Search

Background: To assess the activity and toxicity of valspodar (PSC-833) in combination with paclitaxel in women with anthracycline refractory, metastatic breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Limited, multi-institutional, Phase II trial of valspodar at 5 mg/kg/dose orally every 6 hours for 12 doses in combination with paclitaxel 70 mg/m2 administered intravenously as a 3-hour infusion beginning 4 hours after the fifth dose of valspodar, every 3 weeks. Eligible patients had bi-dimensionally measurable metastatic carcinoma of the breast, prior anthracycline therapy or a medical contraindication to anthracycline therapy, no more than one prior chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, and adequate organ function. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity., Results: Thirty-four patients are evaluable for response and 37 for toxicity. Two (6 percent) patients achieved a complete response and 5 (15 percent) a partial response for an objective response rate of 21 percent (95 percent confidence interval of 9 to 38 percent). Median duration of response was 9.7 months (95 percent confidence interval 8.0-17.2 months), median time to progression was 3.3 months (95 percent confidence interval 2.0-4.2 months), and median survival was 12 months (95 percent confidence interval 8.1-17.3 months). The toxicity experienced was acceptable., Conclusions: Combination valspodar plus paclitaxel is an active regimen and has acceptable toxicity. The combination is not clearly more active than single agent paclitaxel.

Background: Conventional systemic chemotherapy currently available for patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma is ineffective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of eniluracil/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the treatment of patients with this highly refractory disease., Patients and Methods: This multicenter, open-label study evaluated a 28-day oral regimen of 5-FU (1 mg/m2 twice daily) plus the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitor, eniluracil (10 mg/m2 twice daily), in patients with chemotherapy-naive or anthracycline-refractory inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma., Results: A total of 36 patients enrolled into the study. No patient showed a confirmed partial or complete tumor response, although nine patients (25%) had a best response of stable disease. The median duration of progression-free survival was 9.6 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.1-10.6 weeks], and the median duration of overall survival was 32.7 weeks (95% CI 17.4-71.6 weeks). Eniluracil/5-FU was well tolerated. Diarrhea, the most frequent treatment-related non-hematological toxicity, occurred in 11 patients (31%). Hematological toxicities were infrequent and usually mild., Conclusions: Eniluracil/5-FU as a 28-day oral outpatient regimen is well tolerated by patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma, although minimal activity was observed when given as monotherapy at the dose used in this study.

Purpose: In 1989, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project initiated the B-22 trial to determine whether intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide combination would benefit women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes. B-25 was initiated to determine whether further intensifying and increasing the cyclophosphamide dose would yield more favorable results., Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 2,548) were randomly assigned to three groups. The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Group 1 received four courses, ie, double the dose and intensity of cyclophosphamide given in the B-22 standard therapy group; group 2 received the same dose of cyclophosphamide as in group 1, administered in two courses (intensified); group 3 received double the dose of cyclophosphamide (intensified and increased) given in group 1. All patients received recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Life-table estimates were used to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival., Results: No significant difference was observed in DFS (P =.20), distant DFS (P =.31), or survival (P =.76) among the three groups. At 5 years, the DFS in groups 1 and 2 (61% v 64%, respectively; P =. 29) was similar to but slightly lower than that in group 3 (61% v 66%, respectively; P = 08). Survival in group 1 was concordant with that in groups 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P =.71) and 3 (78% v 79%, respectively; P =.86). Grade 4 toxicity was 20%, 34%, and 49% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Severe infection and septic episodes increased in group 3. The decrease in the amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide and delays in therapy were greatest in courses 3 and 4 in group 3. The incidence of acute myeloid leukemia increased in all groups., Conclusion: Because intensifying and increasing cyclophosphamide two or four times that given in standard clinical practice did not substantively improve outcome, such therapy should be reserved for the clinical trial setting.

Background: The B-20 study of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) was conducted to determine whether chemotherapy plus tamoxifen would be of greater benefit than tamoxifen alone in the treatment of patients with axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer., Methods: Eligible patients (n = 2306) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups following surgery. A total of 771 patients with follow-up data received tamoxifen alone; 767 received methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (MFT); and 768 received cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (CMFT). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and survival. Reported P values are two-sided., Results: Through 5 years of follow-up, chemotherapy plus tamoxifen resulted in significantly better disease-free survival than tamoxifen alone (90% for MFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .01]; 89% for CMFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .001]). A similar benefit was observed in both distant disease-free survival (92% for MFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .008]; 91% for CMFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .006]) and survival (97% for MFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .05]; 96% for CMFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .03]). Compared with tamoxifen alone, MFT and CMFT reduced the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy and the risk of recurrence at other local, regional, and distant sites. Risk of treatment failure was reduced after both types of chemotherapy, regardless of tumor size, tumor estrogen or progesterone receptor level, or patient age; however, the reduction was greatest in patients aged 49 years or less. No subgroup of patients evaluated in this study failed to benefit from chemotherapy., Conclusions: Findings from this and other NSABP studies indicate that patients with breast cancer who meet NSABP protocol criteria, regardless of age, lymph node status, tumor size, or estrogen receptor status, are candidates for chemotherapy.

Purpose: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) initiated a randomized trial (B-22) to determine if intensifying but maintaining the total dose of cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan, Bristol-Myers Squibb Oncology, Princeton, NJ) in a doxorubicin (Adriamycin, Pharmacia, Kalamazoo, MI)-cyclophosphamide combination (AC), or if intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide improves the outcome of women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes., Patients and Methods: Patients (N = 2,305) were randomized to receive either four courses of standard AC therapy (group 1); intensified therapy, in which the same total dose of cyclophosphamide was administered in two courses (group 2); or intensified and increased therapy, in which the total dose of cyclophosphamide was doubled (group 3). The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival were determined using life-table estimates., Results: There was no significant difference in DFS (P = .30) or overall survival (P = .95) among the groups through 5 years. At 5 years, the DFS of women in group 1 was similar to that of women in group 2 (62% v 60%, respectively; P = .43) and to that of women in group 3 (62% v 64%, respectively; P = .59). The 5-year survival of women in group 1 was similar to that of women in group 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P = .86) and to that of women in group 3 (78% v 77%, respectively; P = .82). Grade 4 toxicity increased in groups 2 and 3. Failure to note a difference in outcome among the groups was unrelated to either differences in amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide or to dose delays and intervals between courses of therapy., Conclusion: Intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide failed to significantly improve either DFS or overall survival in any group. It was concluded that, outside of a clinical trial, dose-intensification of cyclophosphamide in an AC combination represents inappropriate therapy for women with primary breast cancer.

Background: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performed a Phase III comparison of melphalan and prednisone (MP) with vincristine, carmustine (BCNU), melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone (VBMCP) in an attempt to determine which of these regimens should be the standard treatment for multiple myeloma., Methods: Four hundred seventy-nine previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma from 23 ECOG institutions were enrolled. Treatment, assigned by randomization, consisted of either 4-week cycles of MP or 5-week cycles of VBCMP. After 1 year of induction therapy, patients received MP or VBMCP maintenance therapy at 6- and 8- week intervals, respectively, until relapse. Patients who experienced treatment failure with MP were eligible for crossover therapy with VBMCP., Results: Objective responses were obtained for 51% of patients receiving MP, as compared with 72% of patients receiving VBMCP (P < 0.001). Response duration was also longer with VBMCP (median, 18 months with MP vs. 24 months with VBMCP; P = 0.007). Overall survival was not significantly different between MP and VBMCP (P = 0.30). The 5-year survival for VBMCP was 26%, as compared with 19% for MP. VBMCP was associated with more nausea, peripheral nerve toxicity, alopecia, and neutropenia, but the infection rate was equal to that observed with MP. Both regimens were generally well tolerated. The main exception was that elderly patients who were confined to bed had a higher risk of death with VBMCP. The two regimens produced a similar incidence of late secondary myelodysplastic syndrome and acute leukemia. Crossover VBMCP for patients failing with MP was only minimally effective, with an objective response rate of 20% and median survival of 11 months after crossover., Conclusions: VBMCP is more effective than MP in producing and sustaining remission of multiple myeloma. It is associated with a marginal survival advantage and an apparently greater chance of surviving 5 years for patients who can tolerate moderately intensive combination chemotherapy. Cancer 1997;79:1561-7. 1997 American Cancer Society.

Purpose: To compare sequential methotrexate (M) and fluorouracil (F) (M-->F) with surgery (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project [NSABP] B-13) and cyclophosphamide (C), M, and F with M-->F (NSABP B-19), in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors and negative axillary nodes., Patients and Methods: A total of 760 patients were randomized to B-13; 1,095 patients with the same eligibility requirements were randomized to B-19. Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and survival were determined using life-table estimates., Results: A significant benefit in overall DFS (74% v 59%; P < .001) was demonstrated at 8 years in all B-13 patients who received M-->F (69% v 56% [P = .006] in those or= 50 years). A survival advantage was evident in older patients (89% v 80%; P = .03). In B-19, through 5 years, an overall DFS advantage (82% v 73%; P < .001) and a borderline survival advantage (88% v 85%; P = .06) were evident with CMF. The DFS (84% v 72%; P < .001) and survival (89% v 84%; P = .04) benefits from CMF were greater in women aged F or CMF after lumpectomy and breast irradiation resulted in a low probability of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). In B-13, the frequency of IBTR was 2.6% following M-->F versus 13.4% in women treated by lumpectomy; it was 0.6% following CMF in B-19. Toxicity >or= grade 3 was more frequent among CMF patients in B-19. The age-related difference in CMF benefit was not related to amount of drug received., Conclusion: M-->F and CMF are effective for node-negative patients with ER-negative tumors. The incidence of local-regional or distant metastases and IBTR decreased after either therapy. The benefit from either therapy was evident in all patients, but the CMF advantage was greater in those F may be used in patients with medical problems that would preclude CMF administration.

A prospective randomized trial in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma was performed comparing carmustine (BCNU), cyclophosphamide, and prednisone (BCP) to melphalan (Alkeran) and prednisone (AP). Induction response rates, remission duration, and survival were similar with both regimens. Hematologic toxicity was greater with AP. Crossover studies in patients who relapsed did not illustrate any significant activity with either drug treatment program. Therefore, BCP can be utilized as initial therapy in myeloma because of comparable remission rates and less hematologic toxicity.