Phase I Dose-Escalation Trial of an Innovative Chemotherapy Regimen Combining a Fractionated Dose of Irinotecan Plus Bevacizumab, Oxaliplatin, 5-Fluorouracil, and Folinic Acid (bFOLFIRINOX-3) in Chemorefractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

The care of metastatic colorectal cancers is based on combination chemotherapies including 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and monoclonal antibodies targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor or vascular endothelial growth factor. The regimen is determined based on the patient’s molecular biology and general condition. Irinotecan bifractionation showed efficacy in chemorefractory patients in a previous study, FOLFIRI-3, but a desynchronized triplet has never been tested. The aim of bFOLFIRINOX-3 is to determine the safety, tolerance, and efficacy of a new regimen (FOLFIRINOX-3 bevacizumab) in chemorefractory patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX-3 bevacizumab in chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A standard phase I, “3 + 3” design study was performed. The standard protocol comprised simplified FOLFOX 4 (folinic acid 400 mg/m2), 5-fluorouracil (a 400 mg/m2 bolus followed by 2400 mg/m2 for 46 h), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) and irinotecan (administered before and after 5-fluorouracil infusion), plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg). In a “3 + 3” design, three different doses of irinotecan were tested: 60, 70 and 90 mg/m2. The primary endpoint was the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) of irinotecan. The secondary endpoints included the objective response (at 8 and 16 weeks) according to the RECIST 1.1 criteria and progression free survival. Thirteen patients were enrolled, and twelve patients were finally evaluated for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The dose level defined was 70 mg/m2 irinotecan. A total of three DLTs were observed (grade 3 diarrhea): two DLTs at the 90 mg/m2 dose level and one at the 70 mg/m2 dose level. The most frequently described adverse events were asthenia (93%), diarrhea (77%), nausea (62%) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (46%). The most frequent biological event was thrombopenia (54%). Regarding efficacy, among the 11 evaluable patients, no progression was observed at 8 weeks, and the partial response rate was 18.2%. At 16 weeks, a partial response rate of 27.3% was observed, and five patients had a stable disease. The new regimen of bFOLFIRINOX-3 with irinotecan at 70 mg/m2 was well tolerated. In chemorefractory patients, this protocol shows a high response rate.

Inhibition of the Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK and RET Kinase Pathways with the Combination of the Multikinase Inhibitor Sorafenib and the Farnesyltransferase Inhibitor Tipifarnib in Medullary and Differentiated Thyroid Malignancies

Purpose: Ras/Raf/MAPK kinase/ERK and rearranged in transformation (RET) kinase pathways are important in thyroid cancer. We tested sorafenib, a B-Raf, RET, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor, combined with tipifarnib, a farnesyltransferase inhibitor that inactivates Ras and other farnesylated proteins. Patients and Methods: We treated 35 patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) and medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) in a phase I trial. Sorafenib and tipifarnib were given for 21 d with 7 d rest in each 28-d cycle. Results: We enrolled 22 patients with metastatic DTC (16 papillary, five follicular, and one poorly differentiated) and 13 patients with MTC, of whom 15 with DTC and 10 with MTC reached first restaging. When tissue was available, eight of 15 DTC patients (53%) had B-Raf mutations; eight of 13 MTC (61.5%) patients had RET mutations. MTC partial response rate was 38% (five of 13) (duration = 9+, 12, 13, 16+, and 34+ months), stable disease of at least 6 months was 31% (four of 13). The DTC partial response rate was 4.5% (one of 22), and stable disease of at least 6 months was 36% (eight of 22). Median progression-free survival for all 35 patients was 18 months (95% confidence interval, 14.6 to not reached months). Median overall survival has not been reached, with a median follow-up of 24 months with 80% overall survival. Grade 1–2 toxicities were mainly rash, fatigue, and diarrhea. The most common grade 3–4 toxicities were rash, rise in amylase/lipase, and fatigue. Conclusions: Inhibiting the Ras/Raf/MAPK kinase/ERK and RET kinase pathways with sorafenib and tipifarnib is well tolerated and active against thyroid cancer.

Melphalan 200 Mg/m2 (Mel200) Versus Melphalan 100 Mg/m2 (Mel100) in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Phase III Study

Background. Several trials have shown the superiority of high-dose melphalan (usually 200 mg/m2, MEL200) versus standard therapy in myeloma patients. Intermediate-dose melphalan (100 mg/m2, MEL100) was also superior to the standard dose, but MEL100 has not been clinically compared with MEL200 in a randomized study. In this prospective, randomized, phase III trial, we compared the efficacy and toxicity of MEL200 and MEL100. Aims. The primary end points were complete remission (CR) rate, event-free survival (EFS) and incidence of gastrointestinal toxicity, infections and treatment-related mortality (TRM). Methods. Inclusion criteria were previously untreated myeloma, aged ≤ 65 and Durie and Salmon stage II or III. Exclusion criteria were abnormal pulmonar, cardiac, liver and renal function, HBV, HCV, or HIV positivity, concomitant cancer or psychiatric disease. The institutional review board approved the protocol and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All patients received 2 cycles of 28-day-dexamethasone- doxorubicin-vincristine (doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 day 1, vincristine 1 mg day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg days 1–4) and 2 cycles of cyclophosphamide (4 g/m2, day 1) followed by stem cell harvest. MEL200 patients was conditioned with 2 cycles of melphalan 200 mg/m2 and MEL100 patients with 2 courses of melphalan 100 mg/m2. All MEL courses were followed by stem cell reinfusion. Results. Two-hundred and ninety-eight patients (median age 57) were randomly assigned either to MEL200 (149 patients) or to MEL100 (149 patients). All patients were evaluated for response, EFS and OS in intention-to-treat analysis. Patient characteristics were similar in both groups with the exception of chromosomal 13 deletion, present in 69% of MEL200 and 45% of MEL100 patients (p=0.02). Ninety-six patients completed tandem MEL200; 103 tandem MEL100. The very good partial response rate was higher in MEL200 group (37% versus 21%, p=0.003), but CR was 15% in the MEL200 group and 8% in the MEL100 group (p=0.07). The median follow-up for censored patients was 40.5 months. The 4-years EFS was 44.5% in the MEL200 and 18.3% in the MEL100 group (HR=0.71, 95% CI 0.53–0.95, p=0.02). The 5-years overall survival (OS) was 59.2% in the MEL200 and 44.7% in the MEL100 group (HR=0.78, 95% CI 0.52–1.16, p=0.22). Duration of grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was comparable, but a higher proportion of MEL200 patients required platelet transfusions (p=0.002). Grade 3–4 non-hematologic adverse events were reported in 38% of MEL200 patients and in 19% of MEL100 patients (p<0.0001). The incidence of grade 3–4 mucositis was 16% after MEL200 and 3% after MEL100 (p<0.0001). The incidence of severe gastrointestinal toxicity was 19% after MEL200 and 2% after MEL100 (p<0.0001). The incidence of grade 3–4 infections and of TRM was similar in both groups. Conclusions. In conclusion, MEL200 resulted in a significantly higher very good partial response rate. This translated in a superior EFS, but not OS. Mel200 was associated with less gastrointestinal toxicity, including mucositis.

A Prospective, Randomized, Phase III Study of Melphalan 200 mg/m2 (Mel200) Versus Melphalan 100 mg/m2 (Mel100) in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients.

Several trials have shown the superior impact of high-dose melphalan (usually 200 mg/m2, MEL200) versus standard therapy in myeloma patients. Intermediate-dose melphalan (100 mg/m2, MEL100) was also superior to the standard dose, but MEL100 has not been clinically compared with MEL200 in a randomized study. In this prospective, randomized, phase III trial, we compared the efficacy and toxicity of MEL200 and MEL100. The primary end points were complete remission (CR) rate, event-free survival (EFS) and incidence of gastrointestinal toxicity, infections and treatment-related mortality (TRM). Inclusion criteria were previously untreated myeloma, aged ≤ 65 and Durie and Salmon stage II or III. Exclusion criteria were abnormal pulmonar, cardiac, liver and renal function, HBV, HCV, or HIV positivity, concomitant cancer or psychiatric disease. The institutional review board approved the protocol and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All patients received 2 cycles of 28-day-dexamethasone-doxorubicin-vincristine (doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 day 1, vincristine 1 mg day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg days 1–4) and 2 cycles of cyclophosphamide (4 g/m2, day 1) followed by stem cell harvest. MEL200 patients was conditioned with 2 cycles of melphalan 200 mg/m2 and MEL100 patients with 2 courses of melphalan 100 mg/m2, both followed by stem cell reinfusion. Two-hundred and ninety-eight patients (median age 57) were randomized, 149 to MEL200 and 149 to MEL100. All patients were evaluated for response, EFS and OS. Patient characteristics were similar in both groups. Chromosomal 13 was deleted in 69% of MEL200 and 45% of MEL100 patients (p=0.015). Ninety-six patients completed tandem MEL200; 103 tandem MEL100. In intention-to-treat analysis, the very good partial response rate was higher in MEL200 group (37% versus 21%, p=0.003), but CR was 15% in the MEL200 group and 8% in the MEL100 group (p=0.07). After a median follow-up of 30.5 months, the 3-years EFS was 46% in the MEL200 and 26% in the MEL100 group (HR=0.7, 95% CI 0.51–0.97, p=0.03). The 3-years overall survival (OS) was 81% in the MEL200 and 73% in the MEL100 group (HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.42–1.13, p=0.14). Duration of grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was comparable, but a higher proportion of MEL200 patients required platelet transfusions (p=0.002). Grade 3–4 non-hematologic adverse events were more frequent in the MEL200 patients (38% versus 19%, p<0.0001). The incidence of grade 3–4 mucositis was 16% after MEL200 and 3% after MEL100 (p<0.0001). The incidence of severe gastrointestinal toxicity was 19% after MEL200 and 2% after MEL100 (p<0.0001). The incidence of grade 3–4 infections and of TRM was similar in both groups. In conclusion, MEL200 resulted in a significantly higher very good partial response rate. This translated in a superior EFS, but not OS.

Randomized study of continuous infusion fluorouracil versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

One hundred twenty-two chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma were entered into a randomized trial comparing infusional fluorouracil (FU) versus cisplatin (CDDP) and FU. In both groups, patients received continuous infusion FU 1,000 mg/m2/d for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Patients randomized to CDDP/FU also received CDDP 20 mg/m2 intravenous (IV) bolus on days 1 to 5 of each cycle. Patients were comparable in terms of age, performance status, baseline laboratory values, dominant sites of measurable disease, and percent of liver involvement. The partial response rate was significantly greater in patients who received CDDP/FU versus FU alone (25% v 3%, P = .001). Patients who received CDDP/FU experienced significantly greater toxicity compared with FU alone: grades 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 22% and 0% of patients, respectively (P = .0001); grades 2 to 4 nausea and vomiting occurred in 80% and 15% of patients, respectively (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in either the duration of response (median, 6 and 4.7 months for CDDP/FU and FU groups, respectively) or survival (median 10, and 12 months, respectively). Compared with infusional FU alone, CDDP/FU provided a significantly greater partial response rate with increased toxicity, but it did not improve overall survival in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Therefore, the use of CDDP/FU as routine therapy for the treatment of colorectal carcinoma cannot be recommended.