A randomised phase II multicentre trial of irinotecan (CPT-11) using four different schedules in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Phase IB/II Study of Second-Line Therapy with Panitumumab, Irinotecan, and Everolimus (PIE) in KRAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Purpose: Inhibition of mTOR in addition to EGFR may overcome resistance to EGFR inhibitors in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This phase Ib/II study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the combination of irinotecan, panitumumab, and everolimus.Patients and Methods: Patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) mCRC following failure of fluoropyrimidine-based therapy received i.v. irinotecan and panitumumab every 2 weeks, and everolimus orally throughout a 14-day cycle. The primary endpoint of the phase II study was response rate (RR). Secondary survival outcomes were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and results were analyzed as intention to treat. A preplanned exploratory biomarker analysis was performed.Results: Forty-nine patients were enrolled. Dose level 1 (irinotecan 200 mg/m², panitumumab 6 mg/kg, and everolimus 5 mg alternate day) was declared the MTD with no dose-limiting toxicities in six patients. Forty patients were treated at dose level 1: median age, 60 years (37-76); 65% male; 45% and 52.5%, respectively, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group values of 0/1. Median dose intensity was 85%. Grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (23%), mucositis (18%), rash (13%), fatigue (8%), dehydration (5%), neutropenia (20%), febrile neutropenia (8%), hypomagnesemia (20%), and hypokalemia (8%). Grade 4 toxicities were hypomagnesemia (5%) and neutropenia (3%). RR was 48%, and stable disease was 43%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 10.8 months. Twenty-five patients were RAS/RAF WT and had an RR of 60%, median PFS of 6.4 months, and OS of 11.8 months.Conclusions: The toxicity of the panitumumab, irinotecan, and everolimus regimen is as expected and manageable. The RR of 60% in all RAS/RAF WT supports further study of this combination. Clin Cancer Res; 24(16); 3838-44. ©2018 AACR.

Single-Agent Irinotecan as Second-Line Weekly Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients with Advanced Colorectal Cancer

Aims and background

Irinotecan is a standard option for relapsed/refractory advanced colorectal cancer. Although in a recently reported, randomized trial it was found that a regimen of irinotecan once every 3 weeks was associated with a lower incidence of severe diarrhea than with weekly treatment with similar efficacy, there is no evidence in the literature that suggests the optimal dosing strategy for the drug, along with treatment efficacy and safety, following 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in elderly patients. A phase II study has reported significantly reduced toxicity when irinotecan was administered once a week for 2 weeks, followed by a week rest.

Patients and methods

From January 2004 to April 2005, we analyzed, retrospectively, our data on single-agent irinotecan as a second-line chemotherapy in elderly patients (≥70 years) with advanced colorectal cancer. Twenty-three patients were evaluated. CPT-11 (80 mg/m2) was given as a 60-min intravenous infusion in repeated 21-day courses comprising weekly treatment for 2 consecutive weeks followed by a 1-week rest. Tumor measurements were obtained after every third course of therapy. Toxicity was assessed weekly using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.

Results

The median number of treatment courses received per patient was 4 (range, 1–8). All patients were assessable for toxicity and 21 for response. The most frequently observed severe toxicities were diarrhea (grade 3, 13%) and neutropenia (grade 3, 30.4%; grade 4, 8.6%). Only 1 case of neutropenic fever occurred. Other hematological and non-hematological toxicities were mild and manageable. Objective partial responses were observed in 3 patients (13%). An additional 10 patients (43%) had stable disease as their best response. To date, 12 patients have progressed with a median time-to-progression of 4.3 months and a median survival of 8.3 months.

Conclusions

A weekly irinotecan administration can induce tumor control in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer that has progressed during or shortly after 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, a careful monitoring of hematological toxicity and special instructions to prevent and manage diarrhea are mandatory in this setting of patients.

Second-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic management of people with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who did not respond to first-line treatment represents a formidable challenge.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and toxicity of second-line systemic therapy in people with metastatic CRC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to May 2016), Ovid MEDLINE In-process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (1946 to May 2016) and Ovid Embase (1974 to May 2016). There were no language or date of publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy (survival, tumour response) and toxicity (incidence of severe adverse effects (SAEs)) of second-line systemic therapy (single or combined treatment with any anticancer drug, at any dose and number of cycles) in people with metastatic CRC that progressed, recurred or did not respond to first-line systemic therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors performed a descriptive analysis of each included RCT in terms of primary (survival) and secondary (tumour response, toxicity) endpoints. In the light of the variety of drug regimens tested in the included trials, we could carry out meta-analysis considering classes of (rather than single) anticancer regimens; to this aim, we applied the random-effects model to pool the data. We used hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) to describe the strength of the association for survival (overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)) and dichotomous (overall response rate (ORR) and SAE rate) data, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four RCTs (enrolling 13,787 participants) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Available evidence enabled us to address multiple clinical issues regarding the survival effects of second-line systemic therapy of people with metastatic CRC.1. Chemotherapy (irinotecan) was more effective than best supportive care (HR for OS: 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; 1 RCT; moderate-quality evidence); 2. modern chemotherapy (FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin), irinotecan) is more effective than outdated chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil) (HR for PFS: 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73; 2 RCTs; high-quality evidence) (HR for OS: 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.94; 1 RCT; moderate-quality evidence); 3. irinotecan-based combinations were more effective than irinotecan alone (HR for PFS: 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.76; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); 4. targeted agents improved the efficacy of conventional chemotherapy both when considered together (HR for OS: 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 6 RCTs; high-quality evidence) and when bevacizumab was used alone (HR for PFS: 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75; 4 RCTs; high-quality evidence).With regard to secondary endpoints, tumour response rates generally paralleled the survival results; moreover, higher anticancer efficacy was generally associated with worse treatment-related toxicity, with the important exception of bevacizumab-containing regimens, where the addition of the targeted agent to chemotherapy did not result in a significant increase in the rate of SAE. Finally, we found that oral (instead of intravenous) fluoropyrimidines significantly reduced the incidence of adverse effects (without compromising efficacy) in people treated with oxaliplatin-based regimens.We could not draw any conclusions on other debated aspects in this field of oncology, such as ranking of treatments (not all possible comparisons have been tested and many comparisons were based on single trials enrolling a small number of participants) and quality of life (virtually no data available).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic therapy offers a survival benefit to people with metastatic CRC who did not respond to first-line treatment, especially when targeted agents are combined with conventional chemotherapeutic drugs. Further research is needed to define the optimal regimen and to identify people who most benefit from each treatment.

Different schedules of irinotecan administration: A meta-analysis

The concept of the UDP glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 genotype-directed schedule of irinotecan administration is still far from being introduced into clinical practice, and the efficacy and toxicity of irinotecan are in part schedule-dependent. The objective of the present meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of 3-weekly vs. weekly irinotecan for the treatment of solid tumors. The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and the search engines Google Scholar and Medical Martix were searched for randomized controlled trials to compare the two regimens of irinotecan administration. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the 3-weekly regimen yielded a longer time to progression, while other measures of efficacy, such as the objective response rate and overall survival of patients with solid tumors were similar between the two regimens of irinotecan administration. Furthermore, the group receiving the 3-weekly regimen had a lower incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea and a higher rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia compared with the group receiving the weekly regimen. However, these results require confirmation by large-sample, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials.

Surrogate endpoints in second-line treatment for mCRC: a systematic literature-based analysis from 23 randomised trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) as potential surrogate endpoints (SEP) for overall survival (OS) in second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomised trials of second-line chemotherapy for mCRC reported from January 2000 to July 2013 was performed. Correlation coefficients weighted by number of patients in the treatment arms between median PFS, ORR and DCR with median OS were estimated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials reflecting 10 800 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median PFS and OS across all trials were 4.5 months and 11.5 months and median ORR and DCR were 11.4% and 65%, respectively. PFS showed moderate correlation with OS [RPFS = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.82]. In contrast, ORR only weakly correlated with OS (RORR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.72, n = 22). Despite a small number of studies (n = 10) reporting on DCR, moderate correlation with OS was observed (RDCR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.86).

CONCLUSION

Based on the available trial-level data, PFS may serve as an appropriate SEP in second-line chemotherapy for mCRC. A small number of studies revealed moderate correlation of DCR with OS that justifies further investigation.

Integrating radioembolization with chemotherapy in the treatment paradigm for unresectable colorectal liver metastases

Clinical decisions regarding the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer require consideration of current and evolving modalities to best achieve prolonged patient survival. Clinical trials have established that for first-line treatment of patients with or without extrahepatic metastases, radioembolization augments the response produced by chemotherapy in patients with unresectable liver metastases. This includes progression-free and overall survivals that compare favorably with phase II to III data of current chemotherapy regimens. The increased response rate with radioembolization and first-line chemotherapy may improve the likelihood for potentially curative hepatic lesion resection or ablation. Application of an innovative multidisciplinary treatment approach that integrates radioembolization and local ablative therapy may enable the benefits of curative hepatic resection to be extended to a broader group of patients.

Irinotecan-related cholinergic symptoms in patients with colorectal cancer patients: an analysis of 89 cases

AIM: To observe and analyze irinotecan-related cholinergic symptoms in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

METHODS: A total of 89 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were assigned to receive two different FOLFIRI regimens. The incidence of cholinergic symptoms was recorded, and the correlation of the development of cholinergic symptoms with clinical characteristics, other adverse effects and chemotherapy regimens was analyzed.

RESULTS: Fifty-three patients developed cholinergic symptoms. From the start of infusion, cholinergic symptoms occurred at a median of 150 min (range: 30 min-25 h) and most of them regressed in 24 h. Prophylactic use of atropine could effectively prevent the development of cholinergic symptoms. Cholinergic symptoms were more common in senile patients (75.9% vs 51.7%, P = 0.029), but were not related with other clinical characteristics such as sex and ECOG score. Patients who developed cholinergic symptoms had a decreasing tendency to develop delayed-onset diarrhea. The regimen containing higher dose of fluorouracil was associated with a higher risk of developing mucocitis (50.0% vs 27.5%, P = 0.029).

CONCLUSION: The incidence rate of irinotecan-related cholinergic symptoms is unexpectedly high. The development of irinotecan-related cholinergic symptoms is not related with other adverse effects such as diarrhea and/or bone marrow depression.

Independent radiologic review in metastatic colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a meta-analysis addressing evaluation bias in local radiologic assessment (LRA) of lesions when compared with independent radiologic review (IRR) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and Web sites for major medical meetings were searched for RCTs of chemotherapy for metastatic CRC that reported response evaluation by both LRA and IRR. The risk ratios (RRs) of response in the experimental (RR(exp)) and control (RR(cont)) arms were calculated (response rate in LRA divided by response rate in IRR) for each selected study. The ratio of RR of response was calculated (RR of response of LRA divided by RR of response of IRR). The random-effects model was applied. Meta-regression was used to examine the effect of study characteristics on outcomes.

RESULTS

LRA and IRR results were concordant (13 studies; 7742 patients; ratio of RR of response = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.90, 1.04; P = .35). However, LRA overestimated tumor response independently of therapy allocation (interaction test, P = .81) both in control (RR(cont), 1.163; 95% CI: 1.086, 1.246; P < .001) and experimental (RR(exp), 1.156; 95% CI: 1.093, 1.222; P < .001) therapies. Meta-regression did not show any effect of trial characteristics on effects.

CONCLUSION

LRA yields higher response rates in RCTs testing chemotherapy for metastatic CRC, although there was no sign of bias toward experimental therapy. The need for IRR to control evaluation bias must be reappraised.

Camptothecin-based regimens for treatment of ewing sarcoma: past studies and future directions

New therapies are needed to improve survival for patients with Ewing sarcoma. Over the past decade, camptothecin agents such as topotecan and irinotecan have demonstrated activity against Ewing sarcoma, especially in combination with alkylating agents. Previous studies have shown camptothecin-based combinations to be tolerable outpatient strategies that are attractive for salvage therapy. This paper highlights important issues related to drug dosing, schedule of administration, pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and activity of commonly used camptothecin-based regimens. Also discussed are strategies for incorporating these regimens into therapy for newly diagnosed patients, including several potential possibilities for combination with targeted agents.

2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality and also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. In Europe, prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim (including approved biosimilars), lenograstim or pegfilgrastim is available to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. The need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines led to the formation of a European Guidelines Working Party by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the publication in 2006 of guidelines for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. A new systematic literature review has been undertaken to ensure that recommendations are current and provide guidance on clinical practice in Europe. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors, such as elderly age (≥65 years) and neutrophil count be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk before administering each cycle of chemotherapy. It is important that after a previous episode of FN, patients receive prophylactic administration of G-CSF in subsequent cycles. We provide an expanded list of common chemotherapy regimens considered to have a high (≥20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN. Prophylactic G-CSF continues to be recommended in patients receiving a chemotherapy regimen with high risk of FN. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% of patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Clinical evidence shows that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications where indicated. Filgrastim biosimilars are also approved for use in Europe. While other forms of G-CSF, including biosimilars, are administered by a course of daily injections, pegfilgrastim allows once-per-cycle administration. Choice of formulation remains a matter for individual clinical judgement. Evidence from multiple low level studies derived from audit data and clinical practice suggests that some patients receive suboptimal daily G-CSFs; the use of pegfilgrastim may avoid this problem.

Multi-centre phase II clinical trial of yttrium-90 resin microspheres alone in unresectable, chemotherapy refractory colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

This multi-centre phase II clinical trial is the first prospective evaluation of radioembolisation of patients with colorectal liver metastases (mCRC) who failed previous oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based systemic chemotherapy regimens.

METHODS

Eligible patients had adequate hepatic, haemopoietic and renal function, and an absence of major hepatic vascular anomalies and hepato-pulmonary shunting. Gastroduodenal and right gastric arteries were embolised before hepatic arterial administration of yttrium-90 resin microspheres (median activity, 1.7 GBq; range, 0.9-2.2).

RESULTS

Of 50 eligible patients, 38 (76%) had received > or =4 lines of chemotherapy. Most presented with synchronous disease (72%), >4 hepatic metastases (58%), 25-50% replacement of total liver volume (60%) and bilateral spread (70%). Early and intermediate (>48 h) WHO G1-2 adverse events (mostly fever and pain) were observed in 16 and 22% of patients respectively. Two died due to renal failure at 40 days or liver failure at 60 days respectively. By intention-to-treat analysis using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, 1 patient (2%) had a complete response, 11 (22%) partial response, 12 (24%) stable disease, 22 (44%) progressive disease; 4 (8%) were non-evaluable. Median overall survival was 12.6 months (95% CI, 7.0-18.3); 2-year survival was 19.6%.

CONCLUSION

Radioembolisation produced meaningful response and disease stabilisation in patients with advanced, unresectable and chemorefractory mCRC.

Phase I trial of two schedules of vincristine, oral irinotecan, and temozolomide (VOIT) for children with relapsed or refractory solid tumors: a Children's Oncology Group phase I consortium study

BACKGROUND

In preclinical models, temozolomide, and vincristine are additive or synergistic with irinotecan. We examined this three-drug combination in children with relapsed solid tumors. Patients received orally administered irinotecan together with temozolomide and vincristine on two different schedules, using cefixime to reduce irinotecan-associated diarrhea.

METHODS

Oral irinotecan was given daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 (Schedule A), or on days 1-5 (Schedule B). Temozolomide was given on days 1-5, with vincristine 1.5 mg/m(2) administered on days 1 and 8 (Schedule A) or day 1 (Schedule B) in 21-day courses.

RESULTS

On Schedule A, the maximum tolerated dose of oral irinotecan was 35 mg/m(2)/day combined with temozolomide 100 mg/m(2)/day and vincristine on days 1 and 8. Dose-limiting toxicities in 4 of 12 patients included hepatotoxicity, abdominal pain, anorexia, hypokalemia, and thrombocytopenia at 50 mg/m(2)/day. Using Schedule B, 0 of 6 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at the highest doses studied of oral irinotecan 90 mg/m(2)/day, temozolomide 150 mg/m(2)/day x 5, and vincristine on day 1. First-course and cumulative toxicity was greater with Schedule A. UGT1A1*28 genotype did not correlate with DLT. At the irinotecan dose of 90 mg/m(2)/day, the mean SN-38 AUC(inf) was 63 ng/ml hr. Activity was seen in sarcoma patients, and overall eight patients received >or=6 courses.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-day schedule of VOIT was well tolerated and provided SN-38 exposures similar to those achieved with intravenous IRN. Activity on this and prior studies suggests a potential role for VOIT in a spectrum of childhood solid tumors.

Treatment of Fluorouracil-Refractory Patients With Liver Metastases From Colorectal Cancer by Using Yttrium-90 Resin Microspheres Plus Concomitant Systemic Irinotecan Chemotherapy

Purpose

Liver metastases are the principal cause of death in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Irinotecan is a chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of CRC and has demonstrated synergistic potential when used with radiation. Radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres has demonstrated increased response and survival rates when given with fluorouracil chemotherapy. This study's goal was to evaluate the maximum-tolerated dose of concomitant irinotecan and radioembolization in fluorouracil-refractory patients with CRC hepatic metastases.

Patients and Methods

Twenty-five irinotecan-naïve patients who had experienced relapse after previous chemotherapy were enrolled onto three dose-escalating groups. Irinotecan was administered at 50, 75, or 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle for the first two cycles, and full irinotecan doses (ie, 100 mg/m2) were administered during cycles 3 to 9. Radioembolization was administered during the first chemotherapy cycle.

Results

Most patients experienced acute, self-limiting abdominal pain and nausea. Mild lethargy and anorexia were common. Grades 3 to 4 events were seen in three of six patients at 50 mg/m2 (obstructive jaundice, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea), in five of 13 patients at 75 mg/m2 (neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, elevated alkaline phosphatase, abdominal pain, ascites, fatigue) and in four of six patients at 100 mg/m2 (diarrhea, deep vein thrombosis, constipation, leukopenia). Eleven (48%) of 23 patients had a partial response, and nine patients (39%) had stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 6.0 months; the median survival was 12.2 months.

Conclusion

Concomitant use of radioembolization plus irinotecan did not reach a maximum-tolerated dose. The recommended dose of irinotecan in this setting is 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle.

Cap-dependent translation blockade and fixed dose-rate gemcitabine: interaction in an in vitro bioreactor system

Translation initiation commences with the binding of eIF-4F to the mRNA 5'-end cap. eIF-4F binds the cap structure via its eIF-4E subunit, which is the rate-limiting step for the initiation of translation. This pathway can be inhibited by 4E-binding proteins (4E-BPs). The present study investigated prolonged gemcitabine infusion in combination with reduced eIF-4E function on NSCLC cell viability in an in vitro bioreactor system. To assess attachment to the hollow fibers, cells with dominant active 4E-BP1 were first analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. Cells were treated with 0.5- or 2.5h (fixed dose rate) infusion (same total dose), simulating human plasma gemcitabine concentration-time profiles. An interaction was observed between fixed dose rate infusion gemcitabine and presence of dominant active 4E-BP1. We conclude that cap-dependent translation blockade and fixed dose rate infusion gemcitabine treatment results in a significant interaction affecting cell viability in vitro.

Phase I trial of oral irinotecan and temozolomide for children with relapsed high-risk neuroblastoma: a new approach to neuroblastoma therapy consortium study

PURPOSE

Irinotecan and temozolomide have single-agent activity and schedule-dependent synergy against neuroblastoma. Because protracted administration of intravenous irinotecan is costly and inconvenient, we sought to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of oral irinotecan combined with temozolomide in children with recurrent/resistant high-risk neuroblastoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received oral temozolomide on days 1 through 5 combined with oral irinotecan on days 1 through 5 and 8 through 12 in 3-week courses. Daily oral cefixime was used to reduce irinotecan-associated diarrhea.

RESULTS

Fourteen assessable patients received 75 courses. Because neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were initially dose-limiting, temozolomide was reduced from 100 to 75 mg/m(2)/d for subsequent patients. Irinotecan was then escalated from 30 to 60 mg/m2/d. First-course grade 3 diarrhea was dose-limiting in one of six patients treated at the irinotecan MTD of 60 mg/m2/d. Other toxicities were mild and reversible. The median SN-38 lactone area under the plasma concentration versus time curve at this dose was 72 ng . hr/mL. One patient with bulky soft tissue disease had a complete response through six courses. Six additional patients received a median of seven courses (range, three to 22 courses) before progression.

CONCLUSION

This all-oral regimen was feasible and well tolerated in heavily pretreated children with resistant neuroblastoma, and seven (50%) of 14 assessable patients had response or disease stabilization for three or more courses in this phase I trial. SN-38 lactone exposures were similar to those reported with protracted intravenous irinotecan. The dosages recommended for further study in this patient population are temozolomide 75 mg/m2/d plus irinotecan 60 mg/m2/d when given with cefixime.

Reducing irinotecan-associated diarrhea in children

Irinotecan is increasingly being used in pediatric oncology. Amelioration of diarrhea associated with protracted irinotecan administration may reduce morbidity and improve dose intensity. In this review, we discuss what is known about the pathogenesis of this toxicity as well as potential predisposing genetic factors. We comprehensively summarize the literature regarding available prevention and treatment strategies, and report data on the use of cephalosporin prophylaxis in 51 patients treated on various pediatric trials. This approach is feasible in children and allows for tolerance of higher doses of protracted irinotecan.

Irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer

Out of every 17-18 individuals in the US, one develops colorectal cancer (CRC) in their lifetime. Of individuals diagnosed with CRC, > 50% present or develop metastatic disease, which, if untreated, is associated with 6-9 months median survival. Although surgical resection is the primary treatment modality for CRC, chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for metastatic or unresectable disease. For nearly three decades, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been the chemotherapy of choice for treatment of CRC. However, the response rates to single 5-FU therapy have been suboptimal with an objective tumour response of 10-20%. Attempts have been made to improve the efficacy of 5-FU by either schedule alteration (protracted infusion versus intravenous push) or biochemical modulation with leucovorin (LV). Continuous infusion induced more tumour regression and prolonged the time-to-disease progression with some significant impact on survival (11.3 versus 12.1 months; p < 0.04). 5-FU/LV resulted in a significant increase in overall response rates and in the prolongation of disease-free survival in the adjuvant setting, although severe toxicities represent a major clinical problem. The last 10 years have seen the addition of several new agents such as irinotecan, oxaliplatin, raltitrexed, bevacizumab and cetuximab. The prognosis has significantly improved with the addition of these agents, with median survivals now > 20 months. This review paper focuses on irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed when used alone and in combination.

EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is not only a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality, but is also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact on the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. The incidence of severe or FN can be reduced by prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim, lenograstim or pegfilgrastim. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. While several academic groups have produced evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in an effort to standardise and optimise the management of FN, there remains a need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines. To this end, we undertook a systematic literature review and formulated recommendations for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors such as elderly age (>or=65 years), be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk prior to administering each cycle of chemotherapy. In addition, when using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in >20% patients, prophylactic G-CSF is recommended. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Finally, studies have shown that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications, where indicated.