Anna Efremidis

Control of irinotecan-induced diarrhea by octreotide after loperamide failure.

Abstract. Diarrhea is a well-recognized side effect of chemotherapy, which affects the quality of life and when refractory is potentially life threatening. Irinotecan (CPT-11) is associated with an elevated incidence of chemotherapy-induced diarrhea and subsequent morbidity. Standard antidiarrheal treatment is based on high-dose loperamide, but this agent is associated with a significant failure rate. Octreotide is active against chemotherapy-induced diarrhea caused by fluoropyrimidines and irinotecan, with a distinct mechanism of action. We administered octreotide in a phase I trial in 37 patients who received irinotecan and experienced loperamide-refractory diarrhea, 23 of whom experienced grade III–IV diarrhea and were treated with loperamide. The 13 patients in whom to loperamide failed to control diarrhea received octreotide, with a high response rate (92%). We conclude that octreotide is effective against loperamide-refractory diarrhea resulting from irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

Phase II randomized trial comparing high-dose cisplatin with moderate-dose cisplatin and carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. European Lung Cancer Working Party.

PURPOSE A phase II randomized trial was conducted in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to determine if the combination of moderate-dose cisplatin and carboplatin was active (primary end point) and could avoid the long-term limiting (renal, auditive, neurologic) toxicity of high-dose cisplatin, which prevents prolonged administration (secondary end point). PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred twenty-one patients, registered between April 1990 and September 1991, were randomized to receive high-dose cisplatin (120 mg/m2 intravenously [IV] on day 1) or a combination of moderate-dose carboplatin (200 mg/m2 IV on day 1 and moderate-dose cisplatin (30 mg/m2 IV on days 2 and 3). One hundred nine patients were eligible: 56 in the cisplatin arm and 53 in the combined arm; 52 and 47, respectively, were assessable for response. All had stage IV disease (or stage IIIB with pleural effusion) and none had received prior chemotherapy. RESULTS There was a 23% objective response rate to cisplatin (23% of the eligible patients) and a 22% response rate to cisplatin plus carboplatin (21% of the eligible patients). The overall survival rate was not significantly different between the two study arms, but responders in the combined arm survived significantly longer than those in the high-dose cisplatin arm (respective median survival durations, 66 and 30 weeks). Although there was no difference between the arms for alopecia, emesis, and leukopenia, the combined arm was significantly associated with more thrombocytopenia (although rarely severe) and, more importantly, with less renal (19% v 36%), auditive (4% v 16%), and neurologic (0% v 16%) toxicity of any grade. CONCLUSION The regimen combining moderate-dose cisplatin and carboplatin was active against advanced NSCLC and significantly less toxic than high-dose cisplatin.

A phase II trial testing gemcitabine as second-line chemotherapy for non small cell lung cancer

Abstract The purpose of the present trial was to determine the activity of gemcitabine as a second-line chemotherapy for non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To be eligible, patients had to have pathologically proven NSCLC that has failed to respond to a first-line chemotherapy with a cisplatin-containing regimen, a Karnofsky performance status greater than 50 and adequate renal, haematological and hepatic functions. After registration, patients were treated by gemcitabine given i.v. at a dose of 1 g/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks. Response was assessed after two courses of therapy. Eighty-two patients have been registered, five are ineligible and 65 are assessable for response. Four partial responses were observed (6%). No change was documented in 18 cases (28%). Tolerance was good. A few grade III leucopenia and grade III–IV thrombopenia were observed. We conclude that gemcitabine has a modest activity as second-line chemotherapy for NSCLC. It has the advantage to be well tolerated and may thus be one drug to be proposed to the patients who have disease progression after a first-line chemotherapy and who ask for further treatment.

Phase III randomized trial comparing cisplatin and carboplatin with or without ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. European Lung Cancer Working Party.

PURPOSE A phase III randomized trial in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was performed to determine if the addition of ifosfamide to moderate-dose cisplatin and carboplatin improved response rate (primary end point) and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 529 patients were randomized to receive a combination of moderate-dose carboplatin (200 mg/m2 intravenously [i.v.] on day 1) and cisplatin (30 mg/m2 i.v. on days 2 and 3) with (CCI arm) or without (CC arm) ifosfamide (1.5 g/m2 i.v. on days 1 to 3). There were 248 eligible patients on the CC arm and 257 on the CCI arm, with 220 and 238 patients assessable for response, respectively. All but 23 had stage IV disease with pleural effusion. RESULTS There was a 16% objective response (OR) rate to CC and a 31% OR rate to CCI. That observed difference was highly statistically significant (P < 0.001). Duration of response and survival were not statistically different between arms. The CCI regimen was associated with significantly more acute toxicities: emesis, alopecia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia. The frequency of chronic renal, auditive, and peripheral neurologic toxicity was low in both arms (4.6% and 6.6%, respectively, after six courses of chemotherapy). The relative dose-intensity (RDI) of the CCI arm was significantly lower than that of the CC arm. CONCLUSION The addition of ifosfamide to moderate-dose cisplatin and carboplatin significantly improves the antitumoral response rate, but has no apparent effect an survival in advanced NSCLC.

Is weekly paclitaxel superior to paclitaxel given every 3 weeks? Results of a phase II trial

Twenty-four patients previously treated with platinum containing regimens with stage IIIB-IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) participated in the study. Sequential cohorts of patients were treated with 60 and 90 mg/m(2) of Paclitaxel per week. Paclitaxel was administered weekly over 1 h infusion for 6 consecutive weeks followed by 2 weeks without treatment (8-week cycle). A total of 252 treatments were administered to the 24 patients. In 29 (12%) of 252 treatments grade 2 granulocytopenia was observed while four patients (17%) developed grade 2 neuropathy. Seven patients (29%) achieved a partial response and five (21%) had stable disease. Paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) per week as salvage treatment is well tolerated and has shown promising activity in patients with NSCLC who progress after platinum treatment.

Chemotherapy improves low performance status lung cancer patients

The aim of the present study was to determine the potential benefit of conventional cisplatin-based chemotherapy on patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status (PS), defined as 60–70 on the Karnofsky scale. Retrospective analysis was carried out of a randomised trial performed in advanced NSCLC where 485 patients received three courses of gemcitabine+ifosfamide+cisplatin induction chemotherapy. Of the patients, 80% had good PS (Karnofsky 80–100) and 20% poor PS. Response rates were 38 and 28%, respectively. Clinical improvement, defined as achieving a good PS during chemotherapy, was observed overall in 25% of the poor PS patients, with rates of 38, 20 and 14%, respectively, in case of response, no change and progression. PS improved more quickly in the responders. Survival of patients with poor PS was significantly worse, but survival of responders was similar, irrespective of the initial poor or good PS. Although nonfatal toxicity was almost similar, there were more toxic deaths (including vascular and cardiac fatalities) in the poor PS patients (9.2 versus 2.1%). In conclusion, combination chemotherapy is associated with clinical improvement in a substantial number of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer of poor performance status.

A phase II study of ondansetron as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving high-dose polychemotherapy and stem cell transplantation.

The field of high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation has been expanded recently as a treatment for solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Severe emesis remains one of the main extramedullary side-effects of high-dose regimens during the first week of treatment. Traditional antiemetics such as chlorpromazine, diazepam, and phenothiazines are extensively used but are unable to control emesis. The new antiemetic ondansetron, a serotonin receptor (5HT3) antagonist appears to be superior to these drugs for cisplatin-induced emesis. The study we present here is an attempt to control emesis following high-dose regimens, during bone marrow or peripheral stem cell transplantation, with ondansetron. To our knowledge no other paper has reported the efficacy of this antiemetic in such group of patients. A total of 29 patients who received highly emetogenic polychemotherapy as conditioning regimens for bone marrow transplantation were treated with ondansetron, which was given as an 8-mg i.v. short infusion prior the initiation of treatment and every 6 h thereafter for 3 days, and an 8-mg dose every 8 h for 5 additional days. All the patients had previously been treated with chemotherapy and were evaluable for response and toxicity. Complete and major protection of vomiting on day 1 was achieved by 76% of the patients, 58% on day 2 and 52% on day 3. Nausea was absent or mild in 79% of patients on day 1, 45% on day 2 and 41% on day 3. For the days 4–8 as a whole, complete and major protection against vomiting was achieved by 59%–86% of the patients, while 51%–90% of patients had no or mild nausea. The most frequent side-effects were headache (24%) and constipation (17%). On the basis of these results we conclude that ondasetron can be succesfully used as an effective antiemetic prophylaxis for patients who receive megatherapy and bone marrow rescue, and should allow the majority of these patients to receive their treatment without serious side-effects and discomfort.

A phase III randomised study of concomitant induction radiochemotherapy testing two modalities of radiosensitisation by cisplatin (standard versus daily) for limited small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to determine in limited small-cell lung cancer if locoregional irradiation concurrently with induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide prolongs survival when cisplatin is given daily as a radiosensitiser. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two-hundred and four eligible patients were randomised between standard radiosensitised induction chemoradiotherapy (arm A) with cisplatin (90 mg/m(2) day 1) plus etoposide and daily radiosensitised induction chemoradiotherapy (arm B) with cisplatin (6 mg/m(2)/day) plus etoposide. Chemotherapy and chest irradiation (39.90 Gy in 15 fractions >3 weeks) both started on day 1. RESULTS There was no difference in survival between both arms with respective median, 2 and 5 years of 15.5 months, 35% and 18% in arm A and 17.0 months, 38% and 21% in arm B (P = 0.50). Performance status and T status were identified as independent prognostic factors for survival. In terms of local control rate, there was a statistical trend in favour of arm A with 2% only local relapse versus 10% in arm B. Daily cisplatin radiosensitisation was associated with more oesophagitis and thrombopenia but less nephrotoxicity. CONCLUSION Induction chemoradiotherapy resulted in both arms in good long-term survival, comparable to the best reported results and without improvement by daily cisplatin administration.

Second-line paclitaxel in non-small cell lung cancer initially treated with cisplatin: A study by the European Lung Cancer Working Party

In the context of a phase III trial comparing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sequential to conventional administration of cisplatin-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel, we evaluated the activity of paclitaxel as second-line chemotherapy and investigated any relation of its efficacy with the type of failure after cisplatin. Patients received three courses of induction GIP (gemcitabine, ifosfamide, cisplatin). Non-progressing patients were randomised between three further courses of GIP or three courses of paclitaxel. Second-line paclitaxel was given to patients with primary failure (PF) to GIP and to those progressing after randomisation to further GIP (secondary failure or SF). One hundred sixty patients received second-line paclitaxel. Response rates were 7.7% for PF and 11.6% for SF (P=0.42). Median survival times (calculated from paclitaxel start) were 4.1 and 7.1 months for PF and SF (P=0.002). In multivariate analysis, three variables were independently associated with better survival: SF (hazard ratio (HR)=1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–2.22; P=0.02), normal haemoglobin level (HR=1.56, 95% CI 1.08–2.26; P=0.02) and minimal weight loss (HR=1.79, 95% CI 1.26–2.55; P=0.001). Paclitaxel in NSCLC patients, whether given for primary or for SF after cisplatin-based chemotherapy, demonstrates activity similar to other drugs considered active as second-line therapy.

The anti-emetic efficacy of tropisetron plus dexamethasone in patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation.

Abstract Among the most distressing symptoms experienced by patients who have undergone high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation are nausea and vomiting. The chemotherapy regimens used in high-dose conditioning protocols are highly emetogenic. The 5HT3 receptor antagonists are very effective in the prevention and abolition of nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapeutic drugs. One of them, tropisetron, is a selective antagonist of serotonin 5HT3 receptors with proven efficacy against emesis. Dexamethasone is also known as an effective agent against nausea and vomiting. The addition of dexamethasone to a 5HT3 receptor antagonist is synergistic, as has been shown in many trials with highly emetogenic drugs. The aim of the present trial was to study the efficacy and safety profile of the combination of tropisetron and dexamethasone in controlling nausea and vomiting in patients receiving megatherapy prior to stem cell transplantation. We studied 31 patients. All of them were evaluable for response and toxicity. The majority of patients achieved complete or major protection against acute vomiting (71–83%), and 67–84% of the patients had no or mild nausea. The combination was tolerated well, and only a minority of patients reported side effects. Among them the most common were headache (in three patients) and constipation. No patient withdrew from the study because of toxicity. It has become evident from our data that the administration of 5 mg tropisetron daily in combination with 20 mg dexamethasone for 8 days can prevent the acute emesis otherwise experienced by patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy as conditioning in stem cell transplantation programmes.