BACKGROUND To provide sunitinib to patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who were otherwise unable to obtain sunitinib; to obtain broad safety and efficacy data from a large population of patients with advanced GIST after imatinib failure. METHODS Imatinib-resistant/intolerant patients with advanced GIST received sunitinib on an initial dosing schedule (IDS) of 50 mg/day in 6-week cycles (4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off). Tumor assessment frequency was per local practice, with response assessed by investigators per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0. Overall survival (OS) and safety were assessed regularly. Post-hoc analyses evaluated different patterns of treatment management. RESULTS At final data cutoff, 1124 patients comprised the intent-to-treat population; 15% had a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2. Median treatment duration was 7.0 months. Median time to tumor progression was 8.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0–9.4), and median OS was 16.6 months (95% CI, 14.9–18.0) with 36% of patients alive at the time of analysis. Patients in whom the IDS was modified exhibited longer median OS (23.5 months) than those treated strictly per the IDS (11.1 months). The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were hand-foot syndrome (11%), fatigue (9%), neutropenia (8%), hypertension (7%), and thrombocytopenia (6%). Treatment-related AEs associated with cardiac function (eg, congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction) were reported at frequencies of ≤1% each. CONCLUSIONS This treatment-use study confirms the long-term safety and efficacy of sunitinib in a large international population of patients with advanced GIST after imatinib failure.

BackgroundSeveral small studies indicated that the genotype of KIT or platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α (PDGFRA) contributes in part to the level of clinical effectiveness of sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients. This study aimed to correlate KIT and PDGFRA mutational status with clinical outcome metrics (progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS], objective response rate [ORR]) in a larger international patient population.MethodsThis is a non-interventional, retrospective analysis in patients with imatinib-resistant or intolerant GIST who were treated in a worldwide, open-label treatment-use study (Study 1036; NCT00094029) in which sunitinib was administered at a starting dose of 50 mg/day on a 4-week-on, 2-week-off schedule. Molecular status was obtained in local laboratories with tumor samples obtained either pre-imatinib, post-imatinib/pre-sunitinib, or post-sunitinib treatment, and all available data were used in the analyses regardless of collection time. The primary analysis compared PFS in patients with primary KIT exon 11 versus exon 9 mutations (using a 2-sided log-rank test) and secondary analyses compared OS (using the same test) and ORR (using a 2-sided Pearson χ2 test) in the same molecular subgroups.ResultsOf the 1124 sunitinib-treated patients in the treatment-use study, 230 (20 %) were included in this analysis, and baseline characteristics were similar between the two study populations. Median PFS was 7.1 months. A significantly better PFS was observed in patients with a primary mutation in KIT exon 9 (n = 42) compared to those with a primary mutation in exon 11 (n = 143; hazard ratio = 0.59; 95 % confidence interval, 0.39–0.89; P = 0.011), with median PFS times of 12.3 and 7.0 months, respectively. Similarly, longer OS and higher ORR were observed in patients with a primary KIT mutation in exon 9 versus exon 11. The data available were limited to investigate the effects of additional KIT or PDGFRA mutations on the efficacy of sunitinib treatment.ConclusionsThis large retrospective analysis confirms the prognostic significance of KIT mutation status in patients with GIST. This analysis also confirms the effectiveness of sunitinib as a post-imatinib therapy, regardless of mutational status.Trial registrationNCT01459757.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2051-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Various chemotherapy regimens, combined with recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor(rhG-CSF) or recombinant granulocyte-macrophage CSF (rhGM-CSF) are used in cancer patients to mobilize and collect peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC). In this retrospective study, we evaluated and compared the efficacy of such regimens in 262 patients with different types of malignant diseases. The following chemotherapy regimens were applied: ifosfamide-etoposide-cisplatin or bleomycin (n = 96; mainly patients with testicular cancer); ifosfamide-etoposide plus or minus cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C) or vincristine (VCR)(n = 52; mainly patients with lymphoma); cyclophosphamide-anthracycline (n = 53; mainly patients with breast cancer); intermediate to high dose (ID-HD) cyclophosphamide (n = 37; mainly patients with breast or ovarian cancer. or multiple myeloma; and others (n = 24). rhG-CSF or rhGM-CSF, each at an average daily dose of 5 microg/kg body weight, were used in 166 and 96 patients, respectively. The study evaluated and compared the efficacy of these two cytokines. In patients receiving rhG-CSF, CD34+ cells could be collected earlier (median: day 14 versus day 16) and there was a significantly higher white blood cell count (WBC)(median 11,350 versus 5550/microl) and CD34+ cell count (median 88 versus 43/microl) at the start of apheresis, and a significantly higher CD34+ cell yield (median 7.4 x 10(6) versus 4.6 x 10(6)/kg) than in patients who receivedrhGM-CSF. Among the various chemotherapeutic regimens used, each combined with rhG-CSF, ifosfamide-etoposide plus or minus Ara-C or VCR mobilized a significantly higher number of CD34+ cells (median 119/microl) and produced a significantly higher harvest of these cells (median 13 x 10(6)/kg) than cyclophosphamide-anthracycline (median 87/microl and 7 x 10(6)/kg, respectively) or ID-HD cyclophosphamide (median 59/microl and 5 x I 0(6)/kg, respectively). Ifosfamide-etoposide plus or minus Ara-C or VCR was also superior to ifosfamide-etoposide-cisplatin or bleomycin (median 78/microl and 9 x 10(6)/kg, respectively), but at borderline significance. The outcome of PBSC mobilization and collection appeared to be negatively influenced by the number of relapses before the current salvage treatment. These data indicate that mobilization and collection of PBSCstrongly depend on the type of hematopoietic growth factor and chemotherapeutic regimen used. The data further show rhG-CSF is a more effective growth factor than rhGM-CSF and ifosfamide-etoposide-based regimens, particularly ifosfamide-etoposide plus or minus Ara-C or VCR, are highly effective regimens in mobilizing and collecting CD34+ cells.

No abstract