Gabapentin for the management of hot flashes in prostate cancer survivors: a longitudinal continuation Study-NCCTG Trial N00CB.

Hot flashes are a complication of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. A phase III study showed that use of low-dose gabapentin was well tolerated and moderately decreased the frequency of hot flashes due to androgen deprivation therapy when taken for 4 weeks. The current study, an open-label continuation of the randomized study, examined the efficacy and toxicity of gabapentin when taken for (an additional) 8 weeks. Patients were allowed to start, or continue, gabapentin and to titrate the dose to maximum efficacy, up to 900 mg/d. They were asked to complete a hot flash diary daily and keep weekly logs of toxicity, satisfaction with hot flash control, and quality of life. The moderate reduction in hot flash frequency and severity in the randomized phase of the study appeared to be maintained during this continuation phase. Men originally receiving the placebo or lowest dose of gabapentin (300 mg/d) had improved hot flash control relative to that at the end of the randomized phase. Minimal adverse effects were reported. These findings suggest that low-dose gabapentin is moderately efficacious for at least 12 weeks of hot flash treatment in men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer and seems to be well tolerated. (NCT00028572)

Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized study to determine whether any of three chemotherapy regimens was superior to cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: A total of 1207 patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to a reference regimen of cisplatin and paclitaxel or to one of three experimental regimens: cisplatin and gemcitabine, cisplatin and docetaxel, or carboplatin and paclitaxel. RESULTS: The response rate for all 1155 eligible patients was 19 percent, with a median survival of 7.9 months (95 percent confidence interval, 7.3 to 8.5), a 1-year survival rate of 33 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 30 to 36 percent), and a 2-year survival rate of 11 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 8 to 12 percent). The response rate and survival did not differ significantly between patients assigned to receive cisplatin and paclitaxel and those assigned to receive any of the three experimental regimens. Treatment with cisplatin and gemcitabine was associated with a significantly longer time to the progression of disease than was treatment with cisplatin and paclitaxel but was more likely to cause grade 3, 4, or 5 renal toxicity (in 9 percent of patients, vs. 3 percent of those treated with cisplatin plus paclitaxel). Patients with a performance status of 2 had a significantly lower rate of survival than did those with a performance status of 0 or 1. CONCLUSIONS: None of four chemotherapy regimens offered a significant advantage over the others in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Phase II trial of oxaliplatin/irinotecan/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Individually, oxaliplatin and irinotecan have substantial activity in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin. A combination regimen using all 4 agents could potentially increase response rates in CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter phase II trial of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1, irinotecan 175 mg/m(2) on day 1, 5-fluorouracil 240 mg/m(2) by 90-minute infusion on days 2-5, and leucovorin 20 mg/m(2) on days 2-5 of a 21-day cycle was undertaken in patients with CRC through the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. The primary endpoint was response rate, with secondary endpoints of toxicity and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 14 patients enrolled (13 evaluable), 3 partial responses were seen (23%; 95% confidence interval, 5%-54%), and 9 patients had stable disease (69%). Toxicity was significant, with 1 (8%) grade 5 event (diarrhea and dehydration) and 3 (23%) grade 4 events (leukopenia and diarrhea). The study was closed to further enrollment because of toxicity. CONCLUSION: The 4-drug regimen was extremely toxic. Future studies incorporating irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based therapy should consider alternative schedules.

Phase III, randomized, double-blind study of epoetin alfa compared with placebo in anemic patients receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether weekly epoetin alfa could improve hemoglobin (HgB) levels, reduce RBC transfusions, and improve quality of life (QOL) in patients with advanced cancer and with anemia after receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomly assigned patients to placebo or epoetin alfa (Ortho Biotech, Bridgewater, NJ) 40,000 U subcutaneous weekly for 16 weeks. QOL, HgB, and RBC transfusions were measured pretreatment and monthly. RESULTS: The study accrued 344 patients; 330 were assessable for efficacy and 305 were assessable for QOL. Placebo-treated patients had a mean increase in HgB of 0.9 g/dL (range, -3.8 to +5.3) compared with 2.8 g/dL (range, -2.2 to +7.5) for epoetin-treated patients (P < .0001). During the study, 31.7% of placebo-treated patients achieved a > or = 2 g/dL HgB increase compared with 72.7% of epoetin-treated patients (P < .0001). The incidence of RBC transfusion for placebo and epoetin treatment arms was 39.6% and 25.3% (P = .005), respectively. The placebo group received 256 units of RBCs compared with 127 units in the epoetin group (P < .0001). The incidence of toxicity in the groups was similar. Changes in the average QOL scores from baseline to the end of the study were similar in the two groups (P = not significant). The HgB responders (irrespective of treatment arm) had a mean change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) fatigue score from a baseline of +5.1 compared with -2.1 for the nonresponders (P = .006). CONCLUSION: Epoetin alfa significantly improved HgB and reduced transfusions in this patient population. These results support the use of weekly epoetin alfa as an ameliorative agent for cancer-related anemia.

Randomized clinical trial of high-dose levamisole combined with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin as surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Levamisole combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was previously shown to significantly reduce tumor relapses and improve patient survival when given postoperatively in patients with resected stage III colon cancer. Laboratory investigations subsequently documented a direct dose-dependent enhancement of 5-FU cytotoxicity with increasing concentrations of levamisole against human cancer cell lines. A clinical trial was designed to test the value of levamisole given at its maximum tolerated dose in combination with 5-FU-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight hundred seventy-eight patients who had undergone complete surgical resection of high-risk stage II/III colon cancer were stratified by known prognostic factors and randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatment regimens: standard-dose levamisole combined with 5-FU and leucovorin; or high-dose levamisole combined with the same chemotherapy. Serum neopterin was monitored in a cohort of patients to evaluate immune function. RESULTS: Severe vomiting and neurologic side effects required reduction in the dose of levamisole that could be safely administered on the high-dose levamisole regimen. There were no significant differences in disease-free survival, overall survival, or levels of serum neopterin between the treatment regimens. CONCLUSION: It was not possible to improve the efficacy of surgical adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk colon cancer by giving levamisole at its maximum tolerated dose in combination with 5-FU and leucovorin. High rates of severe gastrointestinal and neurologic side effects were observed with the high-dose levamisole regimen.

Brief physician-initiated quit-smoking strategies for clinical oncology settings: a trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Although tobacco use by cancer patients increases the risk of relapse, diminishes treatment efficacy, and worsens quality of life, about one third of patients who smoked before their diagnosis continue to smoke. Because patients have regular contact with oncologists, the efficacy of a physician-based smoking cessation treatment was evaluated. METHODS: Cancer patients (n = 432) were randomly assigned to either usual care or a National Institutes of Health (NIH) physician-based smoking intervention. The primary outcome was 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 and 12 months after study entry. RESULTS: At the 6-month follow-up, there was no significant difference in quit rates between the usual care (11.9%) and intervention (14.4%) groups, and there was no significant difference between the usual care (13.6%) and intervention (13.3%) groups at the 12-month follow-up. Patients were more likely to have quit smoking at 6 months if they had head and neck or lung cancer, began smoking after the age of 16, reported at baseline using a cessation self-help guide or treatment in the last 6 months, and showed greater baseline desire to quit. Patients were more likely to have quit smoking at 12 months if they smoked 15 or fewer cigarettes per day, had head and neck or lung cancer, tried a group cessation program, and showed greater baseline desire to quit. Finally, there was greater adherence among physicians to the NIH model for physician smoking treatment for patients in the intervention versus the usual care group. CONCLUSION: While training physicians to provide smoking cessation treatment to cancer patients can enhance physician adherence to clinical practice guidelines, physician smoking cessation interventions fail to yield significant gains in long-term quit rates among cancer patients.

Early detection of toxicity and adjustment of ongoing clinical trials: the history and performance of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group's real-time toxicity monitoring program.

Prospective clinical trials are the gold standard for evidence-based methodology used to support changes in the practice of medicine. Clinical researchers, regulatory agencies, payers, and the public embrace the conduct of phase I, II, and III clinical trials as integral to improving patient care. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) funds a number of cooperative oncology groups to conduct such clinical trials in the United States. In order to protect enrolling patients, the NCI requires expedited reporting to allow rapid identification of severe side effects on NCI-sponsored clinical trials. However, chemotherapy drugs frequently cause predictable side effects, the rapid reporting of which would potentially overwhelm the system. This article describes the development and documents the performance of a real-time toxicity reporting system implemented by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. The goal of this system is to supplement the currently required NCI adverse event monitoring procedures and to permit study teams to identify the need to modify ongoing clinical trials. The system has proven its value in the monitoring of phase II and III trials, including trial N9741, a three-arm, phase III, advanced colorectal cancer chemotherapy study exploring combinations of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and fluorouracil. We believe the methods described present opportunities for improving patient safety in clinical research.

Randomized phase II study of two irinotecan schedules for patients with metastatic breast cancer refractory to an anthracycline, a taxane, or both.

PURPOSE: A pressing need exists for agents active against anthracycline- or taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC), or both. Previous clinical trials suggested that irinotecan might have such activity. We conducted this multicenter phase II study to assess efficacy and tolerability of two irinotecan schedules. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MBC patients who experienced disease progression after one to three chemotherapy regimens, including at least one anthracycline- or taxane-based regimen, were randomly assigned to irinotecan in 6-week cycles comprising 100 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 weeks, then a 2-week rest (weekly) or 240 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The weekly arm had 52 assessable patients; the every-3-weeks arm had 51 assessable patients. In the weekly arm, the objective response (complete regression [CR] + partial regression [PR]) rate was 23% (one CR, 11 PR; 95% CI, 13% to 37%). Median response duration was 4.9 months (range, 1.9 to 15.9 months), and median overall survival was 9.7 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 14.2 months). In the every-3-weeks arm, the objective response rate was 14% (nine PR; 95% CI, 6% to 26%), median response duration was 4.2 months (range, 3.1 to 13.9 months), and median overall survival was 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 12.3 months). Treatment generally was well tolerated, especially in the weekly arm. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events with > or = 10% incidence included neutropenia (29%) and diarrhea (17%) in the weekly arm and neutropenia (36%), vomiting (20%), dyspnea (18%), nausea (16%), and diarrhea (12%) in the every-3-weeks arm. CONCLUSION: Irinotecan is active with good tolerability in refractory MBC. Irinotecan (especially weekly) warrants additional study as monotherapy and in combination regimens in this setting.

Dronabinol versus megestrol acetate versus combination therapy for cancer-associated anorexia: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group study.

PURPOSE: To determine whether dronabinol administered alone or with megestrol acetate was more, less, or equal in efficacy to single-agent megestrol acetate for palliating cancer-associated anorexia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred sixty-nine assessable advanced cancer patients were randomized to (1) oral megestrol acetate 800 mg/d liquid suspension plus placebo, (2) oral dronabinol 2.5 mg twice a day plus placebo, or (3) both agents. Eligible patients acknowledged that loss of appetite or weight was a problem and reported the loss of 5 pounds or more during 2 months and/or a daily intake of less than 20 calories/kg of body weight. RESULTS: Groups were comparable at baseline in age, sex, tumor type, weight loss, and performance status. A greater percentage of megestrol acetate-treated patients reported appetite improvement and weight gain compared with dronabinol-treated patients: 75% versus 49% (P =.0001) for appetite and 11% versus 3% (P =.02) for > or = 10% baseline weight gain. Combination treatment resulted in no significant differences in appetite or weight compared with megestrol acetate alone. The Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy questionnaire, which emphasizes anorexia-related questions, demonstrated an improvement in quality of life (QOL) among megestrol acetate-treated and combination-treated patients. The single-item Uniscale, a global QOL instrument, found comparable scores. Toxicity was also comparable, with the exception of an increased incidence of impotence among men who received megestrol acetate. CONCLUSION: In the doses and schedules we studied, megestrol acetate provided superior anorexia palliation among advanced cancer patients compared with dronabinol alone. Combination therapy did not appear to confer additional benefit.

Nicotine patch therapy based on smoking rate followed by bupropion for prevention of relapse to smoking.

PURPOSE: To determine whether (1) tailored nicotine patch therapy that is based on smoking rate can be carried out in a multisite oncology investigative group practice setting, (2) long-term use of bupropion reduces the rate of relapse to smoking in smokers who stop smoking with nicotine patch therapy, and (3) bupropion can initiate smoking abstinence among smokers who have failed to stop smoking after nicotine patch therapy. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Fourteen North Central Cancer Treatment Group sites recruited generally healthy adult smokers from the general population for nicotine patch therapy and based the patch dosage on smoking rates. At completion of nicotine patch therapy, nonsmoking participants were eligible to be assigned to bupropion or placebo for 6 months (for relapse prevention). and smoking participants were eligible to be assigned to bupropion or placebo for 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Of 578 subjects, 31% were abstinent from smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy. Of those subjects not smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy who entered the relapse prevention phase, 28% and 25% were not smoking at 6 months (the end of the medication phase) for bupropion and placebo, respectively (P =.73). For those still smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy, 3.1% and 0.0% stopped smoking with bupropion or placebo, respectively (P =.12). CONCLUSION: Tailored nicotine patch therapy for the general population of smokers can be provided in a multisite oncology investigative group setting. Bupropion did not reduce relapse to smoking in smokers who stopped smoking with nicotine patch therapy. Bupropion did not initiate abstinence among smokers who failed to stop smoking with nicotine patch therapy.

Efficacy and quality-of-life data are related in a phase II trial of oral chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate quality of life (QOL) and tumor response after administration of an oral chemotherapy regimen in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight patients received a mean number of 5.8 cycles of therapy. QOL data were analyzed at baseline, after every two cycles of therapy, and at the time of treatment discontinuation. The Uniscale and the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 were both utilized. RESULTS: The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17% to 37%). Median survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 15.1 months). Global QOL scores were unchanged over the course of therapy by either tool. Only the physical function subscale score had worsened at the end of therapy. In an analysis of responding patients, significant and durable improvements in both global QOL measures as well as select subscale scores were observed. Diarrhea and physical function QOL scores had declined at the time of treatment discontinuation. Patients who did not respond to therapy had preserved QOL scores when they were evaluated after two cycles of therapy. CONCLUSION: This oral treatment strategy preserved QOL in treated patients. Global QOL measures as well as several QOL subscale scores significantly improved in patients with a documented response to therapy. The profile of improved QOL components indicated that patient well-being was related to tumor response in specific and perceivable ways. Nonresponding patients reported preserved QOL during the first two cycles of therapy. QOL analysis was feasible and informative in this moderately sized multicenter phase II trial.

Prognostic value of proliferation, apoptosis, defective DNA mismatch repair, and p53 overexpression in patients with resected Dukes' B2 or C colon cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study.

PURPOSE: Molecular studies of colon cancer have provided insights into pathogenesis, yet it is unclear how important these markers are in predicting prognosis. This study investigated the prognostic significance of TUNEL, bcl-2, p53, proliferation marker Ki-67 and DNA mismatch repair (MMR) status in patients with Dukes' stage B2 and C colorectal adenocarcinomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor tissue from 366 patients (75% Dukes' C, 25% Dukes' B2) from four randomized North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase III surgical adjuvant trials were used. Eighty-one percent of patients received adjuvant treatment, which was primarily fluorouracil (FU) based (90%). Tumor location was predominantly (87%) the colon. Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick-end labeling (TUNEL), Ki-67, p53, bcl-2, and MMR were assayed using immunohistochemistry. Stage, grade, MMR, Ki-67, and previously determined flow cytometry markers (ploidy and S phase) were explored for associations with each other and with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Univariately, stage B2, low grade, diploid, Ki-67 more than 27%, normal p53, and FU-based adjuvant treatment were significantly associated with improved OS and DFS (P <.05). After adjusting for stage, grade, and ploidy in multivariate analysis, Ki-67 remained significantly related to both OS and DFS (P <.01). Active FU-based adjuvant treatment was significant only for OS in this multivariate model. Neither bcl-2 nor TUNEL were significant. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study indicates that Ki-67 and ploidy may have stronger prognostic impact on OS and DFS than other parameters investigated after adjusting for stage and tumor grade. Prospective studies to elucidate the mechanism and prognostic significance of these findings are necessary.

Two concurrent phase II trials of paclitaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab (weekly or every-3-week schedule) as first-line therapy in women with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer: NCCTG study 983252.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and tolerability of 2 different schedules of paclitaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab for HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were evaluated in this parallel multicenter phase II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received every-3-week therapy (n = 43) consisting of a 200 mg/m(2) dose of paclitaxel/carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) of 6 mg/mL per minute and trastuzumab (an initial 8 mg/kg dose and subsequent 6 mg/kg doses) administered every 21 days for 8 cycles or weekly therapy (n = 48) consisting of an 80-mg/m(2) dose of paclitaxel/carboplatin AUC of 2 mg/mL per minute for 3 of 4 weeks, with weekly trastuzumab (an initial 4-mg/kg dose and subsequent 2-mg/kg doses) administered every 4 weeks for 6 cycles. Trastuzumab was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. HER2 status was confirmed by a central laboratory review. RESULTS: The overall response rate (ORR) with every-3-week therapy was 65% (90% confidence interval [CI], 51%-77%), with a median time to disease progression of 9.9 months and median overall survival (OS) time of 2.3 years. The ORR with weekly therapy was 81% (90% CI, 70%-90%), with a median time to disease progression of 13.8 months and a median OS time of 3.2 years. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities occurred significantly less frequently with weekly therapy versus every-3-week therapy: grade 3/4 neutropenia (52% vs. 88%); grade 3 thrombocytopenia (4% vs. 30%); and grade 3 neurosensory toxicity (2% vs. 19%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Every-3-week and weekly regimens of paclitaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab are highly active in women with HER2-overexpressing MBC. However, fewer patients developed severe neutropenia, leukopenia, or thrombocytopenia with the weekly schedule.

Long-term results of a phase III trial comparing once-daily radiotherapy with twice-daily radiotherapy in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This Phase III study was performed to determine whether twice-daily (b.i.d.) radiotherapy (RT) resulted in better survival than once-daily (q.d.) RT for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 310 patients with LD-SCLC initially received three cycles of etoposide and cisplatin. Subsequently, the 261 patients without significant progression were randomized to two cycles of etoposide and cisplatin plus either q.d. RT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) or split-course b.i.d. RT (24 Gy in 16 fractions, a 2.5-week break, and 24 Gy in 16 fractions) to the chest. Patients then received a sixth cycle of etoposide and cisplatin followed by prophylactic cranial RT. RESULTS: Follow-up ranged from 4.6 to 11.9 years (median, 7.4 years). The median survival and 5-year survival rate from randomization was 20.6 months and 21% for patients who received q.d. RT compared with 20.6 months and 22% for those who received b.i.d. RT (p = 0.68), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in the rates of progression (p = 0.68), intrathoracic failure (p = 0.45), in-field failure (p = 0.62), or distant failure (p = 0.82) between the two treatment arms. No statistically significant difference was found in the overall rate of Grade 3 or worse (p = 0.83) or Grade 4 or worse toxicity (p = 0.95). Grade 3 or worse esophagitis (p = 0.05) was more common in the b.i.d. arm. Grade 5 toxicity occurred in 4 (3%) of 130 patients who received b.i.d. RT compared with 0 (0%) of 131 who received q.d. RT (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Although this study did not demonstrate an advantage to split-course b.i.d. RT, the long-term survival was favorable, likely reflecting the positive influences of concurrent combined modality therapy and prophylactic cranial RT.

Oral vinorelbine for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in elderly patients: a phase II trial of efficacy and toxicity.

PURPOSE: Before now oral vinorelbine has not yet been tested in a cohort of elderly, advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients, even though the intravenous form of this drug provides a reasonable therapeutic option for this group. This trial was conducted to determine the tumor response rate and toxicity profile of oral vinorelbine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients > or = 65 years of age. PATIENT AND METHODS: Fifty-eight evaluable patients > or = 65 years of age with advanced non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled. Median age was 73 years (range: 65-87). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score was 0, 1, or 2 in 29, 59, and 12% of patients, respectively. All patients had adequate organ function. Oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m2 per week was prescribed weekly as first-line therapy. RESULTS: Two patients manifested a confirmed tumor response, yielding a response rate of 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4, 11.9%). There were no complete responses. Median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI: 2.2, 5.4 months), and median overall survival was 7.5 months (95% CI: 5.0, 12 months). There were five deaths, one of which might have been treatment-related, and there were 10 grade 4 events. CONCLUSIONS: Oral vinorelbine, as prescribed in this trial, provides minimal activity in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in patients > or = 65 years of age.

Phase II study of oral etoposide and intravenous paclitaxel in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the activity and tolerance for the combination of oral etoposide and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for patients with extensive SCLC. METHODS: A total of 57 patients were enrolled in this study. A cycle of chemotherapy consisted of oral etoposide administered as 50 mg BID on days 1 through 10 and paclitaxel administered as 150 mg/m(2) IV (3 h infusion) along with the first dose of etoposide on day 10. Patients were assessed for response to therapy (regression, stable disease, progression), survival, time to disease progression, and toxicity. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Fifty-five patients were evaluable for efficacy parameters. Among the 55 patients, there were six with complete regression of disease, 18 with partial regression, 11 with regression, five with stable disease, and 15 with progressive disease, yielding an overall response rate of 63.6% (95% confidence interval, 50.0-76.0%). The 6-month and 1-year progression-free survival rates were 48.2 and 18.9%, respectively. The median time to disease progression was 5.8 months. The overall survival rates were 67.3% at 6 months and 41.8% at 1 year. The combination of oral etoposide and paclitaxel demonstrated significant efficacy as first-line therapy for extensive SCLC, with an overall response rate of 63.6% for 55 evaluable patients. In addition, the treatment was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicities.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III surgical adjuvant clinical trial of megestrol acetate (Megace) in selected patients with malignant melanoma.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial was performed to assess megestrol acetate (Megace) as a postsurgical adjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced malignant melanoma. Patients whose tumors were greater than 1.7 mm thick and had no regional lymph node involvement and patients with regional lymph node involvement were randomized to receive either 160 mg twice per day oral suspension of megestrol acetate or placebo. Treatment was administered for a maximum of 2 years or until disease progression. The study accrued 262 eligible patients. All but two patients were followed until death or a minimum of 4.5 years. Disease progression was documented in 156 patients. Neither progression-free survival (PFS) nor overall survival (OS) was found to differ between the treatments. The median PFS was 2.4 years in the megestrol acetate arm and 2.3 years in the placebo arm. Multivariate analysis revealed a significantly decreased PFS for patients with four or more positive regional lymph nodes and metachronous nodal disease. Median OS was 5.3 years in the megestrol acetate arm and 3.9 years in the placebo arm. Multivariate analysis revealed that OS was significantly decreased for patients 70 years of age or older with four or more positive lymph nodes. Adjuvant therapy with megestrol acetate oral suspension administered at a dose of 160 mg twice a day for 2 years was not found to be effective in prolonging PFS or OS in patients with surgically resected, locally advanced melanoma.

Tumor response and progression-free survival as potential surrogate endpoints for overall survival in extensive stage small-cell lung cancer: findings on the basis of North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials.

BACKGROUND: The authors investigated the putative surrogate endpoints of best response, complete response (CR), confirmed response, and progression-free survival (PFS) for associations with overall survival (OS), and as possible surrogate endpoints for OS. METHODS: Individual patient data from 870 untreated extensive stage small-cell lung cancer patients participating in 6 single-arm (274 patients) and 3 randomized trials (596 patients) were pooled. Patient-level associations between putative surrogate endpoints and OS were assessed by Cox models using landmark analyses. Trial-level surrogacy of putative surrogate endpoints were assessed by the association of treatment effects on OS and individual putative surrogate endpoints. Trial-level surrogacy measures included: R(2) from weighted least squares regression model, Spearman correlation coefficient, and R(2) from bivariate survival model (Copula R(2) ). RESULTS: Median OS and PFS were 9.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1-10.0) and 5.5 (95% CI, 5.2-5.9) months, respectively; best response, CR, and confirmed response rates were 44%, 22%, and 34%, respectively. Patient-level associations showed that PFS status at 4 months was a strong predictor of subsequent survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.35-0.51; concordance index 0.63; P < .01), with 6-month PFS being the strongest (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.35-0.49; concordance index, 0.66, P < .01). At the trial level, PFS showed the highest level of surrogacy for OS (weighted least squares R(2) = 0.79; Copula R(2) = 0.80), explaining 79% of the variance in OS. Tumor response endpoints showed lower surrogacy levels (weighted least squares R(2) ≤0.48). CONCLUSIONS: PFS was strongly associated with OS at both the patient and trial levels. PFS also shows promise as a potential surrogate for OS, but further validation is needed using data from a larger number of randomized phase 3 trials.

Pretreatment quality of life is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.

HYPOTHESIS: We conducted this pooled analysis to assess the prognostic value of pretreatment Quality of Life (QOL) assessments on overall survival (OS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Four hundred twenty patients with advanced NSCLC (stages IIIB with pleural effusion and IV) from six North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials were included in this study. QOL assessments included the single-item Uniscale (355 patients), Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (217 patients), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (197 patients). QOL scores were transformed to a 0 to 100 scale with higher scores representing better status and categorized using the sample median or clinically deficient score (CDS, 50). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by study were used to evaluate the prognostic importance of QOL on OS alone and in the presence of other prognostic factors such as performance status, age, gender, body mass index, and laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Pretreatment QOL accessed by Uniscale was significantly associated with OS univariately (p < 0.0001). Uniscale (p < 0.0001; hazard ratio = 1.6 for the sample median and 2.0 for the CDS categorization) and body mass index were the only significant predictors of OS multivariately. The median survival of patients who had a Uniscale score less than or equal to the CDS (50 group; and 7.8 versus 13 months for the less than or equal to sample median (83 group, respectively. The Lung Cancer Symptom Scale and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung total scores were not significant predictors of OS. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment QOL measured by Uniscale is a significant and an independent prognostic factor for OS, and QOL should be routinely integrated as a stratification factor in advanced NSCLC trials.