Search

Early switching to de-intensified maintenance regimen is still a matter of debate in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The MARTHA trial, a S.I.C.O.G. phase III randomized trial, compared FOLOFIRI+bevacizumab (B) for 12 cycles (6 months) followed by B for up to 12 months (FOLFIRI +B*12 arm) vs FOLFIRI+B for 6 cycles (3 months) followed by capecitabine+B for 4 cycles followed by B for up to 12 months (FOLFIRI+B*6 arm). Chemotherapy-naïve mCRC patients were randomized, primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), with overall survival (OS) as a secondary endpoint. A novel analysis, the Death Pace Analysis (DPA), was performed to identify patients who benefited from a specific treatment. No PFS difference was seen in 198 enrolled patients (101 in FOLFIRI+B*12, 97 in FOLFIRI+B*6). A non-significant superior OS was observed for FOLFIRI+B*6 (HR 0.74, p 0.098). The DPA demonstrated that 14% of patients were identifiable as FOLFIRI+B*6-benefiting patients. According to a logistic regression analysis including 23 clinicopathological variables, baseline Hb was the only independent predictor of DPA-defined FOLFIRI+B*6-benefit status. Among patients with Hb ≤ 11.1 gr/dL a statistically significant prolonged OS was observed for FOLFIRI+B*6 over FOLFIRI+B*12 (median OS: 20.7 vs 12.6 months, respectively, HR 0.54, p 0.048). No survival difference was observed between arms in patients with Hb > 11.1. mCRC patients with low baseline Hb levels are better treated with FOLFIRI+B*6 first-line strategy. Possible biological explanations for this finding are being investigated.

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/m2 on day 1 with LV 100 mg/m2 administered as a 2-hour infusion before FU 400 mg/m2 administered as an intravenous bolus injection, and FU 600 mg/m2 as a 22-hour infusion immediately after FU bolus injection on days 1 and 2 [LV5FU2]) or arm B (FOLFOX4: oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 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.

BACKGROUND: Triplet regimens were occasionally reported to produce a higher response rate (RR) than doublets in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was conducted to assess (i) whether the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to either gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) or GEM and paclitaxel (PTX) significantly prolongs overall survival (OS) and (ii) to compare the toxicity of PTX-containing and VNR-containing combinations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stage III or IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to (i) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and VNR 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GV arm); (ii) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and PTX 125 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GT arm); (iii) GV plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGV arm); and (iv) GT plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGT arm). Treatments were repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: A total of 433 (stage III, 160; stage IV, 273) patients were randomly allocated to the study. RR was 48% [95% confidence interval (CI), 42% to 54%] for triplets and 35% (95% CI, 32% to 38%) for doublets (P = 0.004). Median progression-free survival (6.1 versus 5.5 months, P = 0.706) and median OS (10.7 versus 10.5 months, P = 0.379) were similar. CDDP significantly increased the occurrence of severe neutropenia (35% versus 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% versus 4%), anaemia (9% versus 3%), vomiting (6% versus 0.5%), and diarrhoea (6% versus 2%). Conversely, frequency of severe neutropenia (30% versus 17%) and thrombocytopenia (11% versus 6%) was significantly higher with VNR-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Adding CDDP to GV or GT significantly increased RR, but did not prolong the OS of patients. Among doublets, the GT regimen should be preferred in view of its better safety profile.

To estimate the safety, activity, and impact on quality of life of a combination of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the context of a randomized two-stage phase II study.Patients in stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to receive either gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on day 1, and pemetrexed (Alimta) 500 mg/m(2) followed by gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on day 8 of a 3-weekly cycle (GA arm), or paclitaxel 120 mg/m(2) followed by gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2), both given on days 1 and 8 of a 3-weekly cycle (PG arm).105 (GA arm, 51; PG arm, 54) eligible patients (stage IV, 32 and 30, respectively) were enrolled into this study; thereafter, accrual was stopped due to first-stage analysis. The response rate was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10-33%) in the GA arm, and 32% (95% CI, 20-46%) in the PG arm. Median progression-free survival was 5.1 (95% CI, 3.7-6.5) months in the GA arm, and 8.3 (95% CI, 5.9-10.7) months in the PG arm, while median overall survival was 10.5 (95% CI 7.1-13.9), and 13.3 (95% CI 11.7-14.9) months, respectively. Severe neutropenia (36% vs 22%), and febrile neutropenia (14% vs 7%) were more common with the GA regimen, while hair loss (52% vs 16%) and any grade peripheral neuropathy (31% vs 2%) occurred more frequently with PG regimen. Other severe side effects of GA regimen were diarrhoea (10%), liver enzyme derangement (10%), and fatigue (8%).The GA regimen was tolerated and moderately active in advanced or metastatic NSCLC. However, this combination did not yield any advantage in comparison with the PG regimen, and does not deserve further evaluation.

PURPOSE: The primary end point of this phase III trial was to compare the response rate (RR) of oxaliplatin (OXA) plus levo-folinic acid (l-FA) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus with that of irinotecan (IRI) plus l-FA and 5-FU bolus in advanced colorectal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable metastatic colorectal carcinoma were randomly allocated to receive: IRI 200 mg/m(2) on day 1, l-FA 250 mg/m(2) intravenously plus 5-FU 850 mg/m(2) on day 2 (IRIFAFU); or OXA 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, l-FA 250 mg/m(2) plus 5-FU 1050 mg/m(2) on day 2 [OXAFAFU high dose (hd)]. Cycles were given every 2 weeks. After a planned interim analysis, OXA was reduced to 85 mg/m(2) and 5-FU to 850 mg/m(2) [OXAFAFU low dose (ld)]. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-four patients (IRIFAFU, 135; OXAFAFUhd, 71; OXAFAFUld, 68) were treated. Forty-two confirmed responses were achieved with IRIFAFU, 29 with OXAFAFUhd and 32 with OXAFAFUld. The response rate with OXAFAFU [44%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 35% to 52%] was significantly higher (P=0.029) than that of IRIFAFU (31%; 95% CI 23% to 40%). Occurrence of grade > or =3 neutropenia with OXAFAFUld was similar to that for IRIFAFU (29% versus 31%), while severe diarrhoea was significantly lower (12% versus 24%). Median failure-free survival (7 versus 5.8 months; P=0.046) and overall survival of patients (18.9 versus 15.6 months; P=0.032) were significantly prolonged with OXAFAFU. CONCLUSIONS: OXAFAFU was more active and less toxic than IRIFAFU, and it should be preferred in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer patients.