Phase III comparative study of vinorelbine combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in disseminated metastatic/recurrent breast cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA8.

PURPOSE: This phase III study was performed to determine the superiority of doxorubicin (DOX) and vinorelbine (VNB) (arm 1) versus DOX alone (arm 2) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) for overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred three patients were randomized to DOX 50 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) on day 1 and VNB 25 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8 (arm 1) or DOX 70 mg/m(2) IV on day 1 (arm 2). Both regimens were given every 3 weeks until a cumulative DOX dose of 450 mg/m(2). After 16 of the first 65 randomized patients experienced febrile neutropenia (FN), the doses were reduced to DOX 40 mg/m(2) on day 1 and VNB 20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 versus DOX 60 mg/m(2) on day 1. Eligible patients were vinca alkaloid and anthracycline naive. Chemotherapy was first-line or second-line for MBC. RESULTS: Three patients were ineligible. Thus, 300 patients were assessable for toxicity and to determine time to disease progression (TTP), TTF, and OS. Two hundred eighty-nine patients were assessable for response, and 99 responders were assessable for response duration (RD). The response rates, QOL, and median RD, TTP, and TTF were not significantly different between the arms. Median OS was 13.8 months for arm 1 versus 14.4 months for arm 2 (P =.4). Grade 3 or 4 granulocytopenia was equivalent in both arms but more grade 3/4 neurotoxicity, mild venous toxicity, and FN were seen on arm 1. CONCLUSION: The survival with DOX and VNB is not superior to DOX alone in MBC.     

A randomized study of cisplatin versus cisplatin plus vindesine for non-small cell lung carcinoma.

Between August 1983 and March 1985, a randomized study was conducted that compared cisplatin (CDDP) (80 mg/m2 on day 1) alone with CDDP plus vindesine (VDS) (3 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) in 160 consecutive patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There were no complete responses. The response rate for CDDP plus VDS (22 of 77 patients, 29%) was significantly higher than that for CDDP alone (9 of 78 patients, 12%) (P less than 0.05). However, no difference existed in the median duration of response (20 weeks for CDDP plus VDS versus 20 weeks for CDDP alone) or the median survival time (45 weeks for CDDP plus VDS versus 39 weeks for CDDP alone). No significant differences in toxicity were detected between the two arms; myelosuppression, alopecia, and peripheral neuropathy occurred more frequently with CDDP plus VDS and there was one lethal episode of hepatorenal syndrome in the CDDP plus VDS arm. Among the variables Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), age, sex, stage, weight loss, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, albumin level, histologic cell type, and chemotherapy arm, only chemotherapy arm was a significant factor leading to a major response (P = 0.019, multiple logistic regression analysis). The significant predictors of survival were PS (P = 0.000), sex (P = 0.000), and stage (P = 0.002) (Cox's proportional hazards model), with a PS of 0 or 1, female sex, and lower stage yielding the best survival. Although a significantly higher response rate was obtained in the combination arm than in the single agent arm, the survival benefit to patients receiving such combination chemotherapy was not determined and more effective chemotherapy regimens are required.     

Randomized study of continuous infusion fluorouracil versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

One hundred twenty-two chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma were entered into a randomized trial comparing infusional fluorouracil (FU) versus cisplatin (CDDP) and FU. In both groups, patients received continuous infusion FU 1,000 mg/m2/d for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Patients randomized to CDDP/FU also received CDDP 20 mg/m2 intravenous (IV) bolus on days 1 to 5 of each cycle. Patients were comparable in terms of age, performance status, baseline laboratory values, dominant sites of measurable disease, and percent of liver involvement. The partial response rate was significantly greater in patients who received CDDP/FU versus FU alone (25% v 3%, P = .001). Patients who received CDDP/FU experienced significantly greater toxicity compared with FU alone: grades 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 22% and 0% of patients, respectively (P = .0001); grades 2 to 4 nausea and vomiting occurred in 80% and 15% of patients, respectively (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in either the duration of response (median, 6 and 4.7 months for CDDP/FU and FU groups, respectively) or survival (median 10, and 12 months, respectively). Compared with infusional FU alone, CDDP/FU provided a significantly greater partial response rate with increased toxicity, but it did not improve overall survival in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Therefore, the use of CDDP/FU as routine therapy for the treatment of colorectal carcinoma cannot be recommended.     

A randomized trial of three cisplatin-containing regimens in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a study of the Umbrian Lung Cancer Group

Survival in patients with locally advanced (stage III Mo) and metastatic (Ml) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is short. Phase II studies have reported objective responses ranging from 20% to 60% using cisplatin-based chemotherapeutic regimens, yet few have shown improvement in median survival. In our phase II pilot studies with cisplatin (CDDP) and etoposide (VP-16), we observed a 26% response rate; with CDDP, VP-16, and mitomycin-C, a 38% response rate was obtained in advanced NSCLC patients. A total of 156 consecutive patients with locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC were randomized to one of three treatment arms to determine whether the chemotherapy protocols had any effect on response rate and median survival in a large, randomized study. Arm 1 consisted of CDDP (120 mg/m2 x 3 weeks); arm 2, of CDDP (120 mg/m2) and VP-16 (100 mg/m2 given i.v. on days 1-3), repeated every 3 weeks; and arm 3, of CDDP (120 mg/m2) and VP-16 (100 mg/m2 on days 1-3) given every 3 weeks, plus mitomycin C (10 mg/m2 on days 1, 21, and 42, then every 6 weeks, for a maximal dose of 100 mg). After 71 patients had been enrolled in the study, we stopped accrual in the CDDP arm due to a lack of response [1 complete response (CR) in 24 patients; 4%] and continued enrollment in the two combination-chemotherapy arms. In the CDDP/VP-16 arm a 30% response rate [1 CR, 18 partial responses (PRs)] was obtained, and in the CDDP/VP-16 mitomycin C arm a 26% response rate (4 CRs, 11 PRs) was seen among a total of 150 evaluable patients. Responses were observed in 31% of patients with favorable performance status (PS) (ECOG 0-1) vs 14% in patients with a poor PS (ECOG 2-3). Of patients with locally advanced disease (III Mo), 17 (33%) obtained an objective response, compared with 20 patients (20%) with metastatic disease. Median survival was 18 weeks in the CDDP arm, 35 weeks in the CDDP/VP-16 arm, and 37 weeks in the CDDP/VP-16/mitomycin C arm. The median survival in the multimodal chemotherapy arms was significantly greater than that obtained with CDDP alone. Toxicity was predominantly myelosuppression in the mitomycin C-containing arm (27%, wtto grade 3-4). Our study shows that combination chemotherapy using CDDP/VP-16 is active and safe in the treatment of advanced NSCLC patients with a good performance status. The addition of mitomycin C did not improve the therapeutic response.     

A phase III randomized trial comparing vindesine and cisplatin with or without ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: long-term follow-up results and analysis of prognostic factors

In order to evaluate the activity and toxicity of a three-drug combination of vindesine, ifosfamide and cisplatin (VIP) for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we conducted a randomized trial comparing VIP with a two-drug combination of cisplatin and vindesine (VP). Between September 1987 and March 1992, a total of 132 patients with stage III or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to either VIP or VP. The VIP regimen consisted of vindesine (VDS 3 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8), ifosfamide (IFX 1300 mg/m(2) on days 1-5), and cisplatin (CDDP 20 mg/m(2) on days 1-5). The VP regimen consisted of VDS and CDDP with the same dose and schedule as the VIP regimen. Both regimens were repeated every 4 weeks. Objective response rates were 49.3% (95% confidence interval: 95%CI, 43.1-55.4%) in the VIP arm and 44.6% (95%CI, 38.4-50.2%) in the VP arm; the difference was not significant (P=0.5390). Median response duration, median survival time, and two-year survival rates were 26.5 weeks, 49.6 weeks, and 14.9% in the VIP arm and 28.7 weeks, 37.1 weeks, and 12.3% in the VP arm, respectively. There were also no significant differences between these two treatment arms. In comparison with the VP regimen, however, a survival advantage of the VIP regimen could be confirmed when the data were evaluated with Cox's multivariate analysis (P=0.0131). In both arms, the principal toxicity was myelosuppression, which was significantly more frequent in the VIP arm, although generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study suggested the survival advantage of the VIP regimen over the VP regimen for treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Efficacy of the combination of cisplatin with either gemcitabine and vinorelbine or gemcitabine and paclitaxel in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomised trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG 0101).

BACKGROUND: Triplet regimens were occasionally reported to produce a higher response rate (RR) than doublets in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was conducted to assess (i) whether the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to either gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) or GEM and paclitaxel (PTX) significantly prolongs overall survival (OS) and (ii) to compare the toxicity of PTX-containing and VNR-containing combinations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stage III or IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to (i) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and VNR 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GV arm); (ii) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and PTX 125 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GT arm); (iii) GV plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGV arm); and (iv) GT plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGT arm). Treatments were repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: A total of 433 (stage III, 160; stage IV, 273) patients were randomly allocated to the study. RR was 48% [95% confidence interval (CI), 42% to 54%] for triplets and 35% (95% CI, 32% to 38%) for doublets (P = 0.004). Median progression-free survival (6.1 versus 5.5 months, P = 0.706) and median OS (10.7 versus 10.5 months, P = 0.379) were similar. CDDP significantly increased the occurrence of severe neutropenia (35% versus 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% versus 4%), anaemia (9% versus 3%), vomiting (6% versus 0.5%), and diarrhoea (6% versus 2%). Conversely, frequency of severe neutropenia (30% versus 17%) and thrombocytopenia (11% versus 6%) was significantly higher with VNR-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Adding CDDP to GV or GT significantly increased RR, but did not prolong the OS of patients. Among doublets, the GT regimen should be preferred in view of its better safety profile.     

Phase II randomized study of dacarbazine, carmustine, cisplatin and tamoxifen versus dacarbazine alone in advanced melanoma patients

This randomized phase II trial was performed to define the activity and toxicity of the combination of dacarbazine (DTIC), carmustine (BCNU), cisplatin (DDP) and tamoxifen (DBDT regimen) versus DTIC alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. Sixty patients with metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive BCNU 150 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) on day 1, cisplatin 25 mg/m2 i.v. daily on days 1 to 3, DTIC 220 mg/m2 i.v. daily on days 1 to 3 and tamoxifen 160 mg orally daily for 7 days prior to chemotherapy (DBDT arm; arm A). Treatment cycles were repeated every 28 days, while BCNU was given every two cycles. The DTIC arm (arm B) patients received DTIC alone 1200 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1, repeated every 21 days. Patients were evaluated every two cycles; responding patients continued the treatment for a maximum of 12 cycles. The overall response rate was 26% in the DBDT arm and 5% in the DTIC arm. Complete responses were 2.5% for DBDT and 0% for DTIC. The median progression-free survival and the median survival were 4 and 9 months, respectively for DBDT, and 2 and 7 months for DTIC. DBDT was associated with significant haematological toxicity: 33% of the patients experienced a grade III or IV neutropenia and 28% a grade III or IV thrombocytopenia. In conclusion, the overall response rate obtained with DBDT was greater than that obtained with DTIC alone; however, this combination increases toxicity with limited impact on overall survival.     

Received dose and dose-intensity of chemotherapy and outcome in nonmetastatic extremity osteosarcoma. European Osteosarcoma Intergroup.

PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between received dose, received dose-intensity (RDI), and survival in patients with osteosarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1983 and 1993, the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup (EOI) conducted two randomized trials involving patients with high-grade, nonmetastatic, biopsy-proven osteosarcoma of the extremity. These trials shared a common treatment arm of doxorubicin (DOX) 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin (CDDP) 100 mg/m(2) planned for six cycles at 3-week intervals. Definitive surgery was scheduled at week 9, after three cycles. Survival time was calculated from 122 days, the scheduled end of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients randomized to DOX/CDDP received at least one cycle of chemotherapy, and 232 (81%) received all six cycles. On average, 79% of the intended dose of DOX and 80% of the intended dose of CDDP was given. Mean time to completion of chemotherapy was 1.27 times that specified by the protocol. Mean RDI was 0.64 for DOX (SD = 0.19) and 0.65 for CDDP (SD = 0.18). Progression-free survival was lower for those who received one to five cycles compared with those who completed all six cycles (hazards ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 2.78). Survival and progression-free survival were lowest for patients with RDI less than 0.6, although these differences were not statistically significant at the 5% level. There was no clear evidence of preoperative dose or dose-intensity influencing histologic response. CONCLUSION: This analysis did not establish a clear survival benefit for increasing received dose or dose-intensity in the context of this two-drug regimen. The hypothesis that increasing dose-intensity may improve survival in osteosarcoma requires prospective evaluation.     

Randomized phase III trial of standard timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin versus circadian timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin in stage III and IV or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

PURPOSE: To determine if circadian timed (CT) chemotherapy results in improved response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and lower toxicity, when compared with standard timed (ST) chemotherapy. Materials and METHODS: Eligibility criteria were stage III, IV, or recurrent endometrial cancer with poor potential for cure by radiation therapy or surgery; measurable disease; and no prior chemotherapy. Therapy was randomized to schedules of ST doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2, or CT doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 am plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 pm. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks to a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS: The ST arm included 169 patients, and the CT arm included 173 patients. The objective response rate (complete responses plus partial responses) was 46% in the ST group compared with 49% in the CT group (P =.26, one tail). Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 11.2 months, respectively, in the ST group; and 5.9 and 13.2 months, respectively, in the CT group (PFS: P =.31; OS: P =.21, one tail). Median total doses were 209 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 349 mg/m2 cisplatin in the ST group, versus 246 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 354 mg/m2 cisplatin in the CT group. Grade 3 or 4 leukopenia occurred in 73% of patients in the ST arm and in 63% of patients in the CT arm. There were eight treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: In this trial, no significant benefit in terms of response rate, PFS or OS, or toxicity profile was observed with CT doxorubicin plus cisplatin in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma.     

Cisplatin,raltitrexed, levofolinic acid and 5-fluorouracil in locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a phase II randomized study

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin (CDDP) is among the most active single agents against squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), and it is still the reference drug in the induction chemotherapy setting, when used in combination with infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Raltitrexed has been shown to be devoid of clinical activity against SCCHN when used alone; however, both preclinical and early clinical data regarding the combination raltitrexed-CDDP hold promise. Thymidylate synthase is the target enzyme of both raltitrexed and 5-FU; however, the two drugs have distinct sites of action on the enzyme and the combination of the two agents may be synergistic. We have previously shown that the combination of raltitrexed, levofolinic acid (LFA) and 5-FU has clinical activity against SCCHN; in a subsequent phase I study, cisplatin was added, and the combination of CDDP plus raltitrexed on day 1, followed by LFA and 5-FU on day 2, was judged feasible and active, since a 67% response rate was shown across all dose levels, with a 100% response rate at the recommended dose for phase II. METHODS: Patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic SCCHN, not pretreated with chemo- or radiotherapy were randomized to receive either CDDP 60 mg/m2 and raltitrexed 2.5 mg/m2 on day 1 and LFA 250 mg/m2 and 5-FU 900 mg/m2 on day 2 (arm A) or CDDP 65 mg/m2 and methotrexate 500 mg/m2 on day 1, and LFA 250 mg/m2 and 5-FU 800 mg/m2 on day 2 (arm B). Both treatments were repeated every 2 weeks. Evaluation for tumor response was performed after four cycles. According to Simon two-stage design, with a target complete response (CR) rate (p1) of 35%, at least 7 CR among the first 31 treated patients and 16 CR among the final sample size of 52 patients were required. RESULTS: An interim analysis was performed when 36 patients were evaluable in each arm. In arm A, 10 CR (28%) and 19 partial responses (PR) (53%) were observed, for an overall response rate of 81%. In arm B, 3 CR (8%) and 12 PR (34%) were observed, for an overall response rate of 42%. The difference in both CR and overall response rate between the two arms was statistically significant (p = 0.03 and <0.001, respectively). Therefore, the accrual was stopped in arm B and continued only in arm A. Overall, 13 CR (21%) and 34 PR (56%) were observed among the 61 patients who were accrued in arm A, for an overall response rate of 77% (95% confidence interval 64-87%). Neutropenia was the main side effect in both arms (grade 3-4 in 45 and 23 patients in arm A and B, respectively). Extrahematologic toxicity was mild in both arms; however, 2 patients in arm B died due to toxicity (grade 4 mucositis in one case, grade 4 renal toxicity in the other). CONCLUSIONS: Although response data for our experimental treatment look encouraging, the hypothesis of a 35% activity, expressed as capability to induce a CR, cannot be accepted. The results obtained in this study are not substantially different from those of other trials of CDDP-5-FU-based regimens, and our combination is unlikely to represent a major breakthrough when used in this setting.     

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine combination therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II randomized study of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: In a previous phase I study cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM), and vinorelbine (VNR) combination therapy was safe and very active in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was aimed at better defining the activity and toxicity of this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eleven chemotherapy-naive patients, age < or = 70 years, with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a performance status of 0 or 1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale) were randomized to two treatment arms. Patients on arm A received CDDP 50 mg/m2, GEM 1,000 mg/m2, and VNR 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of an every-3-weeks cycle (57 patients). Patients on arm B received CDDP 80 mg/m2, epirubicin 80 mg/m2, and vindesine 3 mg/m2, all delivered on day 1 every 4 weeks, plus lonidamine orally 150 mg three times daily (54 patients). In December 1996, randomization was stopped early, and an additional 30 patients were treated with the experimental regimen to obtain a more accurate estimation of its activity rate. RESULTS: Among 87 patients who received the CDDP-GEM-VNR combination, four complete responses (CRs) and 46 partial responses (PRs) were observed, for an overall response rate of 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46% to 68%). Two CRs and 18 PRs were recorded among 54 patients on arm B, giving a 37% activity rate (95% CI , 24% to 51%). After a median follow-up duration of 19 months, the median progression-free and overall survival durations were 32 and 50 weeks in arm A, and 18 and 33 weeks in arm B, respectively. World Health Organization grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 46% and 14% of patients in arm A and in 22% and 11% of those in arm B, respectively. Severe nonhematologic toxicity was uncommon in both arms. CONCLUSION: The CDDP-GEM-VNR combination is a highly effective treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and has a manageable toxicity. A phase III trial comparing this new combination with both CDDP-VNR and CDDP-GEM regimens is underway.     

Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin + cisplatin versus doxorubicin + 24-h paclitaxel + filgrastim in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to determine whether 24-h paclitaxel plus doxorubicin and filgrastim was superior to cisplatin plus doxorubicin in patients with endometrial cancer with respect to response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible chemotherapy-na?ve patients were randomly assigned to doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) followed by cisplatin 50 mg/m2 i.v. (arm 1, n=157) or doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 i.v. followed 4 h later by paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 i.v. over 24 h plus filgrastim 5 microg/kg on days 3-12 (arm 2, n=160). Starting doses were reduced for prior pelvic radiotherapy and age > 65 years. Both regimens were to be repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of seven cycles. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in response rate (40% versus 43%), PFS (median 7.2 versus 6 months) or OS (median 12.6 versus 13.6 months) for arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. Toxicities were primarily hematological, with 54% (arm 1) and 50% (arm 2) of patients experiencing grade 4 granulocytopenia. Gastrointestinal toxicities were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Doxorubicin and 24-h paclitaxel plus filgrastim was not superior to doxorubicin and cisplatin in terms of response, PFS or survival in advanced endometrial cancer.     

FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized GERCOR study.

PURPOSE: In metastatic colorectal cancer, phase III studies have demonstrated the superiority of fluorouracil (FU) with leucovorin (LV) in combination with irinotecan or oxaliplatin over FU + LV alone. This phase III study investigated two sequences: folinic acid, FU, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by folinic acid, FU, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX6; arm A), and FOLFOX6 followed by FOLFIRI (arm B). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were randomly assigned to receive a 2-hour infusion of l-LV 200 mg/m(2) or dl-LV 400 mg/m(2) followed by a FU bolus 400 mg/m(2) and 46-hour infusion 2,400 to 3,000 mg/m(2) every 46 hours every 2 weeks, either with irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) or with oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) as a 2-hour infusion on day 1. At progression, irinotecan was replaced by oxaliplatin (arm A), or oxaliplatin by irinotecan (arm B). RESULT: Median survival was 21.5 months in 109 patients allocated to FOLFIRI then FOLFOX6 versus 20.6 months in 111 patients allocated to FOLFOX6 then FOLFIRI (P =.99). Median second progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.2 months in arm A versus 10.9 in arm B (P =.64). In first-line therapy, FOLFIRI achieved 56% response rate (RR) and 8.5 months median PFS, versus FOLFOX6 which achieved 54% RR and 8.0 months median PFS (P =.26). Second-line FOLFIRI achieved 4% RR and 2.5 months median PFS, versus FOLFOX6 which achieved 15% RR and 4.2 months PFS. In first-line therapy, National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3/4 mucositis, nausea/vomiting, and grade 2 alopecia were more frequent with FOLFIRI, and grade 3/4 neutropenia and neurosensory toxicity were more frequent with FOLFOX6. CONCLUSION: Both sequences achieved a prolonged survival and similar efficacy. The toxicity profiles were different.     

A randomized study comparing cisplatin alone or combined in the palliative treatment of carcinoma of the head and neck. Analysis of a series of 209 patients

Two hundred and nine patients, with locoregional or metastatic recurrences of head and neck epidermoid carcinoma, were randomized to receive a palliative chemotherapy. The chemotherapy regimens were delivered every 3 weeks, and consisted in (1) cisplatin, 80 mg/m2 given alone (CDDP regimen), or (2) in combination with vincristine, 1 mg, methotrexate 10 mg/m2 d 1, 2, 3, and bleomycin 10 mg/m2, d 1, 2 and 3 (1040 regimen). Short-term results were better for patients treated by the 1040 regimen, with a 30% response rate (including 4 complete responses) vs 15% with the CDDP regimen (P = 0.01). A superiority of combination chemotherapy was found for all tumoral sites, but was particularly significant for pulmonary and cutaneous metastases, in previously un irradiated areas (P = 0.001). Tolerance was significantly better with the CDDP regimen (P = 0.001); severe side effects, affecting mainly general status, digestive tract and bone marrow were encountered in 5% of the patients in the CDDP group, vs 21% in the 1040 group, with one death related to pancytopenia. The median duration of remissions was not statistically different in the 2 groups, as well as the 2 years overall survival. Among responders, the survival was slightly better in those treated with CDDP alone; moreover, the quality of long term results was found highly correlated with a good initial general status, and with low levels of side effects. Those results confirm recent data of the literature, and lead to the following conclusions: (1) combination chemotherapy with CDDP give a better response rate than CDDP alone, (2) response rate doesn't influence overall duration of survival, (3) tolerance to treatment is crucial to preserve quality of life, and thus, (4) palliative chemotherapy in head and neck cancer should be efficient but also as short of intensity as possible.     

Combination chemotherapy of TS-1 +cisplatin for inoperable gastric cancer

There is no chemotherapy considered to be standard treatment for advanced gastric cancer worldwide, and there is no consensus as to whether combination or single agent therapy is preferred. In the phase I portion, a dose-escalation study of cisplatin (CDDP) combined with TS-1, new oral dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitory fluoropyrimidine, was performed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), recommended dose (RD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and objective response rate (RR) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). TS-1 was given orally at 40 mg/m2 bid for 21 consecutive days following a 2-week rest. CDDP was planned to be given intravenously on day 8, at a dose of 60, 70, or 80 mg/m2, depending on the DLT. Treatment was repeated every 5 weeks, unless disease progression was observed. In the phase I portion, the MTD of CDDP was presumed to be 70 mg/m2, because 33.3% of patients (2/6) developed DLTs; mainly neutropenia. Therefore, the RD of CDDP was estimated as 60 mg/m2. In the phase II portion, 19 patients including 6 patients of the RD phase I portion were evaluated. The median administered courses was 4 (range: 1-8). The incidence of haematological and non-haematological toxicities (> or = grade 3) was 15.8 and 26.3%, respectively, but all were manageable. The RR was 74% (14/19, 95%) confidence interval: 54.9 (90.6%), and the median survival days were 383. This regimen is considered to be active against AGC with acceptable toxicity. In addition, currently, a randomized phase III study (JCOG 9912) for AGC patients not treated previously with chemotherapy is underway in Japan. It compares three arms: 5-FU alone, TS-1 alone and CPT-11 with CDDP therapy. We also initiated a randomized phase III study comparing TS-1 alone, and with CDDP for AGC. From those two phase III studies, we may be able to evaluate the clinical benefit of TS-1 in combination with CDDP versus TS-1 single, or 5-FU combined with CDDP therapy in terms of survival benefits and improving the QOL for AGC patients.     

Temozolomide and cisplatin versus temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma: a randomized phase II study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Temozolomide (TMZ) is an oral alkylating agent that produces methyl adducts at the 0.6 position of guanine. The methyl adducts are removed by the DNA repair enzyme AGAT. As demonstrated by in vitro studies, cisplatin (CDDP) is able to down-regulate the AGAT activity, suggesting that CDDP could enhance the antitumor activity of TMZ. We designed a randomized phase II study to evaluate and compare the activity and safety profile of the combination versus single-agent TMZ in patients with advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to April 2002, 132 patients were enrolled on the study. Patient and tumor characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Patients with cerebral metastases were included. Patients received TMZ 200 mg/m(2)/day orally for five consecutive days every 4 weeks or TMZ + CDDP 200 mg/m(2) daily on days 1-5 and 75 mg/m(2) of CDDP on day 1. RESULTS: Tumor responses (complete and partial responses) were seen in 16 patients (26%) in arm A and 19 patients (29%) in arm B. The median time to progression (TTP) was 3.8 months in arm A and 5.8 months in arm B. The median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months in arm A and 12 months in arm B. The difference between treatment arms regarding objective response rates, TTP and OS were not statistically significant. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms for anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, constipation and arthralgias/myalgias. There was significantly more grade 3 and 4 emesis in the combination arm. CONCLUSIONS: No clear benefit in terms of response rates, median TTP or OS was shown with the combination of TMZ + CDDP. Additionally, the combination was associated with higher incidence of grade 3 and 4 emesis.     

Induction chemotherapy with cisplatin/docetaxel versus cisplatin/5-fluorouracil for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomised phase II study

A combination of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) is considered the standard induction chemotherapy regimen for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). The present study compares the efficacy and safety of a new combination of cisplatin/docetaxel versus the PF regimen. A total of 83 chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced SCCHN were randomised to receive every 21 d (i) docetaxel 85 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and cisplatin 40 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 2 (arm A) or (ii) cisplatin 100 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 followed by 5-fluorouracil 1000 mg/m2 in 24 h continuous infusion for 5 d (arm B). A total of 287 cycles (range 1-3 per patient) were administered. Among 76 patients evaluable for response, the overall response rate in arm A was 70% (complete response (CR) 26%, partial response (PR) 44%) and in arm B 69% (CR 16%, PR 54%), respectively. Median survival in arm A was 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.8-11.1) and 9.9 months (95% CI: 7.4-14.6) for arm B. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicity in arm A was neutropaenia (34.1%) and diarrhoea (9.8%) versus mucositis (29.3%) and neutropaenia (19.5%) in arm B. Both schedules present a similar efficacy, with different but acceptable toxicity patterns.     

Randomized phase II study of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine compared with cisplatin/vinorelbine alone as first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Lung Cancer Cetuximab Study is an open-label, randomized phase II pilot study of cisplatin and vinorelbine combined with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted monoclonal antibody cetuximab versus cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in patients with advanced EGFR-expressing, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). End points of the study are activity, safety and pharmacokinetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following randomization, for a maximum of eight cycles, patients received three-weekly cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m(2), day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) alone or following cetuximab treatment (initial dose 400 mg/m(2), followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter). RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were randomly allocated to the study (43 per arm). Confirmed response rates were 28% in the cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (A) and 35% in the cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (B). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months in arm A and 5.0 months in arm B, with PFS rates at 12 months of 0% and 15%, respectively. Median survival was 7.3 months in arm A and 8.3 months in arm B. The 24-month survival rates were 0% and 16%, respectively. The cetuximab combination was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, the combination of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and the potential to improve activity over cisplatin/vinorelbine alone.     

Irinotecan plus cisplatin has substantial antitumor effect as salvage chemotherapy against germ cell tumors

BACKGROUND: Only 20-30% of patients with refractory or recurrent germ cell tumors (GCT) are cured by salvage chemotherapy. Irinotecan, a new derivative of camptothecin, is a potent anticancer agent against a variety of solid cancers. The current pilot study investigated the efficacy of salvage chemotherapy with irinotecan in combination with cisplatin (CDDP) or nedaplatin (NDP), a derivative of cisplatin, for GCT. METHODS: The combination chemotherapy consisted of 100-150 mg/m(2) irinotecan on Days 1 and 15 or 200-300 mg/m(2) on Day 1 in combination with 20 mg/m(2) CDDP on Days 1-5 or 100 mg/m(2) NDP on Day 1 every 4 weeks. Patients with refractory GCT, ranging in age from 17 to 43 years, received 2-11 cycles of the combination chemotherapy. The median duration of follow-up is 28 months (8-140 months). RESULTS: Twenty patients entered this study, 18 of whom were assessed for response and toxicity. The response rate was 50 % (two complete responses and seven partial responses). Nine patients remain alive without disease. However, six patients died of the disease and one patient died of a brain glioma. The 5-year survival rate was approximately 53%. Myelosuppression was the major toxicity, but was manageable. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates that the chemotherapy with irinotecan in combination with CDDP or NDP showed significant anticancer activity for patients with refractory GCT, without serious side effects. Although this study comprised only a few patients, these findings suggest that the combination chemotherapy may be one of the options of salvage chemotherapy for patients with refractory GCT.     

A comparison of two short intensive adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in operable osteosarcoma of limbs in children and young adults: the first study of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup.

PURPOSE: A randomized pilot study was undertaken to assess the acute and chronic toxicities of two short intensive chemotherapy regimens, and to evaluate the feasibility of conservative surgery in this setting. Additional aims were to determine the clinical and radiologic response and the degree of histologic necrosis after chemotherapy. With extension of the study, eventual accrual was sufficient to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 1983 and December 1986, the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup (EOI) entered 198 eligible patients with classic high-grade extremity osteosarcoma onto a randomized trial that compared doxorubicin (DOX) 25 mg/m2/d times three, intravenous (IV) bolus plus cisplatin (CDDP) 100 mg/m2, 24 hour infusion, every 3 weeks times six; the same combination was preceded 10 days earlier by high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) 8 g/m2, 6-hour infusion, every 4.5 weeks times four. In the majority of patients (179), chemotherapy was commenced after biopsy; definitive surgery was scheduled at 9 weeks in both groups. RESULTS: Toxicities for both regimens did not differ substantially from those that occurred in other trials of adjuvant chemotherapy in osteosarcoma. Local recurrence (9%) and surgical complications (18%) after conservative surgery were acceptable. With a median follow-up of 53 months, DFS at 5 years is superior (P = .02) for DOX/CDDP, 57% versus 41%, although OS, 64% versus 50%, is not different significantly (P = .10). In a subset of 66 patients for whom pathologic data on the resected specimen were available, DFS (P = .003) and OS (P = .008) were better for those who demonstrated > or = 90% necrosis. CONCLUSION: A brief intensive chemotherapy regimen of DOX/CDDP has produced excellent long-term results, which are similar to those that have been achieved in cooperative group studies of longer, more complex multiagent chemotherapy, and provide the basis for a direct comparison in the next EOI study.