Search

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to determine the response rate and toxicity of PCV administered before radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed LGO/LGOA and to explore correlations between response with 1p/19q deletions and aberrant p53 expression. Background: Despite prolonged survival of patients with low-grade oligodendroglioma (LGO) and oligoastrocytoma (LGOA), the majority will succumb to progressive disease. Because procarbazine, lomustine (CCNU), and vincristine (PCV) is active in patients with recurrent LGO/LGOA, we hypothesized that it would be beneficial as primary therapy. Methods: Adult patients with residual tumor on magnetic resonance imaging scan following biopsy or subtotal resection of LGO/LGOA received up to six cycles of PCV. Radiation therapy (59.4 or 54.0 Gy) began within 10 weeks of completing chemotherapy or immediately if there was evidence of tumor progression on PCV. Tumor tissue was analyzed by fluorescent in situ hybridization for 1p and 19q deletion and by immunohistochemistry for p53 expression. Results: Eight of 28 (29%) and 13 of 25 (52%) eligible patients demonstrated tumor regression as assessed by the treating physician and a blinded central neuroradiology reviewer, respectively. Myelosuppression was the predominant toxicity. Loss of 1p and 19q were associated with LGO but not LGOA (P = .009), were inversely associated with p53 detection, and were not associated with response to PCV (possibly because of the small sample size). Conclusion: PCV produces tumor regressions in a meaningful proportion of patients with LGO/LGOA. Toxicity, especially myelosuppression, is significant. Loss of 1p and 19q seems limited to patients with pure LGO and is inversely related to p53 alterations.

PURPOSE: Randomized studies have suggested that sucralfate is effective in mitigating diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy (RT). This North Central Cancer Treatment Group study was undertaken to confirm the antidiarrheal effect of sucralfate. Several other measures of bowel function were also assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving pelvic RT to a minimum of 45 Gy at 1.7 to 2.1 Gy/d were eligible for the study. Patients were assigned randomly, in double-blind fashion, to receive sucralfate (1.5 g orally every 6 hours) or an identical looking placebo during pelvic RT. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were randomly assigned and found assessable. Overall, there was no significant difference in patient characteristics between those receiving sucralfate and those receiving placebo. Moderate or worse diarrhea was observed in 53% of patients receiving sucralfate versus 41% of those receiving placebo. Compared with patients receiving placebo, more sucralfate-treated patients reported fecal incontinence (16% v 34%, respectively; P = .04) and need for protective clothing (8% v 23%, respectively; P = .04). The incidence and severity of nausea were worse among those taking sucralfate (P = .03). Analysis of patient-reported symptoms 10 to 12 months after RT showed a nonsignificant trend toward more problems in patients taking sucralfate than in those taking placebo (average, 2.3 v 1.9 problems, respectively; P = .34). CONCLUSION: Sucralfate did not decrease pelvic RT-related bowel toxicity by any of the end points measured and seems to have aggravated some gastrointestinal symptoms.

PURPOSE: Because small-cell lung cancer is a rapidly proliferating tumor, it was hypothesized that it may be more responsive to thoracic irradiation (TI) given twice-daily than once-daily. This hypothesis was tested in a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer were entered onto a phase III trial, and all patients initially received three cycles of etoposide (130 mg/m2 × 3) and cisplatin (30 mg/m2 × 3). Subsequently, patients who did not have progression to a distant site (other than brain) were randomized to twice-daily thoracic irradiation (TDTI) versus once-daily thoracic irradiation (ODTI) given concomitantly with two additional cycles of etoposide (100 mg/m2 × 3) and cisplatin (30 mg/m2 × 3). The irradiation doses were TDTI, 48 Gy in 32 fractions, with a 2.5-week break after the initial 24 Gy, and ODTI, 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. After thoracic irradiation, the patients received a sixth cycle of etoposide/cisplatin, followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (30 Gy/15 fractions) if they had a complete response. RESULTS: Of 311 assessable patients enrolled in the trial, 262 underwent randomization to TDTI or ODTI. There were no differences between the two treatments with respect to local-only progression rates, overall progression rates, or overall survival. The patients who received TDTI had greater esophagitis (≥ grade 3) than those who received ODTI (12.3% v 5.3%; P = .05). Although patients received thoracic irradiation encompassing the postchemotherapy volumes, only seven of 90 local failures were out of the portal of irradiation. CONCLUSION: When TI is delayed until the fourth cycle of chemotherapy, TDTI does not result in improvement in local control or survival compared with ODTI.

PURPOSE We evaluated the effect of recombinant interferon gamma (rIFN-gamma) on survival and toxicity in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients in complete remission (CR). PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred patients in CR following treatment with six cycles of combination chemotherapy, thoracic radiotherapy (TRT), and prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) were studied. All patients had been enrolled onto a cooperative group trial (North Central Cancer Treatment Group [NCCTG] 86-20-51). Patients received observation only or rIFN-gamma at a dose of 4 x 10(6) U subcutaneously per day for 6 months. RESULTS Six patients (12%) did not comply with rIFN-gamma treatment. Substantial nonhematologic toxicities consisting of chills, myalgia, lethargy, and alteration of mood-personality were observed. No patient experienced life-threatening or fatal toxicity. The median times to progression for rIFN-gamma treatment or observation were 6.9 and 8.1 months (P = .54). The median survival times were 13.3 and 18.8 months, respectively (P = .43). Approximately 70% of all patients relapsed within 2 years. CONCLUSION Time to progression and survival were inferior in patients treated with rIFN-gamma compared with randomized control subjects, although this difference was not statistically significant. These data indicate that rIFN-gamma treatment is not associated with a 33% improvement in survival (P = .04). Because of the high rate of relapse, SCLC patients in CR are an ideal group in which to evaluate novel and minimally toxic agents.

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.

In a previous study (J Clin Oncol 7:1407-1417, 1989), we identified two dosage administration schedules of fluorouracil (5FU) combined with leucovorin that were superior to single-agent 5FU for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. In this same study, a regimen of 5FU plus high-dose methotrexate (MTX) demonstrated a suggestive advantage over 5FU alone. To permit a more definitive comparison, we have extended our evaluation of these three regimens to involve an additional 259 patients. In all, 457 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to one of the following regimens: 5FU plus low-dose leucovorin, 5FU plus high-dose leucovorin, or 5FU plus high-dose MTX with leucovorin rescue. We have found that each of the 5FU/leucovorin regimens demonstrates a significant (P less than or equal to .01) advantage over 5FU plus high-dose MTX for objective tumor response and interval to tumor progression. Moreover, 5FU plus low-dose leucovorin confers a significant survival benefit (P less than or equal to .01) compared with 5FU plus high-dose MTX. The 5FU plus high-dose leucovorin regimen shows a survival benefit only in unadjusted analyses (P = .04), but this difference is not significant when adjusted for imbalances in prognostic variables (P = .44). Evaluation of the two 5FU/leucovorin regimens rules out a 10% decrease in death rate for the high-dose leucovorin regimen compared with the low-dose leucovorin regimen (P less than .05). The regimen of 5FU plus low-dose leucovorin has now been shown to offer a statistically significant survival advantage versus 5FU alone and versus 5FU plus high-dose MTX, a regimen that had shown promise in earlier trials. These data confirm the efficacy of leucovorin combined with 5FU in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and establish that it is not necessary to use high doses of leucovorin to achieve these results.