Search

Background: In a randomized Phase II study, the authors evaluated the activity and toxicity of the new cisplatin, doxorubicin, and mitomycin C (PAM) combination, that includes cisplatin (P) instead of 5-fluorouracil as in the 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin C (FAM) combination, in patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. FAM was utilized as a control treatment arm., Methods: Fifty eligible patients were assigned to the FAM (5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenous (i.v.) on Days 1, 8, 29, 36; doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 i.v. on Days 1 and 29; mitomycin C 10 mg/m2 i.v. on Day 1; every 8 weeks) and 52 to the PAM combination (cisplatin 60 mg/m2 i.v. on Days 1 and 29; doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 i.v. on Days 1 and 29; mitomycin C 10 mg/m2 i.v. on Day 1; every 8 weeks). All eligible patients were included in the evaluation of response, toxicity and survival., Results: The PAM combination complete response (CR) rate was 8%, and the CR plus partial response (PR) rate was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] from 10% to 32%). The median time to progression, duration of response, and duration of survival were 15, 26, and 29 weeks, respectively. The FAM combination CR rate was 2% and the CR plus PR rate was 26% (95% CI from 14% to 38%). The median time to progression, duration of response, and duration of survival were 17, 27, and 23 weeks, respectively. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were mild with both regimens., Conclusions: This study shows that this new combination, that does not include 5-fluorouracil, is active in patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. Since treatment with 5-fluorouracil alone is still considered the standard according to some authors, the PAM combination may be included among the sequential clinical options before or after treatment with 5-fluorouracil alone.

Purpose: The combination of cisplatin, epirubicin, and leucovorin preceding fluorouracil (PELF) includes three novel agents compared with the standard combination of fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin (FAM) in the treatment of advanced gastric carcinoma. We report the results of a prospective randomized comparison of the two combinations in previously untreated patients., Patients and Methods: One hundred thirty assessable patients were entered onto the trial; 52 received FAM and 85 PELF. A 1:2 unbalanced randomization in favor of the experimental treatment was chosen. Approximately 90% of patients had measurable tumor masses., Results: The overall response rates (complete responses [CRs] and partial responses [PRs]) were 15% and 43% for the FAM and the PELF regimens, respectively, with a statistically significant advantage for the experimental treatment (P = .001). Time to progression (median, 2.6 and 4.7 months), duration of response (median, 10.7 and 10.2 months), and survival durations (median, 5.6 and 8.1 months) were not significantly different between the FAM and PELF regimens, respectively. The PELF combination was more toxic compared with FAM, but generally tolerable., Conclusion: This study showed that the PELF combination is about three times more effective than the FAM combination in inducing objective responses. Due to tolerability, it is not recommended for routine clinical use. However, it should be considered, among other second-generation chemotherapy combinations, in future randomized studies aimed to improve the therapeutic outcome in gastric carcinoma.