Alternative bimonthly cycles of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide, cisplatin with hematopoietic growth factor support in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site

Case Report: Combined pembrolizumab, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin therapy were remarkably effective in p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary

Background

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a malignant tumor without a known primary lesion with a frequency of 3-5%. It can be divided into favorable and unfavorable prognosis subsets. While recommended treatments are available for the former group, there is no established treatment for the latter. Here, we report the effective treatment of a 32-year-old woman with p16-positive squamous cell CUP with pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy.

Case presentation

A 32-year-old woman presented with metastatic lesions in the liver, lung, bone, cervical region, abdominal region, and pelvic lymph nodes. She was diagnosed with p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary origin. The patient received pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy, which markedly reduced the metastasis and improved her Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status after two courses.

Conclusion

This case report highlights the potential of pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy for treating CUP with an unfavorable prognosis. p16 positivity is worth examining for squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary origin, and if present, this therapy should be considered a promising treatment option.

Cost-effectiveness of gene-expression profiling for tumor-site origin

OBJECTIVES

Gene-expression profiling (GEP) reliably supplements traditional clinicopathological information on the tissue of origin (TOO) in metastatic or poorly differentiated cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis of GEP TOO testing versus usual care was conducted from a US third-party payer perspective.

METHODS

Data on recommendation changes for chemotherapy, surgery, radiation therapy, blood tests, imaging investigations, and hospice care were obtained from a retrospective, observational study of patients whose physicians received GEP TOO test results. The effects of chemotherapy recommendation changes on survival were based on the results of trials cited in National Comprehensive Cancer Network and UpToDate guidelines. Drug and administration costs were based on average doses reported in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Other unit costs came from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee schedules. Quality-of-life weights were obtained from literature. Bootstrap analysis estimated sample variability; probabilistic sensitivity analysis addressed parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy regimen recommendations consistent with guidelines for final tumor-site diagnoses increased significantly from 42% to 65% (net difference 23%; P<0.001). Projected overall survival increased from 15.9 to 19.5 months (mean difference 3.6 months; two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2-3.9). The average increase in quality-adjusted life-months was 2.7 months (95% CI 1.5-4.3), and average third-party payer costs per patient increased by $10,360 (95% CI $2,982-$19,192). The cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $46,858 (95% CI $13,351-$104,269).

CONCLUSIONS

GEP TOO testing significantly altered clinical practice patterns and is projected to increase overall survival, quality-adjusted life-years, and costs, resulting in an expected cost per quality-adjusted life-year of less than $50,000.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site

The optimal therapy for carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUPS) is still under investigation. In this retrospective trial, we reported the response rates and overall and progression free survival of 23 CUPS patients that were treated with gemcitabine and cisplatin. The mean age of the patients was 54.95 (32-77). Sixteen (69.6%) of them were males and 7(30.4%) females. Totally 109 cycles with a mean of 6 were administered. Thirteen of 23 patients (56.5%) presented with only one metastatic site, and the liver is the most frequent metastatic site (39.1%). Histologic types were adenocarcinoma in 14 patients (60.8%), squamous carcinoma in 1 patient (4.8%), epithelioid cancer in 3 patients (13%) and undifferentiated cancer in 5 patients (21.7%). Three patient achieved a CR (13%), 4 patients achieved a PR (17.4%) and 8 patients had SD (34.8%) with an overall 30.4% response rate. However, 8 patients had progressive disease with a percentage of 34.8%. The median follow-up time was 10 months (3-42 months). The mean and median survival was 12.5 (3-42) months and 10 months (range, 3-42 months) and progression free survival was 5.5 months (range, 0-23 months). Gemcitabine plus cisplatin may be an effective treatment of CUPS. Therefore additional trials are needed especially with new chemotherapeutics.

Large mass affecting retroperitoneal great vessels: a rare presentation of a cancer of unknown primary with diagnostic dilemma and challenged surgical intervention

INTRODUCTION

Cancers of unknown primary site (CUPs) consist of a clinical entity which accounts for 3-5% of all solid tumor patients. They are metastatic solid tumors whose fundamental characteristic is the absence of identifiable site of the primary tumor.

CASE REPORT

We report the case of a completely asymptomatic 34-year-old man with a palpated huge mass found incidentally in the left abdomen. All the investigations were normal. During the operation, a large mass was identified 2 cm below the left renal artery which was displacing and encompassing the great retroperitoneal vessels and the left ureter. A complete resection of the mass was performed while the histological examination revealed a solitary retroperitoneal lymph node categorized as metastatic adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site.

CONCLUSION

It is essential to assess the high incidence of patients with cancer who present with CUP. Early surgical excision of the metastatic lesion followed by adjuvant combination chemotherapy should be considered for patients with only a single site of malignancy.

Phase II trials in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary: a pooled data analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of carcinoma of unknown primary site remains debatable. The literature data consists of about 29 phase-II studies investigating 38 regimens, providing a broad range of response rates (RR).

METHODS

We performed a pooled published data analysis to identify the factors influencing RR in these 29 studies.

RESULTS

In front-line treatment, the overall RR was 31% (430/1,380). At least nine factors significantly influenced the reported RR, excluding drugs under investigation, such as the impact factor of the journal, single-centre study, some eligibility criteria, central radiological review, sample size calculation based on statistical hypothesis and stratification. Two drugs seem to improve RR: cisplatin and doxorubicin. Two drugs seem to be associated with a worse RR: irinotecan and carboplatin.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled data analysis illustrates that in a phase II trial setting, it is impossible to attribute the variation in RR solely to the modification of drugs under investigation.

Irinotecan plus carboplatin for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site

Carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP) is rarely encountered in clinical practice and optimal chemotherapy has not yet been established. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of combined irinotecan+carboplatin therapy in chemotherapy-naive patients with CUP. Irinotecan was administered at 60 mg m(-2) as a 90-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8 and 15. Carboplatin was administered at an area-under-the curve of 5 mg ml(-1) min as a 60-min intravenous infusion on day 1. This cycle was repeated every 28 days for up to six cycles. Forty-five patients were enrolled in the study. An intent-to-treat analysis revealed an objective response rate to the treatment of 41.9% (95% confidence interval, 27.0-57.9%). The median time to progression was 4.8 months and the median survival was 12.2 months. The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 44 and 27%, respectively. The most frequent grade 3 or more severe adverse events were leukopaenia (21%), neutropaenia (33%), anaemia (25%) and thrombocytopaenia (20%). Thus, the combination of irinotecan plus carboplatin was found to be active in patients with CUP. Therefore, the regimen may be one of the potentially available chemotherapeutic options for community standard of care in patients with a good performance status.

Multicenter phase-II trial of irinotecan plus oxaliplatin [IROX regimen] in patients with poor-prognosis cancer of unknown primary: a hellenic cooperative oncology group study

BACKGROUND

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) lacks established therapy although it affects 3% of cancer patients. We evaluated the irinotecan-oxaliplatin combination (IROX regimen) in previously untreated patients with non-favorable subsets of unknown primary carcinomas.

METHODS

This was a multicenter phase-II trial. Protocol treatment consisted of oxaliplatin 80 mg/m(2) followed by irinotecan 160 mg/m(2) administered every 3 weeks. The primary end points were response rate and toxicity, and secondary end points were time to progression and survival.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients with liver, bone or multiple visceral metastases entered into the trial and received a median 6 chemotherapy cycles (1-11). The regimen was very well tolerated with one febrile neutropenia case and six cases with diarrhea grade 3 (16%). In intent-to-treat analysis the tumor response rate was 13% (95% CI = 4.8-25.7%) and 12 patients (27%, 95%CI 13.9-40.4%) had at least 4 months' duration of disease stabilization. The median time to progression was 2.7 months and the median survival was 9.5 months, with 40% of patients alive at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The IROX regimen demonstrated similar efficacy and a favorable toxicity profile compared to other more toxic chemotherapy combinations in patients with poor-prognosis CUP.

Forty years experience of treating cancer of unknown primary

Cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) is not a rare tumour. It accounts as the seventh to eighth most frequently diagnosed cancer in a general medical oncology service. Since CUP is not a homogeneous disease and it consists of different favourable and unfavourable sub-sets, treatment of each clinicopathological entity requires a unique approach. The spectrum of therapeutic management includes both locoregional and systemic therapy and should intend to offer optimal benefit to favourable CUP patients and palliative care to unfavourable cases. This review article provides both a historical outline of CUP treatment as well as a helpful therapeutic guide to every oncologist who treats CUP patients.

Carcinoma of unknown primary site: development in a single institution of a prognostic model based on clinical and serum variables

PURPOSE

To identify clinical and biologic variables with significant impact on survival in patients with carcinomas of an unknown primary site (CUP) and to develop a simple prognostic model.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, univariate and multivariate prognostic factors analyses were conducted in a population of 100 patients with CUP. Patients with features requiring well defined treatments had previously been excluded.

RESULTS

Overall survival (OS) was significantly related to the following pretreatment adverse prognostic clinical factors: a poor performance status (2 or 3), weight loss more than 10% in the last six months, the presence of liver metastases and more than two metastatic sites. Two biological parameters predicted a significantly shorter survival: elevated serum levels of alkaline phosphatase and of lactate dehydrogenase. In the multivariate analysis, only two independent adverse prognostic parameters were retained: a poor performance status and the presence of liver metastases. We developed a prognostic model for OS based on the following subgroups: good prognosis (PS 0 or 1 and absence of liver metastases), intermediate prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases) and poor prognosis (PS> or =2 or presence of liver metastases). Median OS for the three groups was 10.8, 4 and 1.9 months respectively, p<0.0001.

CONCLUSION

A simple prognostic model using performance status and presence of liver metastases was developed. It allowed the assignment of patients into three subgroups with different outcomes. Treatment strategies could be adapted for each subgroup. We think that this prognostic model could be useful and should be validated in other patient series.

Management of cancer from an unknown primary

Treatment of cancer is reliant on identifying the organ of origin. However, in a significant minority of cases, the primary site is never identified. This paper reviews the diagnostic work-up and therapeutic management for patients presenting with unknown primary cancer, including the role of tumour markers, conventional pathology and positron emission tomography imaging. It is important to identify atypical presentations of known tumour types, such as extragonadal germ cell tumours, lymphomas and breast cancer. The results from chemotherapy trials performed in patients with unknown primary cancer are summarised. Few trials have included > 100 patients, and most are non-randomised. There is no clear standard of care from the available data, and no trials of chemotherapy versus best supportive care have been performed. Platinum is the mainstay of treatment regimens, and from the regimens tested, a taxane seems to be among the best of the cytotoxics to combine with platinum in terms of both tolerability and efficacy. There is no data to favour a three-drug combination over a two-drug combination. To improve on existing treatment, molecular techniques may provide a means to identify the organ of origin, and/or to select appropriate targeted therapies. Further research is needed to improve knowledge on the biology of cancer from an unknown primary and to develop more effective treatment.

Les carcinomes de primitif inconnu

PURPOSE

Carcinoma of unknown primary site is a common clinical syndrome, accounting for 2% of cancer patients. Diagnosis is a recurrent challenge for internists. Treatment is difficult and prognosis is still poor. This review presents one synthesis of diagnosis strategies and therapeutic trials. It envisages the interest of new molecular biology methods as well as therapeutic perspectives.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS

Pathologic examination completed with immunohistochemical tests, and, depending on cases, with electron microscopy, cytogenetics, and molecular biology is a key-point for diagnosis. Diagnosis work-up, based on histological type and on individualization of some clinical presentation, proceeds in three steps. Positron emission tomography is recommended when a curative treatment is planed, particularly in cases of isolated metastasis. Functional status analysed using the performance status and simple biologic parameters (serum lactate dehydrogenase, serum alkaline phosphatase) permit us to assess prognosis. Chemotherapy is offered for patients with a good general health status.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS

Further evaluation of positron emission tomography, as well as cost-benefit analyses, is warranted. Further randomised trials are necessary to determine the optimal chemotherapy regimen in good-risk patients and the interest of chemotherapy in patients with poor-risk disease. Gene expression profiling and proteomic evaluation, as well as pharmacogenomic offer new investigation fields.

Identification of Clinical Prognostic Factors in Patients with Unknown Primary Tumors Treated with a Platinum-Based Combination

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate patient and tumor characteristics in 102 patients with unknown primary tumors (UPT) prospectively treated with a combination of carboplatin, doxorubicin, and etoposide, to identify clinical variables predictive of response and survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The association between clinical characteristics and outcome was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis: chi(2) test and logistic regression analysis were used to study variables predictive of response, and survival analysis, comparison of survival curves and Cox multiple regression analysis to study variables predictive of survival.

RESULTS

We obtained 26.5% objective responses (95% confidence interval: 18.2-36.1%) and a median survival of 9 months (95% confidence interval: 7-11 months). Several variables were associated with response to treatment and survival at univariate analysis. At multivariate analysis the number of tumor sites, bone/visceral involvement and epithelial tumor markers were significantly predictive of response; presence of pain, serum alkaline phosphatase, carboplatin AUC and response to treatment were significantly associated with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of variables that can predict prognosis and response to treatment in patients with UPT may be useful to offer aggressive treatment to sensitive subsets of patients and provide therapeutic alternatives to those with a low probability of benefiting from standard treatment. In our patients the use of carboplatin AUC higher than 6 and response to treatment were the most important factors associated with prognosis, together with presence of pain and serum alkaline phosphatase. However, larger series and identification of new disease markers are necessary to better define predictive and prognostic variables in UPT patients.

Carboplatin, doxorubicin and etoposide in the treatment of tumours of unknown primary site

The aim of this study was to assess the activity and toxicity of a platinum-based treatment on a group of patients with unknown primary tumours (UPTs). Patients with a diagnosis of UPT underwent a standard diagnostic procedure. Treatment was started within 2 weeks from diagnosis and consisted of carboplatin 400 mg m(-2) day 1, doxorubicin 50 mg m(-2) day 1, etoposide 100 mg m(-2) days 1-3, every 21 days. Response was evaluated after three courses and treatment continued in case of objective response (OR) or symptom control. A total of 102 patients were eligible. The median age was 59 years, sex male/female 54/48, histology was mainly adenocarcinoma or poorly differentiated carcinoma. Nodes, bone, liver and lung were the most frequently involved sites. In all, 79 patients received at least three courses of treatment; 26 patients received six courses or more. Six complete responses and 21 partial responses were observed, for a total of 27 of 102 ORs or 26.5% (95% confidence interval 18.2-36.1%). The median survival was 9 months and median progression-free survival was 4 months. Toxicity was moderate to severe, with 57.8% of patients experiencing grade III-IV haematological toxicity, mainly leucopenia. The regimen employed has shown activity in tumours of unknown primary site, but was associated with significant toxicity. Such toxicity may be considered unjustified, given the large proportion of patients with tumours not likely to respond. Efforts should therefore be addressed to identify predictors of response to chemotherapy, thus limiting aggressive treatment to those patients who could benefit from it.

Development and validation of a prognostic model to predict the length of survival in patients with carcinomas of an unknown primary site

PURPOSE

To identify clinical and biologic variables with significant impact on survival in patients with carcinomas of an unknown primary site and to develop a simple prognostic model for the selection of patients in prospective clinical trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Univariate and multivariate prognostic factor analyses were conducted in a population of 150 unselected patients and led to the construction of two successive classification schemes. An external data set of 116 patients enrolled onto two prospective trials was used for validation.

RESULTS

When studying clinical variables only, poor performance status (2 or 3) and presence of liver metastases were retained in the multivariate analysis. The first classification scheme consisted of three subgroups of patients with median survivals of 10.8, 6.0, and 2.4 months, according to the number of adverse prognostic factors. With the introduction of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in a further step, liver metastases were no longer significant. The second classification scheme therefore included poor performance status (relative risk [RR], 2.1) and elevated serum LDH level (RR, 2.1). Good-risk and poor-risk patients were identified, with median survivals of 11.7 months and 3.9 months, respectively (P <.0001). The 1-year survival rates were 45% and 11%, respectively. This second classification scheme was validated in an external data set: the median survival rates of patients assigned to the good-risk group and the poor-risk group were 12 months and 7 months, respectively (P =.0089). The 1-year survival rates were 53% and 23%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A simple prognostic model using performance status and serum LDH levels was developed and validated. It allows the assignment of patients into two subgroups with divergent outcome. Further prospective trials will be designed using this prognostic model.