Cisplatin and gemcitabine with either vinorelbine or paclitaxel in the treatment of carcinomas of unknown primary site

Nivolumab and ipilimumab in recurrent or refractory cancer of unknown primary: a phase II trial

Cancer of unknown primary has a dismal prognosis, especially following failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. 10-20% of patients have a high tumor mutational burden (TMB), which predicts response to immunotherapy in many cancer types. In this prospective, non-randomized, open-label, multicenter Phase II trial (EudraCT 2018-004562-33; NCT04131621), patients relapsed or refractory after platinum-based chemotherapy received nivolumab and ipilimumab following TMBhigh vs. TMBlow stratification. Progression-free survival (PFS) represented the primary endpoint; overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of clinical benefit and safety were the secondary endpoints. The trial was prematurely terminated in March 2021 before reaching the preplanned sample size (n = 194). Among 31 evaluable patients, 16% had a high TMB ( > 12 mutations/Mb). Overall response rate was 16% (95% CI 6-34%), with 7.7% (95% CI 1-25%) vs. 60% (95% CI 15-95%) in TMBlow and TMBhigh, respectively. Although the primary endpoint was not met, high TMB was associated with better median PFS (18.3 vs. 2.4 months) and OS (18.3 vs. 3.6 months). Severe immune-related adverse events were reported in 29% of cases. Assessing on-treatment dynamics of circulating tumor DNA using combined targeted hotspot mutation and shallow whole genome sequencing as part of a predefined exploratory analysis identified patients benefiting from immunotherapy irrespective of initial radiologic response.

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.

Case Report: Long-Term Survival of a Pediatric Patient With an Intra-Abdominal Undifferentiated Carcinoma of Unknown Primary

An 8-year and 10-month-old boy presented following 2 weeks of abdominal pain, vomiting, constipation, and rectal pain. A diffuse lower-abdominal mass was felt upon palpation, with radiological findings confirming the presence of a large, multilobulated intraperitoneal mass with mesenteric lymphadenopathy and hepatic metastatic disease. A biopsy of the mass revealed anatomical pathological findings consistent with a diagnosis of intra-abdominal undifferentiated carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). The patient was treated with six cycles of carboplatin and gemcitabine prior to surgery. Following incomplete resection of the tumor, four further cycles were administered resulting in resolution of the pelvic mass, but progression in the right and left lobes of the liver. Therapy was accordingly adjusted, with administration of six cycles of ifosfamide and doxorubicin followed by 1 year of metronomic vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide maintenance therapy. The patient remains in remission 7 years from completion of therapy. Whole exome sequencing revealed missense mutations in the DNA-repair and chromatin-remodeling genes FANCM and SMARCD2, and a tumor-derived cell line revealed a complex karyotype suggesting chromosomal instability. CUP is an extremely rare diagnosis in the pediatric population, previously reported during adolescence. This report provides detailed characterization of CUP in a young child and in the absence of defined therapeutic guidelines for pediatric CUP, the successful treatment strategy described should be considered for similar cases.

Redefining cancer of unknown primary: Is precision medicine really shifting the paradigm?

The concept of Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) has evolved with the advent of medical oncology. CUP can be difficult to diagnose and represents 2 to 5% of new cancers, therefore not exceptionally rare. Within CUPs can be identified a subset of favourable prognosis tumours, however the vast majority of CUP patients belongs to a poor prognosis group. CUP features significant oncological challenges, such as unravelling biological and transversal issues, and most importantly, improving patient's outcomes. In that regard, CUP patients' outcomes regrettably showed minimal improvement for decades and CUP remains a cancer group of very poor prognosis. The biology of CUP has two main hypotheses. One is that CUP is a subgroup of a given primary cancer, where the primary is present but cannot be seen due to its small size. The other, the "true" CUP hypothesis, states that CUP share features that make them a specific entity, whatever their tissue of origin. A true biological signature has not yet been described, but chromosomal instability is a hallmark of poor prognosis CUP group. Precision oncology, despite achieving identifying the putative origin of the CUP, so far failed to globally improve outcomes of patients. Targeting molecular pathways based on molecular analysis in CUP management is under investigation. Immunotherapy has not shown ground-breaking results, to date. Accrual is also a crucial issue in CUP trials. Herein we review CUP history, biological features and remaining questions in CUP biology, the two main approaches of molecular oncology in CUP management, in order to draw perspectives in the enormous challenge of improving CUP patient outcomes.

Short-Term Efficacy of Different First-Line Chemotherapy Regimens for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

This study intends to compare short‐term efficacy of 12 chemotherapy regimens in treatment of advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by a network meta‐analysis (NMA). PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from the inception of each database to June 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the 12 chemotherapy regimens for advanced NSCLC were included. Direct and indirect evidence were combined by NMA to evaluate the odds ratio and the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the 12 chemotherapy regimens. Nineteen RCTs that met our inclusion criteria were collected in this study. For partial response (PR), gemcitabine exhibited relatively poor efficacy compared with cisplatin + gemcitabine, carboplatin + gemcitabine, carboplatin + paclitaxel, paclitaxel + gemcitabine, and cisplatin + gemcitabine + vinorelbine. For overall response rate (ORR), gemcitabine had poorer efficacy than cisplatin + gemcitabine and paclitaxel + gemcitabine. For disease control rate (DCR), compared with carboplatin + gemcitabine and gemcitabine, paclitaxel + gemcitabine had a better efficacy. Gemcitabine had the lowest SUCRA values in terms of complete response, PR, ORR, stable disease, and DCR; whereas paclitaxel + gemcitabine ranked the highest in ORR, progressive disease, and DCR. The cluster analysis revealed that cisplatin + gemcitabine, paclitaxel + gemcitabine, and cisplatin + gemcitabine + vinorelbine had better short‐term efficacy for advanced NSCLC. Collectively, short‐term efficacy of multidrug combination chemotherapy regimens was superior to that of single‐drug chemotherapy regimens for advanced NSCLC. Cisplatin + gemcitabine, paclitaxel + gemcitabine, and cisplatin + gemcitabine + vinorelbine may have particularly prominent short‐term efficacy for advanced NSCLC.

Does Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) Truly Exist as a Distinct Cancer Entity?

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) designates an enigmatic cancer entity with histologic confirmation of malignancy from a metastasis but no identifiable primary tumor in spite of a thorough diagnostic work-up. In this review, we discuss the validity of CUP as a distinct cancer entity as well as diagnostic pitfalls. As arguments against a distinct entity, the diagnosis of CUP is erroneous in some cases. Diagnostic pitfalls include incomplete diagnostics, uncertainty in classifying a lesion as either primary or metastasis and mistaking a relapse of an antecedent malignancy as CUP due to histologic and immunohistologic disparities. Given the high frequency of prior malignancies in CUP patients, relapse of an antecedent cancer should always be carefully excluded. Gene expression profiling-based classifier assays aim at aligning the molecular profile of CUP patients with established primary cancer patterns for highest congruency in order to identify the putative primary and treat accordingly. However, the spectrum of predicted putative primaries by molecular techniques is somewhat at odds with the primaries identified in autopsy series. Also, a first randomized clinical trial did not show superiority of primary-tailored therapy over unspecific platinum-based chemotherapy. CUP cases share an aggressive clinical course, atypical metastasis pattern, rapid progression of metastases, a generally poor response to chemotherapy and dismal outcome as distinct clinical features. Metastatic spread appears to take place in the early stages of tumor evolution, with CUP metastases subsequently undergoing genetic evolution toward a chromosomally highly complex and instable karyotype independent from the primary tumor. In clinical practice, the diagnosis of CUP is valid when no primary tumor is detectable. Treatment should ideally offer broad spectrum coverage across numerous malignancies and be well-established in CUP as is the case for carboplatin/paclitaxel and cisplatin / gemcitabine in particular, but it should also cover the most likely putative primary. The diligent diagnosis of CUP is warranted for clinical trials, making the eligibility process particularly laborious. In conclusion, we deem CUP a distinct cancer entity and the diagnosis accurate in most patient cases.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary Site Treated By Gastrointestinal Oncologists

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients with cancer of an unknown primary site (CUP), who were treated by gastrointestinal oncologists.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 29 patients with CUP who were presented at the Department of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University Hospital from October 2005 to October 2013, and were treated by the gastrointestinal oncologists. The patients were divided into two groups, namely chemotherapy group and symptomatic therapy group, and the clinical characteristics and survival times were compared. The clinical course was studied according to the histologic type (adenocarcinoma or non-adenocarcinoma), prognostic subset (favorable or unfavorable), and the presence or absence of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The chemotherapy group comprised 19 patients, and the symptomatic therapy group comprised 10 patients. The median survival time was 11 months in the chemotherapy group and 3 months in the symptomatic therapy group. Twenty-two patients had adenocarcinoma, and 7 had non-adenocarcinoma. Of the 22 patients with adenocarcinoma, 2 belonged to the favorable prognostic subset and received chemotherapy. One of these patients died of cancer at 47 months, and the other was alive and disease free at 58 months. Among the 20 patients with adenocarcinoma in the unfavorable prognostic subset, 16 received chemotherapy and had a median survival of 16 months. Seven (44%) of these patients survived for at least 21 months, and 3 patients who could receive 3 or more regimens survived for at least 46 months.

CONCLUSION

It might be appropriate for gastrointestinal oncologists to treat CUP on the basis of clinical experience, depending on the situation.

[Cancer of unknown primary. Epidemiology and pathogenesis]

DEFINITION

The term cancer of unknown primary (CUP) describes by definition epithelial malignancies for which no primary tumor can be found after primary diagnostics have been performed.

EPIDEMIOLOGY

The CUP syndrome constitutes 2-3% of all fatal cases of malignancies in both men and women. The proportion of women has increased in parallel to the increase of tobacco consumption in women.

PATHOGENESIS

The most frequent origin appears to lie in the lungs or upper abdominal organs, while notable differences can be found between older autopsy findings and recent gene expression data with respect to identified primary tumors or tissue assignation. The fact that a primary tumor cannot be identified is probably based on various reasons: a complete regression of a primary tumor in isolated cases seems to be just as plausible as the misclassification of a primary tumor as a metastasis.

CONCLUSION

In combination with the fact that a primary tumor cannot be identified by autopsy in more than 20 % of cases, the important conclusion can be drawn that curative approaches seem appropriate for localized CUP cases.

[Structured diagnostics and therapy of the CUP syndrome]

BACKGROUND

In the majority of cases, patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) have a poor prognosis with no prospect of being cured. Hence, a reasonable focus of diagnostics on its essential targets seems appropriate.

PATIENTS

Particularly important is the identification of all patients who can be assigned to subgroups with a favorable prognosis and who might benefit from a specific therapy. For all other patients, platinum-based combination therapy is the standard cytostatic therapy.

THERAPY

In addition to platinum derivatives, taxanes, gemcitabine and irinotecan can also be used. Promising innovative approaches include targeted therapies, in particular bevacizumab and erlotinib, and identification of the tissue origin with micro-RNA or gene expression analyses which can help identify the most suitable organ-specific therapy for individual patients.

PERSPECTIVES

It would be desirable if the group of patients treated with unspecific therapy could be reduced by improved diagnostics so that these patients could be treated with organ-specific therapy or with molecularly targeted approaches. Micro-RNA and gene expression analyses appear to be interesting for this purpose. Another complementary approach is to improve the treatment results of patients receiving an unspecific standard combination therapy by additional administration of new targeted substances.

Evaluation of survival benefits by platinums and taxanes for an unfavourable subset of carcinoma of unknown primary: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Although chemotherapeutic regimens containing a taxane or platinum agent have been widely recommended for unfavourable carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP), no evidence exists for the superiority of any administered regimens. To date, the efficacy has been mostly assessed in the limited setting of phase II trials, and few attempts have been made to synthesise all available data for survival outcomes.

Methods:

Electronic databases were searched from 1980 to 2011. Survival results were combined for each pre-specified category of regimens using a random-effects model, and meta-regression models were used to adjust for heterogeneity in some known prognostic factors.

Results:

A total of 32 studies were included for meta-analysis. Tendency towards better survival outcome by platinums or taxanes was indicated. After adjustment for important prognostic factors, however, the difference between the platinum-based and non-platinum regimens became no longer significant. Survival benefits by the taxane-based regimens remained significant, with a prolonged median survival time of 1.52 months (P=0.03) and a higher 1-year survival rate of 6.25% (P=0.05), but the benefit did not sustain for 2 years.

Conclusion:

Although no effective therapies have been established, this meta-analysis helps to fill an important gap of evidence. However, caution should still be taken because of the potential unmeasured confounding.

Cutaneous metastases of internal tumors

Cutaneous metastases are relatively rare in clinical practice and their diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion because clinical findings can be subtle. These metastases reveal the presence of disseminated malignant disease and can lead to the diagnosis of unsuspected internal tumors or the spread or recurrence of an already diagnosed tumor. Early recognition of cutaneous metastases can facilitate prompt and accurate diagnosis resulting in early treatment; however, they are generally indicative of a poor prognosis. Some tumors have a predilection to metastasize to specific areas. Recognition of these patterns provides essential information that can guide the search for the underlying tumor.

Gemcitabine and irinotecan as first-line therapy for carcinoma of unknown primary: results of a multicenter phase II trial

Metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) has a very poor prognosis, and no standard first-line therapy currently exists. Here, we report the results of a phase II study utilizing a combination of gemcitabine and irinotecan as first-line therapy. Treatment was with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and irinotecan 75 mg/m² weekly times four on a six week cycle (Cohort I). Due to excessive toxicity, the dose and schedule were modified as follows: gemcitabine 750 mg/m² and irinotecan 75 mg/m² given weekly times three on a four week cycle (Cohort II). The primary endpoint was the confirmed response rate (CR + PR). Secondary endpoints consisted of adverse events based upon the presence or absence of the UDP glucuronosyltransferase 1 family, polypeptide A1*28 (UGT1A1*28) polymorphism, time to progression, and overall survival. Thirty-one patients were enrolled with a median age of 63 (range: 38–94), and 26 patients were evaluable for efficacy. Significant toxicity was observed in Cohort 1, characterized by 50% (7/14) patients experiencing a grade 4+ adverse event, but not in cohort II. The confirmed response rate including patients from both cohorts was 12% (95% CI: 2–30%), which did not meet the criteria for continued enrollment. Overall median survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 4.0 to 11.6) for the entire cohort but notably longer in cohort II than in cohort I (9.3 months (95% CI: 4.1 to 12.1) versus 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.2 to 15.6)). Gemcitabine and irinotecan is not an active combination when used as first line therapy in patients with metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary. Efforts into developing novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches remain important for improving the outlook for this heterogeneous group of patients.

A phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of oxaliplatin in combination with gemcitabine in carcinoma of unknown primary

BACKGROUND

Preclinical and clinical data suggest synergy for gemcitabine and oxaliplatin. These agents were tested in several known cancers that also comprise the common carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) subtypes; namely, lung and pancreaticobiliary profiles.

METHODS

The study enrolled 29 patients of whom 28 patients were eligible for treatment. Gemcitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m(2) as a fixed dose rate infusion and oxaliplatin was infused at 100 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks with restaging performed after 3 cycles at 6 weeks.

RESULTS

The study reported one complete response (CR) (4%), 6 patients with a partial response (PR) (25%), and 13 with stable disease (SD) (54%); and 4 patients had progressive disease (PD) (17%) on restaging. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were 12.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.5-18.5) and 3.1 months (95% CI 1.7-6), respectively. The 1-year OS was 54%. The most common grade 3 toxicities were nausea (22%), vomiting (15%), and fatigue (11%). There were no grade 4 toxicities. This study was closed early as we moved from an empiric therapy platform to a more individualized approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin is a well-tolerated regimen in CUP with similar outcomes to previously documented CUP studies. In selected good performance status patients this combination may serve as a first-line doublet chemotherapy option for CUP patients.

Unknown primary tumors

An unknown primary tumor (UPT) is defined by the presence of a metastatic cancer without a known primary site of origin despite a standardized diagnostic workup. Clinically, UPTs show rapid progression and early dissemination, with signs and symptoms related to the metastatic site. The molecular bases of their biology remain largely unknown, with no evidence as to whether they represent a distinct biological entity. Immunohistochemistry remain the best diagnostic tool in term of cost-effectiveness, but the time-consuming "algorithmic process" it relies on has led to the application of new molecular techniques for the identification of the primary site of UPTs. For example, several microarray or miRNA classifications of UPTs have been used, with an accuracy in the prediction of the primary site as high as 90%. It should be noted that validating a prediction of tissue origin is challenging in these patients, since most of them will never have a primary site identified. Moreover, prospective studies to determine whether selection of treatment options based on such profiling methods actually improves patient outcome are still missing. In the last few years functional imaging (i.e. FDG-PET/CT) has gained a main role in the detection of the site of origin of UPTs and is currently recommended by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine. However, despite recent refinements in the diagnostic workup, the site of origin of UPT often remains elusive. As a consequence, treatment of patients with UPT is still empirical and inadequate.

Cutaneous metastases from internal malignancies

Cutaneous metastases of internal malignancies still seem to occur infrequently, although medical publications report an incidence rate of up to 10.4%. Common sense, however, fosters suspicion that we might underdiagnose the problem distracted by harder striking facets of an advanced disease. With contemporary knowledge, morphology and behavior of cutaneous metastases resemble each other regardless of the site of origin. This article itemizes clinical presentations according to organ systems, specific features, and differential diagnoses. In general, the survival turned out to be less than 12 months. But incremental awareness of cutaneous metastases proclaims this paradigm insufficient. Although excision is the local treatment of choice, investigations attempt to propose tumor-specific chemotherapeutic/immunological approaches. This paper endeavors to critically review the state of the art concerning the clinic, prognosis, and therapeutic concepts.

Paclitaxel, cisplatin and gemcitabine in treatment of carcinomas of unknown primary site, a phase II study

BACKGROUND

The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of a combination of paclitaxel, cisplatin and gemcitabine in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with CUP, ECOG performance status 0-1 and age between 18 and 65 years old were treated with paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) day 1 and 8 in a three-week schedule.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients were enrolled between 1998 and 2008. Ninety-one patients had target lesions according to the RECIST guidelines. The overall response rate was 42.9% (39 patients), including five complete responses (5.5%) and 34 partial responses (37.4%). The median survival time was 10.7 months, and the survival rates at one and two years were 42% and 14%, respectively. The most frequent grade 3 or more adverse events were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. There were 3 treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination of paclitaxel, cisplatin and gemcitabine is an active regimen in patients with CUP with response and survival rates at least similar to other platinum- and taxane-containing regimens. The treatment was well tolerated by most patients although neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were relatively common. The present regimen represents an attractive regimen in younger CUP patients with a good performance status.

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.

Bone metastasis and poor performance status are prognostic factors for survival of carcinoma of unknown primary site in patients treated with systematic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) generally has a poor prognosis, and there is no established standard therapy. There have been no reports of a prognostic model for CUP patients treated with a single regimen of systemic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Univariate and multivariate prognostic factor analysis for overall survival (OS) were conducted retrospectively in 58 consecutive CUP patients treated with carboplatin plus paclitaxel (Taxol) therapy as a first-line treatment.

RESULTS

Univariate prognostic factor analysis revealed baseline performance status (PS) of two or more, low serum albumin level, pleural effusion, bone metastasis, and liver metastasis as adverse prognostic factors. Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that poor PS and bone metastasis had the most powerful adverse impact on survival. We developed a prognostic model using those two variables-a good-risk group (PS 0-1 without bone metastasis) and a poor-risk group (PS > or =2 or bone metastasis). The poor-risk group showed significantly poorer OS than the good-risk group (1 year OS 36.8% versus 67.1%, P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor PS and bone metastasis were identified as independent adverse prognostic factors in CUP. A simple prognostic model was developed and seems useful for decision making as to whether chemotherapy is indicated for CUP patients.

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.

Metastases in the Absence of a Primary Tumor: Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of CUP Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

The term cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) syndrome is used to describe malignancies in which a complete diagnostic work-up detects metastases in the absence of an identifiable primary tumor.

METHODS

Based on a selective literature review, national and international guidelines, and the experience of the "Arbeitskreis CUP-Syndrom der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft" (CUP Syndrome Committee of the Medical Oncology Joint Working Group of the German Cancer Society), developments in the diagnosis and treatment of CUP syndrome are reported.

RESULTS

Most patients diagnosed with CUP have an unfavorable prognosis, with a life expectancy of less than 12 months. Nevertheless, it is important to identify subsets of patients in whom specific treatment offers the chance of long-term survival or even full recovery.

DISCUSSION

Only rigorous further development of diagnostic tools and treatment protocols will enable an improvement of the poor prognosis of patients with CUP syndrome. Specific molecular treatment strategies have shown promising results.

Carcinoma of Unknown Primary - an Orphan Disease?

Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) is an intriguing clinical finding that is defined as biopsy-proven metastasis from a malignancy in the absence of an identifiable primary site after a complete clinical work-up. CUP is a relatively common clinical entity, accounting for approximately 3-5% of all cancer diagnoses, and consists of a heterogeneous group of tumors that have acquired the capacity to metastasize before the development of a clinically evident primary lesion. Notable advances have been made over the past years in the treatment of well-defined clinical subgroups of CUP, such as women with peritoneal carcinomatosis and young adults with poorly differentiated carcinomas of midline distribution, but for the majority of patients, the prognosis still remains poor. In this review, we highlight recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with CUP syndrome, and emphasize the importance of identifying several favorable subsets of CUP, amenable to specific treatment options. In addition, we will point out novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches which will hopefully improve both our understanding and the prognosis of this more or less neglected disease.

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.