Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Docetaxel-based induction therapy prior to radiotherapy with or without docetaxel for non-small-cell lung cancer. Quality of life in patients with advanced gastric cancer: a randomized trial comparing docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-FU (TCF) with epirubicin, cisplatin, 5-FU (ECF). Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. Randomized phase II trial of docetaxel plus thalidomide in androgen-independent prostate cancer. Combination of LHRH analog with somatostatin analog and dexamethasone versus chemotherapy in hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a randomized phase II study. Primary chemotherapy for newly diagnosed nonsmall cell lung cancer patients with synchronous brain metastases compared with whole-brain radiotherapy administered first : result of a randomized pilot study. Hydrocortisone with or without mitoxantrone in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: results of the cancer and leukemia group B 9182 study. General condition of asymptomatic patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving palliative chemotherapy. A longitudinal study.
To evaluate whether treatment with single-agent docetaxel would result in longer survival than would best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Secondary end points included assessment of response (docetaxel arm only), toxicity, and quality of life.
                Patients with performance statuses of 0 to 2 and stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer with either measurable or evaluable lesions were eligible for entry onto the study if they had undergone one or more platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and if they had adequate hematology and biochemistry parameters. They were excluded if they had symptomatic brain metastases or if they had previously been treated with paclitaxel. Patients were stratified by performance status and best response to cisplatin chemotherapy and were then randomized to treatment with docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) (49 patients) or 75 mg/m(2) (55 patients) or best supportive care. Patients in both arms were assessed every 3 weeks.
                One hundred four patients (103 of whom were eligible for entry onto the study) were well balanced for prognostic factors. Of 84 patients with measurable lesions, six (7. 1%) achieved partial responses (three patients at each dose level). Time to progression was longer for docetaxel patients than for best supportive care patients (10.6 v 6.7 weeks, respectively; P <.001), as was median survival (7.0 v 4.6 months; log-rank test, P =.047). The difference was more significant for docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) patients, compared with corresponding best supportive care patients (7.5 v 4.6 months; log-rank test, P =.010; 1-year survival, 37% v 11%; chi(2) test, P =.003). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 11 patients treated with docetaxel 100 mg/m(2), three of whom died, and in one patient treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2). Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity, with the exception of diarrhea, occurred at a similar rate in both the docetaxel and best supportive care groups.
                Treatment with docetaxel is associated with significant prolongation of survival, and at a dose of 75 mg/m(2), the benefits of docetaxel therapy outweigh the risks. This trial aimed to assess the feasibility and tumour control of concurrent chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone after docetaxel-based induction chemotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with stage IIIA/IIIB NSCLC received two 21-day cycles of induction chemotherapy with docetaxel (85 mg m(-2), day 1) plus cisplatin (40 mg m(-2), days 1 and 2). Patients without disease progression on day 43 were randomised to radiotherapy (2 Gy for 5 days week(-1); total 60 Gy) alone or with docetaxel 20 mg m(-2) once weekly every 6 weeks. Of 108 patients who received induction chemotherapy, 104 were evaluable for response. After induction chemotherapy, the overall response rate (ORR) was 44%; 91 (88%) patients had no disease progression and 89 were subsequently randomised to local treatment. After randomised therapy, the ORR was 53% (chemoradiotherapy 58%; radiotherapy 48%). Median survival and time to progression were 14.9 and 7.8 months, respectively, for chemoradiotherapy and 14.0 and 7.5 months, respectively, for radiotherapy. The most common toxicities during induction chemotherapy and randomised therapy were grades 3-4 neutropenia and grade 3 lymphocytopenia, respectively. Docetaxel-cisplatin induction therapy followed by concurrent docetaxel and thoracic radiotherapy is a feasible treatment option, showing good clinical activity and tolerability, for locally advanced NSCLC. Health related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important outcome after treatment for upper gastrointestinal carcinoma. This study aimed to compare HRQOL in patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC) receiving either a standard or an experimental treatment.
                Seventy-one patients have been treated in Cancer Institute (Tehran, Iran) with docetaxel, cisplatin, 5 FU (TCF) or epirubicin, cisplatin, 5-FU (ECF) and were followed from Jan 2002 to Jan 2005. End points were response rate, HRQOL and survival. HRQOL was assessed using the EORCT QLQ-C30 at baseline and after the third cycle of chemotherapy.
                The baseline HRQOL scores were comparable between two groups. After treatment improvement was seen in a number of items and domains except for cognitive functioning, and diarrhoea. Pain decreased and physical functioning improved in both groups. However, only the TCF group showed statistically and clinically meaningful improvement in global QOL (P = 0.001). Surgical and pathologic response was better with TCF but there was no difference in survival rate between two groups.
                Docetaxel based treatment (TCF) showed better palliation and improvement of global QOL as compared with epirubicin based treatment (ECF). However, it seems that regardless of treatment offered, effective chemotherapy was the most important factor affecting QOL in these patients. The PACS 01 trial compared six cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) with a sequential regimen of three cycles of FEC followed by three cycles of docetaxel (FEC-D) as adjuvant treatment for women with node-positive early breast cancer.
                Between June 1997 and March 2000, 1,999 patients with operable node-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned to either FEC every 21 days for six cycles, or three cycles of FEC followed by three cycles of docetaxel, both given every 21 days. Hormone-receptor-positive patients received tamoxifen for 5 years after chemotherapy. The primary end point was 5-year disease-free survival (DFS).
                Median follow-up was 60 months. Five-year DFS rates were 73.2% with FEC and 78.4% with FEC-D (unadjusted P = .011; adjusted P = .012). Multivariate analysis adjusted for prognostic factors showed an 18% reduction in the relative risk of relapse with FEC-D. Five-year overall survival rates were 86.7% with FEC and 90.7% with FEC-D, demonstrating a 27% reduction in the relative risk of death (unadjusted P = .014; adjusted P = .017). The incidence of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, the need for hematopoietic growth factor, and incidence of nausea/vomiting were higher with FEC. Docetaxel was associated with more febrile neutropenia in the fourth cycle, stomatitis, edema, and nail disorders. Though rare overall, there were fewer cardiac events after FEC-D (P = .03), attributable mainly to the lower anthracycline cumulative dose.
                Sequential adjuvant chemotherapy with FEC followed by docetaxel significantly improves disease-free and overall survival in node-positive breast cancer patients and has a favorable safety profile. Both docetaxel and thalidomide have demonstrated activity in androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC). We compared the efficacy of docetaxel to docetaxel plus thalidomide in patients with AIPC.
                Seventy-five patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic AIPC were randomly assigned to receive either docetaxel 30 mg/m(2) intravenously every week for 3 consecutive weeks, followed by a 1-week rest period (n = 25); or docetaxel at the same dose and schedule, plus thalidomide 200 mg orally each day (n = 50). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) consensus criteria and radiographic scans were used to determine the proportion of patients with a PSA decline, and time to progression.
                After a median potential follow-up time of 26.4 months, the proportion of patients with a greater than 50% decline in PSA was higher in the docetaxel/thalidomide group (53% in the combined group, 37% in docetaxel-alone arm). The median progression-free survival in the docetaxel group was 3.7 months and 5.9 months in the combined group (P =.32). At 18 months, overall survival in the docetaxel group was 42.9% and 68.2% in the combined group. Toxicities in both groups were manageable after administration of prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin in the combination group.
                In this randomized phase II trial, the addition of thalidomide to docetaxel resulted in an encouraging PSA decline rate and overall median survival rate in patients with metastatic AIPC. After the prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin was instituted to prevent venous thromboses, the combination regimen was well tolerated. Larger randomized trials are warranted to assess the impact of this combination. To evaluate prospectively the combination of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog with a somatostatin analog and dexamethasone in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) in a randomized Phase II study. HRPC presents a challenging therapeutic problem. Salvage chemotherapy is the usual approach at this stage of the disease. The combination of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog with a somatostatin analog and dexamethasone has produced objective clinical responses in HRPC.
                Forty patients with HRPC were randomized to receive one of two treatments. Group 1 underwent chemotherapy (estramustine 140 mg three times daily and etoposide 100 mg orally for 21 days) and group 2 the combination of a somatostatin analog (lanreotide 30 mg intramuscularly every 14 days) and dexamethasone (4 mg tapered to 1 mg), in addition to androgen ablation by orchiectomy or a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog (triptorelin 3.75 mg intramuscularly every 28 days). The clinical and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, overall survival, time to progression, and toxicity were compared between the two groups.
                The data of 20 patients in group 1 and 18 in group 2 were analyzed. The demographic and clinical data were similar in the two groups at study entry. A PSA response (decrease of greater than 50%) was observed in 45% of group 1 and 44% of group 2. The difference was not statistically significant. A partial clinical response was observed in 29% and 30% of groups 1 and 2, respectively. Again, the difference was not statistically significant. Changes in performance status and pain score during treatment were not significantly different in the two groups. Hematologic toxicity was more frequent in group 1 (80% of patients), and mild diabetes was more frequent in group 2 (22% of patients). The overall survival was 18.8 months in group 1 and 18 months in group 2 (not statistically significant). The time to progression was 6 versus 4 months and, in the PSA responder subgroup, it was 8 versus 7.7 months in groups 1 and 2, respectively (neither difference was statistically significant).
                The results of our randomized Phase II study indicated that the new combination treatment (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog, somatostatin analog, and dexamethasone) may be equally effective as salvage chemotherapy in patients with HRPC in terms of the clinical and PSA response, overall survival, and time to progression. A larger prospective Phase III trial is required to confirm our observations. This randomized pilot trial investigated whether primary chemotherapy was feasible in terms of efficacy, survival, toxicity profile, and quality of life compared with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) given first in chemotherapy-naive patients nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with synchronous brain metastasis when neurologic symptoms or signs are absent or controlled by supportive care.
                After stratification by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) (0-1 vs 2), the number of intracranial metastases (<3 vs 3< or =), and the presence of extrathoracic extracranial metastasis, eligible patients were randomized to the primary chemotherapy arm or the WBRT-first arm. World Health Organization (WHO) response criteria, National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC; version 2.0), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) C-30/LC-13 questionnaire were used.
                A total of 48 patients were enrolled between August 2002 and November 2005. The response rate of chemotherapy and survival outcomes in the primary chemotherapy arm were not statistically different from those in the WBRT-first arm (overall response rate, 28.0% vs 39.1%; progression-free survival, 3.6 months vs 4.4 months; overall survival, 9.1 months vs 9.9 months). There was close correlation noted between intracranial and extracranial tumor responses (k = 0.82). However, in the WBRT-first arm, grade 3 of 4 neutropenia was more frequent (79% vs 40%) during chemotherapy and 4 patients (17.4%) did not receive further chemotherapy because of early death or poor performance after WBRT. Cognitive function appeared to deteriorate during primary chemotherapy, but was also found to deteriorate after WBRT.
                Primary chemotherapy is more feasible and can be an appropriate option for patients with synchronous brain metastasis when neurologic symptoms or signs are absent or controlled. The role and timing of WBRT should be defined in further studies in this clinical setting.
                (Copyright) 2008 American Cancer Society. Approximately 40,000 men die each year of hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). The results of treatment with chemotherapy have been disappointing to date, with no trials demonstrating a benefit with respect to survival duration. Corticosteroids and mitoxantrone each have been shown to be active agents in this disease. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate an advantage of mitoxantrone and hydrocortisone (M+H) over hydrocortisone alone with respect to survival duration.
                Two hundred forty-two patients with HRPC were randomized to receive either M+H or hydrocortisone alone. Patients were monitored for survival, time to disease progression, time to treatment failure, response, and quality-of-life (QOL) parameters.
                Treatment in both arms was well tolerated. Although there was a delay in time to treatment failure and disease progression in favor of M+H over hydrocortisone alone, there was no difference in overall survival (12.3 months for M+H v 12.6 months for hydrocortisone alone). There was an indication that QOL was better with M+H, in particular with respect to pain control.
                M+H generated more frequent responses and a delay in both time to treatment failure and disease progression compared with hydrocortisone alone. In addition, there was a possible benefit of M+H with respect to pain control over hydrocortisone alone. No improvement in survival was observed. Although M+H could be viewed as a palliative option for patients with HRPC, new drugs and novel strategies are needed to improve survival for this disease. A Nordic multicenter study in asymptomatic patients with advanced colorectal cancer compared initial chemotherapy with sequential methotrexate-5-FU with leucovorin rescue (MFL) for 6 months versus primary expectancy with chemotherapy only after the appearance of symptoms. The study (183 patients randomized between January 1985 and February 1990) showed that symptom-free survival, progression-free survival and survival respectively were about 6 months longer in the group of patients randomized to initial MFL. Whether these prolongations could be achieved without an impaired 'quality of life' was studied in an associated study. Between January 1985 and March 1987, 43 patients were randomized at one of the hospitals, 36 of which were interviewed with a questionnaire at randomization. Even if all these patients were considered, by the physician, to be 'free of symptoms from their disease', 16/36 (44%) had symptoms that could be referred to the disease. In spite of this, the patients were in a good general condition, and considerably better off than patients considered to have 'symptoms from the disease' who were interviewed with the same questionnaire when randomized in a parallel study of symptomatic patients. Patients randomized to initial chemotherapy and interviewed longitudinally maintained their good condition throughout treatment. Toxicity was mild, although the patients expressed more adverse effects than the physicians recorded. Since symptom-free survival, progression-free survival and survival were statistically significantly longer in the group of patients randomized to MFL also in this associated study, it is concluded that initial chemotherapy can prolong symptom-free survival and survival without reduced 'quality of life' during the treatment period.
Patients with HRPC have not traditionally been offered chemotherapy as a routine treatment because of treatment-related toxicity and poor responses. Recent data from randomised studies, in particular those using docetaxel, have provided encouraging improvements in overall survival, palliation of symptoms, and improvements in quality of life. Chemotherapy should be considered as a treatment option for patients with HRPC. However, patients should make an informed decision based on the risks and benefits of chemotherapy.