Cisplatin, raltitrexed, levofolinic acid and 5-fluorouracil in locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a phase I-II trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG)

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.

Optimizing treatments for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

The majority of patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) will recur. The treatment of patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M HNSCC) is rapidly evolving. Areas covered: This article will comprehensively review the current systemic treatment of R/M HNSCC. Expert commentary: For the time being, the EXTREME regimen (cetuximab in combination with platinum and 5-fluorouracil) still remains standard of care in previously untreated R/M HNSCC patients who are candidates for combination chemotherapy. Single agents with well documented activity in HNSCC include methotrexate, cisplatin, 5-FU, docetaxel, and paclitaxel. The anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody nivolumab can be considered the current standard of care in patients with R/M HNSCC progressing after platinum-based therapy based on the results of CheckMate 141 showing a survival benefit over standard of care drugs, such as single agent weekly cetuximab, methotrexate, or docetaxel. Multiple randomized phase III trials comparing anti-PD(L)-antibodies either as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy or an anti-CTLA-4 with the EXTREME as fist line treatment are ongoing or planned. The outcome of these trials might change the current treatment paradigm in previously untreated R/M HNSCC. Immunotherapeutic agents under active investigation include Toll-like receptor 8 agonists and inhibitors of IDO1.

Treatment strategy for superficial pharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma synchronously combined with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is often synchronously accompanied by pharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC). However, treatment strategies for these synchronous cancers have not been established.

AIM

To evaluate retrospectively the effects of both chemoradiotherapy (CRT) targeted for invasive ESCC on synchronous superficial PSCC and additional endoscopic resection (ER) for PSCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Screening endoscopy in the pharynx was performed in newly diagnosed ESCC patients. CRT combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin (CDDP) was administered to all patients. The effect on superficial PSCC was only evaluated for 5-FU-CDDP chemotherapy that excluded the pharynx from the radiation field. When PSCC was remnant or recurrent in patients evaluated at complete response (CR) of ESCC, ER was performed on the PSCC.

RESULTS

Fourteen cases of superficial PSCC (4.0%) were detected in 348 ESCC patients. Three PSCC reached CR in 8 ESCC-CR patients, while all 3 lesions recurred. No treatment response was found in the remaining 11 PSCC. As a second treatment, ER for 8 PSCC was completed in the 8 ESCC-CR patients, with one complication due to pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard 5-FU-CDDP CRT targeted for invasive ESCC did not demonstrate a sufficient efficacy for superficial PSCC, while ER even for PSCC after chemotherapy was curative.

Cisplatin, raltitrexed, levofolinic acid and 5-fluorouracil in locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a phase II randomized study

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin (CDDP) is among the most active single agents against squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), and it is still the reference drug in the induction chemotherapy setting, when used in combination with infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Raltitrexed has been shown to be devoid of clinical activity against SCCHN when used alone; however, both preclinical and early clinical data regarding the combination raltitrexed-CDDP hold promise. Thymidylate synthase is the target enzyme of both raltitrexed and 5-FU; however, the two drugs have distinct sites of action on the enzyme and the combination of the two agents may be synergistic. We have previously shown that the combination of raltitrexed, levofolinic acid (LFA) and 5-FU has clinical activity against SCCHN; in a subsequent phase I study, cisplatin was added, and the combination of CDDP plus raltitrexed on day 1, followed by LFA and 5-FU on day 2, was judged feasible and active, since a 67% response rate was shown across all dose levels, with a 100% response rate at the recommended dose for phase II.

METHODS

Patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic SCCHN, not pretreated with chemo- or radiotherapy were randomized to receive either CDDP 60 mg/m2 and raltitrexed 2.5 mg/m2 on day 1 and LFA 250 mg/m2 and 5-FU 900 mg/m2 on day 2 (arm A) or CDDP 65 mg/m2 and methotrexate 500 mg/m2 on day 1, and LFA 250 mg/m2 and 5-FU 800 mg/m2 on day 2 (arm B). Both treatments were repeated every 2 weeks. Evaluation for tumor response was performed after four cycles. According to Simon two-stage design, with a target complete response (CR) rate (p1) of 35%, at least 7 CR among the first 31 treated patients and 16 CR among the final sample size of 52 patients were required.

RESULTS

An interim analysis was performed when 36 patients were evaluable in each arm. In arm A, 10 CR (28%) and 19 partial responses (PR) (53%) were observed, for an overall response rate of 81%. In arm B, 3 CR (8%) and 12 PR (34%) were observed, for an overall response rate of 42%. The difference in both CR and overall response rate between the two arms was statistically significant (p = 0.03 and <0.001, respectively). Therefore, the accrual was stopped in arm B and continued only in arm A. Overall, 13 CR (21%) and 34 PR (56%) were observed among the 61 patients who were accrued in arm A, for an overall response rate of 77% (95% confidence interval 64-87%). Neutropenia was the main side effect in both arms (grade 3-4 in 45 and 23 patients in arm A and B, respectively). Extrahematologic toxicity was mild in both arms; however, 2 patients in arm B died due to toxicity (grade 4 mucositis in one case, grade 4 renal toxicity in the other).

CONCLUSIONS

Although response data for our experimental treatment look encouraging, the hypothesis of a 35% activity, expressed as capability to induce a CR, cannot be accepted. The results obtained in this study are not substantially different from those of other trials of CDDP-5-FU-based regimens, and our combination is unlikely to represent a major breakthrough when used in this setting.

Raltitrexed: current clinical status and future directions

Raltitrexed ('Tomudex') monotherapy is a conveniently administered alternative to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), and has single-agent activity in a variety of advanced solid tumours. Although both raltitrexed and 5-FU are thymidylate synthase inhibitors, raltitrexed has a specific mode of action and a toxicity profile distinct from 5-FU. The mechanism of action of raltitrexed is also completely different from that of oxaliplatin, irinotecan and other drugs with which it has been combined. These properties, together with preclinical data, suggested that combinations of raltitrexed with 5-FU, other chemotherapeutic agents, or radiotherapy could result in improved therapies for a variety of advanced solid tumours, including advanced CRC. This review outlines the appropriate management of patients treated with raltitrexed, whether as monotherapy or in combination, and discusses the preliminary results of combination studies with raltitrexed in a range of tumour types including advanced CRC, malignant mesothelioma, gastric, pancreatic, head and neck, and non-small-cell lung cancers. Of particular interest is the combination of raltitrexed and oxaliplatin, which has shown promising antitumour effects in first-line treatment of advanced CRC and malignant mesothelioma, a disease that is refractory to chemotherapy.

Raltitrexed/5-fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy regimens in anticancer therapy

Preclinical evidence of a schedule-dependent synergism between raltitrexed and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has prompted clinical studies of this combination. We review the main preclinical and clinical results of raltitrexed/5-FU-based combination chemotherapy regimens in anticancer therapy. Promising results include: response rates of 25 and 23% with combinations of raltitrexed/5-FU/levofolinic acid (LFA) as first-line treatment and oxaliplatin/raltitrexed/5-FU/LFA as second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, respectively; and a 67% response rate in a phase I study of cisplatin/raltitrexed/5-FU/LFA as first-line treatment of advanced head and neck cancer, including a 100% response rate at the recommended dose. These combinations were well tolerated, with neutropenia as the main dose-limiting toxicity, allowing the drugs to be combined at the doses used in monotherapy. These results suggest a role for raltitrexed within combination regimens in colorectal cancer therapy, as well as other tumors such as head and neck cancer. A further potential application of raltitrexed in combination therapies is within multidisciplinary chemo-radiotherapy strategies, mainly in rectal cancer. Phase II studies are planned/ongoing to investigate these interesting possibilities.