Vinca alkaloids are widely used in the medical treatment of breast cancer. Our study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic activity of a new vinca alkaloid derivative, S12363 (vinfosiltine), which is 36 and 72 times more cytotoxic in vitro than vincristine and vinblastine, respectively. Because phase I studies did not allow a choice of the best treatment schedule, a randomization was performed between two schedules with the same dose intensity, that is, 0.3 mg/m2 given weekly or 0.6 mg/m2 given every 2 weeks. A total of 16 patients with advanced breast cancer who had failed a first-line treatment without any vinca alkaloid were entered in the study. Additionally, 6 women received the bimonthly regimen as first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. Altogether, 17 patients received, prior to vinfosiltine, an anthracycline-based regimen given either as adjuvant (n = 4) or as first-line palliative treatment (n = 13). All 22 patients were evaluable for both toxicity and response. Neutropenia was the main toxic event (maximal toxicity per patient) with grade 3 (WHO) toxicity developing in 7/22 patients and grade 4, in 8/22. Other severe toxicities included leukopenia (n = 9), anemia (n = 1), diarrhea (n = 1), constipation (n = 1), and fatigue (n = 1). No patient achieved a complete or partial response. Vinfosiltine does not appear to have significant single-agent activity in advanced breast cancer at the doses and the schedules used in our study.

The effect of supplementing induction chemotherapy with recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhGM-CSF) was studied in a randomized trial of 18 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ten patients received rhGM-CSF, starting on day one to three before chemotherapy and continued for a maximum of 21 days after the start of induction treatment. Unexpected adverse effects of rhGM-CSF and chemotherapy combination included a transient decline in plasma coagulation factors II, VII, and X (5 of 5 patients) and an increased transcapillary escape rate of albumin (in 3 of 3 patients tested). The decline in coagulation factors was prevented in subsequent patients by prophylactic treatment with vitamin K. Although the small number of patients studied may not allow a definite conclusion, caution with regard to liver function should be shown in combining rhGM-CSF with intensive chemotherapy.

Between January 1986 and June 1988, 155 patients (73 children and 82 adults), who were candidates for bone marrow transplantation, were included in a randomized controlled trial (75 patients in vancomycin group and 80 patients in the group without vancomycin) to evaluate the efficiency of a short course of vancomycin (10 mg/kg i.v. every 6 hours, day-5 to +1) in decreasing the incidence of Gram-positive infections during aplasia after high-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation. There was no statistical difference in the occurrence of documented septicemia, documented coccus Gram-positive infections, or fever of unknown origins during aplasia in the 2 groups. Thus, short prophylactic treatment with vancomycin proved inefficient in reducing morbidity due to infection after high-dose chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Irinotecan (CPT-11) is a novel topoisomerase I inhibitor with clinical activity in human malignancies. The objective of this study was to develop efficient limited sampling models (LSMs) to estimate simulataneously the area under the plasma concentration versus time curves (AUC) for both CPT-11 and its active metabolite SN-38. A total of 64 pharmacokinetic sets (> or = 24-h sampling) were obtained in phase I studies at doses ranging from 50 to 750 mg/m2 (0.5-h i.v. infusion). The patients were randomly assigned to a training data set (n = 32) and a test set (n = 32). Multiple linear regression analyses were used to determine the optimal LSMs based on the correlation coefficient (r), bias (MPE%, percentage of mean prediction error), and precision (RMSE%, percentage of root mean squared prediction error). Of these LSMs, the ones including maximal concentrations of CPT-11 (0.5 h, the end of the i.v. infusion) and metabolite SN-38 (approximately 1 h) were favored along with predictive precision and clinical constraints. Several bivariate models including a 6-h time point as the last sampling time (or 7 h) were found to be highly predictive of either the CPT-11 AUC or the SN-38 AUC. The chosen sampling time points were the ones that allowed the best compromise between the accurate determination of either compound alone with the same sampling times. The simultaneously best prediction of both CPT-11 and SN-38 AUCs was obtained with sampling time points harvested at 0.5, 1, and 6 h (or 7 h). With these sampling time points a trivariate model was selected for the determination of CPT-11 AUC namely, CPT-11 AUC (ng h ml-1) = 0.820 x C0.5h + 0.402 x C1h + 15.47 x C6h + 928, and a corresponding model was selected for the determination of metabolite AUC, i.e., SN-38 AUC (ng h ml-1) = 4.05 x C0.5h -0.81 x C1h + 23.01 x C6h - 69.78, where C(t) is the concentration in nanograms per milliliter of either compound at a given time t. These models performed well with the test data sets for CPT-11 AUC (r = 0.98, MPE% = -1.4, RMSE% = 13.9) and for SN-38 AUC (r = 0.95, MPE% = -6.5, RMSE% = 37.7). In addition to the determination of AUCs (and hence clearance), these models also allow the determination of the maximal concentrations of both compounds, which might be needed for pharmacodynamics studies.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Thirty-six patients were entered on this study to determine the pharmacology, bioavailability, and toxicity of three different oral formulations of cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan, Endoxan, and an investigational direct compression tablet). Patients were randomized with respect to the order in which they received the different oral cyclophosphamide preparations, and received each one for two weeks followed by a two week washout period. Concurrent chemotherapy was allowed provided it remained constant across all 3 courses of cyclophosphamide. Plasma concentrations of cyclophosphamide and phosphoramide mustard were measured by gas chromatography with electron capture detection. Peak plasma cyclophosphamide concentrations and times to peak plasma cyclophosphamide and phosphoramide mustard preparations were significantly greater for Endoxan than for Cytoxan and the investigational direct compression tablet. Drug area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), bioavailability, and plasma elimination half-life could not be reliably calculated for Endoxan but were similar for Cytoxan and the investigational formulation. Based on AUC comparisons, bioavailability of parent compound (relative to an oral cyclophosphamide solution) was 85% for Cytoxan and 69% for the investigational formulation. This difference was not significant. There were no significant differences between the 3 formulations with respect to any individual type of toxicity, although the investigational formulation tended to be associated with somewhat less overall toxicity (p = 0.08).

Etoposide demonstrates incomplete and variable bioavailability after oral dosing, which may be due to its concentration and pH-dependent stability in artificial gastric and intestinal fluids. The use of agents that may influence etoposide stability and, thereby, bioavailability, was investigated in a number of clinical studies. Drugs that influence the rate of gastric emptying, while modulating the time of drug absorption, did not significantly alter the etoposide area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) or bioavailability. Specifically, metoclopramide had little effect on the etoposide absorption profile and did not significantly alter the AUC (AUC with etoposide alone, 68.4 +/- 20.3 micrograms ml-1 h, versus 74.3 +/- 25.9 micrograms ml-1 h with metoclopramide), suggesting that in most patients the drug is already emptied rapidly from the stomach. In contrast, propantheline produced a dramatic effect on etoposide absorption, delaying the time of maximal concentration tmax from 1.1 to 3.5 h (P < 0.01), but again without a significant improvement in drug AUC or bioavailability across the 24-h study period (AUC with etoposide alone 78.3 +/- 19.1 micrograms ml-1 h, versus 88.1 +/- 23.6 micrograms ml-1 h with propantheline). The effect of these drugs on the absorption of oral paracetamol, a drug included in the study as a marker of gastric emptying, was exactly the same as that found for etoposide, with no change in AUC being observed after metoclopramide or propantheline administration but a significant delay in tmax being seen on co-administration with etoposide and propantheline. The co-administration of ethanol or bile salts (agents that significantly improved the stability of etoposide in artificial intestinal fluid) with oral etoposide similarly had no effect on improving the etoposide AUC or reducing the variability in AUC, suggesting that drug stability in vivo was not affected by these agents. In the third study the co-administration of cimetidine had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of oral or i.v. etoposide, despite the previous observation that etoposide stability was markedly improved at pH 3-5 as compared with pH 1 in artificial gastric fluid. This series of studies, designed to investigate factors that improved etoposide stability in laboratory studies, failed to demonstrate any potentially useful improvement in AUC or bioavailability in the clinical setting.

Twenty patients with recurrent metastatic breast cancer treated with high-dose myelosuppressive antineoplastic drugs (cyclophosphamide 2.5 g/m2 or epirubicin 130 mg/m2, both every 3 weeks) as first or second line chemotherapy were randomized in a prospective study to GM-CSF 5 micrograms/kg per day (n = 11) or control (n = 9). Significant reduction in granulocyte nadir duration (2 days with GM-CSF vs. 7 days) and severity (0.4 x 10(9)/l with GM-CSF vs. 0.2 x 10(9)/l) was found. No difference in frequency of neutropenic fever or antibiotic use could be observed. Even though the patients treated with GM-CSF at random were more heavily pretreated with chemotherapy, there was a surprisingly higher response rate in these patients as compared to the control-arm, namely 64% vs. 28.5%. However, this difference was not statistically significant. No severe side-effects were seen, but presumably due to GM-CSF one patient developed an allergic type 1 reaction and one patient a possible pericardial exudation. Both were fully reversible after cessation of the cytokine treatment.

Two hundred and seventy-eight adult chemonaive patients, receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous (i.v.) granisetron 3 mg plus i.v. dexamethasone 8 mg or i.v. granisetron 3 mg plus i.v. placebo dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy. Eight-two per cent of all patients recruited were female, and 91% of all patients consumed less than 10 units of alcohol per week, suggesting a study population with an increased risk of nausea and vomiting. In the first 24 h 85% of patients who received granisetron plus dexamethasone were complete responders compared with 75.9% of the patients receiving granisetron alone (P = 0.053). There were statistically significant improvements in complete response over 7 days (P = 0.029) and in the numbers of patients receiving rescue antiemetic (P = 0.0004). Toxicity was minimal with no significant differences between treatment groups. These results confirm the antiemetic activity of granisetron and show that it has an additive effect in combination with dexamethasone.

Glutamine-supplemented total parenteral nutrition (TPN) improved the nitrogen balance in catabolic situations. In animal studies, parenteral glutamine supplementation appeared to maintain gut integrity. This study was performed to evaluate the possible positive effects of glutamine supplementation in catabolic hematologic patients.

The results are reported of three chemotherapy schedules in a multicentric, international, randomized trial of the therapy of unresectable non small cell lung carcinoma which included 612 patients. The antitumoral efficiency of the cisplatin + vindesine combination (200 patients) was compared with that of navelbine (206 patients), a recently available vinca alkaloid, and with a third therapeutical leg with cisplatin + navelbine (206 patients). After a very thorough response evaluation the combination cisplatin + navelbine obtained a response rate higher than the other combination (30% vs. 19%; p = 0.02) and also than navelbine (30% vs. 14%; p < 0.001). The median response durations were 9.3, 9.9, and 7.8 months for the combination with navelbine, vindesine and the new vinca alkaloid alone, respectively. After a median follow-up period of 26 months the combination cisplatin + navelbine achieved a higher survival rate than the combination cisplatin + vindesine (40 vs. 32 weeks) and navelbine (40 vs 31 weeks; p = 0.045). The most important toxicity with the combination cisplatin + navelbine was neutropenia, which although relevant in number was not of long duration. In summary, navelbine is an active agent in the therapy of non small cell lung carcinoma. In this trial the therapeutic superiority of its combination with cisplatin over the combination cisplatin + vindesine was observed; likewise, it was also more efficient than monotherapy with navelbine.

Prompt initiation of empiric antibiotic therapy is the cornerstone in the therapy of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic sepsis in cancer patients. Ceftriaxone plus gentamicin (ceftriaxone/gentamicin) is the most widely used combination of empiric antibiotics in the Department of Medical Oncology, Singapore General Hospital. However, imipenem/cilastatin has been shown to be a practical alternative. To compare the efficacy and cost effectiveness of monotherapy with our usual combination antibiotic therapy, 50 evaluable neutropenic cancer patients admitted for fever were randomised to empiric imipenem/cilastatin or ceftriaxone/gentamicin. Ceftriaxone/gentamicin was started in 24 patients. The initial clinical response rate to ceftriaxone/gentamicin was 62.5% and 84.6% to imipenem/cilastatin (P = 0.075). The average cost of antibiotics per patient started on ceftriaxone/gentamicin including cost of change of antibiotics was S$63 per day of antibiotic use and for imipenem/cilastatin it was S$252 (P < 0.02). In conclusion, although more patients receiving imipenem/cilastatin had an initial clinical response than those receiving ceftriaxone/gentamicin, this difference was not statistically significant. It would appear that imipenem/cilastatin is equivalent to ceftriaxone/gentamicin for the treatment of neutropenic sepsis. However, ceftriaxone/gentamicin was more cost effective.

This study evaluated the therapeutic effect of the weekly administration of vinorelbine (5'-nor-anhydrovinblastine), a semisynthetic vinca alkaloid, in heavily pretreated patients with Hodgkin's disease.

Three Nordic multicenter studies were performed between 1988 and 1992 to evaluate the efficacy of tropisetron (Navoban; Sandoz Pharma Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) as an antiemetic agent in patients undergoing various types of chemotherapy. More than 1,050 patients were recruited from cancer centers in Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. In the first two studies, chemotherapy-naive patients were studied for 6-day periods over two consecutive treatment cycles. The first study comparing tropisetron with a metoclopramide cocktail was performed as an open, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group study. All 259 chemotherapy-naive patients received cisplatin > or = 50 mg/m2 on the first day of chemotherapy; other cytostatic agents were allowed on days 1 to 6 of therapy. Patients received either tropisetron or an antiemetic cocktail of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and lorazepam over the study period. Total control of acute vomiting during the first course of chemotherapy was achieved in 63% of patients in the tropisetron treatment group and in 64% of patients in the antiemetic cocktail group. Acute nausea was prevented completely in 40% of patients in the tropisetron group and in 61% of the metoclopramide cocktail group during course 1 (P < .001). For delayed nausea and vomiting, there were no significant differences between the two antiemetic regimens. Both antiemetic regimens were well tolerated. The second study compared the efficacy of tropisetron plus placebo with tropisetron plus dexamethasone for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting during cisplatin-containing chemotherapy in patients not fully controlled by tropisetron monotherapy during course 1. One hundred sixty patients were involved in this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Acute vomiting was completely prevented in 40% of patients treated with tropisetron plus placebo compared with 75% of patients treated with tropisetron plus dexamethasone (P = .001). The results for acute nausea were similar. Delayed vomiting and delayed nausea were completely prevented in significantly more patients receiving the tropisetron-dexamethasone combination than in those receiving the tropisetron-placebo combination (P < .05). Adverse events were reported less frequently in patients receiving tropisetron together with dexamethasone. The third study was an open, nonrandomized multicenter trial designed to investigate the long-term antiemetic effect of tropisetron on various types of chemotherapy and on various types of patients. An interim analysis of this study has been reported previously (Ann Oncol 4:539-542, 1993). Six hundred thirty patients were studied over a mean number of 4.6 courses (range, 1 to 19 courses) of chemotherapy. Each received tropisetron daily on days 1 to 6 of therapy. Complete protection from nausea and vomiting was achieved in 67% of the complete series. The long-term effects of tropisetron therapy remained consistent over 10 consecutive courses of chemotherapy. Tropisetron was more effective during noncisplatin treatment compared with cisplatin treatment; it was also more effective in men and in older patients (> 50 years of age). The most frequent adverse events were headache (18%) and constipation (8%).

In this double-blind, randomized trial performed at five study centers, the prophylactic, antiemetic effect of two different dosages of tropisetron (Navoban; Sandoz Pharma Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) was investigated in dacarbazine-treated patients with melanoma. Patients received tropisetron 5 mg or 10 mg orally (as one capsule) once daily (minimum 3 days) on each day of chemotherapy. No significant differences were found in the effects of tropisetron 5 mg and 10 mg. During the first 24 hours, total control of vomiting was seen in 93% and 98% of patients receiving tropisetron 5 mg and 10 mg, respectively. Total control of nausea was achieved in 84% and 80% of patients receiving tropisetron at these dosages. Over days 2 to 7 of chemotherapy, total control of vomiting and nausea remained high. Patients reported that quality of life remained good throughout chemotherapy, as did mood; only a small decrease in food intake occurred. Tropisetron was well tolerated. Constipation was the most common adverse event, occurring in 13% of patients. Headache (4%), diarrhea (4%), and anorexia (2%) also were observed.

We report an open, three-armed, multicenter study being carried out to assess the optimum treatment for acute and delayed emesis and nausea in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Eighty-seven patients were randomized to receive tropisetron (Navoban; Sandoz Pharma Ltd, Basel, Switzerland), tropisetron plus dexamethasone, or tropisetron plus metoclopramide during chemotherapy. Tropisetron in combination with dexamethasone produced the best control of both acute and delayed emesis. Acute vomiting was prevented in 69% of patients by tropisetron monotherapy, and the addition of dexamethasone significantly increased the total control of vomiting to 92% (P < .01). Similarly for delayed vomiting, total control of emesis was seen in approximately 70% of patients on tropisetron alone during days 2 and 3; this control rate increased to almost 90% with combined tropisetron/ dexamethasone treatment. In all patients receiving cisplatin, the tropisetron/dexamethasone combination produced total control of acute emesis. The tropisetron and dexamethasone combination also provided the best control of acute and delayed nausea. Tropisetron produced total control of acute nausea in 69% of patients. The addition of dexamethasone increased this control rate to 81%. Similarly for delayed nausea, on days 2 and 3 of treatment, dexamethasone plus tropisetron provided total control of nausea in more than 80% of patients compared with a control rate of more than 60% achieved using tropisetron. The combination of tropisetron and metoclopramide did not improve significantly on the control of nausea and vomiting achieved using tropisetron alone. Evaluation of quality of life events by patients indicated no appreciable change in their mental or physical condition during chemotherapy, irrespective of antiemetic therapy. In the tropisetron and tropisetron plus metoclopramide treatment groups, a decreased food intake was observed due to delayed nausea while the addition of dexamethasone prevented loss of appetite. The antiemetic treatments were similarly well tolerated. The most common adverse events were constipation (15%) and tiredness (7%).

This report of a double-blind, randomized study performed to evaluate the comparative antiemetic efficacy of tropisetron (Navoban; Sandoz Pharma Ltd, Basel, Switzerland), a new 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist, focuses on treatment during stages of chemotherapy when nausea and vomiting are particularly severe. One hundred fifteen chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant disease were administered either tropisetron (n = 58) or a dexamethasone dose plus a metoclopramide dose (n = 57) during 5 days of two successive cycles of chemotherapy. Within the first 24 hours after receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, 76% of patients in the tropisetron group remained free of vomiting (with 59% of patients free of nausea) compared with 39% of patients free of vomiting in the conventionally treated group (30% of patients free of nausea). Improved control of emesis also was observed over 4 consecutive days of follow-up in the tropisetron group. The difference in incidence of nausea and vomiting between the patient groups was statistically significant (P < .05). The efficacy of tropisetron was well maintained during the second consecutive chemotherapy cycle; during the first 24 hours, 72% and 62% of patients remained free of vomiting and nausea, respectively. Tropisetron appears to be a highly effective, well tolerated, and simple to use antiemetic agent for patients receiving chemotherapy.

A single-institution, prospective, randomized open trial was performed to compare ondansetron and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. The effect of antemetic drugs was analyzed indipendently for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (Study 1), and those treated with moderately emetogenic regimens (Study 2).

In a randomized phase II study by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B, the cisplatin/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (PFL) combination produced a 29% response rate in advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer. Vinorelbine (Navelbine; Burroughs Wellcome, Co, Research Triangle Park, NC; Pierre Fabre Médicament, Paris, France), a semisynthetic vinca alkaloid, has also demonstrated single-agent activity in this disease. Therefore, a phase I-II study was designed to investigate the addition of vinorelbine in escalating doses to the PFL combination. The objectives of this study were to establish the maximum tolerated dose of vinorelbine in combination with PFL, and to define the overall response rate in a cohort of patients treated with the maximum tolerated dose. The regimen consisted of vinorelbine in escalating doses starting at 20 mg/m2/d intravenously on days 1 and 5, followed by leucovorin 100 mg orally every 4 hours on days 1 to 5,5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m2/d intravenous continuous infusion days 2 to 5 (96 hours), and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 intravenously 12 to 24 hours after administration of the first dose of vinorelbine. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed in the first five patients treated with the initial vinorelbine dose. Increasing the dose of vinorelbine to 25 mg/m2 in a second cohort of two patients, however, resulted in grade 4 granulocytopenia in both, and grade 4 diarrhea in one. It was concluded that this dose level was not feasible. During a preliminary analysis, one complete response and three partial responses were observed in 16 patients evaluated; one of these patients had a pathologic complete remission. This early analysis indicates activity for the regimen.

Phase II studies have demonstrated that vinorelbine (Navelbine; Burroughs Wellcome Co, Research Triangle Park, NC; Pierre Fabre Médicament, Paris, France) alone or in combination with cisplatin has promising activity against non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). On the basis of these preliminary trials, a phase III study was designed to compare intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 weekly) plus cisplatin (120 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 29 and then every 6 weeks) with vindesine (3 mg/m2 weekly for 6 weeks and then every 2 weeks) plus cisplatin, and to evaluate whether the best of these regimens afforded a survival benefit compared with intravenous vinorelbine alone, an outpatient regimen. This report presents an expanded analysis of data from this previously published study. Six hundred twelve patients were enrolled in this trial: 206 in the vinorelbine plus cisplatin arm, 200 in the vindesine plus cisplatin group, and 206 in the single-agent vinorelbine arm. The vinorelbine plus cisplatin regimen was superior to the other two arms of the study in objective response rate (30% v 19% for vindesine plus cisplatin [P = .02] and 14% for vinorelbine alone [P = .001]), median survival duration (40 weeks v 32 weeks for vindesine plus cisplatin and 31 weeks for vinorelbine alone), and 1-year survival rate (35% v 27% for vindesine plus cisplatin and 30% for vinorelbine alone). An adjusted log-rank test provided a significant advantage for vinorelbine plus cisplatin when compared with vindesine plus cisplatin (P = .04) and with vinorelbine alone (P = .02). The major difference in survival between the two cisplatin-containing regimens occurred in patients with metastatic (stage IV) NSCLC. The incidence of granulocytopenia was significantly higher in the vinorelbine plus cisplatin arm compared with the other two treatment groups, but neurotoxicity was significantly more frequent in the vindesine plus cisplatin group. The results of this study indicate that the combination of vinorelbine plus cisplatin is a viable treatment option for patients with NSCLC and may provide advantages compared with other commonly used regimens.