Adjunctive Statistical Standardization of Adjuvant Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor in Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.27 Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Trial of Exemestane Versus Anastrozole.

PURPOSE: ASCO/College of American Pathologists guidelines recommend reporting estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) as positive with (1%-100%) staining. Statistically standardized quantitated positivity could indicate differential associations of positivity with breast cancer outcomes. METHODS: MA.27 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00066573) was a phase III adjuvant trial of exemestane versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Immunochemistry ER and PgR HSCORE and % positivity (%+) were centrally assessed by machine image quantitation and statistically standardized to mean 0 and standard deviation (SD) 1 after Box-Cox variance stabilization transformations of square for ER; for PgR, (1) natural logarithm (0.1 added to 0 HSCOREs and 0%+) and (2) square root. Our primary end point was MA.27 distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at a median 4.1-year follow-up, and secondary end point was event-free survival (EFS). Univariate survival with cut points at SDs about a mean of 0 (≤-1; (-1, 0]; (0, 1]; >1) was described with Kaplan-Meier plots and examined with Wilcoxon (Peto-Prentice) test statistic. Adjusted Cox multivariable regressions had two-sided Wald tests and nominal significance P < .05. RESULTS: Of 7,576 women accrued, 3,048 women's tumors had machine-quantitated image analysis results: 2,900 (95%) for ER, 2,726 (89%) for PgR, and 2,582 (85% of 3,048) with both ER and PgR. Higher statistically standardized ER and PgR HSCORE and %+ were associated with better univariate DDFS and EFS (P < .001). In multivariable assessments, ER HSCORE and %+ were not significantly associated (P = .52-.88) with DDFS in models with PgR, whereas higher PgR HSCORE and %+ were significantly associated with better DDFS (P = .001) in models with ER. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive statistical standardization differentiated quantitated levels of ER and PgR. Patients with higher ER- and PgR-standardized units had superior DDFS compared with those with HSCOREs and %+ ≤-1.

Treatment-induced symptoms, depression and age as predictors of sexual problems in premenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy.

PURPOSE: Sexual dysfunction is an important concern of premenopausal women with early breast cancer. We investigated predictors of sexual problems in two randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A subset of patients enrolled in TEXT and SOFT completed global and symptom-specific quality-of-life indicators, CES-Depression and MOS-Sexual Problems measures at baseline, six, 12 and 24 months. Mixed models tested the association of changes in treatment-induced symptoms (baseline to 6 months), depression at 6 months, and age at randomization with changes in sexual problems over 2 years. RESULTS: Sexual problems increased by 6 months and persisted at this level. Overall, patients with more severe worsening of vaginal dryness, sleep disturbances and bone or joint pain at 6 months reported a greater increase in sexual problems at all time-points. Depression scores were significantly associated with sexual problems in the short-term. All other symptoms had a smaller impact on sexual problems. Age was not associated with sexual problems at any time-point. CONCLUSION: Among several key symptoms, vaginal dryness, sleep disturbance, and bone and joint pain significantly predicted sexual problems during the first 2 years. Early identification of these symptoms may contribute to timely and tailored interventions.

Exemestane versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: NCIC CTG MA.27--a randomized controlled phase III trial.

PURPOSE: In patients with hormone-dependent postmenopausal breast cancer, standard adjuvant therapy involves 5 years of the nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors anastrozole and letrozole. The steroidal inhibitor exemestane is partially non-cross-resistant with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors and is a mild androgen and could prove superior to anastrozole regarding efficacy and toxicity, specifically with less bone loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We designed an open-label, randomized, phase III trial of 5 years of exemestane versus anastrozole with a two-sided test of superiority to detect a 2.4% improvement with exemestane in 5-year event-free survival (EFS). Secondary objectives included assessment of overall survival, distant disease-free survival, incidence of contralateral new primary breast cancer, and safety. RESULTS: In the study, 7,576 women (median age, 64.1 years) were enrolled. At median follow-up of 4.1 years, 4-year EFS was 91% for exemestane and 91.2% for anastrozole (stratified hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P = .85). Overall, distant disease-free survival and disease-specific survival were also similar. In all, 31.6% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of adverse effects, concomitant disease, or study refusal. Osteoporosis/osteopenia, hypertriglyceridemia, vaginal bleeding, and hypercholesterolemia were less frequent on exemestane, whereas mild liver function abnormalities and rare episodes of atrial fibrillation were less frequent on anastrozole. Vasomotor and musculoskeletal symptoms were similar between arms. CONCLUSION: This first comparison of steroidal and nonsteroidal classes of aromatase inhibitors showed neither to be superior in terms of breast cancer outcomes as 5-year initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal breast cancer by two-way test. Less toxicity on bone is compatible with one hypothesis behind MA.27 but requires confirmation. Exemestane should be considered another option as up-front adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Phase II study of induction cisplatin and irinotecan followed by concurrent carboplatin, etoposide, and thoracic radiotherapy for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, CALGB 30206.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine the efficacy of using both irinotecan- and etoposide-containing regimens sequentially for patients with untreated limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients with untreated, measurable, limited-stage small-cell lung cancer with performance status 0 to 2, and adequate organ function were eligible. Treatment consisted of induction with cisplatin 30 mg/m and irinotecan 65 mg/m intravenously on day 1 and 8, every 21 days for two cycles. Beginning day 43, daily chest irradiation to 70 Gy was administered concurrently with carboplatin area under curve 5 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m on days 1 to 3, every 21 days for three cycles. The primary objective was to differentiate between 45% and 60% 2-year survival. RESULTS: Two induction cycles were delivered to 72 of 75 eligible patients (96%) and all planned treatment was delivered to 59 patients (79%). Cisplatin and irinotecan induction chemotherapy resulted in complete responses in 7% and partial responses in 64% (response rate 71%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 59%-81%). The best response to all therapy included 88% complete or partial responses (95% CI, 78%-94%). With median follow-up of 57 months, the median progression-free survival and overall survival are 12.6 (95% CI, 9.4-14.7) and 18.1 months (15.8-22.9), respectively. The 1- and 2-year survival was 69% and 31%, respectively. Frequent (>20%) grade 3 and 4 toxicities were neutropenia in 84%, hemoglobin in 36%, platelets in 51%, esophagitis in 22%, and dehydration in 24%. There were no fatal toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: This treatment regimen of irinotecan-cisplatin induction chemotherapy followed by 70 Gy concurrent radiation and etoposide-carboplatin had tolerable toxicity but did not meet the preplanned 2-year survival target for further development.

A randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and carboplatin with or without cediranib as first-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0528.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of gemcitabine and carboplatin with (arm A) or without (arm B) daily oral cediranib as first-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: A lead-in phase to determine the tolerability of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1 and 8, and carboplatin on day 1 at area under curve 5 administered every 21 days with cediranib 45 mg once daily was followed by a 2 (A):1 (B) randomized phase II study. The primary end point was confirmed overall response rate (ORR) with 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6) rate in arm A as secondary end point. Polymorphisms in genes encoding cediranib targets and transport were correlated with treatment outcome. RESULTS: On the basis of the safety assessment, cediranib 30 mg daily was used in the phase II portion. A total of 58 and 29 evaluable patients were accrued to arms A and B. Patients in A experienced more grade 3+ nonhematologic adverse events, 71% versus 45% (p = 0.01). The ORR was 19% (A) versus 20% (B) (p = 1.0). PFS6 in A was 48% (95% confidence interval: 35%-62%), thus meeting the protocol-specified threshold of at least 40%. The median overall survival was 12.0 versus 9.9 months (p = 0.10). FGFR1 rs7012413, FGFR2 rs2912791, and VEGFR3 rs11748431 polymorphisms were significantly associated with decreased overall survival (hazard ratio 2.78-5.01, p = 0.0002-0.0095). CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not meet its primary end point of ORR but met its secondary end point of PFS6. The combination with cediranib 30 mg daily resulted in increased toxicity. Pharmacogenetic analysis revealed an association of FGFR and VEGFR variants with survival.

Long-term outcome of a phase II study of docetaxel-based multimodality chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction.

We performed a phase II trial to evaluate a docetaxel-based regimen in locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer. Untreated stage II-IVa esophageal cancer patients with performance status 0-2 were included. Tumor resectability was determined prior to initiation of study. Induction docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) day 1 with prophylactic filgrastim was delivered every 21 days for 3 cycles. Subsequent concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) utilized weekly docetaxel (20 mg/m(2)) and concurrent radiotherapy (2 Gy/day) in resectable/resected patients (50 Gy) and in unresectable patients (66 Gy). A total of 78 patients (15 squamous cell carcinoma, 60 adenocarcinoma, 3 mixed/undifferentiated; 68 men, 10 women; median age 61 years) were accrued. The regimen was administered to 59 (76%) potentially resectable patients and 13 (17%) unresectable patients; 6 patients (8%) received the regimen post-operatively. Response rate in 66 evaluable patients following induction chemotherapy was 30%. Sixty-nine patients underwent CRT. Ten patients had disease progression during CRT. Forty-five out of 59 potentially resectable patients underwent esophagectomy after CRT, and 42 patients had complete tumor resection with negative margins. Eighteen out of 59 patients who were potentially resectable patients had pathologic complete response (pCR-31%). Grade 3/4 toxicity during induction chemotherapy included leucopenia, neutropenia, vomiting, and neuropathy. Esophagitis was the predominant toxicity during CRT. Median overall survival was 11.4 months for unresectable patients, 14.3 months for resectable patients and 10.4 months for patients who received the regimen post-operatively (log-rank P = 0.2492). Docetaxel-based CRT regimen is active and tolerable in esophageal cancer. The observed pCR in the potentially resectable group indicates good local control.

A retrospective analysis of outcomes by age in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sufficient data are currently unavailable to assist in defining suitable regimens for patients ≥ 70 years with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1; the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) on day 1; or paclitaxel 225mg/m(2) on day 1 plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were every 21 days up to 6. Efficacy and toxicity results were compared by age groups. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) between patients <70 years (8.6 months, 95% CI: 7.9, 9.5) and ≥ 70 years (7.9 months, 95% CI: 7.1, 9.5) was similar. OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.5, 10.3) among patients 70-74 years, 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.6, 9.3) among patients 75-79 years, and 7.9 months (95% CI: 6.3, 10.3) among patients ≥ 80 years. OS was lower among patients 75-79 years compared with patients 70-74 years (P=0.04). Compared with patients <70 years, patients ≥ 70 years experienced similar rates of myelosuppresion, but younger patients experienced more vomiting and nausea. There was no clear pattern with respect to differences in efficacy by treatments across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the similarity of patient outcomes across age groups, doublet chemotherapy is feasible among carefully selected elderly patients with good PS.

Pemetrexed with or without matuzumab as second-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This randomized phase II study investigated pemetrexed in combination with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting monoclonal antibody matuzumab compared with pemetrexed alone as second-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m every 3 weeks either alone (n = 50) or in combination with matuzumab at either 800 mg weekly (n = 51) or 1600 mg every 3 weeks (n = 47). The primary end point was objective response, as assessed by an independent review committee. RESULTS: Tumor EGFR expression was detected in 87% of randomized patients. The objective response rate for the pooled matuzumab-treated arms was 11% compared with 5% for pemetrexed alone (p = 0.332). Apart from one patient in the pemetrexed alone group, all responses occurred in patients whose tumors expressed EGFR. The objective response rate for patients receiving weekly matuzumab was 16% compared with 2% for those receiving matuzumab every 3 weeks. There was also a trend for improved overall survival in patients receiving matuzumab weekly versus every 3 weeks (12.4 months versus 5.9 months, respectively, versus 7.9 months for pemetrexed alone). The combination of pemetrexed and matuzumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, with the most common grade 3/4 adverse event being neutropenia. CONCLUSION: Although the analysis on the pooled matuzumab-treated arms did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in objective response for the addition of matuzumab to pemetrexed compared with pemetrexed alone, the trends for improvement in objective response and overall survival for pemetrexed plus weekly matuzumab compared with pemetrexed alone warrant confirmation in additional clinical trials.

A Comparison of white and African American outcomes from a three-arm, randomized, phase III multicenter trial of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of race on the efficacy and safety of standard chemotherapy doublet regimens in African American patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis of a phase III randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer were randomized to arm A: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5.5 on day 1; arm B: the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on day 1; or arm C: paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 on day 1 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to 6. A site selection tool identified institutions with potential to recruit a minority population. Outcome and toxicity data of white and African American patients were compared. RESULTS: Of 1135 total patients, 972 were white (85.6%) and 138 were African American (12.2%). Median survival was 8.3 months for white patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7-9.3) and 9.1 months for African American patients (95% CI: 8.2-11.1). Response rates were 29.1 and 29.0%, respectively. Rates of grade 3 or 4 toxicities were comparable. Among African Americans, median survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 5.1-10.1) for gemcitabine-carboplatin (n = 47), 10.5 months (95% CI: 7.1-15.4) for gemcitabine-paclitaxel (n = 42), and 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.5-13.2) for paclitaxel-carboplatin (n = 49). CONCLUSION: Whites and African Americans had similar outcomes, although there was some variability in survival among African Americans across the three treatment groups.

Phase II study of sorafenib in combination with docetaxel and cisplatin in the treatment of metastatic or advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: ECOG 5203.

PURPOSE: The combination of sorafenib with chemotherapy is well-tolerated and is associated with encouraging response rates in several malignances. Both docetaxel and cisplatin are active in gastric cancer. A phase II study was conducted to determine the efficacy and toxicity of combined sorafenib, docetaxel, and cisplatin in patients with metastatic or advanced adenocarcinoma of stomach or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four chemotherapy-naïve patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, of whom 80% had metastatic disease and two thirds had poorly differentiated gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma, were enrolled. The treatment regimen was sorafenib 400 mg orally twice a day for 21 days, docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, repeated every 21 days. The primary end point was response rate to the combination. Toxicity, overall survival, and progression-free survival were assessed as secondary end points. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 44 eligible and treated patients showed partial responses (41%; 90% CI, 28% to 54%). The median progression-free survival was 5.8 months (90% CI, 5.4 to 7.4 months). The median overall survival was 13.6 months (90% CI, 8.6 to 16.1 month). The major toxicity of this regimen was neutropenia, which reached grade 3 to 4 in 64% of patients. One patient experienced hemorrhage at the tumor site. CONCLUSION: The combination of sorafenib, docetaxel, and cisplatin has an encouraging efficacy profile with tolerable toxicity. Additional studies of sorafenib with chemotherapy are warranted in gastric cancer.

Outcomes associated with brain metastases in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine-containing regimens versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BMs) are a common complication of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because of historical data indicating a poor prognosis for patients with BM, few randomized phase III studies of advanced NSCLC have included patients with BM at presentation. Because the potential benefits of systemic therapy in patients with BM are uncertain, we analyzed data from a recent phase III study. METHODS: One thousand one hundred thirty-five chemonaïve patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine/carboplatin, gemcitabine/paclitaxel, or paclitaxel/carboplatin. Stratification was based on presence or absence of BM, stage, and baseline weight loss. Patients with BM were required to be clinically stable after treatment with radiotherapy or surgery before entry. Results were retrospectively analyzed by presence or absence of BM at study entry. RESULTS: Rate of BM was 17.1% overall. The response rate was 28.9% for patients with BM (n = 194) versus 29.1% without BM (n = 941). Time to progression was 4.3 months with BM and 4.6 months without BM (p = 0.03). Median survival was 7.7 months (95% confidence interval: 6.7-9.3) among patients with BM (n = 194) and 8.6 months (95% confidence interval: 7.9-9.5) for patients without BM (n = 941), p = 0.09. Rates of hematologic adverse events were not different among patients with and without BM. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in response, survival, or hematologic toxicity for patients with or without BM; however, patients with BM had a small but significantly shorter time to progression. Nonprogressing patients with treated BM are appropriate candidates for systemic therapy and entry into clinical trials.

The epothilone B analogue ixabepilone in patients with advanced hepatobiliary cancers: a trial of the University of Chicago Phase II Consortium.

PURPOSE: Hepatobiliary cancers respond poorly to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We evaluated the activity and safety of ixabepilone, an epothilone B analogue which stabilizes microtubules, in a phase II trial in patients with advanced cancers of the gallbladder, bile duct, and liver. METHODS: Eligible patients had previously-untreated, histologically-proven unresectable hepatobiliary cancer. Ixabepilone, 40 mg/m(2), was administered intravenously over 3 h every 21 days. RESULTS: Between January 2002 and April 2005, 54 patients (19 hepatocelluar carcinoma, 13 cholangiocarcinomas, 22 gallbladder carcinomas) were enrolled; 47 patients were evaluable for efficacy. The objective response rate was 8.5%; 51% had stable disease. Median overall survival was 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 10.8 months) and median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.1 months). Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (39%), fatigue (9%), allergic/hypersensitivity reaction (4%) and sensory neuropathy (4%). CONCLUSION: Single agent ixabepilone has limited activity in advanced hepatobiliary cancers.

Impact of preoperative chemotherapy on pulmonary function tests in resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several chemotherapy agents, including gemcitabine and paclitaxel, have been reported to cause interstitial pneumonitis. The incidence of pulmonary toxicity from the combination of gemcitabine and paclitaxel is reported to be approximately 5%. In this report, pulmonary function test (PFT) results were analyzed from two similar randomized phase 2 trials that tested platinum and nonplatinum regimens preoperatively in patients with stage I or II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The regimens included gemcitabine plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, or cisplatin. PFT and dyspnea scores were obtained at baseline and postchemotherapy, and were compared to one of several secondary end points, including ability to undergo surgical resection. RESULTS: Baseline PFT scores varied with smoking status. Mean levels of diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco) adjusted for hemoglobin declined 8% from pre- to postinduction (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.0001). Changes in FVC, FEV(1), and total lung capacity were not statistically significant after chemotherapy. Although 27% of patients in the study had some reduction in PFT results, only 2 of the 85 eligible patients did not undergo surgery due to PFT reduction following chemotherapy. One patient in the study experienced a clinically significant respiratory toxicity (grade 3 dyspnea). Pulmonary toxicity was only statistically associated with male gender. CONCLUSION: In the preoperative setting, gemcitabine-based chemotherapy was well tolerated. The most commonly affected PFT parameter postchemotherapy was the Dlco. Although 15% of patients had a significant reduction in the Dlco postchemotherapy, it did not correlate with clinical symptoms or affect the ability to undergo surgical resection.

Final report of toxicity and efficacy of a phase II study of oral cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and prednisone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A Hoosier Oncology Group Trial, HEM01-21.

Thalidomide has direct antimyeloma and immunomodulatory effects. In addition, both thalidomide and metronomic chemotherapy inhibit angiogenesis. The synergy of such a combination may decrease toxicity while maintaining efficacy. The Hoosier Oncology Group conducted a phase II trial of oral cyclophosphamide (50 mg b.i.d. for 21 days), thalidomide (200 mg/day), and prednisone (50 mg q.o.d.) (CTP) per 28-day course in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). Of the 37 patients enrolled, 16 had prior stem cell transplantation. The median follow-up time was 25.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.2-27.7). Of 35 patients treated, 22 patients (62.9%) responded: 7 (20.0%) complete responses, 2 (5.7%) near-complete responses, and 13 (37.1%) partial responses. Eight patients (22.9%) had stable disease, and three (8.6%) had disease progression. Two patients withdrew from the study early due to reasons unrelated to progression or toxicity and were treated as nonresponders. The median time to best response and time to progression were 3.6 months (95% CI 2.8-10.9) and 13.2 months (95% CI 9.4-21.0), respectively. The median number of treatment cycles was seven (range 1-12 cycles). Grade III to IV toxicities included leukopenia (42.9%; febrile neutropenia, 11.4%), hyperglycemia (20%), sensory neuropathy (11.4%), thromboses (8%), and motor neuropathy (5.7%). No patient withdrew from the study due to toxicity. The efficacy and low toxicity of the CTP regimen support the future development of such an approach in MM.

Randomized phase III intergroup trial of etoposide and cisplatin with or without paclitaxel and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9732.

PURPOSE: To determine, in a randomized comparison, whether the addition of paclitaxel to etoposide and cisplatin improves the time to progression and overall survival in patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) compared with standard etoposide and cisplatin and to compare the regimens' toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (N=587) with untreated extensive SCLC were randomly assigned to receive either cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 and etoposide 80 mg/m2 on days 1 through 3 administered every 3 weeks for six cycles (EP) or cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 4 hours on day 1, and etoposide 80 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3 followed by recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on days 4 to 18 administered every 3 weeks for six cycles (PET). RESULTS: Reporting of demographics, response, and survival included 565 patients, of whom 282 were randomly assigned to receive EP and 283 were assigned to receive PET. Overall response rates were 68% for the EP arm and 75% for the PET arm. Median failure-free survival time was 5.9 months for the EP arm and 6 months for the PET arm (P = .179). Median overall survival time was 9.9 months for patients on EP and 10.6 months for patients on PET (P = .169). Toxic deaths occurred in 2.4% of the patients on EP and 6.5% of patients on PET. CONCLUSION: PET did not improve the time to progression or survival in patients with extensive SCLC compared with EP alone and was associated with unacceptable toxicity.

Phase II trial of PS-341 in patients with renal cell cancer: a University of Chicago phase II consortium study.

PURPOSE: Determine response rate, time to disease progression, and toxicity of the proteasome inhibitor PS-341 in patients with stage IV renal cell cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PS-341 1.5 mg/m(2) was administered intravenously twice weekly for 2 weeks every 21 days. Dose escalation to 1.7 mg/m(2) ensued in the absence of grade 3 to 4 toxicities. Re-evaluation took place after three cycles. To assess proteasome inhibition, patients were randomly assigned to tumor core biopsy either before the first dose or after the third cycle of PS-341. Additionally, whole blood was collected at the same time intervals. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled; 21 were assessable for response. Two patients were never treated (one patient refused treatment and one had insufficient tumor for biopsy). Eighteen patients completed at least three cycles of therapy; three patients experienced disease progression after two cycles. Grade 4 toxicities were arthralgia, diarrhea, and vomiting. Grade 3 toxicities included thrombocytopenia with one hemorrhage, anemia, febrile neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicity, pain, fatigue, neuropathy (one sensory, one mixed sensorimotor), and electrolyte disturbances. Grade 1 to 2 neuropathy occurred in seven patients. One case of thrombosis and one case of pleural effusion occurred. Only one objective response was seen. Proteasome activity was measured by specific chymotryptic activity (SpA) and chymotryptic/tryptic activity (ChT:T). After PS-341, there was a decrease in mean whole blood SpA and ChT:T (P =.07 and.11, respectively). CONCLUSION: Evidence is lacking for clinically significant activity of PS-341 in metastatic renal cell cancer. Insufficient biopsy and whole blood sample numbers preclude conclusions regarding proteasome inhibition within tumor. Further evaluation in this disease setting is not recommended.

Randomized, open-label, phase III study of a 28-day oral regimen of eniluracil plus fluorouracil versus intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic/advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of eniluracil (EU)/fluorouracil (5-FU) with that of 5-FU/leucovorin (LV) as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic/advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study (FUMA3008) conducted in the United States and Canada compared the safety and efficacy of EU/5-FU (11.5 mg/m(2)/1.15 mg/m(2) twice daily for 28 days every 35 days) with that of intravenous 5-FU/LV (425 mg/m(2)/20 mg/m(2) once daily for 5 days every 28 days) in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end point. RESULTS: A total of 981 patients were randomized and 964 patients received treatment (485 EU/5FU, 479 5FU/LV). Survival for EU/5-FU was not statistically equivalent (but not statistically inferior) to that for 5-FU/LV (hazard ratio, 0.880; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.03). Median duration of survival was 13.3 months in the EU/5-FU group and 14.5 months in the 5-FU/LV group. Median duration of progression-free survival for EU/5-FU was statistically inferior to that of the control group (20.0 weeks [95% CI, 19.1 to 20.9 weeks] v 22.7 weeks [95% CI, 18.3 to 24.6 weeks]; P =.01). Both treatments were well tolerated. Diarrhea was the most common nonhematologic toxicity in both groups; treatment-related grade 3 or 4 diarrhea occurred in 19% of patients treated with EU/5-FU and 16% of patients receiving 5-FU/LV (P =.354). Grade 3 or 4 granulocytopenia occurred in 5% of EU/5-FU patients and 47% of 5-FU/LV patients. CONCLUSION: Safety profiles of both treatments were acceptable. Although antitumor activity was observed, EU/5-FU did not meet the protocol-specified statistical criteria for equivalence to 5-FU/LV in terms of OS.