Prophylaxis of central venous catheter-related thrombosis with minidose warfarin: analysis of its use in 427 cancer patients

BACKGROUND: In the past few years, several studies have been performed to evaluate thrombosis prophylaxis with warfarin in cancer patients with central venous catheters (CVC), but the analysis of these studies does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred and twenty-seven cancer patients were evaluated. Each received warfarin at a dose of 1 mg/daily as prophylaxis, starting the day after CVC positioning until its removal. RESULTS: The catheters were monitored for a mean of 168 days (range 22-706). There were 9 thrombotic events (1.8%). Overall, International Normalised Ratio (INR) elevation occurred in 55 (12.8%) patients. Bleeding was observed in 15 (3.5%) patients, 10 of whom had elevated INR levels. Of these, all were treated with continuous-infusion 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens. CONCLUSION: Minidose warfarin can protect from clinical thrombosis, but can induce an alteration in INR values and/or haemorrhagic symptoms in patients being treated with 5-FU-based regimens.     

Dalteparin for prevention of catheter-related complications in cancer patients with central venous catheters: final results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy experience thromboembolic complications associated with the use of long-term indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs). This prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study evaluated whether prophylactic treatment with a low molecular weight heparin could prevent clinically relevant catheter-related thrombosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy for at least 12 weeks (n=439) were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive either dalteparin (5000 IU) or placebo, by subcutaneous injection, once daily for 16 weeks. Patients underwent upper extremity evaluation with either venography or ultrasound at the time of a suspected catheter-related complication (CRC) or upon completion of study medication. The primary end point, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee, was the occurrence of a CRC, defined as the first occurrence of any one of the following: clinically relevant catheter-related thrombosis that was symptomatic or that required anticoagulant or fibrinolytic therapy; catheter-related clinically relevant pulmonary embolism; or catheter obstruction requiring catheter removal. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the frequency of CRCs between the dalteparin arm (3.7%) and the placebo arm (3.4%; P=0.88), corresponding to a relative risk of 1.0883 (95% confidence interval 0.37-3.19). No difference in the time to CRC was observed between the two arms (P=0.83). There was no significant difference between the dalteparin and placebo groups in terms of major bleeding (1 versus 0) or overall safety. CONCLUSIONS: Dalteparin prophylaxis did not reduce the frequency of thromboembolic complications after CVC implantation in cancer patients. Dalteparin was demonstrated to be safe over 16 weeks of treatment in these patients.     

Risk factors for central venous catheter thrombotic complications in children and adolescents with cancer

BACKGROUND:

The use of central venous catheters (CVCs) has greatly improved the quality of care in children with cancer, yet these catheters may cause serious infectious and thrombotic complications. The aim of this prospective registry study was to assess the host and CVC‐related risk factors for CVC‐created thrombotic complications.

METHODS:

Patients undergoing CVC insertion for chemotherapy were followed prospectively for CVC complications. At the time of enrollment, demographic, clinical, and CVC‐related data, and family history of thrombosis were collected. Survival and Cox regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS:

A total of 423 CVCs were inserted into 262 patients for a total of 76,540 catheter days. The incidence of CVC‐related deep‐vein thrombosis (DVT) was 0.13 per 1000 catheter‐days (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐0.24). Insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and insertion in an angiography suite significantly increased the risk of symptomatic CVC‐related DVT. The incidence of CVC occlusion was 1.35 per 1000 catheter‐days (95% CI, 1.1‐1.63). Positive family history of thrombosis significantly increased the risk of CVC occlusion (hazard ratio [HR], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.2‐3.8). The CVC‐related risk factors were insertion of Hickman catheters, insertion in angiography suite, and proximal‐tip location. Patients developing at least 1 episode of both CVC occlusion and infection had an increased risk for developing symptomatic CVC‐related DVT (HR, 4.15; 95% CI, 1.2‐14.4).

CONCLUSIONS:

Both patient‐related and CVC‐related factors are associated with higher risk of symptomatic thrombotic complications. These risk factors could be used in the clinical setting and in developing future studies for CVC thromboprophylaxis. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Thromboprophylaxis for patients with cancer and central venous catheters: a systematic review and a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND.

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis and subsequent death in patients with cancer. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in reducing mortality and thromboembolic events in cancer patients with a CVC.

METHODS.

The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI the Web of Science databases. They included randomized controlled trials in patients with cancer comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists, fondaparinux, or ximelagatran with no intervention, placebo, or each other. The standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration were used for the analyses.

RESULTS.

Of 3986 identified citations we included 9 randomized clinical trials, none of which evaluated fondaparinux or ximelagatran. Heparin therapy (UFH or LMWH) was associated with a trend toward a reduction in symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (relative risk (RR), 0.43; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.18–1.06), but there was no statistically significant effect on mortality (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40–1.36), infection (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.36–2.28), major bleeding (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.10–4.78), or thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49–1.46). The effect of warfarin on symptomatic DVT also was not statistically significant (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30–1.27).

CONCLUSIONS.

The balance of benefits and downsides of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with CVC are uncertain. Clinicians together with their patients must weigh these factors carefully when making decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.     

2008 SOR guidelines for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer: report from the working group

BackgroundIn view of the lack of recommendations on central venous catheter (CVC)-associated thrombosis in cancer patients, we established guidelines according to the well-standardized Standards, Options and Recommendations methodology.Material and methodsA literature review (1990–2007) on CVC-associated thrombosis was carried out. The guidelines were developed on the basis of the corresponding levels of evidence derived from analysis of the 36 of 175 publications selected. They were then peer reviewed by 65 independent experts.ResultsFor the prevention of CVC-associated thrombosis, the distal tip of the CVC should be placed at the junction between the superior cava vein and right atrium; anticoagulants are not recommended. Treatment of CVC-associated thrombosis should be based on the prolonged use of low-molecular weight heparins. Maintenance of the catheter is justified if it is mandatory, functional, in the right position, and not infected, with a favorable clinical evolution under close monitoring; anticoagulant treatment should then be continued as long as the catheter is present.ConclusionsSeveral rigorous studies do not support the use of anticoagulants for the prevention of CVC-associated thrombosis. Treatment of CVC-associated thrombosis relies on the same principles as those applied in the treatment of established thrombosis in cancer patients.     

Thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in cancer patients

Central venous catheters (CVCs), such as the tunneled catheters and the totally implanted ports, play a major role in general medicine and oncology. Aside from the complications (pneumothorax, hemorrhage) associated with their initial insertion, all of these CVCs are associated with the long-term risks of infection and thrombosis. Despite routine flushing with heparin or saline, 41% of CVCs result in thrombosis of the blood vessel, and this markedly increases the risk of infection. Only one-third of these clots are symptomatic. Within days of insertion, almost all CVCs are coated with a fibrin sheath, and within 30 days, most CVC-related thrombi arise. Aside from reducing the function of the catheter, these CVC-related thrombi can cause postphlebitic syndrome in 15%-30% of cases and pulmonary embolism in 11% (only half of which are symptomatic). Risk factors for CVC thrombosis include the type of malignancy, type of chemotherapy, type of CVC, and locations of insertion site and catheter tip, but not inherited thrombophilic risk factors. Efforts to reduce CVC thrombosis with systemic prophylactic anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin have failed. Low-dose warfarin prophylaxis remains controversial; all studies are flawed, with older studies, but not newer ones, showing benefit. Currently, less than 10% of patients with CVCs receive any systemic prophylaxis. Although its general use cannot be recommended, low-dose warfarin may be a low-risk treatment in patients with good nutrition and adequate hepatic function. Clearly, additional studies are required to substantiate the prophylactic use of low-dose warfarin. Newer anticoagulant treatments, such as pentasaccharide and direct thrombin inhibitors, need to be explored to address this major medical problem.     

A phase II study of estramustine, docetaxel, and exisulind in patients with hormone- refractory prostate cancer: results of cancer and leukemia group B trial 90004

PURPOSE: Docetaxel/estramustine is a known active regimen in hormonerefractory prostate cancer (HRPC). A phase II study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of docetaxel/estramustine combined with exisulind, an apoptotic antineoplastic drug. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty men with chemotherapy-naive HRPC were enrolled in a multicenter, cooperative group study. The treatment regimen consisted of oral estramustine (280 mg 3 times daily for 5 days), docetaxel 70 mg/m2, oral exisulind (250 mg twice daily), oral dexamethasone (8 mg twice daily for 3 days), and oral warfarin (2 mg daily). RESULTS: Seventy-five eligible patients were treated with a median of 6 cycles of therapy. Fortyseven patients (62.7%; 95% CI, 50.7%-73.6%) had a > or = 50% decline in prostate-specific antigen levels. Forty-six patients had measurable disease with 6 partial responses (13%; 95% CI, 4.9%-26.3%). The main grade 3/4 toxicities were neutrophils (79%), fatigue (15%), and thrombosis/embolism (10%). The median time to first progression was 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.4-6.3 months) and the median survival time was 17.8 months (95% CI, 14.7-20.1 months). CONCLUSION: The combination of estramustine/docetaxel/exisulind was associated with significant thomboembolic toxicity despite prophylactic warfarin. The contribution of exisulind to toxicity is uncertain. Prostate-specific antigen decline, response rates, and progression-free and overall survival are similar to those reported with docetaxel/estramustine.     

Efficacy of droperidol in the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a double-blind, randomised parallel study

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel study comparing the antiemetic activity and tolerability of treatment with droperidol (2.5 mg d.i.v. twice daily for 5 days) and placebo, both combined with granisetron (3 mg d.i.v. on the first day) and dexamethasone (16 mg d.i.v. on the first day, 8 mg d.i.v. on days 2, 3, and 4 mg d.i.v. on days 4, 5). A total of 180 lung cancer patients receiving high-dose cisplatin (80 mg/m(2))-containing chemotherapy were enrolled in the study, and 171 of them were capable of being evaluated. The clinical characteristics of the patients in the two treatment arms were well balanced. Complete protection from nausea and vomiting was recorded in the acute phase in 97% of patients who treated with droperidol versus 98% of patients who given the placebo (P=0.920), and in 42% versus 38% in the delayed phase (P=0.615). The multiple logistic regression analysis showed that a history of motion sickness was a significant risk factor for cisplatin-induced delayed emesis (odds ratio [OR]=5.98; 95% CI=2.15 to 16.7, P=0.0006). Droperidol-containing treatment was well tolerated by most patients, however, the incidence of sleepiness in the droperidol group was higher than in the placebo group (69% versus 30%, P<0.0001). In conclusion, our data did not support the hypothesis that addition of droperidol to granisetron and dexamethasone reduces the delayed emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin.     

Phase III study of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor prinomastat in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) degrade extracellular proteins and facilitate tumor growth, invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis. This trial was undertaken to determine the effect of prinomastat, an inhibitor of selected MMPs, on the survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), when given in combination with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive prinomastat 15 mg or placebo twice daily orally continuously, in combination with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, every 21 days for up to six cycles. The planned sample size was 420 patients. RESULTS: Study results at an interim analysis and lack of efficacy in another phase III trial prompted early closure of this study. There were 362 patients randomized (181 on prinomastat and 181 on placebo). One hundred thirty-four patients had stage IIIB disease with T4 primary tumor, 193 had stage IV disease, and 34 had recurrent disease (one enrolled patient was ineligible with stage IIIA disease). Overall response rates for the two treatment arms were similar (27% for prinomastat v 26% for placebo; P = .81). There was no difference in overall survival or time to progression; for prinomastat versus placebo patients, the median overall survival times were 11.5 versus 10.8 months (P = .82), 1-year survival rates were 43% v 38% (P = .45), and progression-free survival times were 6.1 v 5.5 months (P = .11), respectively. The toxicities of prinomastat were arthralgia, stiffness, and joint swelling. Treatment interruption was required in 38% of prinomastat patients and 12% of placebo patients. CONCLUSION: Prinomastat does not improve the outcome of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC.     

Minidose warfarin prophylaxis for catheter-associated thrombosis in cancer patients: can it be safely associated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy?

PURPOSE: The use of prophylactic low-dose oral warfarin in cancer patients with a central venous catheter (CVC) in place has an established role in the prevention of thrombotic complications and is associated with a low hemorrhagic risk. Despite the literature indicating an adverse interaction between warfarin and fluorouracil (FU), the frequency of this interaction and whether it occurs when minidose warfarin is used is unknown. We analyzed the incidence of alterations in the International Normalized Ratio (INR) and bleeding in cancer patients given minidose warfarin during treatment with continuous-infusion FU-based regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 1999 and August 2001, 95 cancer patients were evaluated. Forty-one patients (43%) had liver metastases. Seventy-nine patients (83%) had a Groshong CVC (Bard Access System, Salt Lake City, UT), and 16 (17%) had a Port-a-Cath device (Bard Access System). All patients received oral warfarin at a dose of 1 mg/daily as prophylaxis beginning the day after the catheter was positioned. An INR of more than 1.5 was considered significantly elevated. RESULTS: INR elevation occurred in 31 patients (33%), with 18 patients (19%) having an INR more than 3.0. Twelve (39%) of the 31 patients had liver metastases. Bleeding was observed in eight patients (8%); seven of these patients had elevated INR levels. We observed INR elevations in 12 of 21 patients treated with a FU, folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen, 11 of 40 treated with a de Gramont regimen (FU and folinic acid), and five of 19 treated with a FU, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen. CONCLUSION: A high incidence of INR abnormalities was observed in our cohort of patients, especially those treated with FOLFOX regimen. Clinicians should be aware of this interaction and should regularly monitor the prothrombin time in patients receiving warfarin and FU.     

Oral ondansetron in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) in women with breast cancer. Results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND:: The combination of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil(CMF) is a widely used chemotherapy regimen in breast cancerpatients. However, the control of nausea and vomiting inducedby oral CMF is a rarely examined problem. Therefore we felta randomized, placebo controlled study justified in order toimprove currently available antiemetic therapy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS:: In a randomised double-blind trial ondansetron given orally,8 mg three times a day for 15 days, was compared with placeboin 82 breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with CMF(cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m² orally days 1–14, methotrexate40 mg/m² i.v. days 1 and 8 and 5-fluorourcil 600 mg/m² i.v.days 1 and 8). The patients recorded nausea and the number ofvomits and retches daily on diary cards. Forty-two patientsreceived ondansetron and 40 received placebo. RESULTS:: Significantly more patients who received ondansetron experiencedneither vomiting nor retching (emesis) compared to those receivingplacebo over a 15 day treatment period (60% vs. 35%, p = 0.027).The difference, with 95% confidence limits, was estimated as25 (4.45%). Furthermore, there was a trend in favour of ondansetronin the control of nausea. Ondansetron was well tolerated, with25 patients (59%) reporting at least 1 adverse event comparedto 18 patients (45%) receiving placebo (p = 0.191). CONCLUSION:: The results indicate that ondansetron given orally for 15 daysis safe and effective in the control of emesis induced by CMF.It is however too early to recommend ondansetron as standardantiemetic therapy for oral CMF, as the treatment of nauseaand vomiting in this setting has not been studied thoroughlyenough. prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, ondansetron and placebo, oral CMF-regimen, breast cancer     

Anticoagulation prophylaxis for central venous catheter-associated thrombosis in cancer patients: An Australian perspective

Background: The use of indwelling central venous catheters (CVC) for chemotherapy delivery is essential for people receiving therapies by protracted venous infusion and for patients with difficult venous access. Complications include infection and catheter‐related thrombosis. Strategies have been suggested to prevent catheter‐related thrombosis, however, there is no clear consensus on how to proceed. Guidelines recommend against the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in adult patients with solid organ malignancies and an indwelling CVC. We investigated the practice of Australian medical oncologists. Methods: A written questionnaire was mailed to all members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia assessing practices of prophylactic anticoagulation in adult patients with solid organ malignancies and CVC. Results: Responses were obtained from 141 (55%) medical oncologists and from 40 advanced trainees. Ten percent (n = 4) of oncology trainees and 18.4% (n = 26) of medical oncologists routinely administered anticoagulants to patients with a CVC without a previous history of line‐related thrombus. The most common strategy employed (73% of those using anticoagulation) was to recommend 1 mg of warfarin. Conclusions: The results demonstrate that a significant number of patients in Australia receive routine anticoagulation, the most popular strategy being the use of low‐dose warfarin. Based on our results there is a clear need for further education regarding the lack of supporting data and the potential harm that may ensue.     

Enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism associated with central vein catheter: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The extent of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with central vein catheters (CVC) in cancer patients remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, in the prevention of VTE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind study, consecutive cancer patients scheduled for CVC insertion were randomly assigned to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once a day or placebo. Treatment was started 2 hours before CVC insertion and continued for 6 weeks. The primary end points of the study were deep vein thrombosis (DVT), confirmed by venography of the CVC limb performed 6 weeks after randomization, or clinically overt pulmonary embolism, confirmed by objective testing during the study drug administration. Patients were assessed for bleeding complications. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-five patients were randomized, of which 321 (83.4%) underwent venography. A venography was adequate for adjudication in 155 patients in each treatment group. A DVT was observed in 22 patients (14.1%) treated with enoxaparin and in 28 patients (18.0%) treated with placebo, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.31). No major bleeding occurred. Five patients (2.6%) in the enoxaparin group and two patients (1.0%) in the placebo group died during the treatment period. CONCLUSION: In this study, no difference in the rate of CVC-related VTE was detected between patients receiving enoxaparin and patients receiving placebo. The dose of enoxaparin used in this study proved to be safe. Clinical trials evaluating higher enoxaparin doses could optimize the efficacy of this agent for this indication.     

Platelet-derived growth factor receptor inhibition and chemotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases.

PURPOSE: To further assess preclinical and early clinical evidence that imatinib mesylate, a platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) inhibitor, modulates taxane activity in prostate cancer and bone metastases, a randomized study was conducted. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Men with progressive castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases (n = 144) were planned for equal randomization to i.v. 30 mg/m(2) docetaxel on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 42 days with 600 mg imatinib daily or placebo, for an improvement in median progression-free survival from 4.5 to 7.5 months (two-sided alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20). Secondary end points included differential toxicity and bone turnover markers, tumor phosphorylated PDGFR (p-PDGFR) expression, and modulation of p-PDGFR in peripheral blood leukocytes. RESULTS: Accrual was halted early because of adverse gastrointestinal events. Among 116 evaluable men (57 docetaxel + imatinib; 59 docetaxel + placebo), respective median times to progression were 4.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3.1-7.5) and 4.2 months (95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.8; P = 0.58, log-rank test). Excess grade 3 toxicities (n = 23) in the docetaxel + imatinib group were principally fatigue and gastrointestinal. Tumor p-PDGFR expression was observed in 12 of 14 (86%) evaluable bone specimens. In peripheral blood leukocytes, p-PDGFR reduction was more likely in docetaxel + imatinib-treated patients compared with docetaxel + placebo (P < 0.0001), as were reductions in urine N-telopeptides (P = 0.004) but not serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (P = 0.099). CONCLUSIONS: These clinical and translational results question the value of PDGFR inhibition with taxane chemotherapy in prostate cancer bone metastases and are at variance with the preclinical studies. This discordance requires explanation.     

Suramin therapy for patients with symptomatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: results of a randomized phase III trial comparing suramin plus hydrocortisone to placebo plus hydrocortisone.

PURPOSE: Suramin is a novel agent that has demonstrated preliminary evidence of antitumor activity in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). A prospective randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate pain and opioid analgesic intake as surrogates for antitumor response in HRPC patients with significant, opioid analgesic-dependent pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomized patients to receive a 78-day, outpatient regimen of either suramin plus hydrocortisone (HC, 40 mg/d) or placebo plus HC. Treatment assignment was unblinded when either disease progression or dose-limiting toxicity occurred; placebo patients were allowed to cross-over to open-label suramin plus HC. In addition to pain and opioid analgesic intake, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, time to disease progression, quality of life, performance status, and survival were compared. RESULTS: Overall mean reductions in combined pain and opioid analgesic intake were greater for suramin plus HC (rank sum P =.0001). Pain response was achieved in a higher proportion of patients receiving suramin than placebo (43% v 28%; P =.001), and duration of response was longer for suramin responders (median, 240 v 69 days; P =.0027). Time to disease progression was longer (relative risk = 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 1.9) and the proportion of patients with a greater than 50% decline in PSA was higher (33% v 16%; P =.01) in patients who received suramin. Neither quality of life nor performance status was decreased by suramin treatment, and overall survival was similar. Most adverse events were of mild or moderate intensity and were easily managed medically. CONCLUSION: Outpatient treatment with suramin plus HC is well tolerated and provides moderate palliative benefit and delay in disease progression for patients with symptomatic HRPC.     

Zoledronic acid versus placebo in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with lung cancer and other solid tumors: a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial--the Zoledronic Acid Lung Cancer and Other Solid Tumors Study Group.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumors other than breast or prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive zoledronic acid (4 or 8 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for 9 months, with concomitant antineoplastic therapy. The 8-mg dose was reduced to 4 mg (8/4-mg group). The primary efficacy analysis was proportion of patients with at least one skeletal-related event (SRE), defined as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation therapy to bone, and surgery to bone. Secondary analyses (time to first SRE, skeletal morbidity rate, and multiple event analysis) counted hypercalcemia as an SRE. RESULTS: Among 773 patients with bone metastases from lung cancer or other solid tumors, the proportion with an SRE was reduced in both zoledronic acid groups compared with the placebo group (38% for 4 mg and 35% for 8/4 mg zoledronic acid v 44% for the placebo group; P =.127 and P =.023 for 4-mg and 8/4-mg groups, respectively). Additionally, 4 mg zoledronic acid significantly increased time to first event (median, 230 v 163 days for placebo; P =.023), an important end point in this poor-prognosis population, and significantly reduced the risk of developing skeletal events by multiple event analysis (hazard ratio = 0.732; P =.017). Zoledronic acid was well tolerated; the most common adverse events in all treatment groups included bone pain, nausea, anemia, and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Zoledronic acid (4 mg infused over 15 minutes) is the first bisphosphonate to reduce skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors other than breast and prostate cancer.     

Phase III double-blind placebo-controlled study of farnesyl transferase inhibitor R115777 in patients with refractory advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether R115777 improves survival in patients with refractory advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in a multicenter, double-blind, prospective randomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned to R115777 (300 mg twice daily) orally for 21 days every 28 days or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. All patients received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression free survival, tumor response, toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: The two treatment groups were well balanced for baseline demographics, including previous chemotherapy for advanced CRC. The median overall survival for R115777 was 174 days (95% CI, 157 to 198 days), and 185 days (95% CI, 158 to 238 days) for those patients receiving placebo (P =.376). One patient achieved a partial response in the R115777 arm. Stable disease (> 3 months) was observed in 24.3% patients in the R115777 group compared to 12.8% in the placebo arm. This did not translate into a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival. Overall, treatment was well tolerated. There was an increased incidence of reversible myelosuppression (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia), rash, and grade 1 to 2 diarrhea in the R115777 arm. There was no statistically significant difference in quality of life between arms. CONCLUSION: Single agent R115777, given at this dose and schedule, has an acceptable toxicity profile, but does not improve overall survival compared to best supportive care alone in refractory advanced CRC.     

A randomized,placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are a common cause of morbidity in patients with prostate carcinoma. We studied the effect of a new bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, which blocks bone destruction, on skeletal complications in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. METHODS: Patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer and a history of bone metastases were randomly assigned to a double-blind treatment regimen of intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (N = 214), zoledronic acid at 8 mg (subsequently reduced to 4 mg; 8/4) (N = 221), or placebo (N = 208) every 3 weeks for 15 months. Proportions of patients with skeletal-related events, time to the first skeletal-related event, skeletal morbidity rate, pain and analgesic scores, disease progression, and safety were assessed. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Approximately 38% of patients who received zoledronic acid at 4 mg, 28% who received zoledronic acid at 8/4 mg, and 31% who received placebo completed the study. A greater proportion of patients who received placebo had skeletal-related events than those who received zoledronic acid at 4 mg (44.2% versus 33.2%; difference = -11.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -20.3% to -1.8%; P =.021) or those who received zoledronic acid at 8/4 mg (38.5%; difference versus placebo = -5.8%, 95% CI = -15.1% to 3.6%; P =.222). Median time to first skeletal-related event was 321 days for patients who received placebo, was not reached for patients who received zoledronic acid at 4 mg (P =.011 versus placebo), and was 363 days for those who received zoledronic acid at 8/4 mg (P =.491 versus placebo). Compared with urinary markers in patients who received placebo, urinary markers of bone resorption were statistically significantly decreased in patients who received zoledronic acid at either dose (P =.001). Pain and analgesic scores increased more in patients who received placebo than in patients who received zoledronic acid, but there were no differences in disease progression, performance status, or quality-of-life scores among the groups. Zoledronic acid at 4 mg given as a 15-minute infusion was well tolerated, but the 8-mg dose was associated with renal function deterioration. CONCLUSION: Zoledronic acid at 4 mg reduced skeletal-related events in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases.     

A randomized,multicenter, phase II study of vandetanib monotherapy versus vandetanib in combination with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus placebo in subjects with advanced biliary tract cancer: the VanGogh study

Vandetanib did not demonstrate any superiority alone or in combination with gemcitabine in the progression-free survival of patients affected by advanced biliary tract cancer compared with gemcitabine alone. The safety profile of vandetanib given (alone or in combination with gemcitabine) does not show any additional adverse events (AEs) or worsening of already known AEs.BackgroundThe management of biliary tract cancers (BTCs) is complex due to limited data on the optimal therapeutic approach. This phase II multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of vandetanib monotherapy compared with vandetanib plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced BTC.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to three treatment groups: vandetanib 300 mg monotherapy (V), vandetanib 100 mg plus gemcitabine (V/G), gemcitabine plus placebo (G/P). Vandetanib (300 mg or 100 mg) or placebo was given in single oral daily doses. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² was i.v. infused on day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were: objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, overall survival, duration of response, performance status and safety outcomes.ResultsA total of 173 patients (mean age 63.6 years) were recruited at 19 centers across Italy. Median (95% confidence intervals) PFS (days) were 105 (72–155), 114 (91–193) and 148 (71–225), respectively, for the V, V/G and G/P treatment groups, with no statistical difference among them (P = 0.18). No statistical difference between treatments was observed for secondary end points, except ORR, which slightly favored the V/G combination over other treatments. The proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) was similar for the three groups (96.6% in V arm, 91.4% in the V/G arm and 89.3% in the G/P arm).ConclusionsVandetanib treatment did not improve PFS in patients with advanced BTC. The safety profile of vandetanib did not show any additional AEs or worsening of already known AEs.Clinical trial numberNCT00753675.     

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of 6% miltefosine solution, a topical chemotherapy in cutaneous metastases from breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare 6% miltefosine solution (Miltex; Asta Medica, Frankfurt, Germany), a new topical cytostatic drug, with placebo as palliative treatment for cutaneous metastases from breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III study, a total of 52 patients with inoperable progressive skin lesions from histologically or cytologically confirmed breast cancer, not manageable by radiotherapy or systemic treatment, with superficial or flat skin lesions (estimated depth of invasion < or = 1 cm) were randomized to receive either 6% miltefosine solution or placebo. The solution was applied at the dose of 2 drops/10 cm(2), once daily during the first week and twice daily thereafter until treatment failure. RESULTS: Treatment groups were well balanced for patient characteristics at study entry except for a small difference in age. Time to treatment failure (TTF), the primary parameter of this study, showed miltefosine solution to be significantly superior to placebo (P = .007); the median TTF in the miltefosine solution group was nearly three times longer than that in the placebo group (56 days v 21 days). The rate of response based on intention to treat patients was 33.3% for miltefosine solution compared with 3.7% for placebo (P = .006). Cutaneous reactions were seen mainly in the miltefosine group, with the type and frequency similar to those observed in previous studies. CONCLUSION: 6% Miltefosine solution is confirmed as an effective palliative treatment option for cutaneous metastases from breast cancer. Skin reactions, when present, are well tolerated and only occasionally require cessation of treatment.