Resource and Reimbursement Barriers to Comprehensive Cancer Care Delivery: An Analysis of Association of Community Cancer Centers Survey Data.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive cancer care (CCC) delivery is recommended in guidelines and considered essential for high-quality cancer management. Barriers, such as insufficient reimbursement, prevent consistent access to and delivery of CCC. Association of Community Cancer Centers conducted a national survey to elucidate capacity and barriers to CCC delivery to inform policy and value-based payment reform. METHODS: Survey methodology included item generation with expert review, iterative piloting, and cognitive validity testing. In the final instrument, 27 supportive oncology services were assessed for availability, reasons not offered, and coverage/reimbursement. RESULTS: 204 of 704 member programs completed survey questions. Despite most services being reported as offered, a minority were funded through insurance reimbursement. The services least likely to obtain reimbursement were those that address practical and family/childcare needs (0.7%), caregiver support (1.5%), advanced care directives (1.7%), spiritual services (1.8%), and navigation (2.7%). These findings did not vary by region or practice type. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of sufficient reimbursement, staffing, and budget to provide CCC across the United States. Care models and reimbursement policies must include CCC services to optimize delivery of cancer care.

IGF-Binding Proteins, Adiponectin, and Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results From CALGB (Alliance)/SWOG 80405.

Background: Energy balance-related biomarkers are associated with risk and prognosis of various malignancies. Their relationship to survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) requires further study. Methods: Baseline plasma insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1, IGF-binding protein (IGFBP)-3, IGFBP-7, C-peptide, and adiponectin were measured at time of trial registration in a prospective cohort of patients with mCRC participating in a National Cancer Institute-sponsored trial of first-line systemic therapy. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for confounders and examine associations of each biomarker with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). P values are 2-sided. Results: Median follow-up for 1086 patients was 6.2 years. Compared with patients in the lowest IGFBP-3 quintile, patients in the highest IGFBP-3 quintile experienced an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for OS of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.42 to 0.78; P nonlinearity < .001) and for PFS of 0.61 (95% CI = 0.45 to 0.82; P trend = .003). Compared with patients in the lowest IGFBP-7 quintile, patients in the highest IGFBP-7 quintile experienced an adjusted hazard ratio for OS of 1.60 (95% CI = 1.30 to 1.97; P trend < .001) and for PFS of 1.38 (95% CI = 1.13 to 1.69; P trend < .001). Plasma C-peptide and IGF-1 were not associated with patient outcomes. Adiponectin was not associated with OS; there was a nonlinear U-shaped association between adiponectin and PFS (P nonlinearity = .03). Conclusions: Among patients with mCRC, high plasma IGFBP-3 and low IGFBP-7 were associated with longer OS and PFS. Extreme levels of adiponectin were associated with shorter PFS. These findings suggest potential avenues for prognostic and therapeutic innovation.

Nab-Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine as First-line Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

Importance: Gemcitabine with platinum has limited efficacy for treatment of advanced cholangiocarcinoma, necessitating an evaluation of alternative drug combinations. Recent evidence suggests that paclitaxel may potentiate gemcitabine activity. Objective: To evaluate whether gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel is safe and effective for treatment of advanced cholangiocarcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-arm, 2-stage, phase 2 clinical trial was conducted at 23 community and academic centers across the United States and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older enrolled between September 2014 and March 2016 had confirmed advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma without prior systemic therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status score of 0 to 1 and a Child-Pugh score less than 8. Previous surgery, radiation, or liver-directed therapies were permitted. Interventions: Patients received intravenous nab-paclitaxel, 125 mg/m2, followed by gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2, on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day treatment cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was improvement in 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate (null and alternative hypotheses of 55% and 70%, respectively) in the evaluable population. Secondary outcomes included median overall survival (OS), PFS, time to progression, best overall response rate, disease control rate, safety and toxicity, and association of change in carbohydrate antigen 19-9 with survival. Results: Seventy-four patients with a median age of 62 (range, 36-87) years, including 44 women (60%), were enrolled. Patients received a median of 6 (range, 1-18) treatment cycles, and the median follow-up was 10.2 (range, 0.6-27.3) months. The observed 6-month PFS rate of 61% (95% CI, 48%-73%) did not favor the alternative hypothesis. Median PFS was 7.7 (95% CI, 5.4-13.1) months, median OS was 12.4 (95% CI, 9.2-15.9) months, and median time to progression was 7.7 (95% CI, 6.1-13.1) months. The confirmed best overall response rate and disease control rate were 30% and 66%, respectively. Hazard ratios for an association between a change in serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and median PFS as well as median OS were 2.02 (95% CI, 0.86-4.75) (P = .10) and 1.54 (95% CI, 0.64-3.71) (P = .34), respectively. The most common treatment-related hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events at grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (43%) and fatigue (14%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the trial did not meet its primary efficacy end point, the results indicate that a nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine regimen was well tolerated and may be an alternative option to current therapeutic approaches for advanced cholangiocarcinoma. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02181634.

CALGB 80403 (Alliance)/E1206: A Randomized Phase II Study of Three Chemotherapy Regimens Plus Cetuximab in Metastatic Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancers.

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal chemotherapy backbone for testing in future US cooperative group studies for metastatic esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers. Cetuximab was added to each treatment arm based on promising preclinical data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer were randomly assigned at a one-to-one-to-one ratio to epirubicin, cisplatin, and continuous-infusion fluorouracil (ECF), irinotecan plus cisplatin (IC), or FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and bolus and infusional fluorouracil). All treatment programs included cetuximab once per week. The primary end point was response rate. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, and safety. As prespecified, primary and secondary analyses were conducted only among patients with adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: This study randomly assigned 245 patients, including 222 with adenocarcinoma. Among patients with adenocarcinoma, response rate was 60.9% (95% CI, 47.9 to 72.8) for ECF plus cetuximab, 45.0% (95% CI, 33.0 to 57.0) for IC plus cetuximab, and 54.3% (95% CI, 42.0 to 66.2) for FOLFOX plus cetuximab. Median overall survival was 11.6, 8.6, and 11.8 months; median progression-free survival was 7.1, 4.9, and 6.8 months; and median time to treatment failure was 5.6, 4.3, and 6.7 months for each of these arms, respectively. FOLFOX plus cetuximab required fewer treatment modifications compared with ECF plus cetuximab and IC plus cetuximab (P = .013), and fewer patients were removed from treatment because of an adverse event or experienced treatment-related death. CONCLUSION: In combination with cetuximab, ECF and FOLFOX had similar efficacy, but FOLFOX was better tolerated. Although differences were nonsignificant, IC plus cetuximab seemed to be the least effective and most toxic of the three regimens tested.

Financial Concerns About Participation in Clinical Trials Among Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The decision to enroll in a clinical trial is complex given the uncertain risks and benefits of new approaches. Many patients also have financial concerns. We sought to characterize the association between financial concerns and the quality of decision making about clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of a randomized trial of a Web-based educational tool (Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials) designed to improve the preparation of patients with cancer for making decisions about clinical trial enrollment. Patients completed a baseline questionnaire that included three questions related to financial concerns (five-point Likert scales): "How much of a burden on you is the cost of your medical care?," "I'm afraid that my health insurance won't pay for a clinical trial," and "I'm worried that I wouldn't be able to afford the costs of treatment on a clinical trial." Results were summed, with higher scores indicating greater concerns. We used multiple linear regressions to measure the association between concerns and self-reported measures of self-efficacy, preparation for decision making, distress, and decisional conflict in separate models, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred eleven patients completed at least one financial concern question. Of these, 27% were 65 years or older, 58% were female, and 24% had a high school education or less. Greater financial concern was associated with lower self-efficacy and preparation for decision making, as well as with greater decisional conflict and distress, even after adjustment for age, race, sex, education, employment, and hospital location (P < .001 for all models). CONCLUSION: Financial concerns are associated with several psychological constructs that may negatively influence decision quality regarding clinical trials. Greater attention to patients' financial needs and concerns may reduce distress and improve patient decision making.

Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention to Address Barriers to Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Lack of knowledge and negative attitudes have been identified as barriers to participation in clinical trials by patients with cancer. We developed Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials (PRE-ACT), a theory-guided, Web-based, interactive computer program, to deliver tailored video educational content to patients in an effort to overcome barriers to considering clinical trials as a treatment option. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical trial compared PRE-ACT with a control condition that provided general clinical trials information produced by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in text format. One thousand two hundred fifty-five patients with cancer were randomly allocated before their initial visit with an oncologist to PRE-ACT (n = 623) or control (n = 632). PRE-ACT had three main components: assessment of clinical trials knowledge and attitudinal barriers, values assessment with clarification back to patients, and provision of a video library tailored to address each patient's barriers. Outcomes included knowledge and attitudes and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. RESULTS: Both PRE-ACT and control interventions improved knowledge and attitudes (all P < .001) compared with baseline. Patients randomly allocated to PRE-ACT showed a significantly greater increase in knowledge (P < .001) and a significantly greater decrease in attitudinal barriers (P < .001) than did their control (text-only) counterparts. Participants in both arms significantly increased their preparedness to consider clinical trials (P < .001), and there was a trend favoring the PRE-ACT group (P < .09). PRE-ACT was also associated with greater patient satisfaction than was NCI text alone. CONCLUSION: These data show that patient education before the first oncologist visit improves knowledge, attitudes, and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. Both text and tailored video were effective. The PRE-ACT interactive video program was more effective than NCI text in improving knowledge and reducing attitudinal barriers.

Phase II Trial of Preoperative Radiation With Concurrent Capecitabine, Oxaliplatin, and Bevacizumab Followed by Surgery and Postoperative 5-Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), and Bevacizumab in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E3204.

LESSONS LEARNED: The 5-year oncologic outcomes from the trial regimen were excellent. However, the neoadjuvant and surgical toxicity of this regimen was significant and was the primary reason for the low compliance with adjuvant systemic therapy.Due to the lack of an improvement in the pathologic complete response rate, the substantial associated toxicity, and the negative phase III trials of adjuvant bevacizumab in colon cancer, this regimen will not be pursued for further study. BACKGROUND: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improves overall survival for metastatic colorectal cancer. We initiated a phase II trial to evaluate preoperative capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab with radiation therapy (RT) followed by surgery and postoperative 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), and bevacizumab for locally advanced rectal cancer. The purpose of this report is to describe the 5-year oncologic outcomes of this regimen. METHODS: In a phase II Simon two-stage design study, we evaluated preoperative treatment with capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) b.i.d. Monday-Friday), oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2) weekly), bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1, 15, and 29), and RT (50.4 Gy). Surgery was performed by 8 weeks after RT. Beginning 8-12 weeks after surgery, patients received FOLFOX plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles (oxaliplatin stopped after 9 cycles). The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response (path-CR) rate of 30%. Fifty-seven patients with resectable T3/T4 rectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled between 2006 and 2010. RESULTS: Of 57 enrolled patients, 53 were eligible and included in the analysis. Forty-eight (91%) patients completed preoperative therapy, all of whom underwent curative surgical resection. Nine patients (17%) achieved path-CR. There were 29 worst grade 3 events, 8 worst grade 4 events, and 2 patient deaths, 1 of which was attributed to study therapy. Twenty-six patients (54%) began adjuvant chemotherapy. After a median follow-up period of 41 months, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for all patients was 80%. Only 2 patients experienced cancer recurrence: 1 distant (liver) and 1 loco-regional (pelvic lymph nodes), respectively. Both of these patients are still alive. The 5-year relapse-free survival rate was 81%. CONCLUSION: Despite the path-CR primary endpoint of this trial not being reached, the 5-year OS and recurrence-free survival rates were excellent. However, the neoadjuvant and surgical toxicity of this regimen was significant and was the primary reason for the low compliance with adjuvant systemic therapy. Because of the lack of an improvement in the path-CR rate, the substantial associated toxicity, and the negative phase III trials of adjuvant bevacizumab in colon cancer, this regimen will not be pursued for further study.

Phase II trial of bortezomib plus doxorubicin in hepatocellular carcinoma (E6202): a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of bortezomib in combination with doxorubicin in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, and to correlate pharmacodynamic markers of proteasome inhibition with response and survival. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This phase II, open-label, multicenter study examined the efficacy of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) IV on d1, 4, 8, 11) and doxorubicin (15 mg/m(2) IV on d1, 8) in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. RESULTS: Best responses in 38 treated patients were 1 partial response (2.6 %), 10 (26.3 %) stable disease, and 17 (44.7 %) progressive disease; 10 patients were unevaluable. Median PFS was 2.2 months. Median OS was 6.1 months. The most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities were hypertension, glucose intolerance, ascites, ALT elevation, hyperglycemia and thrombosis/embolism. Worse PFS was seen in patients with elevated IL-6, IL-8, MIP-1α and EMSA for NF-κB at the start of treatment. Worse OS was seen in patients with elevated IL-8 and VEGF at the start of treatment. Patients had improved OS if a change in the natural log of serum MIP-1α/CCL3 was seen after treatment. RANTES/CCL5 levels decreased significantly with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of doxorubicin and bortezomib was well-tolerated in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, but the primary endpoint was not met. Exploratory analyses of markers of proteasome inhibition suggest a possible prognostic and predictive role and should be explored further in tumor types for which bortezomib is efficacious.

Phase 2 study of preoperative radiation with concurrent capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab followed by surgery and postoperative 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), and bevacizumab in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: ECOG 3204.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated the feasibility of combining oxaliplatin with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitibine and radiation therapy. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improves overall survival for metastatic disease. We initiated a phase 2 trial to evaluate preoperative capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab with radiation therapy followed by surgery and postoperative 5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) and bevacizumab for locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with resectable T3/T4 rectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled. Preoperative treatment was capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) twice daily from Monday to Friday), oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2) weekly), bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1, 15, 29), and radiation therapy (50.4 Gy). Surgery was performed by 6 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy. Beginning 8 to 12 weeks after surgery, patients received FOLFOX plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles. RESULTS: Fifty-four of 57 enrolled patients were eligible. Forty-nine (91%) patients completed preoperative therapy and underwent surgery. Nine patients (17%; 90% confidence interval, 9%-27%) achieved pathologic complete response. Thirty-two patients (59%) experienced pathologic tumor downstaging, and 53% and 15% of patients experienced worst grade 3 and grade 4 acute toxicity, respectively. Forty-seven percent of patients who underwent surgery experienced a surgical complication. CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint of a 30% pathologic complete response rate was not reached; however, the majority of patients experienced pathologic downstaging with this regimen. Increased wound-healing delays and complications may have been related to the addition of bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, or both. Continued observation of these patients will establish the long-term morbidity and efficacy of this combined modality approach.

Association between VEGF splice isoforms and progression-free survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab improves survival for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with chemotherapy, but no proven predictive markers exist. The VEGF-A splice form, VEGF(165)b, anti-angiogenic in animal models, binds bevacizumab. We tested the hypothesis that prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) would occur only in patients with low relative VEGF(165)b levels treated with bevacizumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Blinded tumor samples from the phase III trial of FOLFOX4 ± bevacizumab were assessed for VEGF(165)b and VEGF(total) by immunohistochemistry and scored relative to normal tissue. A predictive index (PI) was derived from the ratio of VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) for 44 samples from patients treated with FOLFOX + bevacizumab (arm A) and 53 samples from patients treated with FOLFOX4 (arm B), and PFS, and overall survival (OS) analyzed on the basis of PI relative to median ratio. RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis of PFS showed significantly better outcome for individuals with VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) ratio scores below median treated with FOLFOX4 + bevacizumab compared with FOLFOX4 alone (median, 8.0 vs. 5.2 months; P < 0.02), but no effect of bevacizumab on PFS in patients with VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) ratio >median (5.9 vs. 6.3 months). These findings held after adjustment for other clinical and demographic features. OS was increased in arm A (median, 13.6 months) compared with arm B (10.6 months) in the low VEGF(165)b group, but this did not reach statistical significance. There was no difference in the high VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) group between FOLFOX + bevacizumab (10.8 months) and FOLFOX alone (11.3 months). CONCLUSION: Low VEGF(165)b:VEGF(total) ratio may be a predictive marker for bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer, and individuals with high relative levels may not benefit.

Documenting the natural history of patients with resected stage II adenocarcinoma of the colon after random assignment to adjuvant treatment with edrecolomab or observation: results from CALGB 9581.

PURPOSE: We conducted a randomized trial comparing adjuvant treatment with edrecolomab versus observation in patients with resected, low-risk, stage II colon cancer. This study also prospectively studied patient- and tumor-specific markers of treatment outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After surgical resection, patients with stage II colon cancer were randomly assigned to either five infusions of edrecolomab at 28-day intervals or observation without adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Final accrual included 1,738 patients; 865 patients received edrecolomab, and 873 patients were observed without adjuvant treatment. Median follow-up time was 7.9 years. There were no significant outcome differences between study arms (overall survival [OS], P = .71; disease-free survival, P = .64). The combined 5-year all-cause OS was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.88), and the combined 5-year disease-specific OS was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.94). The relationships between demographic and histopathologic factors and survival differed for all-cause and disease-specific survival outcomes, but no combined prognostic factor model was found to adequately classify patients at higher risk of recurrence or death as a result of colon cancer. CONCLUSION: Edrecolomab did not prolong survival. Consequently, this large study with a long duration of follow-up provided unique data concerning the natural history of resected stage II colon cancer. Prognostic factors identified in previous retrospective and pooled analyses were associated with survival outcomes in this stage II patient cohort. Results from ongoing molecular marker studies may enhance our ability to determine the risk profile of these patients.

Long-term follow-up of a Phase II trial of high-dose radiation with concurrent 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin in patients with anal cancer (ECOG E4292).

PURPOSE: Although chemoradiation using 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and mitomycin-C (MMC) is the standard of care in the treatment of anal cancer, many patients are unable to tolerate MMC. This Phase II clinical trial was performed to determine whether cisplatin could replace MMC in the treatment of anal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-three patients with localized anal cancer were enrolled. One patient registered but never received any assigned therapy and was excluded from all analyses. Between February 1, 1993, and July 21, 1993, 19 patients were accrued to Cohort 1. Radiation consisted of 45 Gy to the primary tumor and pelvic nodes, followed by a boost to the primary and involved nodes to 59.4 Gy. A planned 2-week treatment break was used after 36 Gy. Concurrent chemotherapy consisted of 5-FU 1,000 mg/m(2)/day on Days 1 to 4 and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on Day 1. A second course of 5-FU and cisplatin was given after 36 Gy, when the patient resumed radiation therapy. Between April 4, 1996, and September 23, 1996, an additional 13 patients (Cohort 2) were accrued to the study and received the same treatment except without the planned treatment break. RESULTS: Complete response was seen in 78% (90% CI, 63-89) of patients and was higher in patients who did not get a planned treatment break (92% vs. 68%). The overall Grade 4 toxicity rate was 31%. One treatment-related death (Grade 5) occurred in a patient who developed sepsis. The 5-year overall survival was 69%. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy, cisplatin, and 5-FU resulted in an overall objective response (complete response + partial response) of 97%. Although the 5-year progression-free survival was only 55%, the overall 5-year survival was 69%. Given the excellent salvage provided by surgery, this study affirms that cisplatin-based regimens may be an alternative for patients who cannot tolerate the severe hematologic toxicities associated with mitomycin-based chemoradiation regimens.

Phase III, randomized study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin versus gemcitabine (fixed-dose rate infusion) compared with gemcitabine (30-minute infusion) in patients with pancreatic carcinoma E6201: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Single-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is standard treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Fixed-dose rate (FDR) GEM and GEM plus oxaliplatin have shown promise in early clinical trials. E6201 was designed to compare overall survival (OS) of standard weekly GEM 1,000 mg/m(2)/30 minutes versus GEM FDR 1,500 mg/m(2)/150 minutes or GEM 1,000 mg/m(2)/100 minutes/day 1 plus oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2)/day 2 every 14 days (GEMOX). METHODS: This trial included patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer, normal organ function, and performance status of 0 to 2. The study was designed to detect a 33% difference in median survival (hazard ratio [HR] < or = 0.75 for either of the experimental arms) with 81% power while maintaining a significance level of 2.5% in a two-sided test for each of the two primary comparisons. RESULTS: Eight hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median survival and 1-year survival were 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.6) and 16% for GEM, 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 6.9), and 21% for GEM FDR (HR, 0.83; stratified log-rank P = .04), and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.9 to 6.5) and 21% for GEMOX (HR, 0.88; stratified log-rank P = .22). Neither of these differences met the prespecified criteria for significance. Survival was 9.2 months for patients with locally advanced disease, and 5.4 months for those with metastatic disease. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were greatest with GEM FDR. GEMOX caused higher rates of nausea, vomiting, and neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Neither GEM FDR nor GEMOX resulted in substantially improved survival or symptom benefit over standard GEM in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Phase II study of uracil-tegafur with leucovorin in elderly (> or = 75 years old) patients with colorectal cancer: ECOG 1299.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the tolerability and effectiveness of uracil-tegafur (UFT) with leucovorin (LV) in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients > or = 75 years of age with previously untreated colorectal cancer were eligible for this phase II, single-arm, open-label, multicenter cooperative group clinical trial. UFT 100 mg/m2 plus LV 30 mg orally every 8 hours for 28 days every 35 days was administered until progression. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled between June 2000 and July 2001, and 55 were treated. The median age of treated patients was 81 years (range, 75 to 90 years), 26 patients were (47%) women, and 80% had good performance status (0 to 1). The observed overall response rate was 22% (95% CI, 11.8% to 35.0%). The estimated median overall survival time was 13.0 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 17.4 months), and median progression-free survival time was 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 6.7 months). Among the 56 treated patients (including one ineligible patient), 31 (55%) experienced grade 3 to 4 toxicities, most commonly diarrhea (25%) and GI toxicity (36%), with patients older than 85 years of age at highest risk. CONCLUSION: The results of this trial support the efficacy of oral UFT/LV in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. The regimen is tolerated moderately well overall, particularly as compared with other fluoropyrimidine regimens, although there is increased GI toxicity in the most elderly. These results suggest that studies using newer oral fluoropyrimidine analogs should be investigated in this patient population.

Phase III study of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy compared with chemotherapy alone in the surgical adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: results of intergroup protocol 0130.

PURPOSE: Some patients with colon cancer have a high risk of local recurrence postoperatively. This trial was undertaken to determine whether radiation therapy added to an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen improves outcome in high-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected colon cancer with tumor adherence or invasion of surrounding structures, or with T3N1 or T3N2 tumors of the ascending or descending colon were randomly assigned to receive fluorouracil and levamisole therapy with or without radiation therapy. Patients who received chemotherapy and radiation therapy (chemoRT) received 45 to 50.4 Gy in 25 to 28 fractions beginning 28 days after starting chemotherapy. Patient enrollment was terminated because of slow accrual after 222 patients enrolled (original goal was 700 patients); 187 patients were assessable. RESULTS: Overall 5-year survival was 62% for chemotherapy patients and 58% for chemoRT patients (P >.50); 5-year disease-free survival was 51% for both groups (P >.50). Toxicity (>/= grade 3) occurred in 42% of chemotherapy patients and 54% of chemoRT patients (P =.04). Leukopenia (>/= grade 3) occurred in 10% of chemotherapy patients and 22% of chemoRT patients (P =.02). No significant difference in nonhematologic toxicity (>/= grade 3) was observed between chemoRT and chemotherapy patients (35% v 44%; P =.26). CONCLUSION: Patients who received chemotherapy or chemoRT had similar overall survival and disease-free survival. Toxicity was higher among chemoRT patients. These results must be interpreted with caution because of the high number of ineligible patients and the limited power of the study to detect potentially meaningful differences.

Phase II study of gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma (E1298). A trial of the eastern cooperative oncology group.

BACKGROUND: Responses have been observed in several studies of docetaxel as treatment for advanced pancreatic carcinoma. This trial was designed to determine if the addition of docetaxel to gemcitabine therapy produced responses in >/=25% of patients with chemonaive advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial involved patients with biopsy-proven, advanced carcinoma of the pancreas not amenable to surgical resection. Patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. over 1 h followed by gemcitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) biweekly until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint of the trial was to determine the objective response rate with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Out of the 32 eligible patients, 2 patients had a complete response and 2 patients had a partial response for an observed objective response rate of 12.5% (90% CI: 4.4, 26.4%). Median survival was 4.7 months. Most toxicities were hematologic, with 48% of patients experiencing grade 4 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The confirmed complete response rate of 6% and partial response rate of 6% is encouraging, but the toxicity of this regimen appears significant. Based upon these results, this combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel is not worthy of further study. Different schedules and dosages may be more promising.

Phase III study of gemcitabine in combination with fluorouracil versus gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial E2297.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine is generally considered to constitute first-line therapy for pancreatic cancer. To determine whether the addition of fluorouracil (5-FU) improves on the results from single-agent gemcitabine, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) compared gemcitabine plus bolus 5-FU with gemcitabine alone for patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial involved patients with biopsy-proven, advanced carcinoma of the pancreas not amenable to surgical resection. Patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine alone (1,000 mg/m(2)/wk) weekly for 3 weeks of every 4 or to receive gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)/wk) followed by 5-FU (600 mg/m(2)/wk) weekly on the same schedule. The primary end point of the trial was survival, with secondary end points of time to progression and response rate. RESULTS: Of 327 patients enrolled over 18 months, 322 were eligible. Overall, the median survival was 5.4 months for gemcitabine alone and 6.7 months for gemcitabine plus 5-FU (P =.09). Progression-free survival for gemcitabine alone was 2.2 months, compared with 3.4 months for gemcitabine plus 5-FU (P =.022). Objective responses were uncommon and were observed in only 5.6% of patients treated with gemcitabine and 6.9% of patients treated with gemcitabine plus 5-FU. Most toxicities were hematologic or gastrointestinal; no significant differences were noted between the two treatment arms. CONCLUSION: 5-FU, administered in conjunction with gemcitabine, did not improve the median survival of patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma compared with single-agent gemcitabine. Further studies with other combinations of gemcitabine and 5-FU are not compelling, and clinical trial resources should address other combinations and novel agents.