Randomized study to evaluate the use of high-dose therapy as part of primary treatment for "aggressive" lymphoma.

PURPOSE: This trial of the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group compares the use of high-dose therapy (HDT) as part of primary treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) plus etoposide followed by involved-field (IF) radiotherapy in a randomized, multicenter, phase III study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred twelve patients with "aggressive" non-Hodgkin's lymphoma aged

Topotecan/cisplatin compared with cisplatin/etoposide as first-line treatment for patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer: final results of a randomized phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION: This phase III study compared efficacy and safety of topotecan-cisplatin (TP) versus topotecan-etoposide (TE) versus cisplatin-etoposide (PE) in chemo-naïve extensive disease small-cell lung cancer patients. METHODS: Seven hundred and ninety-five previously untreated patients were randomly assigned to TP (topotecan 1mg/m IV, d1-5; cisplatin 75 mg/m IV, d5; n = 358), PE (cisplatin 75 mg/m IV, d1; etoposide 100 mg/m IV, d1-3; n = 345) or TE (topotecan 1mg/m IV, d1-5; etoposide 80 mg/m IV, d3-5; n = 92). Primary endpoint was superiority of TP compared with PE, with the possibility to switch to a noninferiority test. RESULTS: The TE arm was closed after recommendations by the Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board. Median survival was similar and met the predefined endpoint of noninferiority of TP to PE (44.9 versus 40.9 weeks; p = 0.40). One-year survival rate showed 39.7% for TP versus 36.1% for PE (p = 0.29). Median time to progression was significantly longer with TP (27.4 versus 24.3 weeks, p = 0.01). Overall response rates were significantly higher for TP (55.5% versus 45.5%, p = 0.01).Hematologic toxicity was slightly higher for TP regarding G 3/4 neutropenia (35.7/35.8%), G 3/4 thrombocytopenia (18.7/4.8%), G 3/4 anemia (11.6/6.7%), febrile neutropenia (2.0/2.7%), sepsis (1.7/1.2%), and toxicity-related deaths (5.2/2.7%). CONCLUSION: TP is noninferior to PE in overall survival and superior in time to progression and overall response rates. Because of slightly worse toxicity profile TP is not a first-line standard treatment for patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer.

EPIC: phase III trial of cetuximab plus irinotecan after fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether adding cetuximab to irinotecan prolongs survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, phase III study randomly assigned 1,298 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing mCRC who had experienced first-line fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin treatment failure to cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly) plus irinotecan (350 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks) or irinotecan alone. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Median OS was comparable between treatments: 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 11.3) with cetuximab/irinotecan and 10.0 months (95% CI, 9.1 to 11.3) with irinotecan alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.975; 95% CI, 0.854 to 1.114; P = .71). This lack of difference may have been due to post-trial therapy: 46.9% of patients assigned to irinotecan eventually received cetuximab (87.2% of those who did, received it with irinotecan). Cetuximab added to irinotecan significantly improved PFS (median, 4.0 v 2.6 months; HR, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.617 to 0.776; P