Randomized, double-blind trial comparing the antiemetic effect of tropisetron plus metopimazine with tropisetron plus placebo in patients receiving multiple cycles of multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of tropisetron plus metopimazine with tropisetron plus placebo during 4 cycles of multiple-day, cisplatin-based chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 82 chemotherapy-naive patients with germ cell cancer scheduled to 4 cycles of multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (20 or 40 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days) given every 3 weeks were included. A double-blind parallel trial design was used and patients randomized to tropisetron plus metopimazine or tropisetron plus placebo. Tropisetron was administered as a single 5 mg intravenous dose on days 1-5 and a single 5 mg oral dose on day 6, and metopimazine as 30 mg orally t.i.d. on day 1, and q.i.d on days 2-6. RESULTS: Patients were evaluable for efficacy during a total of 195 cycles. Small, but certain advantages were obtained with the combination. In cycle 1, complete protection from emetic episodes on day 1, days 1-5, days 6-9 and days 1-9 was achieved in 85.7%, 42.9%, 86.2% and 40.5% with tropisetron plus metopimazine and in 90.0%, 22.5%, 64.3% and 17.5% with tropisetron plus placebo, respectively. This difference achieved statistical significance in the overall period, days 1-9 (P = 0.029). During the entire period (days 1-9), significantly less nausea was seen in patients receiving tropisetron plus metopimazine (P = 0.027), whereas other nausea parameters did not reach statistical significance. The cumulative emetic protection rate after 4 cycles was 0.51 with tropisetron plus metopimazine and 0.25 with tropisetron plus placebo (P = 0.037). Side effects were generally few and mild with both treatments and no significant differences were seen. CONCLUSION: Tropisetron plus metopimazine is superior to tropisetron during 4 cycles of multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy, but both treatments are ineffective in a number of patients. The effect of the combination seems comparable to that of ondansetron plus dexamethasone. Newer drugs such as the neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, aprepitant, should be investigated to optimize antiemetic therapy in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy.

Monitoring different stages of breast cancer using tumour markers CA 15-3, CEA and TPA.

The ability of the tumour markers Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3), Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA), and Tissue Polypeptide Antigen (TPA) to signal progression in breast cancer patients was investigated in this study. Marker interpretation considered the analytical variation, intra-individual biological variation, and the rate of increase. Patient cohorts were as follows: (A) 90 stage II breast cancer patients who were monitored postoperatively, (B) 204 recurrent breast cancer patients who were monitored during first-line chemotherapy, and (C) 112 patients who were monitored during the time period after first-line chemotherapy. The sensitivity for progression was 44% (cohort A), 69% (cohort B), and 68% (cohort C) without any false progression signals. Marker lead-times exceeded 3 months in 20% (cohort A) and 27% (cohort C) of patients. Marker lead-times were 1-6 months among 33% of the patients receiving first-line chemotherapy (cohort B). Trials are necessary to determine whether tumour marker-guided therapy has any prognostic impact. The data suggest that tumour marker information may be used to stop ineffective treatments and reduce unnecessary adverse effects.

Results of randomised studies of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) with two different ifosfamide regimens in first- and second-line chemotherapy in advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients.

The aim of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of two regimens of ifosfamide in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma patients given as first- and second-line chemotherapy. Two different schedules of ifosfamide were investigated in a randomised manner: Ifosfamide was given either at a dose of 5 g/m(2) over 24 h (5 g/m(2)/1 day), every 3 weeks or at a dose of 3 g/m(2) per day, administered over 4 h on three consecutive days (3 g/m(2)/3 days), every 3 weeks. Both schedules were given as first-line or second-line chemotherapy. A total of 182 patients was entered, 103 in first- and 79 in second-line, of whom 8 patients were ineligible, 5 in the first- and 3 in the second-line study. Most patients had a leiomyosarcoma, 46 of the 98 in the first-line and 34 of the 76 in the second-line. The two study arms were well balanced in both the first- and second-lines with respect to sex, age and performance status. In first-line treatment, 5 g/m(2)/1 day yielded five partial responses (PR) (Response Rate (RR) 10%), versus 12 PR (RR 25%) for the 3 g/m(2)/3 days. As second-line treatment, the 24-h infusion yielded: one CR and one PR (RR 6%) and the 3-day schedule one CR and two PR (RR 8%). Survival did not differ between the two regimens. The major World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 and 4 toxicities encountered were: leucopenia in 19% of all courses in the first-line and 32% in the second-line with the 5 g/m(2)/1 day, while for the 3 g/m(2)/3 days schedule the rates were 57 and 63% respectively. Grade 3 or 4 infections were seen in 4% of patients treated with 5 g/m(2)/1 day first-line and 10% of patients given 3 g/m(2)/3 days, both as first- and second-lines. No such infections were seen in patients receiving 5 g/m(2)/1 day as second line treatment. In advanced soft-tissue sarcomas in the first-line, ifosfamide 3 g/m(2), given over 4 h on three consecutive days, is an active regimen with acceptable toxicity while the 5 g/m(2) over 24 hours schedule resulted in a disappointing response rate.

Serum tumor marker CA 125 for monitoring ovarian cancer during follow-up.

CA 125 is currently widely applied in the management of patients with ovarian cancer. However, a change in results of CA 125, which should be considered significant, has not been defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of CA 125 to signal progressive ovarian cancer during follow-up after first-line chemotherapy. The study patients were selected retrospectively among 255 patients with stage IC-IV ovarian cancer. The evaluation of the CA 125 information was based on the analytical imprecision, the normal intra-individual biological variation, the sampling interval, and the cut-off value. Additionally, the utility of a new assessment criterion based upon an increment of 2.5 times the baseline CA 125 concentration confirmed by a third measurement was investigated. The efficiency of CA 125 to identify progression and non-progression during follow-up varied between 76.5 and 79.9%, depending on the applied time limit for an acceptable positive lead time. The median lead time for true positive results was 95-99.5 days. Using the new elaborated criterion, the efficiency of CA 125 for identifying progression and non-progression varied between 75.7 and 78.5%, depending on the applied time limit for an acceptable positive lead time. The median lead time for true positive results was 91-95.5 days. CA 125 provided early and reliable information about progressive disease during follow-up. The applied criteria can therefore be recommended in further studies assessing the clinical utility of serological tumor markers in patients with ovarian cancer.

Population pharmacokinetic and dynamic analysis of the topoisomerase I inhibitor lurtotecan in phase II studies.

Population pharmacokinetic-dynamic analysis was prospectively integrated in a broad phase II program of lurtotecan (GI147211), a novel camptothecin derived topoisomerase I inhibitor, to determine the population pharmacokinetic profile in a larger population, to estimate individual pharmacokinetic parameters and to investigate relationships with clinical outcome. A sparse sampling method was applied during course one, which involved two sampling time-points. A Bayesian algorithm was used to estimate individual pharmacokinetic parameters, in particular total plasma clearance (CL) and volume of distribution. In total, samples were collected of 109 (63%) of 173 patients. Pharmacokinetic-dynamic evaluation could be carried out successfully in 85 (78%) of the sampled patients. CL of lurtotecan showed substantial variability (mean 87 +/- 28 L/h) and was of the same magnitude as in the phase I studies where full pharmacokinetic curves were used. Residual variability in the population estimate of CL was 9.9%. No significant relationships were observed between exposure parameters and toxicity nor likelihood of tumor response, however the latter relationship may well have been obscured by the heterogeneity of the studied population. Prospective implementation of large scale population pharmacokinetic-dynamic analysis is feasible and important to establish whether interpatient variability in drug exposure is a major determinant of toxicity or activity.

Multicenter phase II study of gemcitabine in previously untreated patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

Gemcitabine has activity in advanced ovarian cancer, with responses in platinum-resistant disease. This study assessed the activity of gemcitabine in previously untreated patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. All patients had histologically verified invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV disease and no prior chemotherapy. Patients received gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Radiological response was assessed after two cycles. Between December 1992 and October 1995, 35 patients were enrolled. Of 33 evaluable patients, there was one complete response and five partial responses, for an overall response rate of 18% (95% confidence interval 7-36%). Forty-two percent of patients had a greater than 50% decrease in their CA-125 levels. Of the 25 patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy following treatment with gemcitabine, 12 achieved an overall response rate of 48%. Toxicity was mild, with two episodes of WHO grade 4 neutropenia (not associated with fever) and two episodes of grade 4 thrombocytopenia (not associated with bleeding). Gemcitabine has single-agent activity for poor-prognosis patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Similar results with subsequent platinum-based therapy indicate a lack of cross-resistance. This, combined with gemcitabine's favorable toxicity profile, warrants testing in comparative trials.

Cardiac function following combination therapy with paclitaxel and doxorubicin: an analysis of 657 women with advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: To determine the cardiotoxicity of paclitaxel (T) plus doxorubicin (A) combination therapy in women with advanced breast cancer. To define a dose range of A for use in AT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The effect of cumulative A dose on risk of congestive heart failure (CHF) and alterations of myocardial contractility (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] decrease > or = 20% or to <50%) was estimated from pooled data from 10 trials of AT. RESULTS: Thirty-one of 657 patients (4.7%) developed CHF at a median of 6.6 months (range 0.3-24.6) after initiation of AT. CHF was stabilized in 29 patients at a median of 17.3 months after diagnosis (range 4.1-31.2 months). The risk of developing CHF was < or = 5% at a total A dose < or = 380 mg/m2. In patients who received a total A dose > 440 mg/m2, the incidence of CHF was >25% but similar to that of A monotherapy. The risk of CHF was similar in women receiving AT or A monotherapy at a dose < or = 380 mg/m2 (2%-3%). LVEF progressively decreased in patients who received AT, especially at a cumulative A dose > 380 mg/m2. LVEF decreases were more frequent in patients who later developed CHF, but the majority of CHF patients did not experience LVEF alterations prior to symptoms. LVEF recovered after discontinuation of A in 25 of 67 women who developed LVEF < 50%. CONCLUSION: The reported cardiac effects are consistent with anthracycline-related cardiotoxicity. AT is associated with a cardiac risk similar to that of A monotherapy up to a cumulative A dose of 340-380 mg/m2.

Interpretation of sequential measurements of cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) based on analytical imprecision and biological variation in the monitoring of ovarian cancer.

The main objective with cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) monitoring of ovarian cancer patients is to detect an early change of disease activity with high reliability. We hypothesized that a monitoring scheme for ovarian cancer patients with serological tumor markers should take into account the stochastic variation, i.e. the probability that observed increases and decreases may solely be due to analytical imprecision and normal intra-individual biological variation. The aim of this study was to provide a detailed characteristic of the within-subject mean steady state concentrations and the associated variability in healthy individuals with an age distribution representative for ovarian cancer patients. Thirty-one healthy women with a median age of 55 years comprised the study population. Sixteen blood samples were collected from each subject in four series, with four samples per series, over a period of approximately 1 year. We found that, i) natural logarithmic-transformed concentrations were more homogeneously distributed between individuals than the original concentrations, ii) the within-subject mean steady state levels, the standard deviations, and the coefficients of variation differed among subjects, and iii) the steady state variability differed among the markers. In conclusion, our data indicate that the assessment of sequential CA 125, CEA, and TPA concentrations is more complex than hitherto recognized. We suggest that it is necessary to adjust the assessment criteria to the type of marker, and that assessment may be facilitated if based on natural logarithmic transformed concentrations.

Population pharmacokinetics and dynamics in phase II studies of the novel bioreductive alkylating cytotoxic indoloquinone EO9.

Population pharmacokinetic-dynamic analysis was prospectively integrated in the clinical phase II programme of EO9 to determine the population pharmacokinetic profile in a larger population of patients, to estimate individual patient pharmacokinetic parameters, and to investigate relationships between drug exposure and clinical outcome. A sparse sampling method was developed, which involved three sampling times, and was implemented during course 1. A Bayesian algorithm was used to estimate individual pharmacokinetic parameters, in particular total plasma clearance (CL) of EO9 and area under the curve (AUC). In total, samples were collected of 85 (65%) of the patients. Pharmacokinetic evaluation was successful in 61 (72%) of the sampled patients. CL of EO9 showed substantial variability (median 5.08 l/min; range 2.67-6.42) and was of the same magnitude as in the phase I study where full pharmacokinetic profiles were used. No significant relationships were noticed between exposure parameters and safety, but overall limited toxicity was observed. No tumor responses were documented. Prospective implementation of large-scale population pharmacokinetic-dynamic analysis is feasible and may generate important findings, in particular when tumor responses and relevant toxicity are observed.

Superiority of high-dose platinum (cisplatin and carboplatin) compared to carboplatin alone in combination chemotherapy for small-cell lung carcinoma: a prospective randomised trial of 280 consecutive patients.

PURPOSE: A prospective randomized trial in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) was performed to determine if intensification of the platinum dose by giving cisplatin and carboplatin in combination to patients with SCLC yields higher response rates and survival, than carboplatin alone in a combination chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 1992 and October 1997, 280 patients were included in a two armed prospective randomized trial, stratified by stage of disease, LDH and performance status. The treatment was in arm A: three courses induction chemotherapy with carboplatin (AUC = 4, day 1), cisplatin (35 mg/m2, days 2 and 3), teniposide (50 mg/m2, day 1-5), vincristine (1.3 mg/m2, day 1) every four weeks, followed by cyclophosphamide (3 g/m2, day 84), 4-epirubicin (4-epidoxorubicin) (150 mg/m2, day 112), and finally one course cisplatin, carboplatin, teniposide and vincristine, (days 140-144). Arm B also comprised a total of six courses, identical to those in arm A except for omission of cisplatin. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the overall treatment outcome for A vs. B, in terms of response rates (72% in both arms), complete response rates (40% and 34%, respectively), or median survival (314 days and 294 days, respectively). However, for patients with limited disease both the CR rate (54% vs. 37%, P < 0.05), overall survival (log-rank test, P < 0.05), and the two-year survival rate (11% vs. 6%, P < 0.05) were higher in the high-dose platinum arm compared to the carboplatin alone arm. CONCLUSIONS: The intensification of platinum dose (cisplatin plus carboplatin) in combination chemotherapy significantly increased the complete response rate, overall survival and number of two-year survivors among SCLC patients with limited disease compared to combination therapy with carboplatin alone, suggesting that a more aggressive treatment to this category of patients is worthwhile, while no difference in treatment outcome was observed for patients with extensive disease.

Serum tumour marker CA 125 in monitoring of ovarian cancer during first-line chemotherapy.

The value of the serum tumour marker CA 125 to date has been in the monitoring of ovarian cancer patients for response to therapy and for recurrence of disease. However, despite the availability of serial data on CA 125, the problem of interpreting a change over time is still unsolved. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of CA 125 to monitor patients with ovarian cancer during postoperative chemotherapy. 255 patients with stage IC-IV ovarian cancer were allocated to the tumour marker monitoring study. The evaluation of CA 125 information was based on the analytical imprecision, the normal intra-individual biological variation, the sampling interval, and the cut-off value. Additionally, a new assessment criterion based upon an increment of 2.5 times the baseline CA 125 concentration confirmed by a third measurement was elaborated and the utility investigated. The efficiency of CA 125 for identifying progression and non-progression during first-line chemotherapy was 91.9%. The median lead time for true positive results was 41 days. Using the new elaborated criterion the efficiency of CA 125 for identifying progression and non-progression during first-line chemotherapy was 90.5%. The median lead time for true positive results was 35 days. CA 125 gave reliable prediction of progressive disease during postoperative chemotherapy. The results indicate a high applicability of the presented progression criteria during CA 125 monitoring of patients with changing activity of ovarian cancer.

Ondansetron plus metopimazine compared with ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of ondansetron plus metopimazine with ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone during nine cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 221 women with stage I or II breast cancer and no prior chemotherapy who were scheduled to receive adjuvant chemotherapy with intravenous cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil and methotrexate or cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil given every 3 weeks were included in a double-blind parallel trial. Patients were randomized to 3 days of oral treatment with ondansetron plus metopimazine, or ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone. Ondansetron was administered as 8 mg bid, metopimazine as 30 mg qid, and prednisolone as 50 mg qd. RESULTS: In all, 216 patients (97.7%) were assessable for efficacy during a total of 1,462 cycles. In cycle 1, complete protection from emetic episodes/nausea day 1, days 2 through 5, and days 1 through 5 was achieved in 84.4%/51.4%, 82.6%/41.3%, and 79.8%/34.9% with ondansetron plus metopimazine and in 84.1%/57.0%, 86.8%/53.8%, and 79.4%/43.0% with ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone, respectively. In cycle 1, the three-drug combination was superior only in the treatment of nausea on days 2 through 5 (P =.0497). The cumulative emetic protection rate after nine cycles was 0.52 with ondansetron plus metopimazine and 0.75 with ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone. Side effects were generally few and mild with both treatments. Constipation was the only adverse event significantly more frequent with the three-drug combination (P =.029). CONCLUSION: Ondansetron plus metopimazine plus prednisolone is highly effective and superior to ondansetron plus metopimazine during nine cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Prognostic factors and long-term survival in 585 patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with epirubicin-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of prognostic factors in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with epirubicin-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 469 patients treated with epirubicin-based chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer were used. Prognostic factors were identified (Cox multivariate analysis). A prognostic index was compiled and risk groups were established accordingly. The applicability of the index was investigated in a series of 116 patients. RESULTS: The prognostic factors identified were: liver, pleural, soft tissue, lung and bone metastases, performance status > 2, advancing age, abnormal elevation of serum lactate dehydrogenase and negative/unknown oestrogen receptor status. Four risk groups were established: good, intermediate I, intermediate II and poor. The median and five-year survivals in percentage were: good: 34 months (26%); intermediate I: 19 months (6%), intermediate II: 12 months (0%); poor: 7 months (1%). The corresponding values in the applicability group were: 32 months (23%); 28 months (22%); 18 months (5%); and 6 months (0%). CONCLUSIONS: It is more the number and impact on the organs involved, that predict the patients' survival. The construction of a prognostic index could be helpful in assessing the outlook for patients, especially the quite dramatic difference in long-term survival between the good and poor risk patients.

Assessment of CA 15.3, CEA and TPA concentrations during monitoring of breast cancer.

The variability of the tumor markers cancer antigen (CA) 15.3, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) during steady state concentrations and the rate of increase during progression is described. One hundred and ninety-two patients were monitored during first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and during follow-up. Blood specimens were sampled approximately every four weeks. Steady state concentrations were registered for 77 (CA 15.3), 96 (CEA), and 127 (TPA) patients with below cutoff level values and for 28 (CA 15.3), 25 (CEA), and 11 (TPA) patients with above cutoff level values. Clinical and marker progression was registered for 75 (CA 15.3), 62 (CEA), and 57 (TPA) patients. The coefficients of total variation of steady state concentrations (comprising the intra- and interassay analytical imprecision and the within subject biological variation) were higher below (14.9% CA 15.3, 15.4% CEA, 25.9% TPA) than above cutoffs (9.6% CA 15.3,6.0% CEA, 19.9% TPA). The variability was similar for CA 15.3 and CEA but higher for TPA. During progression the rates of increase in concentrations were similar for CA 15.3 (0.0257) and CEA (0.0214) and lower than for TPA (0.0346). Our data indicate that criteria for assessment of sequential tumor marker concentrations should consider the marker in question, the steady state variability, the cutoff value, and the rate of increase during disease progression.

Combined endocrine treatment of elderly postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer. A randomized trial of tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen + aminoglutethimide and hydrocortisone and tamoxifen + fluoxymesterone in women above 65 years of age.

The efficacy of combined endocrine therapy with tamoxifen (TAM), aminoglutethimide (AG), and hydrocortisone (H) or tamoxifen and fluoxymesterone (FLU) was evaluated against treatment with tamoxifen alone in 311 patients above 65 years of age with a first recurrence of a metastatic breast cancer. A total of 279 patients were eligible. The response rates were assessed for 258 fully evaluable patients and were the following for the TAM (N = 94), the TAM+AG+H (N = 83), and the TAM+FLU (N = 81) groups, respectively, PR: 14, 18, and 21%, and CR: 20, 11, and 23%. The overall response rates are not statistically different (p = 0.30). The 95% CL of difference in response rates for TAM vs. TAM+AG+H are -9-19% and for TAM vs. TAM+FLU -4-25%. Time to treatment failure was comparable with median values of 9.2, 7.7, and 9.2 months in the TAM, TAM+AG+H, and TAM + FLU group, respectively (p = 0.17). The corresponding figures for survival are median times of 22.0, 24.1, and 21.1 months with a p-value of 0.62. Toxicity was more pronounced in both the combined treatment groups, and could in most instances be attributed to treatment with either AG+H or FLU. Currently, new specific aromatase inhibitors with lesser toxicity than AG are being evaluated in combination with TAM for treatment of primary and metastatic breast cancer. In conclusion, the simultaneous use of TAM and AG +H or FLU does not seem to improve the therapeutic efficacy in elderly postmenopausal patients with metastatic disease. So far, combined endocrine therapy in this group of patients should only be used in the context of clinical trials.

Progression criteria for cancer antigen 15.3 and carcinoembryonic antigen in metastatic breast cancer compared by computer simulation of marker data.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the utility of computer simulation models for performance comparisons of different tumor marker assessment criteria to define progression or nonprogression of metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Clinically relevant values for progressive cancer antigen 15.3 and carcinoembryonic antigen concentrations were combined with representative values for background variations in a computer simulation model. Fifteen criteria for assessment of longitudinal tumor marker data were obtained from the literature and computerized. Altogether, 7200 different patients, each based on 50 measurements, were simulated. With a sampling interval of 4 weeks, the monitoring period for each event was approximately 3.8 years. RESULTS: Modulation of the background variation, the starting concentrations, and the cutoffs enabled identification of criteria that were robust against false-positive signals of progression. CONCLUSIONS: The computer simulation model is a fast, effective, and inexpensive approach for comparing the diagnostic potential of assessment criteria during clinically relevant conditions of steady-state and progressive disease. The model systems can be used to generate tumor marker assessment criteria for a variety of malignancies and to compare and optimize their diagnostic performance.

Antiemetic efficacy of combination therapy with granisetron plus prednisolone plus the dopamine D2 antagonist metopimazine during multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients refractory to previous antiemetic therapy.

Effective antiemetic treatment of patients who have previously experienced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is difficult. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of a single intravenous dose of granisetron plus a 3-day oral treatment with prednisolone 25 mg once a day plus metopimazine 30 mg four times a day in patients refractory to previous antiemetic treatment with granisetron or with prednisolone plus metopimazine. The study population was made up of 25 consecutive women with stage I or II breast cancer, who were treated with multiple cycles of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil plus methotrexate or cyclophosphamide, epirubicin plus fluorouracil given i.v. every 3 weeks. Patients received the three-drug combination of antiemetics during a total of 113 cycles of chemotherapy. No emetic episodes were reported in 88.9% cycles on day 1, in 94.7% cycles on days 2 through 5 and in 85.8% cycles on days 1 through 5 after chemotherapy. No nausea was reported in 43.4% cycles on day 1, in 49.6% cycles on days 2 through 5 and in 34.5% cycles on days 1 through 5. Nineteen patients (76.0%) completed the scheduled nine cycles of chemotherapy, 1 being withdrawn because of > or =5 emetic episodes and 5, because they were not satisfied with the antiemetic treatment. The treatment was well tolerated. In conclusion, granisetron plus prednisolone plus metopimazine is a highly effective antiemetic treatment in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy refractory to antiemetic therapy with granisetron or prednisolone plus metopimazine.

Second-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer with the camptothecin-derivative GI147211: a study of the EORTC Early Clinical Studies Group (ECSG).

BACKGROUND: GI147211, a 10,11-ethylenedioxy substituted analogue of camptothecin (CPT), was brought into clinical development because of its higher water solubility and greater potency as compared to topotecan (TPT). The antitumor activity of GI147211 as second-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) was assessed after stratification of patients in refractory (no response to initial treatment or relapse within three months from last cycle) and chemosensitive (relapse more than three months from last cycle). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-seven patients were entered in the study and sixty-two were evaluable for response, twenty-eight in the refractory and thirty-four in the chemosensitive group. All patients had received 1 line of chemotherapy; radiation had also been given in 29 cases, 6 in the refractory and 23 in the chemosensitive group. GI147211 was administered at 1.2 mg/m2/day as 30-min infusion for five consecutive days every three weeks. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 16.6% (11 of 66 patients; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 8.5%-27.5%), 10.3% (3 of 29 patients; 95% CI: 2.2%-27%) in the refractory and 21.1% (8 of 37 patients; 95% CI: 9.5%-37%) in the chemosensitive group. Only partial responses (PR) were observed with a median duration of PR of 4.8 months (5.7 months in the refractory and 5.2 in the chemosensitive group). Hematological toxicity consisted mainly of neutropenia (grades 3-4 in 25% of cycles) and thrombocytopenia (grades 3-4 in 23% of cycles); non-hematological toxicity was mild to moderate and consisted of nausea (22% of cycles), vomiting (11%), malaise (34%). CONCLUSIONS: At the dose and schedule tested GI147211 is an active new agent for second-line treatment of SCLC; the antitumor activity and toxicity profile are comparable to those observed with TPT which remains the leading CPT analogue for salvage treatment. Interest has been renewed in the clinical development of GI147211 by preclinical data with the liposomal formulation showing an increased therapeutic index.

Epirubicin or epirubicin and cisplatin as first-line therapy in advanced breast cancer. A phase III study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of epirubicin to that of the combination of epirubicin and cisplatin in patients with advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 155 patients were randomized to receive either epirubicin (70 mg/m2) days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks or epirubicin (60 mg/m2) days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin (100 mg/m2) day 1 every 4 weeks. Epirubicin was continued until disease progression or to a cumulative dose of 1000 mg/m2. Cisplatin was discontinued after six cycles. In 45 premenopausal women an oophorectomy was performed. None of the evaluable patients had received chemotherapy for metastatic disease. RESULTS: Among evaluable patients (74 in the epirubicin group and 65 in the epirubicin plus cisplatin group) there were 19% vs 29% complete responses, and 42% vs 37% partial responses, with no significant difference. In the epirubicin plus cisplatin group the response rate was significantly higher in previously untreated patients as compared with patients who had received adjuvant chemotherapy (74% vs 55%, P = 0.002). Median times to disease progression were 8.4 months in the epirubicin group and 15.3 months in the epirubicin plus cisplatin group (P = 0.045). Median survival times were 15.1 and 21.5 months, respectively (P = 0.41). In the epirubicin plus cisplatin group leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly more frequent, 29% of the patients developed mild to moderate peripheral neurotoxicity, 34% reported tinnitus and hearing changes, 6 patients developed nephrotoxicity (one died due to nephrotic syndrome), and 3 patients developed leukaemia (two died of this cause). Congestive heart failure occurred in six patients in the epirubicin group and three patients in the epirubicin plus cisplatin group. CONCLUSION: Cisplatin plus epirubicin is an active, although highly toxic regimen when used as first-line therapy in advanced breast cancer. The time to disease progression was significantly longer in the cisplatin plus epirubicin group (increased by 82%). Due to toxicity, the combination regimen cannot be recommended. However, the study indicated a very high activity of cisplatin in advanced breast cancer. Studies of first-line therapy in advanced breast cancer including cisplatin or other platin derivatives in combination with, for example, the taxanes are suggested.