Fractionated dose of cisplatin (CDDP) and vinorelbine (VNB) chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Phase II trial

Limiting the development of anti-cancer drug resistance in a spatial model of micrometastases

While chemoresistance in primary tumors is well-studied, much less is known about the influence of systemic chemotherapy on the development of drug resistance at metastatic sites. In this work, we use a hybrid spatial model of tumor response to a DNA damaging drug to study how the development of chemoresistance in micrometastases depends on the drug dosing schedule. We separately consider cell populations that harbor pre-existing resistance to the drug, and those that acquire resistance during the course of treatment. For each of these independent scenarios, we consider one hypothetical cell line that is responsive to metronomic chemotherapy, and another that with high probability cannot be eradicated by a metronomic protocol. Motivated by experimental work on ovarian cancer xenografts, we consider all possible combinations of a one week treatment protocol, repeated for three weeks, and constrained by the total weekly drug dose. Simulations reveal a small number of fractionated-dose protocols that are at least as effective as metronomic therapy in eradicating micrometastases with acquired resistance (weak or strong), while also being at least as effective on those that harbor weakly pre-existing resistant cells. Given the responsiveness of very different theoretical cell lines to these few fractionated-dose protocols, these may represent more effective ways to schedule chemotherapy with the goal of limiting metastatic tumor progression.

Loading cisplatin onto 6-mercaptopurine covalently modified MSNS: a nanomedicine strategy to improve the outcome of cisplatin therapy

In the treatment of cancer patients, cisplatin (CDDP) exhibits serious cardiac and renal toxicities, while classical combinations related to CDDP are unable to solve these problems and may result in worse prognosis. Alternately, this study covalently conjugated 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) onto the surface of mercapto-modified mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNS) to form MSNS-6MP and loaded CDDP into the holes on the surface of MSNS-6MP to form MSNS-6MP/CDDP, a tumor-targeting nano-releasing regime for CDDP and 6MP specifically. In the S180 mouse model, the anti-tumor activity and overall survival of MSNS-6MP/CDDP (50 mg·kg⁻¹·day⁻¹, corresponding to 1 mg·kg⁻¹·day⁻¹ of 6MP and 5 mg·kg⁻¹·day⁻¹ of CDDP) were significantly higher than those of CDDP alone (5 mg·kg⁻¹·day⁻¹) or CDDP (5 mg·kg⁻¹·day⁻¹) plus 6MP (1 mg·kg⁻¹·day⁻¹). The assays of serum alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase and creatinine, as well as the images of myocardium and kidney histology, support that MSNS-6MP/CDDP is able to completely eliminate liver, kidney and heart toxicities induced by CDDP alone or CDDP plus 6MP.

Gefitinib as first-line treatment in elderly epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma: results of a Nagano Lung Cancer Research Group study

Efficacy of first-line gefitinib for elderly epidermal growth factor receptor mutated patients with lung adenocarcinoma is uncertain. This study was aimed to investigate efficacy of gefitinib for such population. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR) and at least 12 cases were needed. Overall RR was 59% (95% confidence interval, 33%-81%) and first-line gefitinib was effective for elderly patients.

INTRODUCTION

Feasibility of gefitinib therapy in elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer is uncertain. This phase II study aimed to investigate the efficacy and usefulness of gefitinib therapy as a first-line treatment for elderly patients who have advanced lung adenocarcinoma with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled chemotherapy-naïve advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients aged 75 years or older. Patients were administered gefitinib (250 mg) once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR), and secondary endpoints were disease control rate (DCR; defined as complete response [CR] plus partial response [PR] plus stable disease [SD]), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity profile.

RESULTS

Between April 2008 and November 2009, 17 lung adenocarcinoma patients were enrolled. Overall RR was 59% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33% to 81%), with 2 patients achieving CR and 8 PR. SD was noted in 5 patients, and DCR was 88% (95% CI: 62% to 98%). Median PFS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 2.2 to 23.6 months), and median OS had not yet been reached. Major grade 3 toxicities were skin rash (12%) and increased levels of aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase (18%).

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with gefitinib was effective and well-tolerated in elderly patients with EGFR mutations.

Randomized phase II/III trial assessing gemcitabine/ carboplatin and methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine in patients with advanced urothelial cancer "unfit" for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: phase II--results of EORTC study 30986

PURPOSE

There is no standard treatment for patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are ineligible ("unfit") for cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CHT). To compare the activity and safety of two CHT combinations in this patient group, a randomized phase II/III trial was conducted by the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer). We report here the phase II results of the study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CHT-naïve patients with measurable disease and impaired renal function (30 mL/min < glomerular filtration rate [GFR] < 60 mL/min) and/or performance status (PS) 2 were randomly assigned to receive either GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 4.5) for 21 days or M-CAVI (methotrexate 30 mg/m(2) on days 1, 15, and 22; carboplatin AUC 4.5 on day 1; and vinblastine 3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 15, and 22) for 28 days. End points of response and severe acute toxicity (SAT) were evaluated with respect to treatment group, renal function, PS, and Bajorin risk groups.

RESULTS

Three of 178 patients who were ineligible or did not start treatment were excluded. SAT was reported in 13.6% of patients on GC and in 23% on M-CAVI. Overall response rates were 42% (37 of 88) for GC and 30% (26 of 87) for M-CAVI. Patients with PS 2 and GFR less than 60 mL/min and patients in Bajorin risk group 2 showed a response rate of only 26% and 20% and an SAT rate of 26% and 25%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both combinations are active in this group of unfit patients. However, patients with PS 2 and GFR less than 60 mL/min do not benefit from combination CHT. Alternative treatment modalities should be sought in this subgroup of poor-risk patients.

Lung Cancer in the Elderly

Purpose

Elderly patients often have comorbidities and other characteristics that make the selection of treatment daunting.

Methods

We have reviewed the available evidence in the literature to gauge the results of therapy for elderly lung cancer patients.

Results

The beneficial results achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy in the general population with early non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cannot be automatically extrapolated to the elderly, who are at higher risk of toxicity. Retrospective analyses of combined chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced NSCLC patients suggest equivalent therapeutic benefit for younger and older patients, despite heightened toxicity. There have been no elderly-specific phase III trials for locally advanced NSCLC. For advanced NSCLC, on the basis of evidence-based data, single-agent chemotherapy remains the standard of care for nonselected elderly patients. However, retrospective analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with increased but acceptable toxicity for elderly patients. In limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), sequential chemoradiotherapy is clearly less toxic compared with a standard concurrent approach, but our assessment of treatment is hindered by the absence of prospective elderly-specific trials. Although prophylactic cranial irradiation has emerged as a standard strategy, it should be omitted in patients with cognitive impairment. In extensive SCLC, etoposide in combination with either cisplatin or carboplatin has emerged as standard treatment; hematopoietic support may be necessary.

Conclusion

With the exception of advanced NSCLC, prospective elderly-specific studies are lacking. Available data suggest that outcomes in the fit elderly mirror results observed in younger patients, although toxicity is generally worse.