Michael Cullen

BACKGROUND: The role of prophylactic antibacterial agents after chemotherapy remains controversial. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients who were receiving cyclic chemotherapy for solid tumors or lymphoma and who were at risk for temporary, severe neutropenia (fewer than 500 neutrophils per cubic millimeter). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 500 mg of levofloxacin once daily or matching placebo for seven days during the expected neutropenic period. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically documented febrile episodes (temperature of more than 38 degrees C) attributed to infection. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of all probable infections, severe infections, and hospitalization but did not include a systematic evaluation of antibacterial resistance. RESULTS: A total of 1565 patients underwent randomization (784 to placebo and 781 to levofloxacin). The tumors included breast cancer (35.4 percent), lung cancer (22.5 percent), testicular cancer (14.4 percent), and lymphoma (12.8 percent). During the first cycle of chemotherapy, 3.5 percent of patients in the levofloxacin group had at least one febrile episode, as compared with 7.9 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001). During the entire chemotherapy course, 10.8 percent of patients in the levofloxacin group had at least one febrile episode, as compared with 15.2 percent of patients in the placebo group (P=0.01); the respective rates of probable infection were 34.2 percent and 41.5 percent (P=0.004). Hospitalization was required for the treatment of infection in 15.7 percent of patients in the levofloxacin group and 21.6 percent of patients in the placebo group (P=0.004). The respective rate of severe infection was 1.0 percent and 2.0 percent (P=0.15), with four infection-related deaths in each group. An organism was isolated in 9.2 percent of probable infections. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors or lymphoma, the prophylactic use of levofloxacin reduces the incidence of fever, probable infection, and hospitalization.

PURPOSE: This phase II, open-label, parallel-group study compared gefitinib with vinorelbine in chemotherapy-naïve elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients (age >or= 70 years) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d orally) or vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) infusion on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and tolerability. Exploratory end points included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to gefitinib (n = 97) or to vinorelbine (n = 99). Hazard ratios (HR; gefitinib v vinorelbine) were 1.19 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.65) for PFS and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.47) for OS. ORR and disease control rates were 3.1% (95% CI, 0.6 to 8.8) and 43.3% (for gefitinib) and 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7 to 11.4) and 53.5% (for vinorelbine), respectively. Overall QOL improvement and PSI rates were 24.3% and 36.6% (for gefitinib) and 10.9% and 31.0% (for vinorelbine), respectively. In the 54 patients who were EGFR FISH-positive, HRs were 3.13 (95% CI, 1.45 to 6.76) for PFS and 2.88 (95% CI, 1.21 to 6.83) for OS. There were fewer treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events with gefitinib (12.8%) than with vinorelbine (41.7%). CONCLUSION: There was no statistical difference between gefitinib and vinorelbine in efficacy in chemotherapy-naïve, unselected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, but there was better tolerability with gefitinib. Individuals who were EGFR FISH-positive benefited more from vinorelbine than from gefitinib; this unexpected finding requires further study.

New evidence shows that antibiotic prophylaxis in neutropenic patients reduces mortality, febrile episodes, and bacterial infections. For patients with acute leukemia or those who undergo bone marrow transplantation, prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones diminished the risk of death from any cause by 33% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2-54%). Thus, 55 patients who have acute leukemia or who undergo bone marrow transplantation must receive prophylaxis to prevent 1 death. In 4 studies that included patients with solid tumors or lymphoma, prophylaxis reduced the rate of death during the first month (relative risk, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.97), and 82 patients had to receive prophylaxis to prevent 1 death. The main argument brought against prophylaxis is the induction of resistance. Patients who received prophylaxis did not experience more infections caused by resistant strains than patients in the control group. The recent GIMEMA study was conducted in a population with a nearly 50% resistance to fluoroquinolones in all pathogens and 20% resistance in gram-negative isolates, thus indicating that prophylaxis should be offered in settings with similar or less resistance. Prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones was efficacious in reducing infections caused by gram-positive bacteria. Patients who are treated for acute leukemia should be offered prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin. Prophylaxis to cover the expected period of neutropenia may be considered for the first cycle of treatment in patients with solid tumors or lymphoma who regularly receive regimens that cause severe neutropenia. Excessive local levels of resistance to fluoroquinolones or high local incidence of infections caused by Clostridium difficile and related to fluoroquinolones should prompt a reconsideration of this policy.

PURPOSE: To perform an open-label, randomized, controlled trial comparing treatment with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) with two multidrug regimens (MDRs) for advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight hundred seven patients with advanced HL (stage III to IV, or earlier stage with systemic symptoms or bulky disease) were randomly assigned between ABVD and MDR specified before randomization as alternating chlorambucil, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisolone (ChlVPP) with prednisolone, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, and etoposide (PABIOE), or hybrid ChlVPP/etoposide, vincristine, and doxorubicin (EVA). Radiotherapy was planned for incomplete response or initial bulk disease. RESULTS: At 52 months median follow-up, 212 event-free survival (EFS) events (disease progression or any death) were reported. In the primary comparison, at 3 years EFS was 75% (95% CI, 71% to 79%) for ABVD and 75% (95% CI, 70% to 79%) for MDRs (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.37; HR more than 1.0 favors ABVD). The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 90% (95% CI, 87% to 93%) in patients allocated ABVD and 88% (95% CI, 84% to 91%) in patients allocated MDRs (HR = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.77). Patients receiving MDRs experienced more grade 3/4 infection, mucositis, and neuropathy. One occurrence of myelodysplastic syndrome was reported, but no acute leukemia was reported. When the two MDRs are compared separately with ABVD, neither the alternating nor the hybrid regimen showed a statistically significant difference from ABVD for EFS or OS. Subgroup analysis suggested that MDRs may be associated with poorer outcomes in older patients (heterogeneity test of OS older or younger than 45 years, P = .020). CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of significant difference in EFS or OS between ABVD and MDRs in the trial overall or if the two MDR versus ABVD comparisons are considered separately. ABVD remains the standard for treatment of advanced HL.