Search

Background. Chemotherapy-induced emesis is one of the most disturbing side effects in cancer therapy. Thus, antiemetic treatment is a mandatory adjunct in emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods. Tropisetron (Navoban, Sandoz Pharma Ltd., Basel, Switzerland), a new [5-HT.sub.3] receptor antagonist, was compared in a randomized multicenter trial with a high-dose metoclopramide-dexamethasone cocktail for the prevention of nausea and emesis during cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Two hundred fifty-nine chemotherapy-naive patients were included and followed during two consecutive courses. The main cancer types were gynecologic tumors, followed by lung cancer, head and neck cancer, and bladder cancer. The cisplatin dose usually was in the range of 50-89 mg/[m.sup.2]. The efficacy and quality of life assessments and the safety recordings were done during the first 6 days of both courses of chemotherapy. Results. Acute vomiting was prevented in 63-64% of patients by both antiemetic regimens. The total rate of control of vomiting increased from 63% on day 1 to 93% on day 6 in the group receiving tropisetron. Acute nausea was prevented in 40% of the patients with tropisetron monotherapy and in 61% of patients receiving the antiemetic cocktail. With regard to delayed nausea, there were no significant differences between the two antiemetic regimens. Mild headache and constipation were more frequently associated with tropisetron, and extrapyramidal side effects and sedation were associated with the antiemetic cocktail. Conclusions. Tropisetron was easier to administer and better tolerated than the cocktail, and it seems to be a highly efficacious and safe new antiemetic drug. Cancer 1994; 73:445-54.

The aim of this study was to determine the objective tumour response rate and duration of response and toxicity of linomide (Roquinimex) treatment in patients with disseminated renal cell carcinoma, pretreated or not pretreated with immunotherapy. From March 1991 to July 1992, 72 patients with metastatic and progressive renal cell cancer were entered of whom 9 (12%) were not evaluable for response. Linomide was given orally, twice weekly, 5 mg during the first week with dose escalation to 10 mg during the second week and 15 mg thereafter. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. No haematological toxicity but slight anaemia was observed. A significant WBC (white blood cell count) increase ( P < 0.0001 , paired T-test) was found during treatment. The most often reported non-haematological side-effects were: flu-like syndrome (54%, grade III-IV 7%), nausea/vomiting (41% and 3%, respectively) and neurotoxicity (34% and 2%). Most side-effects were of mild or moderate intensity (WHO grade 1 or 2). The objective overall response rate was 4%: 1 CR and 2 PRs. Stable disease was reported for 28 patients (40%). The duration of response was 17, 22 and 30 (CR) months. Median time to progression was 5 months. Linomide at the given dose and schedule is well tolerated, but has limited antitumour activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Following a previous EORTC GU-Group study, in which linomide showed some activity in poor prognosis patients, this study was initiated to determine the effect of linomide in more favourable patients. 35 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with good prognostic factors, i.e. good performance status, prior nephrectomy, no prior systemic therapy, and no liver, bone or brain metastases, were treated with linomide, a quinoline derivative with immunomodulating properties, at a dose of 10 mg daily, after an initial dose escalation during the first 4 weeks of treatment. In 29 evaluable patients, no responses were observed (95% confidence interval 0-10%). Best overall response was no change in 9 patients, for a median duration of 4 months. Linomide in this schedule was poorly tolerated, with 17% (6 patients) of patients being withdrawn and 23% (8 patients) having dose reductions due to adverse events, mostly influenza-like symptoms of myalgia, arthralgia and fatigue. Several cases of pericarditis and neuropathy were observed. In spite of selection of favourable prognosis patients and an optimal daily dosing schedule, linomide was not an effective treatment in renal cell carcinoma. In view of toxicity and lack of efficacy, there is no rationale in further testing the drug in this disease.