30 patients with chemotherapy-related leukopenia (white cells 1.0 x 10(9)/l or lower) and fever (temperature 38.5 degrees C or higher) were treated in a double-blind randomised trial with standard antibiotics and 7 days of intravenously administered recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF, 2.8 micrograms/kg per day) or placebo. GM-CSF administration resulted in a faster percentage increase of peripheral neutrophil count after 2 and 3 days of treatment, except in patients treated with ablative chemotherapy and autologous bone-marrow transplantation. However, GM-CSF did not shorten the period of fever or antibiotic administration. No side-effects were observed; in particular tumour necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-6 did not increase in the 5 GM-CSF patients tested. These data suggest that a subgroup of patients with chemotherapy-related leukopenia and fever may benefit from GM-CSF treatment in view of the observed effects on neutrophil count.

A randomized clinical trial performed in 50 female patients with advanced breast cancer showed 60 mg/day and 240 mg/day toremifene and 40 mg/day tamoxifen to be nearly equally effective. Partial, with few exceptions, response lasting 5-31 months was observed in 35-50% of cases whereas another 35-50% of patients showed no change. Toxicity was low.

42 dogs with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) were randomized for treatment with either PEG-L-asparaginase 10 IU/kg intramuscularly (n = 22) or L-asparaginase 400 IU/kg intraperitoneally (n = 20). Another 20 dogs were treated with either PEG-L-asparaginase 30 IU/kg (n = 10) or L-asparaginase 400 IU/kg (n = 10). Each treatment protocol consisted of two asparaginase treatments followed by a 10-week period of induction chemotherapy and then maintenance on asparaginase until progression occurred. No significant differences were found between treatments in the response rates after 2 weeks of asparaginase therapy or in the time to relapse, the time to treatment failure or the remission period. The reaction to asparaginase after the initial 2 weeks was a prognostic factor for the total duration of remission under asparaginase maintenance therapy. No side-effects were noted in the dogs treated with PEG-L-asparaginase, whereas 14 (48%) of the L-asparaginase treated dogs had side-effects related to this drug, including anaphylactic shock (9), anorexia or vomiting (4), hypersensitivity-related oedema (3), seizures (1) and acute pancreatitis (1). No abnormalities in clotting times, fibrinogen levels or antithrombin-III levels were found in any of the 62 dogs. PEG-L-asparaginase has the same anti-tumour activity as native L-asparaginase in dogs with NHL, but lacks side-effects.

The clinical efficacy and safety of 3.75 or 7.5 mg leuprorelin acetate depot given subcutaneously once every 4 weeks was evaluated in a collaborative study of 81 patients with untreated prostatic cancer. Efficacy of treatment was assessed using criteria based on a meeting of the Prostatic Cancer Study Group funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare and using National Prostatic Cancer Project criteria. Japanese criteria enabled evaluation of individual parameters, unlike the National Prostatic Cancer Project system which classified a patient as unevaluable if one evaluation parameter was unavailable. Leuprorelin acetate depot suppressed serum luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone and testosterone concentrations. Objective response rates of the prostate, bone metastases, serum prostatic acid phosphatase and soft tissue metastases, and subjective dysuria and pain responses were comparable to those found with conventional hormone therapy. Leuprorelin acetate depot was well tolerated, with no significant differences in response to the two doses.

A total of 21 patients with advanced prostatic cancer and one patient with benign prostatic hypertrophy received 3.75, 7.5 or 15 mg leuprorelin acetate depot subcutaneously. Serum leuprorelin concentrations increased immediately after injection, reaching a peak concentration (range 13.1-54.5 ng/ml), which was directly proportional to dose, within 3 h. Mean drug levels subsequently declined to a plateau directly proportional to dose at 5 weeks. There was also a significant (P less than 0.01) dose-dependent increase in the area under the concentration-time curve for 0-35 days. Serum concentrations of luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone rose initially with all doses, followed by a rise in serum testosterone and dihydrotestosterone concentrations, which then fell sharply, within 3 weeks. A reduced level of follicle stimulating hormone subsequently occurred in all 20 evaluable patients and was maintained in 17 patients over 5 weeks. There was also marked initial suppression of luteinizing hormone levels in 15 patients and in 13 this continued. Castration levels of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone were maintained in all patients for up to 5 weeks. In two patients there was a complete response, in 14 a partial response and in three stable disease, with no significant differences in relation to dose. Clinical improvement and serum hormonal changes suggest that leuprorelin acetate depot is effective at a dose as low as 3.75 mg when given once every 4 weeks.

The therapeutic efficacy and safety of various doses of leuprorelin acetate depot were determined in an open, multicentre study of patients with locally advanced or metastatic prostatic cancer (stages C, D1 or D2). Patients were randomly assigned to receive 3.75 mg (30 cases), 7.5 mg (eight cases), 15 mg (eight cases) and 30 mg (one patient) leuprorelin acetate depot administered subcutaneously once every 4 weeks. Of the 43 patients evaluable, two (5%) had complete remission, 23 (53%) partial remission and 13 (30%) patients stable disease. No significant differences were observed in response rates in relation to dose, disease stage or previous hormonal therapy. Disappearance or improvement in bone pain and urinary symptoms occurred in 63% and 79% of cases, respectively. Serum androgen concentrations decreased rapidly and persistently to castration levels, without significant differences for different doses. Treatment was well tolerated with a low incidence of mild side-effects - gynaecomastia (16%), nausea/vomiting (13%) and diarrhoea (2%). It is concluded that 3.75 mg leuprorelin acetate depot given subcutaneously once every 4 weeks is able to produce hormonal effects in all patients, an overall objective response comparable to that obtained using higher doses.

This randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled clinical trial compares the influence on nutritional status and survival of hydrazine sulfate with placebo addition to cisplatin-containing combination chemotherapy in patients with unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The trial consisted of 65 patients with advanced, unresectable NSCLC who had had no prior chemotherapy, were at least partially ambulatory (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status [PS] level 0-2), and who had adequate hematologic, renal, and hepatic function. All patients received the same defined combination chemotherapy (cisplatin, vinblastine, and bleomycin) and the same defined dietary counseling with the addition of either three times daily oral hydrazine sulfate (60 mg) or placebo capsules. Hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo addition to chemotherapy resulted in significantly greater caloric intake and albumin maintenance (P less than .05). Considering all patients, survival was greater for the hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo group (median survival, 292 v 187 days), but the difference did not achieve statistical significance. In favorable PS patients (PS 0-1), survival was significantly prolonged (median survival, 328 days v 209 days; P less than .05) for hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo addition. In a multifactor analysis, PS, weight loss, and liver involvement were the final variables. Objective response frequency and toxicity were comparable on both arms. Hydrazine sulfate may favorably influence nutritional status and clinical outcome of patients with NSCLC. Further definitive studies of hydrazine sulfate addition to therapeutic regimens in NSCLC are warranted.

The bioavailability of two altretamine preparations was studied in a randomized cross-over design. The two preparations were compared with a third in a parallel design. Dissolution differences between the preparations were observed, which could give rise to differences in bioavailability caused by the extensive first-pass effect of altretamine. The in vivo data showed a trend to differences in bioavailability.

There is now convincing evidence that adjuvant systemic therapy for high-risk breast cancer can significantly reduce tumor mortality at 5 years. The overall treatment benefit for women with node-positive tumors may be considered moderate but clinically important. The most frequent choices of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy are discussed. In patients with node-negative receptor-negative tumors there is preliminary evidence of benefit from adjuvant combination chemotherapy. Primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy can allow conservative surgery in most tumors suitable for mastectomy, but this form of treatment remains, at present, experimental. Potential long-term toxicity from systemic adjuvant therapy should be continuously monitored.

Recurrent breast cancer is incurable. Chemotherapeutic agents will be used in most patients with metastatic disease at some time during their course. There is little evidence that such agents prolong survival, and their toxicities are not inconsiderable. The focus of treatment should be on the palliation of symptoms. Single-agent regimens should not be assumed to be less effective than combinations, particularly as salvage therapies. Some new approaches to the management of metastatic disease are explored.

The aim of this multicenter randomized trial was to compare carboplatin (400 mg/m2) and cisplatin (100 mg/m2) in patients with untreated advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Toxicity and treatment efficacy assessed by pathological response rate, progression-free survival, and survival were the endpoints of the study. One hundred seventy-three patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, F.I.G.O. (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage III and IV were accrued in the trial. The median follow-up time was 15 months (maximum, 34); three patients in each treatment arm were not eligible (four, nonepithelial ovarian cancer type; one, no data, and one, stage II). Patient characteristics were similar in the two groups. In the carboplatin-treatment arm, the overall pathological response rate was 57.3% and the complete pathological response rate was 26.8%. In the cisplatin-treatment arm, the overall pathological response rate was 71.6% and the complete pathological response rate was 24.7%. There was no statistical difference in the two arms in survival or progression-free survival. Cisplatin was more nephrotoxic while carboplatin induced a higher degree of myelosuppression, especially thrombocytopenia; however, severe hematological toxicity was seldom observed. Carboplatin is a cisplatin analog with definite activity in ovarian cancer, but it is more active than the parent compound. Because of less nonhematological toxicity, carboplatin is undoubtedly a useful substitute in patients who cannot be given cisplatin. Further experience is needed to indicate whether or not carboplatin should completely displace cisplatin in the clinical treatment of ovarian cancer.

Steroids and cytostatic drugs have an undoubtedly damaging action on the gastroduodenal mucosa. The action of pirenzepine was compared with that of the placebo in preventing the gastroduodenal lesions brought on by antiblastic therapy. Sixty patients were separated into two random group under double blind conditions and received 100 mg/die/os of pirenzepine or equivalent placebo for a continuous period of 12 weeks. Antiblastic drugs were administered at the same time. Final endoscopic control and symptomatological findings showed a statistically significant different in favour of the pirenzepine-treated group as early as the 6th week of treatment. No side-effects attributable to pirenzepine were reported.

A total of 394 patients with advanced, measurable squamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix and no prior chemotherapy were randomized to therapy with either carboplatin or iproplatin. There were 23 patients ineligible for the study and 10 patients who were not evaluable; the remaining 361 patients were evaluable for response and adverse effects. Randomization was well balanced for age, performance status, and prior therapy. Both platinum analogs were given every 28 days with starting doses of 400 mg/m2 for carboplatin (340 mg/m2 if the patient underwent prior radiation) and 270 mg/m2 for iproplatin (230 mg/m2 if the patient underwent prior radiation). These doses are equivalent to cisplatin doses of 75 to 100 mg/m2. Hematologic toxicity was dose-limiting, among which thrombocytopenia was slightly more common than leukopenia. Gastrointestinal toxicity was also prominent with both agents; however, iproplatin was significantly more toxic than carboplatin (P less than .001). Renal, otic, and peripheral nervous system toxicities were absent or infrequent with both analogs. No electrolyte abnormalities were observed. The percentage of planned dosages that were actually administered was 100% of carboplatin doses and 85% of iproplatin doses (P less than .0001). The reduction in iproplatin dose was apparently due to gastrointestinal toxicity. Response rates were similar for both agents (15% for carboplatin, 11% for iproplatin) and appear to be inferior to those noted with the parent compound, cisplatin.

Lonidamine is an indazole carboxylic acid that has been shown to be synergistic with radiotherapy (RT) in tissue culture and animal models. Clinical experience has shown that lonidamine is well-tolerated, and appears to potentiate the activity of conventional chemotherapy in the treatment of brain metastases. A prospective randomized trial was undertaken to evaluate the use of lonidamine in combination with RT in the treatment of brain metastases. All patients received 3000 cGy of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Fifty eight patients were enrolled; 31 received lonidamine plus WBRT and 27 received WBRT alone. There was no significant difference in response rate or survival between the treatment groups. Lonidamine blood levels were measured in 30 of the 31 patients who received the drug, and were therapeutic (greater than or equal to 15 micrograms/ml) in 50%. Survival and response rate were unaffected by the presence or absence of a therapeutic lonidamine level. The most common side-effects of lonidamine were myalgia, testicular pain, anorexia, and ototoxicity; however, only 2 patients had to discontinue the drug because of intolerable myalgias. No serious organ toxicity or myelosuppression was observed.

N2-[(N-Acetylmuramoyl)-L-alanyl-D-isoglutaminyl]-N6-stearoyl-L-lysine (MDP-Lys(L18), muroctasin), a derivative of muramyl dipeptide (MDP), is known to promote recovery of peripheral leukocyte and platelet counts by inducing cytokines, especially colony stimulating factor (CSF) in myelosuppression secondary to anticancer therapy. This paper reviews the results of a double-blind comparative study on lung cancer patients, administered either 200 micrograms or 20 micrograms of muroctasin for 6 days post-chemotherapy. It demonstrates the efficacy of muroctasin, at 200 micrograms doses levels only, in promoting early recovery of leukocyte and platelet counts and hence the potential for earlier initiation of chemotherapy cycles. The most common side effect encountered during the study was transient fever.

Sixty-six women with advanced ovarian carcinoma of coelomic epithelial origin were randomly assigned to one of two intravenous single-agent infusion treatment regimens, either acivicin (60 mg/m2/course, administered as a 72-hr infusion) or vinblastine (7.5 mg/m2/course, administered as a 120-hr infusion) every three weeks. All had progressive disease after one to three prior chemotherapeutic regimens. Of 62 patients who were evaluable for response, survival and toxicity, there was one partial response (2%) produced by vinblastine. Median survival was 13 weeks on either treatment arm. Three patients (10%) on the acivicin arm experienced life-threatening myelosuppression. Severe toxicities resulting from this treatment included myelosuppression (26%), neurotoxicity (16%), mucositis (3%) and vomiting (6%). Vinblastine was associated with one lethal pneumonia and five cases of life-threatening myelosuppression (16%); severe toxicities included myelosuppression (58%), genitourinary toxicity (6%), infection (3%), and edema (3%). Neither regimen produces useful clinical results in patients who have relapsed after prior chemotherapy for ovarian carcinoma.

Twenty-six children aged 4 to 15 years who were to receive cancer chemotherapy were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial that compared the antiemetic efficacy of a four-drug regimen (the MBDL regimen: metoclopramide, 8 mg/kg; benztropine, 0.04 mg/kg; dexamethasone, 0.7 mg/kg; lorazepam, 0.1 mg/kg), given over 24 hours, with the efficacy of chlorpromazine, 3.3 mg/kg, given in four doses over 24 hours. The MBDL regimen was more effective than chlorpromazine in both objective and subjective measures of antiemetic control. Of 26 children, 23 (89%) had less vomiting on the MBDL regimen, and 20 (77%) of 26 patients or parents preferred this regimen (p less than 0.01). The MBDL regimen reduced the number of vomiting episodes by a mean of 4.0 (p less than 0.01) and reduced the duration of vomiting by a mean of 3.7 hours (p less than 0.01). A moderate level of sedation was documented at some stage in the 24-hour period of observation in 27% on the MBDL regimen and in 35% receiving chlorpromazine. Dystonia was seen in 1 (4%) of 26 children. We conclude that the MBDL regimen is safe in children and more effective than chlorpromazine.