The hard road to data interpretation: 3 or 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer?

Background: Six months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is standard for patients with stage III colon cancer following surgery. However, oxaliplatin is associated with peripheral neurotoxicity which worsens over treatment duration. Consequently, a shorter treatment duration, if equally effective, would be extremely beneficial. A pooled analysis of data for 12 834 stage III colon cancer patients, from six randomised phase III trials of adjuvant therapy, the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy study, was carried out and the results presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2017. To clarify the potential impact of these results on clinical practice, ESMO decided to sponsor a special session at their 2017 Annual Meeting dedicated to achieving a more meaningful interpretation of the results. Methods: Medical oncologists from Europe, the United States and Asia selected for their involvement in the trials, together with an independent statistician and an independent clinician, were invited to provide their independent interpretations of the results and contribute to a moderated panel discussion. The pooled analysis evaluated the non-inferiority of 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX/CAPOX therapy but not the non-inferiority of 3 months CAPOX versus 6 months FOLFOX therapy. Results: There was strong evidence of an interaction between the choice of regimen (CAPOX or FOLFOX) and duration of treatment. Patients were classified as either 'fighters' or 'fatalists', and 3-month CAPOX was considered standard for patients classified as fatalists even if they had high-risk disease. However, patients classified as 'fighters' would only receive 3 months of CAPOX if they had low-risk disease but would always receive 6 months of CAPOX/FOLFOX if they had T4 disease. The panel was split on whether they would advocate 3 or 6 months CAPOX therapy based on high-risk N2 disease. Conclusions: The main drivers of the duration of treatment were choice of regimen and patient attitude, with risk, based mainly on T4 stage, having less influence.

Oxaliplatin and 5-FU/folinic acid (modified FOLFOX6) with or without aflibercept in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the AFFIRM study.

BACKGROUND: The combination of aflibercept with FOLFIRI has been shown to significantly prolong overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on oxaliplatin-based therapy. This trial evaluated the addition of aflibercept to oxaliplatin-based first-line treatment of patients with mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRC were randomized to receive first-line therapy with mFOLFOX6 plus aflibercept (4 mg/kg) or mFOLFOX6 alone. The primary end point of this phase II study was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 months in each arm. The analysis of efficacy between the arms was a pre-planned secondary analysis. RESULTS: Of 236 randomized patients, 227 and 235 patients were evaluable for the primary efficacy analysis and safety, respectively. The probabilities of being progression-free at 12 months were 25.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.2-34.4] for the aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 arm and 21.2% (95% CI 12.2-30.3) for the mFOLFOX6 arm. The median PFS was 8.48 months (95% CI 7.89-9.92) for the aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 arm and 8.77 months (95% CI 7.62-9.27) for the mFOLFOX6 arm; the hazard ratio of aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 versus mFOLFOX6 was 1.00 (95% CI 0.74-1.36). The response rates were 49.1% (95% CI 39.7-58.6) and 45.9% (95% CI 36.4-55.7) for patients treated with and without aflibercept, respectively. The most frequent treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) excluding laboratory abnormalities reported for aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 versus mFOLFOX6 were neuropathy (16.8% versus 17.2%) and diarrhea (13.4% versus 5.2%). Neutropenia grade 3/4 occurred in 36.1% versus 29.3%. The most common vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition class-effect grade 3/4 AEs for aflibercept/mFOLFOX6 versus mFOLFOX6 were hypertension (35.3% versus 1.7%), proteinuria (9.2% versus 0%), deep vein thrombosis (5.9% versus 0.9%) and pulmonary embolism (5.9% versus 5.2%). CONCLUSION: No difference in PFS rate was observed between treatment groups. Adding aflibercept to first-line mFOLFOX6 did not increase efficacy but was associated with higher toxicity. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00851084, www.clinicaltrials.gov, EudraCT 2008-004178-41.

Exposure-response analysis of rilotumumab in gastric cancer: the role of tumour MET expression.

BACKGROUND: Rilotumumab, an investigational, monoclonal antibody, inhibits MET-mediated signalling. In a randomized phase 2 trial of rilotumumab±epirubicin/cisplatin/capecitabine in gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer, patients receiving rilotumumab showed a trend towards improved survival, especially in MET-positive patients, but no clear dose-response relationship was observed. Exposure-response and biomarker analyses were used for dose selection and to differentiate patient subpopulations that may benefit most from treatment. Here, we analyse rilotumumab exposure-survival and exposure-safety and the impact of MET expression on these relationships. METHODS: Individual rilotumumab exposure parameters were generated using population pharmacokinetic modelling. Relationships among rilotumumab dose (7.5 and 15 mg kg(-1)), exposure, and clinical outcomes (progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)) were evaluated with Cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier plots. MET status and other baseline covariates were evaluated in subgroup and multivariate analyses. Treatment-emergent adverse events were summarised by exposure. RESULTS: Among MET-positive patients, higher rilotumumab exposure, vs placebo and low exposure, was associated with improved median PFS (80% CI: 7.0 (5.7-9.7) vs 4.4 (2.9-4.9) and 5.5 (4.2-6.8) months) and OS (13.4 (10.6-18.6) vs 5.7 (4.7-10.2) and 8.1 (6.9-11.1) months) without increased toxicity. No rilotumumab benefit was seen among MET-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rilotumumab had an exposure-dependent treatment effect in patients with MET-positive gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer.

Bevacizumab with peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) in localised gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a safety report.

BACKGROUND: Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard treatment of localised oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma; however, the outcomes remain poor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ST03 is a multicentre, randomised, phase II/III study comparing peri-operative ECX with or without bevacizumab (ECX-B). The primary outcome measure of phase II (n = 200) was safety, specifically gastrointestinal (GI) perforation rates and cardiotoxicity. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were randomised between October 2007 and April 2010. Ninety-one/101 (90%) ECX and 86/99 (87%) ECX-B patients completed pre-operative chemotherapy; 7 ECX and 9 ECX-B patients stopped due to toxicity. Gastrointestinal perforations (3 ECX, 1 ECX-B), cardiac events (1 ECX, 4 ECX-B) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs, 8 ECX, 7 ECX-B) were uncommon. Arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs, myocardial infarction (MI) or cerebrovascular accident) were more frequent with ECX-B (5 versus 1 with ECX). Delayed wound healing, anastomotic leaks and GI bleeding rates were similar. More asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) falls (≥15% and/or to <50%) occurred with ECX-B (21.2% versus 11.1% with ECX). Clinically significant falls (≥10% to below lower limit of normal, LLN) occurred in (15.3%) and (8.9%) respectively, with no associated cardiac failure (median 22 months follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of bevacizumab to peri-operative ECX chemotherapy is feasible with acceptable toxicity and no negative impact on surgical outcomes.

The association of clinical and patient factors with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in colorectal cancer: secondary analysis of the SCOT trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common adverse effect of oxaliplatin. CIPN can impair long-term quality of life and limit the dose of chemotherapy. We investigated the association of CIPN over time with age, sex, body mass index, baseline neuropathy, and chemotherapy regimen in people treated with adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out secondary analysis of data from the SCOT randomised controlled trial. SCOT compared 3 months to 6 months of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy in 6088 people with colorectal cancer recruited between March 2008 and November 2013. Two different chemotherapy regimens were used: capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX) or fluorouracil with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). CIPN was recorded with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynaecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity 4 tool in 2871 participants from baseline (randomisation) for up to 8 years. Longitudinal trends in CIPN [averages with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were plotted stratified by the investigated factors. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyse the association of factors with CIPN adjusting for the SCOT randomisation arm and oxaliplatin dose. P < 0.01 was adopted as cut-off for statistical significance to account for multiple testing. RESULTS: Patients receiving CAPOX had lower CIPN scores than those receiving FOLFOX. Chemotherapy regimen was associated with CIPN from 6 months (P < 0.001) to 2 years (P = 0.001). The adjusted ANCOVA coefficient for CAPOX at 6 months was -1.6 (95% CIs -2.2 to -0.9) and at 2 years it was -1.6 (95% CIs -2.5 to -0.7). People with baseline neuropathy scores ≥1 experienced higher CIPN than people with baseline neuropathy scores of 0 (P < 0.01 for all timepoints apart from 18 months). Age, sex, and body mass index did not link with CIPN. CONCLUSIONS: A neuropathy assessment before treatment with oxaliplatin can help identify people with an increased risk of CIPN. More research is needed to understand the CIPN-inducing effect of different chemotherapy regimens.

A phase I study of sunitinib in combination with FOLFIRI in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, combined with FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 given over 90 min i.v. and l-leucovorin 200 mg/m2 given over 120 min on day 1, followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus and then 2400 mg/m2 infused over 46 h) in untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre, phase I, open-label, dose-finding trial, FOLFIRI was administered every 2 weeks. Two sunitinib regimens were explored: Schedule 4/2 (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; 37.5 and 50 mg/day) and continuous daily dosing (CDD; 37.5 and 25 mg/day). Dose-limiting toxic toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during weeks 1-6. Efficacy was a secondary objective. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled. The 37.5 mg/day Schedule 4/2 cohort had zero of six DLTs, was expanded by 15 patients and declared the MTD. The MTD was exceeded at all other sunitinib doses and schedules; DLTs included febrile neutropenia (n=1), grade 4 neutropenia (n=4) and grade 3 deep vein thrombosis with grade 4 neutropenia (n=1). At the MTD, non-haematologic grade 3/4 adverse events with a frequency of >10% were diarrhoea, vomiting and lethargy, and the objective response rate was 57.9% (95% confidence interval 33.5-79.7). CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of sunitinib combined with FOLFIRI in chemotherapy-naive mCRC was 37.5 mg/day on Schedule 4/2. CDD of sunitinib at 37.5 or 25 mg/day plus FOLFIRI was not feasible.

A randomised comparative trial of infusional ECisF versus conventional FEC as adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: the TRAFIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The epirubicin with cisplatin and infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (ECisF) regimen was found to be highly active in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and as neoadjuvant therapy. The UK TRAFIC (trial of adjuvant 5-FU infusional chemotherapy) trial (CRUK/95/007) compared this schedule with 5-FU, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC60) as adjuvant therapy in patients with early breast cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase III randomised controlled trial, 349 women were randomly assigned to receive i.v. ECisF [epirubicin 60 mg/m(2), day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2), day 1 and 5-FU 200 mg/m(2) by daily 24-h infusion (n = 172)] or FEC [5-FU 600 mg/m(2), day 1, epirubicin 60 mg/m(2), day 1 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2), day 1 (n = 177)]. Both treatments were delivered every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was relapse-free interval (RFI). TRAFIC is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial (ISRCTN 83324925). RESULTS: All randomised patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 112 months, there was no significant difference in RFI between the treatment groups [hazard ratio 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.60-1.19); P = 0.33]. Toxic effects were more frequent in patients allocated to ECisF. CONCLUSIONS: While limited by size, TRAFIC has long follow-up. No evidence of a clinically worthwhile benefit for the infusional treatment compared with standard treatment was observed which would justify further investigation or widespread use.

Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinomas or other biliary tract tumours: a multicentre randomised phase II study - The UK ABC-01 Study.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the activity of gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin/gemcitabine (C/G) in patients with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (M) (advanced) biliary cancers (ABC) for whom there is no standard chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients, aged > or =18 years, with pathologically confirmed ABC, Karnofsky performance (KP) > or =60, and adequate haematological, hepatic and renal function were randomised to G 1000 mg m(-2) on D1, 8, 15 q28d (Arm A) or C 25 mg m(-2) followed by G 1000 mg m(-2) D1, 8 q21d (Arm B) for up to 6 months or disease progression. RESULTS: In total, 86 patients (A/B, n=44/42) were randomised between February 2002 and May 2004. Median age (64/62.5 years), KP, primary tumour site, earlier surgery, indwelling biliary stent and disease stage (LA: 25/38%) are comparable between treatment arms. Grade 3-4 toxicity included (A/B, % patients) anaemia (4.5/2.4), leukopenia (6.8/4.8), neutropenia (13.6/14.3), thrombocytopenia (9.1/11.9), lethargy (9.1/28.6), nausea/vomiting (0/7.1) and anorexia (2.3/4.8). Responses (WHO criteria, % of evaluable patients: A n=31 vs B n=36): no CRs; PR 22.6 vs 27.8%; SD 35.5 vs 47.1% for a tumour control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 58.0 vs 75.0%. The median TTP and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) (the primary end point) were greater in the C/G arm (4.0 vs 8.0 months and 45.5 vs 57.1% in arms A and B, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both regimens seem active in ABC. C/G is associated with an improved tumour control rate, TTP and 6-month PFS. The study has been extended (ABC-02 study) and powered to determine the effect on overall survival and the quality of life.

The impact of primary tumour origins in patients with advanced oesophageal, oesophago-gastric junction and gastric adenocarcinoma--individual patient data from 1775 patients in four randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if differential chemotherapy effects exist on overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and toxicity depending on primary tumour origin [oesophageal versus oesophago-gastric junction (OGJ) versus gastric adenocarcinoma]. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2110 patients were enrolled in four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing fluoropyrimidine +/- platinum-based chemotherapy. This analysis used individual patient data and restricted to patients with adenocarcinoma who received one or more dose of chemotherapy. Gastric origin was the control in comparisons of tumour origin. RESULTS: Of the 2110 patients randomised, 1775 (84%) patients had adenocarcinoma with oesophageal (n = 485), OGJ (n = 457) and gastric (n = 833) origins. The median OS was 9.5 months in oesophageal, 9.3 months in OGJ and 8.7 months in gastric cancer (P = 0.68). RR was 44.1% in oesophageal, 41.1% in OGJ and 35.6% in gastric cancers (P = 0.11 and 0.27, respectively, compared with gastric cancer on multivariate analysis). Toxicity composite end point occurred in 46%, 47% and 45% in oesophageal, OGJ and gastric cancers, respectively (P = 0.85 and 0.62 compared with gastric). CONCLUSIONS: In our large multicentre RCT dataset, no significant differences were demonstrated on multivariate analyses in OS, RR and toxic effects among patients with advanced oesophageal, OGJ and gastric adenocarcinoma. Future RCTs should not exclude oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Efficacy and tolerability of chemotherapy in elderly patients with advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: A pooled analysis of three clinical trials.

The aim of this study was to determine the benefits of chemotherapy for oesophago-gastric cancer (OGC) in patients 70 years and above (> or =70) in comparison to younger patients. 1080 patients were enrolled into three randomised controlled trials assessing fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy. Patients received either a platinum-containing regimen (ECF, MCF), PVI 5-FU (protracted venous infusion of 5-fluorouracil)+/-mitomycin C (MMC), or FAMTX. Of the 1080 patients randomised, 257 (23.8%) were aged > or =70 years. There were no significant differences in the incidence of grades 3/4 toxicity between the two cohorts. Objective and symptomatic response rates, failure-free and overall survival were not significantly different. In a multivariate analysis, independent prognostic factors for survival were performance status and locally advanced disease, not age. Patients > or =70 years with OGC obtained similar benefits from palliative chemotherapy with respect to symptomatic response, tumour regression and survival, without increased toxicities.

An unusual differential diagnosis of penile warts: metastases from rectal carcinoma.

Patients with penile lesions, such as virally induced papillomata, frequently present to genitourinary medicine clinics and general practitioners. Their diagnosis is usually based on clinical observation and biopsy is not generally undertaken. Penile lesions may rarely have a more sinister aetiology and represent metastatic spread from solid tumours arising at distant sites. Penile metastases arise most frequently from genitourinary cancers (prostate, bladder and kidney), but may also arise from tumours of the large bowel; other primary sites are extremely uncommon. We report the case of a patient presenting with penile metastases from rectal carcinoma arising during third-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

The combination of raltitrexed (Tomudex) and mitomycin-C in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer--a phase II study.

AIMS: To investigate the combination of raltitrexed and mitomycin-C as first-line chemotherapy treatment in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A phase II study. RESULTS: In total, 22 patients were treated with a combination of raltitrexed 3 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and mitomycin-C 7 mg/m2 every 6 weeks for up to 24 weeks. The study was closed early for safety reasons as there were three unexpected treatment-related deaths. The overall response rate was 20%, and a further 40% achieved stable disease. The median time to progression was 3.9 months and the median overall survival time was 11.6 months. CONCLUSION: Owing to the potential for increased toxicity, the combination of raltitrexed and mitomycin-C cannot be recommended as first-line treatment in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Phase I study of the oral nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor CGS 20267 in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer.

A phase I study was performed of CGS 20267, an oral nonsteroidal, highly potent, and selective aromatase inhibitor, in 21 postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer. The patients were recruited in 3 successive groups of 7, receiving 0.1, 0.5, and 2.5 mg p.o./day, respectively. All patients had received at least one prior endocrine treatment (range, 1-4), and six patients had received prior chemotherapy. The treatment was very well tolerated, and no toxicity was seen at any of the three doses. There was a statistically significant suppression of estradiol (E2) and estrone (E1) levels by 74% and 79% from baseline levels, respectively (P < 0.0001). Suppression occurred in all three patient groups, with many patients having serum concentrations of estradiol and estrone, which were below the limit of detection of the assays (3 and 10 pM, respectively), which corresponds to a maximum measurable estrogen suppression of 86%. CGS 20267 had no significant effect on serum levels of follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, thyroid-stimulating hormone, cortisol, 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone, androstenedione, and aldosterone. Seven (33%, 95% confidence interval, 15-57%) of the 21 patients have responded to treatment (one complete remission, 6 partial remissions according to criteria of the Union Internationale contre le Cancer), and 6 are still responding to CGS 20267 (duration of response; 4+, 6+, 6+, 9+, 9, 12+, and 12+ months). Five have had stable disease for more than 3 months, and 9 had progressive disease. These results suggest that CGS 20267 is a very potent and specific aromatase inhibitor, and phase II studies are now required to confirm its clinical efficacy.

Prospective randomized trial comparing mitomycin, cisplatin, and protracted venous-infusion fluorouracil (PVI 5-FU) With epirubicin, cisplatin, and PVI 5-FU in advanced esophagogastric cancer.

PURPOSE: We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous-infusion fluorouracil (PVI 5-FU) (ECF) with the combination of mitomycin, cisplatin, and PVI 5-FU (MCF) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred eighty patients with adenocarcinoma, squamous carcinoma, or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized to receive either ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks and PVI 5-FU 200 mg/m(2)/d) or MCF (mitomycin 7 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks, and PVI 5-FU 300 mg/m(2)/d) and analyzed for survival, response, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 42.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37% to 48%) with ECF and 44.1% (95% CI, 38% to 50%) with MCF (P =.692). Toxicity was tolerable, and there were only two toxic deaths. ECF resulted in more grade 3/4 neutropenia and grade 2 alopecia, but MCF caused more thrombocytopenia and plantar-palmar erythema. Median survival was 9.4 months with ECF and 8.7 months with MCF (P =.315); at 1 year, 40.2% (95% CI, 34% to 46%) of ECF and 32.7% (95% CI, 27% to 38%) of MCF patients were alive. Median failure-free survival was 7 months with both regimens. Global QOL scores were better with ECF at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: This study confirms response, survival, and QOL benefits of ECF observed in a previous randomized study. The equivalent efficacy of MCF was demonstrated, but QOL was superior with ECF. ECF remains one of the reference treatments for advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Phase III double-blind placebo-controlled study of farnesyl transferase inhibitor R115777 in patients with refractory advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether R115777 improves survival in patients with refractory advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in a multicenter, double-blind, prospective randomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned to R115777 (300 mg twice daily) orally for 21 days every 28 days or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. All patients received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression free survival, tumor response, toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: The two treatment groups were well balanced for baseline demographics, including previous chemotherapy for advanced CRC. The median overall survival for R115777 was 174 days (95% CI, 157 to 198 days), and 185 days (95% CI, 158 to 238 days) for those patients receiving placebo (P =.376). One patient achieved a partial response in the R115777 arm. Stable disease (> 3 months) was observed in 24.3% patients in the R115777 group compared to 12.8% in the placebo arm. This did not translate into a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival. Overall, treatment was well tolerated. There was an increased incidence of reversible myelosuppression (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia), rash, and grade 1 to 2 diarrhea in the R115777 arm. There was no statistically significant difference in quality of life between arms. CONCLUSION: Single agent R115777, given at this dose and schedule, has an acceptable toxicity profile, but does not improve overall survival compared to best supportive care alone in refractory advanced CRC.

Oral topotecan as single-agent second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate oral topotecan as single-agent, second-line therapy in patients with ovarian cancer previously treated with a platinum-based regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 116) received oral topotecan 2.3 mg/m2 daily for 5 days every 21 days. Eligibility criteria included histologic diagnosis of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer, bidimensionally measurable disease, prior platinum-containing chemotherapy, age > or = 18 years, performance status < or = 2, and life expectancy > or = 12 weeks. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 21.6% (25 of 116 patients). Median duration of response was 25.0 weeks; median time to response was 8.4 weeks. Median time to progression was 14.1 weeks; median survival was 62.2 weeks. Grade 4 neutropenia was experienced by 50.4% of patients in 13.4% of courses administered. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia was experienced by 22.1% of patients in 5.1% of courses. Grade 3 or 4 anemia was experienced by 29.2% of patients in 8.5% of courses. Most frequent nonhematologic toxicities were predominantly (> 90%) grade 1 or 2 and included nausea, alopecia, diarrhea, and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Second-line oral topotecan administered at 2.3 mg/m2 for 5 days every 21 days demonstrated activity in patients with progressive or recurrent ovarian cancer after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. This activity was comparable to that seen in previous studies with intravenous topotecan. Grade 4 neutropenia was less frequent with oral topotecan than previously reported for intravenous topotecan. Oral topotecan is an active, tolerable, and convenient formulation of an established agent for the second-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer and may also facilitate exploring prolonged treatment schedules.

Randomized trial comparing epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate in advanced esophagogastric cancer.

PURPOSE: We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) (ECF regimen) with the standard combination of 5-FU, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (FAMTX) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred seventy-four patients with adenocarcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized and analyzed for survival, tumor response, toxicity, and quality of life (QL). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36% to 54%) with ECF and 21% (95% CI, 13% to 29%) with FAMTX (P = .0002). Toxicity was tolerable and there were only three toxic deaths. The FAMTX regimen caused more hematologic toxicity and serious infections, but ECF caused more emesis and alopecia. The median survival duration was 8.9 months with ECF and 5.7 months with FAMTX (P = .0009); at 1 year, 36% (95% CI, 27% to 45%) of ECF and 21% (95% CI, 14% to 29%) of FAMTX patients were alive. The median failure-free survival duration was 7.4 months with ECF and 3.4 months with FAMTX (P = .00006). The global QL scores were better for ECF at 24 weeks, but the remaining QL data showed no differences between either arm of the study. Hospital-based cost analysis on a subset of patients was similar for each arm and translated into an increment cost of $975 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION: The ECF regimen results in a survival and response advantage, tolerable toxicity, better QL and cost-effectiveness compared with FAMTX chemotherapy. This regimen should now be considered the standard treatment for advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Phase I study of the oral nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor CGS 20267 in healthy postmenopausal women.

We have performed a phase I study of the effect of a single dose of CGS 20267, an oral nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor, in 12 healthy volunteer postmenopausal women. Each subject received 2 single doses of CGS 20267 (0.1, 0.5, or 2.5 mg) or placebo separated by a washout period of at least 6 weeks. There was statistically significant suppression of serum estrone and estradiol at all three doses of CGS 20267 tested. Serum estrone and estradiol concentrations were maximally suppressed by 76% and 79% from baseline levels, respectively. Urinary excretion of estrone and estradiol was also suppressed, although this did not reach statistical significance. Serum concentrations of aldosterone, cortisol, 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone, androstenedione, testosterone, FSH, LH, and TSH were unaffected by CGS 20267. The drug was well tolerated, with no significant side-effects. This study has shown CGS 20267 to be a potent and specific aromatase inhibitor, and further studies are now needed to assess its clinical efficacy.

Response to third-line endocrine treatment for advanced breast cancer.

In a retrospective analysis we have identified 55 patients who have received three endocrine treatments for advanced breast cancer. 42% of these patients have benefitted from third-line endocrine treatment in terms of disease stabilisation, symptom relief or objective response and this was translated into statistically significant (P < 0.01) improved median survival of these patients (34 months) compared with those with progressive disease on third-line treatment (14 months). This suggests that third-line endocrine treatment might be of benefit to a number of patients with advanced breast cancer.