A Randomized Controlled Trial of Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin Combinations in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Three agents with differing mechanisms of action are available for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. In this study, we compared the activity and toxicity of three different two-drug combinations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had not been treated previously for advanced disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were concurrently randomly assigned to receive irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (IFL, control combination), oxaliplatin and infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin (FOLFOX), or irinotecan and oxaliplatin (IROX). The primary end point was time to progression, with secondary end points of response rate, survival time, and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 795 patients were randomly assigned between May 1999 and April 2001. A median time to progression of 8.7 months, response rate of 45%, and median survival time of 19.5 months were observed for FOLFOX. These results were significantly superior to those observed for IFL for all end points (6.9 months, 31%, and 15.0 months, respectively) or for IROX (6.5 months, 35%, and 17.4 months, respectively) for time to progression and response. The FOLFOX regimen had significantly lower rates of severe nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and dehydration. Sensory neuropathy and neutropenia were more common with the regimens containing oxaliplatin. CONCLUSION: The FOLFOX regimen of oxaliplatin and infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin was active and comparatively safe. It should be considered as a standard therapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Baseline Quality of Life is a Strong and Independent Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0-100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0-50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51-100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) (P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS (P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.

The LISA randomized trial of a weight loss intervention in postmenopausal breast cancer.

Obesity has been associated with poor breast cancer (BC) outcomes. We investigated whether a standardized, telephone-based weight loss lifestyle intervention in the adjuvant setting would impact BC outcomes. We conducted a multicenter trial randomizing women 1:1 to mail-based educational material alone (control) or combined with a standardized, telephone-based lifestyle intervention that focused on diet, physical activity, and behavior and involved 19 calls over 2 years to achieve up to 10% weight loss. In all, 338 (of 2150 planned) T1-3, N0-3, M0 hormone receptor positive BC patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥24 kg/m2 receiving adjuvant letrozole were randomized (enrolment ended due to funding loss). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); secondary outcome was Overall Survival (OS). At 8 years' median follow-up, in a planned analysis, DFS and OS were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. Baseline BMI and other characteristics were similar between study arms. In all, 22 of 171 (12.9%) in the lifestyle intervention arm versus 30 of 167 (18.0%) in the education had DFS events; the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.24, p = 0.23). Although loss of funding reduced sample size, we view these hypothesis generating results as compatible with our hypothesis of a potential beneficial effect of a lifestyle intervention on DFS. They provide support for completion of ongoing randomized controlled trials of the effect of lifestyle interventions in BC outcomes.

Competing risks of death in younger and older postmenopausal breast cancer patients.

AIM: To show a new paradigm of simultaneously testing whether breast cancer therapies impact other causes of death. METHODS: MA.14 allocated 667 postmenopausal women to 5 years of tamoxifen 20 mg/daily ± 2 years of octreotide 90 mg, given by depot intramuscular injections monthly. Event-free survival was the primary endpoint of MA.14; at median 7.9 years, the tamoxifen+octreotide and tamoxifen arms had similar event-free survival (P = 0.62). Overall survival was a secondary endpoint, and the two trial arms also had similar overall survival (P = 0.86). We used the median 9.8 years follow-up to examine by intention-to-treat, the multivariate time-to-breast cancer-specific (BrCa) and other cause (OC) mortality with log-normal survival analysis adjusted by treatment and stratification factors. We tested whether baseline factors including Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), IGF binding protein-3, C-peptide, body mass index, and 25-hydroxy vitamin D were associated with (1) all cause mortality, and if so and (2) cause-specific mortality. We also fit step-wise forward cause-specific adjusted models. RESULTS: The analyses were performed on 329 patients allocated tamoxifen and 329 allocated tamoxifen+octreotide. The median age of MA.14 patients was 60.1 years: 447 (82%) < 70 years and 120 (18%) ≥ 70 years. There were 170 deaths: 106 (62.3%) BrCa; 55 (32.4%) OC, of which 24 were other malignancies, 31 other causes of death; 9 (5.3%) patients with unknown cause of death were excluded from competing risk assessments. BrCa and OC deaths were not significantly different by treatment arm (P = 0.40): tamoxifen patients experienced 50 BrCa and 32 OC deaths, while tamoxifen + octreotide patients experienced 56 BrCa and 23 OC deaths. Proportionately more deaths (P = 0.004) were from BrCa for patients < 70 years, where 70% of deaths were due to BrCa, compared to 54% for those ≥ 70 years of age. The proportion of deaths from OC increased with increasing body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.02). Higher pathologic T and N were associated with more BrCa deaths (P < 0.0001 and 0.002, respectively). The cumulative hazard plot for BrCa and OC mortality indicated the concurrent accrual of both types of death throughout follow-up, that is the existence of competing risks of mortality. MA.14 therapy did not impact mortality (P = 0.77). Three baseline patient and tumor characteristics were differentially associated with cause of death: older patients experienced more OC (P = 0.01) mortality; patients with T1 tumors and hormone receptor positive tumors had less BrCa mortality (respectively, P = 0.01, P = 0.06). Additionally, step-wise cause-specific models indicated that patients with node negative disease experienced less BrCa mortality (P = 0.002); there was weak evidence that, lower C-peptide (P = 0.08) was associated with less BrCa mortality, while higher BMI (P = 0.01) was associated with worse OC mortality. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate here a new paradigm of simultaneous testing of therapeutics directed at multiple diseases for which postmenopausal women are concurrently at risk. Octreotide LAR did not significantly impact breast cancer or other cause mortality, although different baseline factors influenced type of death.

Randomized trial of a telephone-based weight loss intervention in postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving letrozole: the LISA trial.

PURPOSE: Obesity is associated with poor outcomes in women with operable breast cancer. Lifestyle interventions (LIs) that help women reduce their weight may improve outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized trial comparing mail-based delivery of general health information alone or combined with a 24-month standardized, telephone-based LI that included diet (500 to 1,000 kcal per day deficit) and physical activity (150 to 200 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week) goals to achieve weight loss (up to 10%). Women receiving adjuvant letrozole for T1-3N0-3M0 breast cancer with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 24 kg/m(2) were eligible. Weight was measured in the clinic, and self-report physical activity, quality-of-life (QOL), and diet questionnaires were completed. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Accrual was terminated at 338 of 2,150 planned patients because of loss of funding. RESULTS: Mean weight loss was significantly (P < .001) greater in the LI arm versus the comparison arm (4.3 v 0.6 kg or 5.3% v 0.7% at 6 months and 3.1 v 0.3 kg or 3.6% v 0.4% at 24 months) and occurred consistently across strata (BMI 24 to < 30 v ≥ 30 kg/m(2); prior v no prior adjuvant chemotherapy). Weight loss was greatest in those with higher baseline levels of moderate-intensity physical activity or improvement in QOL. Hospitalization rates and medical events were similar. CONCLUSION: A telephone-based LI led to significant weight loss that was still evident at 24 months, without adverse effects on QOL, hospitalizations, or medical events. Adequately powered randomized trials with cancer end points are needed.

Randomized trial of tamoxifen versus combined tamoxifen and octreotide LAR Therapy in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer in postmenopausal women: NCIC CTG MA.14.

PURPOSE: Somatostatin analogs act directly on breast cancer cells and indirectly on insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels. This trial was undertaken to assess whether octreotide would lower insulin and IGF-1 levels and reduce risk of breast cancer recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The NCIC CTG MA.14 (NCIC Clinical Trials Group MA.14) trial randomly assigned postmenopausal women to 5 years of tamoxifen 20 mg daily (TAM) or TAM plus 2 years of octreotide 90 mg depot intramuscular injections monthly (TAM-OCT) as adjuvant therapy. The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). Secondary end points were relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and effects of treatment on IGF physiology. RESULTS: Among 667 women with a median follow-up of 7.9 years, 220 events occurred-108 with TAM-OCT and 112 with TAM. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs; TAM-OCT to TAM) were 0.93 for EFS (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.22; P = .62), 0.84 for RFS (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.18; P = .31), and 0.97 for OS (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.37; P = .86). Among patients with normal baseline gallbladder imaging, cholecystectomy was required in 23.0% of those receiving TAM-OCT but in only 1.4% of those receiving TAM (P < .001). At 4 months, TAM-OCT had significantly (P < .001) lowered IGF-1, IGF binding protein 3, and C-peptide levels. Older age (P = .02), tumor size (P = .001), nodal status (P = .01), high C-peptide levels (P < .001), and higher body mass index (BMI) in models excluding C-peptide (P < .001) were associated with poorer EFS in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Octreotide-related changes in circulating IGF-1 and C-peptide levels were statistically significant. Octreotide did not add significant clinical benefit. High C-peptide levels (surrogate for insulin secretion rate) and high BMI were associated with poor outcome.

Pharmacogenetic predictors of adverse events and response to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from North American Gastrointestinal Intergroup Trial N9741.

PURPOSE: With three available chemotherapy drugs for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), response rate (RR) and survival outcomes have improved with associated morbidity, accentuating the need for tools to select optimal individualized treatment. Pharmacogenetics identifies the likelihood of adverse events or response based on variants in genes involved in drug transport, metabolism, and cellular targets. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Germline DNA was extracted from 520 patients on the North American Gastrointestinal Intergroup N9741 study. Three study arms were evaluated: IFL (fluorouracil [FU] + irinotecan [IRN]), FOLFOX (FU + oxaliplatin), and IROX (IRN + oxaliplatin). Information on adverse events, response, and disease-free survival was available. Thirty-four variants in 15 candidate genes for analysis based on previous associations with adverse events or outcome were assessed. Genotyping was performed using pyrosequencing. RESULTS: All variants were polymorphic. The homozygous UGT1A1*28 allele observed in 9% of patients was associated with risk of grade 4 neutropenia in patients on IROX (55% v 15%; P = .002). Deletion in GSTM1 was associated with grade 4 neutropenia after FOLFOX (28% v 16%; P = .02). Patients with a homozygous variant genotype for GSTP1 were more likely to discontinue FOLFOX because of neurotoxicity (24% v 10%; P = .01). The presence of a CYP3A5 variant was significantly associated with RR on IFL (29% v 60%; P = .0074). Most previously published genotype-toxicity or -efficacy relationships were not validated in this study. CONCLUSION: This study provides a platform to evaluate pharmacogenetic predictors of response or severe adverse events in advanced CRC. Pharmacogenetic studies can be conducted in multicenter trials, and our findings demonstrate that with continued research, clinical application is practical.

Randomized phase III trial of vinorelbine plus cisplatin compared with observation in completely resected stage IB and II non-small-cell lung cancer: updated survival analysis of JBR-10.

PURPOSE Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (ACT) is now an accepted standard for completely resected stage II and III A non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Long-term follow-up is important to document persistent benefit and late toxicity. We report here updated overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) data. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with completely resected stage IB (T2N0, n = 219) or II (T1-2N1, n = 263) NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive 4 cycles of vinorelbine/cisplatin or observation. All efficacy analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results Median follow-up was 9.3 years (range, 5.8 to 13.8; 33 lost to follow-up); there were 271 deaths in 482 randomly assigned patients. ACT continues to show a benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .04). There was a trend for interaction with disease stage (P = .09; HR for stage II, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.92; P = .01; stage IB, HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.52; P = .87). ACT resulted in significantly prolonged DSS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.97; P = .03). Observation was associated with significantly higher risk of death from lung cancer (P = .02), with no difference in rates of death from other causes or second primary malignancies between the arms. CONCLUSION Prolonged follow-up of patients from the JBR.10 trial continues to show a benefit in survival for adjuvant chemotherapy. This benefit appears to be confined to N1 patients. There was no increase in death from other causes in the chemotherapy arm.

Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 study showed that patients with advanced colorectal cancer had improved overall survival when cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor-targeting antibody, was given in addition to best supportive care. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using prospectively collected resource utilization and health utility data for patients in the CO.17 study who received cetuximab plus best supportive care (N = 283) or best supportive care alone (N = 274). METHODS: Direct medical resource utilization data were collected, including medications, physician visits, toxicity management, blood products, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Mean survival times for the study arms were calculated for the entire population and for the subset of patients with wild-type KRAS tumors over an 18- to 19-month period. All costs were presented in 2007 Canadian dollars. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to determine the robustness of the results. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were determined. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and the incremental cost-utility ratios were estimated by use of a nonparametric bootstrapping method (with 1000 iterations). RESULTS: For the entire study population, the mean improvement in overall and quality-adjusted survival with cetuximab was 0.12 years and 0.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively. The incremental cost with cetuximab compared with best supportive care was $23,969. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $199,742 per life-year gained (95% CI = $125,973 to $652,492 per life-year gained) and the incremental cost-utility ratio was $299,613 per QALY gained (95% CI = $187,440 to $898,201 per QALY gained). For patients with wild-type KRAS tumors, the incremental cost with cetuximab was $33,617 and mean gains in overall and quality-adjusted survival were 0.28 years and 0.18 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $120,061 per life-year gained (95% CI = $88,679 to $207,075 per life-year gained) and the incremental cost-utility ratio was $186,761 per QALY gained (95% CI = $130,326 to $334,940 per QALY gained). In a sensitivity analysis, cetuximab cost and patient survival were the only variables that influenced cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of cetuximab over best supportive care alone in unselected advanced colorectal cancer patients is high and sensitive to drug cost. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were lower when the analysis was limited to patients with wild-type KRAS tumors.

Five-year data and prognostic factor analysis of oxaliplatin and irinotecan combinations for advanced colorectal cancer: N9741.

PURPOSE: In this report, we update survival (OS) and time-to-progression (TTP) data for the Intergroup trial N9741 after a median 5 years of follow-up by using risk-stratified and prognostic factor analyses to determine if treatment outcomes differ in specific patient subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,691 patients were randomly assigned to one of seven fluorouracil-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-containing regimens. OS and TTP were calculated by treatment arm and baseline risk group (on the basis of WBC, performance status, number of sites of disease, and alkaline phosphatase). Multivariate prognostic factor analysis was used to assess clinical factors for their relationships to OS, TTP, response, and toxicity by using Cox and logistic regression models. RESULTS: The observed 5-year survival with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) of 9.8% was better than with irinotecan plus bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin (IFL; 3.7%; P = .04) or with bolus irinotecan/oxaliplatin (IROX; 5.1%; P = .128). OS and TTP were significantly longer for FOLFOX (20.2 months and 8.9 months, respectively) than for IFL (14.6 months and 6.1 months, respectively; P < .001 for both) or for IROX (17.3 months and 6.7 months, respectively; P < .001 for both). OS differed by risk group: 20.7 months for low risk, 17.4 months for intermediate risk, and 9.4 months for high risk (P < .001). FOLFOX treatment was superior in all risk groups and was the most powerful prognostic factor for OS, TTP, response rate, and toxicity. CONCLUSION: The 9.8% 5-year OS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were treated with first-line FOLFOX sets a new benchmark. Neither baseline risk group nor any prognostic factor examined was predictive of treatment-specific outcome. However, treatment efficacy and patient longevity varied as a function of risk group.

Phase II study of vandetanib or placebo in small-cell lung cancer patients after complete or partial response to induction chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.20.

PURPOSE: This double-blind randomized phase II trial examined whether vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial and epidermal growth factor receptors, could prolong progression-free survival in responding patients with small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to combination chemotherapy (+/- thoracic or prophylactic cranial radiation) received oral vandetanib 300 mg/d or matched placebo. With 100 patients and 77 events, the study had 80% power to detect an improvement in median progression-free survival from 4 to 6.5 months (one-sided, 10%-level test). RESULTS: Between May 2003 and March 2006, 107 patients were accrued; 46 had limited disease and 61 extensive disease. There were fewer patients with a performance status of 0 (n = 11 v 20), and fewer had CR to initial therapy (n = 4 v 8) in the vandetanib arm. Vandetanib patients had more toxicity and required more dose modifications for gastrointestinal toxicity and rash. Asymptomatic Corrected QT interval (QTC) prolongation was observed in eight vandetanib patients. Median progression-free survival for vandetanib and placebo was 2.7 and 2.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 80% CI, 0.75 to 1.36; one-sided P = .51). Overall survival for vandetanib was 10.6 versus 11.9 months for placebo (HR, 1.43; 80% CI, 1.00 to 2.05; one-sided P = 0.9). In planned subgroup analyses, a significant interaction was noted (P = .01): limited-stage vandetanib patients had longer overall survival (HR, 0.45; one-sided P = .07) and extensive-stage vandetanib patients shorter survival compared with placebo (HR, 2.27; one-sided P = .996). CONCLUSION: Vandetanib failed to demonstrate efficacy as maintenance therapy for small-cell lung cancer.

Impact of complete response to chemotherapy on overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer: results from Intergroup N9741.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical characteristics and survival outcomes among patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who achieve a complete response (CR) to systemic treatment either alone or with multimodality approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from CRC patients enrolled onto the phase III trial N9741, a National Cancer Institute-funded and Gastrointestinal Cancer Intergroup-sponsored study coordinated by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Patients were randomly assigned to combinations of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) and irinotecan. The three treatment arms consist of IFL (irinotecan + FU/LV), FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin + FU/LV), and IROX (irinotecan + oxaliplatin). Median follow-up was 42.6 months. RESULTS: Sixty-two (4%) of 1,508 patients had a CR to chemotherapy alone, and an additional 32 (2%) had a CR after multimodality treatment. Factors associated with achieving CR with systemic chemotherapy alone included FOLFOX4 treatment, patients with assessable disease, or a single site of metastasis. Continuing protocol treatment beyond two cycles after documentation of CR was not associated with improved survival. The rate of curative intent resection was significantly higher for patients treated with oxaliplatin-containing regimens (P = .02). Median survival was similar between patients with CR after chemotherapy alone (44.3 months) or after multimodality approach (47.4 months; P = .81). CONCLUSION: FOLFOX4 was more likely to produce a CR than were IFL or IROX. Oxaliplatin regimens were more likely to result in successful surgical resections. Patients who have CR to systemic chemotherapy alone can achieve impressive survival outcomes similar to those seen among patients who attained a CR status after multimodality treatment.

Updated efficacy and toxicity analysis of irinotecan and oxaliplatin (IROX) : intergroup trial N9741 in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and toxicity of oxaliplatin (Eloxatin; Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, France) combined with irinotecan (IROX) were examined in 383 patients enrolled on the IROX arm of Intergroup Study N9741. METHODS: This IROX regimen was oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) administered every 3 weeks. The relation between adverse events on IROX to selected characteristics was analyzed. Time to progression (TTP), response rate, and overall survival for patients treated with IROX compared with patients treated with oxaliplatin with 5- fluorouracil (FOLFOX) were updated in this article. RESULTS: Grade >or=3 gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicities were common with 39% patients experiencing neutropenia, 28% diarrhea, and 21% vomiting. Patients ages >70 years experienced higher rates of grade >or=3 toxicity, with significantly higher rates of grade >or=3 hematologic toxicities (P = .02). Long-term toxicity was uncommon, and nearly all cases of grade >or=3 neurotoxicity resolved within 10 months. Fifty-two percent of patients required dose reductions for adverse events, and 26% experienced 119 hospitalizations related to complications of treatment or their disease, with 5 treatment-related deaths. This analysis confirmed prior findings that FOLFOX is superior to IROX in terms of response rate (43% vs 36%, p = 0.002), TTP (9.2 months vs 6.7 months, P < .0001), and overall survival (19.5 months vs 17.3 months, P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: IROX was found to be less active than FOLFOX but with a similar toxicity profile except in patients ages >70 years. Although IROX may be considered in patients intolerant of 5-FU or in patients known to have a dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency, it should be used with caution in older patients.

Randomized controlled trial of reduced-dose bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin and irinotecan or infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a North American Intergroup Trial.

PURPOSE: Previously, we reported results of Intergroup N9741, which compared standard bolus fluorouracil (FU), leucovorin, plus irinotecan (IFL) with infused FU, leucovorin, plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) and irinotecan plus oxaliplatin in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. High rates of grade > or = 3 toxicity on IFL (resulting in some deaths) led us to reduce the starting doses of both irinotecan and FU by 20% (rIFL). This article compares rIFL with FOLFOX4. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary comparison was time to progression, with secondary end points of response rate (RR), overall survival, and toxicity. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients were randomly assigned. The North Central Cancer Treatment Group Data Safety Monitoring Committee interrupted enrollment at a planned interim analysis when outcomes crossed predetermined stopping boundaries. The results were significantly superior for FOLFOX4 compared with rIFL for time to progression (9.7 v 5.5 months, respectively; P < .0001), RR (48% v 32%, respectively; P = .006), and overall survival (19.0 v 16.3 months, respectively; P = .026). Toxicity profiles were not significantly different between regimens for nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, or 60-day all-cause mortality. Sensory neuropathy and neutropenia were significantly more common with FOLFOX4. Approximately 75% of patients in both arms received second-line therapy; 58% of rIFL patients received oxaliplatin-based second-line therapy, and 55% of FOLFOX4 patients received irinotecan-based regimens as second-line therapy. CONCLUSION: FOLFOX4 led to superior RR, time to progression, and overall survival compared with rIFL. The survival benefit for FOLFOX4 observed in the earlier stage of the study was preserved with equal use of either irinotecan or oxaliplatin as second-line therapy.

Effect of letrozole versus placebo on bone mineral density in women with primary breast cancer completing 5 or more years of adjuvant tamoxifen: a companion study to NCIC CTG MA.17.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibition depletes estrogen levels and may be associated with accelerated bone resorption. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) study MA.17B evaluated bone turnover markers and bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women randomly assigned to MA.17, a placebo-controlled trial of letrozole after standard adjuvant tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible women had a baseline BMD T score of at least 2.0 in either the hip or L2-4 spine; all received calcium 500 mg and vitamin D 400 U daily. Percentage change in BMD (L2-L4 spine and hip) at 12 and 24 months, rate of osteoporosis, and change in markers of bone formation (serum bone alkaline phosphatase) and resorption (serum C-telopeptide and urine N-telopeptide) at 6, 12, and 24 months were compared. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-six patients (122 letrozole, 104 placebo) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups, including BMD, median age of 60.7 years (81% < 70 years), and median follow-up of 1.6 years. At 24 months, patients receiving letrozole had a significant decrease in total hip BMD (-3.6% v -0.71%; P = .044) and lumbar spine BMD (-5.35% v -0.70%; P = .008). Letrozole increased urine N-telopeptide at 6, 12, and 24 months (P = .054, < .001, and .016, respectively). No patient went below the threshold for osteoporosis in total hip BMD, whereas at the L2-L4 (posteroanterior view), more women became osteoporotic by BMD while receiving letrozole (4.1% v 0%; P = .064). CONCLUSION: After 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, subsequent letrozole causes a modest increase in bone resorption and reduction in bone mineral density in the spine and hip compared to placebo. Further follow-up is necessary to evaluate the long-term clinical implications of this difference.

Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to determine whether the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib prolongs survival in non-small-cell lung cancer after the failure of first-line or second-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer, with performance status from 0 to 3, were eligible if they had received one or two prior chemotherapy regimens. The patients were stratified according to center, performance status, response to prior chemotherapy, number of prior regimens, and prior platinum-based therapy and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral erlotinib, at a dose of 150 mg daily, or placebo. RESULTS: The median age of the 731 patients who underwent randomization was 61.4 years; 49 percent had received two prior chemotherapy regimens, and 93 percent had received platinum-based chemotherapy. The response rate was 8.9 percent in the erlotinib group and less than 1 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001); the median duration of the response was 7.9 months and 3.7 months, respectively. Progression-free survival was 2.2 months and 1.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61, adjusted for stratification categories; P<0.001). Overall survival was 6.7 months and 4.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; P<0.001), in favor of erlotinib. Five percent of patients discontinued erlotinib because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib can prolong survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer after first-line or second-line chemotherapy.

Associations between plasma insulin-like growth factor proteins and C-peptide and quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Predictors of quality of life (QOL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are lacking. The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) family of proteins is associated with QOL in noncancer populations. We sought to study whether these proteins are associated with QOL in patients with colorectal cancer. METHOD: We used a cohort of 526 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with combination chemotherapy. Plasma samples of IGF-I, IGF-II, IGF binding protein-3, and C-peptide were collected before initiation of chemotherapy. QOL was measured by the uniscale instrument and the Symptom Distress Scale at baseline and throughout treatment. RESULTS: Baseline plasma levels of IGF-I and IGF-II before initiation of chemotherapy were significantly associated with several important baseline QOL measures in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with lower levels of IGF-I reported increased distress with regard to appearance, appetite, cough, and nausea intensity after adjustment for potential confounders. Similarly, decreased levels of IGF-II were predictive of worse quality related to appearance, appetite, fatigue, nausea frequency and intensity, pain frequency, and composite Symptom Distress Scale score. IGF binding protein-3 and C-peptide were not predictive of baseline QOL. Baseline biomarkers were not associated with subsequent changes in QOL during treatment. Higher body mass index was significantly associated with superior baseline QOL in several areas; nonetheless, the association of IGF-I and IGF-II with baseline QOL measures remained significant even after controlling for baseline body mass index. CONCLUSION: Baseline plasma IGF-I and IGF-II are significantly associated with symptom distress. Whether this association is simply reflective of patient nutritional status and/or disease burden or represents an independent biological effect of IGFs on QOL remains uncertain. Nonetheless, these data suggest that molecular biomarkers may be useful predictors of QOL in cancer patients.

Mortality associated with daily bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin administered in combination with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin: results from Intergroup Trial N9741.

BACKGROUND: Intergroup Trial N9741 evaluated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) administered in conjunction with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal carcinoma (CRC). The current report describes two treatment arms that were withdrawn from the protocol due to unexpected treatment-related toxicities and a high mortality rate. The complications observed in these arms highlight the importance of aggressive and immediate supportive care in the management of digestive toxicity. METHODS: In Trial N9741, patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following six regimens: 1) irinotecan plus bolus 5-FU/LV (Arm A); 2) sequential irinotecan plus bolus 5-FU/LV (Arm B); 3) bolus 5-FU/LV only (Mayo Clinic regimen; Arm D); 4) oxaliplatin plus bolus 5-FU/LV (Arm E); 5) oxaliplatin plus infusional 5-FU/LV (Arm F); or 6) oxaliplatin plus irinotecan (Arm G). In the current study, the authors investigated treatment-related toxicity in patients who received either of the two combination regimens containing daily bolus 5-FU (i.e., patients in Arm B or Arm E). RESULTS: Sixty-one and 47 patients were enrolled in Arm B and Arm E, respectively. Diarrhea and neutropenia were the most common toxicities in both groups. Five patients in Arm B (8.2%) and 4 patients in Arm E (8.5%) died within 60 days of study entry. All fatal toxicities occurred within 15 days of treatment administration, and all deaths were associated with the simultaneous occurrence of multiple symptoms, which were dominated by Grade > or = 3 diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Combination regimens containing daily bolus 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin or irinotecan can be associated with severe gastrointestinal toxicity and high mortality rates. Therefore, the authors recommend the use of more tolerable infusional 5-FU-based regimens in the treatment of metastatic CRC.

A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Three agents with differing mechanisms of action are available for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. In this study, we compared the activity and toxicity of three different two-drug combinations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had not been treated previously for advanced disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were concurrently randomly assigned to receive irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (IFL, control combination), oxaliplatin and infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin (FOLFOX), or irinotecan and oxaliplatin (IROX). The primary end point was time to progression, with secondary end points of response rate, survival time, and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 795 patients were randomly assigned between May 1999 and April 2001. A median time to progression of 8.7 months, response rate of 45%, and median survival time of 19.5 months were observed for FOLFOX. These results were significantly superior to those observed for IFL for all end points (6.9 months, 31%, and 15.0 months, respectively) or for IROX (6.5 months, 35%, and 17.4 months, respectively) for time to progression and response. The FOLFOX regimen had significantly lower rates of severe nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and dehydration. Sensory neuropathy and neutropenia were more common with the regimens containing oxaliplatin. CONCLUSION: The FOLFOX regimen of oxaliplatin and infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin was active and comparatively safe. It should be considered as a standard therapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: Platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens are the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although toxicity is common and may significantly affect the patient's quality of life (QoL). This trial aimed to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine had benefits in terms of QoL, without influencing negatively on survival, compared with cisplatin-containing regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB (effusion and supraclavicular nodes) or IV documented NSCLC who were younger than 70 years of age were randomly assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (GemVin) or either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (cisplatin-based). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scales were used for QoL analysis. RESULTS: Five hundred one patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The median age was 62 years. There were no significant differences in global QoL scores between the two arms after 2 months of treatment. However, worsening scores for appetite, vomiting, and alopecia were significantly more common in the cisplatin-based arm. Median survival was 38 v 32 weeks and median progression-free survival was 23 v 17 weeks in the cisplatin-based versus GemVin arms, respectively. For the GemVin arm the hazard ratio for death was 1.15 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.37) and the hazard ratio for progression was 1.29 (90% CI, 1.10 to 1.52). Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, vomiting, alopecia, and ototoxicity were significantly more frequent with cisplatin-based treatment. CONCLUSION: Global QoL is not improved with GemVin, although advantages in some components of QoL were apparent. GemVin is less toxic than standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There is a nonsignificant slight survival advantage with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. GemVin could be offered to advanced NSCLC patients who express concern about toxicity.