The purpose of this study was to evaluate the activity and the toxicity of the combination of gemcitabine with ifosfamide and cisplatin (GIP) in chemonaive patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Eighty chemonaive patients with Stage IIIB-IV NSCLC were treated with the combination of gemcitabine 1 g/m(2) on Days 1 and 8, ifosfamide 2 g/m(2) on Day 1 and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on Day 2. Cycles were administered on an outpatient basis every 3 weeks. Hematologic toxicity was the main side effect; Grade III-IV thrombocytopenia was observed in 54 (67%) patients and Grade III-IV leucopenia in 44 (55%) patients, with 4 episodes of febrile neutropenia and 1 toxic death. Thirteen patients received platelet transfusions and 38 were transfused with packed red cells. All patients were evaluable for response. The overall response rate was 54% (95% confidence interval 43 to 65%) with 1 complete response. In patients with Stage IIIB and IV disease, response rates were 58% and 52%, respectively. Median time to progression was 40 weeks (range 0-114) and median overall survival was 12 months (16.6 months for stage IIIB and 10.4 months for stage IV). Median and minimum follow-up were 19 and 12 months, respectively. The GIP combination shows a response rate and overall survival of clinical interest. Hematologic toxicity was the main toxic effect, especially in patients with low performance status. This regimen will be tested in a Phase III randomized trial.

BACKGROUND The prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer has not been studied systematically. METHODS We enrolled patients who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy for the first time in a double-blind, randomized, multicenter study. All the patients received ondansetron combined with dexamethasone for prophylaxis against emesis that might occur within 24 hours after the start of chemotherapy (acute emesis). They were then divided into two groups: patients who did not have either vomiting or moderate-to-severe nausea (the low-risk group) and patients who had one or both (the high-risk group). Patients in the low-risk group were then randomly assigned to one of the following regimens, given on days 2 through 5 after the start of chemotherapy: oral placebo, 4 mg of dexamethasone given orally twice daily, or 8 mg of ondansetron in combination with 4 mg of dexamethasone, given orally twice daily. Patients in the high-risk group were randomly assigned to receive oral dexamethasone alone or in combination with ondansetron at the same doses as those used in the low-risk group. RESULTS Among the 618 patients in the low-risk group, there was a complete absence of both delayed vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea in 91.8 percent of those who received ondansetron combined with dexamethasone, 87.4 percent of those who received dexamethasone alone, and 76.8 percent of those who received placebo. The proportions of patients who were protected by dexamethasone combined with ondansetron or by dexamethasone alone were significantly greater than the proportion protected by placebo (P<0.001 and P<0.02, respectively). Of the 87 patients in the high-risk group, complete protection was achieved in 40.9 percent of those treated with ondansetron and dexamethasone and in 23.3 percent treated with dexamethasone alone (P not significant). CONCLUSIONS The best way to prevent delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is to control these complications within the first 24 hours after the start of chemotherapy. Dexamethasone alone provides adequate protection against delayed emesis in patients at low risk (those who have not had acute emesis).

Aims and background: To evaluate the rate of cancer patients who do not fill out a quality of life (QL) questionnaire, their characteristics and the reasons for not filling out the QL questionnaire.Methods: Consecutive cancer patients who were seen in 79 Italian medical oncology and radiotherapy centers over a period of one week were asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning the importance of 46 domains of quality of life, each one scored on 4 levels (not at all, a little, much, and very much).Results: Of 6,918 cancer patients, 820 (11.9%) did not fill out the questionnaire. The most important reasons for not complying were: illiteracy (17.9%), lack of glasses or poor eye-sight (17.4%), poor physical condition (11.9%), poor psychological condition (5.9%), refusal (28.7%). The questionnaires significantly less filled out were those of older patients with low performance status and educational level or with locally advanced or disseminated disease and inpatients.Conclusions: The results of the study reveal the risk of selection bias in QL assessment in randomized controlled trials and suggest the need for more complete information regarding the aim of QL evaluation and the necessity of a proxy's help to overcome the problem, with the awareness that the proxy's influence could modify the response. The impact of the lack of patient compliance on the QL results still remains to be evaluated.

Background: Studies are available showing that cancer patients in southern Europe may be less well informed about their disease than patients in northern Europe and North America.Patients and methods: In the framework of a survey aimed at exploring the meaning of quality of life for the Italian cancer patient, carried out all over Italy in a one-week time span on 6098 consecutive patients, two visual analogue scales evaluating severity and curability of disease were also submitted to the patients. Four patterns of patients' answers were defined: very easy/difficult-to-cure disease, and not-severe/severe disease. Multifactorial analyses were performed using logistic models for each of the four responses, assuming patient characteristics, time since diagnosis and disease extent as explanatory variables.Results: Only 26% of 2088 patients with disseminated disease believed it to be 'difficult to cure', while 39% felt it to be 'easy to cure'. In the same subgroup of patients, only 47% found their disease `severe'.Conclusions: Authors were impressed by these unexpected results, which are therefore reported separately from the overall analysis of data, aimed at exploring the quality of life domains for the Italian cancer patient. In fact, they would suggest a great lack of awareness of the severity and curability of their disease in a large group of unselected Italian cancer patients. This may depend on various factors, including cross-cultural ones, but could also be partly related to inadequacies in the process by which the Italian patient is informed, and this should be further investigated.

PURPOSE:To compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB (limited to T4 for pleural effusion and N3 for supraclavicular lymph nodes) or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The end points were the evaluation of quality of life (QoL), response rates, survival, and toxicity.PATIENTS AND METHODS:Three hundred seven patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days, or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3,000 mg/m(2), and mesna on day 1 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days. The whole-blood cell count was repeated on day 1 in both arms and weekly in the GC arm before each gemcitabine administration.RESULTS:No major differences in changes in QoL were observed between the two treatment arms. The objective response rate was 38% in the GC arm compared with 26% in the MIC arm (P =.029). The median survival time was 8.6 months in the GC arm and 9.6 months in the MIC arm (P =.877, log-rank test). Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly worse in the GC arm (64% v 28%, P <.001), whereas grade 3 and 4 alopecia was reported more commonly in the MIC arm (39% v 12%, P <. 001).CONCLUSION:We report an increased response rate without changes in QoL and a similar overall survival, time to progression, and time to treatment failure for the GC when compared with the MIC regimen in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

The aim of this randomised trial was to compare the efficacy of bolus versus continuous infusion cisplatin combined with mitomycin C and vindesine (MVP) for chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB–IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 97 patients (49 given bolus cisplatin—arm A and 48 given continuous infusion cisplatin—arm B) were evaluable for response. In arm A, 2 patients achieved a complete response (CR), 21 achieved a partial response (PR), whilst in arm B, 14 patients achieved a PR (29%) (P=0.07). Median survival was 8 months in both arms. Myelosuppression was the most frequent and severe toxicity, with a higher incidence of grade 3–4 leucopenia in arm A when compared with arm B (44% versus 25%). In conclusion, there is no advantage for a cisplatin 5 day infusion in the MVP regimen.

Purpose A phase II study with ifosfamide in pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer was performed to determine the objective response rate, the toxicity and the feasibility of the regimen. Methods & study design Patients enrolled had advanced breast cancer pretreated with at least one previous regimen of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Treatment consisted of ifosfamide infused at a dose of 2 g/m2 iv in 4 hrs followed by ifosfamide, 8 g/m2 iv in 120 hrs in ambulatory treatment, using a portable external pump system. The total dose of ifosfamide was 10 g/m2; mesna (4 g/m2 iv) was administered mixed with ifosfamide in 120 hrs Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Three patients were pretreated with neoadjuvant and 15 with adjuvant chemotherapy. All patients were treated for advanced disease (median number of regimens, 1; range, 1-3): 21 with the cyclophosphamide-containing regimen and 15 with adryamicin. Sixteen patients received one or more lines of endocrine therapy. Fifteen patients had dominant site in viscera, 6 in bone, and only one in soft tissue; 17 patients had more than one site of disease. Results Twenty-two patients were enrolled and all were assessable for response and toxicity. A partial response was reached in 5 patients (23%; 95% confidence limits 5% to 60%). Hematologic toxicity was the dose-limiting side effect; grade 4 leukopenia occurred in 10 patients (46%). Conclusions Considering the response rate obtained in our series of intensively pretreated patients, the results seem to indicate that the regimen is active and could be included among the possible options in the treatment of patients with refractory, poor-prognosis, advanced breast carcinoma.

The first GROCTA trial compared 5-year tamoxifen treatment to ten chemotherapy cycles in a group of 504 pre-/post-menopausal, node-positive, ER-positive breast cancer patients. This study also included an arm combining tamoxifen with chemotherapy. Fifteen-year results showed no difference between tamoxifen and tamoxifen plus chemotherapy, while both treatments were significantly superior to chemotherapy alone. A confirmatory study (GROCTA 02) was performed in 244 pre-/perimenopausal patients by comparing 5 years of tamoxifen treatment (plus 2 years of goserelin) to six CMF cycles. No difference has emerged so far between the tamoxifen and CMF arms at a median follow-up time of 62 months. Post-menopausal women were scheduled to receive 3 years of tamoxifen treatment and then to be randomly allocated to further 2 years of tamoxifen or to 2 years of low-dose aminoglutethimide (GROCTA 04B). So far 662 patients have been entered, 375 of whom have been randomized to tamoxifen (n = 188) or aminoglutethimide (n = 187). Preliminary results (median follow-up time 32 months) show no major difference in patients' outcome. A new trial (ITA trial) with a similar design but employing anastrozole in place of aminoglutethimide has been activated in 1998. The GROCTA 03 study investigated the potential superiority of alternating adjuvant chemotherapy over standard CMF. This study, which included 107 node-positive ER-negative pre-menopausal women, was prematurely closed because more patients allocated to the triple alternated chemotherapy appeared to have relapsed and died at the first interim analysis. The use of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) was explored by the GROCTA 06 trial which included 53 patients with ten or more involved nodes and a maximum age of 55 years. These patients were scheduled to receive three standard CEF cycles followed by one cycle of HDC (cyclophosphamide 5 g/m2; etoposide 1.5 g/m2; cisplatin 150 mg/m2) without any form of bone marrow rescue. This HDC program proved to be feasible but was not superior to CMF-based chemotherapy we had previously employed in a comparable group of patients in previous GROCTA trials. These findings prompted us to explore new HDC programmes with the use of peripheral stem cell support and in addition the possible value of new drugs such as Taxol and vinorelbine. New-generation trials will also explore the value of new prognostic indicators such as tumor proliferative activity, which are prospectively used to allocate patients to different treatment options.

A multicentric randomized trial was performed in premenopausal women with node-positive, estrogen-receptor-negative breast tumors to assess the potential superiority of alternating adjuvant chemotherapy over 'standard' CMF chemotherapy. Between January 1989 and June 1992, 107 patients were entered into the study and randomly allocated to receive either cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2 per as on days 1-14, methotrexate 40 mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) on days 1, 8 (CMF), every 4 weeks for a total of 6 cycles, or the following regimens: CMF as previously; epidoxorubicin 75 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and vincristine 0.75 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1, 8 (EV); mitomycin-C 10 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and vindesine 2 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1, 8 (MVs). The three regimens were given every 4 weeks for a total of 6 cycles according to the following schedule: CMF, EV, MVs, CMF, EV, MVs. At a median follow up of 48 months (range 30-72), 40 patients have relapsed and 17 have died overall. More patients in the triple-combination arm have relapsed and more have died, the latter difference tending toward statistical significance (p = 0.06). There was no statistical difference in the site of relapse between the two groups. Total duration of adjuvant therapy was similar in the two arms (312 chemotherapy cycles in the triple arm and 308 in the CMF arm). Treatment toxicity was also comparable, although more patients in the triple-combination arm were still regularly menstruating 6 months after the completion of chemotherapy. This study failed to show any advantage ensuing from the use of alternating chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer.

Aims and Background The aim of the study was to assess the activity and the toxicity of cisplatin (DDP) and fluorouracil (FU) administered by continuous infusion as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IV, MO squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Methods Thirty previously untreated patients were submitted to chemotherapy with DDP (20 mg/m 2 ) and FU (1000 mg/m 2 ), both in continuous infusion for 5 days, repeated every 21 days, for a maximum of 5 cycles. Following completion of chemotherapy, the patients underwent radiotherapy; in some patients surgery was performed immediately after chemotherapy. All patients were monitored for response, time to failure, survival, treatment-related events and toxicity. Results All patients were evaluated for response; after chemotherapy the complete response rate was 27% and the partial response rate 33%. Twenty-four patients underwent radiotherapy: the overall response rate was 83% (complete response 79%). After a median follow-up of 34 months, the median survival time was 22 months with a median time to failure of 15 months. Acute vascular accidents were the main and unexpected adverse events, with 2 deaths for pulmonary embolism and 1 for stroke. The response rate to the regimen does not seem to be better than that obtained with the standard combination of cisplatin bolus and fluorouracil continuous infusion. The disadvantage of the regimen is that it causes more discomfort for the patient in that it requires hospitalization. Conclusions For this reason, we believe that there are no elements for recommending the schedule as neoadjuvant treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck or as an experimental arm in a randomized trial.

BACKGROUNDOophorectomy is one of the treatments of choice for premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. However, in recent years LH-RH analogs have replaced surgical castration (or ovarian irradiation) on the basis of the comparable therapeutic activity shown by these drugs in phase II studies. Moreover, the combination of tamoxifen and LH-RH analogs has gained popularity among clinicians attempting to obtain a 'total estrogen blockade' according to the same rationale previously proposed for advanced prostatic cancer. However, it has thus far not been proven that medical castration is as effective as oophorectomy or ovarian irradiation, nor is there enough evidence that tamoxifen could improve the efficacy of ovarian ablation.PATIENTS AND METHODSEighty-five perimenopausal patients with estrogen receptor or unknown positive metastatic breast cancer were randomly allocated to receive one of the following treatments: surgical castration (or ovarian irradiation); goserelin; surgical castration (or ovarian irradiation) plus tamoxifen; goserelin plus tamoxifen. The study was performed according to a 2 x 2 factorial randomised design.RESULTSWhile overall there was no significant difference in the response rates observed after two by two grouping, a trend did favour oophorectomy (or ovarian ablation) with respect to treatment activity. In fact, the best response rate was observed in patients allocated to this treatment (46.6% OR -95% CL: 21.2-72.9) while the lowest rate was observed in patients treated with oophorectomy plus tamoxifen (11.1% OR: CL: -3.4-25.6). Response to goserelin and goserelin plus tamoxifen was 27.2% (+/- 18.6) and 45% (+/- 21.8), respectively. Logistical regression analysis suggested that there might be a different interaction between tamoxifen and goserelin or oophorectomy (ovarian irradiation), respectively. Nevertheless, patient survivals were comparable, irrespective of allocated treatment. This indicates that two by two grouping has some value with respect to treatment efficacy and shows that oophorectomy (or ovarian irradiation) and goserelin have comparable efficacies. Tamoxifen did not improve the efficacy of gonadal ablation, although it did enhance the activity of goserelin treatment.CONCLUSIONSThe results of the present study confirm prospectively that the efficacy of chemical castration is comparable to that of oophorectomy (or ovarian irradiation). The concurrent use of tamoxifen can probably enhance the activity of goserelin, but it also induces more side effects. However, it doesn't appear that 'total estrogen blockade' is more effective than gonadal ablation alone. Indeed, the question of whether chemical and surgical castration have the same effect in breast cancer is still open as is the one concerning the interaction between tamoxifen and gonadal ablation. Both questions should be addressed by prospective studies.

The antiemetic activity of two different high doses and schedules of metoclopramide in dacarbazine-treated cancer patients was compared in a double-blind crossover study. Regimen A consisted of metoclopramide [2 mg/kg x 4 intravenously (i.v.)] plus methylprednisolone (250 mg x 2 i.v.) plus diphenhydramine (50 mg x 2 i.v.). Regimen B consisted of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2 i.v.) plus dexamethasone (20 mg i.v.) and diphenhydramine (50 mg i.v.). Both treatments were administered for the first 2 days of 5-day dacarbazine chemotherapy. Thirty-two patients (13 men and 19 women) affected by melanoma and sarcoma were entered in the study. Complete protection against nausea and vomiting for the first 2 days of chemotherapy in both antiemetic regimens was not significantly different. Patient preference and tolerance of the two antiemetic treatments were similar. Regimen B, employing a lower dosage of metoclopramide and steroids and using a more simple schedule of administration should be the preferred treatment.

504 evaluable node positive oestrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer patients were randomly allocated to receive either 5 years tamoxifen treatment or chemotherapy [six courses of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) followed by 4 courses of epirubicin] or a combination of both treatments. At a median follow-up of 5 years tamoxifen appeared to be more effective than chemotherapy, the difference being highly significant in postmenopausal women. The addition of chemotherapy to tamoxifen was not able to significantly improve the results achieved by tamoxifen alone, irrespective of menopausal status. Trends were similar even after stratification for the number of involved nodes. The protective effect of tamoxifen in terms of reduction of the odds of death increased with time and no rebound phenomena on recurrence or death has occurred so far after the completion of tamoxifen treatment. Overall, the prognostic value of number of involved nodes and of progesterone receptor (PgR) status was confirmed by multivariate analysis. However, the predictive value of PgR was lost in patients receiving tamoxifen alone. Similarly, the degree of ER positivity was not predictive of the response to tamoxifen. Tamoxifen treatment should still be regarded as the gold standard for postmenopausal ER positive patients. In younger women the antioestrogen proved to be safe and at least as effective as chemotherapy. However, the analysis of the annual risks suggests that the concurrent or the sequential use of chemotherapy and tamoxifen might represent a more appropriate treatment for this patient subset, particularly for those with four or more involved nodes. Different cut-offs of ER and PgR assays from those we have arbitrarily employed in the present analysis should probably be used to select more properly the patients who can benefit from endocrine therapy.

The Karnofsky (K) and ECOG (E) performance status (PS) scales are widely used to evaluate the functional status of cancer patients to determine their eligibility for clinical trials and their prognosis, but knowledge of inter and intraobserver variability of these scales is scarse. We therefore planned a prospective study on 209 consecutive cancer patients to evaluate this critical point. Two independent observers evaluated the KPS and EPS of each patient by interviewing them on the same day. After their interviews the patients were asked to fill in, again on the same day, a self-evaluation scale concerning their ability to perform the routine activities of daily life. The 209 patient self-evaluation scales were presented twice, randomly and blinded, to the two observers who had participated in the evaluation of PS as well as to one other observer who had not. The interobserver correlation for both scales was very high (K = 0.921 for KPS and K = 0.914 for EPS) as was the intraobserver correlation (for KPS: K = 0.993, K = 0.960, and K = 0.959 and, respectively, for EPS: K = 0.982, K = 0.970, and K = 0.920). On the basis of these results, it appears that evaluation of PS made by a clinical oncologist using K or E scales can be very reliable and is a guarantee of optimal selection of cancer patients for inclusion in clinical trials.

In a double-blind crossover antiemetic study in cisplatin-treated cancer patients, metoclopramide 4 mg/kg as a single intravenous dose (regimen A) was compared with 3 mg/kg in two doses (regimen B). In both regimens, metoclopramide was combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. 65 consecutive, chemotherapy-naïve inpatients (45 males and 20 females) treated with high doses (at least 50 mg/m2) of cisplatin entered the study and 54 completed both treatments. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea, mean number of emetic episodes, mean maximum intensity of nausea and mean duration of emesis or nausea were similar with the two antiemetic regimens. 23 patients (43%) did not express a treatment preference, while 16 (30%) preferred regimen B and 15 (28%) preferred regimen A. Side-effects were similar with the two metoclopramide schedules. A combined antiemetic regimen of a single high dose of metoclopramide (4 mg/kg) can preserve efficacy and tolerability and thus should be preferred.