Intermittent versus continuous cyproterone acetate in bone metastatic prostate cancer: results of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: To compare intermittent treatment (IT) versus continuous treatment (CT) using cyproterone acetate (CPA) in bone metastatic prostate cancer patients, we conducted an open-label, multicenter randomized trial. Continuous androgen deprivation therapy is the standard treatment in metastatic prostate cancer. Intermittent treatment might maintain efficacy while toxicity and costs are reduced. METHODS: Patients received CPA 100 mg tid in the prephase. Patients with a PSA decline of ≥ 90 % or PSA <4 ng/ml were randomized. If patients were progressive, LHRH analogues were added. Primary end point was time to PSA progression. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients were recruited; 258 reached a good response after 3 or 6 months and were randomized. A total of 131 patients randomized to IT and 127 to CT. Patients on IT had an average of 1.7 episodes on CPA, before LHRH analogues were started. The mean time without treatment in IT was 463 days versus 422 days on treatment. There were statistical significant differences between IT and CT in 3 of the 5 functional scales of EORTC QLQ C 30; however, the clinical relevance of this finding appears modest. Symptom and potency scales showed significant advantages for IT. There were no differences in time to PSA progression on CPA, time to PSA and/or clinical progression on LHRH analogues and time to cancer-specific and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: IT by CPA is associated with less symptoms and modest advantages in QOL domains. There were no differences in time to PSA progression, clinical progression or survival.

Randomized phase II/III trial of interferon Alfa-2a with and without 13-cis-retinoic acid in patients with progressive metastatic renal cell Carcinoma: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genito-Urinary Tract Cancer Group (EORTC 30951).

PURPOSE: A randomized phase II/III trial was conducted to determine whether combination treatment with 13-cis-retinoic acid (13-CRA) plus interferon alfa-2a (IFN-alpha-2a) was superior to IFN-alpha-2a alone in patients with progressive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to treatment with IFN-alpha-2a plus 13-CRA or to IFN-alpha-2a alone. IFN-alpha-2a was given daily subcutaneously, starting at a dose of 3 million units (MU). The dose was escalated every 7 days from 3 to 9 MU by increments of 3 MU. Patients randomly assigned to combination therapy received oral 13-CRA 1 mg/kg/d plus IFN-alpha-2a. RESULTS: Median time to progression was 5.1 months for patients treated with the combination and 3.4 months for patients on IFN-alpha-2a alone (P = .008). Progression-free survival rates at 6 months were 43% for patients receiving combined therapy and 30% for patients on IFN-alpha-2a, and at 12 months, 27% and 17%, respectively. Median overall survival was 17.3 months for patients on IFN-alpha-2a and 13-CRA, and 13.2 months for patients treated with IFN-alpha-2a (P = .048). Twenty-two percent of the patients receiving the combination stopped treatment due to toxicity, as compared with 16% on IFN-alpha-2a. CONCLUSION: Progression-free and overall survival for patients with progressive metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with IFN-alpha-2a plus 13-CRA were significantly longer compared with patients on IFN-alpha-2a alone (P = .007 and P = .048, respectively). Improvement in efficacy in the combination arm was accompanied by increased, though not serious, toxicity.

Interferon-alpha-2a with or without 13-cis retinoic acid in patients with progressive, measurable metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC), interferon-alpha (IFN) monotherapy leads to response rates of 5-15%, dependent on the selection of patients. In 1995, preclinical and clinical data indicated an improvement of these results if IFN was combined with 13-cis retinoic acid (CRA). METHODS: In a randomized Phase II study, patients with measurable MRCC received either subcutaneous IFN (9 MU daily; Arm A) or the same daily subcutaneous dose of IFN plus oral CRA (1 mg/kg; Arm B). A central expert panel reviewed the X-ray documentation of objective responses. RESULTS: In the 50 eligible patients from Arm A, the objective, expert-reviewed response rate was 6% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.3-16.6%; 2 complete responses [CRs] and 1 partial response [PR]). A 19% response rate (95% CI, 9.4-32.0%) was stated for 53 eligible patients from Arm B (2 CRs and 8 PRs). Only one of the four CRs claimed by the clinical investigator was confirmed by the central review committee. Conversely, the expert committee deemed that 3 of 12 investigator-stated PRs were CRs. Constitutional toxicity (flu-like symptoms) and/or side effects from skin, mucosa, or eyes led to discontinuation of treatment in 22% of nonprogressing patients, more often in Arm B than in Arm A. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this randomized Phase II study support expansion of the trial into a Phase III study to evaluate the effect of IFN-CRA combination therapy on the survival of patients who undergo nephrectomy prior to IFN-based immunotherapy. The considerable interobserver variability of response evaluation (individual investigator vs. expert panel) indicates the necessity of a central review of claimed responses in future Phase II studies involving patients with MRCC.