Antithrombin alfa in hereditary antithrombin deficient patients: A phase 3 study of prophylactic intravenous administration in high risk situations.

During surgery and childbirth, patients with hereditary antithrombin (AT) deficiency are at high risk for thrombosis, and heparin prophylaxis may not be sufficiently efficacious. In these patients, exogenous AT may be used in association with heparin. A recombinant human AT (generic name: antithrombin alfa) has been developed. This multi-center study assessed the efficacy and safety of prophylactic intravenous administration of antithrombin alfa to hereditary AT deficient patients in high risk situations, including elective surgery, childbirth, or cesarean section. Antithrombin alfa was administered prior to and during the high risk period for restoration and maintenance of AT activity at 100% of normal. Heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and/or vitamin K antagonists were used according to standard of care. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) from baseline up to day 30 post dosing as assessed by independent central review of duplex ultrasonograms and/or venograms. Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations. Five surgical and nine obstetrical hereditary AT deficiency patients received antithrombin alfa for a mean period of seven days. No clinically overt DVT occurred. Central review of ultrasonograms identified signs of acute DVT in two out of 13 evaluable patients. No antithrombin alfa-related AEs were reported. No patient developed anti-antithrombin alfa antibodies. In conclusion, this study suggests that antithrombin alfa is a safe and effective alternative to human plasma-derived AT for treating hereditary AT deficiency patients at high risk for thromboembolic events.

Maximizing therapeutic benefit of rituximab: maintenance therapy versus re-treatment at progression in patients with indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma--a randomized phase II trial of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network.

PURPOSE: To compare the benefit of maintenance rituximab therapy versus rituximab re-treatment at progression in patients with previously treated indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between June 1998 and August 2002, 114 patients who had received previous chemotherapy for indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were treated with a standard 4-week course of rituximab. Patients with objective response or stable disease were randomly assigned to receive either maintenance rituximab therapy (standard 4-week courses administered at 6-month intervals) or rituximab re-treatment at the time of lymphoma progression. The duration of rituximab benefit was measured from the date of first rituximab treatment until the date other treatment was required. RESULTS: Ninety (79%) of 114 patients had objective response or stable disease after initial rituximab treatment, and were randomly assigned to treatment. Progression-free survival was prolonged in the maintenance group (31.3 v 7.4 months; P = .007). Final overall and complete response rates were higher in the maintenance group. Duration of rituximab benefit was similar in the maintenance and re-treatment groups (31.3 v 27.4 months, respectively). More maintenance patients remain in continuous remission, and more are currently in complete remission. Both treatment approaches were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In patients who have objective response or stable disease with single-agent rituximab therapy, duration of rituximab benefit is substantially prolonged with either scheduled maintenance treatment or rituximab re-treatment at the time of progression. At present, the magnitude of benefit with either approach appears similar. However, additional follow-up of this trial is required, and completion of phase III randomized trials is necessary to definitively answer this question.

Carcinoma of unknown primary site: sequential treatment with paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide and gemcitabine/irinotecan: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the sequential administration of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Princeton, NJ), carboplatin (Paraplatin; Bristol-Myers Squibb), and oral etoposide (VePesid; Bristol-Myers Squibb) followed by gemcitabine (Gemzar; Eli Lilly; Indianapolis, IN) and irinotecan (Campostar; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; New York, NY) in the first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients were treated with sequential combination chemotherapy for a maximum of six cycles. All patients had relatively poor prognostic features. Fifty-nine patients had well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, 73 patients had poorly differentiated carcinoma, and 121 patients had performance status scores of 0 or 1. RESULTS: Thirty-three (30%) of 111 assessable patients (95% confidence interval 27%-33%) had objective responses to treatment (26 partial responses, seven complete responses). The combination of gemcitabine and irinotecan was associated with significantly less toxicity than the triple-drug regimen and improved the responses in several patients (10%). The response rates were similar in the two major histologic tumor types, but were lower for patients with liver-dominant tumors (13%) and higher for patients with lymph-node-dominant tumors (50%). The median progression-free survival time, median survival time, and actuarial survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 5.7 months, 9.1 months, 35%, and 16%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel/carboplatin/oral etoposide and gemcitabine/irinotecan is an active treatment for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site, but overall toxicities are greater than those seen with other combinations of new drugs and survival appears similar to that observed in 264 other patients treated in our four previous phase II trials. A better understanding of the biology of these heterogeneous tumors will likely lead to improved therapy for these patients.

A phase II trial of preoperative concurrent radiation therapy and weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of a novel preoperative combined-modality regimen in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with clinical stage IIB, IIIA, or IIIB NSCLC received preoperative combined-modality therapy with concurrent radiation therapy (RT) and weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin for 5 consecutive weeks. After this treatment, patients believed to have resectable disease by standard surgical criteria underwent thoracotomy. Patients whose disease remained unresectable after initial therapy received further RT with concurrent paclitaxel/carboplatin. Of 107 patients entered into this clinical trial, only 20 patients (19%) were considered to have surgically resectable disease at the time of study entry. Ninety-eight patients (92%) completed preoperative combined-modality therapy. Forty-nine patients (46%) underwent thoracotomy and 34 patients had definitive resection. Fourteen patients (13%) had pathologic complete response (pCR). Thirteen of 18 patients (72%) with clinical stage T3 N0 (IIB) tumors had definitive resections, and 33% had pCR. After a median follow-up of 32 months, the 1- and 2-year actuarial survival rates for the entire group are 64% and 42%, respectively. Favorable-prognosis subgroups included patients who had definitive resection and patients with clinical stage T3 N0 tumors (2-year survival rates of 67% for both subgroups). Preoperative therapy with RT and weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin showed activity in this patient population; however, disease in the majority of patients with extensive involvement of mediastinal nodes remained unresectable after this treatment. Results in patients who initially had unresectable disease do not appear different than results achieved with concurrent RT/chemotherapy approaches. Postoperative complications associated with this preoperative combined-modality regimen were more frequent than expected with resection alone.

Preoperative therapy with concurrent paclitaxel/carboplatin/infusional 5-FU and radiation therapy in locoregional esophageal cancer: final results of a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network phase II trial.

PURPOSE: This phase II study was designed to determine the feasibility, toxicity, and therapeutic efficacy of a novel outpatient combined-modality preoperative regimen in patients with localized esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-nine eligible patients with previously untreated, potentially resectable, clinical stage I-III carcinoma of the esophagus were treated between July 1995 and July 1999. Combined-modality treatment included: paclitaxel, 200 mg/m2, 1-hour i.v. infusion, days 1 and 22; carboplatin, an area under the concentration time curve 6.0 i.v., days 1 and 22; 5-fluorouracil, 225 mg/m2/day, continuous i.v. infusion, days 1-42; and radiation therapy, 45 Gy, 1.8-Gy single daily fractions 5 days weekly, beginning day 1. All patients underwent surgical resection 4-8 weeks after completion of the preoperative therapy. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients (95%) completed preoperative therapy, 105 patients (81%) underwent attempted resection, and 96 patients (74%) had definitive resection. A pathological complete response was achieved in 47 of 123 evaluable patients (38%); an additional 30 patients (24%) had only microscopic residual tumor. With a median follow-up of 45 months, the median survival is 22 months (95% CI = 15-32 months), with actuarial 1-, 2-, and 3-year survivals of 71%, 47%, and 41%, respectively. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities of the neoadjuvant program were leukopenia (73%) and esophagitis (43%). Although 73 patients (57%) required brief hospitalizations during preoperative therapy, there were no treatment-related deaths, and 94% of patients remained candidates for resection after the completion of treatment. Six patients (6%) died after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This novel combined-modality regimen is highly active in the treatment of locoregional esophageal cancer, producing an actuarial 3-year survival of 41%. Although this preoperative regimen produced moderate acute toxicity, there were no treatment-related deaths and the large majority of patients were able to undergo subsequent esophageal resection. These results, obtained in a community-based setting and involving multiple surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists, compare favorably with those of previous single-center and multicenter results. Further evaluation of novel combined-modality programs is warranted, as is the incorporation of epidermal growth factor receptor antagonists or other targeted agents.

Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and vinorelbine in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer: a phase II trial of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer. Between March 1998 and February 1999, 30 patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer who had received treatment with one previous combination chemotherapy regimen entered this multicenter, community-based clinical trial. All patients had received previous platinum/etoposide combination chemotherapy; in addition, 12 patients had received paclitaxel as part of their first-line therapy. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 20 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Patients were reevaluated for response after two cycles of therapy; those with objective response or stable disease continued treatment for six courses or until disease progression. Three of 28 evaluable patients (10%) had partial responses to treatment. None of the 17 patients with refractory disease responded, while 3 of 12 patients (25%) with relapsed disease had partial responses. Median survival was 5 months. Treatment was generally well tolerated; myelosuppression was the major toxicity, but only two patients developed febrile neutropenia, and there were no treatment-related deaths. Non-hematologic toxicity was uncommon; alopecia did not occur with this regimen. The activity of gemcitabine and vinorelbine in patients with previously treated small cell lung cancer is modest and is limited to patients with relapsed (versus refractory) disease. In patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer, this regimen provides an additional treatment option, with decreased toxicity when compared to other second-line options. However, novel treatment approaches are necessary before substantial improvements in treating this patient population will be realized.