Explore the vast range of titles available.

Early improvements in disease-free survival have been noted when an aromatase inhibitor is given either instead of or sequentially after tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with oestrogen-receptor-positive early breast cancer. However, little information exists on the long-term effects of aromatase inhibitors after treatment, and whether these early improvements lead to real gains in survival. 4724 postmenopausal patients with unilateral invasive, oestrogen-receptor-positive or oestrogen-receptor-unknown breast cancer who were disease-free on 2–3 years of tamoxifen, were randomly assigned to switch to exemestane (n=2352) or to continue tamoxifen (n=2372) for the remainder of a 5-year endocrine treatment period. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival; overall survival was a secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were intention-to-treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN11883920. After a median follow-up of 55·7 months (range 0–89·7), 809 events contributing to the analysis of disease-free survival had been reported (354 exemestane, 455 tamoxifen); unadjusted hazard ratio 0·76 (95% CI 0·66–0·88, p=0·0001) in favour of exemestane, absolute benefit 3·3% (95% CI 1·6–4·9) by end of treatment (ie, 2·5 years after randomisation). 222 deaths occurred in the exemestane group compared with 261 deaths in the tamoxifen group; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·85 (95% CI 0·71–1·02, p=0·08), 0·83 (0·69–1·00, p=0·05) when 122 patients with oestrogen-receptor-negative disease were excluded. Our results suggest that early improvements in disease-free survival noted in patients who switch to exemestane after 2–3 years on tamoxifen persist after treatment, and translate into a modest improvement in overall survival.

This large randomized trial compared the standard adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer in postmenopausal women, five years of therapy with tamoxifen (an inhibitor of the estrogen receptor), with two to three years of tamoxifen followed by therapy with exemestane, an aromatase inhibitor, for the balance of the five-year period. Disease-free survival was significantly better in the exemestane group than in the tamoxifen group. Sequential use of antiestrogen compounds with different mechanisms may obviate the problem of resistance to tamoxifen. Breast cancer is estrogen-dependent in many cases, and reducing the estrogen levels by means of ovariectomy can cause regression of established disease, 1 especially if the tumor is rich in estrogen receptors. 2 The selective estrogen-receptor modulator tamoxifen blocks the action of estrogen by binding to one of the activating regions of the estrogen receptor. 3 , 4 When given to women with estrogen-receptor–positive breast cancer for five years after surgery, tamoxifen reduces the risk of recurrence by 47 percent and the risk of death by 26 percent. 5 The risk–benefit ratio of using tamoxifen for longer than five years remains unclear, 6 , 7 and trials . . .

Background: Preclinical investigations support combining sorafenib with IL-2 in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Methods: In this open-label, phase II study, 128 patients with mRCC were randomised to receive oral sorafenib, 400 mg twice daily, plus subcutaneous IL-2, 4.5 million international units (MIU) five times per week for 6 in every 8 weeks, or sorafenib alone. After enrolment of the first 40 patients, IL-2 dose was reduced to improve the tolerability. Results: After a median follow-up of 27 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 33 weeks with sorafenib plus IL-2, and 30 weeks with sorafenib alone ( P =0.109). For patients receiving the initial higher dose of IL-2, median PFS was 43 weeks vs 31 weeks for those receiving the lower dose. The most common adverse events were asthenia, hand–foot syndrome, hypertension, and diarrhoea. Grade 3–4 adverse events were reported for 38 and 25% of patients receiving combination and single-agent treatment, respectively. Conclusion: The combination of sorafenib and IL-2 did not demonstrate improved efficacy vs sorafenib alone. Improvements in PFS appeared greater in patients receiving higher-dose IL-2.

In a randomised phase 3 trial, panitumumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This analysis characterises the association of PFS with CRC symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and overall survival (OS). CRC symptoms (NCCN/FACT CRC symptom index, FCSI) and HRQoL (EQ-5D) were assessed for 207 panitumumab patients and 184 best supportive care (BSC) patients who had at least one post-baseline patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment. Patients alive at week 8 were included in the PRO and OS analyses and categorised by their week 8 progression status as follows: no progressive disease (no PD; best response of at least stable disease) vs progressive disease (PD). Standard imputation methods were used to assign missing values. Significantly more patients were progression free at weeks 8–24 with panitumumab vs BSC. After excluding responders, a significant difference in PFS remained favouring panitumumab (HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.52–0.77; P <0.0001). At week 8, lack of disease progression was associated with significantly and clinically meaningful lower CRC symptomatology for both treatment groups and higher HRQoL for panitumumab patients only. Overall survival favoured no PD patients vs PD patients alive at week 8. Lack of disease progression was associated with better symptom control, HRQoL, and OS.

In phase II trials, irinotecan is active in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, but the survival and clinical benefit of irinotecan compared with secondline fluorouracil by continuous infusion is not known. 267 patients who had failed to respond to firstline fluorouracil, or whose disease had progressed after treatment with first-line fluorouracil were randomly allocated irinotecan 300–350 mg/m 2 infused once every 3 weeks or fluorouracil by continuous infusion. Treatment was given until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or the patient refused to continue treatment. The primary endpoint was survival, while progression-free survival, response rate, symptom-free survival, adverse events, and quality of life (QoL) were secondary endpoints. 133 patients were randomly allocated irinotecan and 134 were allocated fluorouracil by continuous infusion. Patients treated with irinotecan lived for significantly longer than patients on fluorouracil (p=0·035). Survival at 1 year was increased from 32% in the fluorouracil group to 45% in the irinotecan group. Median survival was 10·8 months in the irinotecan group and 8·5 months in the fluorouracil group. Median progression-free survival was longer with irinotecan (4·2 vs 2·9 months for irinotecan vs fluorouracil, respectively; p=0·030). The median pain-free survival was 10·3 months and 8·5 months (p=0·06) for irinotecan and fluorouracil, respectively. Both treatments were equally well tolerated. QoL was similar in both groups. Compared with fluorouracil by continuous infusion second-line irinotecan significantly improved survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus plus 600 mg/m2 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m2 plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus plus 600 mg/m2 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4–8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab–FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab–XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0–66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab–FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab–XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab–FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98–1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab–XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90–1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab–FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03–1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab–XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93–1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3–5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab–XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab–FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab–XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab–FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab–XELOX. Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.

There is conflicting evidence on the predictive role of KRAS status when cetuximab is added to oxaliplatin-based regimens. This study investigated the impact of KRAS , NRAS , BRAF , PI3KCA and TP53 status on outcome of elderly metastatic colorectal cancer patients enrolled in TEGAFOX-E (cetuximab, oxaliplatin and oral uracil/ftorafur—UFT) phase II study. Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and all were evaluable for safety and activity. Twenty-three specimens were analysed for KRAS , BRAF , NRAS , PI3KCA and TP53 mutational status by means of polymerase chain reaction and correlated with objective response, progression-free survival and overall survival. An evident increase of response rate was noted in KRAS / NRAS wild-type cases (70 versus 33 %, P  = 0.198). KRAS / NRAS wild-type status showed an independent association with a longer progression-free survival (44 versus 9 weeks, P  = 0.009). Considering the combined assessment of BRAF , KRAS / NRAS and TP53 , a trend towards an increase of response rate was noted in patients without mutations (83 versus 33 %, P  = 0.063). Moreover, patients with all wild-type genes had significantly longer progression-free survival than patients with any mutation (48 versus 10 weeks, P  = 0.007). As a single biomarker, only KRAS / NRAS proteins maintained an independent value for outcome prediction. Patients with KRAS / NRAS , BRAF and TP53 wild-type tumours could derive the maximal benefits from treatment with cetuximab, oxaliplatin and UFT.

This randomised phase II study evaluates the safety and efficacy profile of uracil/tegafur/leucovorin combined with irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) or with oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX). One hundred and forty-three patients with measurable, non-resectable metastatic colorectal cancer were randomised in a multicentre study to receive TEGAFIRI (UFT 250 mg m −2  day days 1–14, LV 90 mg day days 1–14, irinotecan 240 mg m −2  day 1; q21) or TEGAFOX (UFT 250 mg m −2  day days 1–14, LV 90 mg day days 1–14, oxaliplatin 120 mg m −2  day 1; q21). Among 143 randomised patients, 141 were analysed (68 received TEGAFIRI and 73 TEGAFOX). The main characteristics of the two arms were well balanced. The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (13% of cases with TEGAFIRI; 1% in the TEGAFOX group). Diarrhoea was prevalent in the TEGAFIRI arm (16%) vs TEGAFOX (4%). Six complete remission (CR) and 19 partial remission (PR) were recorded in the TEGAFIRI arm (odds ratio (OR): 41.7; 95% confidence limit (CL), 29.1–55.1%), and six CR and 22 PR were recorded in the TEGAFOX group, (OR: 38.9; 95% CL, 27.6–51.1). At a median time follow-up of 17 months (intequartile (IQ) range 12–23), a median survival probability of 20 and 19 months was obtained in the TEGAFIRI and TEGAFOX groups, respectively. Median time to progression was 8 months for both groups. TEGAFIRI and TEGAFOX are both effective and tolerable first-line therapies in MCRC patients. The employment of UFT/LV given in doublet combination is interesting and the presented data appear comparable to equivalent infusion regimens described in the literature. The safety profile of the two combinations also allows an evaluation with other biological agents such as monoclonal antibodies.

Neuroendocrine tumors over-express somatostatin receptors and literature data have demonstrated the efficacy of the peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with somatostatin analogues labelled with high activities of b-emitting radioisotopes, such as (90)Y and (177)Lu. Yttrium-90 is a pure high energy b-emitter while (177)Lu is a b/g emitter of medium energy. We decided to evaluate an original tandem treatment based on administration of radiolabeled [DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate (DOTA-TATE) alternating (177)Lu and 90Y. Aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, the efficacy and the toxicity of this treatment in neuroendocrine tumors expressing somatostatin receptors relapsed or refractory to conventional therapies. Patients were treated with four therapeutic cycles alternating [(177)Lu]DOTA-TATE (5.55 GBq) and [(90)Y]DOTA-TATE (2.6 GBq). Dosimetric evaluation after administration of [(177)Lu]DOTA-TATE allows to calculate the absorbed doses in healthy organs. Blood samples were collected at 5 min, 1, 6, 24, 48, 72, 96 h and scintigraphy was performed once a day for four days after administration. Toxicity was evaluated considering hematological parameters and renal toxicity was evaluated also by the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Efficacy related with RECIST criteria. Up to now 26 patients entered the study and 16 patients completed all cycles. Treatment was well tolerated with no adverse event registered. No damage to healthy organs was revealed in accordance with the calculated absorbed doses. We had a partial response in 10/15 patients evaluated three months after the fourth treatment. Up to now only a few patients participated in and concluded this study; preliminary results are encouraging and indicate the feasibility of the study.

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition is a valid therapeutic approach in renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, an investigation of the combination treatment of the humanised anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab with interferon alfa was warranted. In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase III trial, 649 patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomised to receive interferon alfa-2a (9 MIU subcutaneously three times weekly) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; n=327) or placebo and interferon alfa-2a (n=322). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. An interim analysis of overall survival was prespecified after 250 deaths. On the basis of new second-line therapies that became available while the trial was in progress, which could have confounded analyses of overall survival data, we agreed with regulatory agencies that the pre-planned final analysis of progression-free survival would be acceptable for regulatory submission. The protocol was amended to allow the study to be unblinded at this point. The final analysis of progression-free survival is reported here. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with centerwatch.com, number BO17705E. 325 patients in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 316 in the placebo plus interferon alfa group received at least one dose of study treatment. At the time of unblinding, 230 progression events had occurred in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 275 in the control group; there were 114 deaths in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 137 in the control group. Median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group than it was in the control group (10·2 months vs 5·4 months; HR 0·63, 95% CI 0·52–0·75; p=0·0001). Increases in progression-free survival were seen with bevacizumab plus interferon alfa irrespective of risk group or whether reduced-dose interferon alfa was received. Deaths due to adverse events were reported in eight (2%) patients who received one or more doses of bevacizumab and seven (2%) of those who did not receive the drug. Only three deaths in the bevacizumab arm were considered by investigators to be possibly related to bevacizumab. The most commonly reported grade 3 or worse adverse events were fatigue (40 [12%] patients in the bevacizumab group vs 25 [8%] in the control group) and asthenia (34 [10%] vs 20 [7%]). The combination of bevacizumab with interferon alfa as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma results in a significant improvement in progression-free survival, compared with interferon alfa alone.