Rafat Ansari

PURPOSE: To compare the response rate, efficacy parameters, and toxicity profile of oral capecitabine with bolus intravenous (IV) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively randomized 605 patients to treatment with oral capecitabine for 14 days every 3 weeks or 5-FU/LV by rapid IV injection daily for 5 days in 4-week cycles. RESULTS: The overall objective tumor response rate among all randomized patients was significantly higher in the capecitabine group (24.8%) than in the 5-FU/LV group (15.5%; P =.005). In the capecitabine and 5-FU/LV groups, median times to disease progression were 4.3 and 4.7 months (log-rank P =.72), median times to treatment failure were 4.1 and 3.1 months (P =.19), and median overall survival times were 12.5 and 13.3 months (P =.974), respectively. Capecitabine, compared with bolus 5-FU/LV treatment, produced a significantly lower incidence (P <.0002) of diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, and alopecia. Patients treated with capecitabine also displayed lower incidences of grade 3/4 stomatitis and grade 3/4 neutropenia (P <.0001) leading to significantly less neutropenic fever/sepsis. Grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (P <.00001) and grade 3/4 hyperbilirubinemia were the only toxicities more frequently associated with capecitabine than with 5-FU/LV treatment. CONCLUSION: Oral capecitabine was more active than 5-FU/LV in the induction of objective tumor responses. Time to disease progression and survival were at least equivalent for capecitabine compared with the 5-FU/LV arm. Capecitabine also demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits over bolus 5-FU/LV in terms of tolerability.

PURPOSE: Etoposide and cisplatin (EP) has been a standard treatment for extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). An earlier phase III trial reported improved survival for patients receiving irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) versus EP. Our trial was designed to determine if a modified weekly regimen of IP would provide superior survival with less toxicity than EP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary objective was to compare overall survival in extensive-disease SCLC patients randomly assigned to receive IP (n = 221) or EP (n = 110). Patients were randomly assigned in 2:1 ratio to cisplatin 30 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) + irinotecan 65 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, or cisplatin 60 mg/m2 IV on day 1, and etoposide 120 mg/m2 IV on days 1 to 3 every 21 days for at least four cycles, until progressive disease, or until intolerable toxicity resulted. RESULTS: Selected grade 3/4 toxicities for IP/EP were: neutropenia (36.2% v 86.5%; P < .01), febrile neutropenia (3.7% v 10.4%; P = .06), anemia (4.8% v 11.5%; P = .02), thrombocytopenia (4.3% v 19.2%; P < .01), vomiting (12.5% v 3.8%; P = .04), and diarrhea (21.3% v 0%; P < .01). There was no significant difference in response rates (48% v 43.6%), median time to progression (4.1 v 4.6 months), or overall survival (median survival time, 9.3 months v 10.2 months; P = .74). CONCLUSION: Treatment with this dose and schedule of IP did not result in improved survival when compared with EP. Fewer patients receiving IP had grade 3/4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia compared with patients receiving EP, but more had grade 3/4 diarrhea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is standard treatment for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A phase II study by the Southwest Oncology Group using consolidation docetaxel after cisplatin (P), etoposide (E), and radiation (XRT) resulted in a median survival time (MST) of 26 months. This randomized phase III trial evaluated whether consolidation docetaxel was responsible for this improved survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC, baseline performance status of 0 to 1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second >or= 1 L, and less than 5% weight loss. Patients received P 50 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 and E 50 mg/m(2) IV on days 1-5 and 29-33 concurrently with chest XRT to 59.40 Gy. Patients who did not experience progression were randomly assigned to docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) IV every 21 days for three cycles versus observation. The primary end point was to compare overall survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis). RESULTS: On the basis of evidence of futility, a data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination after an analysis of the initial 203 patients. Patient characteristics (n = 203) were as follows: 34% female; median age, 63 years; 39.4% stage IIIA; and 60.6% stage IIIB. One hundred forty-seven (72.4%) of 203 patients were randomly assigned to docetaxel (n = 73) or observation (n = 74). Grade 3 to 5 toxicities during docetaxel included febrile neutropenia (10.9%) and pneumonitis (9.6%); 28.8% of patients were hospitalized during docetaxel (v 8.1% in observation arm), and 5.5% died as a result of docetaxel. The MST for all patients (n = 203) was 21.7 months; MST was 21.2 months for docetaxel arm compared with 23.2 months for observation arm (P = .883). CONCLUSION: Consolidation docetaxel after PE/XRT results in increased toxicities but does not further improve survival compared with PE/XRT alone in patients with stage III inoperable NSCLC.

PURPOSE: Factors captured in a geriatric assessment can predict morbidity and mortality in older adults, but are not routinely measured in cancer clinical trials. This study evaluated the implementation of a geriatric assessment tool in the cooperative group setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age ≥ 65 with cancer, who enrolled on cooperative group cancer trials, were eligible to enroll on Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 360401. They completed a geriatric assessment tool before initiation of protocol therapy, consisting of valid and reliable geriatric assessment measures which are primarily self-administered and require minimal resources and time by healthcare providers. The assessment measures functional status, comorbidity, cognitive function, psychological state, social support, and nutritional status. The protocol specified criteria for incorporation of the tool in future cooperative group trials was based on the time to completion and percent of patients who could complete their portion without assistance. Patient satisfaction with the tool was captured. RESULTS: Of the 93 patients who enrolled in this study, five (5%) met criteria for cognitive impairment and three did not complete the cognitive screen, leaving 85 assessable patients (median age, 72 years). The median time to complete the geriatric assessment tool was 22 minutes, 87% of patients (n = 74) completed their portion without assistance, 92% (n = 78) were satisfied with the questionnaire length, 95% (n = 81) reported no difficult questions, and 96% (n = 82) reported no upsetting questions. One hundred percent of health care professionals completed their portion. CONCLUSION: This brief, primarily self-administered geriatric assessment tool met the protocol specified criteria for inclusion in future cooperative group clinical trials.