Randomized crossover pharmacokinetic evaluation of subcutaneous versus intravenous granisetron in cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: 5-HT3-receptor antagonists are one of the mainstays of antiemetic treatment, and they are administered either i.v. or orally. Nevertheless, sometimes neither administration route is feasible, such as in patients unable to admit oral intake managed in an outpatient setting. Our objective was to evaluate the bioavailability of s.c. granisetron. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive 3 mg of granisetron either s.c. or i.v. in a crossover manner during two cycles. Blood and urine samples were collected after each cycle. Pharmacokinetic parameters observed with each administration route were compared by analysis of variance. RESULTS: From May to November 2005, 31 patients were included and 25 were evaluable. Subcutaneous granisetron resulted in a 27% higher area under the concentration-time curve for 0-12 hours (AUC(0-12h)) and higher levels at 12 hours, with similar values for AUC(0-24h). The maximum concentration was lower with the s.c. than with the i.v. route and was observed 30 minutes following s.c. administration. CONCLUSION: Granisetron administered s.c. achieves complete bioavailability. This is the first study that shows that s.c. granisetron might be a valid alternative to i.v. delivery. Further trials to confirm clinical equivalence are warranted. This new route of administration might be especially relevant for outpatient management of emesis in cancer patients.     

A Phase II trial of subcutaneous amifostine and radiation therapy in patients with head-and-neck cancer

PURPOSE: Intravenous amifostine 200 mg/m2 reduces xerostomia in head-and-neck cancer patients. This Phase II study evaluated subcutaneous (s.c.) amifostine in a similar patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received amifostine 500 mg, administered as two 250-mg s.c. injections 60 min before once-daily radiation for head-and-neck cancer (50-70 Gy in 5-7 weeks). The primary endpoint was the incidence of > or =Grade 2 acute xerostomia. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients received s.c. amifostine and radiotherapy. The incidence of > or =Grade 2 acute xerostomia was 56% (95% CI, 43-69%) and the incidence of > or =Grade 2 late xerostomia at 1 year was 45% (95% CI, 29-61%). The incidence of acute xerostomia was lower than reported previously with no amifostine in a controlled study; rates of acute xerostomia were similar between s.c. and i.v. amifostine in the two studies. The rate of late xerostomia with s.c. amifostine was intermediate between rates for i.v. amifostine and no amifostine, and not statistically significantly different from either historical control. Grades 1-2 nausea and emesis were the most common amifostine-related adverse events. Grade 3 amifostine-related adverse events reported by >1 patient included: dehydration (11%); rash (6%); and weight decrease, mucositis, dyspnea, and allergic reaction (each 4%). Seven patients (13%) had serious cutaneous adverse events outside the injection site. One-year rates of locoregional control, progression-free survival, and overall survival were 78%, 75%, and 85%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous amifostine provides a well-tolerated yet simpler alternative to i.v. amifostine for reducing acute xerostomia in head-and-neck cancer patients.     

Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of rituximab among patients with untreated CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma: results from a prospective,randomized, open-label,crossover study (PrefMab)

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate patient preference and satisfaction for the subcutaneous (s.c.) versus intravenous (i.v.) formulation of rituximab given with chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL).Patients and methodsPatients received eight cycles of rituximab according to 2 schedules: Arm A received 1 cycle rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m²) and 3 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg) then 4 cycles rituximab i.v.; Arm B received 4 cycles rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m²) then 4 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg). Alongside rituximab, both arms received 6–8 cycles of chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP), cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (CVP), or bendamustine as per standard local practice). Preference for s.c. or i.v. administration was evaluated using the Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) at cycles 6 and 8. Patient satisfaction and convenience were assessed using the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), and Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire (RASQ) at cycles 4 and 8.ResultsAt the primary data cut-off (19 January 2015), the intent-to-treat population comprised 743 patients. The majority had DLBCL (63%) and baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At cycle 8, 81% of patients completing the PPQ preferred rituximab s.c. Preference was not impacted by treatment sequence or disease type. Patient satisfaction as measured by RASQ was higher for s.c. versus i.v. CTSQ scores were similar between arms. Adverse events were generally balanced between administration routes and no new safety signals were detected.ConclusionMost previously untreated patients with CD20+ DLBCL or FL preferred s.c. to i.v. rituximab administration. Patient satisfaction with rituximab treatment was generally greater with s.c. administration.Registered clinical trial numberNCT01724021 (ClinicalTrials.gov).     

Accelerated neoadjuvant chemotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Thirty patients with marginally resectable stage IIIA or stage IIIB NSCLC were treated with cisplatin (80 mg/ m(2)/i.v./dl), ifosfamide (4,000 mg/m(2)/i.v./dl) and vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2)/i.v./dl) plus G-CSF 300 mu g/s.c. on days 7-12 every 14 days for three cycles before surgery. In 26 evaluable patients, the radiographically assessed response rate to chemotherapy was 77% (8% complete). Three septic deaths (10%) occurred in spite of G-CSF and 1 patient refused to continue after the first cycle. Thoracothomy was performed in 23 patients including 19 complete resections. At 15 months median follow-up (range 10-22+), 11/19 (57%) completely resected patients relapsed. The overall median time to treatment failure was 11 months (range 0-17). Actuarial survival probability at 12, 18 and 24 months are 56%, 43% and 36%, respectively. In conclusion, the combination of cisplatin, ifosfamide and vinorelbine in full doses at a 14 day interval (accelerated chemotherapy) was very effective in neoadjuvant NSCLC setting. Nevertheless, relevant toxicity was demonstrated with a 10% death rate probably due to the overlapping toxicity of chemotherapy cycles, suggesting the need for a more intense supportive care or longer interval between cycles.     

Comparison of ramosetron and granisetron for the prevention of acute and delayed emesis in Cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: A clinical study of ramosetron was carried out to evaluate its efficacy in preventing both acute and delayed emesis in cisplatin-based chemotherapy by using a double-blind method with granisetron as the comparative drug. METHODS: Cisplatin at a dose of > or =70 mg/m(2) was administered as a single intravenous (i.v.) infusion over 4 h. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ramosetron (0.3 mg i.v. bolus 30 min before cisplatin on Day 1 and a 0.1 mg tablet in the morning for Days 2 to 5 after completion of chemotherapy; n = 36) or granisetron (3 mg i.v. infusion 30 min before cisplatin on Day 1 and a 1 mg tablet in the morning for Days 2 to 5 after completion of chemotherapy; n = 37). The observation period started with the initiation of chemotherapy (0 h) and continued for 24 h after completion of the chemotherapy for acute emesis, and on Days 2 to 5 for delayed nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were eligible for evaluation, with 36 patients in the ramosetron group and 37 in the granisetron group. The efficacy of both drugs was analyzed in terms of the degree of achievement in each day of treatment. Ramosetron was as effective as granisetron in preventing nausea and vomiting (both acute and delayed emesis). The two drugs had a similar safety profile and adverse events were generally mild and transient. CONCLUSIONS: Ramosetron is effective and safe for the control of acute and delayed emesis induced by cisplatin.     

A randomised cross-over trial comparing low-dose metoclopramide and chlorpromazine with high-dose metoclopramide in Chinese patients with advanced cancer receiving cisplatinum and 5-fluorouracil

Summary Nineteen Chinese patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced cancer were studied for chemotherapy-induced acute nausea and vomiting. The chemotherapy consisted of cisplatinum 100 mg/m² i.v. infusion over 4 h on day 1 and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 1000 mg/m² 120-h continuous infusion from day 2 to day 6, repeated every 3 weeks. At the first course of chemotherapy the patients were randomized to receive either low-dose metoclopramide and chlorpromazine or high-dose metoclopramide, and then crossed over for the second course. In the high-dose metoclopramide group there was a suggestion of an earlier onset of emesis, with slightly more frequent retching and vomiting and less food consumed. However, the duration of emesis was shorter in the high-dose group. These differences were not statistically significant. There were no major side effects. Mild salutary drowsiness was noticed in patients receiving low-dose metoclopramide and chlorpromazine. This trial suggests that, in the dosage, route and schedule described, high-dose metoclopramide is no more effective than low-dose metoclopramide together with chlorpromazine in preventing cisplatinum-induced nausea and vomiting. The low-dose scheme is more economic and suitable for patients with advanced cancer.     

Amifostine does not reduce the toxicity of the fludarabine and cyclophosphamide regimen in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia

PURPOSE: Amifostine is an organic thiophosphate that may selectively protect normal tissues from the toxicities of chemotherapy. The combination of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) is highly active in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Infection is a serious toxicity of the FC regimen. METHODS: Amifostine was added to the FC regimen in a phase II study of 46 patients with CLL. Patients received FCA (fludarabine 30 mg/m(2) i.v. daily for 3 days, cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m(2) i.v. daily for 3 days, and amifostine 500 mg i.v. over 15 min daily for 3 days starting 30 min before cyclophosphamide) at intervals of 4-6 weeks for a maximum of six courses. RESULTS: Patients receiving FCA had equivalent rates of sepsis, early death, objective response and survival to those observed in a prior series of 78 patients treated with FC. Amifostine-associated toxicities included nausea, vomiting, and hypotension. CONCLUSION: The study amifostine regimen did not reduce the toxicity or activity of the FC regimen in patients with CLL.     

Optimum anti-emetic therapy for cisplatin induced emesis over repeat courses: Ondansetron plus dexamethasone compared with metoclopramide, dexamethasone plus lorazepam

BACKGROUND:: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerabilityof ondansetron plus dexamethasone (O+D) with metoclopramideplus dexamethasone plus lorazepam (M+D+L) over three consecutivecourses of cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS:: This was an international, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy,parallel group study. O+D patients were randomised to receiveondansetron 8 mg intravenously (i.v.) plus dexamethasone 20mg i.v. prior to cisplatin (50–100 mg/m) chemotherapy.On the following 4 days they were treated with ondansetron 8mg bd orally and dexamethasone 4mg bd orally. M+D+L patientswere randomised to receive metoclopramide 3 mg/kg i.v., dexamethasone20 mg i.v. and lorazepam 1.5 mg/m² i.v. (max 3 mg) prior tocisplatin chemotherapy and a further dose of metoclopramide3 mg/kg i.v. approximately 2 hours following the first doseof metoclopramide. Treatment for the following 4 days was metoclopramide40 mg tds and dexamethasone 4 mg bd orally. Two hundred andthirty-seven patients were recruited into the study (117 patientsreceived O+D and 120 received M+D+L). RESULTS:: On the first course of chemotherapy, O+D was significantly superiorto the M+D+L regimen for complete control of emesis (days 1–5,54% versus 37%, respectively, P = 0.014). This was maintainedover the three treatment cycles; 38% of O+D and 20% of M+D+Lpatients remained free of emesis (P = 0.003). Maintenance ofcontrol of nausea grade as none or mild on days 1–5 overthe three courses was significantly better in the O+D group(48%) than in the M+D+L (26%, P = 0.003). The most commonly occurring adverse events in the O+D groupwere constipation (25%) and headache (19%). In the M+D+L groupdrowsiness (38% of patients), malaise/fatigue (16% of patients),constipation (13% of patients), anxiety (11% of patients) anddizziness (10% of patients) were the most commonly reportedadverse events. Extrapyramidal symptoms were reported by 20%of patients in the M+D+L group. Despite the inclusion of lorazepam,14% of patients in the M+D+L group were withdrawn from the studydue to extrapyramidal symptoms, which in the opinion of theinvestigators, were probably or almost certainly related tostudy medication. CONCLUSIONS:: This study shows that O+D is significantly more effective andbetter tolerated than M+D+L for the control of emesis and nauseaover a series of three courses of cisplatin chemotherapy. cisplatin, emesis, nausea, ondansetron, repeated treatments     

Carboplatin combined with amifostine, a bone marrow protectant, in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised phase II study.

Amifostine (WR-2721), a thiol compound, has been shown to protect normal tissue from alkylating agents and cisplatin-induced toxicity without loss of anti-tumour effects. To confirm this result, we conducted a phase II randomised trial to determine if the addition of amifostine reduces the toxicity of carboplatin without loss of anti-tumour activity in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). After the first course of carboplatin (600 mg m-2 i.v. infusion), 21 patients were randomised to receive three cycles of carboplatin alone (C arm) or three infusions of amifostine at 910 mg m-2 (CA arm) at 28 day intervals. The amifostine was given 20 min before and at 2 and 4 h after carboplatin. Since the 910 mg m-2 amifostine infusion led to hypotension in six patients, the dosage was reduced by 25%, to 683 mg m-2 t.i.d., in the other four patients. Amifostine was well tolerated at this dose level. Five patients in the CA arm and three in the C arm had their planned treatment discontinued owing to progressive disease (n = 3), amifostine side-effects (hypotension, sneezing and sickness, n = 4), and carboplatin-induced thrombocytopenia (n = 1). Bone marrow and renal function at study entry and after the first course of carboplatin before randomisation were similar in both treatment arms. Twenty courses of carboplatin+amifostine have been compared with 25 courses of carboplatin alone. Although there was no statistically significant difference with respect to haematological values comparing both arms, the median time to platelet recovery (> 100 x 10(9) l-1) (13.5 days vs 21 days; P = 0.04) and the need for hospitalisation for i.v. antibiotic and other supportive treatment tended to be reduced in the CA arm (0/20 vs 6/25 patient courses; P = 0.06). Response rates and median survival (14 vs 9 months) were no different, excluding tumour protection activity by amifostine. These results with a small number of patients suggest that amifostine given with carboplatin may reduce the duration of thrombocytopenia and hospitalisation.     

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous amifostine in minimizing radiation-induced toxicities in patients receiving combined-modality treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

PURPOSE: To report long-term data from a prospective trial of subcutaneous (s.c.) amifostine in patients who received chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients >or=18 years of age with previously untreated Stage III/IV SCCHN received fractionated radiotherapy, 1.8-2.0 Gy/day, 5 days per week, to a total dose of 70-72 Gy, plus weekly paclitaxel (40 mg/m2) and carboplatin (100 mg/m2) administered intravenously (i.v.) for 6 weeks. All patients received 500 mg s.c. amifostine 30-60 min before radiotherapy with antihistamine and antiemetic prophylaxis. RESULTS: Twenty patients were evaluable (median age, 55 years). The incidence of Grade 2 xerostomia was 42% and 29% at 12 and 18 months, respectively; there were no reports of Grade >or=3 xerostomia. Grade >or=3 mucositis occurred in 30% of patients, with median time to resolution of 12.5 weeks (range, 5-17 weeks). Survival estimates at 1 and 2 years were 95% and 71%, respectively. All patients experienced Grade 2 weight loss; 7 patients (35%) experienced Grade /=3 amifostine-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous amifostine was well tolerated by patients receiving chemoradiotherapy for SCCHN, with lower rates of nausea/vomiting than reported in trials with i.v. amifostine. Xerostomia and mucositis rates were similar to those reported in trials with i.v. amifostine.     

抗幽门螺杆菌节拍治疗在防治胃癌化疗致吐中的意义*

目的:探讨抗幽门螺杆菌节拍治疗相对于常规三联抗幽门螺杆菌（HP）治疗在预防胃癌化疗引起迟发性呕吐中的意义。方法:经14C-尿素呼气试验证实HP感染,经免疫组织化学方法确定为中、重度感染的需首次进行双药联合方案化疗的胃癌患者共69例,分为A 、B 两组。A 组（n= 33）采用抗HP节拍治疗,即于化疗第1d 开始口服奥美拉唑20mg2 次/d+ 阿莫西林0.5 g 2 次/d+ 甲硝唑200 mg1 次/d ,口服共 14d;B 组（n= 36）于化疗第 1d 开始口服奥美拉唑 20mg2 次/d+ 阿莫西林 1 g 2 次/d+ 甲硝唑 400 mg2 次/ d,口服共7d。两组均同时联合第一代5-HT 3 拮抗剂格拉司琼3 mg1 次/d ,且应用时间均相同。治疗前后分别用免疫组织化学方法评价HP感染情况。结果:A 组呕吐患者治疗的总有效率为84.85% ,明显高于B 组55.56% 。A 组发生延迟性呕吐需解救治疗的占15.15% ,B 组占44.44% ,A 组需解救治疗的比例明显低于B 组。A 组平均完成化疗周期数明显高于B 组（4.5 个周期vs . 3.1 个周期）,差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。 与B 组相比较,A 组患者HP感染程度明显降低（P < 0.05）。 结论:在化疗同时采用低剂量、2周抗HP节拍治疗与常规剂量1 周方案相比较,可明显减轻胃癌合并HP感染患者化疗相关的迟发性呕吐反应,并可显著降低HP感染程度。      

Pilot trial of cytoprotection with amifostine given with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

In an attempt to limit toxicities associated with dose-intensive therapy used for transplant regimens, we performed a pilot study using amifostine with high-dose busulfan (12 mg/kg), melphalan (100 mg/m2), and thiotepa (500 mg/m2) in 21 patients with a variety of malignancies. After 3 days of oral busulfan, amifostine was given at 910 mg/m2 IV for 10 minutes, preceding the infusion of each of 2 doses of melphalan and thiotepa given for 4 days. Antiemetic premedication for amifostine was given to all patients. The median patient age was 50 years (range: 32-65 years). Twenty-one patients received 82 separate amifostine infusions. One patient discontinued amifostine after the second dose because of severe nausea and emesis, and two infusions were temporarily held secondary to hypotension. Of these 82 cycles, there was a total of 37 episodes of nausea/vomiting, 28 episodes of sneezing, 11 episodes of flushing, and 1 episode of oral paresthesia. Systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure decreased by a mean of 8.4 mm Hg and 5.0 mm Hg, respectively. In general, the infusion was well tolerated. Patients were observed until discharge home (N = 15), until initiation of an additional tandem transplant procedure (N = 4), or until death (N = 2). All twenty-one patients experienced nonhematologic toxicities grade II or greater. Grade II toxicities included mucositis (N = 21), gastrointestinal (N = 3), skin (N = 1), and liver (N = 1), and grade III toxicities included liver (N = 1). Mucositis was also scored according to a detailed toxicity assessment. Mucositis did not appear to be improved with amifostine when compared with a control group of patients not receiving amifostine. Renal dysfunction after transplantation was decreased in the amifostine group, whereas there was no significant effect on posttransplant hepatic dysfunction. Although these data demonstrate the feasibility of delivering parenteral amifostine in conjunction with dose-intensive chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation, there was no evidence of a significant reduction in nonmarrow toxicities.     

Phase I/pharmacokinetic study of intraperitoneal cisplatin and etoposide

We administered cisplatin and etoposide by peritoneal dialysis to 39 patients with i.p. malignancies in order to investigate the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of this 2-drug combination. All patients received i.v. sodium thiosulfate concurrently with the i.p. chemotherapy. Myelosuppression, nausea, vomiting, and malaise were the primary toxicities encountered. The maximum tolerated dose of etoposide was 350 mg/m2, when administered with a fixed dose of cisplatin, 200 mg/m2. Although the total (free and protein-bound) etoposide exposure for the peritoneal cavity was only 1.5-fold greater than that for the plasma, the free (non-protein bound) etoposide peritoneal exposure was 65-fold greater than the plasma. Tumor regressions were noted in patients with ovarian and pancreatic carcinomas. This study is the first demonstration of the large pharmacokinetic advantage that exists for the i.p. administration of highly protein-bound drugs, and it also documents the clinical activity of i.p. cisplatin and etoposide.     

High doses of prochlorperazine for cisplatin-induced emesis. A prospective, random, dose-response study

This study investigated the antiemetic properties of four different doses of prochlorperazine (10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, 40 mg) when given randomly to patients receiving four cycles of the same dose of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Prochlorperazine was given to 71 patients by slow intravenous infusion 30 minutes before and 3 and 6 hours after the start of cisplatin chemotherapy. The higher doses of prochlorperazine proved to be effective in the control of cisplatin-induced emesis. For the 20 patients who completed all 4 study cycles of treatment, a relationship was discerned between the dose of prochlorperazine administered and the antiemetic effect. When all 71 patients were analyzed in terms of the results of the first cycle of chemotherapy, a significant dose-response effect was also found. Overall toxic reactions in 82 treatment cycles using either 30 mg or 40 mg of prochlorperazine were dystonia (1 patient), restlessness (2), hypotension (3), and drowsiness (12). This study demonstrates that higher-than-conventional doses of prochlorperazine have an impressive antinauseant effect with only moderate toxicity.     

Tolerability and efficacy of GM-CSF [Leucomax] in patients with small cell lung cancer treated with intensive chemotherapy

The aim of this study was to evaluate tolerability and efficacy of Leucomax (Sandoz/Schering Plough) used for neutropenia in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) treated with etoposide and cisplatin. The potential influence of granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) on chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI) was also evaluated. The chemotherapy used was the following, cisplatin 50 mg m^-2 i.v. 1 and 7 day, etoposide 170 mg m^-2 i.v. 3-5 days, q 3-4 weeks. Patients received a median of six cycles (range 2-8) over 4-36 weeks (median: 20). Thirty-two consecutive patients were treated, six were excluded. Eleven patients received GM-CSF 5 /zg kg"1 s.c. due to absolute neutrophil count (ANC), 1000/mm3 until recovery (ANC > 2000 mm3) or during 7 days, and thereafter prophylactically 24 hours post subsequent chemotherapy cycles for 7 days. Four patients received single GM-CSF course during the terminal disease phase. In 11 patients, there was no neutropenia requiring GM-CSF during the whole treatment course. Toxicity of chemotherapy was high, including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anaemia, mucositis, fever and hypotension. GM-CSF toxicity was the following, first dose reaction - one patient, local erythema - two patients, arthralgia - one patient, hypotension, chills, fever requiring GM-CSF discontinuation one patient RDI of cisplatin/etoposide was 0.77/0.62 in GM-CSF group, and 0.90/ 0.80 in patients who didn’t receive Leucomax. Overall objective response rate to chemotherapy and complete response rate were 80% (21/26), 26% (7/26) and median survival of all patients was 10 months. Median disease free survival was 8 months. Four patients are alive, two patients lost during progression, 20 died. Administration of GM-CSF did not appear to improve RDI of chemotherapy, overall response rate (RR) nor survival in this phase I/II clinical study. RDI of chemotherapy was reduced in patients receiving GM-CSF due to thrombocytopenia and/or extrahaematologic toxicity of chemotherapy.     

Pharmacologic study of paclitaxel administered with or without the cytoprotective agent amifostine, and given as a single agent or in combination with epirubicin and cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors

The main purpose of this study was to investigate whether the coadministration of amifostine alters the pharmacokinetic behavior of paclitaxel. Eight patients were included in the study: six received paclitaxel in combination with epirubicin and cisplatin, and two received paclitaxel as a single agent. Doses of paclitaxel in these protocols were 135, 150, 175, and 200 mg/m(2) and two patients were treated at each dose level. Pharmacokinetic sampling for paclitaxel analysis was performed in each patient during two consecutive cycles, one with and one without amifostine (750 mg/m(2) as a 15-minute intravenous infusion 30 minutes before paclitaxel administration). At each dose level, the pharmacokinetic data of paclitaxel were compared per patient for a cycle without amifostine versus a cycle with amifostine. Amifostine did not seem to interact pharmacokinetically with paclitaxel, given either alone or in combination chemotherapy. This is in line with the clinical findings that amifostine has no negative effects on the antitumor activity of various antineoplastic agents. Also, amifostine may reduce toxic effects of combination chemotherapy regimens that include paclitaxel.     

High-dose oral and intravenous metoclopramide in doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-induced emesis. A randomized double-blind study

Emesis remains a major side effect of cancer chemotherapy. High-dose intravenous metoclopramide has proved to be effective antiemetic therapy for cisplatinum induced emesis. It has not been rigorously tested in nonplatinum chemotherapy. This double-blind, noncrossover, randomized trial compared high-dose oral and intravenous metoclopramide to standard oral prochlorperazine in emesis caused by doxorubicin [70 mg/m2 body surface area (BSA)] and cyclophosphamide (700 mg/m2 BSA). Prochlorperazine (10 mg/dose), oral metoclopramide, and intravenous metoclopramide (2 mg/kg/dose each) were given 30 min before chemotherapy and then every 4 h for 24 h. Ten patients were randomized to prochlorperazine therapy, 10 to oral metoclopramide, and 9 to i.v. metoclopramide. Median number of emeses for the first chemotherapy cycle was 3, 3, and 7 for prochlorperazine, oral, and i.v. metoclopramide, respectively. Statistical analysis showed no significant advantage of any regimen (p greater than 0.4). For patients who continued the antiemetic study, frequency of emesis increased with each successive cycle of chemotherapy. Six of 19 patients treated with metoclopramide developed dystonic reactions compared with zero of 10 on prochlorperazine. High plasma metoclopramide levels were achieved with both metoclopramide regimens and did not correlate with frequency of emesis. High-dose oral and i.v. metoclopramide in an every 4 h regimen did not show any advantage over standard antiemetic therapy for doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide-induced emesis and were associated with significant toxicity.     

Serious adverse effects of amifostine during radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients

Background and purpose: Amifostine has been shown to protect against xerostomia induced by radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, but its impact on the therapeutic index is unknown. This is the first report focusing on amifostine related adverse effects leading to discontinuation of amifostine treatment.

Patients and methods: Thirty-nine patients from two centers irradiated for head and neck cancer received i.v.-infusions of amifostine prior to each radiation fraction. In a phase III study, two daily amifostine doses, 200 mg/m² (n=21) and 340 mg/m² (n=18), were compared for protection against radiation induced toxicity. Total radiation dose was 60–70 Gy (2 Gy per fraction), nine patients received concurrent chemotherapy with cisplatin/5-FU. amifostine was usually discontinued after >1 episode of serious toxicity during subsequent treatment sessions.

Results: In 16/39 patients (41%) amifostine was discontinued due to severe adverse effects, which led to discontinuation of the phase III study. In four of 16 patients radiotherapy was delayed due to amifostine related adverse effects for 1–3 days. Discontinuation occurred more often in patients receiving chemotherapy. The results led to a literature review for amifostine treatment during radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients. Regarding our series and published series using an amifostine schedule comparable to ours, total discontinuation rate was 27% (57/214). Discontinuation was significantly influenced by chemotherapy (P=0.007), but not by amifostine dose (P=0.156).

Conclusion: Daily i.v. administration of amifostine during radiotherapy in head and neck cancer is associated with a high rate of serious adverse effects leading to discontinuation of amifostine treatment and sometimes delay of radiotherapy.     

Amifostine: the first selective-target and broad-spectrum radioprotector

After several decades of preclinical and clinical research, the first approved radioprotective drug, amifostine, is being used in clinical practice. Amifostine has been shown to specifically protect normal tissues from damage caused by radiation and chemotherapy. An inactive prodrug, amifostine is converted to an active thiol by dephosphorylation by alkaline phosphatase in the normal endothelium. The hypovascularity and acidity of the tumor environment and the differential expression of alkaline phosphatase in normal and neoplastic tissues contribute to its cytoprotective selectivity. The cytoprotective mechanism of amifostine is complicated, involving free-radical scavenging, DNA protection and repair acceleration, and induction of cellular hypoxia. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the i.v. use of amifostine to reduce the cumulative renal toxicity associated with repeated administration of cisplatin in patients with advanced ovarian cancer and to reduce the incidence of moderate to severe xerostomia in patients undergoing postoperative radiation treatment for head and neck cancer, where the radiation port includes a substantial portion of the parotid glands. Nonetheless, amifostine has potential applications in many other oncologic settings. Novel schedules and routes of administration are under investigation and may further simplify the use of amifostine, reduce any undesired effects, and considerably broaden its applications. This review summarizes the clinical experience with amifostine and provides insight into future clinical directions.     

A randomized trial of amifostine in patients with high-dose VIC chemotherapy plus autologous blood stem cell transplantation

This pilot study evaluates the degree of side effects during high-dose chemotherapy (HD-VIC) plus autologous bone marrow transplant (HDCT) and its possible prevention by the cytoprotective thiol-derivate amifostine. Additionally, the in-patient medical costs of both treatment arms were compared. 40 patients with solid tumours were randomized to receive HD-VIC chemotherapy with or without amifostine (910 mg/m(2)at day 1-3) given as a short infusion prior to carboplatin and ifosfamide. Patients were stratified according to pretreatment. HDCT consisted of an 18 h infusion of carboplatin (500 mg/m(2/)d over 18 h), ifosfamide (4 g/m(2)/d over 4 h) and etoposide (500 mg/m(2)/d) all given for 3 consecutive days. All patients received prophylactic application of G-CSF (5 microg kg(-1)subcutaneously) to ameliorate neutropenia after treatment. Patients were monitored for nephrotoxicity, gastrointestinal side effects, haematopoietic recovery, as well as frequency of fever and infections. The median fall of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was 10% from baseline in the amifostine group (105 to 95 ml min(-1)) and 37% in the control patient group (107 to 67 ml min(-1)) (P< 0.01). Amifostine-treated patients revealed a less pronounced increase in albumin and low molecular weight protein urinary excretion. Stomatitis grade III/IV occurred in 25% without versus 0% of patients with amifostine (P = 0.01). Acute nausea/vomiting was frequently observed immediately during or after the application of amifostine despite intensive antiemetic prophylaxis consisting of 5-HT3-receptor antagonists/dexamethasone/trifluorpromazine. However, delayed emesis occurred more often in the control patients. Engraftment of neutrophil (> 500 microl(-1))and thrombocytes (> 25 000 microl(-1))were observed at days 9 versus 10 and 10 versus 12, respectively, both slightly in favour of the amifostine arm. In addition, a lower number of days with fever and a shortened duration of hospital stay were observed in the amifostine arm. The reduction of acute toxicity observed in the amifostine arm resulted in 30% savings in costs for supportive care (Euro 4396 versus Euro 3153 per patient). Taking into account the drug costs of amifostine, calculation of in-patient treatment costs from the start of chemotherapy to discharge revealed additional costs of Euro 540 per patient in the amifostine arm. This randomized pilot study indicates that both organ and haematotoxicity of HD-VIC chemotherapy can be ameliorated by the use of amifostine. Additionally, a nearly complete preservation of GFR was observed in amifostine-treated patients which may be advantageous if repetitive cycles of HDCT are planned. Larger randomized trials evaluating amifostine cytoprotection during high-dose chemotherapy are warranted.