Treatment of Low-grade Intermediate-risk Nonmuscle-invasive Bladder Cancer With UGN-102 ± Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor Compared to Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor Monotherapy: A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 3 Trial (ATLAS).

PURPOSE: Low-grade intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer is a chronic illness commonly treated by repetitive transurethral resection of bladder tumor. We compared the efficacy and safety of intravesical chemoablation with UGN-102 (a reverse thermal gel containing mitomycin), with or without subsequent transurethral resection of bladder tumor, to transurethral resection of bladder tumor alone in patients with low-grade intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, phase 3 trial recruited patients with new or recurrent low-grade intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer to receive initial treatment with either UGN-102 once weekly for 6 weeks or transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Patients were followed quarterly by endoscopy, cytology, and for-cause biopsy. The primary end point was disease-free survival. All patients were followed for adverse events. RESULTS: Trial enrollment was halted by the sponsor to pursue an alternative development strategy after 282 of a planned 632 patients were randomized to UGN-102 ± subsequent transurethral resection of bladder tumor (n=142) or transurethral resection of bladder tumor monotherapy (n=140), rendering the trial underpowered to perform hypothesis testing. Patients were predominantly male and ≥65 years of age. Tumor-free complete response 3 months after initial treatment was achieved by 92 patients (65%) who received UGN-102 and 89 patients (64%) treated by transurethral resection of bladder tumor. The estimated probability of disease-free survival 15 months after randomization was 72% for UGN-102 ± transurethral resection of bladder tumor and 50% for transurethral resection of bladder tumor (hazard ratio 0.45). The most common adverse events (incidence ≥10%) in the UGN-102 group were dysuria, micturition urgency, nocturia, and pollakiuria. CONCLUSIONS: Primary, nonsurgical chemoablation with UGN-102 for the management of low-grade intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer offers a potential therapeutic alternative to immediate transurethral resection of bladder tumor monotherapy and warrants further investigation.

Randomized multicenter phase II trial of bolus plus infusional fluorouracil/leucovorin compared with fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin as third-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: The addition of oxaliplatin to fluorouracil (FU) and leucovorin (LV) improves the outcome of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). This multicenter study evaluated FU/LV with or without oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic CRC after disease progression on sequential fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred fourteen patients were randomly assigned to receive LV 200 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) and FU 400 mg/m2 IV bolus, followed by FU 600 mg/m2 IV over 22 hours on days 1 and 2, every 2 weeks (LV5FU2); or LV and FU as described, plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 IV over 2 hours on day 1 of the schedule (FOLFOX4). The primary end point was overall response. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the two treatment arms. Objective response (complete + partial) rates for LV5FU2 versus FOLFOX4 were 2% v 13% (P = .0027), respectively. Median time to disease progression was 2.4 v 4.8 months (P < .0001), and median survival was 11.4 v 9.9 months (P = .20) for LV5FU2 and FOLFOX4, respectively. Among the 72 patients who crossed over from LV5FU2 to FOLFOX4, 6% responded. Symptomatic improvement was significantly better for patients in the FOLFOX4 arm (32% v 18% for LV5FU2, P = .05). Grade 3/4 toxicities for LV5FU2 and FOLFOX4 were neutropenia (13% and 42%, respectively), diarrhea (6% and 16%, respectively), and overall neuropathy (0% and 6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with metastatic CRC, the FOLFOX4 regimen was superior to LV5FU2 with a higher response rate and time to disease progression. FOLFOX4 is an effective regimen even after disease progression on two previous chemotherapy regimens with fluoropyrimidines and irinotecan.

Superiority of oxaliplatin and fluorouracil-leucovorin compared with either therapy alone in patients with progressive colorectal cancer after irinotecan and fluorouracil-leucovorin: interim results of a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: In North America, no effective therapy has been available for patients with progressive metastatic colorectal cancer after front-line treatment with irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil (FU), and leucovorin (IFL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed after IFL therapy were randomly assigned to bolus and infusional FU and leucovorin (LV5FU2), single-agent oxaliplatin, or the combination (FOLFOX4). This planned interim analysis evaluated objective response rate (RR), time to tumor progression (TTP), and alleviation of tumor-related symptoms (TRS) in an initial cohort of patients. RESULTS: Between November 2000 and September 2001, 463 patients from 120 sites in North America were randomly assigned to treatment. FOLFOX4 proved superior to LV5FU2 in all measures of clinical efficacy. Objective RRs determined by an independent radiology panel were 9.9% for FOLFOX4 versus 0% for LV5FU2 (Fisher's exact test, P <.0001). Median TTP was 4.6 months for FOLFOX4 versus 2.7 months for LV5FU2 (two-sided, stratified log-rank test, P <.0001). Relief of TRS occurred in 33% of patients treated with FOLFOX4 versus 12% of patients treated with LVFU2 (chi2 test, P <.001). Single-agent oxaliplatin was not superior to LV5FU2 in any measure of efficacy. Patients treated with FOLFOX4 experienced a higher incidence of clinically significant toxicities than patients treated with LV5FU2, but these toxicities were predictable and did not result in a higher rate of treatment discontinuation or 60-day mortality rate. CONCLUSION: For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, second-line treatment with FOLFOX4 is superior to treatment with LVFU2 in terms of RR, TTP, and relief of TRS.