A comparison of continuation versus late intensification followed by discontinuation of chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer. A prospective randomized trial of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research (G.O.I.R.C.)

One hundred ninety-eight postmenopausal women with metastatic breast carcinoma were entered in this study. After six induction cycles with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF), patients with at least stable disease were randomized to the "continuation arm" (continuation of CMF until progression) (A, 49 evaluable patients) or to the "intensification-discontinuation arm" (addition of adriamycin and vincristine to two of the three drugs of CMF for six more cycles; i.e., CMAV, CFAV, MFAV, twice; discontinuation of chemotherapy; radiotherapy to pre-study sites of disease in patients prospectively considered as candidates to receive this treatment) (B, 46 evaluable patients). After randomization, escalation of response category occurred in five patients on A (10%) and in five on B (11%). Time to progression was transiently delayed in arm B within 6 months after randomization. There were no significant differences in the overall time to progression, duration of response or survival. On arm B, after discontinuation of chemotherapy, median time to relapse was 22 weeks. This time was significantly longer in patients who were candidates for radiation therapy (36 weeks, P = 0.005), or with a disease-free interval greater than 1 year (32 weeks, P = 0.004) or who achieved complete remission (60 weeks, P = 0.0001). On arm B, three patients (7%) are still alive in complete remission in excess of three, five and six years following discontinuation of therapy. This study indicates that late intensification of chemotherapy followed by discontinuation of treatment may maintain palliation, and allow a long treatment-free period in responding patients with advanced breast carcinoma.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Does maintenance of Bevacizumab after treatment failure have a role in metastatic colon cancer？

Objective: To study the timing of Bevacizumab (BVC) in the overall treatment strategy of advanced metastatic colorectal cancer - early use (first-line) or later use. Methods: 41 patients with progressive metastatic colorectal carcinoma were included. Patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy with or without BVC. Primary end point was objective response. Secondary end points were median survival, time to tumor progression, and toxicity. Results: Partial response with second-line BVC group constituted 25% and 18.8% in patients with first-line chemotherapy and BVC-based regimen respectively, compared to 11.8% and 5.9% with second-line chemotherapy. Median time to progression was 3.1 vs. 2.3 months for cases with first-line chemotherapy and BVC-based regimens respectively. Median survival was 8.2 vs. 4 months in both groups respectively (P = 0.019). Conclusion: Second-line chemotherapy combined BVC had higher disease control rate (partial response and stable disease), median time to progression and median survival in BVC-naive patients compared to patients with first-line BVC-based therapy. BVC should be maintained in the second- and third-line settings, as cases with BVC discontinuation had significantly lower median time to disease progression and median survival. Selection of patients for use of BVC was recommended with taking into consideration the cost-benefit value and that the discontinuation of BVC would increase tumor progression.     

Efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy after cranial radiation in patients with brain metastasis from non-small cell lung cancer

This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of systemic chemotherapy in patients with brain metastasis from non-small cell lung cancer. Sixty-three consecutive patients who were diagnosed as having non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with synchronous brain metastasis (BM) and had not been previously treated were included in this study. After cranial radiation therapy (RT), all patients in 'the chemotherapy arm' (CTX) were treated with platinum-based combination chemotherapy, and best supportive care was selected for patients in 'the no-chemotherapy arm' (no-CTX). Thirty-one of the 63 patients received systemic chemotherapy. The median age of all patients was 55 years. The performance status of all patients was ECOG grade 1-2. Twenty-two patients had a solitary brain metastasis, 37 patients had more than two masses, and 38 patients had extracranial metastatic lesions. In the CTX arm, a paclitaxel-based combination chemotherapy was administered in 38.7%, gemcitabine-based in 25.8%, and vinorelbine-based in 25.8% as the first-line chemotherapy. Seventeen patients were treated with a second-line chemotherapy, and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine was used in 8 patients. For the first-line and second-line chemotherapies, extracranial overall responses were 36 and 35%, the median response durations were 29.1 weeks (range: 9.1-58.1 weeks) and 30.4 weeks (range: 19.4-44.0 weeks), respectively. 'Progression of the extracranial lesion' (58.1%) was more frequent than an 'aggravation of neurologic status' (19.4%) for the pattern of treatment failure in the first-line chemotherapy. The causes of failure were identical in the second-line chemotherapy. The median survival of the CTX arm was longer than that of the no-CTX arm (58.1 vs. 19.0 weeks, p<0.001). Toxicity in the CTX arm was tolerable. The systemic chemotherapy showed an effectiveness to increase the survival of patients with BM from NSCLC, and extracranial progression was the main cause of chemotherapeutic failure, although consideration for non-randomized methods should be made in this study.     

The 5-year results of a randomized trial of adjuvant radiation therapy after chemotherapy in breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy

The use of adjuvant radiation therapy in breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy has been controversial. In order to assess the necessity and effectiveness of adjuvant radiation therapy in this setting, we reviewed the results in 510 patients with T1-T3 tumors and pathologically positive nodes or tumors larger than 5 cm and negative nodes who were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or at least one positive apical node were randomized to receive either five or ten cycles of cyclophosphamide/Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH) (CA) and patients with one to three positive nodes or operable tumors larger than 5 cm and pathologically negative nodes were randomized to receive eight cycles of either cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (CMF) or methotrexate and 5-FU (MF) chemotherapy. Two hundred six of these patients were subsequently rerandomized to receive either no further treatment or adjuvant radiotherapy. Thirty-five patients withdrew after randomization, including 34 who declined to receive radiotherapy. Radiation therapy consisted of 4,500 cGy in 5 weeks to the chest wall and appropriate draining lymph nodes. Median follow-up from chemotherapy randomization is 45 months for patients in the CA arm and 53 months for those in the CMF/MF arm. The crude rate of local failure (chest wall or draining lymph node areas) as first site of failure for patients randomized to receive chemotherapy only was 14%; for those randomized to receive both chemotherapy and radiotherapy it was 5% (P = .03). For patients in the CMF/MF arm, the rate of local failure as the first site of failure was nearly the same for patients randomized to chemotherapy only as for those randomized to adjuvant radiotherapy as well (5% v 2%). For patients in the CA arm, the crude rate of local failure was 20% for patients randomized to receive chemotherapy only, and 6% for those randomized to both types of adjuvant treatment (P = .03). Among the 43 patients treated with CA who actually received radiotherapy, there was only one local failure, compared with 12 local failures among the 59 patients (20%) who actually did not receive radiotherapy (P = .007). No significant difference was seen in disease-free survival or overall survival in either the CA or the CMF/MF arm between patients randomized to receive radiation therapy and those randomized to no further treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Phase III study of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: analysis of survival and update of efficacy from the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group.

PURPOSE: To analyze overall survival (OS) and update efficacy data for letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter phase III trial randomly assigned 916 patients with hormone receptor-positive or unknown tumors letrozole 2.5 mg (n = 458) or tamoxifen 20 mg (n = 458) daily until disease progression. Optional cross-over was permitted at the treating physician's discretion. This report updates efficacy at a median follow-up of 32 months. RESULTS: The superiority of letrozole to tamoxifen was confirmed for time to progression (median, 9.4 v 6.0 months, respectively; P <.0001), time to treatment failure (median, 9 v 5.7 months, respectively; P <.0001), overall objective response rate (32% v 21%, respectively; P =.0002), and overall clinical benefit. Median OS was slightly prolonged for the randomized letrozole arm (34 v 30 months, respectively). Although this difference in OS is not significant, survival was improved in the randomized letrozole arm over the first 2 years of the study. Approximately one half of the patients in each arm crossed over. Total duration of endocrine therapy ("time to chemotherapy") was significantly longer (P =.005) for patients initially on letrozole (median, 16 months) than for patients initially on tamoxifen (median, 9 months). Time to worsening of Karnofsky performance score was significantly delayed with letrozole compared with tamoxifen (P =.001). CONCLUSION: This study documents the superiority of letrozole over tamoxifen in first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.     

Activity of second-line chemotherapy in docetaxel-refractory hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients : randomized phase 2 study of ixabepilone or mitoxantrone and prednisone

BACKGROUND: This randomized, noncomparative, multicenter, clinical trial evaluated ixabepilone or mitoxantrone/prednisone (MP) as second-line chemotherapy for taxane-refractory, hormone-refractory, prostate cancer (HRPC). METHODS: Patients with HRPC that progressed during or within 60 days of cessation of taxane chemotherapy were randomly selected with equal probability to ixabepilone 35 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks, or mitoxantrone 14 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks and prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily. Treatment continued until progression or toxicity; crossover was allowed. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were accrued to each arm of the study. The median number of cycles administered for each arm was 3. Median survival from protocol entry was 10.4 months with ixabepilone and 9.8 months with MP. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) declines of >or=50% were observed in 17% of ixabepilone (95% CI, 7-32) and 20% of second-line MP patients (95% CI, 9-35). Partial responses were observed in 1 of 24 ixabepilone and in 2 of 21 MP patients with evaluable measurable disease. Median duration of second-line ixabepilone and MP treatment was 2.2 months and 2.3 months, respectively. For third-line crossover treatment, PSA declines of >or=50% were observed in 3 of 27 ixabepilone-treated and 4 of 15 MP-treated patients. Prior taxane response was associated with an increased likelihood of second-line ixabepilone or MP response. Low baseline lactate dehydrogenase and absence of visceral metastases independently predicted improved survival. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity associated with second-line treatment was neutropenia (54% of ixabepilone patients and 63% of MP patients). CONCLUSIONS: Ixabepilone and MP had modest activity as second-line chemotherapy for docetaxel-refractory HRPC. The median survival for the entire cohort treated in this study was 9.8 months.     

Prospective study of second-line chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer selected according to EGFR gene status

We prospectively investigated the outcome of personalized second-line treatment based on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene status in previously treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). EGFR gene status was evaluable by LH-mobility shift assay in registered patients. Gefitinib (Gef) treatment was recommended if the patients had EGFR mutation (mEGFR). EGFR gene status was evaluable in 146 patients. Seventy-four of the patients were female, 82 were smokers, and 122 had adenocarcinoma. Overall, 67 patients had mEGFR and received Gef. Forty-nine of 79 patients with wild-type EGFR (wEGFR) received other chemotherapies or radiation but 30 selected best supportive care only as a second-line treatment. Patients with mEGFR survived significantly longer than patients with wEGFR (p < 0.0001). However, the survival of patients who received other forms of chemotherapy was not different from that of patients who received best supportive care only as a second-line treatment in patients with wEGFR. Examination of the association between overall survival after first-line chemotherapy and prognostic factors using multivariate regression analysis showed that mEGFR and response to first-line chemotherapy were independent factors (p = 0.003 and p = 0.003, respectively). Selection of second-line treatment according to EGFR gene status may be useful for patients with NSCLC.     

Second-line bevacizumab-containing therapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer: subgroup analysis of the RIBBON-2 trial

Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) typically have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. To determine the impact of combining bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC, we performed an exploratory subgroup analysis of the randomized phase 3 RIBBON-2 trial. RIBBON-2 enrolled patients with metastatic breast cancer that had progressed on first-line non-bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy. After selection of chemotherapy (taxane, gemcitabine, capecitabine, or vinorelbine), patients were randomized 2:1 to receive chemotherapy with either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Of 684 patients treated in RIBBON-2, 159 (23%) had TNBC. Baseline characteristics were reasonably balanced in the two treatment groups. The majority received taxane chemotherapy. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.494 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.74; P = 0.0006]. Median PFS was 6.0 months with bevacizumab-chemotherapy versus 2.7 months with chemotherapy alone. Median OS was 17.9 versus 12.6 months, respectively (HR 0.624, 95% CI 0.39-1.007; P = 0.0534). ORR was 41 versus 18%, respectively (P = 0.0078). The safety profile was consistent with the overall study population and previous phase 3 trials of bevacizumab. Patients with metastatic TNBC derived significant PFS and response benefits from the combination of bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy. Despite the small sample size and immature data, there was a trend toward improved OS.     

晚期胃癌不同一线及后线治疗方案的疗效对比分析北大核心

目的:分析晚期胃癌(advanced gastric cancer, AGC)一线及后线治疗方案的疗效及生存情况,为指导AGC的系统治疗及全程管理提供依据。方法:收集我院肿瘤科2015年01月至2019年12月收治的AGC患者的临床特征、辅助检查资料、治疗相关资料、疗效评估、疾病转归等相关临床资料,建立数据库,分析不同一线及后线治疗方案的疗效,以及不同人群、进行不同线数化疗的患者总生存期(overall survival, OS)的差异。结果:一线治疗总体客观缓解率(objective response rate, ORR)为37.6%,疾病控制率(disease control rate, DCR)为83.9%;二线治疗ORR为9.5%,DCR为44.6%;三线及以上治疗ORR为0%,DCR为15.2%。总体人群一线治疗中位无进展生存(median progression-free survival, mPFS)时间为7.0个月,中位总生存(medianoverall survival,mOS)时间为15.6个月;二线治疗mPFS时间为3.0个月,mOS时间为7.2个月。一线化疗采取含铂方案与含紫杉方案对比,mPFS分别为7.0个月、4.5个月(P=0.041),mOS分别为16.0个月、9.0个月(P=0.061);二线含紫杉方案与含伊立替康方案对比,mPFS分别为2.6个月、4.0个月(P=0.531),mOS分别为7.0个月、6.5个月(P=0.822)。仅进行一线治疗、一线+二线治疗、一线+二线+三线及以上治疗的AGC患者mOS分别为14.0个月、14.0个月及20.0个月,进行三线及以上治疗的患者mOS优于进行一线+二线治疗的患者(P=0.001)。一线方案中采用两药或三药及以上、有无免疫治疗对患者的mPFS及mOS无影响,且二线治疗中有无联合免疫治疗对患者的mPFS及mOS也无影响。结论:含铂双药方案疗效较佳,应作为AGC患者一线治疗的优选方案;二线及后线化疗有效率较低,二线化疗方案紫杉类与伊立替康疗效无差异;在非选择AGC人群中,一线及二线治疗中联合免疫治疗未见改善生存,化疗仍然是基石。     

Phase I-II study of gemcitabine and paclitaxel in pretreated patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer

Gemcitabine and paclitaxel are among the most active new agents in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are worth considering for second-line chemotherapy. In this phase I–II study, we combined gemcitabine and paclitaxel for second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Gemcitabine doses were kept fixed at 1000 mg/m² on day 1 and 8, and paclitaxel doses were escalated from 90 mg/m² on day 1 of the 21-day cycle. Thirty-seven patients were treated at six different dose levels. Grade 4 neutropenia was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), since it occurred in two out of six patients treated at paclitaxel 240 mg/m²; the paclitaxel dose level just below (210 mg/m²) was selected for phase II evaluation. Non-hematologic toxicity was mild. One complete response (CR) (3%) and 13 partial responses (PR) (36%) were observed in 36 evaluable patients for an overall response rate of 39% (95% C.I., 23–57%). Median duration of response was 35 weeks (range, 8–102). All of the observed objective responses occurred in the 19 patients who had previously responded to the first-line therapy. Median survival was 40 weeks (range, 8–108 weeks). The combination of gemcitabine and paclitaxel is a feasible, well-tolerated, and active scheme for second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC; further evaluation, at least in selected patients, such as those previously responding to first-line chemotherapy, is definitely warranted.     

健择联合卡铂或顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌

 目的 观察健择联合卡铂与健择联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效和毒副反应。方法 157例均经病理或细胞学确诊为晚期非小细胞肺癌患者，分为GC和GP两组接受治疗。21天为1周期，每例完成2周期后评价疗效。结果 近期疗效C,C组和GP组均无1例完全缓解，部分缓解初冶分别为53．3％、55．8％，复治分别为26．3％、29．2％（P〉0．05）。中位疾病进展时间（MTTP）初治分别为6．4、7．0个月，复治分别为4．8、5．1个月（P〉O．05），中位生存时间分别为8．9、9．3个月（P〉0．05）。一年生存率分别为29．3％、32．7％（P〉0．05）。临床获益改善率为80．3％、64．5％（P〈0．05）。毒副反应以骨髓抑制为主，白细胞、血小板Ⅲ～Ⅳ度毒性发生率GC组较GP组稍高，但两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），两组均无出血发生。非血液学毒性主要是胃肠道反应，Ⅲ～Ⅳ度反应GP组多于GC组，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．005）。结论 健择联合卡铂或顺铂治疗晚期NSCLC临床疗效均较高，毒副反应小，安全性高。尤其健择联合卡铂消化道反应轻，临床受益反应好，患者更易接受，对于老年或体力差的晚期NSCLC患者是较理想的治疗方案，临床应用更易推广。     

Second-line therapy with gefitinib in combination with docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II randomized study

This randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of gefitinib and docetaxel in combination, as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Eighty-nine patients who had failed first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/day orally) in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m² every 3 weeks) or single-agent docetaxel (75 mg/m² every 3 weeks). Objective response rates were 6.8% with gefitinib plus docetaxel and 9.1% with docetaxel alone. Disease control was experienced by a higher proportion of patients receiving gefitinib plus docetaxel (59.1%) versus docetaxel alone (34.1%). Median progression-free and overall survival appeared to be longer with gefitinib plus docetaxel (3.9 months [95% CI:2.3–5.4] and 7.6 months [95% CI:5.4–10.4], respectively) than with docetaxel alone (2.1 months [95% CI:2.1–3.7] and 6.2 months [95% CI:5.2–7.2], respectively). The most common non-hematological adverse events were diarrhea, alopecia, rash and dry skin in the combination arm, and vomiting and asthenia with docetaxel alone. Gefitinib and docetaxel combination therapy has antitumor activity and may be a feasible treatment option in patients with advanced NSCLC who have failed platinum-based chemotherapy.     

Dose-intensive epirubicin-based chemotherapy is superior to an intensive intravenous cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil regimen in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized multinational study.

PURPOSE: To determine the relative efficacy of a cyclophosphamide epirubicin and fluorouracil (CEF) regimen compared with an intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) combination in metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either CEF (cyclophosphamide 400 mg/m(2) IV, epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) IV, and fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8), or CMF (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) IV, methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) IV, and fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8). Treatment was given in 3- to 4-week cycles for a total of six to nine cycles. RESULTS: A total of 460 patients (223 CEF and 237 CMF) were randomized. Overall response rate was superior for CEF than CMF in all randomized patients (57% v 46%, respectively; P =.01) and in the assessable subset (66% v 52%, respectively; P =.005). With a median follow-up of more than 20 months, time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer with CEF than CMF (median 8.9 v 6.3 months, respectively; P =.0064), as was time to treatment failure (TTF) (median 6.2 v 5.0 months, respectively; P =.01). Significant survival differences were not observed between CEF and CMF (median 20.1 v 18.2 months, respectively; P =.23). Granulocytopenia and infections were similar in both arms. Grade 3/4 nausea/vomiting and alopecia were more frequent with CEF, whereas diarrhea was more frequent with CMF. Cardiac toxicity, primarily asymptomatic, required withdrawal from study of 15 patients on CEF (7%) and one patient on CMF. CONCLUSION: This CEF regimen safely provides significantly better tumor control than CMF, manifest as a higher response rate, and longer TTP and TTF, but not survival, when used as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer.     

A phase II study of single-agent docetaxel chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel is an active agent used in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A phase II trial of single-agent docetaxel chemotherapy was conducted in Chinese patients with NSCLC, as either a first- or second-line treatment, to assess response and toxicity. The treatment scheme was docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenous infusion for 1 h every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles. Dexamethasone was routinely given for 3 days, beginning 1 day before chemotherapy. RESULTS: From August 1996 to December 1997, 48 patients were enrolled, including 34 chemo-naive patients and 14 patients previously treated with one chemotherapeutic regimen. All patients were evaluable for toxicity profiles and 47 patients were evaluable for response rate. As expected, the major toxicity was myelosuppression. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 41 of 48 (85.5%) patients during treatment. Twenty patients (41.7%) experienced febrile neutropenia and accounted for two toxic deaths. Only one patient suffered from grade 3 thrombocytopenia and two patients from grade 3 anemia. Moderate or severe asthenia occurred in 30 patients (62.5%). Moderate fluid retention (peripheral edema) was observed in five patients (10.4%) and severe fluid retention in three; all were reversible. No grade 3 or 4 neurosensory toxicity was observed. After two cycles of treatment, 14 of 47 evaluable patients attained a partial response (29.8%, 95% CI 16.7-42.9%), including 30.3% (95% CI 14.6-46%) of those in first-line treatment and 28.6% (95% CI 4.9-52.3%) of those in second-line treatment. The median time to disease progression was 13 weeks in first-line patients and 19 weeks in second-line patients. Median survival time was 7.1 and 11.7 months in first- and second-line patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel is active and has an acceptable toxicity profile, in both first- and second-line treatments, in Chinese patients with inoperable NSCLC.     

Randomized phase III study of 3-weekly versus weekly docetaxel in pretreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Spanish Lung Cancer Group trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel is a widely accepted second-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a risk of myelotoxicity. This study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity profile of two docetaxel regimens in NSCLC patients who had failed first-line non-docetaxel-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 259 patients from 33 Spanish centers were randomized to receive either docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) administered every 3 weeks (3W arm) or docetaxel 36 mg/m(2) given weekly (1W arm) for 6 weeks followed by 2 weeks of rest. The primary end point was 1-year survival; secondary end points were median survival, time to progression, response and toxicity. RESULTS: One-year survival was 27% in the 3W and 22% in the 1W arm. Median time to progression was also similar in the two arms. Median survival was 6.6 months in the 3W arm versus 5.4 months in the 1W arm (P = 0.075). Response rates were 9.3% in the 3W arm and 4.8% in the 1W arm. More patients in the 1W arm experienced mucositis [1W, nine patients (7.2%); 3W, two patients (1.6%); P = 0.032], while febrile neutropenia was significantly higher in the 3W arm [3W, 10 patients (7.8%); 1W, one patient (0.8%); P = 0.010]. CONCLUSIONS: Both weekly and 3-weekly docetaxel were effective and well-tolerated, with different toxicity profiles. In general, there was no indication to recommend the weekly schedule. However, the significant lower rate of febrile neutropenia observed in the weekly schedule makes it a good alternative for patients at risk of severe neutropenia.     

Combination chemotherapy with cmf (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-Fluorouracil) versus cnf (mitoxantrone, 5-Fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide) in advanced breast-cancer - a multicenter randomized study

A multicentric randomized study was conducted to compare the CNF regimen (cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m2/iv, mitoxantrone at 10 mg/m2/iv, 5-fluorouracil at 600 mg/m2/iv) with the CMF regimen (methotrexate at 40 mg/m2/iv instead of mitoxantrone) administered every 3 weeks to previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer patients. In 119 patients evaluable for therapeutic response, complete plus partial response rate was 44% for CNF and 29% for CMF (p>0.05; 95% C.I.: CNF=32%-56%, CMF=18%-40%). No statistically significant difference regarding time to progression, over survival or response to second-line chemotherapy with Epidoxorubicin was observed between the two regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated, but the percent of alopecia and leucopenia was significantly higher in the CNF patient group (31% versus 5% and 18% versus 0%, respectively; p<0.01). In conclusion, CNF was demonstrated to be slightly more toxic but more effective as compared to CMF (global response: 44% versus 29%, respectively). These findings should be taken into consideration when planning future studies of adjuvant chemotherapy.     

Cardiac safety,efficacy, and correlation of serial serum HER2-extracellular domain shed antigen measurement with the outcome of the combined trastuzumab plus CMF in women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: results from the EORTC 10995 phase II study

Purpose

Cardiotoxicity is a side effect of trastuzumab. We assessed efficacy and cardiac safety of CMF with trastuzumab (CMF+T) in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients (MBC).

Methods

In this phase II study, centrally confirmed, previously treated HER2-positive MBC patients with measurable disease (per RECIST v 1.0) were enrolled. Initially, patients were randomized between 8 CMF cycles alone or combined with trastuzumab during chemotherapy, followed by 3-weekly trastuzumab maintenance till progression. A protocol amendment dropped the CMF arm and thereafter all patients received CMF+T. Translational research for prediction of treatment benefit was performed through serial serum HER2-shed antigen assessments.

Results

Ninety patients (CMF: 19; CMF+T: 71) were enrolled between 2002 and 2006. Median age was 54 years. 42 patients had prior chemotherapy (33 with anthracyclines) and 41/71 patients who received CMF+T continued trastuzumab monotherapy for a median duration of 40 weeks. Overall response rate was 50% for CMF+T (35/70) and 32% for CMF (6/19). Median duration of response was 10.3 months and 5.4 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.4 months (95% CI 8.1–11.6) and 4.8 months (95% CI 2.8–7.9), respectively. In the CMF+T arm, 13(18%) patients had an absolute LVEF decline, including 3 patients developing any grade of New York Heart Association cardiac dysfunction. Patients with an increase of 30% over baseline shed antigen had a higher progression risk (95% CI 7.6, 3.9–14.8).

Conclusions

CMF+T is effective, with an acceptable cardiotoxicity profile. LVEF declines were mostly asymptomatic and occurred irrespective of previous anthracycline exposure. CMF+T can be considered for these patients, if other cytotoxics are contraindicated.

     

Cetuximab continuation after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (CAPRI-GOIM): a randomized phase II trial of FOLFOX plus cetuximab versus FOLFOX

BackgroundCetuximab plus chemotherapy is a first-line treatment option in metastatic KRAS and NRAS wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. No data are currently available on continuing anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy beyond progression.Patients and methodsWe did this open-label, 1:1 randomized phase II trial at 25 hospitals in Italy to evaluate the efficacy of cetuximab plus 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) as second-line treatment of KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic CRC patients treated in first line with 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab. Patients received FOLFOX plus cetuximab (arm A) or FOLFOX (arm B). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Tumour tissues were assessed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). This report is the final analysis.ResultsBetween 1 February 2010 and 28 September 2014, 153 patients were randomized (74 in arm A and 79 in arm B). Median PFS was 6.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.7–8.0] versus 4.5 months (95% CI 3.3–5.7); [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% CI 0.58–1.12; P = 0.19], respectively. NGS was performed in 117/153 (76.5%) cases; 66/117 patients (34 in arm A and 32 in arm B) had KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA wild-type tumours. For these patients, PFS was longer in the FOLFOX plus cetuximab arm [median 6.9 (95% CI 5.5–8.2) versus 5.3 months (95% CI 3.7–6.9); HR, 0.56 (95% CI 0.33–0.94); P = 0.025]. There was a trend in better overall survival: median 23.7 [(95% CI 19.4–28.0) versus 19.8 months (95% CI 14.9–24.7); HR, 0.57 (95% CI 0.32–1.02); P = 0.056].ConclusionsContinuing cetuximab treatment in combination with chemotherapy is of potential therapeutic efficacy in molecularly selected patients and should be validated in randomized phase III trials.     

Chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy (CAF v CAFVP v CMF each +/- MER) for metastatic carcinoma of the breast: a CALGB study. Cancer and Leukemia Group B

Three combination chemotherapy regimens each with or without the methanol-extracted residue of bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) (MER) were compared for efficacy. After stratification for disease-free interval and dominant sites of disease, patients were randomized to either CMF (cyclophosphamide [CYC], 100 mg/m2 orally, days 1 through 14; methotrexate [MTX], 40 mg intravenously [IV], days 1 and 8; 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], 500 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), or CAF (CYC, 100 mg/m2 orally, days 1 through 14; doxorubicin [DOX], 25 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8; 5-FU, 500 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), or CAFVP (CAF as above plus vincristine [VCR], 1.0 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8; and prednisone [PRED], 40 mg/m2 orally, days 1 through 14). Nonspecific immunotherapy with MER was administered in five sites at 100 micrograms or at the lowest tenfold dilution that produced a 1-cm indurated lesion. A total of 432 patients were entered, but 37 were disqualified, leaving 395 evaluable for treatment results and toxicities. One hundred thirty-five evaluable patients were randomized to chemoimmunotherapy until October 28, 1978. One hundred twenty-six evaluable patients were randomized to chemotherapy alone in the same time period. For the entire study, a total of 260 evaluable patients were randomized to chemotherapy. Chemoimmunotherapy patients were compared with the initial 126 chemotherapy patients. Chemotherapy regimens were compared among all 260 patients. Patient characteristics were similar between regimens and between chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy treatment groups. For patients on chemotherapy plus MER, there was no significant differences between the regimens for response frequencies: 43%, 41%, and 32%, respectively for CMF, CAF, and CAFVP. The comparable chemotherapy alone group had 36%, 58%, and 63% response, respectively. The response rates, adjusted for chemotherapy regimen, were 52% and 38% (P = .02) for chemotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy, respectively. MER was associated with painful ulcers and fevers. Thus, MER produced toxicity without response or survival benefit and further randomization after October 28, 1978 was to chemotherapy alone. For 260 evaluable patients on chemotherapy alone, the complete (CR) and partial responses (PR) were 37%, 55%, and 58%, respectively for CMF, CAF, and CAFVP. These response rates for CAF and CAFVP were significantly better than CMF (P = .01 and P less than .01, respectively). These comparisons were consistent within subgroupings such as dominant sites of disease.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Results of a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of megestrol acetate modulation of P-glycoprotein-mediated drug resistance in the first-line management of small-cell lung carcinoma.

The objective of this study was to determine if the addition of megestrol acetate (MA), a modulator of P-glycoprotein-mediated drug resistance, to first-line cytotoxic therapy in patients with limited and advanced stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) would improve median time to disease progression and median overall survival. Secondary outcomes evaluated were response rates and patient symptom profile. Between 1992 and 1995, 130 eligible patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive standard first-line therapy consisting of alternating courses of cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine and etoposide/cisplatin (and thoracic radiotherapy for limited stage patients), along with either placebo or MA 160 mg t.i.d. for 8 days commencing 3 days before initiation of each cycle of chemotherapy. Treatment was continued for a maximum of six cycles. A total of 130 eligible patients were randomized, 65 to each arm. Fifty-two per cent of patients had limited disease and 48% had advanced disease. The median time to disease progression in limited stage disease was 46 weeks in the placebo arm and 43 weeks in the MA arm (P = 0.71) and in advanced stage disease was 28 weeks in the placebo arm and 27 weeks in the MA arm (P = 0.92). The median overall survival in limited stage disease was 75 weeks in the placebo arm and 75 weeks in the MA arm (P = 0.56) and in advanced stage disease was 41 weeks in the placebo arm and 39 weeks in the MA arm (P = 0.96). There was no consistent statistical difference in response rates or patient symptom profiles between the two treatment arms. The addition of MA, in the dose and schedule used, to standard first-line cytotoxic therapy in SCLC did not result in a significant improvement in response rates, symptom profile, median time to disease progression or overall survival.