North Central Cancer Treatment Group Phase II study of 5-fluorouracil and high-dose levamisole for gastric and gastroesophageal cancer using survival as the primary endpoint of efficacy.

At present there is no established standard chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. Combination regimens have yielded response rates at times exceeding 50% but with no improvement in survival compared to single agents. This study examined the role of 5-fluorouracil and high-dose levamisole in a phase II setting using survival as the main endpoint. Patients with advanced carcinomas of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction were treated with 5-fluorouracil, 450 mg/m2 IV days 1 to 5, and levamisole, 100 mg/m2 orally three times daily on days 1 to 3, and 50 mg/m2 tid days 4 to 5 every 5 weeks. To allow more rapid accrual and to study a population that more accurately reflects the makeup of patients treated in clinical practice, patients with both measurable and nonmeasurable disease were entered in this study. Two of fifteen (13%) patients with measurable disease experienced a partial response to treatment. The adjusted 1-year survival rate for the 44 patients entered was 29.6%, which is similar to the historical 1-year survival of 30% observed in a group of nearly 400 patients treated in prior North Central Cancer Treatment Group studies. This regimen offers no improvement in therapeutic activity for advanced gastric cancer. This study design, however, allows rapid screening of phase II regimens in patients who would usually be candidates for phase III trials.

Phase III controlled evaluation of glutamine for decreasing stomatitis in patients receiving fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy.

Mucositis is a prominent dose-limiting toxicity associated with 5-FU-based chemotherapy. On the basis of preliminary data suggesting that the amino acid glutamine could alleviate this problem, the authors developed this trial. Patients scheduled to receive their first 5-FU-based chemotherapy regimen were selected for study. Following stratification, patients were randomized, in a double-blind manner, to receive oral glutamine or a placebo preparation in a prophylactic manner. Patients in both groups were given oral cryotherapy before chemotherapy and were evaluated for mucositis by standard physicians' evaluation and by a self-report instrument. Sixty-six patients were randomized to receive glutamine and 68 to receive the placebo preparation. There were no significant differences or substantial trends in the mucositis scores between the two study arms as measured by either the physicians or the patients. It was concluded that the dose and schedule of glutamine used in this clinical trial does not alleviate 5-FU-induced mucositis.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in severe chemotherapy-induced afebrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of colony-stimulating factors in febrile patients with neutropenia after chemotherapy have not consistently shown clinical benefit. Nevertheless, the use of colony-stimulating factors to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is widespread. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in afebrile outpatients with severe chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. We measured the number of days of neutropenia, rate of hospitalization, number of days in the hospital, number of days the patient received parenteral antibiotics, and number of culture-positive infections. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 138 patients to receive G-CSF (n=71) or placebo (n=67). The median time to an absolute neutrophil count of at least 500 per cubic millimeter was significantly shorter for patients who received G-CSF (two days, vs. four days for the patients given placebo). However, there was no effect on the rate of hospitalization, number of days in the hospital, duration of treatment with parenteral antibiotics, or number of culture-positive infections. CONCLUSIONS: Routine therapeutic application of G-CSF in afebrile patients with severe neutropenia can reduce the duration of neutropenia, but this does not appear to provide practical clinical benefit.

Phase II study of docetaxel in advanced soft tissue sarcomas.

Because of its unusual mechanism of action, docetaxel was selected for study in advanced soft tissue sarcomas of adults as part of a search for new active antisarcoma agents. Patients at least 18 years old with measurable histologically proven advanced nonosseous sarcomas were enrolled if they had ECOG performance status of < or = 2 and satisfactory leukocyte and platelet counts, and hepatic and renal function. Patients with Kaposi's sarcoma, mesothelioma, meningioma, embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma, and extraosseous Ewing's sarcoma were excluded, as were patients with brain or leptomeningeal metastases. Other specific contraindications to participation included other active cancer, previous or concurrent cancer chemotherapy or immunotherapy, and known allergy to the drug vehicle, polysorbate 80. Women of childbearing potential were required to have a negative pregnancy test. Following premedication with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine hydrochloride, docetaxel 100 mg/m2 as a concentrated solution containing 40 mg/ml in polysorbate 80 was infused over 1 h in 250 ml of either dextrose 5% in water or 0.9% saline. Treatment was repeated at 3-week intervals using standard definitions for objective responses. Up to two separate 25% toxicity directed dose reductions were permitted. Between May and December 1993, nine men and nine women registered (median age, 44 years). They received a total of 51 cycles of docetaxel (median, 2.5 cycles). Toxicity included moderate leukopenia (median first cycle nadir, 1.5 x 10(9)/L) but no significant thrombocytopenia. Alopecia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and anorexia were common side effects. Fever, minor skin rashes, stomatitis, and edema were also observed. One drug-related death occurred in a neutropenic patient. One partial regression was observed (5.9%, 95% C.I. 0.15-28.7%) among the 17 eligible patients in a patient with metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma.

Phase II trial of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma.

A phase II combination chemotherapy protocol combining methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin was designed to evaluate tumor response and survival in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Thirty patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma were assigned to chemotherapy treatment at 4-week intervals with methotrexate 30 mg/m2 i.v. Days 1, 15, and 22; vinblastine 3 mg/m2 i.v. Days 2, 15, and 22; doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 i.v. Day 2; and cisplatin 70 mg/m2 i.v. Day 2. After a median of four cycles (maximum number two cycles beyond complete regression; minimum six cycles for stable partial regression), we observed objective regression in 20 patients (67%) (95% CI, 50, 84) with complete regression in 8 patients (27%) and partial regression in 12 patients (40%). Median overall survival was 9.9 months (range, 0.3-34.2), and median survival of responders was 11.0 months (range, 2.6-34.2) from initial date of response. Toxicity was substantial with two treatment-related deaths and consisted predominantly of neutropenia (grade 3 or greater in 93% of the patients), alopecia, nausea, emesis, stomatitis, and azotemia. In conclusion, MVAC is a highly active outpatient chemotherapy regimen in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma, achieving a high complete and partial response rate. Toxicity is substantial in this elderly patient population.

Phase II trial of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced/recurrent carcinoma of the uterine cervix and vagina.

A phase II combination chemotherapy protocol combining methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin was designed to evaluate tumor response and survival in patients with advanced/recurrent cervix and vaginal cancer. Twenty-nine patients with advanced/recurrent cervix cancer and three patients with advanced vaginal cancer who had not previously received cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned to chemotherapy treatment at 4-week intervals with methotrexate 30 mg/m2 i.v., Day 1, vinblastine 3 mg/m2 i.v., Days 2, 15, and 22, doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 i.v., Day 2, and cisplatin 70 mg/m2 i.v., Day 2. After a median of 4 cycles (maximum number 2 cycles beyond complete regression; 6 cycles with stable regression); we observed objective regressions in all 3 patients with vaginal cancer and 19 patients (66%, 95% CI = 46.82) with cervix cancer including complete regression in 6 patients (21%, 95% CI = 8.40) and partial regression in 13 patients (45%, 95% CI = 26.64). Median overall survival was 11.5 months (range 1.1-54+). Median survival of responders was 12.8 months (range 3.6-54+). Toxicity included neutropenia, alopecia, nausea, emesis, and stomatitis. Although grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was observed in over half of the patients, there were no treatment-related deaths. In conclusion, MVAC is a highly active outpatient chemotherapy regimen in patients with advanced/recurrent cervix cancer, achieving a high complete and partial response rate with moderate hematologic toxicity. These results need to be confirmed by phase III trial in advanced disease patients and MVAC may be a suitable regimen for investigation in neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials in poor prognosis, previously untreated patients.

A randomized phase II trial of amonafide or trimetrexate in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. A trial of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to identify new active chemotherapeutic agents against non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the authors conducted a randomized Phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of amonafide or trimetrexate in patients with Stage IV disease. METHODS: This was a multicenter Cooperative Oncology Group trial. All patients had advanced NSCLC and were previously untreated with chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to treatment after enrollment. Amonafide was administered as a 24-hour continuous infusion (1600 mg/m2) every 21 days. Trimetrexate (150 mg/m2) was administered intravenously over 30 minutes every 2 weeks. The primary endpoints of the study were clinical response and toxic effects. All patients were observed for survival. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients received amonafide and were assessable. There were no complete responses and two partial responses (6%). Thirty-seven patients were treated with trimetrexate. There were no complete responses and five (14%) partial responses. Myelosuppression was the primary toxic effect observed with amonafide treatment. Trimetrexate was associated infrequently with clinically significant side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Amonafide is inactive against NSCLC, and no additional studies with this agent are planned. Trimetrexate has some activity against NSCLC, but its role in the future therapy of this disease is questionable.

Controlled trial of megestrol acetate for the treatment of cancer anorexia and cachexia.

Preliminary information has suggested that megestrol acetate leads to appetite stimulation and nonfluid weight gain in patients with breast cancer, other cancers, and AIDS. Pursuant to this, we developed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of megestrol acetate in patients with cancer-associated anorexia and cachexia. We randomly assigned 133 eligible patients to receive 800 mg of megestrol acetate per day or a placebo. Patients assigned to megestrol acetate more frequently reported improved appetite (P = .003) and food intake (P = .009) when compared with patients receiving the placebo. A weight gain of 15 lb or more over baseline was seen in 11 of 67 (16%) patients receiving megestrol acetate compared with one of 66 (2%) given the placebo (P = .003). Patients receiving megestrol acetate reported significantly less nausea (13% vs. 38%; P = .001) and emesis (8% vs. 25%, P = .009). No clinically or statistically significant toxic reactions were ascribed to megestrol acetate, with the exception of mild edema. This study convincingly demonstrated that megestrol acetate can stimulate appetite and food intake in patients with anorexia and cachexia associated with cancer, leading to significant weight gain in a proportion of such patients.

Cyclophosphamide-cisplatin versus cyclophosphamide-carboplatin in stage III-IV ovarian carcinoma: a comparison of equally myelosuppressive regimens.

Between March 1985 and January 1987, 103 women with histologically proven stage III-IV ovarian carcinoma were randomly allocated to groups receiving monthly intravenous regimens of 1 g of cyclophosphamide/m2 plus either 60 mg of cisplatin (CDDP)/m2 or 150 mg of carboplatin (CBDCA)/m2 for 1 year unless disease progressed earlier. The groups were well balanced according to the stratification factors (age, histologic differentiation, extent of residual disease, and performance score), and both treatments were well tolerated and produced similar median first-course leukopenia (2,200 and 2,000 cells/microL) and thrombocytopenia (220,000 and 202,500 cells/microL). The CBDCA regimen was less emetogenic. After an interim analysis in January 1987 revealed superior progression-free survival for the group of 53 patients receiving CDDP (P = .005), the study was closed to further accrual. Those 24 patients still receiving CBDCA were encouraged to cross over to the CDDP-based regimen and 21 of them did. Following treatment crossover, the relative risk of death associated with original allocation to CBDCA receded from 1.79 to 0.97, indicating success of the salvage treatment using the CDDP-based regimen. This aborted study demonstrated the superiority of CDDP over CBDCA when the two platinum compounds were compared at equally myelosuppressive low doses in combination with 1 g of cyclophosphamide/m2. If CDDP is to be supplanted by CBDCA, larger, more myelosuppressive doses of CBDCA will be required. The platinum drug antitumor effect is a critically important therapeutic feature of this combination.

Randomized clinical trial of CFP versus CMFP in women with metastatic breast cancer.

A randomized trial was performed to determine relative efficacy and toxicity of two first-line combination chemotherapy regimens in women with metastatic breast cancer: CFP (cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, prednisone) and CMFP (cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, methotrexate, prednisone). Both regimens have reported efficacy in this setting but differ in dosages and scheduling of the agents they have in common. Three hundred thirty-six women with no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were eligible and evaluable, and 309 had either measurable or evaluable disease and were assessable for objective response. Responses were seen in 65 of 153 (42%) on CFP and 83 of 156 (53%) on CMFP (two-sided P = 0.06). Median durations of response were 7.1 months for CFP and 8.5 months for CMFP (log-rank, two-sided P = 0.67). Considering all 336 patients, the median times to disease progression were 4.7 months for CFP and 6.2 months for CMFP (log-rank P = 0.31) and median survivals were 15.2 and 14.9 months, respectively (log-rank P = 0.88). Covariate analysis did not alter these findings. Median leukocyte nadirs were 1800 for CFP and 1500 for CMFP, with 22% and 21%, respectively, having nadirs less than 1000/microliters. Emesis was more frequent on CFP (49%) than on CMFP (26%) but was severe in only 7% and 5%, respectively. It is concluded that despite a higher response rate on CMFP and some differences in toxicities including a higher reported incidence of emesis on CFP, there was no substantial difference in efficacy or tolerability between the two regimens.