Neill Iscoe

Systematic Review of Systemic Adjuvant Therapy for Patients at High Risk for Recurrent Melanoma

The authors examined the role of systemic adjuvant therapy in patients with high‐risk, resected, primary melanoma. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, disease‐free survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to locate randomized controlled trials, practice guidelines, meta‐analyses, and reviews published between 1980 and 2004. Thirty‐seven randomized controlled trials, 2 meta‐analyses, and 1 systematic review were identified that investigated interferon, levamisole, vaccine, or chemotherapy as adjuvant therapy. For high‐dose interferon‐α, the results from 3 randomized trials conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group were pooled, and a meta‐analysis of 2‐year death rates yielded a risk ratio of 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.73–0.99; P = .03). Five randomized trials comparing low‐dose interferon‐α with observation only after surgery did not detect a statistically significant improvement in overall survival. A meta‐analysis of 4 levamisole trials did not demonstrate a significant survival benefit for levamisole over control; similarly, no survival benefit was demonstrated by data from randomized controlled trials with vaccines (9 trials) or with chemotherapy (10 trials). In this review of the available literature, no systemic adjuvant therapy was identified that conferred a significant overall survival benefit in patients with high‐risk, resected, primary melanoma. However, high‐dose interferon should be considered in the treatment of these patients, because such therapy is associated with a significant improvement in disease‐free survival and a reduction in 2‐year mortality. Until the results of ongoing trials are available, the authors could not state with confidence whether such therapy benefits patients with microscopically detected, sentinel lymph node‐positive disease. Cancer 2006.

Continuous Narcotic Infusion with Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Chronic Cancer Pain in Outpatients

STUDY OBJECTIVE To determine the feasibility and safety of outpatient continuous narcotic infusions with additional bolus capabilities (patient-controlled analgesia) in patients with cancer pain. DESIGN A single arm (non-randomized) series. SETTING Outpatient with contact by telephone and through outpatient clinic. PATIENTS Consecutive series of 18 patients with poorly controlled cancer pain or significant side effects from regular administration of various narcotics. INTERVENTIONS Patients taught and supervised to use portable pump capable of delivering a continuous narcotic infusion with bolus capabilities. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS All patients had improvement in pain control as judged by the use of a linear analogue scale. Side effects and safety profile were highly acceptable. Narcotics used and maximum doses were meperidine, 50 mg/h; morphine, 80 mg/hr; and hydromorphone, 60 mg/hr. Infusion duration ranged from 7 to 225 days (mean, 54 days). CONCLUSIONS Continuous narcotic infusions using a programmable portable pump with bolus capabilities is a safe and reliable method of delivering narcotics to outpatients.

PROCLAIM: Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed-Cisplatin or Etoposide-Cisplatin Plus Thoracic Radiation Therapy Followed by Consolidation Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE The phase III PROCLAIM study evaluated overall survival (OS) of concurrent pemetrexed-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) followed by consolidation pemetrexed, versus etoposide-cisplatin and TRT followed by nonpemetrexed doublet consolidation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage IIIA/B unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer randomly received (1:1) pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks for three cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by pemetrexed consolidation every 3 weeks for four cycles (arm A), or standard therapy with etoposide 50 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously, every 4 weeks for two cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by two cycles of consolidation platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (arm B). The primary objective was OS. The study was designed as a superiority trial with 80% power to detect an OS hazard ratio of 0.74 with a type 1 error of .05. RESULTS Enrollment was stopped early because of futility. Five hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned (301 to arm A, 297 to arm B) and 555 patients (283 in arm A, 272 in arm B) were treated. Arm A was not superior to arm B in terms of OS (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.20; median, 26.8 v 25.0 months; P = .831). Arm A had a significantly lower incidence of any drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (64.0% v 76.8%; P = .001), including neutropenia (24.4% v 44.5%; P < .001), during the overall treatment period. CONCLUSION Pemetrexed-cisplatin combined with TRT followed by consolidation pemetrexed was not superior to standard chemoradiotherapy for stage III unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

A randomized phase III trial comparing standard and high-dose pemetrexed as second-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND This phase III randomized trial compared pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) (P500) with pemetrexed 900 mg/m(2) (P900) to determine whether higher dosing benefits non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients as second-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to receive i.v. P500 or P900 every 3 week. RESULTS Accrual was terminated with 588/600 patients enrolled because an interim analysis indicated a low probability of improved survival and numerically greater toxicity on the P900 arm. P900 patients were permitted to continue treatment at P500. No statistical difference was observed between the treatment arms (P500 versus P900) for median survival {6.7 versus 6.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.0132 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.837-1.226]}, progression-free survival [2.6 versus 2.8 months, HR = 0.9681 (95% CI 0.817-1.147)], or best overall tumor response [7.1% versus 4.3% (P = 0.1616)]. The incidence of drug-related grade 3/4 toxicity was typically <5% on both treatment arms, but was numerically higher on the P900 arm for most toxicity categories. CONCLUSIONS P900 did not improve any efficacy measure over P500. P500 i.v. every 3 week remains the standard pemetrexed dose for second-line treatment of platinum-pretreated advanced NSCLC.

PROCLAIM: A Phase III Study of Pemetrexed, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy Followed by Consolidation Pemetrexed Versus Etoposide, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy Followed by Consolidation Cytotoxic Chemotherapy of Choice in Locally Advanced Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer of Other than Predominantly Squamous Cell Histology

This clinical trial summary provides the background and rationale for a randomized trial examining the benefits of pemetrexed/ cisplatin chemotherapy combined with radiation followed by consolidation pemetrexed in patients with unresectable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer. The rationale for the selection of the control arm is provided, and study design limitations are discussed. The primary outcome is survival, and secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, toxicities, and 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates. Radiation quality control is a key component of the trial.

Phase II, Double-Blinded, Randomized Study of Enzastaurin Plus Pemetrexed as Second-Line Therapy in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: We examined the efficacy of enzastaurin plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in patients with advanced (stage IIIA/B or IV) non-small cell lung cancer in a double-blinded, randomized, phase II study. Methods: Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of 21-day cycles (day 8 in cycle 1) plus oral enzastaurin (250 mg two times per day; combination arm) or placebo (pemetrexed arm). Both arms received supplementation with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone. An interim analysis was conducted to determine whether efficacy would warrant a phase III study. Results: The interim analysis showed no evidence of improved progression-free survival with enzastaurin. At final analysis (N = 160, 80 in each arm), baseline characteristics were well balanced. There was no significant difference in progression-free survival (3.0 months, p = 0.544) or overall survival (9.6 months in combination arm and 7.4 months in pemetrexed arm, p = 0.171). Drug-related serious adverse events included cerebrovascular accident, palpitations, and renal failure (n = 1, each) in combination arm and neutropenic sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and panniculitis (n = 1, each) in pemetrexed arm. Nonhematologic drug-related grade 3/4 toxicities were similar in both arms. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were higher with the combination, specifically leukopenia (6.3% versus 0%), neutropenia (15.2% versus 5.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.9% versus 1.3%). Of the 26 deaths reported on-study or within 30 days of discontinuation (10 in combination arm and 16 in pemetrexed arm), none were drug related. Conclusion: The combination regimen of enzastaurin and pemetrexed is well tolerated but does not improve efficacy over pemetrexed and placebo as second-line treatment of unselected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Phase I Trial of Radiation With Concurrent and Consolidation Pemetrexed and Cisplatin in Patients With Unresectable Stage IIIA/B Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate the feasibility and safety of concurrent pemetrexed/cisplatin/thoracic radiotherapy followed by consolidation pemetrexed/cisplatin for unresectable Stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligible patients with <5% weight loss and good performance status received two cycles of pemetrexed (300, 400, or 500 mg/m(2) on Days 1 and 22 for Dose Levels 1, 2, and 3/4, respectively) and cisplatin (25 mg/m(2) Days 1-3 for Dose Levels 1-3; 20 mg/m(2) Days 1-5 for Dose Level 4) concurrent with thoracic radiation (61-66 Gy in 31-35 fractions). Consolidation consisted of two cycles of pemetrexed/cisplatin (500 mg/m(2), 75 mg/m(2)) 21 days apart, after concurrent therapy. RESULTS Between January 2006 and October 2007, 16 patients entered the study. Median follow-up was 17.2 months. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Median radiation dose was 64 Gy (range, 45-66 Gy). Rates of significant Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity were 38% and 7%, respectively. One patient experienced Grade 3 acute esophagitis, and 2 experienced late (Grade 3) esophageal stricture, successfully managed with dilation. One patient experienced Grade 3 pneumonitis. The overall response rate was 88%. One-year overall survival was 81%. CONCLUSIONS Full systemic dose pemetrexed seems to be safe with full-dose cisplatin and thoracic radiation in Stage IIIA/B NSCLC. Pemetrexed is the first third-generation cytotoxic agent tolerable at full dose in this setting. A Phase II study evaluating Dose Level 4 is ongoing.

A phase I study of concurrent pemetrexed (P)/cisplatin (C)/radiation (RT) for unresectable stage IIIA/B non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

7087 Background: Concurrent chemoRT is standard of care for most patients with unresectable stage III A/B NSCLC but no standard chemotherapy regimen/schedule has been established. In a previous pha...

A phase II study of spirogermanium in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma

SummaryThe National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group conducted a phase II study of spirogermanium given daily for 5 days every 3 weeks to previously untreated patients with malignant melanoma. In 21 evaluable patients one complete response was seen (response rate 5%). Disease progression occurred in the other 20 patients. Toxicity was primarily neurologic and mild or moderate in most patients, though there was one treatment related death. In this schedule spirogermanium has extremely limited activity against malignant melanoma and will not contribute significantly to the systemic therapy of this disease.

Phase II Study of Concurrent Pemetrexed, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy for Stage IIIA/B Unresectable Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION Concurrent thoracic radiation and platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for treatment of unresectable stage IIIA-IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the optimal drug regimen has not been established. PATIENTS AND METHODS In the present single-arm phase II trial, patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage IIIA-IIIB NSCLC (all histologic types) were treated with pemetrexed-cisplatin (500 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 22, 20 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1-5 and days 22-26) concurrent with radiotherapy (61-66 Gy in 31-35 fractions), followed by 2 cycles of consolidation pemetrexed-cisplatin (75 mg(2)) therapy. The primary endpoint was the 1-year overall survival (OS) rate. The study treatment was considered active if the 1-year OS rate was ≥ 70%. RESULTS A total of 39 patients, including 6 from the previous phase I trial who had been treated at the recommended phase II dose, were eligible for analysis. The most common drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events during the concurrent phase were hematologic and 5.1% of patients experienced grade 3 esophagitis. The response rate was 45.9% (17 of 37 patients), with no complete responses. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS survival rates were 79.5%, 56.4%, and 46.2%, respectively. The median OS, time to progressive disease, and progression-free survival was 30.3, 13.7, and 11.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Full-dose cisplatin and pemetrexed can be administered concurrently with conventional doses of thoracic radiation. The median and 1-year OS rates were favorable compared with published clinical trials in this setting. The regimen was tolerable, and the toxicity profile was consistent with the known toxicity profiles of pemetrexed, cisplatin, and radiation.