Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to S Négrier.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of the FOLFOX-4 regimen for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients (median age 59 years) pre-treated or not by cytokines (29 vs. 30) received the FOLFOX-4 regimen every 2 weeks. RESULTS: Three minor responses, and no complete or partial responses were obtained. The median progression-free survival was 3 months (95% CI: 2.6-3.4), the median survival 10.6 months (95% CI: 8.7-12.4), with no difference between pre-treated patients and others. Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The FOLFOX-4 regimen is ineffective in patients with MRCC. We believe that oxaliplatin should no longer be explored in renal carcinoma.
Interleukin-2 (IL-2) or/and interferon (IFN) are routinely used for treating patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. However, results have been disappointing, with a majority of treatment failure. Over 6 years, the Groupe Français d'Immunothérapie enrolled 782 patients in successive multicenter trials using cytokine regimens. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on this large prospective database to identify prognostic factors for survival. The presence of biological signs of inflammation, short time interval from renal tumor to metastases (<1 year), elevated neutrophil counts, liver metastases, bone metastases, patient performance status (PS), the number of metastatic sites, alkaline phosphatases and hemoglobin levels were predictive of survival outcome. When compared with previous results, our study showed that PS, number of metastatic sites, disease-free interval, biological signs of inflammation and hemoglobin levels can be considered as validated prognostic factors. We also identified four independent factors predictive of rapid progression under cytokine treatment: presence of hepatic metastases, short interval from renal tumor to metastases (<1 year), more than one metastatic site and elevated neutrophil counts. Patients who combined at least three of these factors have >80% probability of rapid progression despite treatment. We think that these results must be taken into account when making the decision to treat with cytokine.
PURPOSE: To assess antitumor activity and safety of two regimens in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with proven fluorouracil (5-FU) resistance in a randomized phase II study: 5-FU/folinic acid (FA) combined with alternating irinotecan (also called CPT-11) and oxaliplatin (FC/FO tritherapy), and an oxaliplatin/irinotecan (OC) combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients were treated: arm FC/FO (32 patients) received, every 4 weeks, FA 200 mg/m(2) followed by a 400-mg/m(2) 5-FU bolus injection, then a 600-mg/m(2) continuous infusion of 5-FU on days 1 and 2 every 2 weeks administered alternately with irinotecan (180 mg/m(2) on day 1) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2) on day 15). Arm OC (30 patients) received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, two partial responses lasting 10.7 and 16 months were observed with the tritherapy regimen, and seven (median duration, 11 months; range, 10.6 to 11.4 months) were observed with the bitherapy regimen. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 8.2 and 9.8 months, respectively, in the FC/FO arm and 8.5 and 12.3 months, respectively, in the OC arm. Main grade 3/4 toxicities were, respectively, neutropenia, 53% and 47%; febrile neutropenia, 13% and 3%; diarrhea, 19% and 10%; vomiting, 6% and 13%; and neurosensory toxicity, 3% and 3%. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: The every-3-weeks OC combination is safe and active in advanced 5-FU-resistant CRC patients. The lower activity data seen with the tritherapy regimen may be related to the lower dose intensities of irinotecan and oxaliplatin in this schedule.
PURPOSE: Subcutaneous recombinant interleukin-2 (rIL-2) and recombinant interferon alfa-2a (rIFNalpha-2a) have been used extensively in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. Most results, coming from noncontrolled phase II trials, showed inconsistent rates of response. More recently, the addition of fluorouracil (FU) was proposed to improve the efficacy of these regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The role of a subcutaneous combination of rIL-2 and rIFNalpha-2a with or without FU was investigated. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a combination of rIL-2 and rIFNalpha-2a at weeks 1, 3, 5, and 7 or the same combination together with a continuous infusion of FU at weeks 1 and 5. The major end points of this multicenter, randomized trial were progression-free survival, response rate, and toxicity. Overall survival was a secondary end point. Tumor responses were reviewed by an independent committee. Analysis of the results was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one patients were enrolled. There was no difference in toxicity between the arms, and no toxic death was observed. One partial response was observed in arm A and five in arm B. Progression-free survival did not differ between the arms, and rates at 1 year were 12% and 15% in arms A and B, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected in any end point. CONCLUSION: The subcutaneous combination of rIL-2 and rIFNalpha-2a with or without FU does not benefit patients with metastatic renal carcinoma. Neither of these regimens can be recommended as standard treatment. The results of the subcutaneous cytokine regimen seem disappointing.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
CONTEXT: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of the French Cancer Centres (FNCLCC), the 20 French Cancer Centres and specialists from French Public Universities, General Hospitals and Private Clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and outcome for cancer patients. The methodology is based on literature systematic review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. OBJECTIVES: To develop clinical practice guidelines according to the definitions of Standards, Options and Recommendations for the management of patients with cutaneous melanoma. METHODS: Data have been identified by literature search using Medline - until December 1998 - and the personal reference lists of the expert group. Once the guidelines were defined, the document was submitted for review to national and international independent reviewers and to the medical committees of the 20 French Cancer Centres. RESULTS: The main recommendations for the management of cutaneous melanoma (CM) are: 1) The primary prevention of melanoma is based on a reduction in exposure to ultraviolet rays (solar or artificial). 2) The diagnosis of CM requires the surgical removal and histological examination of the lesion (standard). 3) The pathological report must include the diagnosis of primary malignant melanoma, the maximum thickness of the tumour in millimeters (Breslow), the clearance of surgical margins, the level of invasion (Clark), the presence and extension of regression and the presence of any ulceration (standard). 4) The standard treatment of a primary melanoma without lymph node involvement is based on surgery that must ensure adequate margins depending on the thickness of the tumour (standard, level of evidence B). 5) After surgery of a stage I melanoma, there is no indication for additional treatment outside a prospective therapeutic study (standard, level of evidence B, French Consensus Conference). 6) For a local recurrence without node involvement, in the absence of other metastases, surgical excision is the standard treatment. 7) In the case of metastatic regional lymph nodes, a complete regional lymphadenectomy is required. There is no indication for additional treatment outside a prospective therapeutic study (standard, level of evidence B). The inclusion of these patients in controlled studies of immunotherapy is recommended. 8) There is no standard therapeutic strategy for metastatic melanoma. Conventional palliative treatment is chemotherapy with dacarbazine (level of evidence B). 9) Follow-up is based on physical examination (standard). Patient information must encourage self-surveillance. Clinical surveillance and self-detection are indicated in all cases throughout life (standard).
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
We evaluated the impact of an evaluation committee (EC) on patients' overall response status in a large multicenter trial in oncology. We identified reasons for disagreements between investigators and the EC. The Cancer Renal Cytokine (CRECY) study was a French multicenter trial that tested cytokine therapy in 489 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Objective response (OR) evaluation included medical imaging and was studied according to international guidelines. A blinded peer review of all responders and litigious cases was performed by an EC. Major disagreements occurred in 43% and minor disagreements in 10.5% of the reviewed files. The number of significant tumor responses was reduced by 23.2% after review by the EC. Reasons for disagreements included errors in tumor measurements, errors in selection of measurable targets, intercurrent diseases, and radiologic technical problems. These reasons for disagreements are analyzed and discussed. We conclude that all therapeutic trial results should be reviewed by peer analysis of all presumed responders by an EC. International guidelines for response evaluation should be updated by including more reliable methods of measurements and definition of minimal imaging procedures.
BACKGROUND: In epidemiologic studies, sunscreen use is associated with increased risk of cutaneous melanoma, basal cell skin cancer, and higher numbers of nevi. It has been proposed that sunscreens may encourage prolonged sun exposure because they delay sunburn occurrence. We examined whether, under habitual conditions of sunscreen use, the sun-protection factor (SPF) had an influence on sun-exposure duration. METHODS: Before the 1997 summer holidays, we randomly assigned 87 French and Swiss participants who were 18-24 years of age to receive an SPF 10 or an SPF 30 sunscreen. Neither medical personnel nor study participants were aware of their sunscreen assignment. Participants were asked to complete daily records of their sun exposure. To avoid influencing the recreational sun-exposure habits of the study participants, no recommendation was made about sun exposure or sun protection. Furthermore, participants were told that the trial end point was the number of pigmented skin lesions before and after the holidays. One subject was lost to follow-up. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The SPF 10 (n = 44) and SPF 30 (n = 42) groups had equivalent mean holiday durations (19.4 days versus 20.2 days) and mean quantities of sunscreen used (72.3 g versus 71.6 g). The mean cumulative sun exposures for the two groups were 58.2 hours and 72.6 hours, respectively (P =.011). The mean daily durations of sunbathing were 2.6 and 3.1 hours, respectively (P =.0013), and, for outdoor activities, they were 3.6 and 3.8 hours, respectively (P =.62). There was no difference in sunburn experience between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of higher SPF sunscreen seems to increase the duration of recreational sun exposure of young white Europeans.
BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to evaluate the response rate, survival, and toxicity of treatment with cisplatin and high dose intravenous continuous infusion interleukin-2 (IL-2) with or without interferon-alpha-2a (IFN) in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: One hundred and seventeen patients with metastatic melanoma randomly were assigned to receive cisplatin, 100 mg/m2, followed after a 3-day rest period by IL-2, 18 x 10(6) IU/m2, on Days 3-6 and Days 17-21 (Arm 1) or cisplatin and IL-2 using an identical schedule plus subcutaneous IFN, 9 x 10(6) U, 3 times a week during IL-2 administration (Arm 2). In the absence of disease progression or undue toxicity, the cycle could be repeated on Day 29. Patients who responded after two cycles eventually could receive a third cycle. One hundred and one patients were evaluable for toxicity and efficacy. RESULTS: On treatment Arm 1, 3 patients (6%) achieved a complete response (CR) and 5 patients (10%) achieved a partial response (PR) with a median response duration of 3.8 months for the CRs and 8.7 months for the PRs. On treatment Arm 2, 2 patients (3%) achieved a CR (durations of 5.9 and 33.1 months, respectively) and 11 patients (21%) a PR with a median response duration of 8.3 months. The median durations of overall survival were 10.4 months (range, 1.1-39.7+ months) and 10.9 months (range, 0.5-38.1+ months) for treatment Arms 1 and 2, respectively. The toxicity profile was consistent with the known side effects of this IL-2 intravenous regimen combined with cisplatin chemotherapy and IFN. Toxicity was more pronounced in treatment Arm 2 compared with treatment Arm 1. There were 2 and 4 patients, respectively, in treatment Arms 1 and 2 who died within 28 days after completion of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The observed overall response rates of 16% and 25% in treatment Arms 1 and 2, respectively, is lower than that expected with biochemotherapy; despite the fact that the objective of the trial was not to show any difference between the 2 treatment arms, our results indicate that the addition of IFN, at the dose and schedule used in this trial, fails to improve the activity of a cisplatin/IL-2 regimen significantly in patients with metastatic melanoma. Although response rates were relatively low, the median overall survival was nearly 1 year in both groups.
PURPOSE: Interleukin-2 (IL-2) and interferon alfa-2a (IFNalpha2a) have some antitumor activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma either alone or in combination. To determine whether either of these cytokines might be efficient after failure of the other, we analyzed a series of patients treated with either IL-2 or IFNalpha2a as second-line treatment after failure of the other cytokine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recently performed a large multicenter study to determine the respective efficacy of IL-2, IFNalpha2a, or combined treatment in renal cell carcinoma. In this study, patients who progressed on the single-arm treatment could receive the other cytokine in a cross-over trial. IL-2 was administered as a continuous intravenous infusion for 5 days (18 x 10(6) IU/m(2)/d), and IFNalpha2a was administered three times weekly at 18 x 10(6) IU. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients with progressive disease after first-line treatment received either IFNalpha2a (n = 48) or IL-2 (n = 65). Toxicity during second-line treatment was similar to that observed during first-line treatment. Only four partial responses were observed (one with IFNalpha2a and three with IL-2). All partial responders had a performance status of 0 and lung metastases. Moreover, three of these four patients had stable disease or had responded to first-line therapy. Only one patient with confirmed disease progression after receiving IL-2 subsequently responded to IFNalpha2a. CONCLUSION: Cross-over after failure of IL-2 or IFNalpha2a is poorly efficient in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, especially when progression has been clearly documented.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Advanced-stage surgically unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is highly lethal. Attempts to improve this survival with chemotherapy were dismal, until gemcitabin was shown to be clinically beneficial and to modestly improve survival. We started an open multicentric compassionate study of gemcitabine in advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas to assess those benefits. Of 74 patients who were enrolled, 46 were assessable for tumoral response (2 partial response, 18 stable disease, 24 progressing disease). A clinical benefit was obtained in 48% of assessable patients. Myelotoxicity, nausea and vomiting were the major side effect. The median event-free and overall survivals from study inclusion were 2. 5 and 5 months respectively. This study confirms that gemcitabine can be effective even in patients with pretreated advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: The objectives of this phase I study were to evaluate the toxic effects and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of S9788, a new modifier of multidrug resistance (MDR), when given alone and in combination with doxorubicin to patients with advanced solid tumors; to achieve a potentially active plasma concentration of S9788; and to study the pharmacokinetics of both drugs. METHODS: A total of 26 patients (median age 58 years) entered the study. S9788 was given alone as a 30-min infusion at day 1 and in combination with a 50-mg/m2 bolus of doxorubicin at days 8 and 29. Dose levels of S9788 were escalated from 8 to 96 mg/m2 according to the modified Fibonacci scheme. Plasma samples were taken predose as well as during and up to 48 h after the beginning of infusion for S9788 and doxorubicin quantitation. Fractionated urine samples were also collected for up to 24 h for S9788 determination. RESULTS: The dose-limiting side effects of S9788 consisted of bradycardia, sometimes associated with faintness or dizziness. The MTD of S9788 was 96 mg/m2. No enhancement of doxorubicin toxicity was observed. One partial response (duration 140 days) was observed at 96 mg/m2 in a patient with multiple lung metastases from a refractory urothelial carcinoma. Pharmacokinetic studies were performed in 24 patients. Since the mean apparent elimination half-life of S9788 was 46 +/- 23 h and the last plasma sampling time was 48 h, only model-independent parameters were considered. Plasma levels of S9788 were below the limit of quantitation (4 x 10[-3] microM) before each drug administration. S9788 plasma levels of up to 3.7 microM could be obtained with this administration schedule. The urinary elimination of the unchanged drug was negligible, whatever the collection period. In spite of the large inter- and intraindividual variability, plasma pharmacokinetics of S9788 given as a 30-min i.v. infusion were linear up to 96 mg/m2 and were not modified by doxorubicin administration. Doxorubicin pharmacokinetic parameters did not seem to be influenced by S9788 coadministration. CONCLUSION: The dose-limiting toxicity of S9788 consisted of bradycardia or clinical symptoms suggesting a vasovagal impact such as faintness or dizziness. The MTD of S9788 was 96 mg/m2. The pharmacokinetic parameters of doxorubicin in this study were close to those usually described and were not influenced by escalation of the S9788 dose. No pharmacokinetic interaction was observed between S9788 and doxorubicin. The clinical tolerability of the combined treatment is in good agreement with the pharmacokinetic findings, since no enhancement of doxorubicin toxicity was observed.