Paul L. Schaefer

Fluorouracil vs Gemcitabine Chemotherapy Before and After Fluorouracil-Based Chemoradiation Following Resection of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT Among patients with locally advanced metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, gemcitabine has been shown to improve outcomes compared with fluorouracil. OBJECTIVE To determine if the addition of gemcitabine to adjuvant fluorouracil chemoradiation (chemotherapy plus radiation) improves survival for patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized controlled phase 3 trial of patients with complete gross total resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and no prior radiation or chemotherapy enrolled between July 1998 and July 2002 with follow-up through August 18, 2006, at 164 US and Canadian institutions. INTERVENTION Chemotherapy with either fluorouracil (continuous infusion of 250 mg/m2 per day; n = 230) or gemcitabine (30-minute infusion of 1000 mg/m2 once per week; n = 221) for 3 weeks prior to chemoradiation therapy and for 12 weeks after chemoradiation therapy. Chemoradiation with a continuous infusion of fluorouracil (250 mg/m2 per day) was the same for all patients (50.4 Gy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Survival for all patients and survival for patients with pancreatic head tumors were the primary end points. Secondary end points included toxicity. RESULTS A total of 451 patients were randomized, eligible, and analyzable. Patients with pancreatic head tumors (n = 388) had a median survival of 20.5 months and a 3-year survival of 31% in the gemcitabine group vs a median survival of 16.9 months and a 3-year survival of 22% in the fluorouracil group (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.03]; P = .09). The treatment effect was strengthened on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.00]; P = .05). Grade 4 hematologic toxicity was 1% in the fluorouracil group and 14% in the gemcitabine group (P < .001) without a difference in febrile neutropenia or infection. There were no differences in the ability to complete chemotherapy or radiation therapy (>85%). CONCLUSIONS The addition of gemcitabine to adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemoradiation was associated with a survival benefit for patients with resected pancreatic cancer, although this improvement was not statistically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003216.

Randomized comparison of two schedules of fluorouracil and leucovorin in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer

PURPOSE To compare two commonly used schedules of fluorouracil (5FU) and leucovorin in the treatment of patients with advanced metastatic colorectal cancer. Each of these dosage administration schedules has been demonstrated to be superior to single-agent bolus 5FU in previous controlled trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred seventy-two ambulatory patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were stratified according to performance status, and presence and location of any measurable indicator lesion(s). They were then randomized to receive chemotherapy with one of the following regimens: (1) intensive-course 5FU plus low-dose leucovorin (5FU 425 mg/m2 plus leucovorin 20 mg/m2 intravenous [IV] push daily for 5 days with courses repeated at 4- to 5-week intervals); (2) weekly 5FU plus high-dose leucovorin (5FU 600 mg/m2 IV push plus leucovorin 500 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion weekly for 6 weeks with courses repeated every 8 weeks). RESULTS Three hundred sixty-two of 372 patients randomized (97.3%) were eligible and included in the analysis. Three hundred forty-six patients (95.6%) have died. There were no significant differences in therapeutic efficacy between the two 5FU/leucovorin regimens tested with respect to the following parameters: objective tumor response (35% v 31%), survival (median, 9.3 v 10.7 months), and palliative effects (as assessed by relief of symptoms, improved performance status, and weight gain). There were significant (P < .05) differences in toxicity, with more leukopenia and stomatitis seen with the intensive-course regimen, and more diarrhea and requirement for hospitalization to manage toxicity with the weekly regimen. Financial cost was also higher with the weekly regimen. CONCLUSION Intensive-course 5FU plus low-dose leucovorin appears to have a superior therapeutic index compared with weekly 5FU plus high-dose leucovorin using the dosage administration schedules applied in this study based on similar therapeutic effectiveness, but lower financial cost, and less need for hospitalization to manage chemotherapy toxicity.

Predictive and Prognostic Roles of BRAF Mutation in Stage III Colon Cancer: Results from Intergroup Trial CALGB 89803

Purpose: Alterations in the RAS-RAF-MAP2K (MEK)-MAPK signaling pathway are major drivers in colorectal carcinogenesis. In colorectal cancer, BRAF mutation is associated with microsatellite instability (MSI), and typically predicts inferior prognosis. We examined the effect of BRAF mutation on survival and treatment efficacy in patients with stage III colon cancer. Methods: We assessed status of BRAF c.1799T>A (p.V600E) mutation and MSI in 506 stage III colon cancer patients enrolled in a randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial [5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FU/LV) vs. irinotecan (CPT11), FU and LV (IFL); CALGB 89803]. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the prognostic role of BRAF mutation, adjusting for clinical features, adjuvant chemotherapy arm, and MSI status. Results: Compared with 431 BRAF wild-type patients, 75 BRAF-mutated patients experienced significantly worse overall survival [OS; log-rank P = 0.015; multivariate HR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.05–2.63]. By assessing combined status of BRAF and MSI, it seemed that BRAF-mutated MSS (microsatellite stable) tumor was an unfavorable subtype, whereas BRAF wild-type MSI-high tumor was a favorable subtype, and BRAF-mutated MSI-high tumor and BRAF wild-type MSS tumor were intermediate subtypes. Among patients with BRAF-mutated tumors, a nonsignificant trend toward improved OS was observed for IFL versus FU/LV arm (multivariate HR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.25–1.10). Among patients with BRAF wild-type cancer, IFL conferred no suggestion of benefit beyond FU/LV alone (multivariate HR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72–1.46). Conclusions: BRAF mutation is associated with inferior survival in stage III colon cancer. Additional studies are necessary to assess whether there is any predictive role of BRAF mutation for irinotecan-based therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 18(3); 890–900. ©2011 AACR.

KRAS Mutation in Stage III Colon Cancer and Clinical Outcome Following Intergroup Trial CALGB 89803

Purpose: Alterations in the RAS and RAF pathway relate to epigenetic and epigenomic aberrations, and are important in colorectal carcinogenesis. KRAS mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer predicts resistance to anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted therapy (cetuximab or panitumumab). It remains uncertain, however, whether KRAS mutation predicts prognosis or clinical outcome of colon cancer patients independent of anti-EGFR therapy. Methods: We conducted a study of 508 cases identified among 1,264 patients with stage III colon cancer who enrolled in a randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin with or without irinotecan) in 1999-2001 (CALGB 89803). KRAS mutations were detected in 178 tumors (35%) by pyrosequencing. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models assessed the prognostic significance of KRAS mutation and adjusted for potential confounders including age, sex, tumor location, tumor/node stage, performance status, adjuvant chemotherapy arm, and microsatellite instability status. Results: Compared with patients with KRAS-wild-type tumors, patients with KRAS-mutated tumors did not experience any difference in disease-free, recurrence-free, or overall survival. The 5-year disease-free, recurrence-free, and overall survival rates (KRAS-mutated versus KRAS-wild-type patients) were 62% versus 63% (log-rank P = 0.89), 64% versus 66% (P = 0.84), and 75% versus 73% (P = 0.56), respectively. The effect of KRAS mutation on patient survival did not significantly differ according to clinical features, chemotherapy arm, or microsatellite instability status, and the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy assignment on outcome did not differ according to KRAS status. Conclusions: In this large trial of chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer patients, KRAS mutational status was not associated with any significant influence on disease-free or overall survival. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(23):7322–9)

Tetracycline to prevent epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-induced skin rashes: Results of a placebo-controlled trial from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (N03CB)

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors are effective cancer therapies, but they are reported to cause a rash in >50% of patients. In the current study, the authors examined the use of tetracycline for rash prevention.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Phase 3 Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE To prospectively assess whether low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) provides a survival benefit in patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between December 1998 and June 2001, we performed a randomized controlled study of patients with advanced cancer. Initially, the study was double blinded and placebo controlled, with the patients receiving daily injections of 5000 U of LMWH or saline. However, because of low accrual midway through the study, the placebo injection arm was eliminated, and the study became open labeled, with patients receiving either LMWH injections plus standard clinical care or standard clinical care alone. The primary study end point was overall survival. RESULTS Of 141 patients randomized to this clinical trial, 3 dropped out, leaving 138 patients. The median survival time was 10.5 months (95% confidence interval, 7.6-12.2 months) for the combined standard care and placebo groups. The median survival time for the combined LMWH arms was 7.3 months (95% confidence interval, 4.8-12.2 months). These median survival times were not significantly different (log-rank P =.46). The median survival times for the blinded and unblinded LMWH groups were 6.2 months and 9.0 months, respectively. The median survival times were 10.3 months for the blinded placebo arm and 10.5 months for the standard care arm. The rate of severe or life-threatening venous thromboembolism was 6% in the LMWH arms and 7% in the control arms. The rate of severe or life-threatening bleeding was 3% in the LMWH arms and 7% in the control arms. CONCLUSION This trial was unable to demonstrate any survival benefit for LMWH in patients with advanced cancer.

Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of cisplatin and etoposide plus megestrol acetate/placebo in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group study.

PURPOSE Megestrol acetate has been reported to improve appetite and quality of life and to decrease nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer anorexia/cachexia. The present trial was formulated to evaluate the impact of megestrol acetate on quality of life, toxicity, response, and survival in individuals with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer who received concomitant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized to receive megestrol acetate 800 mg/d orally or placebo. In addition, all patients were scheduled to receive a maximum of four cycles of cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy. Quality of life was self-assessed at entry onto study, with every cycle of chemotherapy, and 4 months thereafter with a linear visual analog scale. Toxicity was evaluated by patient questionnaire and investigator reports. RESULTS A total of 243 eligible patients were randomized. Those who received megestrol acetate had increased nonfluid weight gain (P = .004) and significantly less nausea (P = .0002) and vomiting (P = .02). Significant thromboembolic phenomena occurred more often in patients who received megestrol acetate versus placebo (9% v 2%, P = .01). Patients who received megestrol acetate had more edema (30% v 20%, P = .002), an inferior response rate to chemotherapy (68% v 80%, P = .03), and a trend for inferior survival duration (median, 8.2 v 10.0 months, P = .49). These findings may have been influenced by a poorer quality of life of the megestrol acetate group at study initiation. There were no significant changes in quality of life scores over time between either of the study arms. CONCLUSION Megestrol acetate cannot be routinely recommended for all patients with small-cell lung cancer at the time of chemotherapy initiation. Rather, its therapeutic ratio may be more favorable for patients with problematic cancer anorexia/cachexia.

Phase II Evaluation of Gefitinib in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Grade 4 Astrocytoma: Mayo/North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0074

PURPOSE Amplification of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene represents one of the most frequent gene alterations in glioblastoma (GBM). In the current study, we evaluated gefitinib, a potent EGFR inhibitor, in the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed GBM. METHODS AND MATERIALS Ninety-eight patients (96 evaluable) were accrued between May 18, 2001, and August 2, 2002. All were newly diagnosed GBM patients who were clinically and radiographically stable/improved after radiation treatment (enrollment within 5 weeks of radiation completion). No prior chemotherapy was permitted. EGFR amplification/mutation, as assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry, was not required for treatment with gefitinib but was studied when tissues were available. Gefitinib was administered at 500 mg each day; for patients receiving dexamethasone or enzyme-inducing (CYP3A4) agents, dose was escalated to a maximum of 1,000 mg QD. Treatment cycles were repeated at 4-week intervals with brain magnetic resonance imaging at 8-week intervals. RESULTS Overall survival (OS; calculated from time of initial surgery) at 1 year (primary end point) with gefitinib was 54.2%, which was not statistically different compared with that of historical control population (48.9%, data from three previous Phase III North Central Cancer Treatment Group studies of newly diagnosed GBM patients). Progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 year post-RT (16.7%) was also not significantly different to that of historical controls (30.3%). Clinical outcome was not affected by EGFR status (amplification or vIII mutation). Fatigue (41%), rash (62%), and loose stools (58%) constituted the most frequent adverse events, the majority of these being limited to Grade 1/2. Of note, the occurrence of drug-related adverse effects, such as loose stools was associated with improved OS. CONCLUSIONS In our evaluation of nearly 100 patients with newly diagnosed GBM, treatment with adjuvant gefitinib post-radiation was not associated with significant improvement in OS or PFS. However, patients who experienced gefitinib-associated adverse effects (rash/diarrhea) did demonstrate improved OS.

Phase III trial comparing chemotherapy plus once-daily or twice-daily radiotherapy in Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE This Phase III study was performed to determine whether chemotherapy plus b.i.d. or q.d. radiotherapy (RT) resulted in superior survival for patients with Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with Stage III NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of <or=1 were randomized to receive either standard q.d. RT (60 Gy in 30 daily fractions) or split-course b.i.d. RT (30 Gy in 20 fractions b.i.d.) followed by a 2-week break and then 30 Gy in 20 fractions b.i.d. Both arms included etoposide and cisplatin (EP) during RT. RESULTS Between December 1994 and February 1999, 246 patients were accrued and 234 were deemed eligible and included in the analyses. Of the 234 patients, 123 had Stage IIIa disease and 111 had Stage IIIb disease. The incidence of severe (Grade 3 or greater) acute nonhematologic toxicity (q.d. RT, 53% vs. b.i.d. RT, 65%) and severe (Grade 3 or greater) hematologic toxicities (thrombocytopenia, 41% q.d. RT vs. 39% b.i.d. RT; neutropenia, 80% q.d. RT vs. 81% b.i.d. RT) was not significantly different between the treatment arms. Five patients (3 in q.d. RT group and 2 in b.i.d. RT group) died as a result of acute toxicity. The follow-up ranged from 2 to 73 months (median 43). No significant differences were found between the q.d. and b.i.d. RT arms in terms of time to progression (p = 0.9; median 9.4 and 9.6 months, respectively), overall survival (p = 0.4; median 14 and 15 months and 2-year survival rate 37% and 40%, respectively), and cumulative incidence of local failure (p = 0.6; 2-year rate 45% and 41%, respectively). CONCLUSION This program of split-course b.i.d. RT plus EP was not superior to standard q.d. RT plus EP. The toxicity, tumor control, and survival rates were similar with either b.i.d. or q.d. RT. Our future efforts will concentrate on new combinations of systemic therapy and innovative methods of administering increasing doses of RT.

Nicotine Patch Therapy Based on Smoking Rate Followed by Bupropion for Prevention of Relapse to Smoking

PURPOSE To determine whether (1) tailored nicotine patch therapy that is based on smoking rate can be carried out in a multisite oncology investigative group practice setting, (2) long-term use of bupropion reduces the rate of relapse to smoking in smokers who stop smoking with nicotine patch therapy, and (3) bupropion can initiate smoking abstinence among smokers who have failed to stop smoking after nicotine patch therapy. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS Fourteen North Central Cancer Treatment Group sites recruited generally healthy adult smokers from the general population for nicotine patch therapy and based the patch dosage on smoking rates. At completion of nicotine patch therapy, nonsmoking participants were eligible to be assigned to bupropion or placebo for 6 months (for relapse prevention). and smoking participants were eligible to be assigned to bupropion or placebo for 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS Of 578 subjects, 31% were abstinent from smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy. Of those subjects not smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy who entered the relapse prevention phase, 28% and 25% were not smoking at 6 months (the end of the medication phase) for bupropion and placebo, respectively (P =.73). For those still smoking at the end of nicotine patch therapy, 3.1% and 0.0% stopped smoking with bupropion or placebo, respectively (P =.12). CONCLUSION Tailored nicotine patch therapy for the general population of smokers can be provided in a multisite oncology investigative group setting. Bupropion did not reduce relapse to smoking in smokers who stopped smoking with nicotine patch therapy. Bupropion did not initiate abstinence among smokers who failed to stop smoking with nicotine patch therapy.