Randomized trial on adjuvant treatment with FOLFIRI followed by docetaxel and cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid for radically resected gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Some trial have demonstrated a benefit of adjuvant fluoropirimidine with or without platinum compounds compared with surgery alone. ITACA-S study was designed to evaluate whether a sequential treatment of FOLFIRI [irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/LV)] followed by docetaxel plus cisplatin improves disease-free survival in comparison with 5-FU/LV in patients with radically resected gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction were randomly assigned to either FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) day 1, LV 100 mg/m(2) as 2 h infusion and 5-FU 400 mg/m(2) as bolus, days 1 and 2 followed by 600 mg/m(2)/day as 22 h continuous infusion, q14 for four cycles) followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 1, q21 for three cycles (sequential arm) or De Gramont regimen (5-FU/LV arm). RESULTS: From February 2005 to August 2009, 1106 patients were enrolled, and 1100 included in the analysis: 562 in the sequential arm and 538 in the 5-FU/LV arm. With a median follow-up of 57.4 months, 581 patients recurred or died (297 sequential arm and 284 5-FU/LV arm), and 483 died (243 and 240, respectively). No statistically significant difference was detected for both disease-free [hazard ratio (HR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.17; P = 0.974] and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.82-1.18; P = 0.865). Five-year disease-free and OS rates were 44.6% and 44.6%, 51.0% and 50.6% in the sequential and 5-FU/LV arm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A more intensive regimen failed to show any benefit in disease-free and OS versus monotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01640782.

Preoperative weekly cisplatin, epirubicin, and paclitaxel (PET) improves prognosis in locally advanced breast cancer patients: an update of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) randomised trial 9908.

BACKGROUND: The present article reports the updated survival outcome of the 200 patients enrolled in the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group 9908 trial, which compared 12 weekly cycles of cisplatin-epirubicin-paclitaxel (PET) with 4 triweekly (once every 3 weeks) cycles of epirubicin-paclitaxel (ET) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). METHODS: The effects of treatment, pathologically documented response (pathological response), pre- and post-treatment biomarkers on relapse-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) are analysed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 74 (range 48-105 months) months, the 5-year RFS, DMFS, and OS were 64 % versus 53% (P = 0.11), 73% versus 55% (P = 0.04), and 82% versus 69% (P = 0.07) in PET and ET, respectively. At multivariate analysis, after adjusting treatment effect for pretreatment biomarkers, PET independently predicted better DMFS (P = 0.018) and OS (P = 0.03), whereas the impact on RFS was of borderline significance (0.057). PET treatment was significantly better than ET treatment only in high-grade or highly proliferating tumours. The better outcome in PET arm was the results of both the higher rate of patients with optimal pathological response and the lower rate of patients with biologically aggressive residual tumour. CONCLUSIONS: The PET weekly regimen significantly improves both DMFS and OS in LABC patients, compared with the triweekly ET combination. The therapeutic advantage is limited to patients with highly aggressive tumours.

Preoperative weekly cisplatin-epirubicin-paclitaxel with G-CSF support in triple-negative large operable breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Findings from our previously published phase II study showed a high pathologic complete remission (pCR) rate in patients with triple-negative large operable breast cancer after the administration of eight cisplatin-epirubicin-paclitaxel (PET) weekly cycles. The safety and efficacy data of the initial population were updated, with inclusion of additional experience with the same therapy. METHODS: Patients with triple-negative large operable breast cancer (T2-T3 N0-1; T > 3 cm) received eight preoperative weekly cycles of cisplatin 30 mg/m2, epirubicin 50 mg/m2, paclitaxel (Taxol) 120 mg/m2, with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (5 microg/kg days 3-5) support. RESULTS: Overall 74 consecutive patients (T2/T3 = 35/39; N0/N+ = 26/48) were treated, from May 1999 to May 2008. At pathological assessment, 46 women (62%; 95% confidence interval 50-73) showed pCR in both breast and axilla. At a 41-month median follow-up (range 3-119), 13 events (nine distant metastases) had occurred, 5-year projected disease-free survival (DFS) and distant disease-free survival being 76% and 84%, respectively. Five-year DFS was 90% and 56% in pCRs and non-pCRs, respectively. Severe neutropenia and anemia occurred in 23 (31%) and eight (10.8%) patients, respectively. Severe non-hematological toxicity was recorded in <20% of patients. Peripheral neuropathy was quite frequent but never severe. CONCLUSIONS: Eight weekly PET cycles are a highly effective primary treatment in women with triple-negative large operable breast cancer. This approach results in a very promising long-term DFS in this poor prognosis population. This triplet regimen is worthy of evaluation in phase III trials.

Weekly paclitaxel and cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase I study.

PURPOSE: Both cisplatin (CDDP) and paclitaxel have shown good antitumor activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and are able to potentiate the antitumor effects of radiation therapy (RT). This study aimed to determine the maximum-tolerated doses (MTDs) of CDDP and paclitaxel (escalated alternately) when given concurrently with RT and to define the nature of the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced NSCLC received six weekly administrations of a CDDP-paclitaxel combination with concurrent local RT. The starting doses of CDDP and paclitaxel were 30 mg/m2/wk and 35 mg/m2/wk, respectively. RT was initially given at the dose of 1.2 Gy twice daily for 5 days per week for 5 weeks (total dose, 60 Gy) and at a single daily dose of 2 Gy for 5 days per week for 6 weeks in the last two cohorts of patients. The drug doses were escalated alternately until DLT occurred in more than one third of the patients in a given cohort. RESULTS: Overall, 25 patients were recruited through five different cohorts. All were assessable for toxicity. Esophagitis was the main toxicity and occurred in 16 of 25 patients (64%) and was grade 3 or 4 in five of them. At step 3 (CDDP 35 mg/m2/wk and paclitaxel 45 mg/m2/wk), two of five patients had to discontinue treatment because of severe esophagitis and one of these died of complications related to grade 4 esophagitis. However, keeping the same doses of chemotherapy and replacing hyperfractionation with a standard single-day fraction, weekly doses of CDDP and paclitaxel of 35 mg/m2 and 45 mg/m2 could be safely administered. Neutropenia was by far the most relevant hematologic toxicity and occurred in 33 of 141 weekly delivered courses, but it was of grade 4 in only four courses. Substantial pulmonary or neurologic toxicity was not observed in this study. Two complete responses (CRs) and 13 partial responses (PRs) were observed, for a 60% overall response rate (95% confidence interval [CI], 39% to 79%). The median survival time was 16 months, with a 66% 1-year survival probability. CONCLUSION: CDDP 35 mg/m2/wk and paclitaxel 45 mg/m2/wk can be safely administered with concurrent standard RT. The use of hyperfractionation is associated with a more frequent occurrence of severe esophagitis and requires a reduction of the CDDP dose to 30 mg/m2/ wk. Only future randomized trials will elucidate which of these two approaches (standard or hyperfractionated RT) is the better option to improve the outcome of patients with locally advanced NSCLC.

Multicenter randomized trial of dacarbazine alone or in combination with two different doses and schedules of interferon alfa-2a in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

PURPOSE: Some phase II studies have suggested that the combination of interferons (IFNs) with dacarbazine (DTIC) in the treatment of malignant melanoma (MM) increases the antitumor activity of DTIC alone. In an attempt to confirm this hypothesis, a randomized study was performed with the further intent of observing whether low doses of recombinant interferon alfa-2a (rIFN alpha 2a) could be as effective as intermediate doses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred sixty-six patients were randomized onto three different treatment arms: DTIC 800 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) days 1 and 21; DTIC plus rIFN alpha 2a 9 mIU intramuscularly (IM) daily; and DTIC plus rIFN alpha 2a 3 mIU IM three times per week. Major prognostic factors were well balanced among the three arms. Chemotherapy was administered for a maximum of eight cycles. After 6 months of therapy, rIFN alpha 2a was continued until disease progression at 3 mIU three times per week in responding patients who had received the combined treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of objective responses did not differ among the three groups (20%, 28%, and 23%, respectively), although a significant prolongation of response duration was observed when rIFN alpha 2a was added to DTIC (2.6 v 8.4 v 5.5 months, respectively). However, this improvement in response duration did not translate into an amelioration of overall survival. The addition of rIFN alpha 2a led to the onset of flu-like syndrome, but in no case was it necessary to withdraw the treatment program and no toxic deaths or life-threatening toxicities were reported. CONCLUSION: In this study, rIFN alpha 2a significantly prolonged response duration, whereas no effects on response rate and survival were observed; rIFN alpha 2a 3 mIU appeared to be equally effective and better tolerated than 9 mIU.

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine alone in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the addition of gemcitabine (G) to vinorelbine (V) improves survival and quality of life (QoL) among elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NSCLC aged >/= 70 years with advanced disease were randomly allocated to receive V 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks or G 1,200 mg/m(2) + V 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. The estimated sample size was 120 patients per arm, but an interim analysis of survival was planned based on the first 60 patients per arm. RESULTS: In May 1999, the survival data were analyzed of 120 eligible patients (V group = 60; G + V group = 60) who had been randomized from June 1997 to February 1999. Forty-nine patients had stage IIIB disease, and 71 had stage IV. At a median potential follow-up of 14 months (range, 3 to 22 months), 93 patients had died (G + V group = 41; V group = 52). In the G + V group, median survival time was 29 weeks and projected 1-year survival was 30%; these values were 18 weeks and 13% in the V group. According to multivariate Cox analysis, the risk of death in the G + V arm compared with the V arm was 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0. 29 to 0.79; P <.01). Combination therapy was also associated with a clear delay in symptom and QoL deterioration. The overall response rates were 22% and 15% in the G + V and V groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with NSCLC, G + V treatment is associated with significantly better survival than is V alone.

Randomized trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine with either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: interim analysis of a phase III trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: In our previous phase II study, the cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine (PGV) regimen produced a median survival time (MST) of approximately 1 year in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The present study was aimed at comparing the MST of patients treated with this triplet regimen with the MSTs of patients receiving cisplatin and vinorelbine (PV) or cisplatin and gemcitabine (PG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 1997, patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, an age of < or = 70 years, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 1 were randomized to receive one of the following regimens: cisplatin 50 mg/m(2), gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (arm A); cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (arm B); or cisplatin 120 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 29 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2)/wk (arm C). According to the two-stage design for phase III trials, an interim analysis was planned when the first 60 patients per arm were assessable for survival. RESULTS: The survival data of 180 NSCLC patients (stage IIIB, 76 patients; stage IV, 104 patients) were analyzed in April 1999. Overall, 128 patients had died (PGV, n = 33; PG, n = 42; and PV, n = 53). The MST of patients in the PGV, PG, and PV arms was 51, 42, and 35 weeks, respectively, and the corresponding 1-year projected survival rates were 45%, 40%, and 34%, respectively. When only patients with stage IV disease were considered, an even stronger difference was seen between PGV (MST = 47 weeks) and both PG (34 weeks) and PV (27 weeks). At multivariate Cox analysis, the estimate hazard of death for patients receiving PGV compared with those receiving PV was 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.77; P <.01). The response rates were 47% in the PGV arm, 30% in the PG arm, 25% in the PV arm. Both hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were not substantially worse in patients who received the PGV regimen. CONCLUSION: The PGV regimen is associated with a substantial survival gain (MST > 3 months longer) when compared with the PV combination. Because this difference in survival met one of the early stopping rules, the accrual in the PV arm has been stopped (null hypothesis rejected). Enrollment still continues in the PGV and PG arm to ascertain whether the PGV regimen can also produce a significantly longer survival than that obtained with the PG regimen.

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine combination therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II randomized study of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: In a previous phase I study cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM), and vinorelbine (VNR) combination therapy was safe and very active in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was aimed at better defining the activity and toxicity of this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eleven chemotherapy-naive patients, age < or = 70 years, with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a performance status of 0 or 1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale) were randomized to two treatment arms. Patients on arm A received CDDP 50 mg/m2, GEM 1,000 mg/m2, and VNR 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of an every-3-weeks cycle (57 patients). Patients on arm B received CDDP 80 mg/m2, epirubicin 80 mg/m2, and vindesine 3 mg/m2, all delivered on day 1 every 4 weeks, plus lonidamine orally 150 mg three times daily (54 patients). In December 1996, randomization was stopped early, and an additional 30 patients were treated with the experimental regimen to obtain a more accurate estimation of its activity rate. RESULTS: Among 87 patients who received the CDDP-GEM-VNR combination, four complete responses (CRs) and 46 partial responses (PRs) were observed, for an overall response rate of 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46% to 68%). Two CRs and 18 PRs were recorded among 54 patients on arm B, giving a 37% activity rate (95% CI , 24% to 51%). After a median follow-up duration of 19 months, the median progression-free and overall survival durations were 32 and 50 weeks in arm A, and 18 and 33 weeks in arm B, respectively. World Health Organization grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 46% and 14% of patients in arm A and in 22% and 11% of those in arm B, respectively. Severe nonhematologic toxicity was uncommon in both arms. CONCLUSION: The CDDP-GEM-VNR combination is a highly effective treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and has a manageable toxicity. A phase III trial comparing this new combination with both CDDP-VNR and CDDP-GEM regimens is underway.

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and paclitaxel in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase I-II study. Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Because both cisplatin-paclitaxel and cisplatin-gemcitabine combinations are generally considered to be among the most active regimens in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, this study aimed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of paclitaxel when combined with fixed doses of cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced NSCLC patients and aimed to define the therapeutic activity of this new regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From October 1996 to September 1998, 75 patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC, who were either chemotherapy-naive (65 patients) or who had been pretreated (10 patients), received fixed doses of cisplatin (50 mg/m(2)) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) and escalating doses of paclitaxel in a 1-hour infusion, all on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Five different paclitaxel doses were tested, for a total of 275 cycles delivered. The escalation was stopped at the paclitaxel dose of 75 mg/m(2) in pretreated patients, whereas it continued to 150 mg/m(2) in chemotherapy-naive patients. A total of 65 chemotherapy-naive patients were treated. A paclitaxel dose of 125 mg/m(2) was recommended for phase II, and a total of 39 patients were treated at this level, for a total of 158 cycles delivered. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Five patients were hospitalized because of sepsis, and packed RBC transfusion was required in 13 patients. Grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 23 (31%) and eight (11%) patients, respectively. Overall, 74 of the 75 patients were assessable for response. Four complete (CR) and 38 partial (PR) responses were recorded, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 57%. Three of the ten pretreated patients achieved a PR, compared with four CRs and 35 PRs in the 64 chemotherapy-naive patients (ORR, 61%). Thirty-eight of 39 patients included in phase II were assessable for response and quality of life (QOL) (one patient's disease was not measurable). Two CRs and 24 PRs were recorded in this group, for an ORR of 68% (95% confidence interval, 51% to 82%). The QOL score improved in 27 of 38 (71%) patients. The median survival time was 15 months in the 65 chemotherapy-naive patients, but it had not yet been reached in the 39 patients included in phase II, for whom the 1-year projected survival was 70%. CONCLUSION: The cisplatin-gemcitabine-paclitaxel combination is a feasible and well-tolerated approach in advanced NSCLC patients. Both a major response and a QOL improvement can be obtained in a high proportion of patients, with a median survival time exceeding 1 year. A phase III trial comparing this combination with other effective regimens is under way.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of tomudex combined with 5-fluorouracil plus levofolinic acid in advanced head and neck cancer and colorectal cancer.

In vitro studies have shown a schedule-dependent synergism between Tomudex and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Incubation of different types of head and neck and colorectal cancer cells with levofolinic acid (LFA) plus 5-FU for 4 or 24 h, after 24-h incubation with Tomudex, produces a clear synergism. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the tolerability and activity of a combination of Tomudex, LFA, and 5-FU in advanced head and neck and colorectal cancer. Furthermore, the potential for 5-FU pharmacomodulation by Tomudex was also evaluated through an intrapatient assessment of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity and 5-FU AUC with and without pretreatment with Tomudex. Eligible patients were treated with Tomudex at the starting dose of 1.5 mg/m2 on day 1, LFA at a fixed dose of 250 mg/m2 on day 2, immediately followed by bolus 5-FU at the starting dose of 600 mg/m2. Tomudex and 5-FU doses were alternately escalated. Courses were repeated every 2 weeks. In the second course, LFA and 5-FU were administered on day 1 and Tomudex on day 2; further treatment was given according to the sequence used in the first course. Plasma 5-FU concentrations were analyzed on courses 1 and 2 using a high-performance liquid chromatography assay with UV detection. DPD activity was measured in peripheral blood mononuclear cells on courses 1 and 2 using incubation of cytosol with [14C]FU and quantitation of metabolite formation. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Dose escalation was stopped at step 8, because of the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity in two of three patients. The dose level immediately before (3 mg/m2 Tomudex, 1050 mg/m2 5-FU) was selected for further evaluation. Tomudex and 5-FU mean dose intensities actually delivered at the seventh step were 1.32 and 462 mg/m2/week, respectively. Six of 40 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer obtained an objective response (15%; 95% confidence interval, 6-30%). In particular, three complete responses and three partial responses were observed. Six of 17 patients with locally advanced or metastatic head and neck cancer obtained an objective response (1 complete response + 5 partial responses; 35%; 95% confidence interval, 14-62%). Median duration of response in colorectal cancer patients was 12 months. 5-FU AUC was not significantly different between the two courses (median intrapatient difference, 9.3%; P = 0.28). DPD activity in course 1 was significantly higher than course 2 (P = 0.041) in the 16 patients in which values were evaluable. The combination of Tomudex, LFA, and 5-FU is well tolerated and active in colorectal and head and neck cancer. The Tomudex mean dose intensity actually delivered is higher than usually achieved in monotherapy. The absence of a clear pharmacokinetic interaction suggests that the synergism of Tomudex and 5-FU might occur at the cellular level.

Prospective randomised trial comparing fluorouracil versus doxifluridine for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.

Doxifluridine (dFUR) is a fluoropyrimidine derivative that has shown activity on a variety of solid tumours. The purpose of this study was to compare its therapeutic effect with a standard fluorouracil (FU) regimen in patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. 222 previously untreated patients were randomised to receive dFUR (4000 mg/m2) or FU (500 mg/m2) daily for 5 days every 28 days. The primary tumour originated in the colon in two-thirds of the cases in both groups; approximately 90% of patients had metastatic extension, and liver involvement was present in 69% of the patients in the dFUR and FU groups. A good performance status (ECOG 0-1) was recorded in 90% of cases in both arms. A median of five cycles was administered to the patients (range 1-12). Only one partial response among 110 patients in the FU arm and one complete response and five partial responses out of 112 evaluable patients in the dFUR group were observed. Time to progression was significantly longer in the dFUR group (P = 0.02); overall survival, while longer in the dFUR arm (48 weeks vs. 39 weeks), was not significantly so (P = 0.08). Toxicity was acceptable in both arms, although grade 3-4 neurological side-effects and leukopenia were more common after dFUR infusion. Despite the low response rate, our results indicate that dFUR may be a superior alternative to FU. The possibility of enhancing significantly the activity of dFUR with biochemical modulators should be further investigated.

Fotemustine and dacarbazine plus recombinant interferon alpha 2a in thetreatment of advanced melanoma.

Forty-three consecutive patients with advanced melanoma not previously treated with cytotoxic drugs (22 of them had already received adjuvant recombinant interferon alpha 2a (rIFN alpha 2a)) were given a combination of intravenous (i.v.) fotemustine (FM), 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and dacarbazine (DTIC), 250 mg/m2 i.v. on days 2-5, every 3 weeks. rIFN alpha 2a was administered at the dosage of 3 MIU subcutaneously 3 times a week until progression. Four complete and 13 partial responses were registered, for an overall response rate of 40% (95% CI, 25-56%). Activity of this regimen was similar in patients with mainly visceral (10/22, 45%) or soft tissue (6/13, 46%) involvement. The median duration of responses was 24 weeks. Median survival time was 40 weeks, with a 13% 2 year survival rate. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia affected 67% and 51% of patients, but were of WHO grade 4 in only 2% and 5% of them, respectively. Side-effects attributable to rIFN alpha 2a were mild and manageable. In conclusion, the combination of FM + DTIC and rIFN alpha 2a seemed well tolerated and relatively active in patients with advanced melanoma. However, the role of rIFN alpha 2a in affecting the long-term outcome of patients is still questionable.

Double biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil by methotrexate and levo-folinic acid in the treatment of advanced digestive tract malignancies.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of a double biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) by means of methotrexate (MTX) and levo-folinic acid (LFA) in patients with advanced carcinoma of the digestive tract, and to assess the prognostic significance of MTX serum concentrations achieved in these patients. 94 patients affected by advanced carcinoma of the colon-rectum, stomach or biliary tract (47 of them previously untreated) received a regimen consisting of MTX 500 mg/m2 as a 2-h i.v. infusion on day 1, followed by LFA 250 mg/m2 as a 2-h i.v. infusion and 5-FU 600 mg/m2 as an i.v. bolus on day 2. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. Treatment was administered until tumour progression or for a maximum of 24 courses. MTX serum level was assessed soon after and 24 h (24-h MTXs) after its infusion in 61 patients. One complete and 22 partial responses were obtained, giving an overall activity of 24% (95% confidence interval, 16-34%). Response rate was 30% in chemotherapy-naive patients (colorectal, 26%; gastric, 37%; and biliary-tract, 22%) and 19% in those previously treated (all with fluoropyrimidines). A poor performance status adversely affected the response and survival of patients. The toxicity of treatment was very mild, and occurrence of severe diarrhoea (11% of patients) and mucositis (3%) was lower than that reported with other modulations of 5-FU. A cut-off value of 24-h MTXs was identified as a strong prognostic indicator. Patients with 24-h MTXs > or = 2 microM had a significantly better probability of response (37% versus 5%; P = 0.032), longer progression-free survival (5.3 versus 2.3 months; P = 0.023) and overall survival (10.8 versus 8.3 months; P = 0.045) on multivariate analysis. In chemotherapy-naive colorectal cancer patients, those with 24-h MTXs > or = 2 microM had a response rate of 38% (3/8), with a 19.6-month median survival time, as compared to no responses (0/4) and a 9.9-month median survival in the group with a lower serum concentration. The achievement of such MTX serum levels yielded a 31% (4/13) response rate even in colorectal patients who had previously received a 5-FU-FA treatment.

Carboplatin-oral etoposide personalized dosing in elderly non-small cell lung cancer patients. Gruppo Oncologico Cooperativo Sud-Italia.

The toxicity and therapeutic activity, including the effect on quality of life, of the carboplatin-oral etoposide combination, given with an intrapatient dose escalation, was tested in 38 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients aged over 70 years, and in 8 younger patients with a performance status of 2. In the absence of grade 3-4 toxicity, doses were escalated as follows: first course (carboplatin AUC 4; etoposide 50 mg twice daily orally days 1-14); second course (carboplatin AUC 5; etoposide 50 mg twice daily orally days 1-14); third course (carboplatin AUC 5; etoposide 50 mg twice daily orally days 1-21). A total of 141 chemotherapy cycles were delivered. The treatment was, in general, well tolerated and no toxic deaths occurred. More than 60% of patients received 100% of the planned dose intensity. Transient grade 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia occurred in 6 and 2 patients, respectively, but only 2 patients had to be hospitalised because of fever. All patients were evaluated for activity on an 'intention to treat basis'. Ten partial responses and 20 stable disease were recorded, for an overall response rate of 22% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 11-36). 9/38 (24%; 95% CI = 12-41) elderly patients obtained a partial response. The median response duration was 4 months. A quality of life improvement was observed in 19 of the 46 enrolled patients (41%; 95% CI = 27-57), and 15/46 (33%; 95% CI = 19-48) showed a performance status improvement. The quality of life score improved in 17/38 (45%) elderly patients. 8/10 responders and 11/20 patients with stable disease showed a concomitant improvement in quality of life. At a median potential follow-up of 16 months (range 2-21), 31 patients had had progression of disease and 23 had died, for a median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) of 5 and 10 months, respectively. The median survival time was 11 months in the elderly patients. The median time to subjective impairment (TSI) was 6 months (7 months in the elderly group). One-year estimated TTP, TSI and OS rates were 22, 29 and 41%, respectively. At multivariate Cox analysis, a > 25% improvement in the quality of life score was more predictive of a better survival outcome than the response achievement.

Patient preference and pharmacokinetics of oral modulated UFT versus intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin: a randomised crossover trial in advanced colorectal cancer.

The aim of this study was to determine the patient's preference for oral UFT/leucovorin (LV) or intravenous (i.v.) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/LV chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer and to compare 5-FU exposure with these two treatment options. A total of 37 previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomised to start treatment with either oral UFT 300 mg/m2/day plus oral LV 90 mg/day for 28 days every 5 weeks or i.v. 5-FU 425 mg/m2/day plus LV 20 mg/m2/day for 5 days every 4 weeks. For the second treatment cycle, patients were crossed-over to the alternative treatment regimen. Prior to the first and after the second therapy cycle, patients were required to complete a therapy preference questionnaire (TPQ). The pharmacokinetics of 5-FU were determined by taking blood samples on days 8, 15 or 22 and 28 for UFT and on days 1 and 5 for i.v. 5-FU. 36 patients were eligible. 84% of the patients preferred oral UFT over i.v. 5-FU. After having experienced both treatment modalities, patients indicated taking the medication at home, less stomatitis and diarrhoea, and pill over injection as the most important reasons for their preference. The area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) for 5-FU after UFT administration was 113 microM x min on day 8, 114 on day 15 and 98 on day 28; the peak levels (Cmax) were 1.2, 1.3 and 1.0 microM, respectively. The AUC for the 5-FU/LV courses was 3083 microM x min for day 1 and 3809 for day 5 (P=0.002). The Cmax was 170.1 and 196.2 microM (P=0.06) and the clearance 2.6 and 1.9 l/min, respectively (P=0.002). Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer clearly preferred oral over i.v. chemotherapy treatment. This choice was most importantly influenced by convenience and toxicity considerations. Although i.v. bolus 5-FU leads to higher peak 5-FU concentrations and AUC values compared with oral UFT, this pharmacokinetic advantage of i.v. 5-FU seems to translate mainly into higher toxicity as seen in large randomised studies comparing oral UFT/LV with i.v. 5-FU/LV. Oral UFT/LV compares favourably with i.v. 5-FU/LV in terms of toxicity and patient's preference and leads to prolonged 5-FU exposure, which is comparable to continuous i.v. 5-FU treatment.

Weekly paclitaxel/cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase I study.

We designed a phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated doses of weekly cisplatin and paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) (doses escalated alternately) when given concurrently with standard or hyperfractionated radiotherapy (RT) and to define the nature of the dose-limiting toxicity. Chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer received weekly combination cisplatin/paclitaxel with concurrent local RT. Radiation therapy was initially given at the dose of 1.2 Gy twice daily x 5 d/wk x 5 weeks (total dose, 60 Gy). In the last two patient cohorts, the single daily dose was decreased to 2 Gy x 5 d/wk x 6 weeks. Overall, 25 patients were recruited into five different cohorts. Esophagitis was the main nonhematologic toxicity, occurring in 16 of 25 patients (64%; grade 3 or 4 in five). Neutropenia was the most prevalent hematologic toxicity, occurring in 33 of 141 weekly courses, but grade 4 neutropenia was seen in only four courses. Cisplatin/paclitaxel doses of 35 mg/m2/wk and 45 mg/m2/wk, respectively, were safe when standard RT was used, while the cisplatin dose had to be decreased to 30 mg/m2/wk in patients receiving bifractionation. Two complete and 13 partial responses were observed, for a 60% overall response rate (95% confidence interval, 39% to 79%). Median survival was 16 months, with a 66% 1-year actuarial probability. We thus conclude that the cisplatin/paclitaxel combination given weekly can be safely administered concurrent with both standard or hyperfractionated RT. Hyperfractionation is associated with a higher incidence of severe esophagitis and required a slight reduction in cisplatin dose. To verify whether the use of a daily schedule translates into a better therapeutic index, a new phase I study is under way, testing twice-daily cisplatin/paclitaxel concurrently with hyperfractionated RT.

Gemcitabine/cyclophosphamide/5-fluorouracil/folinic acid triplet combination in anthracycline- and taxane-refractory breast cancer patients: a Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group phase I/II study.

We sought to define the recommended dose of cyclophosphamide (CTX) for subsequent phase II assessment when combined with fixed doses of gemcitabine (Gemzar; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) and 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. Patients age 70 or less, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, were enrolled. Patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), 5-fluorouracil 425 mg/m(2), folinic acid 100 mg/m(2), and escalating doses of CTX (in 100-mg/m(2) increments), starting at 500 mg/m(2), on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Since March 1999, 46 patients, with a median age of 51 years (range, 38 to 74 years), entered the trial in seven cohorts. Cyclophosphamide dose escalation was stopped at 600 mg/m(2) when three of six patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (one each with grade 3 thrombocytopenia, grade 3 neutropenia, and persistent grade 2 neutropenia), and then continued with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support. The CTX dose of 800 mg/m(2) was proven safe and was chosen for phase II study. Two complete and 15 partial responses provided an overall response rate of 37% (95% confidence interval, 23% to 51%). Gemcitabine/CTX/5-fluorouracil/folinic acid is well tolerated by metastatic breast cancer patients pretreated with anthracyclines/taxanes, up to a CTX dose of 800 mg/m(2). The phase II study is ongoing. Semin Oncol 28 (suppl 10):50-56.

Carboplatin plus epirubicin plus VP-16, concurrent 'split course' radiotherapy and adjuvant surgery for limited small cell lung cancer. Gruppo Oncologico Centro-Sud-Isole (GOCSI).

Thirty-three patients with limited small cell lung cancer (SCLC) received carboplatin, epirubicin and VP-16 chemotherapy, concurrent 'split course' thoracic radiotherapy, followed by surgery for patients achieving an objective response (OR). High-risk patients and those staged T4-N3 (IIIB) at diagnosis, were excluded from surgery. After induction chemoradiotherapy we obtained 90.9% OR, with 63.3% obtaining complete response (CR). Ten patients (30.3%) were eligible for surgery after induction therapy. Five patients (15.1%) were subjected to surgery and five additional patients refused. Of the five patients who were subjected to surgery, four had a complete response (CR), (three pathological confirmations), and one had a partial response (PR), (unresectable). The median survival time for all patients was 16 months with 12.1% of the long-term survivors still living after 2 years and 9% still living after 3 and 4 years. Toxicity consisted mainly of myelosuppression. This study shows a high activity of the chemotherapy and the chemoradiotherapeutic regimen employed but a low feasibility for adjuvant surgery in SCLC.

Partial substitution of cisplatin with carboplatin in combination with etoposide in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a multicentric randomised phase II trial.

Seventy previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC were randomised, after stratification for stage (IIIB vs. IV) and Performance Status (0-1 vs. 2), to receive either treatment A: CDDP 40 mg/m2 + VP16 100 mg/m2 day 1-3 (37 patients); or treatment B: CBDCA 250 mg/m2 day 1 + CDDP 30 mg/m2 day 2, 3 + VP16 100 mg/m2 day 1-3 (33 patients). Therapy was recycled on day 29 in both arms. The two arms were well balanced for the main pretreatment characteristics. Sixty-six patients (32 with Stage IIIB and 34 with Stage IV disease) were evaluable for toxicity and response (arm A = 34, arm B = 32), while four ineligible patients were excluded from analysis. Acute toxicity was assessed at recycling. Non-hematologic toxicity was higher in arm A. However, the reduction of nephrotoxicity (9% vs. 23%) in arm B was lower than expected. Leukopenia (15 vs. 5 patients) or thrombocytopenia (7 vs. 0 patients) of any grade affected more patients of arm B. Moreover, Grade 3-4 leukopenia (six patients) or thrombocytopenia (four patients) was observed only in arm B. Seventeen patients responded: 11/34 (32%; 95% C.I. = 17-50%) in arm A, and 6/32 (19%; 95% C.I. = 7-36%) in arm B. Median survival times of 40 and 34 weeks, respectively, were reported in arm A and B. Stage IIIB and squamous cell histology were associated with a higher probability of response. In conclusion, the partial replacement of CDDP with CBDCA in combination with VP16 slightly improves the tolerance of the treatment in terms of nephro- and neurotoxicity; however, it induces a significant increase in hematologic toxicity. In view of this unfavourable toxicologic profile and of the discouraging response rate observed, this regimen cannot be recommended as standard treatment in advanced NSCLC.

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine yields better survival outcome than vinorelbine alone in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. A Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) phase III trial.

OBJECTIVE: This phase III study was aimed at evaluating whether the addition of gemcitabine (G) to vinorelbine (V) could improve the survival and quality of life (QoL) of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC, aged >or=70 years, were randomly allocated to receive V 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks or G 1200 mg/m(2) plus V 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Survival was the main end point of the study. The estimated sample size was 120 patients per arm, but an interim analysis of survival was planned on the first 60 patients per arm. RESULTS: In May 1999, an interim analysis was performed with the survival data of the first 120 eligible patients (V(arm)=60, G+V(arm)=60). Forty-nine patients had stage IIIB disease and 71 patients stage IV disease, median potential follow-up of 14 months (range; 3-22), 93 patients had died (G+V(arm)=41, V(arm)=52). Median survival time (MST) was 29 weeks and projected 1-year survival was 30% in the G+V(arm); these values were 18 weeks and 13% in the V(arm). At multivariate Cox analysis, the risk of death in the G+V(arm) compared with V(arm) was 0.48 (95% C1=0.29-0.79; P<0.01). Combination therapy was also associated with a clear delay in symptom and QoL deterioration. The ORR was 22 and 15% in the G+V and V(arms), respectively. Toxicity was not irrelevant in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: G+V treatment is associated with a significantly better survival than V alone in elderly NSCLC patients. The magnitude of the difference justifies the early closure of the study. The G+V regimen is now the SICOG reference regimen in this type of patients.