A randomized phase II study of two schedules of bryostatin-1 (NSC339555) in patients with advanced malignant melanoma: A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study.

PURPOSE: This study addressed the efficacy and toxicity of the novel compound Bryostatin-1 (NSC 339555), a novel agent with antineoplastic, hematopoietic and immunomodulatory activity in a variety of in vitro and in vivo systems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II study randomly assigned chemotherapy-naïve patients with untreated metastatic melanoma and measurable disease to two schedules of treatment: Arm A, 25 microg/m2 bryostatin-1 given as a 24 hour continuous infusion weekly or Arm B, 120 microg/m2 bryostatin-1 given as a 72 hour continuous infusion every 2 weeks. Although objective response was assessed using standard NCIC CTG criteria, antitumour activity was assessed using a multivariate endpoint incorporating both response (CR and PR) and early progression (PD at < or = 8 weeks). Seventeen patients were randomized to each arm. RESULTS: Arm A was better tolerated with 86.7% of 15 evaluable patients receiving > or = 90% of planned dose intensity versus 76.5% of 17 evaluable patients in Arm B. On Arm B, three patients experienced serious adverse events and three patients had to be removed from protocol therapy due to toxicity. The most common side effect was myalgia (33% grade 1-2 on Arm A versus 65% on Arm B with 5 patients experiencing grade 3 and one patient grade 4). Lethargy was more common on Arm A but more severe on Arm B. Other side effects such as nausea, diarrhea and headache were generally mild to moderate in nature and occurred with a similar frequency on both arms. Hematologic and biochemical toxicity were minimal. This trial was closed early because the protocol-stopping rule was met based on lack of required responses and on the number of early progressions on both arms. No partial or complete responses were seen; 3 patients randomized to Arm A had stable disease (duration 9-24 weeks) as did 4 patients (duration 10-38 weeks) randomized to Arm B. CONCLUSION: Arm A was better tolerated than Arm B. We conclude that bryostatin-1 has little efficacy in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with either of the schedules studied.

Phase II study of pemetrexed disodium, a multitargeted antifolate, and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: a study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed disodium (Alimta [Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN], LY231514, multitargeted antifolate) is a new multitargeted antifolate agent that inhibits multiple enzymes in the folate pathway. Phase II trials showed single-agent response rates of 16% and 23% in untreated patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). This study was undertaken to determine the response to pemetrexed disodium given in combination with cisplatin. METHODS: Previously untreated patients were eligible if they had Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, performance status 0, 1, or 2, adequate hematology and biochemistry and bidimensionally measurable lesions. Patients with brain metastases or neuropathy higher than Grade 2 were excluded. Pemetrexed disodium 500 mg/m(2) was given over 10 minutes, and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) with hydration and mannitol diuresis was administered on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Dexamethasone 4 mg was taken orally once every 12 hours starting 24 hours before treatment and continuing for 6 doses after treatment. Four patients had detailed pemetrexed disodium pharmacokinetic analysis performed. RESULTS: Between May 1998 and June 1999, 31 patients were treated on the study. There were 20 males and 11 females; median age was 60 years (range, 35-75 years); there were 5 Stage IIIB, 26 Stage IV, 26 performance status 0 or 1, and 5 performance status 2. In 29 patients evaluable for response, there were 13 partial responses (PRs; overall response rate [ORR], 95%; confidence interval [CI]: 26-64%) of median duration 6.1 months (1.6-7.8 months). Three of four evaluable patients with performance status 2 achieved PR, and 11 of 24 evaluable Stage IV patients responded (ORR, 45.8% in Stage IV). Eighteen patients died. The median survival rate was 8.9 months (range, 1-15+ months). A total of 160 courses were delivered (median, 6 for both cisplatin and pemetrexed disodium). Grade 3 and 4 anemia was observed in 5 and 1 patients, respectively, and Grade 3 and 4 granulocytopenia in 7 and 4 patients, respectively. Grade 3 nausea and emesis occurred in only 2 patients, Grade 3/4 diarrhea in 3 patients, and 2 patients had Grade 3 motor neuropathy. Nine patients had Grade 2 infections, and there was one case of febrile neutropenia. Pharmacokinetic results showed C(max), clearance and V(ss) values to be similar to data from single-agent pemetrexed disodium given in the same dose. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pemetrexed disodium and cisplatin is active against advanced NSCLC and is a well-tolerated convenient outpatient regimen. It deserves further study to compare it with other standard regimens for NSCLC.

Multitargeted antifolate LY231514 as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II study. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the multitargeted antifolate LY231514 (MTA) in patients receiving initial chemotherapy for unresectable, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable, advanced NSCLC who had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced disease were considered for this study. Eligible patients who gave written informed consent initially received MTA 600 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) for 10 minutes every 3 weeks. After three patients received treatment at this dose, the dose was reduced to 500 mg/m(2) IV at the same infusion time and frequency because of toxicity seen in this study and another Canadian MTA trial in colorectal cancer. Patients received up to four cycles after complete or partial remission or six cycles after stable disease was documented. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were accrued onto the study. All were assessable for toxicity, and 30 patients were assessable for response. All but one patient had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, 18 patients (55%) had adenocarcinoma, and nine patients (27%) had squamous cell carcinoma. Twenty-five patients (76%) had stage IV disease, and the remainder had stage IIIB disease at trial entry. Seven patients experienced a confirmed partial response and no complete responses were seen; thus, the overall response rate was 23.3% (95% confidence interval, 9.9% to 42.3%). The median duration of response was 3.1 months (range, 2. 3 to 13.5 months) after a median follow-up period of 7.9 months. Four (67%) of six patients with stage IIIB disease and three (12.5%) of 24 with stage IV disease responded to treatment. Four patients (13.3%) experienced febrile neutropenia and 13 (39%) experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, whereas only one patient (3%) developed grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Nonhematologic toxicity was generally mild or moderate, but 39% of patients developed a grade 3 skin rash. Most other toxicities comprised grade 1 or 2 stomatitis, diarrhea, lethargy, and anorexia. Ten patients stopped protocol therapy because of toxicity. CONCLUSION: MTA seems to have clinically meaningful activity as a single agent against advanced NSCLC. Toxicity is generally mild and tolerable. Further study of this agent in combination with cisplatin and other active drugs is warranted in this disease.

The evidence for tamoxifen and chemotherapy as treatment for metastatic melanoma.

Tamoxifen, an oestrogen antagonist routinely used in the treatment of breast cancer, has been used in clinical trials for patients with melanoma since the late 1970s. Following initial promise as a single agent for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, tamoxifen was first combined with chemotherapy in this setting in 1984. Since then, numerous phase II studies have combined tamoxifen with different chemotherapeutic agents, with some suggesting that tamoxifen significantly improves the efficacy of cisplatin-containing regimens. Overall response rates range from 8 to 60%. Several randomised trials also have been completed, with response rates of 12-30%. One such study showed statistically significant improvements in response rate and survival when tamoxifen was added to dacarbazine; however, other studies have not observed these benefits with the addition of tamoxifen to cisplatin-containing regimens. At present, the author's opinion is that the strength of evidence does not support the use of tamoxifen in combination with cisplatin-containing chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Controversy remains as to whether the strength of evidence from the randomised trials outweighs the combined evidence from numerous nonrandomised trials. Resolution of this controversy may depend on the results of the North Central Cancer Therapy Group and/or a common agreement as to relative strength of evidence from clinical trials of different designs.

The impact of postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting on quality of life after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

The purpose of the study was to assess the impact of postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting (PCNV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with cancer being treated in a routine clinical practice setting. The European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) was administered on day 2 and day 6 following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy to 119 patients with a variety of cancers. Patients kept daily diaries to record the occurrence and severity of nausea and vomiting. The QLQ-C30 questions were modified, for this study only, to assess the impact of nausea and vomiting on HRQOL in patients who experienced nausea and/or vomiting during the six days following chemotherapy. Those patients who experienced either nausea or vomiting experienced a decrease in HRQOL from prechemotherapy levels on six functioning and five symptom scales at day 2, and on four functioning and four symptom scales on day 6. Comparison of mean scores between the unmodified QLQ-30 and the nausea and vomiting versions demonstrated that the HRQOL rating attributed to nausea and vomiting accounted for much, but not all, of the deterioration in HRQOL scores in patients who experienced these symptoms. It can be concluded that patients who experience PCNV experience a significant negative impact on their HRQOL and that this impact can be attributed in large part to their experience of nausea and vomiting. However, since not all of the deterioration is attributable to these symptoms, other reasons for some of the decrease in HRQOL must also be identified in future studies.

Assessing the value of a new pharmaceutical. A feasibility study of contingent valuation in managed care.

OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed the feasibility and construct validity of the contingent valuation method for measuring the monetary value to healthy enrollees in a health maintenance organization of a new drug, filgrastim, as prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy treatment for cancer. METHODS: A random sample of 220 enrollees from a closed-panel staff-model health maintenance organization who did not have cancer were interviewed. Chemotherapy, febrile neutropenia and filgrastim were described by video and decision board. Questions were asked in two different scenarios: (1) User-based: Assuming they were at the point of consumption and about to receive chemotherapy, what is the maximum they would be willing to pay to receive filgrastim? and (2) Insurance-based: Given they were at risk of cancer in the future, what is the maximum they would be willing to pay in additional monthly insurance premiums to add filgrastim to the plan? In a second insurance scenario where respondents were told that filgrastim was covered, what is the minimum reduction in premium that persons were willing to accept to relinquish coverage of the drug? A 2 x 2 factorial design was used to contrast two bidding algorithms to test for starting point bias and two 5-yearly prior risks of cancer, 1/200 versus 1/100. Main effects were tested by ANCOVA controlling for age, sex, health, and income. RESULTS: Demographics of experimental cells were similar. No evidence was found of significant starting point bias. For user-based questions, as expected, willingness-to-pay increases with febrile neutropenia risk reduction, but at a declining marginal rate. Despite careful presentation of information to respondents, willingness-to-pay for insurance was higher in the lower prior risk group. Consistent with previous contingent valuation studies, the authors of the present study found evidence that willingness-to-accept exceeds willingness-to-pay for coverage of the same benefit. CONCLUSIONS: An insurance-based contingent valuation study is feasible in a health maintenance organization. Construct validation evidence was encouraging, with the exception of the test for prior risk of cancer; however, this was a between-person contrast and may have been confounded by other factors.

Use of dexamethasone and granisetron in the control of delayed emesis for patients who receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the roles of granisetron and dexamethasone for emesis control on days 2 through 7 after the administration of cisplatin in doses of 50 mg/m2 or greater to patients who had not previously received chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred thirty-five eligible and assessable patients were randomized to one of two arms in a double-blind fashion: arm A; granisetron 3 mg intravenous (i.v.) plus dexamethasone 10 mg i.v. prechemotherapy followed by granisetron 1 mg orally at 6 and 12 hours, then granisetron 1 mg orally and dexamethasone 8 mg orally twice daily on days 2 through 7 (219 patients); arm B; as in arm A but with placebo substituted for granisetron on days 2 through 7 (216 patients). All patients completed diaries in which episodes of emesis and severity of nausea were recorded. RESULTS: The addition of granisetron on days 2 through 7 had no discernable impact on nausea and vomiting during this period. CONCLUSION: The administration of a 5-hydroxytryptamine3, receptor (5-HT3) antagonist, in this case granisetron, after 24 hours conferred no benefit. This negative result needs to be assessed in light of conflicting literature, but at present it does not appear that the routine use of these drugs in this setting is justified.

Use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. Provincial Systemic Treatment Disease Site Group.

GUIDELINE QUESTIONS: 1) Does G-CSF reduce the incidence of important adverse clinical outcomes due to infections in patients with cancer treated with myelosuppressive therapy? 2) Does G-CSF allow maintenance of the chemotherapy dose with the goal of improving survival? OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for the role of G-CSF in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. OUTCOMES: Clinical outcomes reflecting events that may affect quality of life and/or resource utilization (e.g., rates and duration of hospitalization, antibiotic use); outcomes reflecting the effect of treatment on infection rates, tumour response and survival and those related to the biological effect of G-CSF. PERSPECTIVE (VALUES): Evidence was selected, reviewed and synthesized by members of the Provincial Systemic Treatment Disease Site Group (DSG) of the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative. Drafts of this document have been circulated and reviewed by members of the Systemic Treatment DSG. The DSG comprises medical oncologists, pharmacists, supportive care personnel and administrators. Evaluation by clinicians was considered in the final practice guideline. Community representatives did not participate in the development of this report but will in future reports. Guidelines approval does require participation by community representatives. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Two published guidelines and an update of one guideline were identified. Ten eligible randomized controlled trials published in English were included. BENEFITS: A meta-analysis of data from 8 trials showed that the odds of experiencing febrile neutropenia with G-CSF were significantly reduced (odds ratio 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27 to 0.52; p < 0.00001). G-CSF reduced the risk of febrile neutropenia by 34% (risk ratio 0.66; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86; p = 0.0015). The use of G-CSF was associated with a significant reduction in antibiotic usage and days spent in hospital in 2 trials and had no effect in the other 4 in which it was measured. Five trials reported no difference in overall median survival, with 2 small trials detecting a significant increase related to G-CSF. However, further research is necessary to confirm these results. HARMS: The toxic effects of G-CSF are relatively mild. The most consistent clinical symptom attributed to G-CSF is bone pain, reported in incidence rates ranging from 20% to 50% in 3 trials. Except for one case, reported bone pain was mild. PRACTICE GUIDELINE: In cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) may be beneficial for some patients. If a reduction in the number of febrile neutropenic episodes, or in the duration of such episodes, is expected to improve quality of life, then G-CSF is a reasonable treatment option for selected patients. A clear justification for the use of G-CSF should be stated. If the objective of using G-CSF is to maintain dose intensity of antitumour agents, then G-CSF can be recommended where reduction in dose intensity has been shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce survival or disease-free survival. Although the evidence is weaker, the Systemic Treatment DSG would support the practice endorsed by other guidelines (American Society of Clinical Oncology, Ontario Drug Benefit Plan) and would recommend G-CSF for patients receiving potentially curative chemotherapy: i) as primary prophylaxis; that is, where dose reductions below a specified level are required because of a known high risk of febrile neutropenia, or ii) as secondary prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy of established efficacy who have suffered a prior serious episode of febrile neutropenia due to the same chemotherapy regimen. The exact cut-off for dose reductions is unknown at this time and ought to be left to the judgement of the clinician. In general, the use of G-CSF for dose reductions lower than 20% is not recommended. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Lung cancer practice guidelines: lessons learned and issues addressed by the Ontario Lung Cancer Disease Site Group.

PURPOSE: The primary objective was to identify the lessons learned and issues addressed by the Disease Site Group (DSG) developing guidelines on lung cancer for practitioners in the province of Ontario. METHODS: The minutes of the Ontario Lung Cancer Disease Site Group (LCDSG) and the meeting notes of a medical sociologist who attended all LCDSG meetings were reviewed to identify the disease-specific and generic issues addressed by the LCDSG during guideline development. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The Ontario LCDSG has completed three practice guidelines and has five evidence-based recommendations (EBRs) in production. Topics for guideline development were selected on the basis of known practice variability (eg, advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC]); the size of the patient population that could potentially be affected by the guideline; results of phase II trials of new and potentially expensive agents (vinorelbine, paclitaxel, and docetaxel); and randomized controlled clinical trials that support new practice standards (combined modality therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC). The wording of each EBR reflects the strength and quality of the evidence in support of the treatment option, the primary outcome(s), and the individual physician and discipline values concerning treatment outcomes in the absence of known patient values.

Unresected stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Provincial Lung Cancer Disease Site Group.

GUIDELINE QUESTIONS: 1) What is the role of different schedules or doses of radiotherapy in patients with unresected, clinical or pathological, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)? 2) Does chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy provide improved survival compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with unresected NSCLC? OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations about the role of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of unresected stage III NSCLC. OUTCOMES: Survival is the primary outcome of interest. Quality of life is a secondary outcome. PERSPECTIVE (VALUES): Evidence was selected and reviewed by 5 members of the Provincial Lung Cancer Disease Site Group (Lung DSG) of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative. The Lung DSG comprises medical and radiation oncologists, pathologists, surgeons, epidemiologists, a psychologist and a medical sociologist. No community representative participated in the development of this guideline. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Two meta-analyses were available for review. The specific analysis of interest examined the role of combined chemotherapy plus radiotherapy v. radiotherapy alone in locally advanced disease. The first meta-analysis included combined data from 22 randomized controlled (RCTs) involving a total of 3033 patients. The second included combined data from 14 RCTs involving a total of 2589 patients. Also reviewed were 4 RCTs of radiotherapy alone, 1 trial of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy that was not included in the meta-analysis, 4 abstracts of studies of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and 4 trials examining the role of hyperfractionated radiotherapy. BENEFITS: In the first meta-analysis, an overall benefit was detected at 2 years for the use of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy. A hazard ratio of 0.90 (p = 0.006), or a 10% reduction in the risk of death, translated into an absolute benefit of 3% at 2 years and 2% at 5 years. A subgroup analysis of cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone demonstrated a 13% reduction in the risk of death in the combined treatment arm (pooled hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.96), for an absolute benefit of 4% at 2 years. In the second meta-analysis, there was a 13% reduction in the risk of death in the combined therapy arm at 2 years (pooled relative risk [RR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94) and a 17% reduction at 3 years (pooled RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.90). Subgroup analysis of cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone showed similar results: a 15% reduction in the risk of death in the combined therapy arm at 2 years (pooled RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92) and a 19% reduction at 3 years (pooled RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88). PRACTICE GUIDELINE: For patients with unresected stage III NSCLC, the combination of cisplatin-based chemotherapy and radical radiotherapy provides a survival benefit compared with radiotherapy alone. This guideline is based on high-quality evidence from 2 meta-analyses of RCTs. Patients with good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] 0-1) and minimal weight loss (less than 5% in the preceding 3 months) have been shown to have a survival benefit from treatment with combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy and should be considered for this type of treatment approach (see section V). For these patients, thoracic irradiation of 60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks, in combination with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, should be recommended as a treatment option. The patient and physician should discuss fully the benefits, limitations and toxic effects of therapy. Patients not meeting these criteria are not candidates for combined therapy; those experiencing symptoms amenable to treatment should receive palliative thoracic irradiation. At this time, hyperfractionated radiotherapy is not recommended outside of the context of a clinical trial. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Consensus on the use of neutrophil-stimulating hematopoietic growth factors in clinical practice: an international viewpoint.

Hematopoietic growth factors (CSFs) are now available for use in patients with myelosuppression due to congenital, acquired and therapy-induced conditions. Variations in the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in different countries are due to differences in approved indications by national regulatory agencies, varying opinions on the importance of certain treatment outcomes, differences in the selection of published and unpublished evidence of efficacy and the impact of the cost of these agents in different health care systems. Through Medline searches and personal files, we have reviewed the published literature on the efficacy and cost of GM-CSF and G-CSF in patients with severe chronic neutropenia and those receiving standard dose chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy requiring bone marrow reconstitution. Guidelines were established with regard to (1) the relative merits of different types of clinical studies and (2) the relative importance of different clinical outcomes as reported in these studies. The cost implications of these agents as they apply to the different clinical settings are also reviewed. Recommendations for the use of G-CSF and/or GM-CSF include: (1) the prevention of recurrent, debilitating infections in patients with severe chronic neutropenia; and (2) the maintaining of dose-intensity of potentially curative, standard-dose chemotherapy. While G-CSF and/or GM-CSF have been shown to improve secondary outcomes in higher-than-standard dose-intensive therapy, further studies are needed to test whether such improvements also lead to significant improvements in survival and/or quality of life. These recommendations are based on the collective interpretation of the presented evidence by an international group of investigators in this area.

Are quality of life, patient preferences, and costs realistic outcomes for clinical trials?

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a relatively new outcome, which is being considered for incorporation into randomized, controlled clinical trials. Instruments that detect different aspects of HRQL include health profiles and utility measurements. While the results of the former are highly responsive to change over time but not easily comparable between studies, utility measurements are not as responsive to change, but as single numerical values are more comparable between studies. With the growing number of multidimensional instruments available for measurement of the quality of life, investigators must be careful to select instruments that are reliable and have been validated for incorporation into clinical trials. Similarly, investigators must choose an instrument or instruments which are best suited to detection of the primary HRQL outcomes of interest for a specific population. A relatively new method for describing the quality of life during different health states is Q-TWiST analysis. An example is provided, demonstrating how the different short-term health states of patients with small cell lung cancer can be presented and quantified. While economic evaluation has often included quality of life within the concept of the quality-adjusted life year ( QALY ), determination of utilities within this concept has been highly variable and the validity of the QALY as a concept has been questioned. The healthy years equivalent ( HYE ) has been proposed as a more appropriate alternative. At the health policy decision-making level, controversy persists over how much society should pay for expansive new interventions and what boundaries for allocation should be established. Much work is still needed to improve comparability of HRQL results and to incorporate these results into clinical decision making involving individual patients and health policy makers.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing the response rates of carmustine, dacarbazine, and cisplatin with and without tamoxifen in patients with metastatic melanoma. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: We designed and conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare the response rates and survival of patients with metastatic melanoma who received carmustine (BCNU), dacarbazine (DTIC), and cisplatin with tamoxifen, or the same chemotherapy with placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with metastatic melanoma received either BCNU 150 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) on day 1, DTIC 220 mg/m2 i.v. daily on days 1 to 3 and on days 22 to 24, and cisplatin 25 mg/m2 i.v. daily on days 1 to 3 and on days 22 to 24 with placebo every 6 weeks, or the same chemotherapy with tamoxifen 160 mg orally daily for 7 days before chemotherapy and 40 mg orally daily throughout the remainder of the treatment cycle. Patients were treated on protocol for up to three cycles depending on the type of response. Assuming that a minimum increase in response rate of 20% would be necessary to conclude that tamoxifen conferred a clinically important benefit, we designed the study with an 80% chance of detecting that difference at the 5% level (two-sided). RESULTS: Between February 1992 and January 1995, 211 patients were accrued, 199 of whom were considered assessable for response and toxicity. The overall response rate was 21% in the placebo group and 30% in the tamoxifen group (P = .187). Complete and partial responses were 3% and 27%, respectively, for the tamoxifen group and 6% and 14%, respectively, for the placebo group. Poor performance status and liver involvement were associated with a reduced likelihood to respond to treatment. Major toxicities were similar in both groups with no statistically significant difference in the rates of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary thromboembolus, grade 4 neutropenia, or grade 4 thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that the addition of high doses of tamoxifen to this chemotherapy regimen does not increase the response rate compared with chemotherapy alone in unselected patients with metastatic melanoma.

Dexamethasone improves the efficacy of granisetron in the first 24 h following high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

The object of the study was to determine whether dexamethasone improved the efficacy of the serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonist granisetron in controlling acute (within 24 h) emesis in cancer patients receiving high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy and to ascertain whether continuation of granisetron after 24 h reduces the occurrence of delayed emesis. This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, three-arm study was conducted at 21 medical centres. A group of 292 nausea- and emesis-free patients with cancer, who had never had chemotherapy and were scheduled to receive at least 50 mg/m2 cisplatin, were given 3 mg granisetron i.v. in a 15-min infusion with or without 10 mg dexamethasone i.v. completed 5 min prior to high-dose cisplatin and 1 mg granisetron p.o. at +6 h and +12 h. Primary study end-points were control of emesis and nausea. Patients completed a self-report diary every 6 h for the first 24 h. At the end of the 24-h period, the patients who received dexamethasone had a significantly higher complete protection rate from emesis (64% compared to 39%) than those who received no steroid. Similarly, the dexamethasone-treated group had a significantly higher complete plus partial (0-2 emetic episodes) protection rate (84% compared to 64%). This study shows that dexamethasone markedly enhances the antiemetic efficacy of granisetron for acute-onset emesis in high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy.

Inconsistency of prognostic factors for post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting.

A number of prognostic factors have been reported to influence the probability of developing nausea and vomiting after cytotoxic chemotherapy. This study used data collected in four randomized anti-emetic trials conducted by the Clinical Trials Group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC-CTG) to assess the consistency of the effects of these prognostic factors. A total of 582 patients, all of whom had received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for the first time, but who were assigned to different anti-emetics, were included in the analysis. The major findings was that the probability of post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting was much more strongly influenced by the type of chemotherapy given and the type of anti-emetic used than by patient (e.g., age, gender) or environmental (e.g., treatment location, time of administration) characteristics. Further, patient-related factors had different, and sometimes opposite, effects in different anti-emetic and chemotherapy subgroups. Finally, the relative potency of anti-emetics appeared to vary with chemotherapy regimens. Implications of these findings for future studies are discussed.

Biological response modifiers and infectious diseases: actual and potential therapeutic agents.

Biological response modifiers (BRMs) are agents which can modify the immune response to cancer or invasion of the organism by infectious agents. An explosive appearance of new BRMs has resulted from the development of recombinant gene technology and the availability of monoclonal antibodies. Colony-stimulating factors first became available for the prevention of neutropenia but may also have a role in the treatment of infections. Interleukin-1 is being tested as a modular of hematopoiesis and may be useful as a helper factor for T- and B-cell function. Immunoglobulins are being used against viral and bacterial infections while interferons can prevent viral upper respiratory infections and suppress or irradicate some viral hepatitides. Other BRMs which show promise include chemical agents and traditional herbal medicines.

Impact of chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting on patients' functional status and on costs: survey of five Canadian centres.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of chemotherapy-associated nausea and emesis on patients' functional status and on costs to the health care system, the patients and society before antagonists to the serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) receptor subtype 5-HT3 became available. DESIGN: A 5-day prospective survey between February and May 1991 of patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer. Data were obtained from questionnaires completed by nurses and patients. SETTING: Five Canadian cancer treatment centres in Ontario (three) and Quebec (two). PATIENTS: Outpatients and inpatients 18 years of age and older who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy with a moderate to high potential for emesis as defined by standardized criteria. Patients were excluded if they were scheduled to receive an investigational antiemetic or had received chemotherapy within the previous 7 days. Of the 128 who were eligible, 112 agreed to participate; 107 returned the completed questionnaire, but the data for 15 were excluded because the patients received multiple-day chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The degree of nausea (on a seven-point scale) and the frequency of emesis (vomiting or retching) were recorded for each day of the survey. Functional status was assessed before and after chemotherapy by means of the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). The direct health care costs and the indirect costs (e.g., of time off work) associated with nausea and emesis were estimated from the survey responses and secondary data sources. RESULTS: On the day of chemotherapy 38 of the 92 patients (41%) experienced emesis with or without nausea, and over the 5 days of the survey 72 patients (78%) reported at least one episode of nausea or emesis. The absolute risk of either problem decreased over time, but the risk of nausea relative to emesis increased over time. The FLIE scores indicated significant worsening of functional status after chemotherapy. On the day after treatment the main impact was from emesis, particularly with regard to leisure activities, household tasks and hardship to the family. Nausea had a significantly greater impact than emesis on overall functioning. The additional direct health care cost for managing emesis was estimated to be $63 and the indirect cost $121. CONCLUSIONS: Despite prophylaxis with antiemetic drugs, nausea and emesis were significant problems in this population receiving chemotherapy. The management of emesis consumed relatively small amounts of health care resources, but there were costs outside the hospital for patients and others.