Jim Cassidy

Bevacizumab in Combination With Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy As First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Study

PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab when added to first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (either capecitabine plus oxaliplatin [XELOX] or fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin [FOLFOX-4]) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with MCRC were randomly assigned, in a 2 x 2 factorial design, to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to bevacizumab versus placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS A total of 1,401 patients were randomly assigned in this 2 x 2 analysis. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months in the bevacizumab group and 8.0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 97.5% CI, 0.72 to 0.95; P = .0023). Median overall survival was 21.3 months in the bevacizumab group and 19.9 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.89; 97.5% CI, 0.76 to 1.03; P = .077). Response rates were similar in both arms. Analysis of treatment withdrawals showed that, despite protocol allowance of treatment continuation until disease progression, only 29% and 47% of bevacizumab and placebo recipients, respectively, were treated until progression. The toxicity profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that documented in previous trials. CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in this first-line trial in patients with MCRC. Overall survival differences did not reach statistical significance, and response rate was not improved by the addition of bevacizumab. Treatment continuation until disease progression may be necessary in order to optimize the contribution of bevacizumab to therapy.

Randomized, Phase III Trial of Panitumumab With Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) Versus FOLFOX4 Alone As First-Line Treatment in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The PRIME Study

PURPOSE Panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that improves progression-free survival (PFS), is approved as monotherapy for patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The Panitumumab Randomized Trial in Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to Determine Efficacy (PRIME) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as initial treatment for mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and available tissue for biomarker testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4. The primary end point was PFS; overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Results were prospectively analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis by tumor KRAS status. RESULTS KRAS results were available for 93% of the 1,183 patients randomly assigned. In the wild-type (WT) KRAS stratum, panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved PFS compared with FOLFOX4 (median PFS, 9.6 v 8.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02). A nonsignificant increase in OS was also observed for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 (median OS, 23.9 v 19.7 months, respectively; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.02; P = .072). In the mutant KRAS stratum, PFS was significantly reduced in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 arm versus the FOLFOX4 arm (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.62; P = .02), and median OS was 15.5 months versus 19.3 months, respectively (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.57; P = .068). Adverse event rates were generally comparable across arms with the exception of toxicities known to be associated with anti-EGFR therapy. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 was well tolerated and significantly improved PFS in patients with WT KRAS tumors and underscores the importance of KRAS testing for patients with mCRC.

Oral Capecitabine Compared With Intravenous Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Large Phase III Study

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and safety of orally administered capecitabine (Xeloda; Roche Laboratories, Inc, Nutley, NJ), a novel fluoropyrimidine carbamate designed to mimic continuous fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion but with preferential activation at the tumor site, with that of intravenous (IV) 5-FU plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS We prospectively randomized 602 patients to treatment with capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) administered twice daily days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks, or to the 4-weekly Mayo Clinic regimen (5-FU/LV) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS The primary objective, to demonstrate at least equivalent response rates in the two treatment groups, was met. The overall response rate was 18.9% for capecitabine and 15.0% for 5-FU/LV. In the capecitabine and 5-FU/LV groups, respectively, median time to disease progression was 5.2 and 4.7 months (log-rank P =.65); median time to treatment failure was 4.2 and 4.0 months (log-rank P =.89); and median overall survival was 13.2 and 12.1 months (log-rank P =.33). The toxicity profiles of both treatments were typical of fluoropyrimidines. However, capecitabine led to significantly lower incidences (P <.00001) of stomatitis and alopecia, but a higher incidence of cutaneous hand-foot syndrome (P <.00001). Capecitabine also resulted in lower incidences (P <.00001) of grade 3/4 stomatitis and neutropenia, leading to a lower incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenic fever and sepsis. Only grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (P <.00001) and uncomplicated grade 3/4 hyperbilirubinemia (P <.0001) were reported more frequently with capecitabine. CONCLUSION Oral capecitabine achieved an at least equivalent efficacy compared with IV 5-FU/LV. Capecitabine demonstrated clinically meaningful safety advantages and the convenience of an oral agent.

Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS The initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 x 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival. RESULTS The intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 x 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4-containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4. CONCLUSION XELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.

Preferential activation of capecitabine in tumor following oral administration to colorectal cancer patients.

Purpose: Capecitabine (Xeloda) is a novel fluoropyrimidine carbamate rationally designed to generate 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) preferentially in tumors. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the preferential activation of capecitabine, after oral administration, in tumor in colorectal cancer patients, by the comparison of 5-FU concentrations in tumor tissues, healthy tissues and plasma. Methods: Nineteen patients requiring surgical resection of primary tumor and/or liver metastases received 1,255 mg/m2 of capecitabine twice daily p.o. for 5–7 days prior to surgery. On the day of surgery, samples of tumor tissue, adjacent healthy tissue and blood samples were collected simultaneously from each patient, 2 to 12 h after the last dose of capecitabine had been administered. Concentrations of 5-FU in various tissues and plasma were determined by HPLC. The activities of the enzymes (CD, TP and DPD) involved in the formation and catabolism of 5-FU were measured in tissue homogenates, by catabolic assays. Results: The ratio of 5-FU concentrations in tumor to adjacent healthy tissue (T/H) was used as the primary marker for the preferential activation of capecitabine in tumor. In primary colorectal tumors, the concentration of 5-FU was on average 3.2 times higher than in adjacent healthy tissue (P=0.002). The mean liver metastasis/healthy tissue 5-FU concentration ratio was 1.4 (P=0.49, not statistically different). The mean tissue/plasma 5-FU concentration ratios exceeded 20 for colorectal tumor and ranged from 8 to 10 for other tissues. Conclusions: The results demonstrated the preferential activation of capecitabine to 5-FU in colorectal tumor, after oral administration to patients. This is explained to a great extent by the activity of TP in colorectal tumor tissue, (the enzyme responsible for the conversion of 5′-DFUR to 5-FU), which is approximately four times that in adjacent healthy tissue. In the liver, TP activity is approximately equal in metastatic and healthy tissue, which explains the lack of preferential activation of capecitabine in these tissues.

Methotrexate in resistant juvenile rheumatoid arthritis : results of the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND The antimetabolite methotrexate has been shown in placebo-controlled trials to be effective in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Methotrexate may also be effective in children with resistant juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, but the supporting data are from uncontrolled trials. METHODS Centers in the United States and the Soviet Union participated in this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of orally administered methotrexate. Patients received one of the following treatments each week for six months: 10 mg of methotrexate per square meter of body-surface area (low dose), 5 mg of methotrexate per square meter (very low dose), or placebo. The use of prednisone (less than or equal to 10 mg per day) and two nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs was also allowed. RESULTS The 127 children (mean age, 10.1 years) had a mean duration of disease of 5.1 years; 114 qualified for the analysis of efficacy. According to a composite index of several response variables, 63 percent of the children who received low-dose methotrexate improved, as compared with 32 percent of those in the very-low-dose group and 36 percent of those in the placebo group (P = 0.013). As compared with the placebo group, the low-dose group also had significantly larger mean reductions from base line in the number of joints with pain on motion (-11.0 vs. -7.1), the pain-severity score (-19 vs. -11.5), the number of joints with limited motion (-5.4 vs. -0.7), and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (-19.0 vs. -6 mm per hour). In the methotrexate groups only three children had the drug discontinued because of mild-to-moderate side effects; none had severe toxicity. CONCLUSIONS Methotrexate given weekly in low doses is an effective treatment for children with resistant juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, and at least in the short term this regimen is safe.

Capecitabine, an Oral Fluoropyrimidine Carbamate With Substantial Activity in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase II Study

PURPOSE To evaluate in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) three treatment regimens of oral capecitabine in order to select the most appropriate regimen for testing in phase III. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three capecitabine schedules were evaluated in a randomized phase II design: arm A, 1,331 mg/m(2)/d bid continuously; arm B, 2,510 mg/m(2)/d bid intermittently (2 weeks on/1 week off); and arm C, 1,657 mg/m(2)/d plus oral leucovorin 60 mg/d bid intermittently (2 weeks on/1 week off). RESULTS One hundred nine patients were randomized; 39 patients were assessable for efficacy in arm A, 34 in arm B, and 35 in arm C. Patient characteristics were balanced in the arms. Confirmed tumor responses (partial response [PR] + complete response [CR]) were reported for eight patients with two CRs (21%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9% to 36%) in arm A, eight patients with one CR (24%; 95% CI, 11% to 41%) in arm B, and eight patients with two CRs (23%; 95% CI, 10% to 40%) in arm C. Median times to progression (TTP) in arms A, B, and C were 127, 230, and 165 days, respectively. Overall, more toxicity was seen with capecitabine plus leucovorin, particularly diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome. There was no grade 3 or 4 marrow toxicity. CONCLUSION Capecitabine offers a new, effective treatment option as an oral single agent in advanced CRC. Promising overall response rates were reported for all three regimens. The addition of leucovorin to the intermittent regimen had no marked effect on tumor response or median TTP. The intermittent single-agent capecitabine schedule is proposed for phase III evaluation, based on considerations of toxicity, dose-intensity, response rate, and TTP.

Randomized Controlled Clinical Effectiveness Trial of Cognitive Behavior Therapy Compared With Treatment As Usual for Persistent Insomnia in Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE Persistent insomnia is a common complaint in cancer survivors, but is seldom satisfactorily addressed. The adaptation to cancer care of a validated, cost-effective intervention may offer a practicable solution. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of protocol-driven cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for insomnia, delivered by oncology nurses. PATIENTS AND METHODS Randomized, controlled, pragmatic, two-center trial of CBT versus treatment as usual (TAU) in 150 patients (103 females; mean age, 61 years.) who had completed active therapy for breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecological cancer. The study conformed to CONSORT guidelines. Primary outcomes were sleep diary measures at baseline, post-treatment, and 6-month follow-up. Actigraphic sleep, health-related quality of life (QOL), psychopathology, and fatigue were secondary measures. CBT comprised five, small group sessions across consecutive weeks, after a manualized protocol. TAU represented normal clinical practice; the appropriate control for a clinical effectiveness study. RESULTS CBT was associated with mean reductions in wakefulness of 55 minutes per night compared with no change in TAU. These outcomes were sustained 6 months after treatment. Standardized relative effect sizes were large for complaints of difficulty initiating sleep, waking from sleep during the night, and for sleep efficiency (percentage of time in bed spent asleep). CBT was associated with moderate to large effect sizes for five of seven QOL outcomes, including significant reduction in daytime fatigue. There was no significant interaction effect between any of these outcomes and baseline demographic, clinical, or sleep characteristics. CONCLUSION CBT for insomnia may be both clinically effective and feasible to deliver in real world practice.

Comparison of dexamethasone and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial was done to compare the efficacy and safety of a serotonin receptor antagonist--ondansetron--and dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis and nausea induced by moderately emetogenic non-platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. Patients were treated as outpatients and received intravenous ondansetron 4 mg or dexamethasone 8 mg before chemotherapy and oral maintenance (ondansetron 4 mg every 6 h and dexamethasone reducing from 4 mg to 1 mg 6-hourly between days 1 and 5) for 5 days. 112 patients were treated (38 men, 73 women, 1 with no gender recorded; age range 30-73 years) and 100 were evaluable for cross-over analysis. Patients taking ondansetron or dexamethasone reported no significant difference in complete and major control of acute (83% vs 79%, p = 0.46) or delayed (82% vs 88%, p = 0.214) emesis (vomiting plus retches). Significantly more patients on dexamethasone (87%) than on ondansetron (72%) reported control of delayed nausea (days 2-5) (p = 0.003). Both drugs were well tolerated with no significant difference in the number of adverse events, and this is reflected by similar patient preference for ondansetron (40%) and dexamethasone (30%) (p = 0.244). Both drugs offer adequate out-patient control of chemotherapy-induced emesis; however, dexamethasone has an advantage in the control of delayed nausea, and also in terms of cost and resource allocation.

A phase I trial of the selective oral cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor seliciclib (CYC202; R -Roscovitine), administered twice daily for 7 days every 21 days

Seliciclib (CYC202; R-roscovitine) is the first selective, orally bioavailable inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 1, 2, 7 and 9 to enter clinical trial. Preclinical studies showed antitumour activity in a broad range of human tumour xenografts. A phase I trial was performed with a 7-day b.i.d. p.o. schedule. Twenty-one patients (median age 62 years, range: 39–73 years) were treated with doses of 100, 200 and 800 b.i.d. Dose-limiting toxicities were seen at 800 mg b.i.d.; grade 3 fatigue, grade 3 skin rash, grade 3 hyponatraemia and grade 4 hypokalaemia. Other toxicities included reversible raised creatinine (grade 2), reversible grade 3 abnormal liver function and grade 2 emesis. An 800 mg portion was investigated further in 12 patients, three of whom had MAG3 renograms. One patient with a rapid increase in creatinine on day 3 had a reversible fall in renal perfusion, with full recovery by day 14, and no changes suggestive of renal tubular damage. Further dose escalation was precluded by hypokalaemia. Seliciclib reached peak plasma concentrations between 1 and 4 h and elimination half-life was 2–5 h. Inhibition of retinoblastoma protein phosphorylation was not demonstrated in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. No objective tumour responses were noted, but disease stabilisation was recorded in eight patients; this lasted for a total of six courses (18 weeks) in a patient with ovarian cancer.