Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for women with advanced breast cancer: long-term analysis of the previously published trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to perform an independent review of the efficacy data and to determine whether the efficacy difference observed in a phase III randomised clinical trial that compared doxorubicin plus paclitaxel (AT) versus fluorouracil/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (FAC) in first-line chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer was maintained after a longer follow-up period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A blinded independent review of original radiological images and original case report forms (CRFs) was conducted by an expert radiologist and an expert medical oncologist, respectively. The analysis of the updated data included time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: CRFs for all 267 patients randomised in the study were available for medical review. The results of the independent review were consistent with the original analysis. At a median follow-up of 69 months, the difference in median TTP and OS in favour of the AT arm remained significant (median TTP 8.1 vs. 6.2 months, (p = 0.036); OS 23.0 vs. 18.3 months, (p = 0.005), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This blinded independent review and analysis of updated data confirmed the advantage for AT over FAC with regard to TTP and OS in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

A phase I safety and pharmacologic study of a twice weekly dosing regimen of the oral taxane BMS-275183.

PURPOSE: BMS-275183, an orally administered C-4 methyl carbonate paclitaxel analogue, showed promising activity in a phase I trial investigating a weekly treatment regimen, but was associated with a relatively high incidence of neuropathic side effects. The current dose escalation phase I trial was initiated to investigate whether twice weekly administration of BMS-275183 would improve its safety and tolerability. Additionally, the pharmacokinetics and possible antitumor activity were studied. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A cycle consisted of 4 weeks (i.e., eight twice weekly oral doses). The starting dose was 60 mg/m(2) and the dose was increased by 20 mg/m(2) increments. Cohorts consisted of three patients and were expanded to at least six patients when toxicity was encountered. Plasma pharmacokinetics were done on days 1 and 15. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were enrolled. The maximum tolerated dose was 100 mg/m(2) twice weekly. Seventeen patients were treated at the maximum tolerated dose; 3 of 17 patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity, consisting of a combination of neutropenia, neuropathy, and diarrhea. BMS-275183 seemed to have a considerably lower incidence of neuropathic side effects compared with the weekly treatment regimen. Confirmed partial responses were observed in two patients with non-small cell lung cancer, one patient with prostate cancer, and one patient with melanoma. In addition, a long-lasting prostate-specific antigen response was observed in a patient with prostate carcinoma with nonmeasurable disease. CONCLUSIONS: BMS-275183 is preferably given in a twice weekly regimen and has considerable antitumor activity. A phase II trial in non-small cell lung cancer using the twice weekly schedule has been initiated.

A randomized comparative 96-week trial of boosted atazanavir versus continued boosted protease inhibitor in HIV-1 patients with abdominal adiposity.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal adiposity in HIV-1 patients initiating antiretroviral therapy may be part of a restoration-to-health phenomenon. Lipoatrophy is associated with long-term thymidine analogue therapy. Individual protease inhibitors (PIs) differ in their effects on lipids and insulin resistance. METHODS: A randomized open-label multicentre 96-week trial compared changes in fat distribution in patients with suppressed HIV-1 RNA and abdominal adiposity, who either continued on their current twice-daily ritonavir-boosted PI (PI/r) or switched to once-daily boosted atazanavir (ATV/r). Treatment with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors was unchanged. Body composition was assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and abdominal computerized tomography (CT) scanning. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients were randomized; 131 switched to ATV/r. Viral suppression (<50 copies/ml) was similarly maintained (93% ATV/r versus 89% PI/r). Mean changes from baseline in trunk-to-limb fat ratio were similar; difference estimates 0.03 (95% CI -0.06, 0.12; P=0.48 at week 48) and 0.02 (95% CI -0.10, 0.14; P=0.73 at week 96). More patients in the PI/r arm had a decrease of ≥20% in limb fat from baseline at week 96. Significantly greater reductions in proatherogenic lipids occurred following switch to ATV/r. Both treatment regimens were generally well-tolerated; the incidence of grade 3-4 treatment-related clinical adverse events was 34% among ATV/r recipients versus 4% of PI/r-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to ATV/r had no demonstrable benefit on abdominal adiposity. Maintenance of efficacy, less limb fat loss and marked reduction in proatherogenic lipids was observed with ATV/r compared with continuing a PI/r regimen.