Dataset Information

Randomized Phase II trial assessing estramustine and vinblastine combination chemotherapy vs estramustine alone in patients with progressive hormone-escaped metastatic prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT: Based on the results of combined data from three North American Phase II studies, a randomised Phase II study in the same patient population was performed, using combination chemotherapy with estramustine phosphate (EMP) and vinblastine (VBL) in hormone refractory prostate cancer patients. In all, 92 patients were randomised into a Phase II study of oral EMP (10 mg kg day continuously) or oral EMP in combination with intravenous VBL (4 mg m(2) week for 6 weeks, followed by 2 weeks rest). The end points were toxicity and PSA response in both groups, with the option to continue the trial as a Phase III study with time to progression and survival as end points, if sufficient responses were observed. Toxicity was unexpectedly high in both treatment arms and led to treatment withdrawal or refusal in 49% of all patients, predominantly already during the first treatment cycle. The mean treatment duration was 10 and 14 weeks, median time to PSA progression was 27.2 and 30.8 weeks, median survival time was 44 and 50.9 weeks, and PSA response rate was only 24.6 and 28.9% in the EMP/VBL and EMP arms, respectively. There was no correlation between PSA response and survival. While the PSA response in the patients tested was less than half that recorded in the North American studies, the toxicity of EMP monotherapy or in combination with VBL was much higher than expected. Further research on more effective and less toxic treatment strategies for hormone refractory prostate cancer is mandatory.

SUBMITTER: Albrecht W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2395315 | biostudies-other | 2004 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe role of locoregional radiotherapy in patients with de novo metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (mNPC) is unclear.ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of locoregional radiotherapy in de novo mNPC.Design, setting, and participantsPatients with biopsy-proven mNPC, who demonstrated complete or partial response (RECIST v1.1) following 3 cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy, were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either chemotherapy plus radiotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Overall, 126 of 173 patients screened were eligible to the study, and randomized to chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (n = 63) or chemotherapy alone (n = 63). Median (IQR) follow-up duration was 26.7 (17.2-33.5) months.InterventionsThe chemotherapy regimens were fluorouracil continuous intravenous infusion at 5 g/m2 over 120 hours and 100 mg/m2 intravenous cisplatin on day 1, administered every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. Patients assigned to the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group received intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) after chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). The secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.ResultsOverall, 126 patients were enrolled (105 men [83.3%] and 21 women [16.7%]; median [IQR] age, 46 [39-52] years). The 24-month OS was 76.4% (95% CI, 64.4%-88.4%) in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group, compared with 54.5% (95% CI, 41.0%-68.0%) in the chemotherapy-alone group. The study met its primary end point of improved OS (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.77; P = .004) in favor of chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Progression-free survival was also improved in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group (stratified HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57). No significant differences in acute hematological or gastrointestinal toxic effects were observed between the treatment arms. The frequency of acute grade 3 or higher dermatitis, mucositis, and xerostomia was 8.1%, 33.9%, and 6.5%, respectively, in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group. The frequency of late severe grade 3 or higher hearing loss and trismus was 5.2% and 3.4%, respectively, in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, radiotherapy added to chemotherapy significantly improved OS in chemotherapy-sensitive patients with mNPC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111460.

Project description:ImportanceRandomized clinical trials have demonstrated a substantial benefit of adding everolimus to endocrine therapy. Everolimus inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) complex but not mTORC2, which can set off an activating feedback loop via mTORC2. Vistusertib, a dual inhibitor of mTORC1 and mTORC2, has demonstrated broad activity in preclinical breast cancer models, showing superior activity to everolimus.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of vistusertib in combination with fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone or fulvestrant plus everolimus in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThe MANTA trial is an open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial in which 333 patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing after prior aromatase inhibitor treatment underwent randomization (2:3:3:2) between April 1, 2014, and October 24, 2016, at 88 sites in 9 countries: 67 patients were assigned to receive fulvestrant, 103 fulvestrant plus vistusertib daily, 98 fulvestrant plus vistusertib intermittently, and 65 fulvestrant plus everolimus. Treatment was continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.InterventionsFulvestrant alone or in combination with vistusertib (continuous or intermittent dosing schedules) or everolimus.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsAmong the 333 women in the study (median age, 63 years [range, 56-70 years]), median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.2 months) with fulvestrant, 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.9-9.4 months) with fulvestrant plus daily vistusertib, 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.9 months) with fulvestrant plus intermittent vistusertib, and 12.3 months (95% CI, 7.7-15.7 months) with fulvestrant plus everolimus. There was no significant difference in PFS between those receiving fulvestrant plus daily or intermittent vistusertib and fulvestrant alone (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.63-1.24]; P = .46; and hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.55-1.12]; P = .16).Conclusions and relevanceThe combination of fulvestrant plus everolimus demonstrated significantly longer PFS compared with fulvestrant plus vistusertib or fulvestrant alone. The trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of adding the dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib to fulvestrant.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02216786 and EudraCT number: 2013-002403-34.

Project description:ImportanceCytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) blockade with ipilimumab prolongs survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. CTLA-4 blockade and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-secreting tumor vaccine combinations demonstrate therapeutic synergy in preclinical models. A key unanswered question is whether systemic GM-CSF (sargramostim) enhances CTLA-4 blockade.ObjectiveTo compare the effect of ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone on overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic melanoma.Design, setting, and participantsThe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) conducted a US-based phase 2 randomized clinical trial from December 28, 2010, until July 28, 2011, of patients (N = 245) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, at least 1 prior therapy, no central nervous system metastases, and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, intravenously on day 1 plus sargramostim, 250 μg subcutaneously, on days 1 to 14 of a 21-day cycle (n = 123) vs ipilimumab alone (n = 122). Ipilimumab treatment included induction for 4 cycles followed by maintenance every fourth cycle.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary end point: comparison of length of OS. Secondary end point: progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, safety, and tolerability.ResultsMedian follow-up was 13.3 months (range, 0.03-19.9). Median OS as of December 2012 for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 17.5 months (95% CI, 14.9-not reached) vs 12.7 months (95% CI, 10.0-not reached) for ipilimumab. The 1-year survival rate for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 68.9% (95% CI, 60.6%-85.5%) compared to 52.9% (95% CI, 43.6%-62.2%) for ipilimumab alone (stratified log-rank 1-sided P = .01; mortality hazard ratio 0.64 [1-sided 90% repeated CI, not applicable-0.90]). A planned interim analysis was conducted at 69.8% of expected events (104 observed with 149 expected deaths). Planned interim analysis using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary was crossed for improvement in OS. There was no difference in PFS. Median PFS for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.6) vs 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.0) for ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 44.9% (95% CI; 35.8%-54.4%) of patients in the ipilimumab plus sargramostim group vs 58.3% (95% CI, 49.0%-67.2%) of patients in the ipilimumab-alone group (2-sided P = .04).Conclusion and relevanceAmong patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, treatment with ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone resulted in longer OS and lower toxicity, but no difference in PFS. These findings require confirmation in larger studies with longer follow-up.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01134614.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough oral metronomic chemotherapy is often used in progressive pediatric solid malignant tumors, a literature review reveals that only small single-arm retrospective or phase 1 and 2 studies have been performed. Skepticism abounds because of the lack of level 1 evidence.ObjectivesTo compare the effect of metronomic chemotherapy on progression-free survival (PFS) with that of placebo in pediatric patients with primary extracranial, nonhematopoietic solid malignant tumors that progress after at least 2 lines of chemotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsA double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted from October 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, at the cancer center at All India Institute of Medical Sciences in children aged 5 to 18 years with primary extracranial, nonhematopoietic solid malignant tumors that progressed after at least 2 lines of chemotherapy and had no further curative options.InterventionsOne arm received a 4-drug oral metronomic regimen of daily celecoxib and thalidomide with alternating periods of etoposide and cyclophosphamide, whereas the other arm received placebo. Disease status was assessed at baseline, 9 weeks, 18 weeks, and 27 weeks or at clinical progression.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was PFS as defined by the proportion of patients without disease progression at 6 months, and PFS duration and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points.ResultsA total of 108 of the 123 patients screened were enrolled, with 52 randomized to the placebo group (median age, 15 years; 40 male [76.9%]) and 56 to the metronomic chemotherapy group (median age, 13 years; 42 male [75.0%]). At a median follow-up of 2.9 months, 100% of the patients had disease progression by 6 months in the placebo group vs 96.4% in the metronomic chemotherapy group (P = .24). Median PFS and OS in the 2 groups was similar (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-1.03 [P = .07] for PFS; and HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50-1.09 [P = .13] for OS). In post hoc subgroup analysis, cohorts receiving more than 3 cycles (HR for PFS, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23-0.93; P = .03) and those without a bone sarcoma (ie, neither primitive neuroectodermal tumor nor osteosarcoma) (HR for PFS, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .01) appeared to benefit from metronomic chemotherapy.Conclusions and relevanceMetronomic chemotherapy does not improve 6-month PFS, compared with placebo, among pediatric patients with extracranial progressive solid malignant tumors . However, patients without bone sarcoma and those able to tolerate therapy for more than 3 cycles (9 weeks) benefit.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01858571.

Project description:ImportanceDisulfiram has demonstrated broad antitumoral effect in several preclinical studies. One of the proposed indications is for the treatment of glioblastoma.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of disulfiram and copper as add-on to alkylating chemotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II/III clinical trial with parallel group design. Patients were recruited at 7 study sites in Sweden and 2 sites in Norway between January 2017 and November 2020. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a first recurrence of glioblastoma, and indication for treatment with alkylating chemotherapy. Patients were followed up until death or a maximum of 24 months. The date of final follow-up was January 15, 2021. Data analysis was performed from February to September 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard-of-care (SOC) alkylating chemotherapy alone, or SOC with the addition of disulfiram (400 mg daily) and copper (2.5 mg daily).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was survival at 6 months. Secondary end points included overall survival, progression-free survival, adverse events, and patient-reported quality of life.ResultsAmong the 88 patients randomized to either SOC (n = 45) or SOC plus disulfiram and copper (n = 43), 63 (72%) were male; the mean (SD) age was 55.4 (11.5) years. There was no significant difference between the study groups (SOC vs SOC plus disulfiram and copper) in 6 months survival (62% [26 of 42] vs 44% [19 of 43]; P = .10). Median overall survival was 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.4-10.2 months) with SOC and 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.9-9.3 months) with SOC plus disulfiram and copper, and median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI, 2.4-4.6 months) vs 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.7-2.6 months), respectively. More patients in the SOC plus disulfiram and copper group had adverse events grade 3 or higher (34% [14 of 41] vs 11% [5 of 44]; P = .02) and serious adverse events (41% [17 of 41] vs 16% [7 of 44]; P = .02), and 10 patients (24%) discontinued disulfiram treatment because of adverse effects.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that among patients with recurrent glioblastoma, the addition of disulfiram and copper to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, resulted in significantly increased toxic effects, but no significant difference in survival. These findings suggest that disulfiram and copper is without benefit in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02678975; EUDRACT Identifier: 2016-000167-16.

Project description:Importance:Locoregional failure for patients with locally advanced bladder cancer (LABC) after radical cystectomy (RC) is common even with chemotherapy and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) can decrease locoregional failure but has not been studied in the chemotherapy era. Objective:To investigate if adjuvant sequential RT plus chemotherapy can improve locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) compared with adjuvant chemotherapy alone. Design, Setting, and Participants:A randomized phase 3 trial was opened to compare adjuvant RT vs sequential chemotherapy plus RT after RC for LABC, but a third arm was added later as a randomized phase 2 trial to compare chemotherapy plus RT vs adjuvant chemotherapy alone, an emerging standard. The intent-to-treat phase 2 trial reported herein enrolled patients from December 2002 to July 2008. Data were analyzed from August 3, 2015, to January 6, 2016. Routine follow-up and surveillance pelvic computed tomographic (CT) scans every 6 months during the first 2 years were performed. The setting was an academic center. Patients with bladder cancer 70 years or younger having 1 or more risk factors (≥pT3b, grade 3, or positive nodes) with negative margins after radical cystectomy plus pelvic lymph node dissection were eligible. Patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, no evidence of distant metastases on CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis or on chest imaging, and adequate renal, hepatic, and hematologic function. Ninety-one percent (109 of 120) had ≥ pT3 disease. Interventions:Chemotherapy plus RT included 2 cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15) and cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously on day 2) before and after RT to 4500 cGy in 150 cGy twice-daily fractions over 3 weeks using 3-dimensional conformal techniques. Chemotherapy alone included 4 cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin. Main Outcome and Measure:Locoregional recurrence-free survival. Results:The chemotherapy plus RT arm accrued 75 patients, and the chemotherapy-alone arm accrued 45 patients, with a weighted randomization to speed accrual. Fifty-three percent (64 of 120) had urothelial carcinoma, and 46.7% (56 of 120) had squamous cell carcinoma or other. The arms were balanced except for age (median, 52 vs 55 years; P = .04) and tumor size (mean, 4.9 vs 5.8 cm; P < .01), both favoring chemotherapy plus RT. Two-year outcomes and overall adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for chemotherapy plus RT vs chemotherapy alone were 96% vs 69% (HR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.39; P < .01) for LRFS, 68% vs 56% (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27-1.06; P = .07) for disease-free survival, and 71% vs 60% (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.33-1.11; P = .11) for overall survival (OS). Five patients (7%) had RT-associated late grade 3 gastrointestinal tract adverse effects in the chemotherapy plus RT arm. Conclusions and Relevance:Adjuvant chemotherapy plus RT was reasonably well tolerated and was associated with significant improvements in LRFS and marginal improvements in disease-free survival vs chemotherapy alone in LABC. The addition of adjuvant RT should be considered for LABC. This regimen warrants further study in phase 3 trials. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01734798.

Project description:BackgroundThe most appropriate timing of chemotherapy and hormone therapy administration is a critical issue in early breast cancer patients. The purpose of our study was to compare the efficacy of concurrent vs sequential administration of adjuvant chemotherapy and tamoxifen.MethodsWomen with node-positive primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen (20 mg/d for 5 years) during (concurrent arm) or after (sequential arm) adjuvant chemotherapy. Chemotherapy consisted of alternating regimens of cyclophosphamide, epidoxorubicin, and 5-fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil every 21 days for a total of 12 cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were toxic effects and disease-free survival (DFS). No provision for interim analyses was made in the original study protocol. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression models, adjusted for age, menopausal status, tumor stage, and lymph node and hormone receptor status, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsFrom 1985 to 1992, 431 patients were randomly assigned and studied according to the intention-to-treat principle. After a maximum of 15.4 years of follow-up (median 12.3 years), the estimated actuarial 10-year OS was equivalent for the two study arms (concurrent arm: 111 patients, 66%, 95% CI = 59% to 72%; sequential arm: 114 patients, 65%, 95% CI = 59% to 72%, P = .86). No differences in DFS and toxic effects were evident. Four interim analyses were performed, but no alpha error adjustment was necessary because of the largely negative results of this final analysis (sequential vs concurrent arm: HR of death = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.44, P = .76; HR of relapse = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.52, P = .36).ConclusionsNo statistically significant differences in OS, DFS, and toxic effects between concurrent and sequential adjuvant chemo- and hormone therapies were observed. Our study does not support the superiority of one schedule of chemo- and hormone-therapy administration over the other. However, because of the limited statistical power of the study, these results must be considered with caution.

Dataset Information

Randomized Phase II trial assessing estramustine and vinblastine combination chemotherapy vs estramustine alone in patients with progressive hormone-escaped metastatic prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets