BioDrugs

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 349–372 | Cite as

Potential of Interferon-α in Solid Tumours

Part 2
Therapy Review

Abstract

The second part of this review examines the use of recombinant interferon-α (rIFNα) in the following solid tumours: superficial bladder cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, head and neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lung cancer, mesothelioma and ovarian, breast and cervical malignancies.

In superficial bladder cancer, intravesical rIFNα has a promising role as second-line therapy in patients resistant or intolerant to intravesical bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG). In HIV-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma, rIFNα is active as monotherapy and in combination with antiretroviral agents, especially in patients with CD4 counts >200/mm3, no prior opportunistic infections and nonvisceral disease. rIFNα has shown encouraging results when used in combination with retinoids in the chemoprevention of head and neck squamous cell cancers. It is effective in the chemoprevention of hepatocellular cancer in hepatitis C-seropositive patients. In neuroendocrine tumours, including carcinoid tumour, low-dosage (≤3MU) or intermediate-dosage (5 to 10MU) rIFNα is indicated as second-line treatment, either with octreotide or alone in patients resistant to somatostatin analogues. Intracavitary IFNα may be useful in malignant pleural effusions from mesothelioma. Similarly, intraperitoneal IFNα may have a role in the treatment of minimal residual disease in ovarian cancer. In breast cancer, the only possible role for IFNα appears to be intralesional administration for resistant disease. IFNα may have a role as a radiosensitising agent for the treatment of cervical cancer; however, this requires confirmation in randomised trials.

On the basis of current evidence, the routine use of rIFNα is not recommended in the therapy of head and neck squamous cell cancers, upper gastrointestinal tract, colorectal and lung cancers, or mesothelioma. Pegylated IFNα (peginterferon-α) is an exciting development that offers theoretical advantages of increased efficacy, reduced toxicity and improved compliance. Further data from randomised studies in solid tumours are needed where rIFNα has activity, such as neuroendocrine tumours, minimal residual disease in ovarian cancer, and cervical cancer. A better understanding of the biological mechanisms that determine response to rIFNα is needed. Studies of IFNα-stimulated gene expression, which are now feasible, should help to identify molecular predictors of response and allow us to target therapy more selectively to patients with solid tumours responsive to IFNα.

The first part of this review[1] examined the biology of interferon-α (IFNα) and its clinical use in malignant melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. Here we survey its use in other solid tumours: superficial bladder cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, head and neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancers, lung cancer, mesothelioma and ovarian, breast and cervical malignancies.

1. Superficial Bladder Cancer

Superficial bladder cancers [SBCs; stages Ta or Tcis (tumours confined to the mucosa) or stage T1 (tumours invading the lamina propria)] account for about 80% of primary bladder neoplasms.[2] They recur in more than two-thirds of patients after surgical resection only.[3, 4, 5, 6] Immunotherapy plays an important role in the management of SBCs. Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is currently the most common form of immunotherapy used in the management of SBCs.[7]

IFNα, in addition to its antiproliferative, antiangiogenic and immunoregulatory effects, has specific antiproliferative activity against bladder cancer cells.[8,9] Intravesical IFNα produces its immunomodulatory effect through various mechanisms, such as increased production of interferon-γ (IFNγ).[10] Several studies have examined the ability of IFNα to eradicate residual tumours (therapeutic) and prevent tumour recurrences (prophylactic). Intravesical IFNα has been investigated both as monotherapy and in combination with BCG and other chemotherapeutic agents.

1.1 Monotherapy in the Therapeutic Setting

The clinical studies indicate that IFNα has significant activity in SBCs. Unlike BCG, the tolerability of intravesical IFNα is good. Torti and co-workers,[11] on behalf of the Northern California Oncology Study Group, noted a response rate of 43%, with 67% of treatment-naive patients responding as opposed to a 30% response rate in patients with prior intravesical therapy. There is also the suggestion that higher doses of IFNα are needed for maximum efficacy in the therapeutic setting. Glashan,[12] in a randomised trial evaluating two dose levels of IFNα, found that 100MU of intravesical IFNα, administered initially weekly for 3 months and then monthly for 12 months, produced a response rate of 66% (complete response 43%, partial response 23%), whereas a lower dose (10MU) produced a response rate of only 5%. Similar dose-response correlation was also noted in another randomised trial using IFNα doses of 10 and 100MU (response rates of 5 and 43%, respectively).[13]

1.2 Monotherapy in the Prophylactic Setting

The efficacy of IFNα in the therapeutic setting led to its evaluation in the prophylactic setting (table I). In one of the earlier studies, Oliver and colleagues[14] treated 16 patients with eight, once-weekly intravesical instillations of 50MU of IFNα and found that three of eight patients with a history of multiple papillary recurrences had no further recurrences, although the eight patients with carcinoma in situ did not respond to the treatment. In another, nonrandomised, study of 30 patients treated with intravesical IFNα, 63% were tumour free at the end of follow-up, which ranged from 12 to 28 months.[15]
Table I

Phase II and III studies of intravesical interferon-α (IFNα) monotherapy as prophylaxis in superficial bladder cancer recurrence

The results from nonrandomised trials prompted several randomised trials comparing IFNα monotherapy with BCG and other chemotherapeutic agents.[16] A multicentre Italian trial randomised 287 patients to either IFNα or mitomycin following complete transurethral resection of the tumour. Overall, mitomycin was superior to IFNα except in terms of local tolerability.[19] Other randomised trials have also confirmed the inferiority of IFNα in SBCs when compared with BCG, mitomycin or epirubicin.[18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]

It is clear that BCG and other cytotoxic agents are superior to IFNα in the treatment of SBC. One hypothesis put forward, based on preclinical studies, to explain the smaller magnitude of the effect of IFNα, is that IFNα treatment requires frequent administration of optimal biological doses rather than the conventional maximum tolerated dose.[25] Moreover, there is a dose-response correlation in the prophylactic setting as well, and a randomised trial has found 80MU to be significantly more effective than 40MU and slightly better than 60MU.[26] It is unknown if the dose-response correlation could partially account for the inferior results of the IFNα prophylactic treatment in these SBC trials.

1.3 Second-Line and Combination Therapy

Even though IFNα is inferior as a first-line agent, it has the potential to be a second-line agent in patients who have had prior intravesical therapy. Torti and co-workers[11] found that seven of 23 patients who did not respond to prior intravesical chemotherapy or immunotherapy responded to intravesical IFNα, and Glashan[12] reported that six of nine patients responded to IFNα therapy after failure of intravesical BCG. Although BCG is clearly superior to IFNα as a first-line treatment, BCG therapy has problems with tolerability, toxicity and tumour resistance in a significant proportion of patients.[27] IFNα, with its proven but inferior efficacy, can be added to BCG with a view to increasing the overall therapeutic ratio of intravesical treatment. The efficacy of IFNα in BCG-resistant tumours and its preclinical evidence of synergistic activity with BCG provides support for combination therapy.[11,12,28, 29, 30] The toxicity of BCG is dose-dependent, and IFNα offers an avenue to reduce the dose of BCG without compromising overall efficacy.[31] From a practical point of view, IFNα is pharmacologically compatible with BCG and can be administered intravesically with it.[32]

Stricker and colleagues[33] assessed the feasibility of combining IFNα with BCG in a phase I trial involving 12 patients (table II). They found that the treatment was well tolerated and response rates were good in spite of using a slightly lower dose of BCG.[33] Another prospective phase II study also found that BCG could be given, alternating with IFNα, with good toxicity profile and response rates.[34] Unlike the early studies, a recently reported prospective randomised trial involving 236 patients found no benefit in alternating IFNα with BCG following mitomycin therapy when compared with the instillation of BCG alone after mitomycin therapy.[35]
Table II

Intravesical interferon-α (IFNα) combination therapy in superficial bladder cancer

The rationale for combining IFNα with other cytotoxic agents comes from preclinical studies showing synergism between IFNα and other agents such as doxorubicin and mitomycin.[40] Engelmann and co-workers,[38] in a three-arm study of 67 patients, found that the combination of IFNα + mitomycin was more effective than either agent administered alone. Further confirmatory large studies are needed, since this study was small and the mean follow-up was only 6.2 months. In a trial of 85 patients comparing single-agent IFNα with IFNα + epirubicin,[36] the recurrence rates were 24 and 16%, respectively, thus favouring the chemoimmunotherapy arm. Another recent paper also reported good response rates for the combination of IFNα and epirubicin. The group treated with IFNα combination therapy had a recurrence rate of 21%, whereas those treated by transurethral resection alone had a recurrence rate of 54%.[37] The combination of IFNα + fluorouracil has also shown good response rates in a small study of 11 patients.[39] The combinations of IFNα with BCG and other chemotherapy agents need to be assessed in prospective randomised trials before firm conclusions can be drawn.

1.4 Overview

In summary, IFNα has efficacy in the therapeutic setting of SBC.[11] There are no randomised studies comparing IFNα with BCG in the therapeutic setting, but the response rates to IFNα therapy are clearly inferior to those of BCG as a first-line agent.[12,13,41] Hence, the role of IFNα as a first-line agent is limited to patients who are intolerant of BCG. In the prophylactic setting, IFNα monotherapy has been confirmed to be inferior to BCG and other cytotoxic agents in randomised studies.[18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24] The role of IFNα as a second-line agent, particularly in patients resistant to BCG, needs to be clarified by randomised studies. The role of IFNα in combination with BCG and other chemotherapy agents is an avenue for future research.

2. Kaposi’s Sarcoma

Kaposi’s sarcoma is one of the common malignancies in patients infected with HIV. Up to 25% of patients with AIDS may develop the disease.[42] IFNα has been evaluated mainly in AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma, both as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy and antiretroviral agents. Many growth factors, cytokines and angiogenic factors such as basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin (IL)-8, platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor-β and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) play an important role in the pathogenesis of Kaposi’s sarcoma.[43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54] Recently, a herpes family virus (HHV-8, also known as KSHV — Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus) has been found to be the aetiological factor responsible for the development of Kaposi’s sarcoma.[55, 56, 57, 58, 59] The rationale for using IFNα in the treatment of Kaposi’s sarcoma is manifold:[60,61]
  • IFNα has specific antiviral activity against HIV and KSHV and antitumour activity against Kaposi’s sarcoma cells[62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67]

  • IFNα inhibits angiogenesis and downregulates various proangiogenic factors (such as VEGF, bFGF, IL-8, MMP-2, MMP-9 and PDGF) that are involved in the pathogenesis of Kaposi’s sarcoma[25,68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74]

  • IFNα inhibits proliferation of Kaposi’s sarcoma spindle cells by downregulating expression of the oncogene c-myc[75]

  • IFNα has growth inhibitory activities through negative regulation of various cell cycle proteins and signal transduction pathways[76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82]

  • IFNα has immunomodulatory activity through its effect on natural killer cells, T cells and monocytes[64,83, 84, 85, 86]

  • IFNα inhibits various inflammatory cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of Kaposi’s sarcoma.[87]

2.1 Monotherapy and Combination Therapy

Krown and co-workers[88] were the first to report, in 1983, that IFNα is effective in AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma.[88] Since then, IFNα use has been widely explored in many studies (table III). The response rates range from 10 to 67% and the typical dose is 5 to 30MU when IFNα is used as monotherapy and 1 to 10MU in combination therapy.[66,89, 90, 91, 92, 93] In an attempt to improve response rates, IFNα was further evaluated in combination with antiretroviral agents.[94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99] The response rates for combination therapy range from 5 to 65%.
Table III

Interferon-α (IFNα) in Kaposi’s sarcoma

One of the largest trials, which assessed the combination of IFNα + zidovudine, was the Canadian HIV Clinical Trials Network study. This randomised study looked at different dose levels of IFNα and found that the higher dose of 8MU, even though more toxic, produced a significantly higher response rate than low-dose IFNα (3MU) [31 vs 8%].[101] It is noteworthy that low-dose IFNα in combination with zidovudine was effective even in patients with low CD4+ count, in whom IFNα monotherapy is ineffective.[62,96] The combination of IFNα + zidovudine is complicated by dose-limiting neutropenia.[96] Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) can be used to circumvent this problem, without adversely affecting the antiviral properties of the combination.[94,103]

The other attempt to improve the therapeutic ratio of IFNα was to combine it with chemotherapeutic agents. Various studies using vinblastine, etoposide and other agents have so far failed to demonstrate any significant improvements in the response rates. Moreover, the toxicity due to the combination therapy was severe in many studies.[102,104,105]

Many factors are correlated with a response to IFNα therapy. There is a dose-response effect with IFNα monotherapy, but dose escalation is limited by the high toxicity rates.[89,91,92] The patients more likely to respond to IFNα treatment are those with a high CD4+ count (>150 to 200 cells/mm3), those with low-stage disease, those without B symptoms (fever, night sweats and body-weight loss), those without a history of opportunistic infections and those with undetectable endogenous IFNα.[62,90,91,93,104] In particular, patients with low CD4+ counts (<100 cells/mm3) do not seem to derive any benefit from IFNα monotherapy.[62] With combination treatment (IFNα + antiretroviral), a high CD4+ count, absence of B symptoms and absence of opportunistic infections are again strong predictors of response to IFNα treatment.[95,96,98,101,106,107]

There is also a dose-response effect with IFNα combination therapy.[101] Unlike IFNα monotherapy, low doses of IFNα in combination with antiretrovirals are effective even in patients with low CD4+ counts, but response rates are lower than those observed in patients with high CD4+ counts.[96,98,101,106,107]

2.2 Overview

In summary, IFNα is an effective agent in Kaposi’s sarcoma. The combination of zidovudine + IFNα seems to be more effective than IFNα monotherapy, but this comes at a price of greater toxicity. The patients benefiting most from IFNα treatment are those with high CD4+ counts (>200 cells/mm3) and no prior opportunistic infections, and those receiving antiretroviral therapy.[62,90,92,104]

3. Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer

Head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCCs) are characterised by a number of synchronous and metachronous second primary tumours of the aerodigestive tract.[108, 109, 110] Survival rates in patients with HNSCCs have not improved significantly, despite advances in detection, treatment and local control, because of the toll on survival by the second primary tumours. This has led to chemoprevention efforts with various agents such as retinoids and β-carotene. The results of many randomised trials have been mixed, and chemoprevention of second primary tumours with pharmacological agents is yet to become the standard of care.[111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116] IFNα has been evaluated as a therapeutic and a chemopreventive agent in HNSCC.

3.1 Therapy

The antitumour activity of IFNα observed in the pilot studies of HNSCC led to phase II trials.[117, 118, 119] The phase II trials of IFNα in combination with other cytotoxic agents showed response rates of 30% in patients with recurrent HNSCCs. They also suggested the feasibility of combining IFNα with cisplatin and fluorouracil, which is one of the most active chemotherapy regimens in HNSCC.[120,121] However, a phase III trial failed to show any benefit for the combination of cisplatin, fluorouracil and IFNα in the therapeutic setting. In this randomised trial, patients with recurrent and metastatic HNSCCs were randomised to receive both cisplatin and fluorouracil ± IFNα. There was no difference in response rates or overall survival (OS).[122]

A phase II study using a novel combination of IFNα, isotretinoin (13-cis-retinoic acid) and α-tocopherol in patients with locally advanced HNSCC has recently been reported.[123] The addition of α-tocopherol to the isotretinoin was intended to reduce toxicity and enhance effectiveness.[124] The aim of the trial was to reduce recurrence rates as well as to prevent second primary tumours. This combination showed a 2-year OS rate of 91% [2-year disease-free survival (DFS) 84%] The toxicities of this combination regimen noted in the trial were fatigue (grade 2/3: 40%), myalgia (grade 2/3: 28%), infection (grade 4: 2%), dry skin and mucositis (grade 2/3: 40%) and hypertriglyceridaemia (grade 1/2: 30%). The results of this trial warrant evaluation in further large randomised phase III clinical trials.[123]

3.2 Chemoprevention

Premalignant lesions of the upper aerodigestive tract carry a high risk for transformation into an invasive cancer.[125,126] Hence, chemoprevention strategies are being tried to reduce the risk of transformation.[127] Isotretinoin and α-tocopherol are the agents that have been widely studied in this setting.[115,128] The novel strategy of combining IFNα with the retinoids has been based on preclinical studies that showed remarkable synergism between these agents in inhibition of HNSCC proliferation and angiogenesis.[129, 130, 131]

A recent chemoprevention trial of the upper aerodigestive tract used the combination of IFNα, isotretinoin and α-tocopherol. The 36 participants in this prospective trial did not have invasive cancer and had only advanced premalignant lesions of the head and neck region. The investigators observed ten pathological complete responses and seven partial responses at 6 months. The overall histological response rate and clinical response rates were 48 and 57%, respectively, at treatment completion in 12 months. When the response rates were analysed by the site of lesions, premalignant lesions of the larynx were found to have high response rates, whereas oral lesions had a low response rate (at 12 months, complete response 50 and 0%, respectively). This indicates that future trials should stratify patients according to the site of lesions. The tolerability of this combination regimen was reasonable. Only three patients dropped out of the trial because of toxicity. None of the patients experienced any grade 4 toxicity, but 13 (36%) experienced grade 3 toxicity. If these results are replicated in a large trial, this regimen of IFNα, isotretinoin and α-tocopherol could become the standard of care.[127]

3.3 Overview

Systemic IFNα therapy has no proven role in the therapy of HNSCCs. The role of IFNα in the chemoprevention setting, in combination with the retinoids, is encouraging, but because of the small sample size of the trials its role is undefined.

4. Oesophageal Cancer

IFNα has shown no activity as a single agent, and has been used in a small number of phase II studies in combination with fluorouracil.[132,133] It has been tried unsuccessfully with high-dosage retinoids such as etretinate[134] and isotretinoin.[135,136] It has also been combined with fluorouracil and cisplatin given pre-operatively with chemoirradiation,[137,138] as neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer,[139] and in the metastatic setting.[140] These trials, however, were single-arm studies and the contribution of IFNα to the efficacy of treatment was uncertain. The above data cannot be used to draw firm conclusions, but it seems unlikely that IFNα will have a role in therapy of oesophageal cancer.[141]

5. Gastric Cancer

Four phase I/II trials of intermediate-dosage IFNα (IDIFN) [5MU] combined with fluorouracil ± leucovorin[142, 143, 144, 145] included 121 evaluable patients and averaged a 28% response rate. One study of low-dosage IFNα (LDIFN) [3MU three times weekly] and continuous fluorouracil infusion combined with leucovorin and etoposide reported a response rate of approximately 37%,[146] and an Italian group achieved similar results (response rate 32%) with fluorouracil, leucovorin, LDIFN and epirubicin.[147] Despite comparable response rates, median survival was 15 months in the former study and only 8 months in the latter. The above response rates are comparable to those reported with fluorouracil-doxorubicin-methotrexate combination chemotherapy,[148, 149, 150] but inferior to the 45% response rate reported with the epirubicin-cisplatin-fluorouracil regimen.[151]

Despite recent data confirming that IFNα inhibits the growth of gastric carcinoma cells in vitro[152] and increases the intratumoral concentration of fluorouracil in vivo,[153] the response rates to treatment with fluorouracil (+ leucovorin) combined with either LDIFN or IDIFN are lower than can be achieved with epirubicin-cisplatin-fluorouracil chemotherapy. There is therefore insufficient evidence to routinely use IFNα in the treatment of gastric cancer.

6. Pancreatic Cancer

IFNα has been tested in a number of phase II studies, in combination with leucovorin and fluorouracil. Unfortunately, response rates have been poor (0 to 23%). In 204 patients treated within phase II studies,[154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160] the response rate was just 10%. All of these studies used IFNα + fluorouracil ± leucovorin. Adding etoposide to the above combination did not improve the response rate, which remained low at 11%.[161] The addition of cisplatin in another study[162] achieved a higher response rate (38%), but at the expense of considerable toxicity. IFNα combined with isotretinoin was well tolerated but the response rate was disappointingly poor (only 5%).[163] The lack of a survival benefit and the severity of toxicities observed in some of these studies have precluded any role for IFNα in the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.[141]

One recent phase II study[164] used IFNα with cisplatin + fluorouracil in the adjuvant chemo-irradiation setting after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and reported excellent OS at 2 years (84%). These data, however, are immature, and more importantly the contribution of IFNα is difficult to determine without a randomised study.

7. Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Early studies showed that IFNα alone[165] or combined with cytotoxic agents[166, 167, 168, 169] was inactive in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). One phase II study of 28 patients showed that continuous fluorouracil infusion + LDIFN induced durable partial responses in nearly one-third of patients with low α-fetoprotein levels or 50% liver involvement.[170] IFNα has also been tested with other cytokines such as tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α and high-dosage IL-2 in this setting, but without success.[171,172] More recently, attempts with intra-arterial[173,174] or combination[175] chemotherapy have been more fruitful in terms of response rate (26 to 47%). However, this has not translated into a survival benefit, with reported median survival times of 5 to 9 months.[173, 174, 175] The only study where IFNα alone has shown activity in HCC used high-dosage IFNα (HDIFN) [50 MU/m2 three times weekly], but despite a response rate of 31% this failed to prolong survival.[176]

Despite these results, a randomised chemoprevention study from Japan showed that 3 to 6 months of IFNα were sufficient to achieve a nearly 10-fold reduction in the incidence of HCC in hepatitis C-positive patients.[177] This has been confirmed in a larger study.[178] The full potential of IFNα in HCC therefore needs further evaluation. This view is supported by a recent meta-analysis that examined the role of IFNα and other medical therapies for unresectable HCC.[179]

The routine use of IFNα for treatment of HCC cannot be recommended in the light of available evidence to date, except for chemoprevention in hepatitis C. One study has shown that the critical factor influencing the incidence of HCC is the total dose of IFNα used (>500MU).[180]

8. Neuroendocrine Tumours

Recombinant IFNα has been tested in phase II trials as first-or second-line therapy for neuroendocrine tumours, including carcinoid. Pooled data have reported a 42% biochemical response rate and a 70% symptomatic response rate in 111 patients with malignant carcinoid tumours.[181] More recent data on >300 patients with neuroendocrine tumours treated with LDIFN/IDIFN have reported a biochemical response rate of 44% and a symptomatic response rate of 65%,[182] which occurred despite tumour reductions observed in just 11% of patients. Comparable figures have been seen in other studies: biochemical and symptomatic response rates of 58 and 80%, respectively,[183] biochemical response rate 75%,[184] symptomatic response rate 64%,[185] all in carcinoid tumours. IFNα may be particularly useful for midgut carcinoids, which are frequently resistant to chemotherapy, unlike foregut carcinoids.[186]

Two phase II studies examined the role of LDIFN given with fluorouracil, and both reported very low response rates: biochemical response rate 14% in one study[187] and objective response rate 7% in the other.[188] These response rates are much lower than those achieved with cytotoxic agents such as fluorouracil and streptozocin combined (33%)[189,190] or with single-agent doxorubicin (23%).[191] Moreover, the LDIFN + fluorouracil combination was associated with significant toxicity (nausea, diarrhoea, fatigue).[187,188] In a Norwegian study of 42 patients, IFNα was given after hepatic artery embolisation and improved survival in patients who continued therapy for more than 1 year compared with those who stopped at 1 year.[192] The contribution of therapy with IFNα, however, remains uncertain.

Somatostatin analogues are usually first-line therapy in metastatic carcinoid tumours; however, for patients who fail to respond or are intolerant to these, IFNα offers an alternative. Symptomatic and biochemical response rates of about 50% and 69 to 77%, respectively, have been achieved using IFNα as second-line treatment.[193,194] In another study, disease stabilisation was seen in 13 of 14 patients for a median 12 months.[195] The biochemical and symptomatic responses seen despite measurable tumour regression suggest that the effect of IFNα combined with octreotide is antiproliferative.[195] This is difficult to reconcile with the interesting observation that expression of the antiapoptotic bcl-2 gene is induced in neuroendocrine gut tumours from patients treated with and responding to IFNα.[196] One study has suggested that the kinetics of responses seen in 16 chemotherapy-naive patients with carcinoid tumours are consistent with an anti-angiogenic effect.[184] IFNα in combination with octreotide is better tolerated than monotherapy.[197] Treatment with HDIFN entails significant toxicity,[198] whereas LDIFN has been shown to have equivalent efficacy, in terms of symptom control, to IDIFN;[199] therefore, as second-line therapy we advocate LDIFN (3MU) with octreotide or LDIFN alone in patients resistant or intolerant to somatostatin analogues.

9. Colorectal Cancer

IFNα as monotherapy has little activity in colorectal cancer.[200] Preclinical work[201] showed that all interferons enhance the cytotoxicity of fluorouracil. IFNα and IFNβ were more potent than IFNγ in human colorectal cancer cell lines.[201] The potentiation of fluorouracil cytotoxicity[202] may be explained by the following:
  • induction of thymidine phosphorylase, which catalyses the metabolism of fluorouracil to 5-fluorodeoxyuridine, the first step in the production of 5-fluorodeoxyuridine monophosphate[203, 204, 205]

  • depletion of thymidine nucleotide pools and increase in the number of DNA breaks[206, 207, 208]

  • thymidine phosphorylase-independent mechanisms.[209]

9.1 Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between Fluorouracil and Interferon-α

The early studies focused on the pharmacokinetic interactions between fluorouracil and IFNα. IFNα slows the breakdown of fluorouracil in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.[210] Several studies have demonstrated decreased clearance and increased concentrations of fluorouracil.[211, 212, 213, 214] A smaller recent study[153] used 19F magnetic resonance spectroscopy and demonstrated, in vivo, increases in the half-life of fluorouracil in a small number of patients treated with fluorouracil and IFNα. Conversely, two studies have shown no pharmacokinetic interaction between fluorouracil and IFNα.[215,216] Sparano and coworkers[215] showed increased gastrointestinal toxicity when IFNα was administered with infusional fluorouracil, but without any pharmacokinetic interaction, thus supporting the existence of nonpharmacokinetic mechanisms for enhanced fluorouracil cytotoxicity.[202] The reasons for these discrepancies are unclear. Nevertheless, the findings of Presant and colleagues[153] are consistent with the results of earlier studies on the effect of IFNα on fluorouracil pharmacokinetics.[211, 212, 213, 214]

Subsequent clinical trials of IFNα and fluorouracil can be grouped into four categories, as discussed in the following sections.

9.2 Single-Arm Trials of Fluorouracil and Interferon-α

Nine phase II studies with 316 evaluable patients have reported response rates of 24 to 63% (mean 35%).[217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225] Significant grade 3/4 toxicities were observed; however, the results were promising, as the response rates were higher than with fluorouracil alone and comparable to those seen with other fluorouracil biomodulators.[202]

9.3 Single-Arm Trials of Fluorouracil, Interferon-α and Leucovorin

Following the results of the above studies, attempts focused on improving response rates even further. Therefore, many phase II trials combined fluorouracil with IFNα and leucovorin.[226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237] The scientific basis of the double modulation of fluorouracil by IFNα and leucovorin was the enhanced cytotoxicity observed in colorectal cell lines.[208] This, however, conflicts with the observation made 1 year earlier by Schuller and co-workers,[213] who showed that leucovorin abrogated the pharmacokinetic interaction between fluorouracil and IFNα.

The response rates ranged from 13 to 54% and the toxicity was similar to that seen with fluorouracil modulated by either IFNα alone or leucovorin alone. Consequently, the addition of leucovorin to the fluorouracil + IFNα combination offers no extra benefit.[202]

9.4 Randomised Trials of Fluorouracil With or Without Interferon-α

More than 1400 patients have been treated in eight phase III randomised trials comparing fluorouracil (or fluorouracil + leucovorin) with fluorouracil + IFNα.[238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244] The major findings were the increased toxicity in the fluorouracil + IFNα arms and the absence of improved survival with the addition of IFNα (table IV).[202] Only one study showed a trend for improved survival in the fluorouracil + IFNα arm, but statistical significance was borderline and the control arm had an unusually low response rate.[245]
Table IV

Phase III trials of fluorouracil (FU) and interferon-α (IFNα) combination therapy in colorectal cancer

A possible explanation as to why these studies showed no survival advantage for the IFNα arm may have been the failure to administer IFNα simultaneously with the fluorouracil.[202] Fluorouracil has a short in vivo half-life, and for effective synergy with IFNα both drugs must be present simultaneously.[201] For example, in the Royal Marsden study,[239] IFNα was administered 2 to 4 hours after the bolus dose of fluorouracil. In the study by Greco and colleagues,[243] IFNα was administered before fluorouracil, i.e. as given in previous phase II studies,[220] and in another study,[241] although IFNα was administered before fluorouracil, specific timing was not requested.[246] Although the differences in response rates between the fluorouracil and fluorouracil + IFNα arms in these three randomised trials were not statistically significant, there was a trend for higher response rates in two studies that administered IFNα before fluorouracil.[241,243]

9.5 Randomised Trials of Fluorouracil + Leucovorin With or Without Interferon-α

Of the published phase III trials that compared fluorouracil + leucovorin with fluorouracil + leucovorin + IFNα,[247, 248, 249, 250, 251] none has shown a benefit for the IFNα-containing arm (table V). A possible explanation is the abrogation of the IFNα-related pharmacokinetic enhancement of fluorouracil cytotoxicity by leucovorin.[213] This may explain the failure of the IFNα-containing arm (fluorouracil + leucovorin + IFNα) to show superiority over the standard (fluorouracil + leucovorin) arm[202] in the large randomised trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for Duke’s B and C colorectal cancer conducted by the National Surgical Adjuvant Bowel (and Breast) Project.[252] A similar result has also been seen in a smaller randomised phase III study of adjuvant fluorouracil + leucovorin ± IFNα in colorectal cancer.[253] A recent German trial showed that modulation of fluorouracil by IFNα + levamisole conferred no benefit.[254]
Table V

Phase III trials of fluorouracil (FU), leucovorin and interferon-α (IFNα) combination therapy in colorectal cancer

9.6 Interferon-α in Combination with Other Agents

Of three phase II studies using IFNα + IL-2,[255, 256, 257] only one[256] showed, albeit very modest, activity in advanced colorectal cancer (response rate 14%); therefore, this combination cannot be recommended in this setting. Multimodal biochemical modulation of fluorouracil with methotrexate + leucovorin + IFNα,[258] leucovorin + IFNα + IL-2[259] or IFNα combined with other cytotoxic agents such as etoposide[260] has also proved ineffective.

9.7 Overview

A meta-analysis based on data from more than 3000 patients showed that IFNα did not enhance the efficacy of fluorouracil either alone or with leucovorin. The fluorouracil + IFNα combinations were found to be inferior to fluorouracil + leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer.[261] Therefore, on the basis of current data, IFNα cannot be recommended for routine use in advanced colorectal cancer. This accords with previous reviews in this field.[141,262]

10. Lung Cancer

10.1 Small-Cell Lung Cancer

IFNα has been used in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) with induction chemotherapy and as maintenance therapy.

10.1.1 Induction Chemotherapy

Three randomised trials examined the role of IFNα as part of induction therapy. The largest study showed no survival benefit with either natural or rIFNα given with six cycles of cisplatin + etoposide.[263] In a smaller study,[264] the response rate for IFNα was higher and there was a tendency for longer time to progression, although this was not statistically significant. Zarogoulidis and colleagues[265] showed no difference in response rate, although survival in the IFNα group was prolonged.

These studies were relatively small, and as the data published to date are inconclusive a large multicentre study should be conducted to evaluate IFNα given with induction therapy in SCLC. In vitro data have shown that IFNα increases the radiosensitivity of SCLC.[266] This may be one of the reasons why the only trial that showed improved survival for IFNα given with induction chemotherapy[265] used radiotherapy to both the primary site and brain (prophylaxis); in contrast, the two other studies[263,264] did not use radiation concomitantly with IFNα.

10.1.2 Maintenance Therapy

Results on the use of IFNα for maintenance therapy after response to chemotherapy have been mixed. The largest study of maintenance therapy in SCLC involved 237 patients who responded to induction chemotherapy and radiotherapy.[267] This three-arm trial compared low-dosage natural IFNα with maintenance chemotherapy and with no maintenance therapy. Although there was no significant difference in median survival, there was a long-term survival benefit for limited stage disease in the IFNα arm.[267] A more recent analysis[268] confirmed the earlier findings, as the IFNα-treated patients were five times more likely to be alive at 5 years than were patients in the other two arms. A smaller phase III study was too small for any survival advantage to be detected.[269]

Two other randomised studies[270,271] that used LDIFN/IDIFN maintenance therapy after initial response to chemotherapy failed to show a survival advantage, whereas a third trial reported a better 2-year survival for IFNα-treated patients.[272] The trials by Jett and colleagues[270] and Kelly and colleagues[271] showed a trend for poorer median survival in the IFNα-treated groups. A randomised phase II trial[273] showed that maintenance treatment with IFNα and isotretinoin, after dose-intensive chemotherapy, was feasible. Median survival in this arm was about 4 months longer than that in the control arm (no maintenance therapy), but the difference was not statistically significant. This combination needs testing in a large randomised study.

Overall, these studies do not support the use of rIFNα as maintenance treatment in SCLC.[274]

10.2 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Most studies on non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been small phase II trials of IFNα and chemotherapy in advanced disease. Cisplatin has been most commonly used, either as a single agent or with other cytotoxic agents. The response rates reported vary from 6 to 51%.[275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286] In total, well over 400 patients have been treated in phase II studies, with an average response rate of 30%. Two of these phase II studies combined IFNα with isotretinoin or tretinoin, but no benefit was seen.[278,280] The largest reported randomised trial[287] treated 192 patients with cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and cisplatin ± IFNα, but showed a tendency for poorer survival in the IFNα arm.

Some NSCLC cell lines are resistant to IFNα alone; however, inhibition of proliferation was seen when combining IFNα with IFNγ.[288] Although work on NSCLC cell lines has shown no synergistic interaction between IFNα and cisplatin, fluorouracil, tretinoin or isotretinoin,[289] potentiation of cisplatin activity by rIFNα was shown against human NSCLC established as a xenograft in nude mice.[290] IFNα combined with the angiogenesis inhibitor AGM-1470 has also inhibited primary tumour growth and growth of lung metastases in mice.[291] Despite these encouraging preclinical data, however, the use of IFNα has not translated into a therapeutic benefit in patients.

IFNα has also been tested with IL-2 in a small phase I/II trial, but without success.[292] A much larger phase II study where this combination was given to patients responding to chemotherapy reported an response rate of 53%.[293]

Three studies have reported on the use of IFNα with radiotherapy. A 46% response rate has been reported by combining LDIFN/IDIFN with radiotherapy and cisplatin.[294] Low- and intermediate-dosage natural IFNα has been combined with radiotherapy in two small studies with 60[295] and 23%[296] response rates.

In summary, although the existing evidence does not support routine use of IFNα in NSCLC, its activity and toxicity in combination with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy should be further evaluated.

11. Mesothelioma

The susceptibility of mesothelial cells to immune effector cells and cytokines in vitro and in vivo led to the use of IFNα in this disease.[297] Work using mesothelioma cell lines[298] and murine xenograft models[299] showed IFNα to be effective early in tumour development, and the combination of IFNα with other antiproliferative agents (e.g. β-carotene) had an additive effect.[300] Studies showed activity of either IFNα alone[298,301] or IFNα combined with IFNγ and methotrexate[302] in mesothelioma cell lines.

Two clinical studies tested IFNα alone,[303,304] but the response rate was low (12%). Several phase II studies in which nearly 100 patients have been treated using combinations of IFNα and cisplatin + tamoxifen[305] or other cytotoxic agents have yielded response rates of about 20% (range 7 to 42%).[306, 307, 308, 309, 310] These results are similar to those reported in a recent review of phase II trials of chemoimmunotherapy, which included 98 patients treated at the Institute Gustave Roussy (response rate 15 to 40%).[311] One phase II study showed that increasing the IFNα dosage enhanced toxicity but did not affect the response rate or survival.[312]

A phase II study of LDIFN combined with mitomycin + cisplatin reported a response rate of 23%.[313] No difference in survival was seen between the treatment group and patients treated with supportive care alone, although the median survival for responding patients was significantly longer. A more recent Italian phase II study used LDIFN combined with cisplatin + doxorubicin and reported a response rate of 29%. Toxicity was significant and median survival was approximately 9 months.[314] Intracavitary IFNα, though inferior to IL-2,[315] has been reported to be effective for symptomatic control of malignant pleural effusions.

The above data do not support routine clinical use of systemic IFNα in mesothelioma.

12. Ovarian Cancer

There have been no randomised trials in the last 10 years to examine the role of IFNα as systemic therapy in ovarian cancer. Most studies used intraperitoneal IFNα given alone or with other cytotoxic agents. Pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated that the intraperitoneal concentration of IFNα was much higher than the blood concentration, thus delivering more IFNα to the tumour by the former route.[316] The same author[317] suggested, in another study, that intraperitoneal IFNα should be given to patients with minimal residual disease (MRD) and platinum-sensitive tumours. IFNα on its own is as effective as in alternating combination with cisplatin.[318] This is supported by another study[319] that showed that combining intraperitoneal IFNα and intraperitoneal carboplatin resulted in more toxicity without any substantial survival benefit.

Since 1990, about 170 patients in total have been treated with intraperitoneal IFNα combined with cytotoxic drugs (cisplatin, carboplatin, cisplatin + mitoxantrone), with response rates varying from 0%[320] to 62%.[321] All of these studies used IFNα in the setting of MRD detected after second-look laparotomy. The presence of small-volume disease (<2cm) appeared to correlate with likelihood of response. Current evidence supports the use of intraperitoneal IFNα in ovarian cancer with MRD, i.e. after debulking surgery and cytoreductive chemotherapy. Conclusive evidence, however, requires a randomised clinical trial.

13. Breast Cancer

IFNα has antiproliferative effects on some[322] but not all[323] breast cancer cell lines. Natural IFNα can sensitise tamoxifen-resistant or medroxyprogesterone acetate-resistant breast cancer cells by increasing estrogen/progesterone receptor expression.[324] Most studies examining the role of IFNα in breast cancer have been small phase II trials. These used IFNα with IL-2,[325] TNFα[171] or tamoxifen[326] without success. One large randomised study of doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide ± IFNα with more than 300 patients showed that DFS was not different in the two groups.[327]

Breast cancer was one of the first solid tumours where tumour regression was seen with natural IFNα.[328,329] It is unclear why rIFNα has not shown greater or at least equivalent activity. One possibility is that interferon species other than IFNα-2 have greater activity. Intralesional IFNα has been used with some success in treating recurrences in disseminated breast cancer resistant to radio/chemotherapy and hormones. The complete regression rate was nearly 50% in a group of 12 patients.[330]

In summary, current evidence does not support the routine use of IFNα as systemic therapy in breast cancer. Intralesional IFNα for resistant breast cancer recurrences may have a role, although this requires further evaluation.

14. Cervical Neoplasia

14.1 Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Cervical cancer has a well characterised premalignant phase — cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). If untreated, CIN could progress to frank invasive cancer. There is considerable evidence to implicate the human papillomavirus (HPV), especially HPV 16 and HPV 18, in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer. There is also evidence to indicate that altered immunological mechanisms might be involved in the carcinogenic process.[331, 332, 333, 334] Hence, IFNα, with its antiviral and immunomodulatory properties, along with its ability to suppress HPV-encoded oncogenes, can be potentially useful in the treatment of CIN.[335,336]

Both systemic and local IFNα therapies have been explored in the treatment of CIN. IFNα local therapy was found to cause regression of CIN in many uncontrolled studies, and the response rates were found to be as high as 85%.[337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346] However, placebo-controlled studies of local IFNα therapy have found no significant beneficial effects.[347, 348, 349] Systemic IFNα therapy was also found to cause regression of CIN in smaller studies.[350,351] Systemic IFNα therapy has not been evaluated in randomised trials and there are no ongoing phase III trials to confirm its potential. Interestingly, randomised trials of IFNα therapy for HPV genital infection found no beneficial effects.[352,353] These studies suggest that both local and systemic IFNα is unlikely to have significant benefits in treatment of CIN, which is strongly associated with HPV. Since women with CIN are healthy and have a good chance of surgical cure, IFNα therapy with its modest efficacy is unlikely to have a significant role in management of CIN.[354]

14.2 Invasive Cervical Cancer

The antiproliferative properties of IFNα on cervical cell lines led to their evaluation in the invasive cancer setting.[335,355] Many phase II studies have evaluated the role of IFNα in invasive cervical cancer. Because of preclinical synergism, IFNα was also evaluated in combination with isotretinoin.[356] In recurrent cervical cancer, the efficacy of IFNα is poor both as a single agent and in combination with other agents.[357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364] An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study of 31 patients with recurrent cervical cancer found low response rates for IFNα therapy.[362] Similarly, a recent Gynecologic Oncology Group trial[360] and a Southwest Oncology Group trial[363] found no evidence of benefit for the combination of IFNα + isotretinoin in recurrent cervical cancer.

In contrast, IFNα has a potential role in the first-line treatment of cervical cancer. Two phase II studies[365,366] reported response rates of about 60%. LDIFN combined with isotretinoin produced a 58% response rate in patients with locally advanced disease after a 2- to 4-month period of treatment.[366] In another study, LDIFN was administered with radiotherapy to patients with clinical stage III/IV disease and resulted in a response rate of 64%.[365] In a study by Stock and coworkers[367] LDIFN was combined with weekly cisplatin chemotherapy and irradiation, and achieved excellent control of local disease (100% at 2 years). However, this was at the expense of late complications, which were most probably related to the high doses of radiation used (median 93Gy).

Recently, Ikic and colleagues,[368] who used IFNα preoperatively for just 3 weeks in stage I/II disease, have reported better results. In a randomised phase II study they reported a statistically significant survival benefit (74 vs 47% at 20 years; p < 0.05) for patients treated with neoadjuvant human natural IFNα applied topically in the form of pessaries before surgery.

Unfortunately, these phase II studies are small and, except for one trial,[368] all are nonrandomised. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the contribution of IFNα therapy to responses and survival. Prospective randomised trials are therefore urgently needed to help establish the role of IFNα in advanced cervical cancer and as adjuvant therapy after curative surgery or radical radiotherapy. In vitro studies suggest that IFNα can have a radiosensitising effect.[369] This is significant, since radiotherapy is a curative therapeutic modality in cervical cancer. Furthermore, the combination of isotretinoin and IFNα has been found to improve cervical tumour oxygenation.[370] Although tumour hypoxia negatively affects the efficacy of radical radiotherapy, it is not known whether this improvement in hypoxia will lead to survival benefits.

15. Future Prospects for Interferon-α in Solid Tumours

Since the availability of sufficient amounts of rIFNα 20 years ago, IFNα has been tested widely in many cancers. Its efficacy in solid tumours has been lower than in haematological malignancies (table VI). The reasons for this are uncertain. One explanation may be the breakdown in the homeostasis of the endogenous IFNα system seen, for example, in chronic myeloid and hairy cell leukaemias where there is downregulation of IFNα receptors, which can be compensated by exogenous IFNα.[371] In solid tumours, however, it is possible that such pathological processes are absent. Studies have shown that IFNα can induce apoptosis[372] in a variety of cancers such as lymphomas, non-melanoma skin cancer and gliomas.[373, 374, 375] The mechanisms of this are not fully clear; however, it is thought that IFNα-regulated genes exert a tumour-suppressor function by apoptosis.[372] One can speculate that this apoptotic process is defective in some types of solid tumours.
Table VI

Response rates to interferon-α in solid tumours and haematological malignancies

Other factors are pharmacokinetic, such as insufficient exposure of malignant cells to IFNα because of the anatomical and physiological characteristics of solid tumours (e.g. abnormal vasculature and high interstitial pressure, respectively). Also, the toxicity of high-dosage IFNα therapy may prevent delivery of sufficient quantities of IFNα locally. Locoregional administration of IFNα in some solid tumours such as ovarian and breast cancers has led to tumour regression.[330,376] Despite these obstacles, IFNα can occasionally produce some remarkable responses even in some of the most chemo- and radioresistant tumours, such as malignant melanoma and renal cell carcinoma.[378, 379, 380]

In some cancers, survival and possibly antitumour activity may be facilitated by low tumour burden. Two recently published randomised studies[381,382] have shown that in patients with renal cell carcinoma, radical nephrectomy prior to IFNα immunotherapy confers a significant survival benefit compared with IFNα alone. Although the objective response rates were not different between the two groups,[382] the survival benefit seen[383] is likely to be related to the reduced tumour burden, as all patients had metastatic disease. Responses can take a long time to be seen (median time in most trials being 2 to 3 months).[384] A recent study, however, has reported delayed responses occurring at 12 to 16 months after disease stabilisation in three patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with escalating doses of IFNα.[385]

More work is urgently needed to establish the mechanism of action of IFNα in patients who respond versus those who do not; this is the only way to fully understand the mechanism of action of this agent. Such studies may allow the development of molecular predictors of response and more selective use of IFNα. The antiangiogenic properties of IFNα are likely to be important in established solid tumours, and this might necessitate long-term treatment that should not be interrupted. Clinical trials in metastatic renal cell carcinoma have demonstrated the feasibility of long-term therapy with IDIFN.[385,386] This point must be taken into account in the design of clinical trials using IFNα to avoid premature cessation of therapy.[387]

IFNα may need to be administered over long periods in the adjuvant setting.[388] This hypothesis is based on data from Fidler and colleagues,[25,68] who showed that daily administration of very low doses of IFNα (5 to 10kU) had antiangiogenic effects in human bladder carcinomas implanted orthotopically in nude mice, and on the rebound in relapse rates observed in adjuvant trials of malignant melanoma (World Health Organization 16 stage III and French trial stage II patients).[388] The above findings provide support for the ongoing European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 18991 study, which compares long-term (5 years) therapy with pegylated IFNα and observation in patients with stage III malignant melanoma.[388] Trial design is also important in testing the activity of IFNα with fluorouracil, because only administration of fluorouracil shortly after IFNα will ensure maximum potentiation of fluorouracil-mediated cytotoxicity.[202]

Pegylated IFNα is an important development that will need thorough evaluation in malignancies where rIFNα-2 is being used either in routine clinical practice or in clinical trials. It has demonstrated comparable safety and pharmacodynamic profiles to nonpegylated IFNα.[389] Its 40-hour half-life (compared with 4 hours for rIFNα-2b) means that once-weekly administration is sufficient. Pegylated IFNα has better bioavailability and, because of pegylation, may have reduced metabolic adverse effects; this may avoid the need for dosage reduction in patients with impaired renal function, while being more convenient for patient use.[371] Tumour regressions in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma have been seen in phase I trials;[390] however, whether this agent will prove more efficacious in randomised studies remains to be seen.

16. Conclusions

IFNα has not proved to be the miracle cure for cancer as might have been expected in the 1980s. In some haematological malignancies (for example chronic myeloid and hairy cell leukaemias) the response rates to IFNα are high:[376] 70 to 80% and 80 to 90%, respectively. In contrast, in solid tumours responses to IFNα therapy are much lower (table VI), usually 15% for metastatic melanoma and renal cell carcinoma and <10% for common solid tumours such as lung, breast and colorectal cancer. IFNα is effective treatment in AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma and is useful in many patients with neuroendocrine tumours, where good symptomatic control is seen in 50 to 70% of treated patients despite a low objective response rate. It also has a role as locoregional therapy in superficial bladder cancer where intravesical BCG has failed, and as intraperitoneal therapy in MRD of ovarian carcinoma. Results of phase II studies in ovarian cancer have been very encouraging, and therefore randomised studies are needed to test the hypothesis that intraperitoneal IFNα, in selected women with small-volume disease, improves OS or progression-free survival after surgery and first-line chemotherapy. If IFNα is used widely for the chemoprevention of HCC in hepatitis C– positive individuals, it should help reduce the incidence of HCC, which, worldwide, affects significant numbers of people.

Perhaps the greatest potential of IFNα lies in the adjuvant setting after tumour cytoreduction is achieved with other modalities of treatment. The identification of potential responders to IFNα therapy is an important priority. This may be achieved by studies of IFNα-stimulated gene expression.[391] DNA micro-array technology allows us to identify IFNα-stimulated genes, which may be categorised on the basis of their function. This may enable us to understand why some patients respond to IFNα but others do not, and allow us to predict response through characteristic gene expression patterns. If IFNα is active as an adjuvant treatment, it may take considerable work to identify the correct dose, schedule and route of administration. However, it is anticipated that it will be used more effectively in patients with ‘IFNα-sensitive tumours’.

Notes

Acknowledgements

S. Santhanam and M. Decatris contributed equally to this work. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Decatris M, Santhanam S, O’Byrne K. Potential of interferon-α in solid tumours: part 1. Biodrugs 2002; 16(4): 283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Herr HW. Natural history of superficial bladder tumors: 10- to 20-year follow-up of treated patients. World J Urol 1997; 15(2): 84–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Loening S, Narayana A, Yoder L, et al. Factors influencing the recurrence rate of bladder cancer. J Urol 1980; 123(1): 29–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cookson MS, Herr HW, Zhang ZF, et al. The treated natural history of high risk superficial bladder cancer: 15-year outcome. J Urol 1997; 158(1): 62–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Utz DC, Hanash KA, Farrow GM. The plight of the patient with carcinoma in situ of the bladder. J Urol 1970; 103(2): 160–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lerman RI, Hutter RV, Whitmore Jr WF. Papilloma of the urinary bladder. Cancer 1970; 25(2): 333–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herr HW, Schwalb DM, Zhang ZF, et al. Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin therapy prevents tumor progression and death from superficial bladder cancer: ten-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13(6): 1404–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borden EC, Groveman DS, Nasu T, et al. Antiproliferative activities of interferons against human bladder carcinoma cell lines in vitro. J Urol 1984; 132(4): 800–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molto L, Alvarez-Mon M, Carballido J, et al. Intracavitary prophylactic treatment with interferon alpha 2b of patients with superficial bladder cancer is associated with a systemic T-cell activation. Br J Cancer 1994; 70(6): 1247–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molto L, Carballido J, Manzano L, et al. Prophylactic intracavitary treatment with interferon alpha increases interferon gamma production by peripheral blood mononuclear cells in patients with superficial transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Br J Cancer 1997; 75(12): 1849–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torti FM, Shortliffe LD, Williams RD, et al. Alpha-interferon in superficial bladder cancer: a Northern California Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6(3): 476–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glashan RW. A randomized controlled study of intravesical alpha-2b-interferon in carcinoma in situ of the bladder. J Urol 1990; 144(3): 658–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarosdy M. High-dose versus low-dose intravesical interferon-alpha 2b in the treatment of carcinoma in situ: a randomized, controlled study. Anticancer Drugs 1992; 3Suppl. 1: 13–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oliver RTD, Waxman JH, Kwok H. Alpha lymphoblastoid interferon for non-invasive bladder cancer [abstract]. Br J Cancer 1986; 53: 432Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kostakopoulos A, Deliveliotis C, Mavromanolakis E, et al. Intravesical interferon alfa-2b administration in the treatment of superficial bladder tumors. Eur Urol 1990; 18(3): 201–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bartoletti R, Massimini G, Criscuolo D, et al. Interferon alfa 2a in superficial bladder cancer prophylaxis: toleration and long-term follow-up. A phase I–II study. Anticancer Res 1991; 11(6): 2167–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mohanty NK, Gulati P, Saxena S. Role of interferon-alpha-2b in the prevention of superficial carcinoma of the bladder recurrence. Urol Int 1997; 59(3): 194–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Portillo J, Martin B, Hernandez R, et al. Results at 43 months’ follow-up of a double-blind, randomized, prospective clinical trial using intravesical interferon alpha-2b in the prophylaxis of stage pT1 transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Urology 1997; 49(2): 187–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boccardo F, Cannata D, Rubagotti A, et al. Prophylaxis of superficial bladder cancer with mitomycin or interferon alfa-2b: results of a multicentric Italian study. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12(1): 7–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalble T, Beer M, Mendoza E, et al. BCG vs interferon A for prevention of recurrence of superficial bladder cancer: a prospective randomized study. Urologe A 1994; 33(2): 133–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zerbib M, Botto H, Mandel E, et al. Intravesical (iv) IFN compared to BCG therapy in ‘high risk’ superficial bladder cancer: results of a prospective multicentric randomised study [abstract no. A832]. J Urol 1997; 157(4 Suppl.): 213Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jimenez-Cruz JF, Vera-Donoso CD, Leiva O, et al. Intravesical immunoprophylaxis in recurrent superficial bladder cancer (stage T1): multicenter trial comparing bacille Calmette-Guerin and interferon-alpha. Urology 1997; 50(4): 529–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rajala P, Liukkonen T, Raitanen M, et al. Transurethral resection with perioperative instillation on interferon-alpha or epirubicin for the prophylaxis of recurrent primary superficial bladder cancer: a prospective randomized multicenter study. Finnbladder III. J Urol 1999; 161(4): 1133–5; discussion 1135-6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoeltl W, Hasun R, Albrecht W, et al. How effective is topical alpha-2b interferon in preventing recurrence of superficial bladder cancer? Br J Urol 1991; 68(5): 495–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slaton JW, Perrotte P, Inoue K, et al. Interferon-alpha-mediated down-regulation of angiogenesis-related genes and therapy of bladder cancer are dependent on optimization of biological dose and schedule. Clin Cancer Res 1999; 5(10): 2726–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giannakopoulos S, Gekas A, Alivizatos G, et al. Efficacy of escalating doses of intravesical interferon alpha-2b in reducing recurrence rate and progression in superficial transitional cell carcinoma. Br J Urol 1998; 82(6): 829–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shelley MD, Court JB, Kynaston H, et al. Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin in Ta and T1 bladder cancer. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2000Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Donnell MA, Chen X, Luo Y, et al. Experimental and clinical evidence of enhancement of BCG efficacy by adding interferon-alpha [abstract no. A1502]. J Urol 1997; 157(4 Suppl.): 383Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Keley FXJ, Lattime E, McCue P. A comparison of the local immune response to intravesical alpha interferon and bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) in patients with superficial bladder cancer [abstract no. A983]. J Urol 1994; 151(5 Suppl.): 473Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang Y, Khoo HE, Esuvaranathan K. Effects of bacillus Calmette-Guerin and interferon-alpha-2B on human bladder cancer in vitro. Int J Cancer 1997; 71(5): 851–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pagano F, Bassi P, Milani C, et al. A low dose bacillus Calmette-Guerin regimen in superficial bladder cancer therapy: is it effective? J Urol 1991; 146(1): 32–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Downs TM, Szilvasi A, O’Donnell MA. Pharmacological biocompatibility between intravesical preparations of BCG and interferon-alpha 2B. J Urol 1997; 158(6): 2311–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stricker P, Pryor K, Nicholson T, et al. Bacillus Calmette-Guerin plus intravesical interferon alpha-2b in patients with superficial bladder cancer. Urology 1996; 48(6): 957–61; discussion 961-2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bazarbashi S, Raja MA, El Sayed A, et al. Prospective phase II trial of alternating intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) and interferon alpha IIB in the treatment and prevention of superficial transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: preliminary results. J Surg Oncol 2000; 74(3): 181–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaasinen E, Rintala E, Pere AK, et al. Weekly mitomycin C followed by monthly bacillus Calmette-Guerin or alternating monthly interferon-alpha2B and bacillus Calmette-Guerin for prophylaxis of recurrent papillary superficial bladder carcinoma. J Urol 2000; 164(1): 47–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ferrari P, Castagnetti G, Pollastri CA, et al. Chemoimmunotherapy for prophylaxis of recurrence in superficial bladder cancer: interferon-alpha 2b versus interferon-alpha 2b with epirubicin. Anticancer Drugs 1992; 3Suppl. 1: 25–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cervenakov I, Szoldova K, Mardiak J, et al. Alpha 2-b interferon and farmarubicin in the prophylaxis of recurrence of superficial transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Bratisl Lek Listy 2000; 101(6): 317–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Engelmann U, Knopf HJ, Graff J. Interferon-alpha 2b instillation prophylaxis in superficial bladder cancer: a prospective, controlled three-armed trial. Project Group Bochum—Interferon and superficial bladder cancer. Anticancer Drugs 1992; 3Suppl. 1: 33–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hugosson J, Bergdahl S, Carlsson G, et al. Effects of intravesical instillation of 5-fluorouracil and interferon in patients with recurrent superficial urinary bladder carcinoma: a clinical and pharmacodynamic study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1997; 31(4): 343–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Okamoto E, Kinne RK, Sokeland J. Interferons modify in vitro proliferation of human bladder transitional cell carcinoma in the presence of doxorubicin and mitomycin C. J Urol 1996; 156(4): 1492–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kurth KH, Bouffioux C, Sylvester R, et al. Treatment of superficial bladder tumors: achievements and needs: The EORTC Genitourinary Group. Eur Urol 2000; 37Suppl. 3: 1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kaldor JM, Tindall B, Williamson P, et al. Factors associated with Kaposi’s sarcoma in a cohort of homosexual and bisexual men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1993; 6(10): 1145–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Samaniego F, Markham PD, Gendelman R, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor present in Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) are induced by inflammatory cytokines and synergize to promote vascular permeability and KS lesion development. Am J Pathol 1998; 152(6): 1433–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Samaniego F, Markham PD, Gendelman R, et al. Inflammatory cytokines induce endothelial cells to produce and release basic fibroblast growth factor and to promote Kaposi’s sarcoma-like lesions in nude mice. J Immunol 1997; 158(4): 1887–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang CY, Schroeter AL, Su WP. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. Mayo Clin Proc 1995; 70(9): 869–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ensoli B, Markham P, Kao V, et al. Block of AIDS-Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) cell growth, angiogenesis, and lesion formation in nude mice by antisense oligonucleotide targeting basic fibroblast growth factor: a novel strategy for the therapy of KS. J Clin Invest 1994; 94(5): 1736–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ensoli B, Sturzl M. Kaposi’s sarcoma: a result of the interplay among inflammatory cytokines, angiogenic factors and viral agents. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 1998; 9(1): 63–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Arasteh K, Hannah A. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. Oncologist 2000; 5Suppl. 1: 28–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Masood R, Cai J, Tulpule A, et al. Interleukin 8 is an autocrine growth factor and a surrogate markerfor Kaposi’s sarcoma. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7(9): 2693–702PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Toschi E, Barillari G, Sgadari C, et al. Activation of matrix-metalloproteinase-2 and membrane-type-1-matrix-metalloproteinase in endothelial cells and induction of vascular permeability in vivo by human immunodeficiency virus-1 Tat protein and basic fibroblast growth factor. Mol Biol Cell 2001; 12(10): 2934–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fiorelli V, Gendelman R, Samaniego F, et al. Cytokines from activated T cells induce normal endothelial cells to acquire the phenotypic and functional features of AIDS-Kaposi’s sarcoma spindle cells. J Clin Invest 1995; 95(4): 1723–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ensoli B, Gendelman R, Markham P, et al. Synergy between basic fibroblast growth factor and HIV-1 Tat protein in induction of Kaposi’s sarcoma. Nature 1994; 371(6499): 674–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sturzl M, Roth WK, Brockmeyer NH, et al. Expression of platelet-derived growth factor and its receptor in AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma in vivo suggests paracrine and autocrine mechanisms of tumor maintenance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992; 89(15): 7046–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Roth WK. TGF beta and FGF-like growth factors involved in the pathogenesis of AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma. Res Virol 1993; 144(1): 105–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Moore PS, Chang Y. Detection of herpesvirus-like DNA sequences in Kaposi’s sarcoma in patients with and without HIV infection. N Engl J Med 1995; 332(18): 1181–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chang Y, Cesarman E, Pessin MS, et al. Identification of herpesvirus-like DNA sequences in AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma. Science 1994; 266(5192): 1865–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rezza G, Andreoni M, Dorrucci M, et al. Human herpesvirus 8 seropositivity and risk of Kaposi’s sarcoma and other acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-related diseases. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91(17): 1468–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Campbell TB, Borok M, Gwanzura L, et al. Relationship of human herpesvirus 8 peripheral blood virus load and Kaposi’s sarcoma clinical stage. AIDS 2000; 14(14): 2109–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Moore PS, Kingsley LA, Holmberg SD, et al. Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus infection prior to onset of Kaposi’s sarcoma. AIDS 1996; 10(2): 175–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Krown SE. Management of Kaposi sarcoma: the role of interferon and thalidomide. Curr Opin Oncol 2001; 13(5): 374–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Goodbourn S, Didcock L, Randall RE. Interferons: cell signalling, immune modulation, antiviral response and virus countermeasures. J Gen Virol 2000; 81 (Pt 10): 2341–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lane HC, Kovacs JA, Feinberg J, et al. Anti-retroviral effects of interferon-alpha in AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma. Lancet 1988; II(8622): 1218–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lane HC, Davey V, Kovacs JA, et al. Interferon-alpha in patients with asymptomatic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112(11): 805–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Reiter Z, Ozes ON, Blatt LM, et al. A possible role for interferon-alpha and activated natural killer cells in remission of AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma: in vitro studies. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1992; 5(5): 469–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Monini P, Carlini F, Sturzl M, et al. Alpha interferon inhibits human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) reactivation in primary effusion lymphoma cells and reduces HHV-8 load in cultured peripheral blood mononuclear cells. J Virol 1999; 73(5): 4029–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    de Wit R, Schattenkerk JK, Boucher CA, et al. Clinical and virological effects of high-dose recombinant interferon-alpha in disseminated AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. Lancet 1988; II(8622): 1214–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zoeteweij JP, Eyes ST, Orenstein JM, et al. Identification and rapid quantification of early- and late-lytic human herpesvirus 8 infection in single cells by flow cytometric analysis: characterization of antiherpesvirus agents. J Virol 1999; 73(7): 5894–902PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Singh RK, Gutman M, Bucana CD, et al. Interferons alpha and beta down-regulate the expression of basic fibroblast growth factor in human carcinomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1995; 92(10): 4562–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Yoshida A, Anand-Apte B, Zetter BR. Differential endothelial migration and proliferation to basic fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor. Growth Factors 1996; 13(1–2): 57–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Salven P, Anttonen K, Repo H, et al. Endotoxins induce and interferon alpha suppresses vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) production in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. FASEB J 2001; 15(7): 1318–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Slaton JW, Karashima T, Perrotte P, et al. Treatment with low-dose interferon-alpha restores the balance between matrix metalloproteinase-9 and E-cadherin expression in human transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7(9): 2840–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Zhang ZJ, Muhr C, Wang JL. Interferon-alpha inhibits the DNA synthesis induced by PDGF and EGF in cultured meningioma cells. Anticancer Res 1996; 16(2): 717–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dvorak HF, Gresser I. Microvascular injury in pathogenesis of interferon-induced necrosis of subcutaneous tumors in mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81(7): 497–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sidky YA, Borden EC. Inhibition of angiogenesis by interferons: effects on tumor-and lymphocyte-induced vascular responses. Cancer Res 1987; 47(19): 5155–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Koster R, Blatt LM, Streubert M, et al. Consensus-interferon and platelet-derived growth factor adversely regulate proliferation and migration of Kaposi’s sarcoma cells by control of c-myc expression. Am J Pathol 1996; 149(6): 1871–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sangfelt O, Erickson S, Castro J, et al. Molecular mechanisms underlying interferon-alpha-induced G0/G1 arrest: CKI-mediated regulation of G1 Cdk-complexes and activation of pocket proteins. Oncogene 1999; 18(18): 2798–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kirch HC, Putzer B, Brockmann D, et al. Formation of the early-region-2 transcription-factor-1-retinoblastoma-protein (E2F-1-RB) transrepressor and release of the retinoblastoma protein from nuclear complexes containing cyclin A is induced by interferon alpha in U937V cells but not in interferon-alpha-resistant U937VR cells. Eur J Biochem 1997; 246(3): 736–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Furukawa Y, Iwase S, Kikuchi J, et al. Transcriptional repression of the E2F-1 gene by interferon-alpha is mediated through induction of E2F-4/pRB and E2F-4/pl30 complexes. Oncogene 1999; 18(11): 2003–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Subramaniam PS, Johnson HM. A role for the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21 in the G1 cell cycle arrest mediated by the type I interferons. J Interferon Cytokine Res 1997; 17(1): 11–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Subramaniam PS, Cruz PE, Hobeika AC, et al. Type I interferon induction of the Cdk-inhibitor p21WAF1 is accompanied by ordered G1 arrest, differentiation and apoptosis of the Daudi B-cell line. Oncogene 1998; 16(14): 1885–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Choubey D, Gutterman JU. Inhibition of E2F-4/DP-1-stimulated transcription by p202. Oncogene 1997; 15(3): 291–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Romerio F, Riva A, Zella D. Interferon-alpha2b reduces phosphorylation and activity of MEK and ERK through a Ras/Raf-independent mechanism. Br J Cancer 2000; 83(4): 532–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Reiter Z. Interferon: a major regulator of natural killer cell-mediated cytotoxicity. J Interferon Res 1993; 13(4): 247–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Marrack P, Kappler J, Mitchell T. Type I interferons keep activated T cells alive. J Exp Med 1999; 189(3): 521–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Philip R, Debs R. Cytokine-activated human monocytes show differential cytotoxicity toward fresh and cultured Kaposi’s sarcoma cells. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1991; 4(12): 1254–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lebbe C, de Cremoux P, Millot G, et al. Characterization of in vitro culture of HIV-negative Kaposi’s sarcoma-derived cells. In vitro responses to alfa interferon. Arch Dermatol Res 1997; 289(7): 421–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Striz I, Mio T, Adachi Y, et al. Effects of interferons alpha and gamma on cytokine production and phenotypic pattern of human bronchial epithelial cells. Int J Immunopharmacol 2000; 22(8): 573–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Krown SE, Real FX, Cunningham-Rundles S, et al. Preliminary observations on the effect of recombinant leukocyte A interferon in homosexual men with Kaposi’s sarcoma. N Engl J Med 1983; 308(18): 1071–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Groopman JE, Gottlieb MS, Goodman J, et al. Recombinant alpha-2 interferon therapy for Kaposi’s sarcoma associated with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Ann Intern Med 1984; 100(5): 671–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Gelmann EP, Preble OT, Steis R, et al. Human lymphoblastoid interferon treatment of Kaposi’s sarcoma in the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Clinical response and prognostic parameters. Am J Med 1985; 78(5): 737–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Volberding PA, Mitsuyasu RT, Golando JP, et al. Treatment of Kaposi’s sarcoma with interferon alfa-2b (Intron A). Cancer 1987; 59Suppl. 3: 620–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Real FX, Oettgen HF, Krown SE. Kaposi’s sarcoma and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: treatment with high and low doses of recombinant leukocyte A interferon. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4(4): 544–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Rios A, Mansell PW, Newell GR, et al. Treatment of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: related Kaposi’s sarcoma with lymphoblastoid interferon. J Clin Oncol 1985; 3(4): 506–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Scadden DT, Bering HA, Levine JD, et al. GM-CSF as an alternative to dose modification of the combination zidovudine and interferon-alpha in the treatment of AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma. Am J Clin Oncol 1991; 14Suppl. 1: S40–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Mauss S, Jablonowski H. Efficacy, safety, and tolerance of low-dose, long-term interferon-alpha 2b and zidovudine in early-stage AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995; 10(2): 157–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Krown SE, Gold JW, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Interferon-alpha with zidovudine: safety, tolerance, and clinical and virologic effects in patients with Kaposi sarcoma associated with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Ann Intern Med 1990; 112(11): 812–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kovacs JA, Deyton L, Davey R, et al. Combined zidovudine and interferon-alpha therapy in patients with Kaposi sarcoma and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Ann Intern Med 1989; 111(4): 280–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Fischl MA, Finkelstein DM, He W, et al. A phase II study of recombinant human interferon-alpha 2a and zidovudine in patients with AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. AIDS Clinical Trials Group. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1996; 11(4): 379–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Fischl MA, Uttamchandani RB, Resnick L, et al. A phase I study of recombinant human interferon-alpha 2a or human lymphoblastoid interferon-alpha n1 and concomitant zidovudine in patients with AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1991; 4(1): 1–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    de Wit R, Danner SA, Bakker PJ, et al. Combined zidovudine and interferon-alpha treatment in patients with AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Intern Med 1991; 229(1): 35–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Shepherd FA, Beaulieu R, Gelmon K, et al. Prospective randomized trial of two dose levels of interferon alfa with zidovudine for the treatment of Kaposi’s sarcoma associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection: a Canadian HIV Clinical Trials Network study. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16(5): 1736–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Shepherd FA, Evans WK, Garvey B, et al. Combination chemotherapy and alpha-interferon in the treatment of Kaposi’s sarcoma associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. CMAJ 1988; 139(7): 635–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Krown SE, Paredes J, Bundow D, et al. Interferon-alpha, zidovudine, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor: a phase I AIDS Clinical Trials Group study in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma associated with AIDS. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10(8): 1344–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Evans LM, Itri LM, Campion M, et al. Interferon-alpha 2a in the treatment of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-related Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Immunother 1991; 10(1): 39–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Krigel RL, Slywotzky CM, Lonberg M, et al. Treatment of epidemic Kaposi’s sarcoma with a combination of interferon-alpha 2b and etoposide. J Biol Response Mod 1988; 7(4): 359–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Podzamczer D, Bolao F, Clotet B, et al. Low-dose interferon alpha combined with zidovudine in patients with AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma. J Intern Med 1993; 233(3): 247–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Sawyer LA, Metcalf JA, Zoon KC, et al. Effects of interferon-alpha in patients with AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma are related to blood interferon levels and dose. Cytokine 1990; 2(4): 247–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Farber E. The multistep nature of cancer development. Cancer Res 1984; 44(10): 4217–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Erkal HS, Mendenhall WM, Amdur RJ, et al. Synchronous and metachronous squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck mucosal sites. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(5): 1358–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Slaughter DP, Southwick HW, Smejkal W. Field cancerization in oral stratified squamous epithelium: clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer 1953; 6: 963–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Pinto H, Li Y, Loprinzi C, et al. Phase III trial of low dose 13-cis-retinoic acid for prevention of second primary cancers in stage I–II head and neck cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 222aGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Lippman SM, Batsakis JG, Toth BB, et al. Comparison of low-dose isotretinoin with beta carotene to prevent oral carcinogenesis. N Engl J Med 1993; 328(1): 15–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Hong WK, Endicott J, Itri LM, et al. 13-Cis-retinoic acid in the treatment of oral leukoplakia. N Engl J Med 1986; 315(24): 1501–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Hong WK, Lippman SM, Itri LM, et al. Prevention of second primary tumors with isotretinoin in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 1990; 323(12): 795–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Benner SE, Lippman SM, Hong WK. Retinoid chemoprevention of second primary tumors. Semin Hematol 1994; 314 Suppl. 5: 26–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Benner SE, Winn RJ, Lippman SM, et al. Regression of oral leukoplakia with alpha-tocopherol: a community clinical oncology program chemoprevention study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85(1): 44–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Connors JM, Andiman WA, Howarth CB, et al. Treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma with human leukocyte interferon. J Clin Oncol 1985; 3(6): 813–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Vlock DR, Johnson J, Myers E, et al. Preliminary trial of nonrecombinant interferon alpha in recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 1991; 13(1): 15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Urba SG, Forastiere AA, Wolf GT, et al. Intensive recombinant interleukin-2 and alpha-interferon therapy in patients with advanced head and neck squamous carcinoma. Cancer 1993; 71(7): 2326–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Bensmaine ME, Azli N, Domenge C, et al. Phase I–II trial of recombinant interferon alpha-2b with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in recurrent and/or metastatic carcinoma of head and neck. Am J Clin Oncol 1996; 19(3): 249–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Huber MH, Shirinian M, Lippman SM, et al. Phase I/II study of cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil and alpha-interferon for recurrent carcinoma of the head and neck. Invest New Drugs 1994; 12(3): 223–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Schrijvers D, Johnson J, Jiminez U, et al. Phase III trial of modulation of cisplatin/ fluorouracil chemotherapy by interferon alfa-2b in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer: Head and Neck Interferon Cooperative Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16(3): 1054–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Shin DM, Khuri FR, Murphy B, et al. Combined interferon-alfa, 13-cis-retinoic acid, and alpha-tocopherol in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: novel bioadjuvant phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(12): 3010–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Dimery IW, Hong WK, Lee JJ, et al. Phase I trial of alpha-tocopherol effects on 13-cis-retinoic acid toxicity. Ann Oncol 1997; 8(1): 85–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Blackwell KE, Calcaterra TC, Fu YS. Laryngeal dysplasia: epidemiology and treatment outcome. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104(8): 596–602PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Silverman Jr S, Gorsky M, Lozada F. Oral leukoplakia and malignant transformation: a follow-up study of 257 patients. Cancer 1984; 53(3): 563–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Papadimitrakopoulou VA, Clayman GL, Shin DM, et al. Biochemoprevention for dysplastic lesions of the upper aerodigestive tract. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 125(10): 1083–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Mathew B. Retinoids as cancer-preventive agents. IARC Sci Publ 1996; 139: 47–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Kolla V, Lindner DJ, Xiao W, et al. Modulation of interferon (IFN)-inducible gene expression by retinoic acid: up-regulation of STAT1 protein in IFN-unresponsive cells. J Biol Chem 1996; 271(18): 10508–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Lingen MW, Polverini PJ, Bouck NP. Retinoic acid and interferon alpha act synergistically as antiangiogenic and antitumor agents against human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 1998; 58(23): 5551–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Moore DM, Kalvakolanu DV, Lippman SM, et al. Retinoic acid and interferon in human cancer: mechanistic and clinical studies. Semin Hematol 1994; 314 Suppl. 5: 31–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Kelsen D, Lovett D, Wong J, et al. Interferon alfa-2a and fluorouracil in the treatment of patients with advanced esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10(2): 269–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Wadler S, Fell S, Haynes H, et al. Treatment of carcinoma of the esophagus with 5-fluorouracil and recombinant alfa-2a-interferon. Cancer 1993; 71(5): 1726–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Roth AD, Morant R, Alberto P. High-dose etretinate and interferon-alpha: a phase I study of squamous cell carcinomas and transitional cell carcinomas. Acta Oncol 1999; 38(5): 613–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Enzinger PC, Ilson DH, Saltz LB, et al. Phase II clinical trial of 13-cis-retinoic acid and interferon-alpha-2a in patients with advanced esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 85(6): 1213–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Slabber CF, Falkson G, Burger W, et al. 13-Cis-retinoic acid and interferon alpha-2a in patients with advanced esophageal cancer: a phase II trial. Invest New Drugs 1996; 14(4): 391–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Posner MC, Gooding WE, Landrereau RJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Cancer J Sci Am 1998; 4(4): 237–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Lew JI, Gooding WE, Ribeiro UJ, et al. Long-term survival following induction chemoradiotherapy and esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma. Arch Surg 2001; 136(7): 737–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Terneck BK, Liebmann JE, Theodossiou C, et al. Phase II trial of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, interferon-alpha-2a, and cisplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma. Cancer 1996; 77(12): 2432–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Wadler S, Haynes H, Beitler JJ, et al. Phase II clinical trial with 5-fluorouracil, recombinant interferon-alpha-2b, and cisplatin for patients with metastatic or regionally advanced carcinoma of the esophagus. Cancer 1996; 78(1): 30–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    John WJ, Foon KA. Interferon use in solid tumors. Cancer Treat Res 1998; 94: 23–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Lee KH, Lee JS, Suh C, et al. Combination of fluorouracil and recombinant interferon alpha-2b in advanced gastric cancer: a phase I trial. Am J Clin Oncol 1992; 15(2): 141–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Pazdur R, Ajani JA, Winn R, et al. A phase II trial of 5-fluorouracil and recombinant alpha-2a-interferon in previously untreated metastatic gastric carcinoma. Cancer 1992; 69(4): 878–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Jager-Arand E, Bernhard H, Klein O, et al. Combination 5-fluorouracil (FU), folinic acid (FA), and alpha-interferon 2B (IFN) in advanced gastric cancer [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1993; 12: 559Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Hudes GR, Lipsitz S, Grem J, et al. A phase II study of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and interferon-alpha in the treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric carcinoma: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study (E5292). Cancer 1999; 85(2): 290–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Loeffler TM, Hausamen TU. High-dose infusional 5-fluorouracil combination therapy of metastatic gastric and colorectal cancer. J Infus Chemother 1996; 6(3): 137–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Colucci G, Maiello E, Gebbia V, et al. Epidoxorubicin and double biochemical 5-fluorouracil modulation with folinic acid and human lymphoblastoid interferon in advanced gastric carcinoma: a multicentric phase II study of the Southern Italy Oncology Group (GOIM). Oncology 1996; 53(4): 269–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Wils O, Klein HO, Wagener DJT, et al. Sequential high-dose methotrexate and fluorouracil combined with doxorubicin: a step ahead in the treatment of gastric cancer: a trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Tract Co-operative Group. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 827–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Wilke H, Wils J, Rougier P, et al. Preliminary analysis of a randomized phase III trial of FAMTX versus ELF versus cisplatin/FU in advanced gastric cancer: a trial of the EORTC Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Cooperative Group and the AIO (Arbeitsge-Meinschaft Internistische Onkologie) [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995; 14: 206Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Kelsen D, Atiq OT, Saltz L, et al. FAMTX vs etoposide, doxorubicin and cisplatin: a randomized trial in gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 541–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Waters JS, Norman A, Cunningham D, et al. Long-term survival after epirubicin, cisplatin and fluorouracil for gastric cancer: results of a randomized trial. Br J Cancer 1999; 80(1–2): 269–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Shyu RY, Su HL, Yu JC, et al. Direct growth suppressive activity of interferon-alpha and -gamma on human gastric cancer cells. J Surg Oncol 2000; 75(2): 122–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Presant CA, Wolf W, Waluch V, et al. Enhancement of fluorouracil uptake in human colorectal and gastric cancers by interferon or by high-dose methotrexate: an in vivo human study using noninvasive (19)F-magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18(2): 255–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Knuth A, Bernhard H, Klein O, et al. Combination fluorouracil, folinic acid and interferon-alfa-2a: an active regimen in advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Semin Oncol 1992; 192 Suppl. 3: 211–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Pazdur R, Ajani JJ, Abbruzzese JL, et al. Phase II evaluation of fluorouracil and recombinant alpha-2a-interferon in previously untreated patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer 1992; 70(8): 2073–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Scheithauer W, Pfeffel F, Kornek G, et al. A phase II trial of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and recombinant alfa-2b-interferon in advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Cancer 1992; 70(7): 1864–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Cascinu S, Fedeli A, Fedeli SL, et al. 5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin and interferon alpha 2b in advanced pancreatic cancer: a pilot study. Ann Oncol 1993; 4(1): 83–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Dippold W, Bernhard H, Meyer zum Buschenfelde KH. Chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer. Int J Pancreatol 1997; 21(1): 39–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    John WJ, Flett MQ. Continuous, venous infusion 5-fluorouracil and interferon-alpha in pancreatic carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 1998; 21(2): 147–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    David AK, Vaughn DJ, Holroyde DJ, et al. A phase II trial of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and interferon alpha 2A (IFN-alpha 2a) in metastatic pancreatic carcinoma: a Penn Cancer Clinical Trials group (PCCTG) trial. Am J Clin Oncol 2000; 23(1): 37–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Macdonald JS, Jacobson JL, Modiano M, et al. A phase II trial of etoposide, leucovorin, 5-FU, and interferon alpha 2b (ELFI) + G-CSF for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a Southwest Oncology Group study (SWOG 9413). Invest New Drugs 2000; 18(3): 269–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Sporn JR, Buzaid AC, Slater D, et al. Treatment of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma with 5-FU, leucovorin, interferon-alpha-2b and cisplatin. Am J Clin Oncol 1997; 20(1): 81–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Brernbeck FH, Schoppmeyer K, Leupold U, et al. A phase II pilot trial of 13-cis retinoic acid and interferon-alpha in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 1998; 83(11): 2317–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Nukui Y, Picozzi VJ, Travcrso LW. Interferon-based adjuvant chemoirradiation therapy improves survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg 2000; 179(5): 367–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Anonymous. A prospective trial of recombinant human interferon alpha 2B in previously untreated patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: The Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Cancer 1990; 66 (1): 135-9Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Brook MG, Dunk AA, McDonald JA, et al. Human lymphoblastoid interferon does not increase survival when added to antrone in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinomas. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1987; 1(4): 315–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Kardinal CG, Moertel CG, Wieand HS, et al. Combined doxorubicin and alpha-interferon therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 1993; 71(7): 2187–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Feun LG, Savaraj N, Hung S, et al. A phase II trial of recombinant leukocyte interferon plus doxorubicin in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 1994; 17(5): 393–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Bokemeyer C, Kynast B, Harstrick A, et al. No synergistic activity of epirubicin and interferon-alpha 2b in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1995; 35(4): 334–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Patt YZ, Yoffe B, Charnsangavej C, et al. Low serum alpha-fetoprotein level in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma as a predictor of response to 5-FU and interferon-alpha-2b. Cancer 1993; 72(9): 2574–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Orita K, Fuchimoto S, Kurimoto M, et al. Early phase II study of interferon-alpha and tumor necrosis factor-alpha combination in patients with advanced cancer. Acta Med Okayama 1992; 46(2): 103–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Sznol M, Mier JW, Sparano J, et al. A phase I study of high-dose interleukin-2 in combination with interferon-alpha 2b. J Biol Response Mod 1990; 9(6): 529–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Urabe T, Kaneko S, Matsushita E, et al. Clinical pilot study of intrahepatic arterial chemotherapy with methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin and subcutaneous interferon-alpha-2b for patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncology 1998; 55(1): 39–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Chung YH, Song IH, Song BC, et al. Combined therapy consisting of intraarterial cisplatin infusion and systemic interferon-alpha for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with major portal vein thrombosis or distant metastasis. Cancer 2000; 88(9): 1986–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Lcung TW, Patt YZ, Lau WY, et al. Complete pathological remission is possible with systemic combination chemotherapy for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 1999; 5(7): 1676–81Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Lai CL, Lau JY, Wu PC, et al. Recombinant interferon-alpha in inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. Hepatology 1993; 17(3): 389–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Nishiguchi S, Kuroki T, Nakatani S, et al. Randomized trial of effects of interferon-a on incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic active hepatitis C with cirrhosis. Lancet 1995; 346(8982): 1051–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Yoshida H, Shiratori Y, Moriyama M, et al. Interferon therapy reduces the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma: national surveillance program of cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C in Japan. IHIT Study Group: inhibition of hepatocarcinogenesis by interferon therapy. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131(3): 174–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Mathurin P, Rixe O, Carbonell N, et al. Overview of medical treatments in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an impossible meta-analysis? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998; 12(2): 111–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Toyoda H, Kumada T, Nakano S, et al. Effect of the dose and duration of interferon-alpha therapy on the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in noncirrhotic patients with a nonsustained response to interferon for chronic hepatitis C. Oncology 2001; 61(2): 134–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Oberg K. Interferons in the management of neuroendocrine tumours and their possible mechanism of action. Yale J Biol Med 1992; 65(5): 519–29; discussion 531-6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Oberg K, Eriksson B, Janson ET. Interferons alone or in combination with chemotherapy or other biologicals in the treatment of neuroendocrine gut and pancreatic tumors. Digestion 1994; 55Suppl. 3: 64–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Di Bartolomeo M, Bajetta E, Zilembo N, et al. Treatment of carcinoid syndrome with recombinant interferon alpha-2a [published erratum appears in Acta Oncol 1993; 32 (5): 592]. Acta Oncol 1993; 32(2): 235–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Dirix LY, Vermeulen PB, Fierens H, et al. Long-term results of continuous treatment with recombinant interferon-alpha in patients with metastatic carcinoid tumors: an antiangiogenic effect? Anticancer Drugs 1996; 7(2): 175–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Bajetta E, Zilembo N, Di Bartolomeo M, et al. Treatment of metastatic carcinoids and other neuroendocrine tumors with recombinant interferon-alpha-2a: a study by the Italian trials in Medical Oncology Group. Cancer 1993; 72(10): 3099–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Skogseid B. Nonsurgical treatment of advanced malignant neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors and midgut carcinoids. World J Surg 2001; 25(6): 700–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Hughes MJ, Kerr D, Cassidy J, et al. A pilot study of combination therapy with interferon-alpha-2a and 5-fluorouracil in metastatic carcinoid and malignant endocrine pancreatic tumours. Ann Oncol 1996; 7(2): 208–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Saltz L, Kemeny N, Schwartz G, et al. A phase II trial of alpha-interferon and 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced carcinoid and islet cell tumors. Cancer 1994; 74(3): 958–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Moertel CG, Hanley JA. Combination chemotherapy trials in metastatic carcinoid tumour and the malignant carcinoid syndrome. Cancer Clin Trials 1979; 2(4): 327–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Moertel CG. Treatment of the carcinoid tumour and the malignant carcinoid syndrome. J Clin Oncol 1983; 1: 727PubMedGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Engstrom PJ, Lavin PT, Folsch E. Streptozocin plus fluorouracil vs doxorubicin chemotherapy in patients with metastatic carcinoid tumours. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2(11): 1255–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Jacobsen MB, Hansen LE, Kolmannskog F, et al. Interferon-alpha 2b, with or without prior hepatic artery embolization: clinical response and survival in midgut carcinoid patients: The Norwegian Carcinoid Study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1995; 30(8): 789–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Janson ET, Oberg K. Long-term management of the carcinoid syndrome. Treatment with octreotide alone and in combination with alpha-interferon. Acta Oncol 1993; 32(2): 225–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Tiensuu Janson EM, Ahlstrom H, Anderson T, et al. Octreotide and interferon alfa: a new combination for the treatment of malignant carcinoid tumours. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28A(10): 1647–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Frank M, Klose KJ, Wied M, et al. Combination therapy with octreotide and alpha-interferon: effect on tumor growth in metastatic endocrine oenteropancreatic tumors. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94(5): 1381–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Imam H, Gobl A, Eriksson B, et al. Interferon-alpha induces bcl-2 proto-oncogene in patients with neuroendocrine gut tumour responding to its antitumour action. Anticancer Res 1997; 17: 4659–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Oberg K. Interferon-alpha vs somatostatin or the combination of both in gastro-enteropancreatic tumours. Digestion 1996; 57Suppl. 1: 81–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Moertel CG, Rubin J, Kvols LK. Therapy of metastatic carcinoid tumor and the malignant carcinoid syndrome with recombinant leukocyte A interferon. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7(7): 865–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Veenhof CH, de Wit R, Taal BG, et al. A dose-escalation study of recombinant interferon-alpha in patients with a metastatic carcinoid tumour. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28(1): 75–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Kemeny N, Younes A. Alfa-2a interferon and 5-fluorouracil for advanced colorectal carcinoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. Semin Oncol 1992; 192 Suppl. 3: 171–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Wadler S, Wersto R, Weinberg V, et al. Interaction of fluorouracil and interferon in human colon cancer cell lines: cytotoxic and cytokinetic effects. Cancer Res 1990; 50(18): 5735–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Makower D, Wadler S. Interferons as biomodulators of fluoropyrimidines in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Semin Oncol 1999; 26(6): 663–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Elias L, Sandoval JM. Interferon effects upon fluorouracil metabolism by HL-60 cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1989; 163: 867–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Schwartz EL, Hoffman M, O’Connor CJ, et al. Stimulation of 5-fluorouracil metabolic activation by interferon-alfa in human carcinoma cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1992; 182: 1232–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Makower D, Wadler S, Haynes H, et al. Interferon induces thymidine phosphorylase/ platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor expression in vivo. Clin Cancer Res 1997; 3: 923–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Wadler S, Horowitz R, Mao X, et al. Effect of interferon on 5-fluorouracil-induced perturbations in pools of deoxynucleotide triphosphates and DNA strand breaks. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1996; 38: 529–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Horowitz RW, Heerdt BG, Hu X, et al. Combination therapy with 5-fluorouracil and IFN-alfa-2a induces a non-random increase in DNA fragments of less than 3 megabases in HT29 colon carcinoma cells. Clin Cancer Res 1997; 3: 1317–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Houghton J, Morton CL, Adkins DA, et al. Locus of the interaction among 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and interferon alfa-2a in colon carcinoma cells. Cancer Res 1993; 53(18): 4243–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    van der Wilt CL, Smid K, Aherne GW, et al. Biochemical mechanisms of interferon modulation of 5-fluorouracil activity in colon cancer cells. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33(3): 471–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    Yee LK, Allegra CJ, Steinberg SM, et al. Decreased catabolism of fluorouracil in peripheral blood mononuclear cells during combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and interferon alfa-2a. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84(23): 1820–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Lindley C, Bernard S, Gavigan M, et al. Interferon-alpha increases 5-fluorouracil plasma levels 16-fold within one hour: results of a phase I study. J Interferon Res 1990; 10: 5–9Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    Grem JL, McAtee N, Murphy RF, et al. A pilot study of interferon alfa-2a in combination with fluorouracil plus high-dose leucovorin in metastatic gastrointestinal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9(10): 1811–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Schuller J, Czejka MJ, Schernthaner G, et al. Influence of interferon alfa-2b with or without folinic acid on pharmacokinetics of fluorouracil. Semin Oncol 1992; 192 Suppl. 3: 93–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    Danhauser LL, Freimann Jr JH, Gilchrist TL, et al. Phase I and plasma pharmacokinetic study of infusional fluorouracil combined with recombinant interferon alfa-2b in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11(4): 751–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Sparano JA, Wadler S, Diasio RB, et al. Phase I trial of low-dose, prolonged continuous infusion fluorouracil plus interferon-alfa: evidence for enhanced fluorouracil toxicity without pharmacokinetic perturbation. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11(8): 1609–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Kim J, Zhi J, Satoh H, et al. Pharmacokinetics of recombinant human interferon-alpha 2a combined with 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Anticancer Drugs 1998; 9(8): 689–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. 217.
    Fornasiero A, Daniele O, Ghiotto C, et al. Alpha-2 interferon and 5-fluorouracil in advanced colorectal cancer. Tumori 1990; 76(4): 385–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  218. 218.
    Kemeny N, Younes A, Sciter K, et al. Interferon alpha-2a and 5-fluorouracil for advanced colorectal cancer: assessment of activity and toxicity. Cancer 1990; 66(12): 2470–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. 219.
    Pazdur R, Ajani JA, Patt YZ, et al. Phase II study of fluorouracil and recombinant interferon alfa-2a in previously untreated advanced colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8(12): 2027–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Wadler S, Wiernik PH. Clinical update on the role of fluorouracil and recombinant interferon alfa-2a in the treatment of colorectal carcinoma. Semin Oncol 1990; 17Suppl. 1: 16–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  221. 221.
    Douillard JY, Leborgne J, Danielou JY, et al. Phase II trial of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and recombinant alpha interferon (r-alpha-IFN) (Intron A) in metastatic previously treated colorectal cancer [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1991; 10: 422aGoogle Scholar
  222. 222.
    Huberman M, McClay I, Atkins M, et al. Phase II trial of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and recombinant interferon-alpha-2a (IFN) in advanced colorectal cancer [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1991; 10: 478aGoogle Scholar
  223. 223.
    Wadler S, Lembersky B, Atkins M, et al. Phase II trial of fluorouracil and recombinant interferon alfa-2a in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9(10): 1806–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  224. 224.
    Diaz Rubio E, Jimeno J, Camps C, et al. Treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with recombinant interferon alpha and fluorouracil: activity in liver metastases. Cancer Invest 1992; 10(4): 259–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. 225.
    Weh HJ, Platz D, Braumann D, et al. Phase II trial of 5-fluorouracil and recombinant interferon alfa-2B in metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28A(3): 1820–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. 226.
    Cascinu S, Fedeli A, Fedeli SL, et al. Double biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil by leucovorin and cyclic low dose interferon alpha 2b in advanced colorectal cancer patients. Ann Oncol 1992; 3: 489–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  227. 227.
    Kreuser ED, Hilgenfeld RU, Matthias M, et al. A phase II trial of interferon alpha-2b with folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil administered by 4-hour infusion in metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Semin Oncol 1992; 19(2 Suppl. 4): 57–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  228. 228.
    Grem JL, Jordan E, Robson ME, et al. Phase II study of fluorouracil, leucovorin and interferon alfa-2a in metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11(9): 1737–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  229. 229.
    Punt CJ, Burghouts JT, Croles JJ, et al. Continuous infusion of high-dose 5-fluorouracil in combination with leucovorin and recombinant interferon-alpha-2b in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a multicenter phase II study. Cancer 1993; 72(7): 2107–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. 230.
    Sinnige HA, Buter J, de Vries EG, et al. Phase I–II study of the addition of alpha-2a-interferon to 5-fluorouracil/ leucovorin. Pharmacokinetic interaction of alpha-2a-interferon and leucovorin. Eur J Cancer 1993; 29A(12): 1715–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. 231.
    Labianca R, Giaccon G, Barni S, et al. Double modulation of 5-fluorouracil in advanced colorectal cancer with low-dose interferon-alpha 2b and folinic acid. The “GISCAD” experience: Italian Group for the Study of Digestive Tract Cancer. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A(11): 1611–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. 232.
    Marshall ME, Tangen CM, Berenberg JL, et al. Treatment of advanced colorectal carcinoma with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and Roferon-A: a Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer Biother 1994; 9(4): 301–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. 233.
    Steger GG, Mader RM, Djavanmard MP, et al. Double modulation of 5-fluorouracil by high-dose leucovorin and interferon alpha in advanced colorectal cancer: a phase I and a phase II study of weekly administration. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1994; 120(5): 314–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. 234.
    Moore MJ, Kaizer L, Erlichman C, et al. A clinical and pharmacological study of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and interferon alfa in advanced colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1995; 37(1–2): 86–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. 235.
    Kohne CH, Wilke H, Hiddemann W, et al. Phase II evaluation of 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid and alpha 2b-interferon in metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncology 1997; 54(2): 96–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. 236.
    Tournigand C, Louvet C, de Gramont A, et al. Bimonthly high dose leucovorin and 5-fluorouracil 48-hour infusion with interferon-alpha-2a in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma: Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche sur les Cancer de l’Ovaire et Digestifs (GERCOD). Cancer 1997; 79(6): 1094–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. 237.
    Soori GS, Oldham RK, Dobbs TW, et al. Chemo-biotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and alpha-interferon in metastatic carcinoma of the colon: a Cancer Biotherapy Research Group (CBRG) phase II study. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2000; 15(2): 175–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. 238.
    York M, Greco FA, Figlin RA, et al. A randomized phase III trial comparing 5FU with or without interferon-α-2a for advanced colorectal cancer [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1993; 12: 200Google Scholar
  239. 239.
    Hill M, Norman A, Cunningham D, et al. Royal Marsden phase III trial of fluorouracil with or without interferon alfa-2b in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13(6): 1297–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  240. 240.
    Hill M, Norman A, Cunningham D, et al. The clinical impact of protracted venous infusion 5-fluorouracil with or without interferon-α-2b on response, survival and quality of life in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2317–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  241. 241.
    The Corfu-A Study Group. Phase III randomized study of two fluorouracil combinations with either interferon alfa-2a or leucovorin for advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 921–8Google Scholar
  242. 242.
    Dufour P, Husseini F, Dreyfus B, et al. 5-Fluorouracil vs 5-fluorouracil plus alpha interferon as treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a randomized study. Ann Oncol 1996; 7(6): 575–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  243. 243.
    Greco FA, Figlin R, York M, et al. Phase III randomized study to compare interferon alfa-2a in combination with fluorouracil versus fluorouracil alone in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14(10): 2674–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  244. 244.
    O’Dwyer PJ, Ryan LM, Valone FH, et al. Phase III trial of biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil by IV or oral leucovorin or by interferon in advanced colorectal cancer: an ECOG/CALGB phase III trial [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996; 15: 469aGoogle Scholar
  245. 245.
    Dreyfous B, Dufour P, Husseini F, et al. Randomised study of 5-fluorouracil vs 5FU plus alpha 2a interferon as treatment for metastatic colorectal carcinoma [abstract]. Proc Int Congr Anticancer Chemother 1995; 5: 113Google Scholar
  246. 246.
    Wadler S, Schwartz EL. Chemotherapy for colorectal carcinoma: observations regarding recent clinical trials using biochemical modulation. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13(10): 2676–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  247. 247.
    Kohne CH, Schmoll HJ, Wilke H, et al. Weekly high dose infusional 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin vs. FU plus alfa-interferon vs LV plus IFN in advanced colorectal cancer: results of a multi-center randomized trial [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995; 14: 194Google Scholar
  248. 248.
    Kosmidis PA, Tsavaris N, Skarlos D, et al. Fluorouracil and leucovorin with or without interferon alfa-2b in advanced colorectal cancer: analysis of a prospective randomized phase III trial. Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14(10): 2682–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  249. 249.
    Recchia F, Nuzzio A, Lalli A, et al. Randomized trial of 5-fluorouracil and high-dose folinic acid with or without alpha-2b interferon in advanced colorectal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1996; 19(3): 301–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  250. 250.
    Seymour MT, Slevin ML, Kerr DJ, et al. Randomized trial assessing the addition of interferon-alfa-2a to fluorouracil and leucovorin in advanced colorectal cancer: Colorectal Cancer Working Party of the United Kingdom Medical Research Council. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14(8): 2280–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  251. 251.
    Hausmaninger H, Moser R, Samonigg H, et al. Biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil by leucovorin with or without interferon-alpha-2c in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: final results of a randomised phase III study. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35(3): 380–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. 252.
    Woolmark N, Bryant J, Hyams DM, et al. The relative efficacy of 5-FU + leucovorin (FU-LV) and 5-FU-LV + interferon alfa-2a (IFN) in patients with Dukes’ B and C carcinoma of the colon: first report of NSABP C-05 [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17: 255aGoogle Scholar
  253. 253.
    Fountzillas G, Zisiadis A, Dafni U, et al. Fluorouracil and leucovorin with or without interferon alfa-2a as adjuvant treatment, in patients with high-risk colon cancer: a randomized phase III study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Oncology 2000; 58(3): 227–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. 254.
    Staib L, Link KH, Beger HG. Toxicity and effects of adjuvant therapy in colon cancer: results of the German prospective, controlled randomized multicenter trial FOGT-1. J Gastrointest Surg 2001; 5(3): 275–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  255. 255.
    Hjelm AL, Ragnhammar P, Fagerberg J, et al. Subcutaneous interleukin-2 and alpha-interferon in advanced colorectal carcinoma: a phase II study. Cancer Biother 1995; 10(1): 5–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. 256.
    Goey SH, Gratama JW, Primrose JN, et al. Interleukin 2 and interferon alpha-2a do not improve anti-tumour activity of 5-fluorouracil in advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 1996; 74(12): 2018–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. 257.
    Chang AE, Cameron MJ, Sondak VK, et al. A phase II trial of interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha in the treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Immunother Emphasis Tumor Immunol 1995; 18(4): 253–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  258. 258.
    Cascinu S, Alessandroni P, Rossi D, et al. Multimodal biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil by leucovorin, methotrexate, and interferon alpha in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1996; 38(4): 385–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  259. 259.
    Ridolfi R, Maltoni R, Riccobon A, et al. A phase II study of advanced colorectal cancer patients treated with combination 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin and subcutaneous interleukin-2 plus alpha interferon. J Chemother 1994; 6(4): 265–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  260. 260.
    Ajani JA, Abbruzzese JL, Markowitz AB, et al. Phase II study of etoposide and alpha-interferon in patients with advanced measurable colorectal carcinoma. Invest New Drugs 1993; 11(1): 67–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  261. 261.
    Thirion P, Piedbois P, Buyse M, et al. Alpha-interferon does not increase the efficacy of 5-fluorouracil in advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2001; 84(5): 611–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. 262.
    Raderer M, Scheithauer W. Treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with 5-fluorouracil and interferon-alpha: an overview of clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A(6): 1002–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  263. 263.
    Ruotsalainen TM, Halme M, Tamminen K, et al. Concomitant chemotherapy and IFN-alpha for small cell lung cancer: a randomized multicenter phase III study. J Interferon Cytokine Res 1999; 19(3): 253–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. 264.
    Prior C, Oroszy S, Oberaigner W, et al. Adjunctive interferon-alpha-2c in stage IIIB/IV small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial [published erratum appears in Eur Respir J 1997 Apr; 10 (4): 963]. Eur Respir J 1997; 10(2): 392–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  265. 265.
    Zarogoulidis K, Ziogas E, Papagianis A, et al. Interferon alpha-2a and combined chemotherapy as first line treatment in SCLC patients: a randomized trial. Lung Cancer 1996; 15(2): 197–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  266. 266.
    Kardamakis D, Gillies NF, Souhami RL, et al. Recombinant human interferon alpha-2b enhances the radiosensitivity of small cell lung cancer in vitro. Anticancer Res 1989; 9(4): 1041–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  267. 267.
    Mattson K, Niiranen A, Pyrhonen S, et al. Natural interferon alfa as maintenance therapy for small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28A(8–9): 1387–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  268. 268.
    Mattson K, Niiranen A, Ruotsalainen T, et al. Interferon maintenance therapy for small cell lung cancer: improvement in long-term survival. J Interferon Cytokine Res 1997; 17(2): 103–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  269. 269.
    Tummarello D, Mari D, Graziano F, et al. A randomized, controlled phase III study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with etoposide (CAV-E) or teniposide (CAV-T), followed by recombinant interferon-alpha maintenance therapy or observation, in small cell lung carcinoma patients with complete responses. Cancer 1997; 80(12): 2222–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  270. 270.
    Jett JR, Su JQ, Maksymiuk AW. Phase III trial of recombinant interferon gamma in complete responders with small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 2321–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  271. 271.
    Kelly K, Crowley J, Bunn P. Role of recombinant interferon alfa-2a maintenance in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2924–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  272. 272.
    Lebeau B, De La Salmoniere P, Ozenne G, et al. α-Interferon (alfa-IFN) as maintenance therapy for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18: 475aGoogle Scholar
  273. 273.
    Ruotsalainen T, Halme M, Isokangas OP, et al. Interferon-alpha and 13-cis-retinoic acid as maintenance therapy after high-dose combination chemotherapy with growth factor support for small cell lung cancer: a feasibility study. Anticancer Drugs 2000; 11(2): 101–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  274. 274.
    Shepherd FA. Alternatives to chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 2001; 28(2 Suppl. 4): 30–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  275. 275.
    Olsen BK, Ernst P, Nissen MH, et al. Recombinant interferon-alpha therapy of small cell and squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: a phase II study. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1987; 23: 987–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  276. 276.
    Ardizzoni A, Rosso R, Salvati F, et al. Combination chemotherapy and interferon alpha 2b in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung: The Italian Lung Cancer Task Force (FONICAP). Am J Clin Oncol 1991; 14(2): 120–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  277. 277.
    Mandanas R, Einhorn LH, Wheeler B, et al. Carboplatin (CBDCA) plus alpha interferon in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a Hoosier Oncology Group phase II trial. Am J Clin Oncol 1993; 16(6): 519–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  278. 278.
    Rinaldi DA, Lippman SM, Buris HA, et al. Phase II study of 13-cis-retinoic acid and interferon-alpha 2a in patients with advanced squamous cell lung cancer. Anticancer Drugs 1993; 4(1): 33–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  279. 279.
    Ardizzoni A, Addamo GF, Baldini E, et al. Mitomycin-ifosfamide-cisplatinum (MIP) vs MIP-interferon vs cisplatinum-carboplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a FONICAP randomised phase II study. Italian Lung Cancer Task Force. Br J Cancer 1995; 71(1): 115–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  280. 280.
    Athanasiadis I, Kies MS, Miller M, et al. Phase II study of all-trans-retinoic acid and alpha-interferon in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 1995; 1(9): 973–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  281. 281.
    Chao TY, Hwang WS, Yang MJ, et al. Combination chemoimmunotherapy with interferon-alpha and cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Zhoughua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei) 1995; 56(4): 232–8Google Scholar
  282. 282.
    Garaci E, Lopez M, Bosignore G, et al. Sequential chemoimmunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer using cisplatin, etoposide, thymosin-alpha 1 and interferon-alpha 2a. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A(13–14): 2403–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  283. 283.
    Kataja V, Yap A. Combination of cisplatin and interferon-alpha 2a (Roferon-A) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): an open phase II multicentre study [published erratum appears in Eur J Cancer 1995 Jun; 31A: 1028]. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A(1): 35–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  284. 284.
    Salvati F, Rasi G, Portalone L, et al. Combined treatment with thymosin-alpha 1 and low-dose interferon-alpha after ifosfamide in non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II controlled trial. Anticancer Res 1996; 16(2): 1001–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  285. 285.
    Silva RR, Bascioni R, Rossini S, et al. A phase II study of mitomycin C, vindesine and cisplatin combined with alpha interferon in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Tumori 1996; 82(1): 68–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  286. 286.
    Hasturk S, Kurt B, Kocabas A, et al. Combination chemotherapy and recombinant interferon-alpha in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Lett 1997; 112(1): 17–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  287. 287.
    Ardizzoni A, Salvati F, Rosso R, et al. Combination of chemotherapy and recombinant alpha-interferon in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre randomized FONICAP trial report. Cancer 1993; 72(10): 2929–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  288. 288.
    Hand A, Pelin K, Halme M, et al. Interferon-alpha and interferon-gamma combined with chemotherapy: in vitro sensitivity studies in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Anticancer Drugs 1993; 4(3): 365–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  289. 289.
    Arbaje YM, Bittner G, Yingling JM, et al. Antiproliferative effects of interferons-alpha and -beta in combination with 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, and cis-and transretinoic acid in three human lung carcinoma cell lines. J Interferon Res 1993; 13(1): 25–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  290. 290.
    French RC, Bowmann A, Macleod KG, et al. Effect of human recombinant interferon-alpha on the activity of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (II) in human non-small cell lung cancer xenografts. Cancer Invest 1995; 13(6): 595–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  291. 291.
    Brem H, Gresser I, Grosfeld J, et al. The combination of antiangiogenic agents to inhibit primary tumour growth and metastasis. J Pediatric Surg 1993; 28(10): 1253–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  292. 292.
    Jansen RL, Slingerland R, Goey SH, et al. Interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Immunother 1992; 12(1): 70–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  293. 293.
    Tummarello D, Graziano F, Isidori P, et al. Consolidation biochemotherapy for patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma responding to induction PVM (cisplatin, vinblastine, mitomycin-C) regimen. A phase II study. Cancer 1996; 77(11): 2251–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  294. 294.
    Vokes EE, Haraf DJ, Hoffman PC. Escalating doses of interferon alpha-2A with cisplatin and concomitant radiotherapy: a phase I study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1993; 33(3): 203–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  295. 295.
    Maasilta P, Holsti RL, Halme M, et al. Natural alpha-interferon in combination with hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992; 23(4): 863–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  296. 296.
    Niiranen A, Holsti LR, Cantell K, et al. Natural interferon-alpha alone and in combination with conventional therapies in non-small cell lung cancer: a pilot study. Acta Oncologica 1990; 29(7): 927–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  297. 297.
    Ruffie P. Pleural mesothelioma. Curr Opin Oncol 1992; 4(2): 334–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  298. 298.
    Hand AM, Husgafrel-Pursiamen K, Pelin K, et al. Interferon-alpha and -gamma in combination with chemotherapeutic drugs: in vitro sensitivity studies in four human mesothelioma cell lines. Anticancer Drugs 1992; 3(6): 687–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  299. 299.
    Ohnuma T, Szrajer L, Holland JF, et al. Effects of natural interferon alpha, natural tumour necrosis factor alpha and their combination on human mesothelioma xenografts in nude mice. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1993; 36(1): 31–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  300. 300.
    Bielefeldt-Ohmann H, Fitzpatrick DR, Marzo AL, et al. Potential for interferon-alpha-based therapy in mesothelioma: assessment in a murine model. J Interferon Cytokine Res 1995; 15(3): 213–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  301. 301.
    Bowman RV, Manning LS, Davis MR, et al. Chemosensitivity and cytokine sensitivity of malignant mesothelioma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1991; 28: 420–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  302. 302.
    Hand A, Pelin K, Mattson K, et al. Interferon (IFN)-alpha and IFN-gamma in combination with methotrexate: in vitro sensitivity studies in four human mesothelioma cell lines. Anticancer Drugs 1995; 6(1): 77–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  303. 303.
    Christmas TI, Manning LS, Garlepp MJ, et al. Effect of interferon-alpha 2a on malignant mesothelioma. J Interferon Res 1993; 13(1): 9–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  304. 304.
    Ardizzoni A, Pennucci MC, Castagneto B, et al. Recombinant interferon alpha-2b in the treatment of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma. Am J Clin Oncol 1994; 17(1): 80–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  305. 305.
    Pass HW, Temeck BK, Kranda K, et al. A phase II trial investigating primary immunochemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma and the feasibility of adjuvant immunochemotherapy after maximal cytoreduction. Ann Surg Oncol 1995; 2(3): 214–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  306. 306.
    Upham JW, Musk AW, van Hazel G, et al. Interferon alpha and doxorubicin in malignant mesothelioma: a phase II study. Aust N Z J Med 1993; 23(6): 683–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  307. 307.
    Tansan S, Emri S, Selcuk T, et al. Treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma with cisplatin, mitomycin C and alpha interferon. Oncology 1994; 51(4): 348–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  308. 308.
    Purohit A, Moreau L, Dietemann A, et al. Weekly systemic combination of cisplatin and interferon alpha 2a in diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 1998; 22(2): 119–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  309. 309.
    Halme M, Knuuttila A, Vehmas T, et al. High-dose methotrexate in combination with interferons in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Br J Cancer 1999; 80(11): 1781–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  310. 310.
    O’Reilly EM, Ilson DH, Saltz LB, et al. A phase II trial of interferon alpha-2a and carboplatin in patients with advanced malignant mesothelioma. Cancer Invest 1999; 17(3): 195–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  311. 311.
    Fizazi K, Caliandro R, Soulie P, et al. Combination raltitrexed (Tomudex®)-oxaliplatin: a step forward in the struggle against mesothelioma? The Institut Gustave Roussy experience with chemotherapy and chemo-immunotherapy in mesothelioma. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36(12): 1514–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  312. 312.
    Trandafir L, Ruffle P, Borel C, et al. Higher doses of alpha-interferon do not increase the activity of the weekly cisplatin-interferon combination in advanced malignant mesothelioma. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33(11): 1900–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  313. 313.
    Metintas M, Ozdemir N, Ucgun I, et al. Cisplatin, mitomycin and interferon-alpha 2a combination chemoimmunotherapy in the treatment of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma. Chest 1999; 116: 391–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  314. 314.
    Parra HS, Tixi L, Latteri F, et al. Combined regimen of cisplatin, doxorubicin, and alpha-2b interferon in the treatment of advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma: a phase II multicenter trial of the Italian group on rare tumors (GITR) and the Italian lung cancer task force (FONICAP). Cancer 2001; 92(3): 650–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  315. 315.
    Lissoni P, Barni S, Tancini G, et al. Intracavitary therapy of neoplastic effusions with cytokines: comparison among interferon alpha, beta and interleukin-2. Support Care Cancer 1995; 3(1): 78–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  316. 316.
    Berek JS, Hacker NF, Lichtenstein A, et al. Intraperitoneal recombinant alpha-interferon for ’salvage’ immunotherapy in stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer Res 1985; 45: 4447–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  317. 317.
    Berek JS, Markman M, Stonebraker B, et al. Intraperitoneal interferon-alpha in residual ovarian carcinoma: a phase II gynaecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol 1999; 75(1): 10–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  318. 318.
    Berek JS, Markman M, Blessing JA, et al. Intraperitoneal alpha-interferon alternating with cisplatin in residual ovarian carcinoma: a phase II Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1999; 74(1): 48–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  319. 319.
    Bruzzone M, Rubagotti A, Gaducci A, et al. Intraperitoneal carboplatin with or without interferon-alpha in advanced ovarian cancer patients with minimal residual disease at second look: a prospective randomized trial of 111 patients. G.O.N.O. Gruppo Oncologic Nord Ovest. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 65(3): 499–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  320. 320.
    Stuart GC, Nation JG, Snider DD, et al. Intraperitoneal interferon in the management of malignant ascites. Cancer 1993; 71(6): 2027–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  321. 321.
    Frasci G, Tortoriello A, Facchini G, et al. Intraperitoneal (ip) cisplatin-mitoxantrone-interferon-alpha 2b in ovarian cancer patients with minimal residual disease. Gynecol Oncol 1993; 50(1): 60–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  322. 322.
    Maemura M, lino Y, Horiguchi J, et al. Effects of interferon-alpha on cellular proliferation and adhesion of breast carcinoma cells. Oncol Rep 1999; 6(3): 557–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  323. 323.
    Coradini D, Biffi A, Pirronello E, et al. The effect of alpha-, beta- and gamma-interferon on the growth of breast cancer cell lines. Anticancer Res 1994; 14(5A): 1779–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  324. 324.
    Iacopino F, Robustelli delia Cuna G, Sica G, et al. Natural interferon-alpha activity in hormone-sensitive, hormone-resistant and autonomous human breast-cancer cell lines [published erratum appears in Int J Cancer Aug 7; 72 (4): 708]. Int J Cancer 1997; 71(6): 1103–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  325. 325.
    Oldham RK, Blumenschein G, Schwartzberg L, et al. Combination biotherapy utilizing interleukin-2 and alpha interferon in patients with advanced cancer: a National Biotherapy Study Group Trial. Mol Biother 1992; 4(1): 4–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  326. 326.
    Macheledt JE, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN, et al. Phase II evaluation of interferon added to tamoxifen in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1991; 18(3): 165–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  327. 327.
    Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN, Kau SW, et al. Adjuvant therapy with escalating doses of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with or without leukocyte alpha-interferon for stage II or III breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10(10): 1540–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  328. 328.
    Gutterman JU, Blumenschein GR, Alexanian R, et al. Leucocyte interferon-induced tumour regression in human metastatic breast cancer, multiple myeloma, and malignant lymphoma. Ann Intern Med 1980; 93(3): 399–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  329. 329.
    Borden EC, Holland JF, Dao TL, et al. Leucocyte-derived interferon (alpha) in human breast carcinoma. Ann Intern Med 1982; 97(1): 1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  330. 330.
    Habif DV, Ozello L, De Rosa CM, et al. Regression of skin recurrences of breast carcinomas treated with intralesional injections of natural interferons alpha and gamma. Cancer Invest 1995; 13(2): 165–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  331. 331.
    Lehtinen M, Luukkaala T, Wallin KL, et al. Human papillomavirus infection, risk for subsequent development of cervical neoplasia and associated population attributable fraction. J Clin Virol 2001; 22(1): 117–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  332. 332.
    O’Byrne KJ, Dalgleish AG. Chronic immune activation and inflammation as the cause of malignancy. Br J Cancer 2001; 85(4): 473–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  333. 333.
    Clerici M, Shearer GM, Clerici E. Cytokine dysregulation in invasive cervical carcinoma and other human neoplasias: time to consider the TH1/TH2 paradigm. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90(4): 261–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  334. 334.
    Clerici M, Merola M, Ferrario E, et al. Cytokine production patterns in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: association with human papillomavirus infection. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89(3): 245–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  335. 335.
    Agarwal C, Hembree JR, Rorke EA, et al. Interferon and retinoic acid suppress the growth of human papillomavirus type 16 immortalized cervical epithelial cells, but only interferon suppresses the level of the human papillomavirus transforming oncogenes. Cancer Res 1994; 54(8): 2108–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  336. 336.
    Kim KY, Blatt L, Taylor MW. The effects of interferon on the expression of human papillomavirus oncogenes. J Gen Virol 2000; 81 Pt 3: 695–700PubMedGoogle Scholar
  337. 337.
    Choo YC, Hsu C, Seto WH, et al. Intravaginal application of leukocyte interferon gel in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Arch Gynecol 1985; 237(1): 51–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  338. 338.
    Choo YC, Seto WH, Hsu C, et al. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia treated by perilesional injection of interferon. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93(4): 372–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  339. 339.
    De Palo G, Stefanon B, Rilke F, et al. Human fibroblast interferon in cervical and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia associated with papilloma virus infection. Int J Tissue React 1984; 6(6): 523–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  340. 340.
    De Palo G, Stefanon B, Rilke F, et al. Human fibroblast interferon in cervical and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia associated with viral cytopathic effects: a pilot study. J Reprod Med 1985; 30(5): 404–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  341. 341.
    Ikic D, Singer Z, Beck M, et al. Interferon treatment of uterine cervical precancerosis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1981; 101(3): 303–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  342. 342.
    Moller BR, Johannesen P, Osther K, et al. Treatment of dysplasia of the cervical epithelium with an interferon gel. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62(5): 625–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  343. 343.
    Palomba M, Melis GB. Oral use of interferon therapy in cervical human papillomavirus infection. Clin Ter 2000; 151(1): 59–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  344. 344.
    Stellato G. Intralesional recombinant alpha 2B interferon in the treatment of human papillomavirus-associated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Sex Transm Dis 1992; 19(3): 124–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  345. 345.
    Dunham AM, McCartney JC, McCance DJ, et al. Effect of perilesional injection of alpha-interferon on cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and associated human papillomavirus infection. J R Soc Med 1990; 83(8): 490–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  346. 346.
    Vasilyev RV, Bokhman Ja V, Smorodintsev AA, et al. An experience with application of human leucocyte interferon for cervical cancer treatment. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1990; 11(4): 313–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  347. 347.
    Frost L, Skajaa K, Hvidman LE, et al. No effect of intralesional injection of interferon on moderate cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97(7): 626–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  348. 348.
    Byrne MA, Moller BR, Taylor-Robinson D, et al. The effect of interferon on human papillomaviruses associated with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93(11): 1136–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  349. 349.
    Yliskoski M, Cantell K, Syrjanen K, et al. Topical treatment with human leukocyte interferon of HPV 16 infections associated with cervical and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasias. Gynecol Oncol 1990; 36(3): 353–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  350. 350.
    Garzetti GG, Ciavattini A, Romanini C, et al. Interferon alpha 2b treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2: modulation of natural killer cell. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1994; 37(3): 204–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  351. 351.
    Toma S, Ragni N, Raffo P, et al. Efficacy of the association of 13-cis-retinoic acid (13cRA) and alpha-interferon 2a (alpha-IFN 2a) in moderate-severe cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN II–III): a pilot study. Anticancer Res 1996; 16(2): 931–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  352. 352.
    Nieminen P, Aho M, Lehtinen M, et al. Treatment of genital HPV infection with carbon dioxide laser and systemic interferon alpha-2b. Sex Transm Dis 1994; 21(2): 65–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  353. 353.
    Yliskoski M, Syrjanen K, Syrjanen S, et al. Systemic alpha-interferon (Wellferon) treatment of genital human papillomavirus (HPV) type 6, 11, 16, and 18 infections: double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Gynecol Oncol 1991; 43(1): 55–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  354. 354.
    Yliskoski M, Saarikoski S, Syrjanen K. Conization for CIN associated with human papillomavirus infection. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1991; 249(2): 59–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  355. 355.
    Yokoyama M, Nakao Y, Iwasaka T, et al. Retinoic acid and interferon-alpha effects on cell growth and differentiation in cervical carcinoma cell lines. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98(2): 332–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  356. 356.
    Lotan R, Dawson MI, Zou CC, et al. Enhanced efficacy of combinations of retinoic acid- and retinoid X receptor-selective retinoids and alpha-interferon in inhibition of cervical carcinoma cell proliferation. Cancer Res 1995; 55(2): 232–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  357. 357.
    Goncalves A, Camerlo J, Bun H, et al. Phase II study of a combination of cisplatin, all-trans-retinoic acid and interferon-alpha in squamous cell carcinoma: clinical results and pharmacokinetics. Anticancer Res 2001; 21(2B): 1431–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  358. 358.
    Gonzales-de Leon C, Lippman SM, Kudelka AP, et al. Phase II study of cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil and interferon-alpha in recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Invest New Drugs 1995; 13(1): 73–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  359. 359.
    Hallum III AV, Alberts DS, Lippman SM, et al. Phase II study of 13-cis-retinoic acid plus interferon-alpha 2a in heavily pretreated squamous carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 56(3): 382–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  360. 360.
    Look KY, Blessing JA, Nelson BE, et al. A phase II trial of isotretinoin and alpha interferon in patients with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Am J Clin Oncol 1998; 21(6): 591–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  361. 361.
    Park TK, Lee JP, Kim SN, et al. Interferon-alpha 2a, 13-cis-retinoic acid and radiotherapy for locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix: a pilot study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1998; 19(1): 35–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  362. 362.
    Wadler S, Burk RD, Neuberg D, et al. Lack of efficacy of interferon-alpha therapy in recurrent, advanced cervical cancer. J Interferon Cytokine Res 1995; 15(12): 1011–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  363. 363.
    Weiss GR, Liu PY, Alberts DS, et al. 13-cis-retinoic acid or all-trans-retinoic acid plus interferon-alpha in recurrent cervical cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group phase II randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol 1998; 71(3): 386–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  364. 364.
    Wadler S, Schwartz EL, Haynes H, et al. All-trans retinoic acid and interferon-alpha-2a in patients with metastatic or recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix: clinical and pharmacokinetic studies. New York Gynecologic Oncology Group. Cancer 1997; 79(8): 1574–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  365. 365.
    Verastegui-Aviles E, Mohar A, Mota A, et al. Combination of radiation therapy and interferon alpha-2b in patients with advanced cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1999; 9(5): 401–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  366. 366.
    Lippman SM, Kavanagh JJ, Paredes-Espinoza M, et al. 13-cis-retinoic acid plus interferon alpha-2a: highly active systemic therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992; 84(4): 241–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  367. 367.
    Stock RG, Dottino P, Jennings TS, et al. Enhanced radiosensitization with interferon-alpha-2b and cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 67(3): 309–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  368. 368.
    Ikic D, Krusic J, Ivankovic D. Interferon treatment of uterine cervical carcinoma: 20 years of follow-up. Cancer Lett 2000; 158(1): 99–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  369. 369.
    Ryu S, Kim OB, Kim SH, et al. In vitro radiosensitization of human cervical carcinoma cells by combined use of 13-cis-retinoic acid and interferon-alpha2a. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41(4): 869–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  370. 370.
    Dunst J, Hansgen G, Krause U, et al. A 2-week pretreatment with 13-cis-retinoic acid + interferon-alpha-2a prior to definitive radiation improves tumor tissue oxygenation in cervical cancers. Strahlenther Onkol 1998; 174(11): 571–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  371. 371.
    Tossing G. New developments in interferon therapy. Eur J Med Res 2001; 6(2): 47–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  372. 372.
    Barber GN. The interferons and cell death: guardians of the cell or accomplices of apoptosis? Semin Cancer Biol 2000; 10(2): 103–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  373. 373.
    Lee RK, Cai JP, Deyev V, et al. Azidothymidine and interferon-alpha induce apoptosis in herpesvirus-associated lymphomas. Cancer Res 1999; 59(21): 5514–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  374. 374.
    Rodriguez-Villanueva J, McDonnell TJ. Induction of apoptotic cell death in non-melanoma skin cancer. Int J Cancer 1995; 61: 110–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  375. 375.
    Roth W, Wagenknecht B, Dichgans J, et al. Interferon-alpha enhances CD95L-induced apoptosis of human malignant glioma cells. J Neuroimmunol 1998; 87(1–2): 121–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  376. 376.
    Kurzrock R, Talpaz M, Gutterman JU. Interferons: clinical applications. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Biologic therapy of cancer. Philadelphia (PA): JB Lippincott, 1991: 334–45Google Scholar
  377. 377.
    Hadden JW. The immunopharmacology of head and neck cancer: an update. Int J Immunopharmacol 1997; 19 (11/12)Google Scholar
  378. 378.
    Keilholz U, Eggermont AMM, EORTC Melanoma Co-operative Group. The emerging role of cytokines in the treatment of advanced melanoma. Oncology 2000; 58(2): 89–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  379. 379.
    Legha SS. The role of interferon alfa in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Semin Oncol 1997; 241 Suppl. 4: 24–31Google Scholar
  380. 380.
    Quan WDJ, Palackdharry CS. Common cancers — immunotherapy and multidisciplinary therapy: parts III and IV. Dis Mon 1997; 43(11): 745–808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  381. 381.
    Flanigan RC, Blumenstein BA, Salmon S, et al. Cytoreductive tumor nephrectomy in metastatic renal cancer: the results of Southwest Oncology Group trial 8949 [abstract no. A685]. J Urol 2000; 163(4 Suppl.): 154Google Scholar
  382. 382.
    Mickisch GHJ, Garin A, van Poppel H, et al. Radical nephrectomy plus interferon-alfa-based immunotherapy compared with interferon alfa alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 358(9286): 966–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  383. 383.
    Klotz L. Back to nephrectomy for patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. Lancet 2001; 358(9286): 948–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  384. 384.
    Spiegel RJ. Clinical overview of alpha interferon: studies and future directions. Cancer 1987; 59: 626–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  385. 385.
    Kankuri M, Pelliniemi TT, Pyrhonen S, et al. Feasibility of prolonged use of interferon-alpha in metastatic kidney carcinoma: a phase II study. Cancer 2001; 92(4): 761–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  386. 386.
    Pyrhonen S, Salminen E, Ruutu M, et al. Prospective randomized trial of interferon alfa-2a plus vinblastine versus vinblastine alone in patients with advanced renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17(9): 2859–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  387. 387.
    Folkman J. Antiangiogenic therapy. In: de Vita Jr VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Principles and practice of oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven, 1997: 3075–85Google Scholar
  388. 388.
    Eggermont AMM. The role of interferon-alpha in malignant melanoma remains to be defined. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37: 2147–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  389. 389.
    Glue P, Fang JWS, Rouzier-Panis R, et al. Pegylated interferon-alpha2b: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and preliminary efficacy data. Hepatitis C Intervention Therapy Group. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2000; 68(5): 556–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  390. 390.
    Bukowski R, Ernstoff M, Gore M, et al. Phase I study of polyethylene glycol (PEG) interferon alpha-2b in patients with solid tumours [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1999; 18: 446aGoogle Scholar
  391. 391.
    de Veer MJ, Holko M, Frevel M, et al. Functional classification of interferon-stimulated genes identified using microarrays. J Leukoc Biol 2001; 69(6): 912–20PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sundar Santhanam
    • 1
  • Marios Decatris
    • 1
  • Ken O’Byrne
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OncologyLeicester Royal Infirmary, Infirmary SquareLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations