Combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in urothelial cancer patients with severe renal or cardiac comorbidities

A phase II study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for use as first-line treatment for patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Unfortunately, 30-50 % of patients are ineligible for cisplatin due to renal insufficiency. Oxaliplatin is a less nephrotoxic platin which can be used for patients with impaired renal function. We carried out a phase II study of gemcitabine (1,200 mg/m²) in combination with oxaliplatin (100 mg/m²) given on days 1 and 14 every 28 days (GEMOX) in predominantly cisplatin-'unfit' stage IV transitional cell bladder cancer patients to determine whether this combination exhibited a clinical activity profile similar to cisplatin plus gemcitabine. Eighteen patients with a median GFR of 49 ml/min were enrolled. GEMOX treatment led to a 36 % response rate in assessable patients. Median progression-free survival was 4.9 months, with a median overall survival (OS) of 10.4 months and a one-year survival rate of 44.4 %. GEMOX in bladder cancer patients exhibited a tolerable side effects profile, with thrombocytopenia as the most frequent grade 3/4 toxicity. These findings suggest that GEMOX is an active combination in advanced bladder cancer patients with reduced renal function.

Feasibility of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma and a performance status of 2

The use of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin is well documented in selected patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC), but little is known on the feasibility of systemic treatments in patients with a performance status (PS) of 2. We retrospectively examined the medical records of consecutive BTC patients with a PS of 2 receiving gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) plus oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks from January 2003 to December 2011 in our institution. Body composition was analysed by computed tomography scan to detect sarcopenia. The primary evaluation criterion was safety. The secondary evaluation criteria were the response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Twenty-eight patients (median age: 63 years, range 41-83) received a total of 175 cycles (median per patient: 6, range 2-12). Ten patients (35.7%) had sarcopenia on the pretreatment computed tomography scan. The most frequent toxicities were thrombocytopenia (grades 2-4: n=4, 14.3%), peripheral neuropathy (grades 2-3: n=9, 32.1%) and cholangitis (n=4, 14.3%). The best response was a partial response in 10.7% of patients [95% confidence interval (CI): 0-22.2] and stable disease in 42.9% of patients. The median PFS and OS were 4.6 (95% CI: 2.5-6.3) and 7.5 (95% CI: 5.2-9.5) months, respectively. The median PFS and OS were significantly longer in patients without sarcopenia: 7.0 months (95% CI: 4.4-8.0) vs. 2.2 months (95% CI: 2.0-2.5), P less than 0.01, and 10.4 months (95% CI: 7.5-11.6) vs. 4.9 months (95% CI: 3.7-5.2), P less than 0.01, respectively. In our experience, gemcitabine-oxaliplatin was feasible and induced effective palliation in PS2 patients with advanced BTC. Further studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin as second-line treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma pre-treated with sorafenib

Some patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progressing under sorafenib remain eligible for further systemic therapy. Little is known on the feasibility of systemic treatment beyond sorafenib in this setting. Consecutive HCC patients pre-treated with sorafenib received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m² every 14 days. Exclusion criteria included Child C cirrhosis, PS≥3, creatinine clearance<20 ml/min, albumin<25 g/L and bilirubin>54 μmol/L. Pre-treatment body composition was evaluated by CT scan to detect muscle wasting (sarcopenia). The primary evaluation criterion was safety. Secondary evaluation criteria were response rate, and progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Eighteen patients (median age: 64 years, range 25-77) received a total of 90 cycles (median per patient: 4, range 1-16). Eight patients (44.4 %) had a PS of 2, 5 (27.8%) had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis and 13 (72.2%) had a CLIP score>3. The most frequent toxicities were thrombocytopenia (grade 2-4: n=7, 38.9%) and peripheral neuropathy (grade 2-3: n=7, 38.9%). The overall response rate was 18.8% (95% CI: 0-37.9), and another 18.8 % of patients had stable disease. The median PFS and OS were 3.2 (95% CI: 2.3-3.9) and 4.7 (95% CI: 3.8-8.1) months, respectively. Overall survival was significantly longer in patients without sarcopenia [10.0 months (95% CI: 7.0-13.8) vs. 3.0 months (95 % CI: 2.5-3.9), p<0.001] and in patients with an ECOG PS<2 [8.1 months (95% CI: 7.0-13.8) vs. 3.8 months (95% CI: 2.5-3.9), p=0.017]. In our experience, gemcitabine-oxaliplatin was feasible and had detectable clinical activity in HCC patients pre-treated with sorafenib. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy of venlafaxine for the prevention and relief of oxaliplatin-induced acute neurotoxicity: results of EFFOX, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin neurosensory toxicity is dose limiting and may present as acute symptoms and/or cumulative peripheral neuropathy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From October 2005 to May 2008, patients with oxaliplatin-induced acute neurotoxicity were randomized into a double-blind study, to receive either venlafaxine 50 mg 1 h prior oxaliplatin infusion and venlafaxine extended release 37.5 mg b.i.d. from day 2 to day 11 or placebo. Neurotoxicity was evaluated using numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain intensity and experienced relief under treatment, the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory and the oxaliplatin-specific neurotoxicity scale. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with a 100% relief under treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were included (27 males, median age: 67.6 years). Most patients had colorectal cancer (72.9%). Median number of cycles administered at inclusion was 4.5 (mean cumulative oxaliplatin dose: 684.6 mg). Twenty out of 24 patients in arm A (venlafaxine) and 22 out of 24 patients in arm B (placebo) were assessable for neurotoxicity. Based on the NRS, full relief was more frequent in the venlafaxine arm: 31.3% versus 5.3% (P=0.03). Venlafaxine side-effects included grade 1-2 nausea (43.1%) and asthenia (39.2%) without grade 3-4 events.

CONCLUSION

Venlafaxine has clinical activity against oxaliplatin-induced acute neurosensory toxicity.

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

PURPOSE

This is the first randomized phase II/III trial comparing two carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens in patients with urothelial cancer who are ineligible ("unfit") for cisplatin chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The primary objective of the phase III part of this study was to compare the overall survival (OS) of chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and an impaired renal function (glomerular filtration rate < 60 but > 30 mL/min) and/or performance score of 2 who were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) or methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine (M-CAVI). To detect an increase of 50% in median survival with GC compared with M-CAVI (13.5 v 9 months) based on a two-sided log-rank test at error rates α = .05 and β = .20, 225 patients were required. Secondary end points were overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality of life.

RESULTS

In all, 238 patients were randomly assigned by 29 institutions over a period of 7 years. The median follow-up was 4.5 years. Best ORRs were 41.2% (36.1% confirmed response) for patients receiving GC versus 30.3% (21.0% confirmed response) for patients receiving M-CAVI (P = .08). Median OS was 9.3 months in the GC arm and 8.1 months in the M-CAVI arm (P = .64). There was no difference in PFS (P = .78) between the two arms. Severe acute toxicity (death, grade 4 thrombocytopenia with bleeding, grade 3 or 4 renal toxicity, neutropenic fever, or mucositis) was observed in 9.3% of patients receiving GC and 21.2% of patients receiving M-CAVI.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in efficacy between the two treatment groups. The incidence of severe acute toxicities was higher for those receiving M-CAVI.

Gemcitabine chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic bladder carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

• To systematically review the literature on gemcitabine chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

• The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Onlinedatabase (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medicadatabase (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature database(CIHNAL), the Cochrane database of randomized trials, the Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe emCiências da Saúdedatabase (LILACS), and Web of Science were searched to identify trials of gemcitabine for metastatic bladder cancer. Also searched were international guidelines on metastatic prostate cancer, trial registries, and recent systematic reviews. Data on trial design, survival, tumour response and toxicity outcomes were extracted from relevant studies.

RESULTS

• This review identified six randomized trials of combined chemotherapy with gemcitabine for the management of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer. • One trial compared gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GCis) with methotrexate/vinblastine/doxorubicin/cisplatin(MVAC) and found no difference in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 1.09) but a better safety profile with GCis, which was suggested as the treatment of choice. • A second trial evaluated GCis against gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GCarbo) and reported similar median OS (12.8 vs 9.8 months), disease progression (8.3 vs 7.3 months) and tumour response rates (66% vs 56%) for the two patient groups. • A third trial compared GCis with GCis plus paclitaxel (GCisPac) and showed no significant difference in median OS (12.3 vs 15.3 months) and response rates (44% vs 43%) but greater toxicity with GCisPac. • A fourth trial assessed GCarbo against methotrexate plus carboplatin plus vinblastine in patients unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and found similar tumour response rates for each regime (38% vs 20%) but the triplet regime was more toxic. • Two other randomized studies compared a 2-weekly maintenance regime of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel with a 3-weelky regime given for a maximum of six cycles and found that the maintenance schedule did not confer any additional survival benefit. • In all, 53 observational studies of gemcitabine chemotherapy were identified that varied considerably in the drug combinations used and schedules. Overall response rates (17-78%) and median OS (6.4-24.0 months) were variable with no combination being clearly superior.

CONCLUSIONS

• Gemcitabine combined chemotherapy is active in the management of metastatic bladder cancer. • GCis may be considered an alternative regime to MVAC. • GCarbo should be considered for patients unfit for cisplatin-based therapy.

Randomized phase 2 sequencing and pharmacokinetic study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

AIM

This multicentre phase II trial examined the combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The effect of sequence administration was randomized and pharmacokinetics (PK) assessed.

METHODS

Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC, no prior chemotherapy, World Health Organization performance status ≤2 and measurable disease. Treatment comprised: gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2)) and oxaliplatin (70 mg/m(2)), each given on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Patients were randomized 1:1 to the sequencing of the two drugs for the duration of their treatment. The primary end-point was response rate (RR). Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, PK and the effect of drug sequencing.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients were enrolled of whom 43 were evaluable for response. Overall 13 patients (30%) achieved a partial response, PFS was 4.2 months (95% CI 2.8-5.8 months), and OS was 6.8 months (95% CI 4.4-10.1 months). There was only one case of grade 3 neurosensory toxicity despite a median cumulative oxaliplatin dose in excess of 500 mg/m(2) . No differences in clinical or PK end-points were observed between the two different sequencing arms.

CONCLUSION

This oxaliplatin and gemcitabine schedule has shown activity in advanced NSCLC with modest toxicity. Neither clinical nor PK outcomes were influenced by the sequencing of these agents, although definite conclusions are limited by small patient numbers. The favorable toxicity profile of this doublet, in light of an encouraging RR, warrants its further investigation in NSCLC.

Feasibility of metronomic oral cyclophosphamide plus prednisolone in elderly patients with inoperable or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma

BACKGROUND

The number of elderly people with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is increasing. A sizeable population of elderly patients with STS is unfit for conventional doxorubicin- or ifosfamide-based chemotherapy. We assessed the feasibility of metronomic oral cyclophosphamide (CPM) in this population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients aged 65 years or older with unresectable STS received CPM 100mg twice daily plus prednisolone 20mg daily, the first week of a 2-week cycle in the outpatient setting. Main evaluation criterion was safety. Secondary evaluation criteria were objective response rate and progression-free survival.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (median age: 72, range 66-88) received a total of 330 cycles (median per patient: 10, range 2-41) as first (n=19) or second-line chemotherapy (n=7). The most frequent histological subtypes were poorly differentiated sarcoma (n=8), leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma (n = 5 each) and angiosarcoma (n=3). Grade ≥3 lymphopenia was observed in 81% of pts but no opportunist infection occurred. Grade 3 anaemia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 2 pts (8%) each. No other grade 3-4 toxicity was seen. The response rate was 26.9% (95%CI: 9.9-44.0) and the disease control rate (responses and stable disease >12 weeks) was 69.2% (95%CI: 51.5-87.0). One complete (hepatic epithelioid haemangio-endothelioma) and 6 partial responses (including 5pts with radiation-induced sarcomas) were seen. Progression-free survival ranged from 0 to 20.6 months (median: 6.8 months) and was significantly longer in patients with radiation-induced sarcomas (median: 7.8 versus 5.2 months, p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Metronomic CPM showed good safety results for this frail population, with promising activity in patients with radiation-induced sarcoma. Toxicity profile was favourable, allowing prolonged home staying and rare treatment discontinuations. A larger prospective study is warranted to confirm these encouraging results in elderly with STS.

[Chemotherapy in unfit bladder cancer patients]

Bladder cancer often occurs in patients with high risk of acute toxicity under chemotherapy. So-called unfit patients are a heterogenous population, sharing a contra-indication for cisplatin and presenting either chronic renal failure, and/or elderly, and/or altered performance status, and/or severe co-morbidities. Therefore, it is necessary to develop chemotherapy protocols feasible in renal insufficient patients, and well tolerated in frail patients. The medical evaluation prior to initiate chemotherapy is of major importance to screen for chronic disorders and to anticipate the potential acute complications following chemotherapy. Chemotherapy of elderly patients with severe comorbidities is a common situation in bladder cancer, and will concern all cancer patients. The evaluation of the benefit/risk ratio of the chemotherapy protocol is a typical expertise of medical oncologists, which requires to integrate the complex links between the patient, the antitumor agent, and toxicity. The physician must also have a honest dialogue to inform, advise, listen to the patients priorities. Medical oncologists have to have in mind this situation and to adapt their clinic and their vocabulary to this emerging reality.

Biweekly carboplatin/gemcitabine in patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: report of efficacy, quality of life and geriatric assessment

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated safety and efficacy of first-line gemcitabine/carboplatin in unfit-for-cisplatin patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and the effect on the quality of life and functional status of elderly patients (aged >70).

METHODS

Unfit patients had ECOG performance status (PS) > or =2, creatinine clearance <50 ml/min or comorbidities precluding cisplatin administration. Carboplatin at area under the curve of 2.5 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) were administered biweekly. Elderly patients were stratified into group 1 (no activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental ADL dependency and no comorbidities), group 2 (instrumental ADL dependency or 1-2 comorbidities) and group 3 (ADL dependency or > or =2 comorbidities).

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were enrolled: 68% had PS 2-3, 69% a creatinine clearance <50 ml/min and 65% had 1 or more comorbidities. There were 3 cases of grade 3 toxicity (9%). Response rate was 24% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11-41]. Median follow-up was 8 months, median progression-free survival 4.4 months (95% CI 1.03-7.75) and median overall survival 9.8 months (95% CI 4.7-14.9). Patients in geriatric assessment groups 1 and 2 had a significantly longer median progression-free survival compared to group 3 [6.9 months (95% CI 1.3-12.4) vs. 1.9 months (95% CI 0.5-3.2); p = 0.005].

CONCLUSION

First-line gemcitabine/carboplatin combination is active in unfit-for-cisplatin patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. Pretreatment quality of life and geriatric assessment may be useful in selecting patients likely to benefit from this treatment.

Systemic anticancer therapy in gynecological cancer patients with renal dysfunction

Chronic kidney disease is a common occurrence in patients with gynecological cancer. Systemic anticancer treatment in such patients is a challenge for clinicians because of altered drug pharmacokinetics. For those drugs that are excreted mainly by the kidneys, decreased renal function may lead to increased systemic exposure and increased toxicity. Dose adjustment based on pharmacokinetic changes is required in this situation to avoid life-threatening toxicity. In this review, we summarize the nephrotoxicity and pharmacokinetic data of agents commonly used in systemic anticancer treatment of gynecological cancers and dose adjustment guidelines in the presence of impaired renal function. We review 17 medications that need dose adjustment (cisplatin, carboplatin, doxorubicin, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, topotecan, irinotecan, etoposide, capecitabine, bleomycin, methotrexate, actinomycin D, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, metoclopramide, cimetidine, and diphenhydramine) as well as 27 drugs that do not (paclitaxel, docetaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, vincristine, letrozole, anastrozole, tamoxifen, leuprorelin, megestrol, gefitinib, erlotinib, trastuzumab, leucovorin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, erythropoietin, ondansetron, granisetron, palonosetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, aprepitant, dexamethasone, lorazepam, and diazepam). We also review the formulae commonly used to estimate creatinine clearance, including Cockcroft-Gault, Chatelut, Jelliffe, Wright, and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study formulae.

Systemic chemotherapy for urothelial cancer

Although metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder and urothelium commonly responds to first-line chemotherapy, eventual progression is nearly universal. Current salvage therapy for progressive disease after first-line chemotherapy is ineffective, and such patients are candidates for clinical trials. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves long-term outcome and provides an exciting paradigm for the rapid development of systemic therapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation also facilitates bladder conservation in patients who attain pathologic complete remission. Definitive data supporting adjuvant chemotherapy are lacking. With the unraveling of bladder cancer biology and the discovery of novel agents targeting several carcinogenic pathways, the future of therapy for transitional cell carcinoma appears promising.

Was muss ich praktisch bei der Umsetzung einer Chemotherapie beachten?

The patient stands at the center of a chemotherapy. The aim of the curative or palliative treatment is not only the death of the tumor cells, but also the maintenance or improvement of the patient's physical condition, especially the improvement of quality of life. Before starting the therapy, it is necessary to determine, for example, the patient's general condition and motivation, and to carry out a consultation. Examinations, for example, blood tests, audiograms, renal function and lung function should also be made. Thus, the patient's tolerance for even the most onerous chemotherapy can be investigated and patients can be individually prepared for the treatment.