo J, Ma Y, Von Hoff D.J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1430-1438.Abstract: PURPOSE: To determine whether addition of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib (Zarnestra, R115777; Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Beerse, Belgium) to standard gemcitabine therapy improves overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared gemcitabine + tipifarnib versus gemcitabine + placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously untreated with systemic therapy. Tipifarnib was given at 200 mg bid orally continuously; gemcitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously weekly x 7 for 8 weeks, then weekly x 3 every 4 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points included 6-month and 1-year survival rates, progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. No statistically significant differences in survival parameters were observed. The median overall survival for the experimental arm was 193 v 182 days for the control arm (P = .75); 6-month and 1-year survival rates were 53% and 27% v 49% and 24% for the control arm, respectively; median progression-free survival was 112 v 109 days for the control arm. Ten drug-related deaths were reported for the experimental arm and seven for the control arm. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia grade  3 were observed in 40% and 15% in the experimental arm versus 30% and 12% in the control arm. Incidences of nonhematologic adverse events were similar in two groups. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine and tipifarnib has an acceptable toxicity profile but does not prolong overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer compared with single-agent gemcitabine.

Capecitabine: Bridging the atlantic divide in colon cancer treatment. Van Cutsem E, Verslype C, Tejpar S. Oral Semin Oncol 2005;32:43-51. Abstract: 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) plus leucovorin (LV) has been the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC), with infused schedules more widely adopted in Europe and bolus schedules preferred in North America. However, the effective, oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is increasingly replacing intravenous (IV) 5-FU/LV on both sides of the Atlantic. Capecitabine generates 5-FU preferentially in tumor and is a well-established, first-line treatment for metastatic CRC. In this setting, capecitabine achieves a superior response rate, at least equivalent time to disease progression (TTP) and overall survival, and favorable safety compared with bolus 5-FU/LV. The benefits of capecitabine have been transfered into the adjuvant setting. Recent data from a large, international, randomized trial (Xeloda Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial [X-ACT]) confirm that capecitabine (Xeloda, Roche Laboratories, Nutley, NJ) achieves favorable safety versus 5-FU/LV (Mayo Clinic regimen) and is at least as effective as IV 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III colon cancer. Capecitabine is also an effective and well-tolerated combination partner for oxaliplatin (XELOX) and irinotecan (XELIRI), achieving high efficacy with a good safety profile. An extensive phase III clinical trial program is further establishing the potential of the simplified capecitabine combinations to improve outcomes and unify treatment practices in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. New combinations with novel agents such as capecitabine/oxaliplatin plus erlotinib or bevacizumab are currently under investigation. Capecitabine has also shown promising activity and good tolerability in combination with radiotherapy in rectal cancer.

Recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. Benson III AB, Schrag D, Somerfield MR, Cohen AM, Figueredo AT, Flynn PJ, Krzyzanowska MK, Maroun J, McAllister P, Van Cutsem E, Brouwers M, Charette M, Haller DG. American Society of Clinical Oncology.  J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3408-3419. Abstract: PURPOSE: To address whether all medically fit patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice, to identify patients with poor prognosis characteristics, and to describe strategies for oncologists to use to discuss adjuvant chemotherapy in practice. METHODS: An American Society of Clinical Oncology Panel, in collaboration with the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guideline Initiative, reviewed pertinent information from the literature through May 2003.  RESULTS: A literature-based meta-analysis found no evidence of a statistically significant survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II patients.  RECOMMENDATIONS: The routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for medically fit patients with stage II colon cancer is not recommended. However, there are populations of patients with stage II disease that could be considered for adjuvant therapy, including patients with inadequately sampled nodes, T4 lesions, perforation, or poorly differentiated histology.  CONCLUSION: Direct evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer. Patients and oncologists who accept the relative benefit in stage III disease as adequate indirect evidence of benefit for stage II disease are justified in considering the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly for those patients with high-risk stage II disease. The ultimate clinical decision should be based on discussions with the patient about the nature of the evidence supporting treatment, the anticipated morbidity of treatment, the presence of high-risk prognostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences. Patients with stage II disease should be encouraged to participate in randomized trials.

Utility of positron emission tomography for the staging of patients with potentially operable esophageal carcinoma. Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, De Wever W, Peeters M, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Bormans G, Hiele M, De Leyn P, Van Raemdonck D, Coosemans W, Ectors N, Haustermans K, Mortelmans L. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3202-3210. Abstract: PURPOSE: A prospective study of preoperative tumor-node-metastasis staging of patients with esophageal cancer (EC) was designed to compare the accuracy of 18-F-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) with conventional noninvasive modalities.  PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-four patients with carcinomas of the esophagus (n = 43) or gastroesophageal junction (n = 31) were studied. All patients underwent attenuation-corrected FDG-PET imaging, a spiral computed tomography (CT) scan, and an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).  RESULTS: FDG-PET demonstrated increased activity in the primary tumor in 70 of 74 patients (sensitivity: 95%). False-negative PET images were found in four patients with T1 lesions. Thirty-four patients (46%) had stage IV disease. FDG-PET had a higher accuracy for diagnosing stage IV disease compared with the combination of CT and EUS (82% v 64%, respectively; P = .004). FDG-PET had additional diagnostic value in 16 (22%) of 74 patients by upstaging 11 (15%) and downstaging five (7%) patients. Thirty-nine (53%) of the 74 patients underwent a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy in conjunction with primary curative esophagectomy. In these patients, tumoral involvement was found in 21 local and 35 regional or distant lymph nodes (LN). For local LN, the sensitivity of FDG-PET was lower than EUS (33% v 81%, respectively; P = .027), but the specificity may have been higher (89% v 67%, respectively; P = not significant [NS]). For the assessment of regional and distant LN involvement, compared with the combined use of CT and EUS, FDG-PET had a higher specificity (90% v 98%, respectively; P = .025) and a similar sensitivity (46% v 43%, respectively; P = NS).  CONCLUSION: PET significantly improves the detection of stage IV disease in EC compared with the conventional staging modalities. PET improves diagnostic specificity for LN staging.

Epidermal growth factor receptor activity determines response of colorectal cancer cells to gefitinib alone and in combination with chemotherapy. Van Schaeybroeck S, Karaiskou-Mccaul A, Kelly D, Longley D, Galligan L, Van Cutsem E, Johnston P. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(20):7480-7849. Abstract: PURPOSE: Up to now, there have been no established predictive markers for response to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/HER1/erbB1) inhibitors alone and in combination with chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. To identify markers that predict response to EGFR-based chemotherapy regimens, we analyzed the response of human colorectal cancer cell lines to the EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, gefitinib (Iressa, AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE), as a single agent and in combination with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Cell viability was assessed using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide and crystal violet cell viability assays and analyzed by ANOVA. Apoptosis was measured by flow cytometry, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, and caspase 3 cleavage. EGFR protein phosphorylation was detected by Western blotting. RESULTS: Cell lines displaying high constitutive EGFR phosphorylation (a surrogate marker for EGFR activity) were more sensitive to gefitinib. Furthermore, in cell lines exhibiting low constitutive EGFR phosphorylation, an antagonistic interaction between gefitinib and oxaliplatin was observed, whereas in cell lines with high basal EGFR phosphorylation, the interaction was synergistic. In addition, oxaliplatin treatment increased EGFR phosphorylation in those cell lines in which oxaliplatin and gefitinib were synergistic but down-regulated EGFR phosphorylation in those lines in which oxaliplatin and gefitinib were antagonistic. In contrast to oxaliplatin, 5-FU treatment increased EGFR phosphorylation in all cell lines and this correlated with synergistic decreases in cell viability when 5-FU was combined with gefitinib. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that phospho-EGFR levels determine the sensitivity of colorectal cancer cells to gefitinib alone and that chemotherapy-mediated changes in phospho-EGFR levels determine the nature of interaction between gefitinib and chemotherapy.

Tcf-3 expression and ?-catenin mediated transcriptional activation in aggressive fibromatosis (desmoid tumor). Tejpar S, Li C, Yu C, Poon R, Denys H, Sciot R, Van Cutsem E, Cassiman JJ, Alman BA. Brit J Cancer 2001;85:98-101. Abstract: Aggressive fibromatosis harbours mutations resulting in beta-catenin protein stabilization. Primary cell cultures demonstrate constitutive tcf activation in aggressive fibromatosis. Expression and co-immunoprecipitation studies suggest that beta-catenin binds and activates tcf-3 in this tumour. This is the first demonstration of tcf-3 activation by beta-catenin stabilization in a human neoplastic process. Copyright 2001 Cancer Research Campaign.

Overzicht titellijst alle diensten

• Print
• Stuur door