Capecitabine or infusional 5-fluorouracil for gastroesophageal cancer: a cost-consequence analysis

3D printed tablets containing oxaliplatin loaded alginate nanoparticles for colon cancer targeted delivery. An in vitro/in vivo study

This study aimed to develop a colon-targeted tablet of oxaliplatin (OP) using the combination of nanotechnology and fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing to improve its antitumor activity, tumor targetability, and safety profile. Eudragit L100-55 filament containing OP loaded alginate nanoparticles (OP-NPs) were fabricated using hot-melt extrusion method and printed by an FDM printer to 3D printed tablets with good uniformity in the drug content and selective release of OP in the colonic environment. The antitumor effect of 3D printed tablets containing OP-NPs in CT-26 tumor-bearing mice was evaluated compared to intravenous and oral administration of OP solution, and compressed tablets containing OP-NPs, which were prepared by direct compression method with the same formulation. The antitumor effect of 3D printed tablets containing OP-NPs was remarkable and comparable with intravenous OP solution (p ˃ 0.05) with a better safety profile, whereas compressed tablets did not show any significant antitumor effect, probably in terms of non-selective drug release in stomach and upper intestine environments. This study highlights the potential of the combination of nanotechnology and 3D printing in the preparation of colon-specific drug delivery systems of chemotherapeutic drugs with good antitumor activity, tumor targetability, and safety profile for colorectal cancer treatment.

Intravenous versus oral etoposide: efficacy and correlation to clinical outcome in patients with high-grade metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (WHO G3)

High-grade gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs, G3) are aggressive cancers of the digestive system with poor prognosis and survival. Platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin/carboplatin + etoposide) is considered the first-line palliative treatment. Etoposide is frequently administered intravenously; however, oral etoposide may be used as an alternative. Concerns for oral etoposide include decreased bioavailability, inter- and intra-patient variability and patient compliance. We aimed to evaluate possible differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients treated with oral etoposide compared to etoposide given as infusion. Patients (n = 236) from the Nordic NEC study were divided into three groups receiving etoposide as a long infusion (24 h, n = 170), short infusion (≤ 5 h, n = 33) or oral etoposide (n = 33) according to hospital tradition. PFS and OS were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier (log-rank), cox proportional hazard ratios and confidence intervals. No statistical differences were observed in PFS or OS when comparing patients receiving long infusion (median PFS 3.8 months, median OS 14.5 months), short infusion (PFS 5.6 months, OS 11.0 months) or oral etoposide (PFS 5.4 months, OS 11.3 months). We observed equal efficacy for the three administration routes suggesting oral etoposide may be safe and efficient in treating high-grade GEP-NEN, G3 patients scheduled for cisplatin/carboplatin + etoposide therapy.

Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer

BACKGROUND

Almost half of people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies are increasingly used with a palliative intent to control tumor growth, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. To date, and with the exception of ramucirumab, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer with palliative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar, and trial registries up to 13 May 2015, and we handsearched the reference lists of studies. We did not restrict the search to publications in English. Additional searches were run in September 2017 prior to publication, and they are listed in the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy versus best supportive care or control in people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated pooled estimates of effect using an inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 RCTs with 11,853 participants for inclusion in the review as well as 49 ongoing studies. For the main comparison of adding a cytostatic and/or targeted agent to a control arm, we included 11 studies with 1347 participants. This analysis demonstrated an increase in overall survival in favor of the arm with an additional cytostatic or targeted therapeutic agent with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.84, high-quality evidence). The median increased survival time was one month. Five studies in 750 participants contributed data to the comparison of palliative therapy versus best supportive care. We found a benefit in overall survival in favor of the group receiving palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy compared to best supportive care (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92, high-quality evidence). Subcomparisons including only people receiving second-line therapies, chemotherapies, targeted therapies, adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell carcinomas all showed a similar benefit. The only individual agent that more than one study found to improve both overall survival and progression-free survival was ramucirumab. Palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy increased the frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity. However, treatment-related deaths did not occur more frequently. Quality of life often improved in the arm with an additional agent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents have an increased overall survival compared to people who receive less. These agents, administered as both first-line or second-line treatments, also led to better overall survival than best supportive care. With the exception of ramucirumab, it remains unclear which other individual agents cause the survival benefit. Although treatment-associated toxicities of grade 3 or more occurred more frequently in arms with an additional chemotherapy or targeted therapy agent, there is no evidence that palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy decrease quality of life. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy can be considered standard care for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

A comparison between 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin and capecitabine/mitomycin in combination with radiation for anal cancer

BACKGROUND

There are no randomized phase III trials comparing 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin (FM) versus capecitabine/mitomycin (CM) in combination with radiotherapy (RT) for locally advanced anal cancer. We aim to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with FM and CM at our institution.

METHODS

Patients with stage I-III anal cancer who initiated curative-intent RT (50-54 Gy) with either CM or FM between 1998 and 2013 at the BC Cancer Agency were reviewed. Cox proportional models were used to analyze the impact of regimen on disease-free survival (DFS) and anal cancer-specific survival (ACSS).

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were well-distributed between the groups. A total of 194 patients (64.6%) received FM and 106 (35.3%) CM. The 2-year DFS was 79.7% for CM [95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 71.1-88.3%] and 78.8% for FM (95% CI, 73-84.6%); 2-year ACSS was 88.7% for CM (95% CI, 81.8-95.5%) and 87.5% for FM (95% CI, 82.8-92.2%). On multivariate analysis, only HIV status, clinical T size (≤5 vs. >5 cm), and N status (negative vs. positive) remained as significant prognostic factors for both DFS and ACSS. Chemotherapy regimen (CM vs. FM) had no impact on either DFS [P=0.995; hazard ratios (HR) =0.99; 95% CI, 0.57-1.74] or ACSS (P=0.847; HR =0.93; 95% CI, 0.46-1.86).

CONCLUSIONS

In our population-based study, CM and FM concomitant with RT achieved similar DFS and ACSS. Substitution of capecitabine for infusional 5-FU may therefore be a reasonable option for patients and physicians who prefer to avoid the inconvenience and potential complications of a central infusional device.