Phase III randomized trial of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX4 in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: a multicenter study of the Gruppo Oncologico Dell'Italia Meridionale.

PURPOSE: We performed this phase III study to compare the irinotecan, leucovorin (LV), and fluorouracil (FU) regimen (FOLFIRI) versus the oxaliplatin, LV, and FU regimen (FOLFOX4) in previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 360 chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive, every 2 weeks, either arm A (FOLFIRI: irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV 100 mg/m(2) administered as a 2-hour infusion before FU 400 mg/m(2) administered as an intravenous bolus injection, and FU 600 mg/m(2) as a 22-hour infusion immediately after FU bolus injection on days 1 and 2 [LV5FU2]) or arm B (FOLFOX4: oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV5FU2 regimen). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four and 172 patients were assessable in arm A and B, respectively. Overall response rates (ORR) were 31% in arm A (95% CI, 24.6% to 38.3%) and 34% in arm B (95% CI, 27.2% to 41.5%; P = .60). In both arms A and B, median time to progression (TTP; 7 v 7 months, respectively), duration of response (9 v 10 months, respectively), and overall survival (OS; 14 v 15 months, respectively) were similar, without any statistically significant difference. Toxicity was mild in both groups: alopecia and gastrointestinal disturbances were the most common toxicities in arm A; thrombocytopenia and neurosensorial were the most common toxicities in arm B. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were uncommon in both arms, and no statistical significant difference was observed. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in ORR, TTP, and OS for patients treated with the FOLFIRI or FOLFOX4 regimen. Both therapies seemed effective as first-line treatment in these patients. The difference between these two combination therapies is mainly in the toxicity profile.

Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin plus vindesine and mitomycin C in stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung carcinoma: a prospective randomized study.

PURPOSE: To compare a regimen of vinorelbine and cisplatin (VC) to the combination of mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main endpoits were analysis of objective response rates, toxicity, time to progression, and overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 247 eligible patients were randomized to receive (a) vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks, or (b) mitomycin c 8 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1, vindesine 3 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks. In subsequent cycles vindesine was given every other week. For both treatments a maximum of six cycles was planned. Patients with performance status 0-2 according to the ECOG scale were enrolled. Response and toxicity were evaluated according to the WHO criteria. Analysis of clinical efficacy was performed according to an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy were observed between the two chemotherapy regimens. The overall objective response rates were 39% (95% CL, 31-49%) in the VC arm and 42% (95% CL, 33-51%) in the MVP arm (P=0.13). Median time to progression was 4.2 and 4.5 months for the MVP arm and the VC arm, respectively. Median overall survival was 7 months in the VC arm and 8 months in the MVP one (log-rank test, P=0.898). These differences were not statistically significant. However, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly higher in the MVP arm than in the VC (P=0.0001; P=0.0002). Grade 3 alopecia was more frequent in the MVP arm than in the VC one (P<0.001), which was associated with higher rate of phlebitis (P=0.037). CONCLUSION: Data achieved in this study suggest that the vinorelbine-cisplatin doublet is similar to the three-drug MVP regimen in term of overall response rate, time to progressive disease, and overall survival. However, hematological toxicity and alopecia are more frequent and severe in the MVP regimen which therefore appears to be less tolerable than the VC regimen. The combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin may be considered as a reference treatment for future studies on the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine and cisplatin versus ifosfamide+gemcitabine followed by vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine and cisplatin followed by ifosfamide and gemcitabine in stage IIIB-IV non small cell lung carcinoma: a prospective randomized phase III trial of the Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale.

PURPOSE: we carried out a phase III randomized trial to compare vinorelbine-cisplatin regimen to gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen, and to a sequential administration of gemcitabine-ifosfamide followed by vinorelbine-cisplatin or the opposite sequence of vinorelbine-cisplatin followed by ifosfamide-gemcitabine according to the 'worst drug rule' hypothesis in patients with locally advanced unresectable stage IIIB or metastatic stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was survival parameters, while secondary endpoints included analysis of response rates and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: patients were randomized to receive: (a) gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 plus ifosfamide 1500 mg/m(2) on days 8-12 with mesna uroprotection (GI regimen) followed by vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 (GI --> VC regimen); (b) the opposite sequence (VC --> GI); (c) vinorelbine plus cisplatin as above described (VC regimen); or (d) gemcitabine 1400 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 8 (GC regimen). All regimens were given every 4 weeks. All patients were chemotherapy naive and had a ECOG PS 0-2. RESULTS: 400 patients were enrolled into the trial. Interim analysis after inclusion of 243 patients showed that ORR were 19% in the GI --> VC arm, 32% in the inverse sequence arm (CV --> GI), 42% in the VC arm, and 30% in the GC arm. The VC arm was statistically superior over the GI --> VC arm (p = 0.0074), but not over the other regimens. Median TTP was 3.1 months in the GI --> VC arm versus 5.0 months in the VC --> GI arm (p = 0.014). For these reasons the GI --> VC and VC --> GI arm were closed since the 'worst drug rule' hypothesis was rejected. Accrual in the VC and GC arms continued up to 140 and 138 patients respectively. Final ORR were 44% for the VC regimen (4 CR), and 34% for the GC regimen (1 CR). This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.032). OS was 9.0 and 8.2 months, respectively, with no statistically significant difference. The 1-year survival rate was 24 and 20%, respectively for VC and GC regimens. As expected the incidence of phlebitis was higher in the VC arm, while thrombocytopenia, flu-like syndrome and asthenia were more frequent in the GC arm. CONCLUSIONS: the results of this trial indicate that the combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin and that of gemcitabine and cisplatin are equivalent in terms of median TTP and OS, although the vinorelbine-cisplatin regimen is associated with a higher ORR. Both regimens may be considered as reference treatments for future studies. Moreover, our data reject the 'worst drug rule' hypothesis of sequential treatments in NSCCL at least with the combination used in this study.