Curcumin (diferuloylmethane) is a dietary phytochemical with low toxicity that exhibits growth-suppressive activity against a variety of cancer cells and possesses certain chemopreventive properties. Curcumin has already been the subject of several clinical trials for use as a treatment in human cancers. Synthetic chemical modifications of curcumin have been studied intensively in an attempt to find a molecule with similar but enhanced properties of curcumin. In this study, a series of novel curcumin analogues were synthesized and screened for anticancer activity. New analogues that exhibit growth-suppressive activity 30 times that of curcumin and other commonly used anticancer drugs were identified. Structurally, the new analogues are symmetrical 1,5-diarylpentadienone whose aromatic rings possess an alkoxy substitution at each of the positions 3 and 5. Analysis of the effects of the analogues on the expression of cancer-related genes usually affected by curcumin indicated that some induced the down-regulation of β-catenin, Ki-ras, cyclin D1, c-Myc, and ErbB-2 at as low as one eighth the concentration at which curcumin normally has an effect. The analogues, however, exhibited neither harmful nor growth-suppressive effects on normal hepatocytes where oncogene products are not activated. They also exhibited no toxicities in vivo that they may provide effective alternative therapies for the prevention and treatment of some human cancers. [Mol Cancer Ther 2006;5(10):2563–71]

Consensus molecular subtypes classification of colorectal cancer as a predictive factor for chemotherapeutic efficacy against metastatic colorectal cancer Consensus molecular subtypes classification of colorectal cancer as a predictive factor for chemotherapeutic efficacy against metastatic colorectal cancer

Some elderly cancer patients, even with good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), have poor survival outcomes and cannot tolerate standard therapy. Few studies have detailed the associations between the G8 screening tool, ECOG-PS, and overall survival (OS) in such patients. Cancer patients, aged 70 years or older, were assessed for G8 and classified into three groups according to their G8 score: 14 as the high score group. We retrospectively analyzed the association between G8 score and OS in all patients and for each ECOG-PS-categorized group. Out of 264 enrolled patients, most patients (87%) with solid tumor were categorized as TNM stage IV. ECOG-PS was 0 or 1 in 215 patients and ≥2 in 48; there was missing data for one patient. Among all patients, the low score group with a median OS of 7.7 months survived significantly less than both the high score group with a median OS of 25.6 months [Hazard ratio (HR) 3.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.96–6.63; p < 0.0001] and the intermediate score group with a median of 15.6 months (HR 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28–2.65; p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, TNM stage and G8 score were independent prognostic factors for OS. When patients with an ECOG-PS of 0 or 1 were analyzed, patients with a lower G8 score showed significantly shorter OS than patients with a higher score when any two groups were compared. This novel classification of the G8 score contributes to prompt identification of patients with poor prognosis and improved the prognostic value of ECOG-PS. Using G8 with ECOG-PS may be helpful in deciding treatment for elderly patients with advanced cancer.

Combination therapy with oral fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan has not yet been established as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We carried out a randomized, open-label, phase III trial to determine whether S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Patients from 53 institutions who had previously untreated mCRC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive either mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab (control group) or S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (experimental group; a 3-week regimen: intravenous infusions of irinotecan 150 mg/m² and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg on day 1, oral S-1 80 mg/m² twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest; or a 4-week regimen: irinotecan 100 mg/m² and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, S-1 80 mg/m² twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest). The primary end point was PFS. The noninferiority margin was 1.25; noninferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) of the control group versus the experimental group was less than this margin. Between June 2012 and September 2014, 487 patients underwent randomization. Two hundred and forty-three patients assigned to the control group and 241 assigned to the experimental group were included in the primary analysis. Median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI 9.6–11.6) in the control group and 14.0 months (95% CI 12.4–15.5) in the experimental group (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70–1.02; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority, P = 0.0815 for superiority). One hundred and fifty-seven patients (64.9%) in the control group and 140 (58.6%) in the experimental group had adverse events of grade 3 or higher. S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab with respect to PFS as first-line treatment of mCRC and could be a new standard treatment. UMIN000007834

Background: This randomised, open-label, multicenter phase II study compared progression-free survival (PFS) of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) with that of S-1 alone in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with confirmed progressive disease following the first-line treatment with a gemcitabine-based regimen were randomised to receive either S-1 (80/100/120 mg day⁻¹ based on body surface area (BSA), orally, days 1–28, every 6 weeks) or SOX (S-1 80/100/120 mg day⁻¹ based on BSA, orally, days 1–14, plus oxaliplatin 100 mg m⁻², intravenously, day 1, every 3 weeks). The primary end point was PFS. Results: Between January 2009 and July 2010, 271 patients were randomly allocated to either S-1 (n=135) or SOX (n=136). Median PFS for S-1 and SOX were 2.8 and 3.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio (HR)=0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65–1.08; stratified log-rank test P=0.18). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.9 vs 7.4 months (HR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.79–1.34; stratified log-rank test P=0.82). The response rate (RR) was 11.5% vs 20.9% (P=0.04). The major grade 3/4 toxicities (S-1 and SOX) were neutropenia (11.4% and 8.1%), thrombocytopenia (4.5% and 10.3%) and anorexia (12.9% and 14.7%). Conclusions: Although SOX showed an advantage in RR, it provided no significant improvement in PFS or OS compared with S-1 alone.