A two-cohort phase II clinical trial of gemcitabine plus treosulfan in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma

In-vitro synergy of treosulfan and gemcitabine has been observed in chemotherapy-resistant tumours. This trial investigated the efficacy of gemcitabine plus treosulfan in metastatic uveal melanoma. Patients received 1000 mg/m of gemcitabine and treosulfan at a dose of 2500 or 3000 mg/m2 in cohort 1 and 3500 or 4000 mg/m2 in cohort 2. Chemotherapy was administered on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks. Thirty-three patients were treated, 14 in cohort 1 and 19 in cohort 2. In cohort 1 with a treosulfan dose of or=3500 mg/m2 in cohort 2, one had partial remission (5%), 10 showed disease stabilization and eight progressed. An increased survival was observed in the second cohort with higher treosulfan doses, with median survival times of 6.0 versus 9.0 months (P=0.03) in cohort 1 and 2, respectively, and a 1-year survival of 7.1% versus 47.3%, respectively. Based on the observation of prolonged disease stabilization, we recommend further investigation of the gemcitabine/treosulfan combination with a dose of 3500 mg/m2 of treosulfan in metastatic uveal melanoma.     

Phase II trial of cisplatin, gemcitabine and treosulfan in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma

Gemcitabine plus treosulfan (GeT) is under investigation in metastatic uveal melanoma. In this phase II trial, cisplatin was added to a GeT regimen to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of two alkylating agents in combination with gemcitabine. Patients received 30 or 40 mg/m of cisplatin, 1000 mg/m of gemcitabine and 3000 mg/m of treosulfan on days 1 and 8. Therapy was repeated on day 29. A maximum of six cycles was administered. Nineteen patients were included in the trial, of whom 17 were evaluable for response. No objective response was observed; seven patients (41%) had stable disease and 10 (59%) progressed. The median progression-free survival of all 19 patients was 3.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-3.1]; the median overall survival was 7.7 months (95% CI, 1.9-13.8). Grade 3 and 4 thrombopenia and leucopenia occurred in eight and nine of the 19 patients, respectively. The addition of cisplatin to the GeT regimen results in excessive haematological toxicity without improvement in efficacy.     

A clinical phase I trial of gemcitabine and treosulfan in uveal melanoma and other solid tumours

This trial was performed to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of treosulfan administered in combination with a fixed dose of gemcitabine in uveal melanoma patients. Preclinical studies suggested synergistic activity against uveal melanoma. Gemcitabine (1 g/m2) and treosulfan (2.5-4 g/m2) were administered on days 1 and 8, and cycles were repeated on day 29 for a maximum of six cycles. For treosulfan, dose escalation cohorts of 2-4 patients were enrolled. An additional 25 patients were entered at treosulfan dose levels II (3 g/m2) and III (3.5 g/m2). Thirty three patients with uveal melanoma and six patients with other histologies were accrued. Side-effects were predominantly haematological. The MTD was 3.5 g/m2 of treosulfan together with 1 g/m2 of gemcitabine. In the uveal melanoma patients, one partial response (PR) and 15 stablisations of disease (SD) were recorded and whether this translates into a survival gain should be explored further.     

Neoadjuvant Gemcitabine/treosulfan Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma

The median survival for patients with glioblastoma is 12 months. The authors evaluated whether preirradiation gemcitabine/treosulfan (GeT) chemotherapy followed by standard radiotherapy improved outcome in patients with glioblastoma. Seventeen patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were enrolled in a prospective, unicenter trial of preirradiation GeT chemotherapy. Chemotherapy included up to 4 cycles of intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² body surface) and treosulfan (3500 mg/m² body surface) on days 1 and 8 of 28 days treatment cycles. Involved field radiotherapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions) was given after chemotherapy or earlier in the case of disease progression or drug intolerance. There was no specific treatment-related neurotoxicity reported, but in 3 of 17 patients (18%) chemotherapy was stopped because of World Health Organization (WHO) IV hematological toxicity. With GeT chemotherapy alone, there was a median progression-free survival of 12 weeks and a progression-free survival rate at 4 months of 29%. In 16 of 17 patients who subsequently received a full course of radiotherapy, the median progression-free survival from the time of diagnosis was 8 months, and the progression-free survival rate at 12 months was 25% (4 of 16 patients). The median overall survival was 12 months. Neither age nor extent of the residual postoperative tumor predicted the duration of progression-free survival after chemotherapy alone or after chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy. The combination of gemcitabine and treosulfan produced significant hematological toxicity in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. The schedule used in the present study did not confer any significant survival advantage compared with standard involved field radiotherapy alone.     

A prospective single arm phase II study of dacarbazine and treosulfan as first-line therapy in metastatic uveal melanoma

Uveal melanoma is relatively uncommon accounting for fewer than 5% of all melanoma cases. Localized tumours are curable by local therapy but a significant percentage of patients go on to have a relapse with metastatic disease. Uncertainty remains concerning the level of activity of dacarbazine in uveal melanoma as opposed to that in the cutaneous form. Recently, a possible role for treosulfan in uveal disease has been reported. A phase II study was therefore undertaken to assess the objective response rate of the combination of dacarbazine and treosulfan in previously untreated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. All patients received dacarbazine 850 mg/m and treosulfan 8 g/m(2) every 21 days up to a maximum of six cycles. Fifteen patients enrolled in the study. As expected, the major toxicities were haematological (particularly thrombocytopaenia) but the treatment was generally well tolerated. No responses were seen; however, disease stabilization was achieved in two patients. Median progression free survival from the start of chemotherapy was 12 weeks and median overall survival was 30 weeks. This study, using the combination of dacarbazine and treosulfan, while well tolerated, did not confirm earlier reports suggesting treosulfan is active in uveal melanoma.     

Phase I trial combining gemcitabine and treosulfan in advanced cutaneous and uveal melanoma patients

Gemcitabine and treosulfan are DNA-damaging agents. Preclinical studies suggest that synergism exists when melanoma cells are exposed to both drugs concurrently. We conducted a phase I trial in advanced melanoma patients to determine the optimal dose of gemcitabine to be combined with treosulfan. Cohorts of three patients received increasing doses of gemcitabine, commencing at 0.5 g m(-2), followed by a fixed dose of 5.0 g m(-2) treosulfan on day one of a 21-day cycle. Patients alternately received a first cycle of single-agent gemcitabine or treosulfan before subsequent cycles of both drugs. Peripheral blood lymphocytes were collected in cycles 1 and 2 at various time points until 48 h post-treatment. The single-cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) assay was used to measure chemotherapy-induced DNA damage. A total of 27 patients were enrolled, no objective responses were observed, but two uveal melanoma patients had minor responses. Dose-limiting myelosuppression was reached at 3.0 g m(-2) gemcitabine. DNA single-strand breaks were detected 4 h post-gemcitabine, repaired by 24 h. DNA interstrand crosslinks were detected 4 h post-treosulfan, fully removed by 48 h. Following combination chemotherapy, treosulfan-induced DNA crosslinks persisted, still being detectable 48 h post-treatment, supporting the hypothesis that gemcitabine potentiates treosulfan-induced cytotoxicity. The recommended regimen for further study is 2.5 g m(-2) gemcitabine combined with 5.0 g m(-2) treosulfan.     

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and treosulfan in relapsed stage IV cutaneous malignant melanoma patients

To evaluate the efficacy of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and treosulfan (CGT) in 91 patients with pretreated relapsed AJCC stage IV cutaneous malignant melanoma. Patients in relapse after first-, second-, or third-line therapy received 40 mg m(-2) intravenous (i.v.) cisplatin, 1000 mg m(-2) i.v. gemcitabine, and 2500 mg m(-2) i.v. treosulfan on days 1 and 8. Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and treosulfan therapy was repeated every 5 weeks until progression of disease occurred. A maximum of 11 CGT cycles (mean, two cycles) was administered per patient. Four patients (4%) showed a partial response; 15 (17%) patients had stable disease; and 72 (79%) patients progressed upon first re-evaluation. Overall survival of all 91 patients was 6 months (2-year survival rate, 7%). Patients with partial remission or stable disease exhibited a median overall survival of 11 months (2-year survival rate, 36%), while patients with disease progression upon first re-evaluation had a median overall survival of 5 months (2-year survival rate, 0%). Treatment with CGT was efficient in one-fifth of the pretreated relapsed stage IV melanoma patients achieving disease stabilisation or partial remission with prolonged but limited survival.     

Combination chemotherapy for choroidal melanoma: ex vivo sensitivity to treosulfan with gemcitabine or cytosine arabinoside

Treatment of choroidal melanoma by chemotherapy is usually unsuccessful, with response rates of less than 1% reported for dacarbazine (DTIC)-containing regimens which show 20% or more response rates in skin melanoma. Recently, we reported the activity of several cytotoxic agents against primary choroidal melanoma in an ATP-based tumour chemosensitivity assay (ATP-TCA). In this study, we have used the same method to examine the sensitivity of choroidal melanoma to combinations suggested by our earlier study. Tumour material from 36 enucleated eyes was tested against a battery of single agents and combinations which showed some activity in the previous study. The combination of treosulfan with gemcitabine or cytosine arabinoside showed consistent activity in 70% and 86% of cases, respectively. Paclitaxel was also active, particularly in combination with treosulfan (47%) or mitoxantrone (33%). Addition of paclitaxel to the combination of treosulfan + cytosine analogue added little increased sensitivity. For treosulfan + cytosine arabinoside, further sequence and timing experiments showed that simultaneous administration gave the greatest suppression, with minor loss of inhibition if the cytosine analogue was given 24 h after the treosulfan. Administration of cytosine analogue 24 h before treosulfan produced considerably less inhibition at any concentration. While we have so far been unable to study metastatic tumour from choroidal melanoma patients, the combination of treosulfan with gemcitabine or cytosine arabinoside shows activity ex vivo against primary tumour tissue. Clinical trials are in progress.     

Cisplatin, gemcitabine and treosulfan is effective in chemotherapy-pretreated relapsed stage IV uveal melanoma patients

Purpose  The efficacy of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and treosulfan (CGT) was evaluated in patients with chemotherapy pretreated relapsed AJCC stage IV uveal malignant melanoma. Methods  Patients received i.v./intrahepatic cisplatin, i.v. gemcitabine, and i.v. treosulfan (CGT) on day 1 and 8 as first-line (n = 1), second-line (n = 9), third-line (n = 1) or fourth-line (n = 1) therapy. Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and treosulfan (CGT)-therapy was repeated every 5 weeks until progression of disease occurred. A maximum of six CGT-cycles (mean, 2 cycles) was administered per patient. Results  No objective response was observed, six patients (50%) had stable disease and six (50%) patients progressed upon first reevaluation. Overall survival of all the 12 patients was 6 months. Patients with stable disease reached a median overall survival of 12 months, while patients with disease progression upon first reevaluation had a median overall survival of 4 months, only. Grade III/IV related hematotological side effects were experienced in six (leukopenia) and four (thrombocytopenia) patients. Conclusions  Treatment with CGT may lead to disease stabilization and prolonged survival in a substantial proportion of progressive stage IV uveal melanoma patients, even following heavy chemotherapy treatment.     

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The Hoosier Oncology Group has previously reported the results of its phase II trial of the combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine. In that study of 27 assessable patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was 33%, with a median survival of 8.4 months. Based on such favorable results, the Hoosier Oncology Group designed this randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin alone in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 28-day cycle) or the combination of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle). RESULTS: From August 1995 to February 1997, 522 assessable chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized. Toxicity was predominantly hematologic and was more pronounced in the combination arm, with grade 4 neutropenia occurring in 35.3% of patients compared with 1.2% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. The incidence of neutropenic fevers was less than 5% in both arms. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 25. 4% of patients on the combination arm compared with 0.8% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. No serious hemorrhagic events related to thrombocytopenia were reported for either arm. The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin demonstrated a significant improvement over single-agent cisplatin with regard to response rate (30.4% compared with 11.1%, respectively; P <.0001), median time to progressive disease (5.6 months compared with 3.7 months, respectively; P =.0013), and overall survival (9.1 months compared with 7.6 months, respectively; P =.004). CONCLUSIONS: For the first-line treatment of NSCLC, the regimen of gemcitabine plus cisplatin is superior to cisplatin alone in terms of response rate, time to disease progression, and overall survival.     

Single-agent gemcitabine: an active and better tolerated alternative to standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

This randomized study was designed to determine the response rates, survival and toxicities of single-agent gemcitabine (GEMZAR) and a combination of cisplatin/etoposide in chemonaive patients with non-resectable, locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 was given as a 30-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod performance status 0-2, no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases. One hundred and forty-seven patients were enrolled, 72 in the gemcitabine and 75 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm. Patient characteristics were well-matched across both arms. Sixty-seven gemcitabine and 72 cisplatin/etoposide patients were qualified for efficacy analysis. There were no complete responses, but 12 partial responses in the gemcitabine arm and 11 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm, for protocol-qualified response but 12 partial responses in the gemcitabine arm and 11 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm, for protocol-qualified response rates of 17.9% (95%, CI: 9.6-29.2%,) and 15.3% (95% CI: 7.9-25.7%,), respectively. Median survival times were 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.9-7.3 months) for gemcitabine and 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.4-9.3 months) for cisplatin/etoposide. The 1-year survival probability estimate was 26% for gemcitabine and 24% for cisplatin/etoposide. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in time-to-event measures, but patients in the gemcitabine arm had a greater probability of achieving a tumour response after 2 months (probability estimate: 8 vs. 0%,) and of the response lasting at least 6 months (73 vs. 45%,). Clinical and haematologic toxicity was more pronounced in the cisplatin/etoposide arm. Quality-of-life measures indicated a significant worsening of symptomatology in the cisplatin/etoposide arm for hair loss, nausea and vomiting, and appetite loss. This randomized study provides further evidence that single-agent gemcitabine is an active and effective therapy for patients with non-resectable. locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and good performance status, and that it is better tolerated than the combination cisplatin/ etoposide.     

Second-line chemotherapy of metastatic malignant melanoma with intravenous treosulfan: a phase II multicentre trial

The purpose of this multicentre phase II trial was to evaluate time to progression, survival time, rate of objective tumour response and toxicity of second-line intravenous treosulfan chemotherapy in stage IV melanoma patients. Thirty-one patients with measurable stage IV malignant melanoma and prior chemotherapy with a dacarbazine-containing regimen were included. Of this group, 26 patients were evaluable. All patients received treosulfan (8 g/m intravenously on day 1; cycle repeated every 28 days up to six courses). Patients were evaluated for tumour response, survival time and toxicity. No objective responses (complete or partial) were observed. Five patients (19%) showed no change and 21 had progressive disease after treosulfan treatment. Four patients experienced a minor or mixed response. The median time to progression was 1.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-2.1 months) and the median overall survival was 6.5 months (95% CI 3.1-10 months). The 1 year survival rate was 33.9% (95% CI 15.4-52.3%). Leukocytopenia and thrombocytopenia (Common Toxicity Criteria grades 3 and 4) occurred in 15% and 18% of cases, respectively. The non-haematological toxicity of this outpatient regimen was mild. In conclusion, intravenous treosulfan treatment does not induce objective response rates when used as a second-line treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma.     

Biweekly high-dose gemcitabine alone or in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a randomized phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine is an active antitumor agent in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, and has shown potential synergistic activity with the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine in previous phase I/II trials. Based on this background and in order to define the therapeutic potential and tolerance of this combination more precisely, the present randomized multicenter phase II trial was initiated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively randomized 83 patients to treatment with biweekly gemcitabine 2,200 mg/m(2) given as a 30 min intravenous infusion on day 1, or the same treatment plus oral capecitabine 2,500 mg/m(2) given from days 1 to 7. In both arms, chemotherapy was administered for a duration of 6 months unless there was prior evidence of progressive disease. The efficacy of the two treatment arms was evaluated according to standard criteria, i.e. objective response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), as well as by analysis of clinical benefit response. RESULTS: The overall objective response rate among the 42 patients treated with gemcitabine alone was 14% compared with 7/41 (17%) among those treated with the combination arm. Similar to response rates, there was no apparent difference between the two groups in terms of median PFS (4.0 versus 5.1 months) and median OS (8.2 versus 9.5 months) in the gemcitabine and combination arm, respectively. Of 61 patients with tumor-related symptoms, who were considered evaluable for clinical benefit response, 10/30 (33%) and 15/31 (48.4%) experienced significant palliation in the gemcitabine and combination arm, respectively. Chemotherapy was well tolerated in both arms with only four versus six patients experiencing WHO grade 3 symptoms. Apart from the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome in 10 patients, no major increase in incidence and/or degree of adverse reactions was noted in the combination arm. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this trial suggest a fairly good therapeutic index for the combination of biweekly high-dose gemcitabine and capecitabine for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Despite a somewhat superior clinical benefit response rate, no advantage over single-agent gemcitabine, however, was noted in terms of objective efficacy parameters.     

A phase II study of bendamustine chemotherapy as second-line treatment in metastatic uveal melanoma

Uveal melanoma is the most frequent primary malignant neoplasm of the eye and has a poor prognosis in metastatic stage. Fotemustine or a combination of gemcitabine and treosulfan has demonstrated some efficacy in metastatic disease. We conducted a phase II trial to assess the second-line activity and toxicity of bendamustine hydrochloride, a nucleoside analogue with alkylating activity. Inclusion criteria were a Karnofsky performance status of > or = 60% and progressive disease during or after first-line chemotherapy. Bendamustine was administered at a dose of 120 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2. Cycles were repeated on day 22. The primary endpoint of the study was the determination of the number of patients achieving an objective response or stable disease. The secondary endpoint was toxicity. Eleven patients were enrolled into the trial. Grade III and IV toxicity consisted of anaemia, thrombocytopenia and leucocytopenia in two, one and two patients, respectively. No grade III or IV non-haematological toxicity was observed. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), all patients showed progressive disease. We conclude that bendamustine is ineffective as second-line chemotherapy for metastatic uveal melanoma.     

A phase III trial of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine in patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomized phase III study compared the overall survival (OS) of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine (PG) versus standard gemcitabine (G) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer and no prior systemic therapy (including 5-fluorouracil as a radiosensitizer) were randomized to receive either 1,250 mg/m(2) gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) after gemcitabine on day 8 (PG arm) of each 21-day cycle, or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (G arm). RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-five patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics were randomly assigned (283 PG, 282 G). OS was not improved on the PG arm (6.2 months) compared with the G arm (6.3 months) (P=0.8477). Progression-free survival (3.9 versus 3.3 months; P=0.1109) and time to treatment failure (3 versus 2.2 months; P=0.2680) results were similar. Tumor response rate (14.8% versus 7.1%; P=0.004) was significantly better on the PG arm. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (45.1% versus 12.8%), thrombocytopenia (17.9% versus 6.2%), anemia (13.9% versus 2.9%), febrile neutropenia (9.9% versus 0.4%; all P <0.001) and fatigue (15% versus 6.6%; P=0.002) were significantly more common on the PG arm. Four treatment-related deaths occurred on the PG arm and none in the G arm. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed plus gemcitabine therapy did not improve OS. Single-agent gemcitabine remains the standard of care for advanced pancreatic cancer.     

Randomized phase II comparison of dose-intense gemcitabine: thirty-minute infusion and fixed dose rate infusion in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: To conduct a randomized phase II trial of dose-intense gemcitabine using a standard 30-minute infusion or the fixed dose rate (FDR) infusion (10 mg/m2/min) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective trial, patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were treated with 2,200 mg/m2 gemcitabine over 30 minutes (standard arm) or 1,500 mg/m2 gemcitabine over 150 minutes (FDR arm) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 4-week cycle. The primary end point of this trial was time to treatment failure. Secondary end points included time to progression, median survival, safety, and pharmacokinetic studies of gemcitabine. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were enrolled onto this study; 91% of the patients had metastatic disease. Time to treatment failure was comparable in both treatment groups; however, the median survival for all patients was 5.0 months in the standard arm and 8.0 months in the FDR arm (P =.013). For patients with metastases, the median survival was 4.9 months in the standard arm and 7.3 months in FDR arm (P =.094). The 1- and 2-year survival rates for all patients were 9% (standard arm) versus 28.8% (FDR; P =.014) and 2.2% (standard arm) versus 18.3% (FDR; P =.007), respectively. Patients in the FDR infusion arm experienced consistently more hematologic toxicity. Pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated a two-fold increase in intracellular gemcitabine triphosphate concentration in the FDR arm (P =.046). CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetic and clinical data in this trial supports the continued evaluation of the FDR infusion strategy with gemcitabine.     

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapOx) versus capecitabine plus gemcitabine (CapGem) versus gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (mGemOx): final results of a multicenter randomized phase II trial in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of three different chemotherapy doublets in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: At total of 190 patients were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 (CapOx), capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (CapGem) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 8 (mGemOx). Treatment cycles were repeated every three weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 months; secondary end points included objective response rate, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 response, clinical benefit response, overall survival and toxicity. RESULTS: The PFS rate after 3 months was 51% in the CapOx arm, 64% in the CapGem arm and 60% in the mGemOx arm. Median PFS was estimated with 4.2 months, 5.7 months and 3.9 months, respectively (P = 0.67). Corresponding median survival times were: 8.1 months (CapOx), 9.0 months (CapGem) and 6.9 months (mGemOx) (P = 0.56). Grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were more frequent in the two Gem-containing arms; grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity rates did not exceed 15% in any arm. CONCLUSION: CapOx, CapGem and mGemOx have similar clinical efficacy in advanced PC. Each regimen has a distinct but manageable tolerability profile.     

A multicenter randomized phase III trial of vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet versus capecitabine monotherapy in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated women with metastatic breast cancer

BackgroundThe Breast Cancer Study Group of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group conducted a phase III trial of single-agent capecitabine versus the vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of combination treatment in terms of progression-free survival (PFS).Patients and methodsWomen with MBC were randomly assigned to receive either capecitabine (Cap arm: 1250 mg/m² twice daily, on days 1–14) or vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet (VG arm: vinorelbine 25 mg/m²; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m²; both drugs on days 1 and 15).ResultsSeventy-four women were treated on each arm and median PFS was 5.4 versus 5.2 months (P = 0.736), for VG and Cap, respectively. Median overall survival was 20.4 months for the VG arm and 22.4 months for the Cap arm (P = 0.319). Overall response rate was 28.4% in the VG arm and 24.3% in the Cap arm (P = 0.576). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Neutropenia and fatigue were more common with VG arm and hand–foot syndrome with Cap arm.ConclusionsThis trial failed to demonstrate superiority of vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet over single-agent capecitabine in terms of PFS. Given the favorable toxicity and convenience of oral administration, single-agent capecitabine is recommended for compliant patients.     

Docetaxel plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin in advanced pancreatic carcinoma: randomized phase II study 40984 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Group.

PURPOSE: To define the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin for advanced pancreatic carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and WHO performance status less than 2 were randomly assigned to receive 21-day cycles of gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 85 mg/m2 on day 8 (arm A) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 (arm B). Primary end points were tumor response and rate of febrile neutropenia grade. RESULTS: Of 96 randomly assigned patients (49 patients in arm A and 47 patients in arm B), 70 patients were analyzed for response (36 in arm A and 34 in arm B) and 89 patients were analyzed for safety (45 in arm A and 44 in arm B). Confirmed responses were observed in 19.4% (95% CI, 8.2% to 36.0%) of patients in arm A and 23.5% (95% CI, 10.7% to 41.2%) in arm B. In arm A, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.7 months), median survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.0 months), and 1-year survival was 30%. In arm B, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.6 months), median survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 4.8 to 8.7 months), and 1-year survival was 16%. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 9% and 16% of patients in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both regimens are well tolerated and show activity in advanced pancreatic carcinoma. The safety profile and survival analyses favor docetaxel plus gemcitabine for further evaluation.     

Intra-patient alternated dose escalation of paclitaxel and gemcitabine versus paclitaxel followed by fixed dose rate infusion of gemcitabine in fit elderly non-small cell lung cancer patients. A Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group randomised phase II trial

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to select the best schedule of administration for the paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination in fit elderly patients affected by locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients in stage III or IV NSCLC, aged 70 years or more and in ECOG performance status (PS)相似文献