No abstract

Treatment with the antibody WX-G250 in combination with LD-IFNα is safe, well tolerated, led to clinically meaningful disease stabilization and demonstrated clinical benefit in this progressive mRCC patient population.

Background: Unpredictable and severe diarrhea (NCI grade ≧3) remains a life-threatening adverse event in patients treated with irinotecan (CPT-11). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of orally administered budesonide for prevention of CPT-11-induced delayed diarrhea in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods: A total of 56 patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving CPT-11 therapy (125 mg/m² once weekly) were enrolled in this multicenter trial. Patients were randomly treated with 3 mg budesonide orally 3 times daily versus placebo. Detailed assessment of diarrhea by monitoring stool frequency, stool consistency and loperamide rescue medication was made by keeping a diary. Results: Diarrhea, defined as number of stools >4 occurring on a single day during the study period, could be prevented in 58.3% of the budesonide-treated patients compared to 38.5% of the patients under placebo. Patients in the budesonide group had less episodes (0.7 vs. 2.2 episodes) and a considerably shorter total duration of diarrhea (1.8 vs. 4.2 days) episodes than patients in the placebo group. Loperamide use was more frequent in the placebo than in the budesonide arm (55.6 vs. 41.7%). Also, exposure to rescue medication of loperamide was higher for placebo (36.2 capsules) than for budesonide (24.9 capsules). A superior prevention of diarrhea was observed for budesonide compared to placebo in the first cycle (14 vs. 10; p = 0.257), with more failures observed in the placebo group (16 vs. 10). Conclusion: This double-blind randomized trial failed to show that budesonide has a significant benefit in preventing CPT-11-induced diarrhea. While a trend exists, further trials are warranted.

BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy of first-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapy for untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on age.MethodsEligibility criteria focused on M1 disease without prior palliative chemotherapy. Choice of chemotherapy regimen was at the physician’s discretion. Predefined efficacy endpoints were response rate, progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS). Patients were analysed by age (<70 vs. ≥70 years, <75 vs. ≥75 years).ResultsOf 1777 patients, 27% and 12% were ≥70 and ≥75 years, respectively. PFS was shorter in elderly patients (<70 vs. ≥70 years: 10.5 vs. 9.5 months, p = 0.074; <75 vs. ≥75 years: 10.5 vs. 8.9 months, p = 0.00019), as was OS (<70 vs. ≥70 years: 25.8 vs. 22.7 months, p < 0.0008; <75 vs. ≥75 years: 25.8 vs. 20.8 months; p < 0.0001). In the groups <70 and <75 years, PFS was longer in those receiving oxaliplatin-/irinotecan-containing regimens vs. those receiving 5-FU/capecitabine (<70 years: 10.6 vs. 9.0 months; p = 0.0065; <75 years: 10.6 vs. 9.2 months; p = 0.028); no difference in PFS was observed between oxaliplatin-/irinotecan-containing regimens vs. 5-FU/capecitabine regimens in both elderly age-group comparisons (≥70 years: 9.7 vs. 9.2 months; ≥75 years: 8.3 and 9.0 months).ConclusionFirst-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapies were effective in German mCRC patients ≥75 years of age, but PFS and OS were significantly shorter in this age group vs. younger patients.

The combination of gemcitabine and 5-FU-FA is active and well tolerated and seems to offer an improvement in progression-free interval over both gemcitabine monotherapy and 5-FU-FA therapy.

BackgroundData are limited regarding routine use of everolimus after initial vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)–targeted therapy. The aim of this prospective, noninterventional, observational study was to assess efficacy and safety of everolimus after initial VEGF-targeted treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in routine clinical settings.MethodsEverolimus was administered per routine clinical practice. Patients with mRCC of any histology from 116 active sites in Germany were included. The main objective was to determine everolimus efficacy in time to progression (TTP). Progression-free survival (PFS), treatment duration, tumor response, adherence to everolimus regimen, treatment after everolimus, and safety were also assessed.ResultsIn the total population (N = 334), median follow-up was 5.2 months (range, 0–32 months). Median treatment duration (safety population, n = 318) was 6.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5–8 months). Median TTP and median PFS were similar in populations investigated. In patients who received everolimus as second-line treatment (n = 211), median (95% CI) TTP was 7.1 months (5–9 months) and median PFS was 6.9 months (5–9 months). Commonly reported adverse events (safety population, n = 318) were dyspnea (17%), anemia (15%), and fatigue (12%). Limitations of the noninterventional design should be considered.ConclusionsThis study reflects routine clinical use of everolimus in a large sample of patients with mRCC. Favorable efficacy and safety were seen for everolimus after previous therapy with one VEGF-targeted agent. Results of this study confirm everolimus as one of the standard options in second-line therapy for patients with mRCC. Novartis study code, CRAD001LD27: VFA registry for noninterventional studies (http://www.vfa.de/de/forschung/nisdb/).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1309-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract