Literature DB >> 15005281

Radiation and third-generation chemotherapy.

Yuhchyau Chen1, Paul Okunieff.   

Abstract

All of the third-generation chemotherapeutic agents reviewed in this article are independently active against NSCLC, although the agents differ significantly in their cellular and molecular mechanisms of cytotoxicity. All have also been shown to potentiate radiation effects, and thus are promising in exerting further cytotoxicity when used in combination chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. Although the toxicity to normal tissue varies among these agents when used alone, phase I/II clinical results consistently demonstrated higher risk and severity of esophagitis and pneumonitis when these agents were administered concurrently with thoracic radiation. These results were consistent with the radiosensitization properties of all these agents. Nonetheless, most chemoradiation combinations have been made feasible through careful phase I studies that establish safe doses of these agents given concurrently with radiation. Indeed, phase I outcomes consistently have demonstrated the need for dose reduction compared with doses applied in the stage IV, metastatic disease setting (see Tables 1 and 2). There have been many different dose schedules in phase I/II studies for stage III NSCLC, and most have yielded improved response rates with these agents. For all these agents discussed, multiagent chemoradiation increased toxicity when compared with single agent chemoradiation, particularly in the risk of neutropenia, and the tumor response rates were no better than single-agent chemoradiation. Most studies have not reached an adequate interval for survival endpoint to assess the impact on survival using multiagent chemoradiation. A few earlier studies using paclitaxel chemoradiation, in fact, showed that the significant improvement in tumor response rate resulted in only a small gain in survival outcome. Despite much preclinical research conducted with these agents, the optimal sequence and dose of drug and the optimal schedule for combining the two modalities remain unknown. Optimal sequencing of the chemoradiation regimens may improve distant disease control and primary tumor control, as was seen in studies that administered both full-dose induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiation at reduced drug dose and in studies that administered consolidative, full-dose chemotherapy after chemoradiation. Strategically altering the treatment schedule may also enhance the radiosensitizing effects while keeping toxicity low, such as was seen in the pulsed low-dose paclitaxel chemoradiation reported by Chen et al . This pulsed low-dose schedule resulted in superior tumor response (100%) and durable primary tumor control while keeping the toxicity low. Other methods to minimize normal tissue injury and to deliver higher radiation doses, such as conformal three-dimensional radiotherapy that excludes nontarget tissues from the radiation field, are under investigation. Marks and colleagues were able to deliver radiation to 80 Gy using accelerated hyperfractionation radiation after induction chemotherapy. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy is expected to revolutionize the targeting of tumor and exclusion of normal tissues from the high-dose radiation volume in the future. Integrating biologic response modifiers, radioprotectors, and molecular targeting strategies also are being investigated. It remains unclear which agent among the third-generation drugs performs better for combination chemoradiation. The CALGB 9431 study reported by Vokes et al provided some preliminary information, in that it was a randomized phase II study of a three-arm comparison of cisplatin-containing, two-drug combination chemoradiation with one of the third-generation agents. Although direct statistical comparison between the treatment arms was not valid for a phase II setting, such an analysis did indeed reveal similar overall response rates for these three arms. Chemoradiation using third-generation chemotherapeutic agents has improved local tumor response rates, with enhanced radiation toxicity such as esophagitis and pneumonitis. The challenge of targeting distant disease control for locally advanced NSCLC continues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15005281     DOI: 10.1016/s0889-8588(03)00145-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am        ISSN: 0889-8588            Impact factor:   3.722


  9 in total

1.  Synthetic secoisolariciresinol diglucoside (LGM2605) inhibits myeloperoxidase activity in inflammatory cells.

Authors:  Om P Mishra; Anatoliy V Popov; Ralph A Pietrofesa; Eiko Nakamaru-Ogiso; Mark Andrake; Melpo Christofidou-Solomidou
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.770

2.  Effects of traditional oriental medicines as anti-cytotoxic agents in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Wanyeon Kim; Jihoon Kang; Sungmin Lee; Buhyun Youn
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 2.967

3.  Comparison of chemotherapy regimens for concurrent chemoradiotherapy in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Hideyuki Harada; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Toshiaki Takahashi; Masahiro Endo; Haruyasu Murakami; Asuka Tsuya; Yukiko Nakamura; Akira Ono; Satoshi Igawa; Takehito Shukuya; Akihiro Tamiya; Tetsuo Nishimura
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-12-05       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Toxicity profile and pharmacokinetic study of a phase I low-dose schedule-dependent radiosensitizing paclitaxel chemoradiation regimen for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Yuhchyau Chen; Kishan J Pandya; Richard Feins; David W Johnstone; Thomas Watson; Therese Smudzin; Peter C Keng
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-12-31       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Dietary flaxseed administered post thoracic radiation treatment improves survival and mitigates radiation-induced pneumonopathy in mice.

Authors:  Melpo Christofidou-Solomidou; Sonia Tyagi; Kay-See Tan; Sarah Hagan; Ralph Pietrofesa; Floyd Dukes; Evguenia Arguiri; Daniel F Heitjan; Charalambos C Solomides; Keith A Cengel
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Radiosensitizers in cervical cancer. Cisplatin and beyond.

Authors:  Myrna Candelaria; Alicia Garcia-Arias; Lucely Cetina; Alfonso Dueñas-Gonzalez
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2006-05-08       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  NK105, a paclitaxel-incorporating micellar nanoparticle, is a more potent radiosensitising agent compared to free paclitaxel.

Authors:  T Negishi; F Koizumi; H Uchino; J Kuroda; T Kawaguchi; S Naito; Y Matsumura
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-08-08       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Amelioration of Radiation Enteropathy by Dietary Supplementation With Reduced Coenzyme Q10.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Shimizu; Naritoshi Mukumoto; Nelly Idrus; Hiroaki Akasaka; Sachiko Inubushi; Kenji Yoshida; Daisuke Miyawaki; Takeaki Ishihara; Yoshiaki Okamoto; Takahiro Yasuda; Makiko Nakahana; Ryohei Sasaki
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-01-31

9.  Radiation mitigating properties of the lignan component in flaxseed.

Authors:  Ralph Pietrofesa; Jason Turowski; Sonia Tyagi; Floyd Dukes; Evguenia Arguiri; Theresa M Busch; Shannon M Gallagher-Colombo; Charalambos C Solomides; Keith A Cengel; Melpo Christofidou-Solomidou
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 4.430

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.