Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Gricignano di Aversa, Italy

Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital | De Marinis F.,Italian National Cancer Institute | Cappuzzo F.,Civil Hospital of Livorno | Di Maio M.,Clinical Trials Unit | And 7 more authors.
Clinical Lung Cancer | Year: 2014

The availability of targeted drugs has made the assessment of the EGFR mutation and ALK rearrangement critical in choosing the optimal treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In May 2013, the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) organized an International Experts Panel Meeting to review strengths and limitations of the available evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of advanced NSCLC with EGFR or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) alterations and to discuss implications for clinical practice and future clinical research. All patients with advanced NSCLC, with the exclusion of pure squamous cell carcinoma in former or current smokers, should be tested for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements before decisions are made on first-line treatment. First-line treatment of EGFR-mutated cases should be with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Any available agent (gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib) can be used, until further data from comparative studies may better guide TKI selection. As general rule, and when clinically feasible, results of EGFR mutational status should be awaited before starting first-line treatment. Panelists agreed that the use of crizotinib is justified in any line of treatment. Although solid evidence supporting the continuation of EGFR TKIs or crizotinib beyond progression is lacking, in some cases (minimal, asymptomatic progression, or oligoprogression manageable by local therapy), treatment continuation beyond progression could be justified. Experimental strategies to target tumor heterogeneity and to treat patients after failure of EGFR TKIs or crizotinib are considered high-priority areas of research. A number of relevant research priorities were identified to optimize available treatment options. ©2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


Schwartzberg L.S.,The West Clinic | Modiano M.R.,Arizona Clinical Research Center and Arizona Oncology | Chasen M.R.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center | Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital | And 5 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side-effect of many antineoplastic regimens and can occur for several days after treatment. We aimed to assess the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, in combination with a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. Methods: We conducted a global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study at 170 cancer centres in 23 countries. We included patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy before, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly allocate patients to receive either oral rolapitant (one 180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) 1-2 h before administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by sex. All patients also received granisetron (2 mg orally) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1 (except for patients receiving taxanes as part of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, who received dexamethasone according to the package insert) and granisetron (2 mg orally) on days 2-3. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients received the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless they chose to leave the study or were removed at the treating clinician's discretion. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a study site compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500226. The study has been completed. Findings: Between March 5, 2012, and Sept 6, 2013, 1369 patients were randomised to receive either rolapitant (n=684) or active control (n=685). 666 patients in each group received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rolapitant had complete responses in the delayed phase than did those receiving active control (475 [71%] vs 410 [62%]; odds ratio 1·6, 95% CI 1·2-2·0; p=0·0002). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache. For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event in the rolapitant versus active control groups was neutropenia (32 [5%] vs 23 [3%] patients). No serious adverse event was treatment-related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event resulted in death. Interpretation: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the 5-day (0-120 h) at-risk period after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. Funding: TESARO, Inc. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.


Chasen M.R.,The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center | Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital | Urban L.,Matrahaza Healthcare Center and University Teaching Hospital | Modiano M.R.,Arizona Clinical Research Center and Arizona Oncology | And 6 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015

Background: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in almost all patients in the absence of prophylaxis. Guidelines recommend use of a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist in conjunction with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess rolapitant, an NK-1 receptor antagonist, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods: We conducted two global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (HEC-1 and HEC-2) at 155 cancer centres (76 in HEC-1 and 79 in HEC-2) in 26 countries (17 in HEC-1 and 14 in HEC-2). We enrolled patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not previously been treated with cisplatin, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly assign patients to treatment. Patients were stratified by sex and randomly allocated to either oral rolapitant (180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) about 1-2 h before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received granisetron (10 μg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients were allowed to receive the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless removed at the clinician's discretion. Patients could also choose to leave the study at any point. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a cancer centre compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01499849 and NCT01500213. Both studies have been completed. Findings: Between Feb 21, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 532 patients in HEC-1 and 555 patients in HEC-2 were randomly assigned to treatment. 526 patients in HEC-1 (264 rolapitant and 262 active control) and 544 in HEC-2 (271 rolapitant and 273 active control) received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the rolapitant group had complete responses in the delayed phase than did patients in the active control group (HEC-1: 192 [73%] vs 153 [58%]; odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·3-2·7; p=0·0006; HEC-2: 190 [70%] vs 169 [62%]; 1·4, 1·0-2·1; p=0·0426; pooled studies: 382 [71%] vs 322 [60%]; 1·6, 1·3-2·1; p=0·0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. The most commonly reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in the rolapitant versus active control groups were headache (three [<1%] vs two [<1%]), hiccups (three [<1%] vs four [<1%]), constipation (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]), and dyspepsia (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]). For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-5 adverse events in patients allocated rolapitant versus active control were neutropenia (HEC-1: nine [3%] vs 14 [5%]; HEC-2: 16 [6%] vs 14 [5%]), anaemia (HEC-1: one [<1%] vs one [<1%]; HEC-2: seven [3%] vs two [<1%]), and leucopenia (HEC-1: six [2%] vs two [<1%]; HEC-2: two [<1%] vs two [<1%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were treatment related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events resulted in death. Interpretation: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well-tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the at-risk period (120 h) after administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Funding: TESARO, Inc. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.


Di Maio M.,Clinical Trials Unit | De Marinis F.,Istituto Europeo di Oncologia | Hirsch F.R.,Aurora University | Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital
International Journal of Oncology | Year: 2014

The recent availability of crizotinib in clinical practice, for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) selected by the presence of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement, has relevant implications for both the diagnostic phase and the treatment choices. In the United States, crizotinib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011 for patients with ALK positivity detected by FDA-approved companion diagnostic test. As of January, 2014, the only FDA-approved diagnostic test is Vysis ALK Break-Apart FISH Probe Kit. In Europe, European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved crizotinib for ALK-positive patients in 2012, without specifying the type of test used for determining the positivity. FISH remains the reference technique for ALK determination, but, if fully validated, immunohistochemistry could challenge the current ALK screening practice. Given the robust evidence of activity of crizotinib in ALK-positive patients both pretreated and chemotherapy-naïve, and the favourable tolerability profile of the drug, many oncologists would prefer to administer the drug as early as possible. This is technically feasible in the United States, where crizotinib was approved well before the availability of the results of the randomized phase III trial comparing the drug with standard second-line chemotherapy, and the use of crizotinib in ALK-positive patients is not restricted to a specific line of treatment. On the contrary, in Europe, differently from the FDA decision, crizotinib cannot be used in chemotherapy-naïve patients. In both realities, a deeper knowledge of mechanisms of resistance, the role of repeated biopsies, the treatment strategy for patients experiencing disease progression with crizotinib, the choice of the best chemotherapy regimen are challenging topics for the management of ALK-positive patients in clinical pratice.


Felip E.,University of Barcelona | Gridelli C.,San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital | Baas P.,Netherlands Cancer Institute | Rosell R.,Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology | Stahel R.,University of Zurich
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2011

The 1st ESMO Consensus Conference on lung cancer was held in Lugano, Switzerland on 21 and 22 May 2010 with the participation of a multidisciplinary panel of leading professionals in pathology and molecular diagnostics, medical oncology, surgical oncology and radiation oncology. Before the conference, the expert panel prepared clinically relevant questions concerning five areas: early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), first-line metastatic NSCLC, second-/third-line NSCLC, NSCLC pathology and molecular testing, and small-cell lung cancer to be addressed through discussion at the Consensus Conference. All relevant scientific literature for each question was reviewed in advance. During the Consensus Conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question. The consensus agreement on three of these areas: NSCLC pathology and molecular testing, the treatment of first-line, and second-line/third-line therapy in metastatic NSCLC are reported in this article. The recommendations detailed here are based on an expert consensus after careful review of published data. All participants have approved this final update. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Discover hidden collaborations