Geoffrey R. Weiss

Randomized Phase III Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin Versus Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin in the Treatment of Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Southwest Oncology Group Trial

PURPOSE This randomized trial was designed to determine whether paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) offered a survival advantage over vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) for patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. Secondary objectives were to compare toxicity, tolerability, quality of life (QOL), and resource utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred two patients received VC (vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)/d, day 1 every 28 days) and 206 patients received PC (paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) over 3 hours with carboplatin area under the curve of 6, day 1 every 21 days). Patients completed QOL questionnaires at baseline, 13 weeks, and 25 weeks. Resource utilization forms were completed at five time points through 24 months. RESULTS Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The objective response rate was 28% in the VC arm and 25% in the PC arm. Median survival was 8 months in both arms, with 1-year survival rates of 36% and 38%, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 leukopenia (P =.002) and neutropenia (P =.008) occurred more frequently on the VC arm. Grade 3 nausea and vomiting were higher on the VC arm (P =.001, P =.007), and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was higher on the PC arm (P <.001). More patients on the VC arm discontinued therapy because of toxicity (P =.001). No difference in QOL was observed. Overall costs on the PC arm were higher than on the VC arm because of drug costs. CONCLUSION PC is equally efficacious as VC for the treatment of advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. PC is less toxic and better tolerated but more expensive than VC. New treatment strategies should be pursued.

Southwest Oncology Group standard response criteria, endpoint definitions and toxicity criteria

SummaryThe Southwest Oncology Group, in cooperation with the National Cancer Institute and the other major cooperative oncology groups, has participated in the development of new toxicity criteria for reporting the results of cancer clinical trials. The new criteria (NCI Common Toxicity Criteria) respond to a recognized need to: (1) report toxicities consistently among cooperative groups, particularly for shared ‘intergroup’ clinical trials; (2) strive for comparability in toxicity reporting among clinical trials; and (3) recognize new toxicities accompanying new classes of anticancer treatment modalities. The Southwest Oncology Group has extended the toxicity criteria, incorporating additional new criteria for biological agents, radiation therapy, surgery, and hormonal agents. In addition, endpoint definitions and response criteria are discussed. These have been developed in response to previous uncertainties in clinical trials objectives, to limitations in the resolution of imaging methods, and to demands for greater rigor in response and endpoint definitions. Toxicity criteria, endpoint definitions, and response criteria are tabulated.

Randomized trial comparing cisplatin with cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE Cisplatin has played a major role in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This randomized trial was performed by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) to determine whether the combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin has any advantage with regard to response rate, survival, and time to treatment failure over single-agent cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS Between October 1993 and April 1995, 432 patients with advanced stage NSCLC were randomized to receive arm I (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks) or arm II (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 weekly). All patients were chemotherapy-naive, had performance status (PS) 0 or 1, and had adequate hematologic, renal, and hepatic function. RESULTS Four hundred fifteen patients were eligible and assessable. On arm I (cisplatin), there was a 12% partial response rate. Arm II (cisplatin and vinorelbine) had a 26% response rate (2% complete responses and 24% partial responses, P = .0002). There was a statistically significant advantage with regard to progression-free survival (median, 2 v 4 months; P = .0001) and overall survival (median, 6 v 8 months; P = .0018) for the cisplatin and vinorelbine arm. One-year survival was 20% for cisplatin alone and 36% for the combination arm. There was more hematologic toxicity on arm II of the study (81% grades 3 and 4 granulocytopenia v 5% on arm I). Other toxicities, such as renal insufficiency, ototoxicity, and nausea and vomiting, and neuropathy were similar. CONCLUSION The results of this study indicate that the combination of cisplatin and vinorelbine is a superior treatment when compared with single-agent cisplatin in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Cisplatin and vinorelbine is the new standard for SWOG against which new therapies will be evaluated.

Phase II trial of irinotecan in patients with progressive or rapidly recurrent colorectal cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate irinotecan (CPT-11; Yakult Honsha, Tokyo, Japan) in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that had recurred or progressed following fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were treated with irinotecan 125 to 150 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) every week for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest. Forty-eight patients were entered onto the study and all were assessable for toxicity. Forty-three patients completed one full course of therapy and were assessable for response. RESULTS One complete and nine partial responses were observed (response rate, 23%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10% to 36%). The median response duration was 6 months (range, 2 to 13). The median survival time was 10.4 months and the 1-year survival rate was 46% (95% CI, 39% to 53%). Grade 4 diarrhea occurred in four of the first nine patients (44%) treated on this study at the 150-mg/m2 dose level. The study was amended to reduce the starting dose of irinotecan to 125 mg/m2. At this dose, nine of 39 patients (23%) developed grade 4 diarrhea. Aggressive administration of loperamide also reduced the incidence of grade 4 diarrhea. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in eight of 48 patients (17%), but was associated with bacteremia and sepsis in only case. CONCLUSION Irinotecan has significant single-agent activity against colorectal cancer that has progressed during or shortly after treatment with 5-FU-based chemotherapy. The incidence of severe diarrhea is reduced by using a starting dose of irinotecan 125 mg/m2 and by initiating loperamide at the earliest signs of diarrhea. These results warrant further clinical evaluation to define the role of irinotecan in the treatment of individuals with colorectal cancer.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic trial of weekly CPT-11

PURPOSE We conducted a phase I and pharmacokinetic trial of CPT-11 (irinotecan) to characterize the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, pharmacokinetic profile, and antitumor effects in patients with refractory solid malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS We treated 32 patients with CPT-11 administered as a 90-minute intravenous infusion every week for 4 consecutive weeks followed by a 2-week rest period. Dose levels ranged from 50 to 180 mg/m2/wk. We determined concentrations of the lactone (active) and total (lactone plus carboxylate) forms of CPT-11 and its metabolite, SN-38, in the plasma and urine of selected patients during and after drug infusion. RESULTS Grade 4 diarrhea was the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at the 180-mg/m2/wk dose level. Other toxicities attributed to CPT-11 included dehydration, nausea, vomiting, and asthenia. Hematologic toxicity was mild in most patients. The terminal plasma half-life for CPT-11 (total) was 7.9 +/- 2.8 hours, for CPT-11 (lactone) 6.3 +/- 2.2 hours, for SN-38 (total) 13.0 +/- 5.8 hours, and for SN-38 (lactone) 11.5 +/- 3.8 hours. We observed significant correlations between drug dose and peak plasma concentration (Cpmax) and between drug dose and area under the concentration curve (AUC) for CPT-11, but not for SN-38. CONCLUSION The MTD for CPT-11 in this patient population was 150 mg/m2/wk when administered on a weekly-times-four schedule repeated every 6 weeks. At dose levels greater than 150 mg/m2/wk, diarrhea is dose-limiting.

Metastatic renal cancer treated with interleukin-2 and lymphokine-activated killer cells. A phase II clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE To confirm the antitumor efficacy of treatment with interleukin-2 and lymphokine-activated killer cells in patients with metastatic renal cancer. DESIGN Nonrandomized, phase II clinical trial. SETTING Tertiary care units in university medical centers. PATIENTS Consecutive trial of 35 patients with metastatic or unresectable renal cell cancer who have bidimensionally measurable disease, performance status 0 or 1, and normal function of all vital organs. Thirty-two patients completed interleukin-2 priming and received at least one lymphokine-activated killer cell infusion. Three patients were removed from the study and did not receive infusion of cells secondary to rapid tumor progression or toxicity. INTERVENTIONS Patients initially received recombinant interleukin-2, 100,000 units/kg body weight every 8 hours, on days 1 to 5 in a priming phase to stimulate lymphokine-activated killer cell precursors and effector activity in vivo. Leukapheresis was done on days 8 to 12 and lymphocytes were cultured in vitro with interleukin-2 for 3 to 4 days to amplify lymphokine-activated killer cell activity. Finally, interleukin-2, 100,000 units/kg every 8 hours, was infused with cultured cells on days 12 to 16. All doses of interleukin-2 and lymphokine-activated killer cells were administered in intensive care units. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The mean number of doses of interleukin-2 administered during the priming phase was 12.9 +/- 0.4; the mean number of lymphokine-activated killer cells reinfused was 7.0 +/- 0.6 X 10(10); and the mean number of interleukin-2 doses administered during the last phase was 10.2 +/- 0.6. The overall objective response rate was 16%; two patients had complete responses and three patients had partial responses with greater than 50% reduction of all measurable tumor. The complete responders remain disease-free at 12 and 9 months. Two partial responders have not had tumor regrowth at 16 and 15 months. The third partial responder relapsed at 4 months. Toxicity was severe but generally of short duration and manageable. There were no treatment-related deaths. Hypotension, weight gain, anemia, and elevations of serum creatinine levels and liver enzymes were common. Two patients required intubation; one patient had a myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS This phase II study confirms the antitumor activity of interleukin-2 and lymphokine-activated killer cell therapy in patients with metastatic or unresectable renal cell cancer. Response rates, especially complete remission rates, are comparable or better than rates achieved with other forms of therapy.

Adjuvant High-Dose Bolus Interleukin-2 for Patients With High-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Cytokine Working Group Randomized Trial

PURPOSE This prospective, randomized, controlled phase III trial assessed high-dose bolus interleukin-2 (IL-2) postoperatively in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligibility requirements were resected locally advanced (LA; T3b-4 or N1-3) or metastatic (M1) RCC, no prior systemic therapy, and excellent organ function. Randomized assignment was to one course of IL-2 (600,000 U/kg every 8 hours on days 1 to 5 and days 15 to 19 [maximum 28 doses]) or observation. The study was designed and powered to show an improvement in predicted 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) from 40% for the observation group to 70% for the treatment group. The accrual goal was 68 patients with LA disease, with 34 patients per treatment arm. Metastasectomy patients were to be analyzed separately because of their unpredictable natural history. RESULTS Sixty-nine patients were enrolled onto the study (44 LA and 25 M1 patients). Toxic effects of IL-2 were as anticipated; no unexpected serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred. Early closure occurred when an interim analysis determined that the 30% improvement in 2-year DFS could not be achieved despite full accrual. Sixteen of 21 LA patients receiving IL-2 experienced relapse, compared with 15 of 23 patients in the observation arm (P =.73); in the LA group, three deaths occurred in the IL-2 arm, and five deaths occurred in the observation arm (P =.38). Analysis including metastasectomy patients made no difference in DFS or overall survival. CONCLUSION One course of high-dose bolus IL-2, though feasible, did not produce the ambitious clinically meaningful benefit anticipated when administered postoperatively to patients with resected high-risk RCC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy of resected, intermediate-thickness, node-negative melanoma with an allogeneic tumor vaccine: Overall results of a randomized trial of the Southwest Oncology Group

PURPOSE Patients with clinically negative nodes constitute over 85% of new melanoma cases. There is no adjuvant therapy for intermediate-thickness, node-negative melanoma patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Southwest Oncology Group conducted a randomized phase III trial of an allogeneic melanoma vaccine for 2 years versus observation in patients with intermediate-thickness (1.5 to 4.0 mm or Clarks level IV if thickness unknown), clinically or pathologically node-negative melanoma (T3N0M0). RESULTS Six hundred eighty-nine patients were accrued over 4.5 years; 89 patients (13%) were ineligible. Surgical node staging was performed in 24%, the remainder were clinical N0. Thirteen eligible patients refused assigned treatment: seven on the observation arm and six on the vaccine arm. Most vaccine patients experienced mild to moderate local toxicity, but 26 (9%) experienced grade 3 toxicity. After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, there were 107 events (tumor recurrences or deaths) among the 300 eligible patients randomized to vaccine compared with 114 among the 300 eligible patients randomized to observation (hazard ratio, 0.92; Cox-adjusted P(2) = 0.51). There was no difference in vaccine efficacy among patients with tumors < or = 3 mm or > 3 mm. CONCLUSION This represents one of the largest randomized, controlled trials of adjuvant vaccine therapy in human cancer reported to date. Compliance with randomization was excellent, with only 2% refusing assigned therapy. There is no evidence of improved disease-free survival among patients randomized to receive vaccine, although the power to detect a small but clinically significant difference was low. Future investigations of adjuvant vaccine approaches for patients with intermediate-thickness melanoma should involve larger numbers of patients and ideally should include sentinel node biopsy staging.

Evaluation of cisplatin intensity in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III study of the Southwest Oncology Group.

PURPOSE To test the concept that cisplatin dose-intensity is important in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) performed a randomized trial comparing standard-dose cisplatin (SDCP) 50 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 on a 28-day cycle for eight cycles, high-dose cisplatin (HDCP) 100 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 for four cycles, and high-dose cisplatin plus mitomycin (HDCP-M) 8 mg/m2 day 1. To isolate the effects of dose-intensity versus total dose, the planned cumulative cisplatin dose was 800 mg/m2 in each arm. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between July 1988 and April 1990, 356 patients were enrolled and 323 were eligible and assessable. All patients had metastatic, measurable disease, were chemotherapy-naive, and had a performance status (PS) of 0 to 2. RESULTS Confirmed complete plus partial response rates were SDCP, 12%; HDCP, 14%; and HDCP-M, 27% (P < .05). Complete responses were uncommon (HDCP, 3%; HDCP-M, 4%) and were observed only in the high-dose arms. Progressive disease occurred more frequently in the SDCP arm (57%) compared with HDCP (38%) or HDCP-M (34%) (P < .05). However, there were no significant differences in median survival times (SDCP, 6.9 months; HDCP, 5.3 months; HDCP-M, 7.2 months; P = .53). The mean delivered dose-intensity for cisplatin was significantly greater in the high-dose arms: HDCP 41 mg/m2/wk and HDCP-M 39 mg/m2/wk, versus SDCP 23 mg/m2/wk (P = .05). The high-dose arms resulted in an increased incidence of ototoxicity, emesis, and myelosuppression, but similar degrees of renal toxicity and neuropathy compared with SDCP. CONCLUSION This study does not confirm evidence of a steep clinical dose-response curve for cisplatin in NSCLC at the cisplatin dose-intensities achieved. The addition of mitomycin increases the response rate, but does not improve survival. Continued evaluation of new agents in this disease is warranted.

A randomized phase II trial of continuous infusion interleukin-2 or bolus injection interleukin-2 plus lymphokine-activated killer cells for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE Since 1985, multiple centers have demonstrated that interleukin-2 (IL-2) and lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells produce durable anticancer responses in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. High-dose recombinant IL-2 (rIL-2) has been administered by intravenous bolus injection (Rosenberg SA, et al: N Engl J Med 313:1485-1492, 1985) and by continuous intravenous infusion (West WH, et al: N Engl J Med 316:898-905, 1987) combined with lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells, with both methods producing responses in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. The Extramural IL-2/LAK Working Group has conducted a randomized phase II trial of two intravenous high-dose rIL-2 regimens (bolus three times daily or 24-hour continuous infusion) to determine if either one manifests greater anticancer activity or a more acceptable toxicity profile. PATIENTS AND METHODS Ninety-four patients with measurable advanced renal cell carcinoma were enrolled on this study: 46 to the bolus injection arm and 48 to the continuous infusion arm. On both arms, patients underwent a priming phase of rIL-2 administration, four daily lymphocytaphereses to harvest mononuclear cells that were placed in 3- to 4-day culture for generation of LAK cells, and an rIL-2/LAK coadministration phase. Patients were then observed monthly for evidence of response to this therapy and were offered up to two additional courses of treatment every 3 months if evidence of response was detected. RESULTS Twenty percent of patients on the bolus injection arm experienced objective responses (three complete responses and six partial responses); 15% of patients on the continuous infusion arm responded (two complete responses and five partial responses). Complete responses were durable, persisting for 310+ to 700+ days. The incidence of severe life-threatening toxicities typical of high-dose rIL-2 therapy was similar in both arms (eg, patients with hypotension requiring pressors: bolus 71%, continuous 63%; oliguria less than or equal to 200 mL/8 hours: bolus 65%, continuous 71%). More episodes of fever, infection, and serum alkaline phosphatase elevation were associated with the continuous infusion arm, while more thrombocytopenia occurred on the bolus injection arm. Four patients (three bolus injection, one continuous infusion) died of respiratory and circulatory failure while under treatment. No clinical or laboratory parameter accompanying treatment on either arm was, by univariate or multivariate analysis, associated with an increased likelihood of response. CONCLUSIONS Both methods of high-dose rIL-2/LAK cell administration produce nearly equivalent anticancer activity and toxicity in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. The ability to predict responding patients based on patient or treatment characteristics is not possible.