A prospective randomized comparison of methotrexate, dactinomycin, and chlorambucil versus methotrexate, dactinomycin, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, melphalan, hydroxyurea, and vincristine in "poor prognosis" metastatic gestational trophoblastic disease: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Controlled evaluation of three drug combination regimens versus fluorouracil alone for the therapy of advanced gastric cancer. North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Intensified hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy limits the additional benefit of simultaneous chemotherapy--results of a multicentric randomized German trial in advanced head-and-neck cancer. A randomized trial between two neoadjuvant chemotherapy protocols: CDDP + 5-FU versus CDDP + VP16 in advanced cancer of the head and neck. Mature results from a randomized Phase II trial of cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil and radiotherapy with or without tirapazamine in patients with resectable Stage IV head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, comparative phase III trial. Randomized phase II trial of chemoradiotherapy followed by either dose-dense or metronomic temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of adjuvant immunochemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, using different combinations of the intracutaneous streptococcal preparation OK-432 and the oral pyrimidines 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil and uracil/tegafur. Hyperfractionated accelerated chemoradiation with concurrent fluorouracil-mitomycin is more effective than dose-escalated hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer: final results of the radiotherapy cooperative clinical trials group of the German Cancer Society 95-06 Prospective Randomized Trial.
In 1981, the Gynecologic Oncology Group initiated a prospective randomized study in which patients with poor-prognosis gestational trophoblastic disease received either standard MAC chemotherapy (methotrexate, dactinomycin, and chlorambucil) or the modified CHAMOMA regimen (methotrexate, dactinomycin, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, melphalan, hydroxyurea, and vincristine). The protocol was closed in May 1986 because the modified CHAMOMA regimen was significantly more toxic and possibly less effective. There were 42 patients entered, with 22 receiving MAC and 20 receiving modified CHAMOMA. There have been six deaths due to disease in the modified CHAMOMA group and none in the MAC group. Five MAC failures and one modified CHAMOMA failure have been rescued by surgery and/or chemotherapy. All six of the patients who died on the modified CHAMOMA regimen had developed disease following a previous term pregnancy, but none had prior chemotherapy. All seven patients who were treated for gestational trophoblastic disease after term pregnancy in the MAC group were cured of disease. With the modified CHAMOMA regimen, 44% of patients had life-threatening hematologic toxicity, as compared with only 9% of the MAC patients. Thus, the standard MAC regimen appears to be at least equally effective and much less toxic than the modified CHAMOMA regimen, indicating a more favorable therapeutic index. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of fluorouracil (5-FU), doxorubicin, and methyl lomustine (CCNU) (FAMe), 5-FU, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (FAP), and FAMe alternating with triazinate (TZT) when compared with a standard therapy of 5-FU alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer.
                Two hundred fifty-two eligible patients selected for study had proven locally unresectable and/or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. The majority had nonmeasureable disease. They were randomly assigned to receive one of the three drug combination regimens or to 5-FU alone administered by rapid injection in 5-day course. Survival was the primary study end point.
                None of the three drug combinations showed a significant advantage over 5-FU alone in improved performance score, weight gain, or patient survival. Each of the three combinations was more toxic than 5-FU alone.
                FAMe, FAP, or FAMe alternating with TZT cannot be recommended for the therapy of advanced gastric carcinoma. Therapy of this disease should remain an experimental endeavor. It would seem reasonable to prove the value of any new treatment approach by a randomized comparison to simple therapy with 5-FU alone. To demonstrate the efficacy of radiochemotherapy (RCT) as the first choice of treatment for advanced unresectable head-and-neck cancer. To prove an expected benefit of simultaneously given chemotherapy, a two-arm randomized study with hyperfractionated accelerated radiochemotherapy (HF-ACC-RCT) vs. hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HF-ACC-RT) was initiated. The primary endpoint was 1-year survival with local control (SLC).
                Patients with Stage III and IV (UICC) unresectable oro- and hypopharyngeal carcinomas were randomized for HF-ACC-RCT with 2 cycles of 5-FU (600 mg/m(2)/day)/carboplatinum (70 mg/m(2)) on days 1--5 and 29--33 (arm A) or HF-ACC-RT alone (arm B). In both arms, there was a second randomization for testing the effect of prophylactically given G-CSF (263 microg, days 15--19) on mucosal toxicity. Total RT dose in both arms was 69.9 Gy in 38 days, with a concomitant boost regimen (weeks 1--3: 1.8 Gy/day, weeks 4 and 5: b.i.d. RT with 1.8 Gy/1.5 Gy). Between July 1995 and May 1999, 263 patients were randomized (median age 56 years; 96% Stage IV tumors, 4% Stage III tumors).
                This analysis is based on 240 patients: 113 patients with RCT and 127 patients with RT, qualified for protocol and starting treatment. There were 178 oropharyngeal and 62 hypopharyngeal carcinomas. Treatment was tolerable in both arms, with a higher mucosal toxicity after RCT. Restaging showed comparable nonsignificant different CR + PR rates of 92.4% after RCT and 87.9% after RT (p = 0.29). After a median observed time of 22.3 months, l- and 2-year local-regional control (LRC) rates were 69% and 51% after RCT and 58% and 45% after RT (p = 0.14). There was a significantly better 1-year SLC after RCT (58%) compared with RT (44%, p = 0.05). Patients with oropharyngeal carcinomas showed significantly better SLC after RCT (60%) vs. RT (40%, p = 0.01); the smaller group of hypopharyngeal carcinomas had no statistical benefit of RCT (p = 0.84). For both tumor locations, prophylactically given G-CSF was a poor prognostic factor (Cox regression), and resulted in reduced LRC (log-rank test: +/- G-CSF, p = 0.0072).
                With accelerated radiotherapy, the efficiency of simultaneously given chemotherapy may be not as high as expected when compared to standard fractionated RT. Oropharyngeal carcinomas showed better LRC after HF-ACC-RCT vs. HF-ACC-RT; hypopharyngeal carcinomas did not. Prophylactic G-CSF resulted in an unexpected reduced local control and should be given in radiotherapy regimen only with strong hematologic indication. We investigated a phase III randomized trial to compare efficacy and tolerance of CDDP + 5-FU to CDDP + VP16, both given intravenously in patients with unresectable advanced head and neck cancer. The 197 eligible patients were paired off successively on the basis of tumor sites and UICC stage. Comparisons were made through sequential closed plans. In 179 patients, tumor beds and cervical lymph nodes were irradiated, and 20 patients underwent salvage surgical procedures. Cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil showed a response (CR + PR) rate of 15% greater than that observed with cisplatin plus etoposide (alpha=0.05, power 70%). Complete responses played a major role in the CDDP + 5-FU regimen. Furthermore, we noted a higher cervical node regression with this chemotherapy combination. Because radiotherapy was administered after chemotherapy, we could not analyze the mean duration response for each protocol. No significant difference in survival existed between the two groups. Myelosuppression was the most frequent sign of toxicity observed, especially with the CDDP + VP16 regimen. Mucositis was rare with allopurinol protection. In the CDDP + 5-FU group, one patient had grade 4 cardiac dysfunction, and 3 patients exhibited unconsciousness that may be related to cerebral vascular damage. Thirteen patients died, with 8 cases related to septic shock (5 CPPP + VP16 and 3 CDDP + 5-FU). Cisplatin plus 5-FU chemotherapy showed a satisfactory efficacy and acceptable toxicity profile compared with CDDP + VP16, with caution to patients with a cardiac or vascular history. Although we could not show a benefit in survival with the CDDP + 5-FU protocol, this trial supports literature data and confirms that this regimen may be proposed as a first-line therapy in advanced cancer of the head and neck. The objective of this article was to report the results from a randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of adding tirapazamine (TPZ) to chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC).
                Sixty-two patients with lymph node-positive, resectable, TNM Stage IV HNSCC were randomized to receive either 2 cycles of induction chemotherapy (TPZ, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]) followed by simultaneous chemoradiotherapy (TPZ, cisplatin, and 5-FU) or to receive the same regimen without TPZ. Patients who did not achieve a complete response at 50 Grays underwent surgical treatment. Stratification factors for randomization included tumor site, TNM stage, and median tumor oxygen tension. The primary endpoint was complete lymph node response.
                The addition of TPZ resulted in increased hematologic toxicity. There was 1 treatment-related death from induction chemotherapy. The complete clinical and pathologic response rate in the lymph nodes was 90% and 74% for the standard treatment arm and the TPZ arm, respectively (P = .08) and 89% and 90% at the primary site in the respective treatment arms (P = .71). The 5-year overall survival rate was 59%, the cause-specific survival rate was 68%, the rate of freedom from recurrence was 69%, and the locoregional control rate was 77% for the entire group. There was no difference with regard to any of the outcome parameters between the 2 treatment arms. The significant long-term toxicity rate also was found to be similar between the 2 arms.
                The addition of TPZ increased hematologic toxicity but did not improve outcomes in patients with resectable, Stage IV HNSCC using the protocol administered this small randomized study. The combination of induction and simultaneous chemoradiotherapy resulted in excellent survival in these patients. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonist that has shown better efficacy than ondansetron and dolasetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and similar efficacy to ondansetron in preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, stratified, parallel-group, active-comparator trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus granisetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, both of which were administered with dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.
                Between July 5, 2006, and May 31, 2007, 1143 patients with cancer who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ie, cisplatin, or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination [AC/EC]) were recruited from 75 institutions in Japan, and randomly assigned to either single-dose palonosetron (0.75 mg), or granisetron (40 microg/kg) 30 min before chemotherapy on day 1, both with dexamethasone (16 mg intravenously) on day 1 followed by additional doses (8 mg intravenously for patients receiving cisplatin or 4 mg orally for patients receiving AC/EC) on days 2 and 3. A non-deterministic minimisation method with a stochastic-biased coin was applied to the randomisation of patients. Covariates known to effect emetic risk, such as sex, age, and type of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, were used as stratification factors of minimisation to ensure balance between the treatment groups. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the acute phase (0-24 h postchemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with granisetron) and the proportion of patients with a complete response during the delayed phase (24-120 h postchemotherapy; superiority comparison with granisetron). The non-inferiority margin was predefined in the study protocol as a 10% difference between groups in the proportion of patients with complete response. The palonosetron dose of 0.75 mg was chosen on the basis of two dose-determining trials in Japanese patients. All patients who received study treatment and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in the efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359567.
                1114 patients were included in the efficacy analyses: 555 patients in the palonosetron group and 559 patients in the granisetron group. 418 of 555 patients (75.3%) in the palonosetron group had complete response during the acute phase compared with 410 of 559 patients (73.3%) in the granisetron group (mean difference 2.9% [95% CI -2.70 to 7.27]). During the delayed phase, 315 of 555 patients (56.8%) had complete response in the palonosetron group compared with 249 of 559 patients (44.5%) in the granisetron group (p<0.0001). The main treatment-related adverse events were constipation (97 of 557 patients [17.4%] in the palonosetron group vs 88 of 562 [15.7%] in the granisetron group) and raised concentrations of serum aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase: 24 of 557 [4.3%] vs 34 of 562 [6.0%]; alanine aminotransferase: 16 of 557 [2.9%] vs 33 of 562 [5.9%]); no grade 4 main treatment-related adverse events were reported.
                When administered with dexamethasone before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, palonosetron exerts efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting which is non-inferior to that of granisetron in the acute phase and better than that of granisetron in the delayed phase, with a comparable safety profile for the two treatments.
                Taiho Pharmaceutical (Tokyo, Japan). Alternative dosing schedules of temozolomide may improve survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) by increasing the therapeutic index, overcoming common mechanisms of temozolomide resistance, or both. The goal of this randomized phase II study was to evaluate two different temozolomide regimens in the adjuvant treatment of newly diagnosed GBM.
                Adult patients with newly diagnosed GBM were randomly assigned to receive standard radiotherapy with concurrent daily temozolomide followed by six adjuvant cycles of either dose-dense (150 mg/m(2) days 1 to 7 and 15 to 21) or metronomic (50 mg/m(2) continuous daily) temozolomide. Maintenance doses of 13-cis-retinoic acid were then administered until tumor progression. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 1 year. Tumor tissue was assayed to determine O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status.
                Eighty-five eligible patients were enrolled; 42 were randomly assigned to dose-dense and 43 to metronomic temozolomide. The 1-year survival rate was 80% for the dose-dense arm and 69% for the metronomic arm; median OS was 17.1 months (95% CI, 14.0 to 28.1 months) and 15.1 months (95% CI, 12.3 to 18.9 months), respectively. The most common toxicities were myelosuppression (leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and elevated liver enzymes. Pseudoprogression was observed in 37% of assessable patients and may have had an impact on estimates of progression-free survival (6.6 months in the dose-dense arm and 5.0 months in the metronomic arm).
                Both dose-dense and metronomic temozolomide regimens were well tolerated with modest toxicity. The dose-dense regimen appears promising, with 1-year survival of 80%. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adjuvant immunochemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, using different combinations of the intracutaneous streptococcal preparation OK-432 and the oral pyrimidines 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil (carmofur, HCFU) and uracil/tegafur (UFT).
                Patients with stage II, III, or IV (Dukes' B, C) colorectal cancer were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of three groups: an immunochemotherapy group (mitomycin C [MMC] + 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] + HCFU + OK-432), a chemotherapy group (MMC + 5-FU + HCFU), and a control group (surgery alone) for those with colon cancer (study 1); and an immunochemotherapy group (MMC + 5-FU + UFT + OK-432), a chemotherapy group (MMC + 5-FU + UFT), and a control group (surgery alone) for those with rectal cancer (study 2).
                A total of 760 patients with colon cancer and 669 patients with rectal cancer were entered into this randomized clinical trial (RCT). The incidence of side-effects was in the order of: immunochemotherapy group > chemotherapy group > control group in both the cohort of patients with colon cancer and the cohort with rectal cancer. In particular, the frequency of leucopenia and skin disorders was significantly higher than control groups. There were no severe adverse events such as death related to the adjuvant therapy. In both the colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, no significant difference in the 5-year survival rate and disease-free survival rate was noted among the three groups.
                The results of an RCT demonstrated that the combination of MMC + 5-FU + HCFU + OK-432 for colon cancer and that of MMC + 5-FU + UFT + OK-432 for rectal cancer could not prolong the survival of patients with surgically resected colorectal cancer, but that both combinations were well tolerated as adjuvant therapy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adjuvant immunochemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, using different combinations of the intracutaneous streptococcal preparation OK-432 and the oral pyrimidines 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil (carmofur, HCFU) and uracil/tegafur (UFT). To report the results and corresponding acute and late reactions of a prospective, randomized, clinical study in locally advanced head and neck cancer comparing concurrent fluorouracil (FU) and mitomycin (MMC) chemotherapy and hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy (C-HART; 70.6 Gy) to hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy alone (HART; 77.6 Gy).
                Three hundred eighty-four stage III (6%) and IV (94%) oropharyngeal (59.4%), hypopharyngeal (32.3%), and oral cavity (8.3%) cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive either 30 Gy (2 Gy every day) followed by 1.4 Gy bid to a total of 70.6 Gy concurrently with FU (600 mg/m(2), 120 hours continuous infusion) days 1 through 5 and MMC (10 mg/m(2)) on days 5 and 36 (C-HART) or 14 Gy (2 Gy every day) followed by 1.4 Gy bid to a total dose of 77.6 Gy (HART). The data were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis.
                At 5 years, the locoregional control and overall survival rates were 49.9% and 28.6% for C-HART versus 37.4% and 23.7% for HART, respectively (P = .001 and P = .023, respectively). Progression-free and freedom from metastases rates were 29.3% and 51.9% for C-HART versus 26.6% and 54.7% for HART, respectively (P = .009 and P = .575, respectively). For C-HART, maximum acute reactions of mucositis, moist desquamation, and erythema were lower than with HART, whereas no differences in late reactions and overall rates of secondary neoplasms were observed.
                C-HART (70.6 Gy) is superior to dose-escalated HART (77.6 Gy) with comparable or less acute reactions and equivalent late reactions, indicating an improvement of the therapeutic ratio.
CHAMOCA is not recommended for GTN treatment as it is more toxic and not more effective than MAC. EMA/CO is currently the most widely used first-line combination chemotherapy for high-risk GTN, although this regimen has not been rigorously compared to other combinations such as MAC or FAV in RCTs. Other regimens may be associated with less acute toxicity than EMA/CO; however, proper evaluation of these combinations in high-quality RCTs that include long-term surveillance for secondary cancers is required. We acknowledge that, given the low incidence of GTN, RCTs in this field are difficult to conduct, hence multicentre collaboration is necessary.