Phase II study of bortezomib in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial tract transitional cell carcinoma: CALGB 90207.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Response rates to second-line chemotherapy for advanced UC are low and response duration is short. Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor with preclinical activity against UC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment consisted of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) i.v. twice weekly for two consecutive weeks, followed by a 1-week break. The primary end point was objective response rate (complete response + partial response) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Secondary end points included safety, toxicity, and progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: In all, 25 patients with advanced UC previously treated with combination chemotherapy were enrolled in a multi-institutional single-arm trial from December 2003 through April 2005. Only 29% of patients had node-only metastases. Grade 3/4 drug-related toxic effects included thrombocytopenia (4%), anemia (8%), lymphopenia (8%), sensory neuropathy (6%), hyperglycemia (4%), hypernatremia (4%), fatigue (4%), neuropathic pain (6%), dehydration (4%), and vomiting (4%). No objective responses were observed [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0-12]. The median time to progression was 1.4 months (95% CI = 1.1-2.0 months), and the median survival time was 5.7 months (95% CI = 3.6-8.4 months). There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Although bortezomib is well tolerated, it does not have antitumor activity as second-line therapy in UC.

Phase II trial of irinotecan/gemcitabine as second-line therapy for relapsed and refractory small-cell lung cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 39902.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the irinotecan/gemcitabine combination in patients with relapsed/refractory small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable tumor who had received one previous chemotherapy or chemotherapy/radiation regimen were eligible. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) was administered i.v. over 30 min followed immediately by irinotecan 100 mg/m(2) i.v. over 90 min, both on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. Patients were stratified based on response to initial treatment [i.e. primary sensitive disease with progression >or=3 months (group A), or refractory disease (group B)]. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were enrolled but one never received treatment and one ineligible patient did not have SCLC. Median patient ages of the remaining patients were 61 and 63 years in groups A (n = 35) and B (n = 36), respectively, with performance status of 0 or 1 in 85% of 71 patients. Primary grade 3/4 toxic effects in groups A versus B were neutropenia (36% versus 43%), thrombocytopenia (36% versus 26%), nausea (12% versus 11%), vomiting (0 versus 11%), diarrhea (12% versus 9%), and pulmonary (12% versus 12%). Two patients had fatal events including pneumonitis (n = 1) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 1). Responses occurred in 11 group A [two complete responses and nine partial responses (PRs)] and four group B (all PRs) patients, for response rates of 31% [95% confidence interval (CI) 17%, 49%) and 11% (95% CI 3%, 26%), respectively. Median survival and progression-free survival times were 7.1 (95% CI 6, 10.5) versus 3.5 (95% CI 3.1, 5.7) months, and 3.1 (95% CI 1.6, 5.3) versus 1.6 (95% CI 1.4, 2.8) months for group A versus B. CONCLUSION: The irinotecan/gemcitabine combination is active and well tolerated as second-line therapy in SCLC patients. Additional studies are warranted as second-line therapy in patients who progressed 90 days or more after first-line therapy. However, the observed efficacy results in refractory SCLC patients indicate that this regimen should not be further explored in this population.

Does an oral analgesic protocol improve pain control for patients with cancer? An intergroup study coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain is highly prevalent and commonly undertreated. This study was designed to determine whether dissemination of a clinical protocol for pain management would improve outcomes in community oncology practices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pain management protocol was developed based on accepted guidelines. After baseline assessment, oncology practices were randomly assigned to 'analgesic protocol' (AP) sites, where oncologists implemented the guidelines in a group of lung or prostate cancer patients, or to 'physician discretion' (PD) sites, where customary treatment was continued. Patients treated on protocol and a comparison group of patients with pain due to breast cancer or myeloma were monitored for change in pain using the Brief Pain Inventory, and for change in other symptoms or mood. RESULTS: The protocol terminated early because of poor accrual. We compared groups using proportions of patients who had no or mild pain at follow-up. Although measures of protocol adherence did not suggest the occurrence of major practice change, the proportion of lung or prostate cancer patients with no or mild pain increased significantly from baseline for those treated at AP sites compared with those treated at PD sites. There was no significant difference between the breast and myeloma patients treated at AP sites versus those treated at PD sites. CONCLUSION: A protocol for cancer pain management can improve pain control. Diffusion of these benefits to other patients was not confirmed. Given the small sample size, these findings require confirmation in a larger trial.

Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty about the relative worth of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil (CMF), as well as doubt about the propriety of giving tamoxifen (TAM) with chemotherapy to patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors and negative axillary nodes, prompted the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project to initiate the B-23 study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 2,008) were randomly assigned to CMF plus placebo, CMF plus TAM, AC plus placebo, or AC plus TAM. Six cycles of CMF were given for 6 months; four cycles of AC were administered for 63 days. TAM was given daily for 5 years. Relapse-free survival (RFS), event-free survival (EFS), and survival (S) were determined by using life-table estimates. Tests for heterogeneity of outcome used log-rank statistics and Cox proportional hazards models to detect differences across all groups and according to chemotherapy and hormonal therapy status. RESULTS: No significant difference in RFS, EFS, or S was observed among the four groups through 5 years (P =.96,.8, and.8, respectively), for those aged < or = 49 years (P =.97,.5, and.9, respectively), or for those aged > or = 50 years (P =.7,.6, and.6, respectively). A comparison between all CMF- and all AC-treated patients demonstrated no significant differences in RFS (87% at 5 years in both groups, P =.9), EFS (83% and 82%, P =.6), or S (89% and 90%, P =.4). There were no significant differences in RFS, EFS, or S between CMF and AC in patients aged < or = 49 or > or = 50 years. No significant difference in any outcome was observed when chemotherapy-treated patients who received placebo were compared with those given TAM. RFS in both groups was 87% (P =.6), 87% in patients aged < or = 49 (P =.9), and 88% and 87%, respectively (P =.4), in those aged > or = 50 years. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the outcome of patients who received AC or CMF. TAM with either regimen resulted in no significant advantage over that achieved from chemotherapy alone.

Paclitaxel/ifosfamide or navelbine/ifosfamide chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: CALGB 9532.

In order to explore non-cisplatin containing regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer, Cancer and Leukemia Group B conducted a randomized Phase-II study of two novel combinations, paclitaxel/ifosfamide and vinorelbine/ifosfamide. Both regimens were active with a 38% response rate (95% CI: 24%, 53%) and 31% (95% CI: 18%, 47%), respectively. Median survivals were 8.5 and 7.4 months. Toxicity, mostly neutropenia, was acceptable. These two combinations establish a 'proof of principle' that non-cisplatin containing regimens also have activity in this setting.

Further evaluation of intensified and increased total dose of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-25.

PURPOSE: In 1989, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project initiated the B-22 trial to determine whether intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide combination would benefit women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes. B-25 was initiated to determine whether further intensifying and increasing the cyclophosphamide dose would yield more favorable results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 2,548) were randomly assigned to three groups. The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Group 1 received four courses, ie, double the dose and intensity of cyclophosphamide given in the B-22 standard therapy group; group 2 received the same dose of cyclophosphamide as in group 1, administered in two courses (intensified); group 3 received double the dose of cyclophosphamide (intensified and increased) given in group 1. All patients received recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Life-table estimates were used to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in DFS (P =.20), distant DFS (P =.31), or survival (P =.76) among the three groups. At 5 years, the DFS in groups 1 and 2 (61% v 64%, respectively; P =. 29) was similar to but slightly lower than that in group 3 (61% v 66%, respectively; P = 08). Survival in group 1 was concordant with that in groups 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P =.71) and 3 (78% v 79%, respectively; P =.86). Grade 4 toxicity was 20%, 34%, and 49% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Severe infection and septic episodes increased in group 3. The decrease in the amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide and delays in therapy were greatest in courses 3 and 4 in group 3. The incidence of acute myeloid leukemia increased in all groups. CONCLUSION: Because intensifying and increasing cyclophosphamide two or four times that given in standard clinical practice did not substantively improve outcome, such therapy should be reserved for the clinical trial setting.

Clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy of fluorouracil and leucovorin, fluorouracil and levamisole, and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole in patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-04.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil (FU+LV) with that of fluorouracil and levamisole (FU+LEV) or with the combination of FU+LV and levamisole (FU+LV+LEV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 1989 and December 1990, 2,151 patients with Dukes' B (stage II) and Dukes' C (stage III) carcinoma of the colon were entered onto National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowl Project protocol C-04. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FU+LV (weekly regimen), FU + LEV, or the combination of FU+LV+LEV. The average time on study was 86 months. RESULTS: A pairwise comparison between patients treated with FU+LV or FU+LEV disclosed a prolongation in disease-free survival (DFS) in favor of the FU+LV group (65% v 60%; P =.04); there was a small prolongation in overall survival that was of borderline significance (74% v 70%; P =.07). There was no difference in the pairwise comparison between patients who received FU+LV or FU+LV+LEV for either DFS (65% v 64%; P =.67) or overall survival (74% v 73%; P =.99). There was no interaction between Dukes' stage and the effect of treatment. CONCLUSION: In patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon, treatment with FU+LV seems to confer a small DFS advantage and a borderline prolongation in overall survival when compared with treatment with FU+LEV. The addition of LEV to FU+LV does not provide any additional benefit over and above that achieved with FU+LV. These findings support the use of adjuvant FU+LV as an acceptable therapeutic standard in patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon.

Comparative efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with Dukes' B versus Dukes' C colon cancer: results from four National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project adjuvant studies (C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04)

PURPOSE: Although the benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy has been clearly established in patients with Dukes' C colon cancer, such benefit has been questioned in patients with Dukes' B disease. To determine whether patients with Dukes' B disease benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and to evaluate the magnitude of the benefit, compared with that observed in Dukes' C patients, we examined the relative efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy according to Dukes' stage in four sequential National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trials (C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04) that compared different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens with each other or with no adjuvant treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The four trials included Dukes' B and C patients and were conducted between 1977 and 1990. The eligibility criteria and follow-up requirements were similar for all four trials. Protocol C-01 compared adjuvant semustine, vincristine, and fluorouracil (5-FU) (MOF regimen) with operation alone. Protocol C-02 compared the perioperative administration of a portal venous infusion of 5-FU with operation alone. Protocol C-03 compared adjuvant 5-FU and leucovorin (LV) with adjuvant MOF. Protocol C-04 compared adjuvant 5-FU and LV with 5-FU and levamisole (LEV) and with the combination of 5-FU, LV, and LEV. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of the patients included in these four trials had resected Dukes' B tumors. In all four studies, the overall, disease-free, and recurrence-free survival improvement noted for all patients was evident in both Dukes' B and Dukes' C patients. When the relative efficacy of chemotherapy was examined, there was always an observed reduction in mortality, recurrence, or disease-free survival event, irrespective of Dukes' stage, and in most instances, the reduction was as great or greater for Dukes' B patients as for Dukes' C patients. When data from all four trials were examined in a combined analysis, the mortality reduction was 30% for Dukes' B patients versus 18% for Dukes' C patients. The mortality reduction in Dukes' B patients occurred irrespective of the presence or absence of adverse prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Patients with Dukes' B colon cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and should be presented with this treatment option. Regardless of the presence or absence of other clinical prognostic factors, Dukes' B patients seem to benefit from chemotherapy administration.

Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The B-20 study of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) was conducted to determine whether chemotherapy plus tamoxifen would be of greater benefit than tamoxifen alone in the treatment of patients with axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 2306) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups following surgery. A total of 771 patients with follow-up data received tamoxifen alone; 767 received methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (MFT); and 768 received cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (CMFT). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and survival. Reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Through 5 years of follow-up, chemotherapy plus tamoxifen resulted in significantly better disease-free survival than tamoxifen alone (90% for MFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .01]; 89% for CMFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .001]). A similar benefit was observed in both distant disease-free survival (92% for MFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .008]; 91% for CMFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .006]) and survival (97% for MFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .05]; 96% for CMFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .03]). Compared with tamoxifen alone, MFT and CMFT reduced the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy and the risk of recurrence at other local, regional, and distant sites. Risk of treatment failure was reduced after both types of chemotherapy, regardless of tumor size, tumor estrogen or progesterone receptor level, or patient age; however, the reduction was greatest in patients aged 49 years or less. No subgroup of patients evaluated in this study failed to benefit from chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this and other NSABP studies indicate that patients with breast cancer who meet NSABP protocol criteria, regardless of age, lymph node status, tumor size, or estrogen receptor status, are candidates for chemotherapy.

Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-22.

PURPOSE: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) initiated a randomized trial (B-22) to determine if intensifying but maintaining the total dose of cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan, Bristol-Myers Squibb Oncology, Princeton, NJ) in a doxorubicin (Adriamycin, Pharmacia, Kalamazoo, MI)-cyclophosphamide combination (AC), or if intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide improves the outcome of women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 2,305) were randomized to receive either four courses of standard AC therapy (group 1); intensified therapy, in which the same total dose of cyclophosphamide was administered in two courses (group 2); or intensified and increased therapy, in which the total dose of cyclophosphamide was doubled (group 3). The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival were determined using life-table estimates. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in DFS (P = .30) or overall survival (P = .95) among the groups through 5 years. At 5 years, the DFS of women in group 1 was similar to that of women in group 2 (62% v 60%, respectively; P = .43) and to that of women in group 3 (62% v 64%, respectively; P = .59). The 5-year survival of women in group 1 was similar to that of women in group 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P = .86) and to that of women in group 3 (78% v 77%, respectively; P = .82). Grade 4 toxicity increased in groups 2 and 3. Failure to note a difference in outcome among the groups was unrelated to either differences in amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide or to dose delays and intervals between courses of therapy. CONCLUSION: Intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide failed to significantly improve either DFS or overall survival in any group. It was concluded that, outside of a clinical trial, dose-intensification of cyclophosphamide in an AC combination represents inappropriate therapy for women with primary breast cancer.

Recruiting cancer patients to participate in motivating their relatives to quit smoking. A cancer control study of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 9072).

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of cancer provides a teachable moment in which a physician can counsel or teach the patient. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B hypothesized that this teachable moment could also be used to encourage counseling of the patients' relatives who smoke. The authors' first study sought to determine the feasibility of such an intervention, the cooperation of the patients, and the compliance of relatives who were smokers. The long-range goal is to recruit by mail a large population of adult smokers into an intervention program and to assist them in quitting cigarette smoking. METHODS: Oncologists and their clinical research associates asked recently diagnosed cancer patients to identify their relatives who were smokers and assist in persuading them to quit. Consenting patients spoke to relatives and mailed them a personalized motivational leaflet along with a list of the benefits of quitting smoking. Intervention was continued only with relatives who were contacted in this manner. The participating physicians then wrote to the smokers, advising them to quit; enclosed with each physician's letter were the National Cancer Institute booklet "Clearing the Air," which is about quitting smoking, and a questionnaire determining "stage of change" (the stage of the smoker's inaction or action regarding quitting smoking). After 6 months, a postintervention questionnaire was mailed to the relatives. RESULTS: Written consent was obtained from 89% of 144 eligible patients solicited. Eighty percent of patients involved in the study contacted relatives. Sixty-three percent of contacted relatives returned the first questionnaire and 40% answered the second. Nine percent of all contacted relatives reported having quit smoking after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention proved to be feasible and will lead to the next study, which will randomize relatives who smoke within a more intensive intervention over 12 months and compare the results with nonintervention controls.

Sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil for the treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors: eight-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and first report of findings from NSABP B-19 comparing methotrexate and fluorouracil with conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil.

PURPOSE: To compare sequential methotrexate (M) and fluorouracil (F) (M-->F) with surgery (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project [NSABP] B-13) and cyclophosphamide (C), M, and F with M-->F (NSABP B-19), in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors and negative axillary nodes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 760 patients were randomized to B-13; 1,095 patients with the same eligibility requirements were randomized to B-19. Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and survival were determined using life-table estimates. RESULTS: A significant benefit in overall DFS (74% v 59%; P < .001) was demonstrated at 8 years in all B-13 patients who received M-->F (69% v 56% [P = .006] in those or= 50 years). A survival advantage was evident in older patients (89% v 80%; P = .03). In B-19, through 5 years, an overall DFS advantage (82% v 73%; P < .001) and a borderline survival advantage (88% v 85%; P = .06) were evident with CMF. The DFS (84% v 72%; P < .001) and survival (89% v 84%; P = .04) benefits from CMF were greater in women aged F or CMF after lumpectomy and breast irradiation resulted in a low probability of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). In B-13, the frequency of IBTR was 2.6% following M-->F versus 13.4% in women treated by lumpectomy; it was 0.6% following CMF in B-19. Toxicity >or= grade 3 was more frequent among CMF patients in B-19. The age-related difference in CMF benefit was not related to amount of drug received. CONCLUSION: M-->F and CMF are effective for node-negative patients with ER-negative tumors. The incidence of local-regional or distant metastases and IBTR decreased after either therapy. The benefit from either therapy was evident in all patients, but the CMF advantage was greater in those F may be used in patients with medical problems that would preclude CMF administration.

Leucovorin and high-dose fluorouracil in metastatic prostate cancer. A phase II trial of the piedmont Oncology Association.

We performed a Phase II trial of oral leucovorin and high-dose fluorouracil (5FU) in hormone refractory patients with metastatic prostate cancer who had not had prior chemotherapy. 5FU was given as a 24-hour infusion at a dosage of 4 g/m2 and oral leucovorin at a dosage of 50 mg every 6 hours for four doses, starting with the infusion of 5FU. Fifteen patients were treated and three were not evaluable for response. There were no complete (CR) or partial responses (PR) in 12 evaluable patients (95% confidence interval for CR+PR of 0 to 26%). Three patients had stable disease and the remainder progressed. Toxicities were generally mild to moderate, but one patient died of sepsis while neutropenic. This dose and schedule of leucovorin and 5FU is not better than single-agent 5FU in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Tamoxifen versus high-dose oral medroxyprogesterone acetate as initial endocrine therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer: a Piedmont Oncology Association study.

PURPOSE: To determine in a prospective randomized trial whether high-dose orally administered medroxy-progesterone acetate (MPA) was superior to tamoxifen in patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had received no prior endocrine therapy in either the adjuvant or advanced setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients initially received either tamoxifen 20 mg/d orally or MPA 1 g/d orally. At the time of disease progression, patients were crossed over to the other regimen. Eligibility required patients to be age > or = 18 years, performance status 0 to 3, and estrogen receptor (ER)- or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive or unknown. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-two eligible patients were entered and 166 were assessable for response. Complete plus partial response rates for tamoxifen and MPA were 17% and 34%, respectively (P = .01). Patients with bone metastases had a significantly higher partial response rate with MPA compared with tamoxifen (33% v 13%). Median time to treatment failure was 5.5 months for tamoxifen and 6.3 months for MPA (P = .48). The median survival duration was 24 months for tamoxifen and 33 months for MPA (P = .09). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment significantly influenced response rate, but not time to treatment failure or survival. After treatment failure following MPA, six of 42 patients (14%) treated with tamoxifen responded, compared with six of 49 (12%) treated with MPA following tamoxifen. Both agents were associated with minimal toxicity, but 35% of patients on MPA gained more than 20 lb as opposed to only 2% on tamoxifen. CONCLUSION: In this trial, initial treatment with MPA of endocrine-naive metastatic breast cancer patients was associated with a significantly higher response rate but not with improvement in time to treatment failure or survival, when compared with initial treatment with tamoxifen. Further randomized trials in patients with bone metastases are warranted to determine if high-dose progestin therapy is superior to tamoxifen in these patients.

High-dose 24-hour infusion of 5-fluorouracil in metastatic prostate cancer. A phase II trial of the Piedmont Oncology Association.

Thirty-two patients with metastatic carcinoma of the prostate refractory to endocrine therapy were entered on trial. No patient entered in the study had prior chemotherapy. Patients were treated with 5-fluorouracil given at a dosage of 4 gm/m2 over a 24-hour period every 2 weeks. Of the 27 patients evaluable for response, there were no complete or partial remissions, but 9 (33%) had a stable disease. The 95% confidence interval for complete and partial response in this series (0 of 27 patients) is 0.0-12%. Myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicity was moderate. Two patients, however, experienced major but completely reversible neurotoxicity, including 1 with cerebellar ataxia and 1 with memory loss and stroke-like symptoms. These data indicate that high-dose fluorouracil used in this dosage and schedule is ineffective in the therapy of advanced carcinoma of the prostate.

A phase II trial of high-dose cytarabine and cisplatin in previously untreated non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. A Piedmont Oncology Association Study.

Thirty-seven chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were treated with cytarabine (3 g/m2 intravenously [IV] during 3 hours) after IV bolus cisplatin (100 mg/m2 repeated every 3 weeks). Aside from nausea and vomiting, the principal toxicity was hematologic, with Grade IV myelosuppression in 32% and Grade III in 14%. Four patients died while on study. One complete and four partial responses were observed for an overall response rate of 14%. Responses were limited to lymph node and lung metastases and occurred in two of 17 adenocarcinomas, two of 12 squamous cell carcinomas, and one of eight large cell carcinomas. At this dose, the plasma level of cisplatin is only 3 micrograms/ml and the plasma level of cytarabine is 10 to 50 micrograms/ml, compared with the levels of 10 micrograms/ml and 1000 micrograms/ml, respectively, required for in vitro synergy. The severity of myelotoxicity observed indicates that, even at these levels, cisplatin enhances cytarabine activity. The combination may prove useful in malignancies that are sensitive to cytarabine, but is not of benefit in cytarabine-resistant malignancies such as NSCLC.

Amelioration of vincristine neurotoxicity by glutamic acid.

Neurotoxicity is the principal limiting side effect of the widely used antitumor agent, vincristine. Following evaluation of glutamic acid as a potential modifier of vincristine toxicity in preclinical studies in mice and a preliminary clinical trial, a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was conducted by the Piedmont Oncology Association. Of 87 patients entered into the study, 84 were evaluable, including 42 patients who were randomly assigned to receive vincristine 1.0 mg/m2 weekly for six doses and 42 patients who were assigned to receive glutamic acid 500 mg orally three times daily plus vincristine. The following neurotoxic signs and symptoms were evaluated before each dose of vincristine: reflex changes, paresthesias, constipation, strength, and mental changes. Loss of the Achilles tendon reflex, an objective parameter, was noted in 19 percent of patients receiving glutamic acid and 42 percent of control subjects (p = 0.03). Development of moderate to severe paresthesias, a subjective parameter, occurred in 19 percent of the glutamic acid group and 36 percent of the placebo group (p = 0.09). Overall moderate neurotoxicity (6 units or more), determined by adding the grade of each neurotoxic parameter for the weekly clinic visit in which maximum neurotoxicity occurred, was observed in 21 percent of patients receiving glutamic acid and 43 percent of those in the control group (p = 0.04). Hematologic and gastrointestinal side effects occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. The administration of glutamic acid has decreased vincristine-induced neurotoxicity without any attendant side effects.