Phase III Study of Pemetrexed in Combination With Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin Alone in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a rapidly progressing malignancy with a median survival time of 6 to 9 months, have previously responded poorly to chemotherapy. We conducted a phase III trial to determine whether treatment with pemetrexed and cisplatin results in survival time superior to that achieved with cisplatin alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients who were not eligible for curative surgery were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1, or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1. Both regimens were given intravenously every 21 days. RESULTS: A total of 456 patients were assigned: 226 received pemetrexed and cisplatin, 222 received cisplatin alone, and eight never received therapy. Median survival time in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm was 12.1 months versus 9.3 months in the control arm (P = .020, two-sided log-rank test). The hazard ratio for death of patients in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus those in the control arm was 0.77. Median time to progression was significantly longer in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm: 5.7 months versus 3.9 months (P = .001). Response rates were 41.3% in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus 16.7% in the control arm (P < .0001). After 117 patients had enrolled, folic acid and vitamin B12 were added to reduce toxicity, resulting in a significant reduction in toxicities in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin and vitamin supplementation resulted in superior survival time, time to progression, and response rates compared with treatment with cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Addition of folic acid and vitamin B12 significantly reduced toxicity without adversely affecting survival time.

Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Pazopanib Immediately After Discontinuation of Immunotherapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: In the first-line (1L) setting, pazopanib (PAZ) has been recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). In 2018, immuno-oncology (IO) therapy became a commonly used 1L treatment option for aRCC. We report the real-world clinical outcomes of PAZ after IO therapy for patients with aRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a longitudinal, retrospective medical record review study. The included patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had initiated second-line and/or beyond PAZ after IO therapy for clear cell aRCC on or before October 2017, and had complete medical records available from the diagnosis of aRCC to the discontinuation of PAZ, death, or the medical record extraction date (May 2018), whichever occurred first. The primary outcome variable was the PAZ duration of therapy. The secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival since PAZ initiation, the reasons for PAZ discontinuation, and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 258 eligible patients had initiated IO therapies before PAZ as follows: nivolumab (68%), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (14%), pembrolizumab (12%), and ipilimumab (3%). Overall, the median PAZ duration of therapy was 13.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.1-16.0 months). The median progression-free survival with PAZ after IO therapy was 13.5 months (95% CI, 11.8 months to not reached). The estimated overall survival rate of PAZ after IO therapy at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 89%, respectively. A total of 109 patients (42%) had reported an AE. The most frequently reported AEs were fatigue (29%) and diarrhea (14%). No additional safety signal of hepatotoxicity was observed (increased aspartate aminotransferase, 5%; increased alanine transaminase, 6%). CONCLUSIONS: In the present real-world study, second-line and/or beyond PAZ after previous IO therapy was well-tolerated and effective for patients with aRCC.

Real-World Survival Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Among Patients Receiving First Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The real-world survival outcomes and prognostic factors among patients receiving first-line targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) are not well known. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with RCC and treated with first-line targeted therapy were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database (January 1, 1993 to December 31, 2012). The patients were grouped into early (2006-2009) or late (2010-2012) targeted therapy era cohorts by the year of the first-line targeted therapy initiation. Overall survival (OS) was measured from first-line targeted therapy initiation and compared between the 2 cohorts using Kaplan-Meier analyses. The prognostic factors for OS were assessed using a multivariable-adjusted Cox model. RESULTS: A total of 604 and 641 aRCC patients (mean age, 68 years; ∼60% male in both cohorts) initiated first-line targeted therapy during the early and late targeted therapy eras, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the late than in the early targeted therapy era. Higher tumor grades (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-2.00) and lung (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53), bone (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.66), and liver (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84) metastases were associated with significantly shorter OS. Previous nephrectomy (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.72) and pazopanib as first-line targeted therapy relative to sorafenib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.85) or sunitinib (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.95) were associated with significantly longer OS. CONCLUSION: The results of these real-world analyses suggest progress in aRCC management and identified positive (nephrectomy, pazopanib vs. sunitinib or sorafenib) and negative (higher tumor grade and lung, bone, or liver metastasis) prognostic factors among patients receiving first-line targeted therapy.

Comparative effectiveness of everolimus and axitinib as second targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the US: a retrospective chart review.

Background Second targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORis) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This observational study compares overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients treated with everolimus (an mTORi) and axitinib (a TKI) following first TKI, and assesses the impact of type and duration of first TKI on the relative effectiveness of these second targeted therapies. Methods Retrospective reviews of medical records were conducted by medical oncologists or hematologists/oncologists recruited from a nationwide panel. Included patients with mRCC were required to have discontinued a first TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, or pazopanib) for medical reasons, and to have initiated everolimus or axitinib as second targeted therapy between February 2012 and January 2013. OS and PFS were compared between patients treated with everolimus vs. axitinib using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Comparative results were also stratified by type and duration of first TKI. Results Included patients (n = 325 for everolimus and n = 127 for axitinib) had a mean age of 61 years and 31% were female. Sunitinib was the most commonly used first TKI (73%). After adjusting for patient characteristics, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS or PFS between everolimus and axitinib. When stratifying by type and duration of first TKI, there was no statistically significant difference in OS between everolimus and axitinib in all subgroups except for patients with <6 months on sunitinib or sorafenib as first TKI. No significant difference in PFS was observed in any subgroup. Limitations Important limitations include potential missing or inaccurate data in medical charts, and confounding due to unobserved factors. Conclusions In this retrospective chart review, no significant differences were detected in OS or PFS between axitinib and everolimus as second targeted therapy. Longer duration of first TKI was not associated with increased effectiveness of subsequent axitinib compared to everolimus.

Real-world dosing and drug costs with everolimus or axitinib as second targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective chart review in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To describe dosing patterns and to compare the drug costs per month spent in progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) treated with everolimus or axitinib following a first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). METHODS: A medical record retrospective review was conducted among medical oncologists and hematologists/oncologists in the US. Patient eligibility criteria included: (1) age ≥18 years; (2) discontinuation of first TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, or pazopanib) for medical reasons; (3) initiation of axitinib or everolimus as a second targeted therapy during February 2012-January 2013. Real-world dosing patterns were summarized. Dose-specific drug costs (as of October 2014) were based on wholesale acquisition costs from RED BOOK Online. PFS was compared between everolimus and axitinib using a multivariable Cox proportion hazards model. Everolimus and axitinib drug costs per month of PFS were compared using multivariable gamma regression models. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients received everolimus and 127 patients received axitinib as second targeted therapy. Higher proportions of patients treated with axitinib vs everolimus started on a higher than label-recommended starting dose (14% vs 2%) or experienced dose escalation (11% vs 1%) on second targeted therapy. The PFS did not differ significantly between patients receiving everolimus or axitinib (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73-1.82). After baseline characteristics adjustment, axitinib was associated with 17% ($1830) higher drug costs per month of PFS compared to everolimus ($12,467 vs $10,637; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective observational study design and only drug acquisition costs considered in drug costs estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with aRCC receiving axitinib as second targeted therapy were more likely to initiate at a higher than label-recommended dose and were more likely to dose escalate than patients receiving everolimus. With similar observed durations of PFS, drug costs were significantly higher-by 17% per month of PFS-with axitinib than with everolimus.

Real-World Effectiveness of Everolimus Subsequent to Different First Targeted Therapies for the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Synthesis of Retrospective Chart Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The effect of first targeted therapy on outcomes with second targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma is not well known. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for patients receiving a second targeted therapy with everolimus by type of first targeted therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were drawn from 3 separate retrospective chart reviews conducted in 2011, 2012, and 2014. Inclusion criteria and study design were similar across the 3 studies. To be included in this analysis, patients had to meet the following criteria: aged ≥ 18 years; received first targeted therapy with pazopanib, sunitinib, or sorafenib; and received second targeted therapy with everolimus. Overall survival, time to treatment failure, and time to treatment discontinuation outcomes were measured from second targeted therapy initiation. Outcomes were compared among treatment groups by Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Hazard ratios for overall survival, time to treatment failure, and time to treatment discontinuation obtained from the 3 chart reviews were synthesized in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Of 696 patients treated with everolimus as second targeted therapy, 605 patients received first targeted therapy with sunitinib/sorafenib and 91 with pazopanib. After synthesizing the hazard ratios from all studies in meta-analyses, there were no significant differences in study outcomes between patients receiving sunitinib/sorafenib versus those receiving pazopanib as first targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences among outcomes while receiving second targeted therapy with everolimus for patients treated with pazopanib versus sunitinib/sorafenib as first targeted therapy.

Heart healthy equals prostate healthy and statins, aspirin, and/or metformin (S.A.M.) are the ideal recommendations for prostate cancer prevention.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been the number one cause of death in the U.S. for 114 of the last 115 years. Lifestyle factors that promote CVD also appear to increase prostate cancer risk and those that reduce CVD risk also appear to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. The largest randomized trials utilizing dietary supplements or pharmacologic agents for prostate cancer prevention (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) have also shed light on the problems and future solutions in this area. Dietary supplements that have not been found to be CVD protective, such as selenium and Vitamin E have not been found to be prostate protective. In addition, over exposure to specific anti-oxidants in nutritionally replete populations may be encouraging cancer growth. Future trials of dietary supplements to prevent prostate cancer could be problematic because by the time a definitive trial is initiated the participants will no longer be "deficient" in the nutrient being tested, which arguably occurred in the SELECT trial. It is also interesting that statins, aspirin, and/or metformin (S.A.M.) are 3 generic, low-cost, heart healthy agents derived from natural sources with separate mechanism of actions, which all appear to have the best benefit to risk ratio compared to any other agent available for prostate cancer prevention, especially aggressive disease, or as an ancillary agent (s) to conventional cancer treatment. It is time to focus on the forest over the trees and recommend proven CVD protective measures for men concerned about their risk of prostate cancer.

Dovitinib versus sorafenib for third-line targeted treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: An unmet medical need exists for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on VEGF-targeted and mTOR-inhibitor therapies. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies. Dovitinib is an oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF and FGF receptors. We therefore compared dovitinib with sorafenib as third-line targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre phase 3 study, patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor were randomly assigned through an interactive voice and web response system to receive open-label dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was stratified by risk group and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01223027. FINDINGS: 284 patients were randomly assigned to the dovitinib group and 286 to the sorafenib group. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 7·9-14·6). Median PFS was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·5-3·9) in the dovitinib group and 3·6 months (3·5-3·7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·04; one-sided p=0·063). 280 patients in the dovitinib group and 284 in the sorafenib group received at least one dose of study drug. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypertriglyceridaemia (38 [14%]), fatigue (28 [10%]), hypertension (22 [8%]), and diarrhoea (20 [7%]) in the dovitinib group, and hypertension (47 [17%]), fatigue (24 [8%]), dyspnoea (21 [7%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (18 [6%]) in the sorafenib group. The most common serious adverse event was dyspnoea (16 [6%] and 15 [5%] in the dovitinib and sorafenib groups, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Dovitinib showed activity, but this was no better than that of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma who had progressed on previous VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

A phase I, open-label study of trebananib combined with sorafenib or sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Trebananib, an investigational peptibody, binds to angiopoietin 1 and 2, thereby blocking their interaction with Tie2. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label phase I study examined trebananib 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg intravenous (I.V.) once weekly plus sorafenib 400 mg twice per day or sunitinib 50 mg once per day in advanced RCC. Primary end points were adverse event incidence and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled. During trebananib plus sorafenib administration (n = 17), the most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included rash (n = 12; 71%), diarrhea (n = 12; 71%), hypertension (n = 11; 65%), and fatigue (n = 11; 65%); grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (n = 7; 41%); and 2 patients (12%) had peripheral edema. During trebananib plus sunitinib administration (n = 19), the most common TRAEs included diarrhea (n = 14; 74%), fatigue (n = 13; 68%), hypertension (n = 11; 58%), and decreased appetite (n = 11; 58%); grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (n = 13; 68%); and 8 (42%) patients had peripheral edema. Trebananib did not appear to alter the pharmacokinetics of sorafenib or sunitinib. No patient developed anti-trebananib antibodies. Objective response rates were 29% (trebananib plus sorafenib) and 53% (trebananib plus sunitinib). CONCLUSION: The toxicities of trebananib 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg I.V. plus sorafenib or sunitinib in RCC were similar to those of sorafenib or sunitinib monotherapy, with peripheral edema being likely specific to the combinations. Antitumor activity was observed.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2-12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7-8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56-1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Everolimus vs. temsirolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma: use and use of resources in the US Oncology Network.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines suggest the use of inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as temsirolimus and everolimus, as first- and second-line therapy, respectively, for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, adherence to this recommendation in clinical practice and the use of these 2 agents in mRCC is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We determined the prescribing patterns of temsirolimus and everolimus in a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients with mRCC receiving clinical care within The US Oncology Network. Outpatient health care use in patients with mRCC was derived for the categories of laboratory visits, acute care visits, minor procedures, radiation therapy, drug/medication use, and other services. RESULTS: Among 462 patients with mRCC, 144 (31%) were treated with everolimus and 318 (69%) were treated with temsirolimus. The use of temsirolimus vs. everolimus as first-, second-, and third-line therapy was 50.7% vs. 16.7%, 30.1% vs. 42.1%, and 19.3% vs. 83.2%, respectively. Despite similarities in disease stage and demographic features, compared with temsirolimus, everolimus use was independently associated with lower use of outpatient health care resources, regardless of the line of therapy. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the potential limitation that this was an observational retrospective study, our results indicate that everolimus results in substantial savings in the use of resources relative to temsirolimus. In a large geographically dispersed network of community-based oncology practices, both of these agents are used frequently outside of NCCN guidelines. A direct comparison of the efficacy and costs of everolimus vs. temsirolimus for mRCC is warranted.

Phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel, cisplatin plus infusional high dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Conventional chemotherapy for urothelial carcinoma, such as methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin, is associated with significant toxicity. We have previously reported a low toxicity and yet moderately active regimen containing weekly infusional cisplatin and high dose 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin for advanced urothelial carcinoma. We tested the efficacy and toxicity of adding paclitaxel to that regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2000 and December 2004, 44 patients with a median age of 66 years with metastatic urothelial carcinoma were enrolled. The paclitaxel, cisplatin and high dose 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin regimen consisted of 70 mg/m2 paclitaxel daily as a 1-hour infusion on days 1 and 8, 35 mg/m2 cisplatin daily as a 24-hour infusion on days 2 and 9, 2,000 mg/m2 5-fluorouracil daily and 300 mg/m2 leucovorin daily as a 24-hour infusion on days 2 and 9. The cycles repeated every 21 days. A total of 25 patients (64%) had a creatinine clearance of 35 to 60 ml per minute. RESULTS: A total of 210 cycles (mean 4.8 per patient) were administered. Of the 40 patients eligible for response evaluation 11 (28%) and 19 (48%) were complete and partial responders with an overall response rate of 75% (95% CI 61 to 89). Median overall and progression-free survival in the whole group was 17.0 (95% CI 13.7 to 20.3) and 8.3 months (95% CI 6.4 to 10.2), respectively. Two-year disease-free survival was 15%. Grade 3 or 4 anemia, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia occurred at 23, 30 and 12 cycles, respectively. Nonhematological toxicity included infection, vomiting and diarrhea, etc. There were 2 treatment related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel, cisplatin and high dose 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin is an active regimen against metastatic urothelial carcinoma which has an acceptable toxicity profile.

Weekly cisplatin plus infusional high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (P-HDFL) for metastatic urothelial carcinoma: an effective regimen with low toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Conventional systemic chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) such as methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (M-VAC) or cisplatin, methotrexate, and vinblastine (CMV) is associated with significant dose-limiting toxicities and even treatment-related death. The authors developed a regimen that was designed to maintain efficacy, while reducing toxicities. METHODS: Between January 1998 and July 2003, 35 patients (median age, 71 yrs) with metastatic UC were treated with 4-week cycles of P-HDFL (cisplatin 35 mg/m(2), high-dose 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] 2,600 mg/m(2), and leucovorin 300 mg/m(2), on Days 1 and 8, all given by 24-hr infusion). On Day 15, only HDFL was given again. RESULTS: Among the 32 patients treated with > or = 2 cycles, 9 (28.1%) and 11 (34.4%) were complete and partial responders, respectively, with an overall response rate of 62.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.9-79.2%). The median overall and progression-free survival was 12.3 months (95% CI, 8.2-16.4 mos) and 10.5 months (95% CI, 8.4-12.6 mos), respectively. Toxicity in a total of 121 courses (mean, 3.5 per patient) was modest, with WHO Grade 3 or 4 leukopenia and thrombocytopenia noted in only 1 and 0 patients, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 nausea, vomiting, mucositis, and diarrhea were noted in 3, 2, 0, and 2 patients, respectively. In general, patients tolerated the regimen very well. CONCLUSIONS: P-HDFL is a moderately active and considerably low-toxic regimen for metastatic UC. The excellent toxicity profile makes it a viable option for patients with poor general conditions. To reach any conclusion, randomized trials comparing P-HDFL with traditional cisplatin-based regimens are necessary.

Promising systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma.

In the United States, advanced kidney cancer accounts for over 12,000 deaths each year. Immunotherapy with either interferon or interleukin-2 (IL-2) has been the standard of care for over two decades. High-dose IL-2 can apparently cure 10% to 15% of patients treated, but due to the required inpatient care and the attendant toxicities, it is only administered to less than 1,000 patients per year in the United States (Chiron, personal communication). Interferon is a less active agent than IL-2 but it has still been shown to be superior to therapy with either megesterol or vinblastine. Interferon typically results in very few long-term responses and is given to most patients with metastatic kidney cancer. Median survival after interferon therapy is dependent on risk group but is typically 12 to 15 months. Thus, new therapies are urgently needed in this refractory disease. Novel compounds currently being tested in clinical trials are showing promise in advanced kidney cancer. The molecular targets of these drugs include interfering with the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors or the raf kinase pathway, angiogenesis inhibition, and antimicrotubule agents. A review of the preclinical and early clinical development of some of these novel compounds will be discussed.

Novel agents for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer.

Advanced kidney cancer accounts for over 12,000 deaths in the United States each year. Immunotherapy, typically interleukin-2 or interferon-alpha, have been the mainstay of treatment. Response rates are low for these immune-based treatments, and most patients with advanced kidney cancer succumb to their disease. There are several novel agents currently in clinical trials that show promise in this refractory disease. These compounds include antiangiogenic agents, raf kinase pathway inhibitors, and novel antimicrotubule agents. This review discusses some of the agents currently being explored for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer.

Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a rapidly progressing malignancy with a median survival time of 6 to 9 months, have previously responded poorly to chemotherapy. We conducted a phase III trial to determine whether treatment with pemetrexed and cisplatin results in survival time superior to that achieved with cisplatin alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients who were not eligible for curative surgery were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1, or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1. Both regimens were given intravenously every 21 days. RESULTS: A total of 456 patients were assigned: 226 received pemetrexed and cisplatin, 222 received cisplatin alone, and eight never received therapy. Median survival time in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm was 12.1 months versus 9.3 months in the control arm (P =.020, two-sided log-rank test). The hazard ratio for death of patients in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus those in the control arm was 0.77. Median time to progression was significantly longer in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm: 5.7 months versus 3.9 months (P =.001). Response rates were 41.3% in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus 16.7% in the control arm (P <.0001). After 117 patients had enrolled, folic acid and vitamin B12 were added to reduce toxicity, resulting in a significant reduction in toxicities in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin and vitamin supplementation resulted in superior survival time, time to progression, and response rates compared with treatment with cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Addition of folic acid and vitamin B12 significantly reduced toxicity without adversely affecting survival time.