Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With Cisplatin and Gemcitabine Followed by Chemoradiation Versus Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Although chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with cisplatin remains the standard treatment of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), 40% of patients present with disease recurrence. Additional treatment strategies are required to improve outcomes. We conducted a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with cisplatin and gemcitabine followed by CRT. METHODS: In this phase II trial, patients with LACC (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB to IVA or with positive lymph nodes) were randomly assigned to three cycles of NAC with cisplatin and gemcitabine followed by standard CRT with weekly cisplatin plus pelvic radiotherapy or to standard CRT alone. The primary end point was 3-year progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate, 3-year locoregional control, 3-year overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: From 107 patients enrolled in the trial, 55 were randomly assigned to the NAC arm and 52 to the CRT-alone arm. The majority of patients had squamous cell carcinoma (87.8%). After a median follow-up of 31.7 months, NAC was associated with an inferior PFS, with 3-year PFS rates of 40.9% v 60.4% in the CRT arm (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.26; P = .033). NAC also was associated with a lower OS (3-year OS rate, 60.7% v 86.8%; hazard ratio, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.29 to 6.01; P = .006). After treatment completion, complete response rates were 56.3% in the NAC arm and 80.3% in the CRT arm (P = .008). Toxicities were similar in both arms, with the exception of hypomagnesemia and neuropathy being more common with NAC. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the addition of NAC consisting of cisplatin and gemcitabine to standard CRT is not superior and is possibly inferior to CRT alone for the treatment of LACC.

Phase 2 Trial of Metformin Combined With 5-Fluorouracil in Patients With Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Observational and preclinical studies have suggested that metformin has antitumor effects in solid tumors, including colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the effects of metformin in CRC have not been tested in clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, single-arm phase 2 clinical trial where histologically confirmed CRC patients with measurable and progressing metastatic disease previously treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (if the tumor was RAS wild type) were enrolled to receive metformin 850 mg orally continuously 2 times a day plus 5-FU 425 mg/m2 and leucovorin 50 mg intravenously weekly until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was disease control rate at 8 weeks. RESULTS: Among 50 patients included, 11 (22%) met the primary end point. The median progression-free survival was 1.8 months and the median overall survival 7.9 months. Analyzing only the 11 patients who experienced disease control at 8 weeks, their median progression-free survival was 5.6 months and their median overall survival was 16.2 months. There was a trend for prolonged median survival for obese patients (12.4 vs. 5.8 months) and those longer off 5-FU. The treatment was well tolerated; the main adverse effects were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and myelotoxicity. CONCLUSION: Metformin and 5-FU showed an overall modest but intriguing activity in patients with refractory CRC in this phase 2 study. Some patients experienced long-term disease control. Further trials are needed to confirm these results, particularly in obese patients with CRC.

Formal statistical testing and inference in randomized phase II trials in medical oncology.

OBJECTIVES: With the growing number of new anticancer therapies, randomized phase II trials have been used more often in oncology. Although the primary objective of such trials is not to formally compare results between arms, this practice seems frequent. We sought to quantify the frequency of use of formal statistical testing or inference through the use of P values and confidence intervals (CIs) in randomized phase II trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed for randomized phase II trials assessing systemic cancer therapies published in the years 1995/1996 and 2005/2006. For each study, 2 reviewers independently abstracted data, including reporting of P values and CIs for the primary endpoint. RESULTS: We retrieved 288 articles, 107 of which were eligible for analysis. The median number of patients per trial was 94, the primary endpoint was response rate in 71 (66.4%) cases, and a control arm was present in 55 (51.4%) trials. Either P values or CIs for the primary endpoint were reported in 85 (79.4%; 95% CI, 70.8%-86.1%) cases. Year of publication, source of funding, and use of a control group were not associated with this practice. CONCLUSIONS: Formal statistical comparisons between arms of randomized phase II trials are frequently undertaken in medical oncology. The extent to which such a practice abrogates phase III testing is unknown.