A randomized trial between two neoadjuvant chemotherapy protocols: CDDP + 5-FU versus CDDP + VP16 in advanced cancer of the head and neck. Controlled evaluation of three drug combination regimens versus fluorouracil alone for the therapy of advanced gastric cancer. North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Treatment of limited small-cell lung cancer with etoposide and cisplatin alternating with vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide versus concurrent etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide and chest radiotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Randomized phase III trial of fluorouracil alone versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin versus uracil and tegafur plus mitomycin in patients with unresectable, advanced gastric cancer: The Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG9205). Randomized trial of neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus carboplatin and fluorouracil in patients with stage IV-M0 head and neck cancer. Multiple-drug weekly chemotherapy versus standard combination regimen in small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized study conducted by the European Lung Cancer Working Party. Concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus induction docetaxel, cisplatin and 5 fluorouracil (TPF) followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: a phase II randomized study. Novel doublets in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II study of topotecan plus cisplatin or paclitaxel (CALGB 9430). Alternating versus sequential chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer. A randomized German multicenter trial.
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 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. The Goldie-Coldman model explaining the kinetics of tumor cell kill and drug resistance has a potential application in designing chemotherapy regimes. In this Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trial we tested the alternation of two potentially noncrossresistant drug combinations with a concurrent drug combination in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer. The concurrent drug combination consisted of etoposide (VP-16), 75 mg/m2/intravenously (IV), days 1, 2, and 3; vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), 40 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (EVAC). The alternating combination consisted of VP-16, 100 mg/m2/IV, days 1, 2, and 3; and cisplatin (CDDP), 100 mg/m2/IV, day 1, alternating with vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin, 50 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (VP-16/CDDP-VAC). Chemotherapy was administered at 3-week intervals for six cycles both before and after chest (5,000 rads/5 weeks) and whole brain radiotherapy (3,000 rads/2 weeks). One hundred ninety-nine patients received EVAC and 201 received the alternating combination. There was no significant difference in the response rate to the initial six cycles of treatment with EVAC (CR, 40%) versus the alternating combination (CR, 38%). There was no significant difference between the best response, EVAC (CR, 48%) and VP-16/CDDP-VAC (CR, 51%). Median survival for all randomized patients on EVAC is 15.1 months versus 16.5 months on the alternating combination (P = .58). Toxicities consisted primarily of bone marrow suppression, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, peripheral neuropathies, and alopecia. As in previous trials, the chest was the most common site of relapse (33%). There were no differences in the incidence and sites of relapse between the two treatment arms. These treatments appear equally effective at inducing remission and prolonging survival in patients with small-cell lung cancer. To compare fluorouracil (FU) alone with FU plus cisplatin (FP) and with uracil and tegafur plus mitomycin (UFTM) for patients with advanced gastric cancer in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
                A total of 280 patients with advanced gastric cancer were randomly allocated and analyzed for survival, response, and toxicity. The survival curves were compared between groups by log-rank test on an intent-to-treat basis.
                At the interim analysis, the UFTM arm showed a significantly inferior survival with higher incidences of hematologic toxic effects than did control arm FU alone, and the registration to UFTM was terminated. Both investigational regimens, FP and UFTM, had a significantly higher incidence of hematologic toxic effects than FU alone, although the effects were manageable. The overall response rates of the FU-alone, FP, and UFTM arms were 11%, 34%, and 9%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 1.9 months with FU alone, 3.9 months with FP, and 2.4 months with UFTM, respectively. Although FP demonstrated a higher response rate (P <.001) and longer progression-free survival than did FU alone (P <.001), no differences in overall survival were observed between the arms. The median survival times and 1-year survival rates were 7.1 months and 28% with FU, 7.3 months and 29% with FP, and 6.0 months and 16% with UFTM, respectively.
                Neither investigational regimen, FP nor UFTM, showed a survival advantage as compared with FU alone. FU alone will remain a reference arm in our future trial for advanced gastric cancer. A randomized trial was designed to compare cisplatin (CDDP) and fluorouracil (FU) versus carboplatin (CBDCA) and FU as neoadjuvant treatment in stage IV-M0 head and neck cancer to assess whether CBDCA-FU is better than CDDP-FU with regard to response and toxicity.
                Patients were randomized to receive CDDP 100 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 and FU 5,000 mg/m2 over a 120-hour continuous infusion, or CBDCA 400 mg/m2 over a 24-hour continuous infusion on day 1 and FU with the same schedule. Both regimens were repeated every 21 days. The patients received three courses of chemotherapy, excluding those who failed to achieve a partial response (PR) after the second course. Complete responders were treated with radiotherapy. The remaining patients underwent surgery if the tumor was resectable.
                Interim analysis was performed when 95 patients were included. The trial was stopped due to significantly better results in the control arm. Differences in response (P = .04) were favorable to CDDP-FU. Hematologic toxicity predominated in the CBDCA-FU arm (P < .001). Mucositis and vomiting predominated in the CDDP-FU arm (P = .03, P < .001, respectively). Favorable outcomes (complete response [CR] plus any grade of toxicity and PR plus grade 0 to 3 toxicity) predominated in the CDDP-FU arm (P = .02). Only the treatment assigned was associated with response (P = .02) and favorable outcomes (P = .009) in the logistic regression analysis. In the CDDP-FU arm, disease-free and overall survival were significantly better. Cox regression analysis showed that only treatment association with disease-free survival remains significant.
                Our results indicate that CDDP-FU is more effective than CBDCA-FU as neoadjuvant treatment in stage IV-M0 head and neck cancer. A randomized trial was conducted in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) to determine if survival can be improved by a weekly chemotherapy regimen combining various drugs.
                Two hundred twenty-three patients were randomized to receive either six courses of a multiple-drug combination (MDC) regimen (Adriamycin [ADR; doxorubicin; Farmitalia Carlo Erba, Milan, Italy] 25 mg/m2 intravenously [i.v.] on day 1; etoposide [VP16] 120 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1; cyclophosphamide [CPA] 500 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1; cisplatin 60 mg/m2 i.v. on day 8; vindesine [VDS] 3 mg/m2 i.v. on day 8; vincristine [VCR] 2 mg i.v. on day 15; methotrexate [MTX] 100 mg/m2 i.v. on day 15), or a standard chemotherapy (SC) regimen (ADR 50 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1; CPA 1 g/m2 i.v. on day 1; VP16 80 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 to 3).
                In 98 MDC-treated and 101 SC-treated assessable patients, we observed 69% and 62% objective responses rates, respectively. There was no significant difference in survival, with median durations and 2-year overall survival rates of 49 and 43 weeks and 8.5% and 7.9%, respectively. There was a significant increase in response rate in favor of MDC patients with limited disease (84% v 62%). Toxicity was tolerable, although SC was more hematotoxic, with 76% (v 59%) experiencing leukopenia and 17% (v 7%) experiencing thrombocytopenia (grades III and IV). If the cumulative doses received were nearly equal to the scheduled cumulative doses in both arms, the total relative dose-intensity (RDI) was significantly higher in the SC arm. The difference was due to increased treatment delays in the MDC arm.
                Weekly MDC failed to improve survival rates in patients with SCLC. Concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CT/RT) is the standard treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We evaluated the efficacy of induction docetaxel (Taxotere), cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) before CT/RT versus CT/RT alone.
                Patients with stage III-IVM0 SCCHN, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to one, were randomly assigned to receive CT/RT alone (arm A: two cycles of cisplatin 20 mg/m(2), days1-4, plus 5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m(2)/day 96 h continuous infusion, during weeks 1 and 6 of radiotherapy) or three cycles of TPF (arm B: docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2), day 1, and 5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m(2)/day 96 h continuous infusion, every 3 weeks) followed by the same CT/RT. The primary end point was the rate of radiologic complete response (CR) at 6-8 weeks after the end of CT/RT.
                A total of 101 patients were randomly allocated to the study (51 arm A; 50 arm B). CR rates were 21.2% (arm A) versus 50% (arm B). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 19.7 and 33.3 months (arm A) and 30.4 and 39.6 months (arm B). Hematologic and non-hematologic toxic effects during CT/RT were similar in the two arms.
                Induction TPF followed by CT/RT was associated with higher radiologic CR in patients with locally advanced SCCHN with no negative impact on CT/RT feasibility. Chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (E-SCLC) produces high response rates and improved survival but few cures. We tested three new regimens for E-SCLC that might merit further investigation in a subsequent phase III trial. Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9430 was a randomized phase II study evaluating 4 treatment arms in 57 evaluable, previously untreated E-SCLC patients. Each arm consisted of the following: Arm 1: cisplatin plus topotecan; Arm 2: cisplatin plus paclitaxel; Arm 3: paclitaxel 230 mg/m2 plus topotecan; and Arm 4: paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus topotecan. Because of an accrual time difference, Arm 2 will not be discussed in this manuscript. Arm 1 (12 patients) produced 1 complete response (CR, 8%) and an overall response rate (ORR) of 42%. Toxicity was excessive, with 3 deaths (25%). Arm 3 (13 patients) produced no CRs, 7 partial responses (PRs, 54%), median survival of 13.8 months, and failure-free survival (FFS) of 7.41 months, with 3 toxic deaths (25%). Among 32 evaluable patients on Arm 4, there were 2 CRs (6%) and 20 PRs (63%) for an ORR of 69%, median survival of 9.9 months, FFS of 5.21 months, and 1-year survival of 40%. There was 1 possible treatment-related death (3%). Topotecan plus cisplatin, in the doses and schedule employed, produced excessive toxicity and modest efficacy in E-SCLC patients. Paclitaxel (230 mg/m2 on day 1) plus topotecan (1 mg/m2 on days 1-5) produced excessive toxicity that was ameliorated with an attenuated paclitaxel dose (175 mg/m2). With the latter regimen (Arm 4) in patients with a performance status of 0/1, CR rates, FFS, overall survival, and 1-year survival were similar to standard etoposide plus cisplatin chemotherapy. Further exploration of topoisomerase inhibitors and taxanes in SCLC patients is warranted. A total of 306 patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) were randomized to receive chemotherapy in a sequential or alternating mode. Sequential chemotherapy consisted of eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin), and vincristine (CAV) and alternating chemotherapy consisted of three cycles (1, 3, 5) of etoposide, vindesine, and ifosfamide (EVI); three cycles (2, 4, 6) of cisplatin, Adriamycin, and vincristine (PAV); and two cycles (7, 8) of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and CCNU (CMC). Responsive patients received prophylactic cranial irradiation after three cycles and chest irradiation after eight cycles of chemotherapy. No maintenance therapy was applied to patients achieving complete remission. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Of the 302 patients evaluable, overall response rate was 59% in the sequential arm and 70% in the alternating arm. Patients treated with CAV had a complete response rate of 21% in contrast to 36% for those receiving alternating therapy. The median survival for all patients was 9.8 versus 11.3 months, for limited disease 11.1 versus 13.4 months, and for extensive disease 8.9 versus 9.9 months, all in favor of the alternating treatment. Two-year survival rate for all patients was 6% versus 9%, for limited disease 11% versus 14%, and for extensive disease 3% versus 6%, all preferring the alternating treatment mode. Progression-free survival demonstrated a strong correlation to the extent of response irrespective of the treatment regimen applied. Toxicity included 11 lethal and 8 life-threatening complications with a higher frequency in the alternating treatment arm. These results suggest that alternating treatment of SCLC with different drug combinations is more effective than sequential application of CAV.
Chemotherapy significantly improves survival in comparison to best supportive care. In addition, combination chemotherapy improves survival compared to single-agent 5-FU. All patients should be tested for their HER-2 status and trastuzumab should be added to a standard fluoropyrimidine/cisplatin regimen in patients with HER-2 positive tumours. Two and three-drug regimens including 5-FU, cisplatin, with or without an anthracycline, as well as irinotecan or docetaxel-containing regimens are reasonable treatment options for HER-2 negative patients.