Effects of neratinib on health-related quality of life in women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer: longitudinal analyses from the randomized phase III ExteNET trial.

BACKGROUND: We report longitudinal health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data from the international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III ExteNET study, which demonstrated an invasive disease-free survival benefit of extended adjuvant therapy with neratinib over placebo in human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women (N = 2840) with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer who had completed trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy were randomly assigned to neratinib 240 mg/day or placebo for 12 months. HRQoL was an exploratory end point. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Changes from baseline were compared using analysis of covariance with no imputation for missing values. Sensitivity analyses used alternative methods. Changes in HRQoL scores were regarded as clinically meaningful if they exceeded previously reported important differences (IDs). RESULTS: Of the 2840 patients (intention-to-treat population), 2407 patients were evaluable for FACT-B (neratinib, N = 1171; placebo, N = 1236) and 2427 patients for EQ-5D (neratinib, N = 1186; placebo, N = 1241). Questionnaire completion rates exceeded 85%. Neratinib was associated with a decrease in global HRQoL scores at month 1 compared with placebo (adjusted mean differences: FACT-B total, -2.9 points; EQ-5D index, -0.02), after which between-group differences diminished at later time-points. Except for the FACT-B physical well-being (PWB) subscale at month 1; all between-group differences were less than reported IDs. The FACT-B breast cancer-specific subscale showed small improvements with neratinib at months 3-9, but all were less than IDs. Sensitivity analyses exploring missing data did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Extended adjuvant neratinib was associated with a transient, reversible decrease in HRQoL during the first month of treatment, possibly linked to treatment-related diarrhea. With the exception of the PWB subscale at month 1, all neratinib-related HRQoL changes did not reach clinically meaningful thresholds. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00878709.

Phase II trial of taxol, an active drug in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

Taxol, an antimicrotubule agent, has shown promise for efficacy in treatment of breast cancer, but severe hypersensitivity reactions led to cessation of many phase I clinical trials. Consequently, investigators and the National Cancer Institute recommended that phase I and II studies of this agent use 24-hour infusions and antiallergic medications. Using a premedication regimen effective in preventing hypersensitivity reactions, we have performed a phase II trial of taxol in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Taxol was administered to 25 patients at a dose of 250 mg/m2 by 24-hour infusion every 21 days. These patients had received only one prior chemotherapy regimen, either adjuvant to surgery or for metastatic disease; all but two had received doxorubicin. In 60% of the patients, the dominant site of disease was the viscera. All patients were assessable. In April 1991, at a median time on study of 9 months (range, 5-13+ months), the objective response rate was 56% (12% complete and 44% partial; 95% confidence interval, 35%-76%). Disease progressed in only 8% of the patients. The median number of courses of therapy was 11. Granulocytopenia was the dose-limiting toxic effect, but neutropenia with fever occurred in only 5% of 232 courses. A chronic glove-and-stocking neuropathy developed in most patients, but no allergic reactions occurred. We conclude that taxol is an active agent in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and that it warrants continued study. Currently, we are conducting a phase I trial of taxol plus doxorubicin. Future trials should address the optimal effective dose, the optimal sequencing of combinations, mechanisms of drug resistance in tumors, and dose-limiting toxic effects (particularly cardiac toxic effects of taxol given as a single agent or in drug combinations).

Randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy and blood cell autografts for high-risk primary breast carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled studies have reported encouraging outcomes for patients with high-risk primary breast cancer treated with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell support. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare standard-dose chemotherapy with the same therapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with 10 or more positive axillary lymph nodes after primary breast surgery or patients with four or more positive lymph nodes after four cycles of primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy were eligible. All patients were to receive eight cycles of 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin (Adriamycin), and cyclophosphamide (FAC). Patients were stratified by stage and randomly assigned to receive two cycles of high-dose cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin with autologous hematopoietic stem cell support or no additional chemotherapy. Tamoxifen was planned for postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive tumors and chest wall radiotherapy was planned for all. All P values are from two-sided tests. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients (48 after primary surgery and 30 after primary chemotherapy) were registered. Thirty-nine patients were randomly assigned to FAC and 39 to FAC followed by high-dose chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 6.5 years, there have been 41 relapses. In intention-to-treat analyses, estimated 3-year relapse-free survival rates were 62% and 48% for FAC and FAC/high-dose chemotherapy, respectively (P =.35), and 3-year survival rates were 77% and 58%, respectively (P =.23). Overall, there was greater and more frequent morbidity associated with high-dose chemotherapy than with FAC; there was one septic death associated with high-dose chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: No relapse-free or overall survival advantage was associated with the use of high-dose chemotherapy, and morbidity was increased with its use. Thus, high-dose chemotherapy is not indicated outside a clinical trial.

Evaluation of three oral dosages of ondansetron in the prevention of nausea and emesis associated with cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin chemotherapy.

We assessed the antiemetic efficacy and safety of three different oral doses of ondansetron (GR 38032F), a novel serotonin type-3 receptor antagonist, in three consecutive series of 20 breast cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for the first time. Patients received oral doses of 8 mg, 4 mg, or 1 mg of ondansetron three times daily for 2 days, with the first dose given 30 minutes before the cyclophosphamide infusion. We then evaluated the efficacy of a conventional antiemetic regimen of intravenous lorazepam, metoclopramide, and diphenhydramine given before chemotherapy and 10 mg prochlorperazine given orally twice on study day 1 and three times on study day 2 in a fourth series of 20 patients with comparable characteristics. The number of emetic episodes, assessment of nausea and appetite, and adverse events were recorded throughout the 2-day study period. Pretreatment and posttreatment clinical laboratory data were also collected. No emesis was observed during the 2-day study period in 17 (85%), 13 (65%), and 11 (55%) patients treated with 8-mg, 4-mg, and 1-mg ondansetron doses, respectively, and in seven (35%) patients who received conventional therapy. The incidence and intensity of nausea were lower with increasing doses of ondansetron and were lower than in the conventional group. Ondansetron-related side effects were generally mild and reversible and did not appear to increase in a dose-dependent manner. These effects included headache, stomach cramps, diarrhea, fatigue, and elevated serum transaminase concentrations. One patient who received three 1 mg doses of ondansetron experienced tremors and muscle twitching. Oral ondansetron is an effective and safe antiemetic for patients receiving noncisplatin cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-based chemotherapy, and its antiemetic activity appears to be dose-related.

Local infusion of urokinase for the lysis of thrombosis associated with permanent central venous catheters in cancer patients.

We assessed the efficacy of local fibrinolytic therapy in 35 axillary-subclavian vein thromboses (SVT) that occurred in cancer patients with percutaneous central venous catheters (CVC). These catheters were indwelling for a median of 1 month (range, one day to 10 months) before thrombosis developed. Urokinase was administered at a dose of 500 to 2,000 U/kg/h. Complete lysis occurred in 25 of 30 thrombi that were directly infused, after a median of four days. Complete lysis occurred in one of 12 thrombi that could not be directly infused with urokinase and in two of six with associated phlebitis. Eighty-one percent of the thrombi that were symptomatic for less than 1 week before treatment resolved, compared with 56% present for longer than 1 week. Sixteen patients who had complete (12) or partial (four) thrombolysis did not have their CVCs removed. All four patients with partial thrombolysis had recurrent thrombosis at a median of eight days (range, one to 90). Only two patients who had complete thrombolysis had recurrent thrombosis, at 8 and 16 months. Only minor hemorrhagic toxicity was seen.

Phase II trial of docetaxel: a new, highly effective antineoplastic agent in the management of patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy (objective response rate and duration of response and survival) and toxicity of docetaxel in patients with strictly defined anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with bidimensionally measurable MBC who had progressive disease while receiving anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were registered onto the phase II trial. Docetaxel was administered at a dose of 100 mg/m2 over 1 hour every 21 days. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were assessable for disease response; 18 (53%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 35% to 70%) achieved a partial response. The median times to disease progression and survival duration were 7.5 and 13.5 months, respectively, for responding patients. The median overall survival duration was 9 months. Two hundred eight cycles (median, five) of docetaxel were administered. Neutropenia with less than 500 cells/microL developed in 31 of 35 patients; it was complicated by fever in 30 (14%) of 208 cycles and in 18 (51%) of 35 patients, including one treatment-related death. Fluid retention was seen in 15 (43%) of 35 patients, including pleural effusions in 11 patients (31%). Moderate skin toxicity, asthenia, and myalgia were observed in 16%, 58%, and 37% of cycles, respectively. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel has the highest reported antitumor activity in anthracycline-resistant MBC. High objective response rates were seen in patients with visceral-dominant involvement, multiple metastatic sites, or extensive previous therapy. Docetaxel is associated with severe but reversible neutropenia, asthenia, and cumulative dose-related fluid retention. Dexamethasone decreased the frequency and severity of skin toxicity and appeared to ameliorate fluid retention.

Management of breast cancer during pregnancy using a standardized protocol.

PURPOSE: No standardized therapeutic interventions have been reported for patients diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy. Of the potential interventions, none have been prospectively evaluated for treatment efficacy in the mother or safety for the fetus. We present our experience with the use of combination chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During the past 8 years, 24 pregnant patients with primary or recurrent cancer of the breast were managed by outpatient chemotherapy, surgery, or surgery plus radiation therapy, as clinically indicated. The chemotherapy included fluorouracil (1,000 mg/m2), doxorubicin (50 mg/m2), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2), administered every 3 to 4 weeks after the first trimester of pregnancy. Care was provided by medical oncologists, breast surgeons, and perinatal obstetricians. RESULTS: Modified radical mastectomy was performed in 18 of the 22 patients, and two patients were treated with segmental mastectomy with postpartum radiation therapy. This group included patients in all trimesters of pregnancy. The patients received a median of four cycles of combination chemotherapy during pregnancy. No antepartum complications temporally attributable to systemic therapy were noted. The mean gestational age at delivery was 38 weeks. Apgar scores, birthweights, and immediate postpartum health were reported to be normal for all of the children. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer can be treated with chemotherapy during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy with minimal complications of labor and delivery.

Measurement of estrogen and progesterone receptors in human breast tumors: enzyme immunoassay versus binding assay.

To determine whether we could replace our current binding assay (BA) method for measurement of estrogen receptors (ERs) and progesterone receptors (PRs) with the recently developed enzyme immunoassay (EIA) method, we compared simultaneous measurements of ERs and PRs in frozen breast tumor samples by both methods. A value of greater than or equal to 10 fmol/mg cytosol protein was defined as positive. There was agreement between the BA and EIA on whether the sample was positive or negative in 75 of 91 (82%) samples measured for ERs and in 74 of 93 (80%) for PRs. When the threshold value for a positive assay was redefined as greater than or equal to 20 fmol/mg protein, there was agreement in 85 of 91 (93%) samples for ERs and 85 of 93 (91%) for PRs. The numerical value for ERs by EIA was not consistently greater or less than ERs by BA, but the difference between the EIA and BA measurement increased as the size of the measurement increased. We did not see an excess of premenopausal patients whose ERs by BA were negative and whose ERs by EIA were positive. Although we performed a linear regression analysis and determined the Pearson correlation coefficient to compare the BA and EIA as reported by others, we show that this analysis may be misleading when the objective is to demonstrate similarities between these methods. Our study shows that the EIA can be confidently used in place of the BA. However, a threshold value for a positive EIA should be confirmed clinically in future studies.

Bioequivalence of 20-mg once-daily tamoxifen relative to 10-mg twice-daily tamoxifen regimens for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We studied the bioequivalence of a new once-daily regimen of tamoxifen citrate relative to the standard twice-daily regimen of tamoxifen citrate, an established antiestrogenic treatment for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 30 women with breast cancer, 27 completed this open, two-period, crossover randomized trial. During one 3-month period, patients took one standard 10-mg tamoxifen tablet twice daily; during the preceding or following 3-month period, patients took one of the new 20-mg tablets once daily. Pharmacokinetic profiles and safety parameters were assessed at the end of each 3-month treatment period. RESULTS: Overall, measured concentrations of tamoxifen and its principal active metabolite, N-desmethyltamoxifen, remained relatively constant over the 24-hour sampling periods at the end of each treatment sequence. For both compounds, the percentage differences of the geometric means for all pharmacokinetic parameters indicated bioequivalence of the once-daily regimen of tamoxifen relative to the standard twice-daily regimen. Both treatment sequences were well tolerated; reported adverse events occurred at similar frequencies with the two treatment regimens. CONCLUSION: The 20-mg tamoxifen tablet taken once daily was bioequivalent to the 10-mg tamoxifen tablet taken twice daily, with no difference in relative risk. The once-daily treatment is a simpler regimen and may facilitate compliance, which may enhance therapeutic outcomes during long-term treatment of breast cancer.

Impact of autologous bone marrow infusion on hematopoietic recovery after high-dose cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and cisplatin.

Because of potential tumor contamination and inadequacy of current purging technique of bone marrow in patients with solid tumors, we investigated an alternative approach to high-dose therapy without autologous bone marrow (ABM) infusion. Three levels of nonmyeloablative doses of cyclophosphamide 4.5 to 5.25 g/m2, etoposide 750 to 1,200 mg/m2, and cisplatin 120 to 165 mg/m2 (CVP) were administered to patients with metastatic solid tumors. Patients were randomized to ABM (n = 46) or no-ABM (NABM) (n = 46) infusion after CVP to study the impact of ABM on hematopoietic recovery, morbidity, and mortality. All patients had ABM harvested, underwent conventional chemotherapy, and then received CVP. Seventy-three patients received two courses of similar doses. The following were the median days to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 0.1 x 10(9)/L: for the ABM arm, 19, 21, and 19 and for the NABM arm, 23, 20, and 21 at levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively, during course 1 (P = .01, .80, and .01, respectively). During course 2, ANCs to 0.1 x 10(9)/L and 0.5 x 10(9)/L were attained significantly faster at levels 1 and 3 in the ABM arm. ANC to 1.0 x 10(9)/L was comparable in both arms. Incidence of infection and duration of fever were similar in both arms. Although mortality and the incidence of delayed hematopoietic recovery were more frequent in the NABM arm, this was not statistically significant. Platelet recovery was consistently prolonged in course 2 in both arms, with demonstrable benefit of ABM in course 2 when dose levels were collectively considered. We conclude that (1) ABM enhanced recovery of ANC to 0.1 x 10(9)/L; (2) ABM did not decrease the incidence of infections and the duration of fever; and (3) CVP can be safely given without ABM to carefully selected patients.

Adjuvant therapy with escalating doses of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with or without leukocyte alpha-interferon for stage II or III breast cancer.

PURPOSE: A prospective study in breast cancer patients was undertaken to determine whether escalating doses of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide would result in a higher fraction of patients free of disease, and to evaluate the role of leukocyte alpha-interferon. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1982 and 1986, 319 consecutive patients with stage II or III breast cancer with one or more positive nodes were assigned randomly to receive adjuvant chemotherapy that consisted of escalating doses of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in combination with vincristine and prednisone or the same chemotherapy regimen followed by 1 year of leukocyte alpha-interferon. Doxorubicin was administered by 72-hour continuous infusion through a central venous catheter (maximum total cumulative dose, 430 mg/m2). All patients with positive or unknown estrogen receptor status were also given tamoxifen for 1 year. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 71 months (range, 35 to 99 months). Correlation of disease-free survival (DFS) with dose-intensity of cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin showed no improvement in DFS for patients who were able to receive escalated drug doses compared with those who were not. Doxorubicin administered by continuous infusion was associated with a negligible risk of cardiotoxicity in this study despite the administration of higher accumulative doses than in our previous adjuvant therapy studies. The DFS rates of patients who did and those who did not receive leukocyte alpha-interferon were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, there was no real evidence that higher drug dose intensity was associated with longer DFS. Leukocyte alpha-interferon as it was used in this study had no therapeutic value. Doxorubicin administered by infusion was associated with a reduced risk of cardiotoxicity.

Sequence-dependent alteration of doxorubicin pharmacokinetics by paclitaxel in a phase I study of paclitaxel and doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether a schedule-dependent interaction occurs when paclitaxel and doxorubicin are administered sequentially. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients with metastatic breast cancer received paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 over 24 hours either immediately before or after doxorubicin 48 mg/m2 over 48 hours as the initial chemotherapy treatment. Two such courses were given, and the sequence of administration was reversed after course 1. In cohort 1, paclitaxel preceded doxorubicin for course 1. In cohort 2, doxorubicin preceded paclitaxel for course 1. Doxorubicin levels were measured serially during the infusion and for 24 hours following it. Patients were assessed clinically for the occurrence of stomatitis and infection and granulocyte counts were measured twice weekly. RESULTS: Eight patients had complete pharmacokinetic sampling for both courses. The mean end-of-infusion plasma doxorubicin concentrations (Cmax) were 70% higher in the paclitaxel-doxorubicin sequence compared with the reverse sequence (45 +/- 8 ng/mL v 26 +/- 5 ng/ mL). The mean doxorubicin clearance was 32% lower in the paclitaxel-doxorubicin sequence (34.3 +/- 10.3 L/h v 51.6 +/- 16.1 L/h, P < .01). Clinically, hematologic and mucosal toxic effects were worse in the paclitaxel-doxorubicin sequence. The median absolute granulocyte count was 0.2/microL in the paclitaxel-doxorubicin sequence and 1.3/microL in the doxorubicin-paclitaxel sequence. Seven of 10 patients who received the paclitaxel-doxorubicin sequence had grade 2 (n = 4) or 3 (n = 3) stomatitis, while only one of 10 patients who received the doxorubicin-paclitaxel sequence had grade 2 stomatitis and none had grade 3. CONCLUSION: When paclitaxel by 24-hour infusion precedes doxorubicin by 48-hour infusion, doxorubicin clearance is reduced by nearly one third, which results in grade 2 and 3 stomatitis. To prevent this effect when paclitaxel (by 24-hour infusion) and doxorubicin are administered sequentially, doxorubicin should be given first. The mechanisms for this effect are under investigation.

Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-control study was designed to determine whether a single subcutaneous injection of pegfilgrastim (SD/01, sustained-duration filgrastim; 100 microg/kg) is as safe and effective as daily filgrastim (5 microg/kg/d) for reducing neutropenia in patients who received four cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two centers enrolled 310 patients who received chemotherapy with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle for a maximum of four cycles. Patients were randomized to receive on day 2 either a single subcutaneous injection of pegfilgrastim 100 microg/kg per chemotherapy cycle (154 patients) or daily subcutaneous injections of filgrastim 5 microg/kg/d (156 patients). Absolute neutrophil count (ANC), duration of grade 4 neutropenia, and safety parameters were monitored. RESULTS: One dose of pegfilgrastim per chemotherapy cycle was comparable to daily subcutaneous injections of filgrastim with regard to all efficacy end points, including the duration of severe neutropenia and the depth of ANC nadir in all cycles. Febrile neutropenia across all cycles occurred less often in patients who received pegfilgrastim. The difference in the mean duration of severe neutropenia between the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim treatment groups was less than 1 day. Pegfilgrastim was safe and well tolerated, and it was similar to filgrastim. Adverse event profiles in the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim groups were similar. CONCLUSION: A single injection of pegfilgrastim 100 microg/kg per cycle was as safe and effective as daily injections of filgrastim 5 microg/kg/d in reducing neutropenia and its complications in patients who received four cycles of doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2).

A phase II study of docetaxel in patients with paclitaxel-resistant metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel in patients with paclitaxel-resistant metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Docetaxel (100 mg/m2) was administered every 3 weeks to 46 patients registered at four centers. Patients had previously received < or = two chemotherapy regimens for MBC. All patients had progressive disease while receiving paclitaxel therapy. Treatment was repeated until there was evidence of disease progression or for a maximum of three cycles after best response. RESULTS: Objective responses were seen in eight of 44 assessable patients (18.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7% to 29.5%). Seven patients had partial responses and one patient responded completely. Response rates were not significantly different by previously received paclitaxel dose or resistance. No responses were seen in 12 patients who had previously received paclitaxel by 24-hour infusion, but the response rate in 32 patients who had received paclitaxel by 1- to 3-hour infusion was 25%. The median response duration was 29 weeks and the median time to disease progression was 10 weeks. Median survival was 10.5 months. Clinically significant (severe) adverse events included neutropenic fever (24% of patients), asthenia (22%), infection (13%), stomatitis (9%), neurosensory changes (7%), myalgia (7%), and diarrhea (7%). CONCLUSION: Docetaxel is active in patients with paclitaxel-resistant breast cancer, particularly in those who failed to respond to brief infusions of paclitaxel. Response rates were comparable to or better than those seen with other therapies for patients with paclitaxel-resistant MBC. This confirms preclinical studies, which indicated only partial cross-resistance between paclitaxel and docetaxel.

A comparison of imipenem to ceftazidime with or without amikacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenic patients with cancer are traditionally treated with empiric antibiotic combinations when they become febrile. The availability of broad-spectrum antibiotics such as ceftazidime and imipenem has made it possible to initiate therapy with a single agent (monotherapy). The objectives of this trial were to compare ceftazidime and imipenem as single agents for the therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients and to ascertain whether the addition of an aminoglycoside (amikacin) to either of these agents would provide an advantage. METHODS: A prospective clinical trial was conducted in which eligible neutropenic patients with cancer were randomized to one of four treatment arms: ceftazidime alone; imipenem alone; ceftazidime plus amikacin; and imipenem plus amikacin. Efficacy analysis was done for 750 assessable episodes. A multivariate logistic-regression analysis was also performed to examine the unique contribution of various prognostic factors. RESULTS: The overall response rates were 76% with imipenem plus amikacin, 72% with imipenem, 71% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 59% with ceftazidime alone. Single-organism gram-positive infections occurred in 101 of 750 episodes. Without a change in antibiotics, the response rates were 50% with imipenem, 40% with imipenem plus amikacin, 39% with ceftazidime plus amikacin, and 38% with ceftazidime. Most responded to vancomycin or other antibiotics, and the mortality associated with gram-positive infections was only 5%. Regardless of the antibiotic regimen, the majority of uncomplicated gram-negative infections responded to therapy and the majority of complicated gram-negative infections failed to respond. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis showed that recovery of the neutrophil count was the most favorable prognostic factor in a patient's response to infection, whereas the presence of gram-positive infection, acute leukemia, pulmonary or enteric infection, and therapy with ceftazidime were unfavorable factors. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent therapy with imipenem is as effective as more conventional combination antibiotic therapy for the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with cancer.

The M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience with Taxol in metastatic breast cancer.

Taxol was evaluated in metastatic breast cancer in three trials. In the first, a phase II study, 25 patients who had received only one prior regimen of chemotherapy received Taxol (starting dose of 250 mg/m2). The response rates were 12% complete, 44% partial, and 32% minor. The median duration of response was 9 months (range, 3 to 19 months). The median survival was 20 months (range, 5 to 29+ months). Toxic effects were granulocytopenia less than 500/mm3 in 85% of all courses but serious infection in only 6% of courses, myalgias, and cumulative neuropathy. The second trial was a phase I study of Taxol by 24-hour infusion sequenced with doxorubicin by 48-hour infusion as initial chemotherapy for metastatic disease. In arm 1, Taxol preceded doxorubicin. The starting doses were 125 mg/m2 Taxol, 60 mg/m2 doxorubicin. Neupogen (5 micrograms/kg) was given subcutaneously on days 5 through 19. Ten patients received 96 courses. The maximum tolerated dose was defined by mucositis and infection at the starting dose. Cumulative thrombocytopenia occurred in subsequent courses. The unexpectedly severe toxic effects at doses that were low by comparison to other studies suggested schedule-related toxicity. Therefore, in arm 2 the sequence has been reversed: doxorubicin precedes Taxol. Doses have been escalated to 180 mg/m2 Taxol with 60 mg/m2 doxorubicin without dose-limiting toxic effects occurring. The third trial, a phase II study in patients who have received three or more prior chemotherapy regimens, is ongoing. Twenty-one of a planned 35 patients have been entered. Taxol has shown significant antitumor activity in minimally pretreated patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Update: the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience with paclitaxel in the management of breast carcinoma.

The first of three trials at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center investigating paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) in metastatic breast cancer was a phase II study involving 25 patients (297 courses) previously treated with only one chemotherapy regimen; the patients received paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 infused over 24 hours without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Complete (12%) and partial responses (44%) led to median durations of response and survival of 9 and 21 months, respectively. The median paclitaxel dose was 200 mg/m2. Despite profound neutropenia (median granulocyte count of 0.3 cells x 10(9)/L for the first three courses), infection occurred in 42% of patients but only 6% of courses. In a phase I trial of paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 over 24 hours followed by doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 using G-CSF at 5 micrograms/kg days 5 through 19, dose-limiting mucositis with neutropenic fever occurred at the starting dose, so the maximum tolerated dose was one dose lower: paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 (over 24 hours) followed by doxorubicin 48 mg/m2 over 48 hours. Among 10 patients, there was one complete response and seven partial responses (overall response, 80%). Suspecting a schedule-dependent interaction between drugs, a phase I trial of the reverse sequence yielded a maximum tolerated dose, defined by neutropenic fever without mucositis, of doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 (over 48 hours) followed by paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 (over 24 hours) in 21 patients. A pharmacokinetic study in which the sequence of administration of paclitaxel over 24 hours and doxorubicin over 48 hours was alternated in courses 1 and 2 indicated that when paclitaxel by 24-hour infusion is given first, doxorubicin plasma levels at the end of infusion were an average 70% higher and doxorubicin clearance was reduced approximately 30% compared with the reverse sequence. Similarly, the incidence of grade 2 or 3 mucositis was 70% with the paclitaxel/doxorubicin sequence versus only 10% with the reverse sequence. We concluded that paclitaxel slows doxorubicin metabolism and that when used together in this schedule, doxorubicin should precede paclitaxel. In the third trial paclitaxel without G-CSF was administered to two groups of heavily pretreated patients: (1) those with only two prior chemotherapy regimens (inclusive of adjuvant therapy) received paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 24 hours and (2) those with three or more prior regimens received paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 over 24 hours. Response rates in both regimens were approximately 20%. We conclude that paclitaxel has significant antitumor activity in metastatic breast cancer, especially in patients with limited prior therapy, without need for G-CSF.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Paclitaxel combination therapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a review.

Combinations of active antineoplastic agents have been the most effective treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Criteria for an effective combination include use of drugs with different mechanisms of action, nonoverlapping toxic effects, and synergistic, or at least additive, antitumor activity. Paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ), with its unique mechanism of action, offers an excellent opportunity for development of effective combination therapy against breast cancer. However, a number of problems have hindered the rapid development of effective combinations. The most obvious problem is the lack of a defined optimal dose and schedule of administration. The second problem has been the demonstration of unexpected interactions between paclitaxel and the other component(s) of the combination, often resulting in unusual and serious toxic effects. This review will focus on the phase I and II trials of paclitaxel in combination with established antineoplastic drugs (except doxorubicin and congeners, which is covered elsewhere in this issue) for breast cancer: cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil with or without folinic acid, cyclophosphamide, radiation therapy, as well as novel investigational agents or strategies, edatrexate, monoclonal antibodies to oncogenes, growth factors, and gene therapy with insertion of multidrug resistance gene into blood stem cells. Combination therapy offers exciting possibilities of enhanced antitumor efficacy. However, given the unexpected and serious toxic effects observed, only proven combinations should be used outside the context of a clinical trial. Additionally, the burden of proof will be to show that these combinations have increased antitumor activity, decreased toxicity, or both compared with single-agent paclitaxel.

Paclitaxel combination therapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

After the single-agent activity of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) was confirmed, trials to develop a synergistic combination began. Doxorubicin, the most active agent for breast cancer, was studied first. As paclitaxel became more available, other combinations, including high-dose regimens and adjuvant therapies, have been studied. No optimal combination regimen has been defined. Recent and/or ongoing trials are looking at paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil/ folinic acid, and mitoxantrone combinations, as well as with high-dose regimens and as adjuvant therapy. This review describes a plethora of combination studies finally under way to better define the optimal use of paclitaxel in breast cancer therapies, both as adjuvant treatment and for metastatic disease. Because of the unpredictable nature of drug interactions related to schedule and sequence, ad hoc combinations should not be undertaken outside the context of a well-designed trial.

Single-agent paclitaxel for the treatment of breast cancer: an overview.

Initial trials using a 24-hour intravenous infusion of 250 mg/m2 paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) in the treatment of breast cancer yielded objective regression in 56% to 62% of patients with no or only one prior chemotherapy regimen. Tolerance to single-agent paclitaxel seemed acceptable, but after multiple cycles, peripheral neuropathy developed in a significant fraction of patients. Lower doses and, more recently, the 3-hour infusion schedule still produced objective responses, albeit lower, in the range of 20% to 35%. It became apparent that toxicity was dose and schedule dependent, and likely there was a dose-response correlation. A 96-hour infusion schedule yielded a maximum tolerated dose of 140 mg/m2, and no hypersensitivity reactions despite omission of the standard triple-drug premedication. More recently, a 1-hour infusion schedule (plus standard triple-drug premedication) was well tolerated, with activity in both lung and breast cancer similar to that observed after a 3-hour infusion treatment. Paclitaxel retained therapeutic activity, even among patients with anthracycline-refractory breast cancer, in clinical trials using the 3-, 24-, and 96-hour infusion of paclitaxel. Current ongoing trials will explore the range of paclitaxel activity of various doses and by alternative schedules, both as second-line therapy and in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting.