Purpose: Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand, suppresses bone resorption. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of five dosing regimens of denosumab in patients with breast cancer-related bone metastases not previously treated with intravenous bisphosphonates (IV BPs). Patients and Methods: Eligible women (n = 255) with breast cancer-related bone metastases were stratified by type of antineoplastic therapy received and randomly assigned to one of six cohorts (five denosumab cohorts [blinded to dose and frequency]; one open-label IV BP cohort). Denosumab was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks (30, 120, or 180 mg) or every 12 weeks (60 or 180 mg). The primary end point was percentage of change in the bone turnover marker urine N-telopeptide corrected for urine creatinine (uNTx/Cr) from baseline to study week 13. The percentage of patients achieving more than 65% uNTx/Cr reduction, time to more than 65% uNTx/Cr reduction, patients experiencing one or more on-study skeletal-related events (SRE), and safety were also evaluated. Results: At study week 13, the median percent reduction in uNTx/Cr was 71% for the pooled denosumab groups and 79% for the IV BP group. Overall, 74% of denosumab-treated patients (157 of 211) achieved a more than 65% reduction in uNTx/Cr compared with 63% of bisphosphonate-treated patients (27 of 43). On-study SREs were experienced by 9% of denosumab-treated patients (20 of 211) versus 16% of bisphosphonate-treated patients (seven of 43). No serious or fatal adverse events related to denosumab occurred. Conclusion: Subcutaneous denosumab may be similar to IV BPs in suppressing bone turnover and reducing SRE risk. The safety profile was consistent with an advanced breast cancer population receiving systemic therapy.

Background: Arterial hypertension occurring during antiangiogenic therapy has been correlated with the biological inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor-related pathway and may represent a possible clinical marker for treatment efficacy. The aim of our study was to retrospectively assess if grades 2–3 hypertension were associated with response to bevacizumab, progression-free survival (PFS) and survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with first-line bevacizumab. Patients and methods: Patients with histologically proven, metastatic colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab as first-line therapy in combination with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil were eligible for our analysis. Results: Thirty-nine metastatic colorectal cancer patients were eligible. Eight patients (20%) developed grades 2–3 hypertension. A partial remission was observed in six of eight cases with bevacizumab-related hypertension (75%) and in 10 of 31 (32%) patients with no hypertension (P = 0.04). Median PFS was 14.5 months for patients showing bevacizumab-related hypertension, while it was 3.1 months in those without hypertension (P = 0.04). Median overall survival was not reached in patients with hypertension while it was 15.1 months in the remaining cases (P = 0.11). Conclusions: Our data indicate that bevacizumab-induced hypertension may represent an interesting prognostic factor for clinical outcome in advanced colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line bevacizumab.

Background: The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with FOLFIRI as a first-line treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Patients and methods: Untreated patients with confirmed advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma received cetuximab at an initial dose of 400 mg/m² intravenously (i.v.) followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m², CPT 11 180 mg/m² i.v. on day 1, LFA 100 mg/m² i.v. followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m² i.v. bolus, and 600 mg/m² i.v. 22-h continuous infusion on days 1 and 2 (FOLFIRI) every 2 weeks, for a maximum of 24 weeks, then cetuximab alone was allowed in patients with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease. Antitumor activity was assessed by computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) at baseline and after 6 weeks, and further by CT alone or CT and PET every 6 weeks. Results: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled (median age 63.5 years, range 39–83; median Karnofsky performance status 90, range 70–100; stomach 89.5% and GEJ 10.5%; locally advanced disease 13.2% and metastatic disease 86.8%). All 38 patients were assessed for safety and survival, and 34 patients were assessed for overall response rates (ORR). The ORR was 44.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 27.5% to 60.9%]. The median time-to-progression was 8 months (95% CI 7–9). At the median follow-up time of 11 months, 55.3% of patients were alive, with a median expected survival time of 16 months (95% CI 9–23). Grade 3–4 toxicity included neutropenia (42.1%), acne-like rash (21.1%), diarrhea (7.9%), asthenia (5.3%), stomatitis (5.3%), and hypertransaminasemia (5.3%). There was one (2.6%) treatment-related death. Conclusions: The combination of cetuximab and FOLFIRI is active in gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma. The higher toxicity appears to be limited to neutropenia.

Purpose: We hypothesized that the detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression performed in primary tumors for treatment with EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies could not always correlate with EGFR status in metastatic sites, thus making cancer cells in these sites resistant to therapy. The aim of our study was to correlate EGFR expression on primary tumors and related metastases in order to find out whether assessing EGFR status on primary cancer is to be considered an effective tool for planning treatment with EGFR-targeted antibodies. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated EGFR immunohistochemistry from primary tumors and related metastatic sites in 99 colorectal cancer patients. The site of primary tumor was colon in 77 patients (78%) and rectum in 22 patients (22%). Metastatic sites analyzed were liver in 84 patients (81%), lung in 13 patients (13%), bone in one patient (1%), and brain in five patients (5%). EGFR status was defined as positive if the percentage of malignant cells stained was ≥ 1%. Results: EGFR status was positive in 53 primary tumors (53%). In 19 primary tumors expressing EGFR (36%), the corresponding metastatic site was found negative, whereas it was found positive in seven metastases (15%) from EGFR-negative primary cancers. The difference between these two groups of patients (ie, EGFR-positive to EGFR-negative v EGFR-negative to EGFR-positive) was statistically significant (P = .036). Conclusion: Our results suggest that the detection of the EGFR in primary colorectal cancer could be inadequate for planning therapy with EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies in a considerable proportion of both EGFR-positive and -negative primary tumors (36% and 15%, respectively).

Over the years, a growing body of literature has confirmed as beneficial the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach in the so-often-intricate scenario of cancer patients’ management. Together with the consolidation of tumor-board experience in clinical practice, certain aspects have emerged as controversial and a source of current debate. In this systematic literature review, we focused our attention on the impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards, assessing benefits and limitations as a result of the dissemination of such approaches. On the bright side, adherence to clinical guidelines, treatment outcomes, and overall improvement in decision-making processes have been recognized as advantages. On the other side, our analysis highlights a few limitations that should be taken into account to optimize cancer patients’ management. Of note, some issues, such as costs, legal responsibility, geographic barriers, and treatment delays, have yet to be resolved. In order partly to address this matter, software platforms and novel methods of computational analysis may provide the needed support. Therefore, the aim of our analysis was to describe the multidisciplinary approach in cancer care in terms of adherence to clinical guidelines, treatment outcomes, and overall improvement in decision-making processes through a systematic review of the literature.