Francesco Giuliani

PURPOSE: We performed this phase III study to compare the irinotecan, leucovorin (LV), and fluorouracil (FU) regimen (FOLFIRI) versus the oxaliplatin, LV, and FU regimen (FOLFOX4) in previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 360 chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive, every 2 weeks, either arm A (FOLFIRI: irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV 100 mg/m(2) administered as a 2-hour infusion before FU 400 mg/m(2) administered as an intravenous bolus injection, and FU 600 mg/m(2) as a 22-hour infusion immediately after FU bolus injection on days 1 and 2 [LV5FU2]) or arm B (FOLFOX4: oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV5FU2 regimen). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four and 172 patients were assessable in arm A and B, respectively. Overall response rates (ORR) were 31% in arm A (95% CI, 24.6% to 38.3%) and 34% in arm B (95% CI, 27.2% to 41.5%; P = .60). In both arms A and B, median time to progression (TTP; 7 v 7 months, respectively), duration of response (9 v 10 months, respectively), and overall survival (OS; 14 v 15 months, respectively) were similar, without any statistically significant difference. Toxicity was mild in both groups: alopecia and gastrointestinal disturbances were the most common toxicities in arm A; thrombocytopenia and neurosensorial were the most common toxicities in arm B. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were uncommon in both arms, and no statistical significant difference was observed. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in ORR, TTP, and OS for patients treated with the FOLFIRI or FOLFOX4 regimen. Both therapies seemed effective as first-line treatment in these patients. The difference between these two combination therapies is mainly in the toxicity profile.

BACKGROUND: A prospective, randomized Phase III trial was performed to determine whether, compared with gemcitabine (GEM) alone, the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to GEM was able to improve the time to disease progression and the clinical benefit rate in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate, overall survival rate, and toxicity patterns of patients in the two treatment arms were evaluated as secondary end points. METHODS: Patients with measurable, locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomized to receive GEM (Arm A) or a combination of GEM and CDDP (Arm B). In Arm A, a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) GEM per week was administered for 7 consecutive weeks, and, after a 2-week rest, treatment was resumed on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle for 2 cycles. In Arm B, CDDP was given at a dose of 25 mg/m(2) per week 1 hour before GEM at the same dose that was used in Arm A. On Day 22, only GEM was administered. Patients were restaged after the first 7 weeks of therapy and then again after the other 2 cycles. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients entered the trial: Fifty-four patients were randomized to Arm A, and 53 patients were randomized to Arm B. The median time to disease progression was 8 weeks in Arm A and 20 weeks in Arm B; this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.048). In Arm A, one complete response and four partial responses were recorded on the basis of an intent-to-treat analysis, with an overall response rate of 9.2% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3-20%). In Arm B, there were no complete responses, whereas 14 partial responses were achieved, with an overall response rate of 26.4% (95%CI, 15-40%). This difference in the overall response rates was statistically significant (P = 0.02). The tumor growth control rate (i.e., total number of patients who achieved complete responses, partial responses, and stable disease) was 42.6% (95%CI, 29-57%) in Arm A and 56.6% (95%CI, 42-70%) in Arm B. A clinical benefit was observed in 21 of 43 patients (49%) in Arm A and in 20 of 38 patients (52.6%) in Arm B without any significant difference. The median overall survival was 20 weeks for patients in Arm A and 30 weeks for patients in Arm B (P = 0.43). Toxicity was mild in both treatment arms, with no significant differences between the two groups except for the statistically higher incidence of Grade 1-2 asthenia in Arm B (P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of CDDP to GEM significantly improved the median time to disease progression and the overall response rate compared with GEM alone. The clinical benefit rate was similar in both arms, whereas the median overall survival rate was more favorable for Arm B, although the difference did not attain statistical significance. The authors conclude that the combination of CDDP and GEM currently may be considered as an optimal treatment for patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

PURPOSE: Single-agent gemcitabine became standard first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after demonstration of superiority compared with fluorouracil. The Gruppo Italiano Pancreas 1 randomized phase III trial aimed to compare gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine alone (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00813696). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, age 18 to 75 years, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) > or = 50, were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (arm A) or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (arm B). Arm A: gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) weekly for 7 weeks, and, after a 1-week rest, on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Arm B: cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) added weekly to gemcitabine, except cycle 1 day 22. Primary end point was overall survival. To have 8% power of detecting a 0.74 hazard ratio (HR) of death, with bilateral alpha .05, 355 events were needed and 400 patients planned. RESULTS: Four hundred patients were enrolled (arm A: 199; arm B: 201). Median age was 63, 59% were male, 84% had stage IV, and 83% had KPS > or = 80. Median overall survival was 8.3 months versus 7.2 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.35; P = .38). Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months versus 3.8 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.19; P = .80). The objective response rate was 10.1% in A and 12.9% in B (P = .37). Clinical benefit was experienced by 23.0% in A and 15.1% in B (P = .057). Combination therapy produced more hematologic toxicity, without relevant differences in nonhematologic toxicity. CONCLUSION: The addition of weekly cisplatin to gemcitabine failed to demonstrate any improvement as first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Abstract BACKGROUND A prospective, randomized Phase III trial was performed to determine whether, compared with gemcitabine (GEM) alone, the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to GEM was able to improve the time to disease progression and the clinical benefit rate in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate, overall survival rate, and toxicity patterns of patients in the two treatment arms were evaluated as secondary end points. METHODS Patients with measurable, locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomized to receive GEM (Arm A) or a combination of GEM and CDDP (Arm B). In Arm A, a dose of 1000 mg/m 2 GEM per week was administered for 7 consecutive weeks, and, after a 2‐week rest, treatment was resumed on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28‐day cycle for 2 cycles. In Arm B, CDDP was given at a dose of 25 mg/m 2 per week 1 hour before GEM at the same dose that was used in Arm A. On Day 22, only GEM was administered. Patients were restaged after the first 7 weeks of therapy and then again after the other 2 cycles. RESULTS A total of 107 patients entered the trial: Fifty‐four patients were randomized to Arm A, and 53 patients were randomized to Arm B. The median time to disease progression was 8 weeks in Arm A and 20 weeks in Arm B; this difference was statistically significant ( P = 0.048). In Arm A, one complete response and four partial responses were recorded on the basis of an intent‐to‐treat analysis, with an overall response rate of 9.2% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3–20%). In Arm B, there were no complete responses, whereas 14 partial responses were achieved, with an overall response rate of 26.4% (95%CI, 15–40%). This difference in the overall response rates was statistically significant ( P = 0.02). The tumor growth control rate (i.e., total number of patients who achieved complete responses, partial responses, and stable disease) was 42.6% (95%CI, 29–57%) in Arm A and 56.6% (95%CI, 42–70%) in Arm B. A clinical benefit was observed in 21 of 43 patients (49%) in Arm A and in 20 of 38 patients (52.6%) in Arm B without any significant difference. The median overall survival was 20 weeks for patients in Arm A and 30 weeks for patients in Arm B ( P = 0.43). Toxicity was mild in both treatment arms, with no significant differences between the two groups except for the statistically higher incidence of Grade 1–2 asthenia in Arm B ( P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS The addition of CDDP to GEM significantly improved the median time to disease progression and the overall response rate compared with GEM alone. The clinical benefit rate was similar in both arms, whereas the median overall survival rate was more favorable for Arm B, although the difference did not attain statistical significance. The authors conclude that the combination of CDDP and GEM currently may be considered as an optimal treatment for patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Cancer 2002;94:902–10. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10323

Resistance to antimicrobial agents is emerging in a wide variety of nosocomial and community-acquired pathogens. The development of alternative therapies against nosocomial infections caused by clinically relevant pathogens represents a major public health concern. RLP068/Cl is a novel Zn(II) phthalocyanine proposed as a photosensitizer suitable for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (APDT) for localized infections. Its ability, following activation by light, to induce resistance in three major human pathogens after 20 daily passages was studied. Simultaneously for the same strains, the ability of daily sequential subcultures in subinhibitory concentrations of RLP068/Cl to develop resistant mutants without illumination was evaluated. We demonstrate that 20 consecutive APDT treatments with RLP068/Cl did not result in any resistant mutants and that, in dark conditions, only Staphylococcus aureus strains had increased MICs of RLP068/Cl. However, even in this case, the susceptibility of the mutated bacteria to APDT was not affected by their MIC increase.