Refine
Document Type
- Article (6)
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Drug development (1)
- GLUT1 (1)
- Glycolysis (1)
- Hodgkin lymphoma (1)
- Long-term follow up (1)
- Non-clear cell renal cell cancer (1)
- Paediatric Investigation Plan (1)
- Paediatric oncology (1)
- Phase II trial (1)
- Precompetitive development (1)
- Randomized trial (1)
- Regulatory framework (1)
- Sunitinib (1)
- Temsirolimus (1)
- Warburg effect (1)
Institute
- Medizin (6)
Background: Non-clear cell renal cell cancers (nccRCC) are rare entities, and the optimal therapy in metastatic disease has still to be defined. Methods: In this small prospectively randomized phase IIa multicenter trial, we investigated temsirolimus (TEM) versus sunitinib (SUN) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic nccRCC. The patients were randomized 1:1 to either TEM in a dose of 25 mg i.v. once a week or SUN with 50 mg p.o. daily for 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). In total, 22 patients were included with predominantly papillary RCC (16/22) followed by chromophobe RCC and others. Results: The male to female ratio was 16:6. The tumor control rate (CR + PR + SD) was 58% for TEM and 90% for SUN-treated patients. There was also a trend for improved PFS with 9.3 versus 13.2 months (HR 1.64; 95% CI 0.65–4.18) in favor of SUN. There was no trend for overall survival. Conclusions: Despite this trial had to be terminated earlier due to low recruitment, the results match the other studies published so far with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and SUN, which show a trend in favor of SUN for ORR and PFS.
This article intends to give an overview about developments in European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of new cancer drugs. As background information, it will refer to an overview article by Bergmann et al. [1], which pointed out the status and the limitations of the current system. The authors discussed possible steps to improve the interface between regulators and HTA bodies but stated that this alone will not be sufficient to overcome heterogeneous HTA assessments between HTA agencies. Major issues and challenges for the foreseeable future will be to overcome the heterogeneity of patient access decisions of pharmaceutical payers across Europe which is due to (i) considerably different scientific approaches and methodology to the more or less formal evaluation of cost-effectiveness; (ii) differing health priorities across the countries that reflect historically developed cultural differences and values or different unmet medical needs and (iii) different economic strengths among nations, regions and locales that necessarily drive health care budgetary decisions. The authors consider that this needs a science-based common position on methodology, greater commitments by politicians and health care decision makers to ensure equal access for patients across the EU to anti-tumour medicines. ...
The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib is used as first‐line therapy in patients with metastasized renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), given in fixed‐dose regimens despite its high variability in pharmacokinetics (PKs). Interindividual variability of drug exposure may be responsible for differences in response. Therefore, dosing strategies based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models may be useful to optimize treatment. Plasma concentrations of sunitinib, its active metabolite SU12662, and the soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptors sVEGFR‐2 and sVEGFR‐3, were measured in 26 patients with mRCC within the EuroTARGET project and 21 patients with metastasized colorectal cancer (mCRC) from the C‐II‐005 study. Based on these observations, PK/PD models with potential influence of genetic predictors were developed and linked to time‐to‐event (TTE) models. Baseline sVEGFR‐2 levels were associated with clinical outcome in patients with mRCC, whereas active drug PKs seemed to be more predictive in patients with mCRC. The models provide the basis of PK/PD‐guided strategies for the individualization of anti‐angiogenic therapies.
Seven years after the launch of the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation, limited progress in paediatric oncology drug development remains a major concern amongst stakeholders – academics, industry, regulatory authorities, parents, patients and caregivers. Restricted increases in early phase paediatric oncology trials, legal requirements and regulatory pressure to propose early Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIPs), missed opportunities to explore new drugs potentially relevant for paediatric malignancies, lack of innovative trial designs and no new incentives to develop drugs against specific paediatric targets are some unmet needs. Better access to new anti-cancer drugs for paediatric clinical studies and improved collaboration between stakeholders are essential. The Cancer Drug Development Forum (CDDF), previously Biotherapy Development Association (BDA), with Innovative Therapy for Children with Cancer Consortium (ITCC), European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) and European Network for Cancer Research in Children and Adolescents (ENCCA) has created a unique Paediatric Oncology Platform, involving multiple stakeholders and the European Union (EU) Commission, with an urgent remit to improve paediatric oncology drug development. The Paediatric Oncology Platform proposes to recommend immediate changes in the implementation of the Regulation and set the framework for its 2017 revision; initiatives to incentivise drug development against specific paediatric oncology targets, and repositioning of drugs not developed in adults. Underpinning these changes is a strategy for mechanism of action and biology driven selection and prioritisation of potential paediatric indications rather than the current process based on adult cancer indications. Pre-competitive research and drug prioritisation, early portfolio evaluation, cross-industry cooperation and multi-compound/sponsor trials are being explored, from which guidance for innovative trial designs will be provided.
Background: Increased glycolytic activity is a hallmark of cancer, allowing staging and restaging with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission-tomography (PET). Since interim-PET is an important prognostic tool in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), the aim of this study was to investigate the expression of proteins involved in the regulation of glucose metabolism in the different HL subtypes and their impact on clinical outcome.
Methods: Lymph node biopsies from 54 HL cases and reactive lymphoid tissue were stained for glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1), lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA) and lactate exporter proteins MCT1 and MCT4. In a second series, samples from additional 153 HL cases with available clinical data were stained for GLUT1 and LDHA.
Results: Membrane bound GLUT1 expression was frequently observed in the tumor cells of HL (49% of all cases) but showed a broad variety between the different Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes: Nodular sclerosing HL subtype displayed a membrane bound GLUT1 expression in the Hodgkin-and Reed-Sternberg cells in 56% of the cases. However, membrane bound GLUT1 expression was more rarely observed in tumor cells of lymphocyte rich classical HL subtype (30%) or nodular lymphocyte predominant HL subtype (15%). Interestingly, in both of these lymphocyte rich HL subtypes as well as in progressively transformed germinal centers, reactive B cells displayed strong expression of GLUT1. LDHA, acting downstream of glycolysis, was also expressed in 44% of all cases. We evaluated the prognostic value of different GLUT1 and LDHA expression patterns; however, no significant differences in progression free or overall survival were found between patients exhibiting different GLUT1 or LDHA expression patterns. There was no correlation between GLUT1 expression in HRS cells and PET standard uptake values.
Conclusions: In a large number of cases, HRS cells in classical HL express high levels of GLUT1 and LDHA indicating glycolytic activity in the tumor cells. Although interim-PET is an important prognostic tool, a predictive value of GLUT1 or LDHA staining of the primary diagnostic biopsy could not be demonstrated. However, we observed GLUT1 expression in progressively transformed germinal centers and hyperplastic follicles, explaining false positive results in PET. Therefore, PET findings suggestive of HL relapse should always be confirmed by histology.