Sternberg C.N.,San Camillo and Forlanini Hospitals |
Hawkins R.E.,University of Manchester |
Wagstaff J.,South West Wales Cancer Institute |
Salman P.,Fundacion Arturo Lopez Perez |
And 10 more authors.
European Journal of Cancer
Background: In this randomised phase III study (VEG105192; NCT00334282), pazopanib previously demonstrated statistically and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Final overall survival (OS) and updated safety results are now reported. Methods: Treatment-naive or cytokine-pretreated mRCC patients (n = 435) stratified and randomised (2:1) to pazopanib 800 mg daily or placebo, were treated until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. Upon progression, placebo patients could receive pazopanib through an open-label study. Final OS in the intent-to-treat population was analysed using a stratified log-rank test. Rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) and inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) analyses were performed post-hoc to adjust for crossover. Findings: The difference in final OS between pazopanib- and placebo-treated patients was not statistically significant (22.9 versus 20.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.16; one-sided P =.224). Early and frequent crossover from placebo to pazopanib and prolonged duration of crossover treatment confounded the OS analysis. In IPCW analyses, pazopanib decreased mortality (HR = 0.504; 95% CI, 0.315-0.762; two-sided P =.002). Similar, albeit non-significant, results were obtained in RPSFT analyses (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.215-1.388; two-sided P =.172). Since the last cutoff, cumulative exposure to pazopanib increased by 30%. The pazopanib safety profile showed no new safety signals or changes in the type, frequency and severity of adverse events. Interpretation: Although no significant difference in OS was observed in this study, extensive crossover from placebo to pazopanib confounded final OS analysis. Post-hoc analyses adjusting for crossover suggest OS benefit with pazopanib treatment for mRCC patients. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Source
Jones R.M.,Velindre Cancer Center |
Morgan C.,University of Swansea |
Bertelli G.,South West Wales Cancer Institute
Increasingly, in castration-resistant prostate cancer, patients are often treated with docetaxel and the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid concurrently, yet there is still a paucity in the literature regarding the molecular basis of how this drug combination works. The study was performed on the hormone-resistant cell line PC-3. Cells were treated with clinically relevant concentrations of docetaxel and zoledronic acid either as single agents or in sequence and combination. Cell viability and apoptosis were assessed along with the prenylation status of the GTPases Ras and RhoA. Following 1-mM zoledronic acid treatment, inhibition of the prenylation of H-Ras and Rho A was observed along with an increase in the unprenylated form in the cytoplasm. Docetaxel 1 nM and zoledronic acid 1 mM also showed an increase in the unprenylated form of both small GTP-binding proteins in the cytoplasm and a reduction of protein in the membrane fraction. Overall, zoledronic acid followed by docetaxel was the best regimen producing the greatest reduction in cell viability and increase in apoptosis. At the highest concentrations of zoledronic acid and docetaxel, zoledronic acid followed by docetaxel was also the most effective at reducing the prenylation of both H-Ras and RhoA at the membrane. We have demonstrated that clinically achievable concentrations of zoledronic acid and docetaxel cause a reduction in the prenylation of both H-Ras and Rho A and a reduction of protein movement into the membrane. The most effective regimen overall was high-dose zoledronic acid followed by docetaxel, suggesting that this regimen may be of benefit in clinical practice. © 2015, International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM). Source
Coleman R.E.,University of Sheffield |
Bertelli G.,South West Wales Cancer Institute |
Beaumont T.,Breast Cancer Care |
Kunkler I.,Edinburgh Breast Unit |
And 4 more authors.
Although there have been major improvements in the management of breast cancer, with a rapidly falling death rate despite an increasing incidence of the disease, metastatic breast cancer remains common and the cause of death in nearly 12 000 women annually in the UK. Numerous treatment options are available that either target the tumour or reduce the complications of the disease. Clinical decision making depends on knowledge of the extent and biology of the disease and available drug options, an understanding of the functional status, and also the wishes and expectations of the individual patient. In addition, the organisation of services and support of the patient are essential components of high-quality care. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has produced guidelines for the treatment of advanced breast cancer, which in some areas have perhaps failed to appreciate the complexity of patient management. This guidance document aims to provide succinct practical advice on the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, highlight some limitations of the NICE guidelines, and provide suggestions for management where available data are limited. © 2011 The Royal College of Radiologists. Source
Melero I.,University of Navarra |
Gaudernack G.,University of Oslo |
Gerritsen W.,mc Cancer Center Amsterdam |
Huber C.,Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz |
And 7 more authors.
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
The therapeutic potential of host-specific and tumour-specific immune responses is well recognized and, after many years, active immunotherapies directed at inducing or augmenting these responses are entering clinical practice. Antitumour immunization is a complex, multi-component task, and the optimal combinations of antigens, adjuvants, delivery vehicles and routes of administration are not yet identified. Active immunotherapy must also address the immunosuppressive and tolerogenic mechanisms deployed by tumours. This Review provides an overview of new results from clinical studies of therapeutic cancer vaccines directed against tumour-associated antigens and discusses their implications for the use of active immunotherapy. © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. Source
Mellstedt H.,Karolinska Institutet |
Gaudernack G.,University of Oslo |
Gerritsen W.R.,Radboud University Nijmegen |
Huber C.,Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz |
And 6 more authors.
Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics
The use of immunotherapy in the management of cancer is growing, and a range of new immunotherapeutic strategies is becoming available. It is important that people involved in the care of cancer understand how cancer immunotherapies differ from conventional chemotherapy and apply this knowledge to their clinical practice. Therefore, from August-September 2011 we undertook a survey of awareness, attitudes, and perceptions of cancer immunotherapy among 426 healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Europe with the aim of identifying and prioritizing educational needs. Nearly all (98%) HCPs were aware of cancer immunotherapy. While 68% of HCPs indicated a high level of interest in cancer immunotherapies, only 24% of the HCPs had direct experience with them. Overall perceptions of cancer immunotherapy among HCPs were largely positive (60%) and rarely negative (3%). The key advantages of cancer immunotherapy were perceived to be good safety and tolerability (75%), a targeted mechanism of action (61%) and good efficacy (48%). The leading barriers to use of immunotherapies were costs of treatment (58%), past clinical trial failures (45%), and access/formulary restrictions (44%). The results indicate that, among the respondents, awareness of cancer immunotherapy was high but that knowledge levels varied and direct experience with their use was limited. There appears to be a need for educational activities on cancer immunotherapy, as well as generation and communication of clinical data on long-term efficacy and safety. © 2014 Landes Bioscience. Source