Giuseppe Pezzella

Phase III Randomized Trial of FOLFIRI Versus FOLFOX4 in the Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study of the Gruppo Oncologico Dell’Italia Meridionale

PURPOSE We performed this phase III study to compare the irinotecan, leucovorin (LV), and fluorouracil (FU) regimen (FOLFIRI) versus the oxaliplatin, LV, and FU regimen (FOLFOX4) in previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 360 chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive, every 2 weeks, either arm A (FOLFIRI: irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV 100 mg/m(2) administered as a 2-hour infusion before FU 400 mg/m(2) administered as an intravenous bolus injection, and FU 600 mg/m(2) as a 22-hour infusion immediately after FU bolus injection on days 1 and 2 [LV5FU2]) or arm B (FOLFOX4: oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV5FU2 regimen). RESULTS One hundred sixty-four and 172 patients were assessable in arm A and B, respectively. Overall response rates (ORR) were 31% in arm A (95% CI, 24.6% to 38.3%) and 34% in arm B (95% CI, 27.2% to 41.5%; P = .60). In both arms A and B, median time to progression (TTP; 7 v 7 months, respectively), duration of response (9 v 10 months, respectively), and overall survival (OS; 14 v 15 months, respectively) were similar, without any statistically significant difference. Toxicity was mild in both groups: alopecia and gastrointestinal disturbances were the most common toxicities in arm A; thrombocytopenia and neurosensorial were the most common toxicities in arm B. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were uncommon in both arms, and no statistical significant difference was observed. CONCLUSION There is no difference in ORR, TTP, and OS for patients treated with the FOLFIRI or FOLFOX4 regimen. Both therapies seemed effective as first-line treatment in these patients. The difference between these two combination therapies is mainly in the toxicity profile.

Cisplatin plus weekly vinorelbine versus cisplatin plus vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A prospective randomized phase III trial of the G.O.I.M. (Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale)

PURPOSE A phase III randomized trial was carried out to compare two schedules of the vinorelbine (VNR)-cisplatin (CDDP) regimen in patients with locally advanced unresectable poor prognosis stage IIIB or metastatic stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and analysis of toxicity, while secondary endpoints included response rates, time-to-progression (TTP) and quality of life (QoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients were randomized to receive: (a) VNR 25mg/m(2) on day 1, 8 and 15 plus CDDP 100mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks or (b) VNR 30 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 8 plus CDDP 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks. All patients were chemotherapy-naïve and had an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-1. RESULTS Overall 278 patients were enrolled into the trial. Overall response rate was 34% (95% CL 26-42%) in the weekly VNR/CDDP arm, and 32% (95% CL 24-40%) in patients treated with day 1-8 VNR/CDDP without any statistically significant difference. Median TTP was 4.5 and 4.6 months respectively for weekly VNR/CDDP arm and the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP one. This difference was not statistically significant (log-rank test, p=0.818). Median OS was 9.45 and 10 months respectively for weekly VNR/CDDP arm and the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP one without statistically a significant difference (log-rank test, p=0.259). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 31 and 36%, and 10 and 11% respectively. The incidence of severe neutropenia (34% versus 68%; p=0.0001) and of febrile neutropenia (5% versus 12%; p=0.026), as well as the rate of therapy omissions (10% versus 24%; p=0.0037) were higher in the weekly VNR/CDDP arm than in the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP one. The weekly VNR/CDDP regimen was associated with a lower received dose intensity in a statistically significant fashion (9% versus 22%; p=0.0001) and with a lower non-statistically significant quality of life score as compared to the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP schedule. CONCLUSIONS The combination of day 1-8 VNR plus CDDP every 3 weeks is less toxic and better tolerated than the regimen of weekly VNR plus CDDP every 4 weeks. The two schedules are equivalent in terms of overall response rate, median time-to-progression and overall survival. The combination of VNR on day 1-8 plus CDDP every 3 weeks may be considered as a reference regimen for the treatment of patients with advanced disease and those who deserve a postoperative therapy, and for future studies.

Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin plus vindesine and mitomycin C in stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung carcinoma: A prospective randomized study

PURPOSE To compare a regimen of vinorelbine and cisplatin (VC) to the combination of mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main endpoits were analysis of objective response rates, toxicity, time to progression, and overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS 247 eligible patients were randomized to receive (a) vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks, or (b) mitomycin c 8 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1, vindesine 3 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks. In subsequent cycles vindesine was given every other week. For both treatments a maximum of six cycles was planned. Patients with performance status 0-2 according to the ECOG scale were enrolled. Response and toxicity were evaluated according to the WHO criteria. Analysis of clinical efficacy was performed according to an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS No statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy were observed between the two chemotherapy regimens. The overall objective response rates were 39% (95% CL, 31-49%) in the VC arm and 42% (95% CL, 33-51%) in the MVP arm (P=0.13). Median time to progression was 4.2 and 4.5 months for the MVP arm and the VC arm, respectively. Median overall survival was 7 months in the VC arm and 8 months in the MVP one (log-rank test, P=0.898). These differences were not statistically significant. However, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly higher in the MVP arm than in the VC (P=0.0001; P=0.0002). Grade 3 alopecia was more frequent in the MVP arm than in the VC one (P<0.001), which was associated with higher rate of phlebitis (P=0.037). CONCLUSION Data achieved in this study suggest that the vinorelbine-cisplatin doublet is similar to the three-drug MVP regimen in term of overall response rate, time to progressive disease, and overall survival. However, hematological toxicity and alopecia are more frequent and severe in the MVP regimen which therefore appears to be less tolerable than the VC regimen. The combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin may be considered as a reference treatment for future studies on the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Gemcitabine and docetaxel every 2 weeks in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II study of the Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale

INTRODUCTION Platinum-based chemotherapy is the gold standard in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although with relevant toxic effects. Both docetaxel (DCT) and gemcitabine (GEM) have shown activity as single agent in advanced NSCLC with a different toxicity profile and a lack of cross-resistance. MATERIALS AND METHODS From April 2000 to May 2001, 47 consecutive patients were enrolled in a multicenter phase II trial. Main inclusion criteria included untreated patients with histologically confirmed NSCLC, age</=70 years, stage IIIB/IV, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0-2, measurable disease, adequate hematologic, cardiac, hepatic and renal functions, and written informed consent. Treatment schedule consisted of DCT at the dosage of 50 mg/m(2) with conventional steroid premedication and GEM at the dosage of 2,000 mg/m(2). Both drugs were administered every 2 weeks without prophylactic use of growth factors. RESULTS Enrolled patients included 40 males and seven females with a median age of 65 years, and a median PS 1. There were 26 squamous carcinomas, 13 adenocarcinomas, and eight others, 13 stage IIIB and 34 stage IV. A total of 371 cycles were administered. Overall 18 partial responses were observed (38.3%); 14 patients were considered as stable disease and 13 showed progressive disease. Two treatment-not related deaths occurred before the first disease evaluation was performed. Median duration of response was 6 months (range 2-10) and median duration of survival was 10.5 months (range 1-25+). One year survival probability was 38% (95% CI 25-54%). In a statistical analysis responses were independent to histology or stage. Grade 3-4 toxicity, according NCI criteria, was mild with neutropenia in eight patients (17%), anemia in two patients (4%). Asthenia affected two patients and mucositis occurred in one patient. CONCLUSIONS In our experience the biweekly combination of DCT and GEM is active and well tolerated and can be administered without G-CSF primary prophylaxis reducing treatment costs. It should be considered as a promising alternative to more toxic platinum-based regimens.