Dansin E.,Center Oscar Lambret |
Cinieri S.,Medical Oncology Division and Breast Unit |
Garrido P.,Hospital Ramon y Cajal |
Griesinger F.,Pius Hospital Oldenburg |
And 3 more authors.
Lung Cancer | Year: 2012
Introduction: The clinical benefit and safety profile associated with first-line bevacizumab with doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was established in two large phase III studies, E4599 and AVAiL. SAiL, a single-arm phase IV study, was conducted to evaluate bevacizumab with a range of first-line chemotherapy regimens in a routine oncology practice setting. Methods: This analysis of the SAiL data was undertaken to specifically evaluate bleeding adverse events (AEs) in this study, and to explore potential associations between bleeding and baseline patient and disease characteristics. Results: In total, 2212 patients were evaluated. Bleeding AEs (any grade) occurred in 38.2% of patients (grade ≥3 bleeding AEs: 3.6%). Grade ≥3 pulmonary hemorrhage and central nervous system bleeding events were observed in 0.7% and 0.1% of patients, respectively. The incidence of grade ≥3 bleeding AEs was comparable across patient subgroups defined by central tumor location, tumor cavitation, histology, concomitant anticoagulation therapy and age. The majority (88.6%) of bleeding events resolved or improved, 10.2% persisted and 1.3% led to death; 10.2% of bleeding events required bevacizumab interruption or discontinuation. Conclusions: This analysis from the SAiL trial reaffirms a comparable incidence of clinically significant bleeding associated with first-line bevacizumab and chemotherapy as previous phase III studies in NSCLC patients despite less stringent first-line selection criteria. Grade ≥3 bleeding appears to be comparable when analyzed for patient and tumor characteristics, including tumor cavitation and concomitant anticoagulation therapy. Most bleeding events resolved or improved, and interruption/discontinuation of bevacizumab was infrequent in a standard oncology practice setting. © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. Source
Pedrazzoli P.,IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation |
Baldanti F.,Molecular Virology Unit |
Donatelli I.,Parasitic and Immune mediated Diseases |
Castrucci M.R.,Parasitic and Immune mediated Diseases |
And 3 more authors.
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2014
Background: Influenza virus causes annual epidemics in the winter-spring season with significant morbidity in the general population and important mortality in high-risk groups, including cancer patients. Opinions on the suitability of patients with malignancies not undergoing active treatment and in different phases of antineoplastic therapy, to receive influenza vaccination, vary considerably among oncologists, sometimes even within one center. Methods: We reviewed available data, including recommendations by national health authorities, on impact of influenza in patients with cancer and their capacity to mount protective immunological responses to vaccination, thus allowing, on behalf of Italian Association of Medical Oncology, to make suitable recommendations for the prevention and treatment of seasonal influenza. Results and discussion: Patients with cancer often have disease- or treatment-related immunosuppression, and as a consequence, they may have a suboptimal serologic response to influenza vaccination. The protective effect of the different preparations of influenza vaccines in patients with cancer has not been widely investigated, especially in adult patients harboring solid tumors. The optimal timing for administration of influenza vaccines in patients receiving chemotherapy is also not clearly defined. However, since vaccination is the most effective method, along with antiviral drugs in selected patients, for preventing influenza infection, it has to be recommended for cancer patients. Implementing vaccination of close contacts of oncology patients would be an additional tool for enhancing protection in fragile patient populations. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. Source
Procopio G.,Science Oncologia Medica 1 |
Derosa L.,Oncologia Medica 2 Universitaria |
Gernone A.,Oncologia Medica Universitaria |
Morelli F.,UOC Oncologia |
And 19 more authors.
Future Oncology | Year: 2014
Aim: The Italian Retrospective Analysis of Sorafenib as First or Second Target Therapy study assessed the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated in the community. Patients & methods: Patients receiving first- or second-line single-agent sorafenib between January 2008 and December 2010 were eligible. Retrospective data collection started in 2012 and covers at least 1-year follow-up. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results: Median OS was 17.2 months (95% CI: 15.5-19.6): 19.9 months (95% CI: 15.9-25.3) in patients treated with first-line sorafenib and 16.3 months (95% CI: 13.1-18.2) with second-line sorafenib. Overall median (95% CI) progression-free survival was 5.9 months (95% CI: 4.9-6.7): 6.6 (95% CI: 4.9-9.3) and 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.3-6.0) in first- and second-line patients, respectively. Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of sorafenib in routine community practice was generally good, especially in relation to OS in patients treated in the second line, where results were similar to those seen in recent prospective clinical trials. © 2014 Future Medicine Ltd. Source
Calvani N.,Medical Oncology Division and Breast Unit |
Morelli F.,Medical Oncology Unit |
Leo S.,Medical Oncology Unit |
Orlando L.,Medical Oncology Division and Breast Unit |
And 6 more authors.
Medical Oncology | Year: 2012
To investigate the sequential use of two tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI), sorafenib (SOR) and sunitinib (SUN), in advanced renal carcinoma. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcome of 33 patients who had experienced progression or unacceptable toxicity after receiving either sorafenib or sunitinib and then switched to the other reciprocal agent. Progression-free survival (PFS) during the first TKI was similar regardless of drug with a median of 6 months in the SOR-SUN group (n = 15) and 7.5 months in the SUN-SOR group (n = 18). Interestingly, PFS during the second TKI was significantly longer in the SOR-SUN group as compared to the SUN-SOR group with median values of 11 and 3 months, respectively (P = 0.0377; HR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.16-0.95). As a consequence, total PFS (sum of PFS on first and second TKI) was significantly longer in the SOR-SUN group than in the SUNSOR group with medians of 20 versus 10 months, respectively (P = 0.0393; HR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.18-0.96). Median wash-out period between the two TKI was 3 weeks in both groups. Differences in baseline characteristics, including histology and line of treatment, were not significant, and toxicity was not increased during the second part of the sequence. Here, we show that responses can be achieved when a second TKI is given soon after a TKI failure in renal cancer with apparent more durable disease control when SOR is followed by SUN. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011. Source
Nacci A.,Medical Oncology Division and Breast Unit |
Calvani N.,Medical Oncology Division and Breast Unit |
Rizzo P.,Medical Oncology Division and Breast Unit |
Fedele P.,Medical Oncology Division and Breast Unit |
And 8 more authors.
Medical Oncology | Year: 2013
Treatment of elderly or poor performance status (PS) patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a debated topic. To evaluate the efficacy of a modified schedule of gemcitabine, 59 patients unfit for platinum were enrolled. Mean age was 75.8 years and 41 % of patients had an ECOG PS 2. Gemcitabine was given at 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 each 28. Most of patients received gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy, which was continued as maintenance over 6 cycles in responding and stable patients. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 7.2 and 5 months. In those 45 evaluable patients, treatment resulted in 1 complete remission (CR), 9 partial remissions (PR), and 20 stable diseases (SDs) with a response rate (CR + PR) of 22 % and a clinical benefit (CR + PR + SD) of 68 %. Gemcitabine was continued over 6 cycles in 16 patients (27 %). These patients were treated until progression with a mean of further 8.6 cycles. Median OS and PFS in these selected patients were 19 and 16 months. The toxicity profile was excellent with only 8 % of overall G3-G4 adverse events. None of the 16 patients under the maintenance phase reported significant toxicity. Gemcitabine given at a lower dose intensity than standard should be considered as valuable therapeutic option in elderly or poor PS patients with advanced NSCLC unfit for platinum. Extending the treatment beyond 6 cycles in responding patients is feasible and may prolong survival. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York. Source