[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the development of new drugs for the treatment of leishmaniasis. This has spurred
the need for pharmacodynamic markers to monitor and compare therapies specifically for visceral leishmaniasis, in which the
primary recrudescence of parasites is a particularly long-term event that remains difficult to predict. We performed a systematic
review of studies evaluating biomarkers in human patients with visceral, cutaneous, and post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis,
which yielded a total of 170 studies in which 53 potential pharmacodynamic biomarkers were identified. In conclusion, the
large majority of these biomarkers constituted universal indirect markers of activation and subsequent waning of cellular
immunity and therefore lacked specificity. Macrophage-related markers demonstrate favorable sensitivity and times to normalcy,
but more evidence is required to establish a link between these markers and clinical outcome. Most promising are the markers
directly related to the parasite burden, but future effort should be focused on optimization of molecular or antigenic targets
to increase the sensitivity of these markers. In general, future research should focus on the longitudinal evaluation of the
pharmacodynamic biomarkers during treatment, with an emphasis on the correlation of studied biomarkers and clinical parameters.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer among women worldwide. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), appropriate selection of medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) is a first step towards adequate access to treatment. We studied selection of systemic treatments for breast cancer on NEMLs and assessed its alignment with treatment guidelines for different types of early and advanced breast cancer. Furthermore, influence of country characteristics on the selection was investigated.
NEMLs from 75 LMICs were studied for inclusion of all components of therapy in each stage of breast cancer according to international consensus guidelines. The results were then grouped by income level, WHO region and the NEMLs' release date. Non parametric tests were used for statistical analysis.
Unlike HER2-targeted therapies (<10 %), aromatase inhibitors (12 %) and taxanes (28 %); tamoxifen and first generation chemotherapeutic regimens (e.g., anthracycline-based regimens) were frequently found in the NEMLs (71-78 %). Consequently, all components of treatment for "Luminal A" early breast cancer and non HER2 overexpressed advanced breast cancer were found on the NEMLs of over 70 % of countries. However, 40 % of the low income countries did not have all the components of therapy for any type of early breast cancer in their NEMLs, and adequate treatment of HER2 overexpressed breast cancer was hardly possible with the current selections. Recent NEMLs were more aligned with the guidelines (p < 0.05). Eastern Mediterranean and African regions less frequently incorporated all components of breast cancer treatment in their NEMLs.
Alignment of selection with guidelines' recommendations was inconsistent for different types of early and advanced breast cancer in NEMLs. Regular updates and more attention to clinical guidelines is therefore recommended.
BMC Cancer 12/2015; 15(1):591. DOI:10.1186/s12885-015-1583-4 · 3.36 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background Lapatinib has proven efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) overexpressing HER2 and/or EGFR. Gemcitabine also has anti-tumor activity in MBC and a favourable toxicity profile. In this phase I study lapatinib and gemcitabine were combined. Methods Female patients with advanced BC were given lapatinib once daily (QD) in 28-day cycles with gemcitabine administered on day 1, 8 and 15. Physical examinations, vital signs and blood sampling for hematology, clinical chemistry and pharmacokinetics (PK) and radiological assessments of disease were performed at regular intervals. Results In total, 33 patients were included. Six dose-limiting toxicities were observed, mostly grade 3 increases in liver function tests. Most common toxicities were fatigue (73 %), nausea (70 %), diarrhea (58 %), increases in ALAT and ASAT (55 and 52 %, respectively) and rash (46 %). The maximum tolerated dose was lapatinib 1250 mg QD with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2). Lapatinib and gemcitabine PK did not appear to be influenced by each other. Anti-tumor activity was observed with one patient (4 %) showing complete response and six (23 %) partial response. Conclusion Despite a slightly increased toxicity profile compared to their respective monotherapies, lapatinib and gemcitabine can be safely combined while showing signs of anti-tumor activity.
Investigational New Drugs 09/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10637-015-0281-z · 2.92 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of two dosing schedules of oral topotecan in combination with pazopanib in patients with advanced solid tumours.
Stage I of this study was to determine whether there was an impact of pazopanib on topotecan exposure. In stage II, the MTD and safety profile of oral topotecan given weekly on days 1, 8 and 15 in a 28-day cycle; or daily-times-five on days 1-5 in a 21-day cycle, both in combination with daily pazopanib, were explored.
In total, 67 patients were enroled. Pazopanib co-administration caused a substantial increase in exposure to total topotecan (1.7-fold) compared with topotecan alone, which is considered clinically relevant. Topotecan had no effect on pazopanib concentrations. Safety findings were consistent with the known profile of both agents. There were three drug-related deaths, liver failure, tumour haemorrhage and myelosuppression. Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; hand-foot syndrome, myelosuppression and diarrhoea) on the weekly topotecan schedule and four patients experienced DLTs (myelosuppression) on the daily-times-five topotecan schedule. When combined with pazopanib, 800 mg daily, the recommended doses for oral topotecan are: 8 mg weekly and 2.5 mg daily-times-five. Seven of eight patients with partial response had platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. In addition, 54% of patients had stable disease with 22% stable for 6 months.
Total topotecan exposure is 1.7-fold higher when co-administered with pazopanib. Both schedules of administration were tolerated and would permit further evaluation, especially the weekly schedule.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 20 August 2015; doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.257 www.bjcancer.com.
British Journal of Cancer 08/2015; 113(5). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2015.257 · 4.84 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Olaparib (AZD2281), a PARP-1/2 inhibitor, has been extensively investigated in clinical trials. However, limited clinical data are available about its long-term safety and anti-tumour activity.
Patients had first participated in a phase I study of olaparib combined with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. They continued with olaparib monotherapy in their best interest if they failed to tolerate the combination due to the treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Safety data were collected by physical examination and regular laboratory evaluations. Disease evaluations were performed by CT scan.
At data cutoff, 21 patients were included; 10 with breast, 9 with ovarian and 2 with fallopian tube cancer of whom 16 patients had a BRCA mutation (13 BRCA1; 3 BRCA2). TRAEs were mostly haematological and most prominent shortly after switching from combination to monotherapy, probably due to carry-over effects of chemotherapy. Over time, both severity and frequency of TRAEs decreased. Responses to olaparib were durable with a median treatment duration of 52 (range 7-183) weeks. In total, nine (43%) patients were still on study at data cutoff.
Continued long-term daily olaparib was found to be safe and tolerable. Encouragingly, patients who showed a favourable response on earlier combination therapy maintained this response on olaparib monotherapy.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 16 July 2015; doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.256 www.bjcancer.com.
British Journal of Cancer 07/2015; 113(3). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2015.256 · 4.84 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Annexin A1 (ANXA1) is a protein related with the carcinogenesis process and metastasis formation in many tumors. However, little is known about the prognostic value of ANXA1 in breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between ANXA1 expression, BRCA1/2 germline carriership, specific tumor subtypes and survival in breast cancer patients.
Clinical-pathological information and follow-up data were collected from nine breast cancer studies from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) (n = 5,752) and from one study of familial breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 107). ANXA1 expression was scored based on the percentage of immunohistochemical staining in tumor cells. Survival analyses were performed using a multivariable Cox model.
The frequency of ANXA1 positive tumors was higher in familial breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations than in BCAC patients, with 48.6 % versus 12.4 %, respectively; P <0.0001. ANXA1 was also highly expressed in BCAC tumors that were poorly differentiated, triple negative, EGFR-CK5/6 positive or had developed in patients at a young age. In the first 5 years of follow-up, patients with ANXA1 positive tumors had a worse breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) than ANXA1 negative (HRadj = 1.35; 95 % CI = 1.05-1.73), but the association weakened after 10 years (HRadj = 1.13; 95 % CI = 0.91-1.40). ANXA1 was a significant independent predictor of survival in HER2+ patients (10-years BCSS: HRadj = 1.70; 95 % CI = 1.17-2.45).
ANXA1 is overexpressed in familial breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and correlated with poor prognosis features: triple negative and poorly differentiated tumors. ANXA1 might be a biomarker candidate for breast cancer survival prediction in high risk groups such as HER2+ cases.
BMC Medicine 07/2015; 13(1):156. DOI:10.1186/s12916-015-0392-6 · 7.25 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: - There is increasing discussion in the Netherlands about the introduction of a threshold value for the costs per extra year of life when reimbursing costs of new drugs. - The Medicines Committee ('Commissie Geneesmiddelen'), a division of the Netherlands National Healthcare Institute ('Zorginstituut Nederland'), advises on reimbursement of costs of new drugs. - This advice is based upon the determination of therapeutic value of the drug and the results of economic evaluations.- Mathematical models that predict future costs and effectiveness are often used in economic evaluations; these models can vary greatly in transparency and quality due to author assumptions.- Standardisation of cost-effectiveness models is one solution to overcome the unwanted variation in quality.- Discussions about the introduction of a threshold value can only be meaningful if all involved are adequately informed, and by high quality in cost-effectiveness research and, particularly, economic evaluations.- Collaboration and discussion between medical specialists, patients or patient organisations, health economists and policy makers, both in development of methods and in standardisation, are essential to improve the quality of decision making.
Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde 06/2015; 159:A7728.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background:
AZD3514 is a first-in-class, orally bio-available, androgen-dependent and -independent androgen receptor inhibitor and selective androgen-receptor down-regulator (SARD).
In study 1 and 2, castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients (pts) were initially recruited into a once daily (QD) oral schedule (A). In study 1, pharmacokinetic assessments led to twice daily (BID) dosing (schedule B) to increase exposure. Study 2 explored a once daily schedule.
In study 1, 49 pts were treated with escalating doses of AZD3514 (A 35 pts, B 14 pts). Starting doses were 100 mg (A) and 1000 mg (B). The AZD3514 formulation was switched from capsules to tablets at 1000 mg QD. 2000 mg BID was considered non-tolerable due to grade (G) 2 toxicities (nausea [N], vomiting [V]). No adverse events (AEs) met the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition. Thirteen pts received AZD3514 in study 2, with starting doses of 250 mg QD. The most frequent drug-related AEs were N: G1/2 in 55/70 pts (79 %); G3 in 1 pt (1.4 %); & V: G1/2 in 34/70 pts (49 %) & G3 in 1 pt (1.4 %). PSA declines (≥50 %) were documented in 9/70 patients (13 %). Objective soft tissue responses per RECIST1.1 were observed in 4/24 (17 %) pts in study 1.
AZD3514 has moderate anti-tumour activity in pts with advanced CRPC but with significant levels of nausea and vomiting. However, anti-tumour activity as judged by significant PSA declines, objective responses and durable disease stabilisations, provides the rationale for future development of SARD compounds.
Investigational New Drugs 04/2015; 33(3). DOI:10.1007/s10637-015-0235-5 · 2.92 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Human papillomavirus (HPV), p16 expression, and TP53 mutations are known prognostic factors in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, but their role in squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal (SCCAC) is less well established. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of tumour HPV status, p16 and p53 expression, and mutations in TP53 in patients with SCCAC receiving (chemo)radiotherapy.
Human papillomavirus DNA was determined using an INNO-LiPA-based assay in tumour tissue of 107 patients with locally advanced SCCAC. Patients were treated with radiotherapy, with or without concurrent chemotherapy consisting of a fluoropyrimidine and mitomycin C. Expression of p16 and p53 was determined using immunohistochemistry. Exons 2-11 of TP53 in tumour tissue were sequenced.
DNA of high-risk HPV types was detected in 93 out of 107 tumours (87%), all of which overexpressed p16 (HPV+/p16+). Of 14 HPV-negative (HPV-) tumours (13%), 10 (9%) were p16-negative (HPV-/p16-) and 4 (4%) overexpressed p16 (HPV-/p16+). Patients with HPV-/p16- disease had inferior 3-year locoregional control (LRC) (15%) compared with patients with HPV+/p16+ tumours (82%, P<0.001) and HPV-/p16+ tumours (75%, P=0.078). Similarly, 3-year overall survival (OS) was 35% (HPV-/p16-) vs 87% (HPV+/p16+, P<0.001) and 75% (HPV-/p16+, P=0.219). Disruptive mutations in TP53 were found in 80% of HPV-/p16- tumours vs 6% of HPV+/p16+ tumours (P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, HPV-/p16- status was an independent predictor of inferior LRC and OS.
HPV- tumours are frequently TP53 mutated. HPV-/p16- status is a strong predictor for reduced LRC and OS, and alternative treatment strategies for patients with HPV-/p16- disease need to be explored.
British Journal of Cancer 04/2015; 112(8):1358-1366. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2015.20 · 4.84 Impact Factor