Sagopilone (ZK-EPO, ZK 219477) for recurrent glioblastoma. A phase II multicenter trial by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Brain Tumor Group.

Background: Sagopilone (ZK 219477), a lipophylic and synthetic analog of epothilone B, that crosses the blood-brain barrier has demonstrated preclinical activity in glioma models.Patients and methods: Patients with first recurrence/progression of glioblastoma were eligible for this early phase II and pharmacokinetic study exploring single-agent sagopilone (16 mg/m(2) over 3 h every 21 days). Primary end point was a composite of either tumor response or being alive and progression free at 6 months. Overall survival, toxicity and safety and pharmacokinetics were secondary end points.Results: Thirty-eight (evaluable 37) patients were included. Treatment was well tolerated, and neuropathy occurred in 46% patients [mild (grade 1) : 32%]. No objective responses were seen. The progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months was 6.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-18.7], the median PFS was just over 6 weeks, and the median overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI 5.3-12.3), with a 1-year survival rate of 31.6% (95% CI 17.7-46.4). Maximum plasma concentrations were reached at the end of the 3-h infusion, with rapid declines within 30 min after termination.Conclusions: No evidence of relevant clinical antitumor activity against recurrent glioblastoma could be detected. Sagopilone was well tolerated, and moderate-to-severe peripheral neuropathy was observed in despite prolonged administration.

Concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus acceleration of radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (GORTEC 99-02): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant chemoradiotherapy and accelerated radiotherapy independently improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combination of these approaches. METHODS: In our open-label phase 3 randomised trial, we enrolled patients with locally advanced, stage III and IV (non-metastatic) HNSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. We randomly allocated patients centrally with a computer program (with centre, T stage, N stage, and localisation as minimisation factors) in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional chemoradiotherapy (70 Gy in 7 weeks plus three cycles of 4 days' concomitant carboplatin-fluorouracil), accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy (70 Gy in 6 weeks plus two cycles of 5 days' concomitant carboplatin-fluorouracil), or very accelerated radiotherapy alone (64·8 Gy [1·8 Gy twice daily] in 3·5 weeks). The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was assessed in all enrolled patients. This trial is completed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828386. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, 2000, and May 9, 2007, we randomly allocated 279 patients to receive conventional chemoradiotherapy, 280 to accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy, and 281 to very accelerated radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-6·2); rates of chemotherapy and radiotherapy compliance were good in all groups. Accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy offered no PFS benefit compared with conventional chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·84-1·23; p=0·88) or very accelerated radiotherapy (0·83, 0·69-1·01; p=0·060); conventional chemoradiotherapy improved PFS compared with very accelerated radiotherapy (0·82, 0·67-0·99; p=0·041). 3-year PFS was 37·6% (95% CI 32·1-43·4) after conventional chemoradiotherapy, 34·1% (28·7-39·8) after accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy, and 32·2% (27·0-37·9) after very accelerated radiotherapy. More patients in the very accelerated radiotherapy group had RTOG grade 3-4 acute mucosal toxicity (226 [84%] of 268 patients) compared with accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy (205 [76%] of 271 patients) or conventional chemoradiotherapy (180 [69%] of 262; p=0·0001). 158 (60%) of 265 patients in the conventional chemoradiotherapy group, 176 (64%) of 276 patients in the accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy group, and 190 (70%) of 272 patients in the very accelerated radiotherapy group were intubated with feeding tubes during treatment (p=0·045). INTERPRETATION: Chemotherapy has a substantial treatment effect given concomitantly with radiotherapy and acceleration of radiotherapy cannot compensate for the absence of chemotherapy. We noted the most favourable outcomes for conventional chemoradiotherapy, suggesting that acceleration of radiotherapy is probably not beneficial in concomitant chemoradiotherapy schedules. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) of Imatinib: Effectiveness of Bayesian dose adjustment for CML patients enrolled in the Imatinib Concentration Monitoring (I-COME) study

Introduction: As imatinib pharmacokinetics are highly variable, plasma levels differ largely between patients under the same dosage. Retrospective studies in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients showed significant correlations between low levels and suboptimal response, as well as between high levels and poor tolerability. Monitoring of trough plasma levels, targeting 1000 μg/L and above, is thus increasingly advised. Our study was launched to assess prospectively the clinical usefulness of systematic imatinib TDM in CML patients. This preliminary analysis addresses the appropriateness of the dosage adjustment approach applied in this study, which targets the recommended trough level and allows an interval of 4-24 h after last drug intake for blood sampling. Methods: Blood samples from the first 15 patients undergoing 1st TDM were obtained 1.5-25 h after last dose. Imatinib plasma levels were measured by LC-MS/MS and the concentrations were extrapolated to trough based on a Bayesian approach using a population pharmacokinetic model. Trough levels were predicted to differ significantly from the target in 12 patients (10 <750 μg/L; 2 >1500 μg/L along with poor tolerance) and individual dose adjustments were proposed. 8 patients underwent a 2nd TDM cycle. Trough levels of 1st and 2nd TDM were compared, the sample drawn 1.5 h after last dose (during distribution phase) was excluded from the analysis. Results: Individual dose adjustments were applied in 6 patients. Observed concentrations extrapolated to trough ranged from 360 to 1832 μg/L (median 725; mean 810, CV 52%) on 1st TDM and from 720 to 1187 μg/L (median 950; mean 940, CV 18%) on 2nd TDM cycle. Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that TDM of imatinib using a Bayesian interpretation is able to target the recommended trough level of 1000 μg/L and to reduce the considerable differences in trough level exposure between patients (with CV decreasing from 52% to 18%). While this may simplify blood collection in daily practice, as samples do not have to be drawn exactly at trough, the largest possible interval to last drug intake yet remains preferable to avoid sampling during distribution phase leading to biased extrapolation. This encourages the evaluation of the clinical benefit of a routine TDM intervention in CML patients, which the randomized Swiss I-COME trial aims to.

A phase 2 randomized trial of radiotherapy (RT) plus panitumumab compared to chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN): interim pooled safety analysis

Background: Panitumumab (pmab), a fully human monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), is indicated as monotherapy for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This ongoing study is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of pmab in combination with radiotherapy (PRT) compared to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) as initial treatment of unresected, locally advanced SCCHN (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00547157). Methods: This is a phase 2, open-label, randomized, multicenter study. Eligible patients (pts) were randomized 2:3 to receive cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 22 of RT or pmab 9.0 mg/kg on days 1, 22, and 43. Accelerated RT (70 to 72 Gy − delivered over 6 to 6.5 weeks) was planned for all pts and was delivered either by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) modality or by three-dimensional conformal (3D-CRT) modality. The primary endpoint is local-regional control (LRC) rate at 2 years. Key secondary endpoints include PFS, OS, and safety. An external, independent data monitoring committee conducts planned safety and efficacy reviews during the course of the trial. Results: Pooled data from this planned interim safety analysis includes the first 52 of the 150 planned pts; 44 (84.6%) are male; median (range) age is 57 (33−77) years; ECOG PS 0: 65%, PS 1: 35%; 20 (39%) pts received IMRT, and 32 (61%) pts received 3D-CRT. Fifty (96%) pts completed RT, and 50 pts received RT per protocol without a major deviation. The median (range) total RT dose administered was 72 (64−74) Gy. The most common grade _ 3 adverse events graded using the CTCAE version 3.0 are shown (Table). Conclusions: After the interim safety analysis, CONCERT-2 continues per protocol. Study enrollment is estimated to be completed by October 2009.

Assessment of letrozole and tamoxifen alone and in sequence for postmenopausal women with steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: the BIG 1-98 randomised clinical trial at 8·1 years median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer have persistent, long-term risk of breast-cancer recurrence and death. Therefore, trials assessing endocrine therapies for this patient population need extended follow-up. We present an update of efficacy outcomes in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study at 8·1 years median follow-up. METHODS: BIG 1-98 is a randomised, phase 3, double-blind trial of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer that compares 5 years of tamoxifen or letrozole monotherapy, or sequential treatment with 2 years of one of these drugs followed by 3 years of the other. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks, and stratified according to the two-arm or four-arm randomisation option, participating institution, and chemotherapy use. Patients, investigators, data managers, and medical reviewers were masked. The primary efficacy endpoint was disease-free survival (events were invasive breast cancer relapse, second primaries [contralateral breast and non-breast], or death without previous cancer event). Secondary endpoints were overall survival, distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), and breast cancer-free interval (BCFI). The monotherapy comparison included patients randomly assigned to tamoxifen or letrozole for 5 years. In 2005, after a significant disease-free survival benefit was reported for letrozole as compared with tamoxifen, a protocol amendment facilitated the crossover to letrozole of patients who were still receiving tamoxifen alone; Cox models and Kaplan-Meier estimates with inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) are used to account for selective crossover to letrozole of patients (n=619) in the tamoxifen arm. Comparison of sequential treatments to letrozole monotherapy included patients enrolled and randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, or tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. Treatment has ended for all patients and detailed safety results for adverse events that occurred during the 5 years of treatment have been reported elsewhere. Follow-up is continuing for those enrolled in the four-arm option. BIG 1-98 is registered at clinicaltrials.govNCT00004205. FINDINGS: 8010 patients were included in the trial, with a median follow-up of 8·1 years (range 0-12·4). 2459 were randomly assigned to monotherapy with tamoxifen for 5 years and 2463 to monotherapy with letrozole for 5 years. In the four-arm option of the trial, 1546 were randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, 1548 to tamoxifen for 5 years, 1540 to letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, and 1548 to tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. At a median follow-up of 8·7 years from randomisation (range 0-12·4), letrozole monotherapy was significantly better than tamoxifen, whether by IPCW or intention-to-treat analysis (IPCW disease-free survival HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·74-0·92], overall survival HR 0·79 [0·69-0·90], DRFI HR 0·79 [0·68-0·92], BCFI HR 0·80 [0·70-0·92]; intention-to-treat disease-free survival HR 0·86 [0·78-0·96], overall survival HR 0·87 [0·77-0·999], DRFI HR 0·86 [0·74-0·998], BCFI HR 0·86 [0·76-0·98]). At a median follow-up of 8·0 years from randomisation (range 0-11·2) for the comparison of the sequential groups with letrozole monotherapy, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the four endpoints for either sequence. 8-year intention-to-treat estimates (each with SE ≤1·1%) for letrozole monotherapy, letrozole followed by tamoxifen, and tamoxifen followed by letrozole were 78·6%, 77·8%, 77·3% for disease-free survival; 87·5%, 87·7%, 85·9% for overall survival; 89·9%, 88·7%, 88·1% for DRFI; and 86·1%, 85·3%, 84·3% for BCFI. INTERPRETATION: For postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer, a reduction in breast cancer recurrence and mortality is obtained by letrozole monotherapy when compared with tamoxifen montherapy. Sequential treatments involving tamoxifen and letrozole do not improve outcome compared with letrozole monotherapy, but might be useful strategies when considering an individual patient's risk of recurrence and treatment tolerability. FUNDING: Novartis, United States National Cancer Institute, International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Concurrent or Sequential Adjuvant Hormonoradiotherapy after Conservative Surgery for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Clinical Results of the CO-HO-RT Phase II Randomized Trial.

Purpose: Letrozole (LET) has recently been shown to be superior to tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients (pts). In addition, LET radiosensitizes breast cancer cells in vitro. We conducted a phase II randomized study to evaluate concurrent and sequential radiotherapy (RT)-LET in the adjuvant setting. We present here clinical results with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal pts with early-stage breast cancer were randomized after conservative surgery to either: A) concurrent RT-LET (LET started 3 weeks before the first day of RT) or B) sequential RT-LET (LET started 3 weeks after the end of RT). Whole breast RT was delivered to a total dose of 50 Gy. A 10-16 Gy boost was allowed according to age and pathological prognostic factors. Pts were stratified by center, adjuvant chemotherapy, boost, and radiation-induced CD8 apoptosis (RILA). RILA was performed before RT as previously published (Ozsahin et al. Clin Cancer Res, 2005). An independent monitoring committee reviewed individual safety data. Skin toxicities were evaluated by two different clinicians at each medical visit (CTCAE v3.0). Lung CT-scan and functional pulmonary tests were performed regularly. DNA samples were screened for SNPs in candidate genes as recently published (Azria et al., Clin Cancer Res, 2008). Results: A total of 150 pts were randomized between 01/05 and 02/07. Median follow-up is 26 months (range, 3-40 months). No statistical differences were identified between the two arms in terms of mean age; initial TNM; median surgical bed volume; post surgical breast volume. Chemotherapy and RT boost were delivered in 19% and 38% of pts, respectively. Nodes received 50 Gy in 23% of patients without differences between both arms. During RT and within the first 6 weeks after RT, 10 patients (6.7%) presented grade 3 acute skin dermatitis during RT but no differences were observed between both arms (4 and 6 patients in arm A and B, respectively). At 26 month of follow-up, grade 2 and more radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis (RISCF) was present in 4 patients (3%) without any difference between arm A (n = 2) and B (n = 2), p=0.93. In both arms, all patients that presented a RICSF had a RILA lower than 16%. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 39%, respectively.No acute lung toxicities were observed and quality of life was good to excellent for all patients.SNPs analyses are still on-going (Pr Rosenstein, NY). Conclusion: Acute and early late grade 2 dermatitis were similar in both arms. The only factor that influenced RISCF was a low radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis yield. We confirmed prospectively the capacity of RILA for identifying hypersensitive patients to radiation. Indeed, patients with RILA superior to 16% did not present late effects to radiation and confirmed the first prospective trial we published in 2005 (Ozsahin et al., Clin Cancer Res).

90Yttrium-Ibritumomab Tiuxetan Consolidation of First Remission in Advanced-Stage Follicular Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Updated Results After a Median Follow-Up of 7.3 Years From the International, Randomized, Phase III First-Line Indolent Trial.

PURPOSE Updated results are presented after a median follow-up of 7.3 years from the phase III First-Line Indolent Trial of yttrium-90 ((90)Y) -ibritumomab tiuxetan in advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL) in first remission. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with CD20(+) stage III or IV FL with complete response (CR), unconfirmed CR (CRu), or partial response (PR) after first-line induction treatment were randomly assigned to (90)Y-ibritumomab consolidation therapy (rituximab 250 mg/m(2) days -7 and 0, then (90)Y-ibritumomab 14.8 MBq/kg day 0; maximum 1,184 MBq) or no further treatment (control). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from date of random assignment. Results For 409 patients available for analysis ((90)Y-ibritumomab, n = 207; control, n = 202), estimated 8-year overall PFS was 41% with (90)Y-ibritumomab versus 22% for control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; P < .001). For patients in CR/CRu after induction, 8-year PFS with (90)Y-ibritumomab was 48% versus 32% for control (HR, 0.61; P = .008), and for PR patients, it was 33% versus 10% (HR, 0.38; P < .001). For (90)Y-ibritumomab consolidation, median PFS was 4.1 years (v 1.1 years for control; P < .001). Median time to next treatment (TTNT) was 8.1 years for (90)Y-ibritumomab versus 3.0 years for control (P < .001) with approximately 80% response rates to second-line therapy in either arm, including autologous stem-cell transplantation. No unexpected toxicities emerged during long-term follow-up. Estimated between-group 8-year overall survival rates were similar. Annualized incidence rate of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloblastic leukemia was 0.50% versus 0.07% in (90)Y-ibritumomab and control groups, respectively (P = .042). CONCLUSION (90)Y-ibritumomab consolidation after achieving PR or CR/CRu to induction confers 3-year benefit in median PFS with durable 19% PFS advantage at 8 years and improves TTNT by 5.1 years for patients with advanced FL.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Dosimetry of 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan as consolidation of first remission in advanced-stage follicular lymphoma: results from the international phase 3 first-line indolent trial.

The objective of this analysis was to assess the radiation exposure associated with (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan when used as consolidation therapy in adults with low or minimal tumor burden after first-line therapy of advanced follicular lymphoma (FL). METHODS: The patients who were enrolled in the phase 3 first-line indolent trial were 18 y or older, with CD20(+) grade 1 or 2 stage III or IV FL, and a partial response, complete response, or unconfirmed complete response to first-line chemotherapy. The patients were allocated randomly to receive a single infusion of unlabeled rituximab 250 mg/m(2) on day -7 and consolidation on day 0 with a single dose of (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan, 14.8 MBq/kg, immediately after unlabeled rituximab, 250 mg/m(2), or no further treatment. On day -7, a subset of patients received an injection of 185 MBq of (111)In-ibritumomab tiuxetan immediately after unlabeled rituximab, 250 mg/m(2), for central dosimetry analysis. Correlations were assessed between organ radiation absorbed dose and toxicity, body weight, body mass index, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Central dosimetry evaluations were available from 57 of 70 patients. Median radiation absorbed doses were 100 cGy (range, 28-327 cGy) for the red marrow and 72 cGy (range, 46-106 cGy) for the whole body. Radiation absorbed doses did not differ significantly between patients who had a partial response or complete response to initial therapy. Progression-free survival correlated significantly with the whole-body (r = 0.4401; P = 0.0006) and bone marrow (r = 0.2976; P = 0.0246) radiation dose. Body weight was significantly negatively correlated with whole-body radiation dose (r = -0.4971; P < 0.0001). Neither the whole-body radiation dose nor the bone marrow radiation dose correlated with hematologic toxicity. CONCLUSION: In patients with low or minimal residual tumor burden after first-line chemotherapy of advanced FL, whole-body and bone marrow exposure after (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan consolidation showed a significant positive correlation with progression-free survival, whereas dosimetric data could not predict hematologic toxicity.

Randomised trial of oral versus sequential intravenous/oral cephalosporins in children with pyelonephritis.

The hypothesis was tested that oral antibiotic treatment in children with acute pyelonephritis and scintigraphy-documented lesions is equally as efficacious as sequential intravenous/oral therapy with respect to the incidence of renal scarring. A randomised multi-centre trial was conducted in 365 children aged 6 months to 16 years with bacterial growth in cultures from urine collected by catheter. The children were assigned to receive either oral ceftibuten (9 mg/kg once daily) for 14 days or intravenous ceftriaxone (50 mg/kg once daily) for 3 days followed by oral ceftibuten for 11 days. Only patients with lesions detected on acute-phase dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scintigraphy underwent follow-up scintigraphy. Efficacy was evaluated by the rate of renal scarring after 6 months on follow-up scintigraphy. Of 219 children with lesions on acute-phase scintigraphy, 152 completed the study; 80 (72 females, median age 2.2 years) were given ceftibuten and 72 (62 females, median age 1.6 years) were given ceftriaxone/ceftibuten. Patients in the intravenous/oral group had significantly higher C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations at baseline and larger lesion(s) on acute-phase scintigraphy. Follow-up scintigraphy showed renal scarring in 21/80 children treated with ceftibuten and 33/72 with ceftriaxone/ceftibuten (p = 0.01). However, after adjustment for the confounding variables (CRP and size of acute-phase lesion), no significant difference was observed for renal scarring between the two groups (p = 0.2). Renal scarring correlated with the extent of the acute-phase lesion (r = 0.60, p < 0.0001) and the grade of vesico-ureteric reflux (r = 0.31, p = 0.03), and was more frequent in refluxing renal units (p = 0.04). The majority of patients, i.e. 44 in the oral group and 47 in the intravenous/oral group, were managed as out-patients. Side effects were not observed. From this study, we can conclude that once-daily oral ceftibuten for 14 days yielded comparable results to sequential ceftriaxone/ceftibuten treatment in children aged 6 months to 16 years with DMSA-documented acute pyelonephritis and it allowed out-patient management in the majority of these children.

Phase III study of ACVBP versus ACVBP plus rituximab for patients with localized low-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (LNH03-1B).

Background The superiority of a chemotherapy with doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin and prednisone (ACVBP) in comparison with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristin and prednisone plus radiotherapy for young patients with localized diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was previously demonstrated. We report the results of a trial which evaluates the role of rituximab combined with ACVBP (R-ACVBP) in these patients. Patients and methods Untreated patients younger than 66 years with stage I or II DLBCL and no adverse prognostic factors of the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of ACVBP plus sequential consolidation with or without the addition of four infusions of rituximab. Results A total of 223 patients were randomly allocated to the study, 110 in the R-ACVBP group and 113 in the ACVBP group. After a median follow-up of 43 months, our 3-year estimate of event-free survival was 93% in the R-ACVBP group and 82% in the ACVBP group (P = 0.0487). Three-year estimate of progression-free survival was increased in the R-ACVBP group (95% versus 83%, P = 0.0205). Overall survival did not differ between the two groups with a 3-year estimates of 98% and 97%, respectively (P = 0.686). Conclusion In young patients with low-risk localized DLBCL, rituximab combined with three cycles of ACVBP plus consolidation is significantly superior to ACVBP plus consolidation alone.

Mitomycin C with continuous fluorouracil or with cisplatin in combination with radiotherapy for locally advanced anal cancer (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase II study 22011-40014).

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and activity of radio-chemotherapy with mitomycin C (MMC) and cisplatin (CDDP) in locally advanced squamous cell anal carcinoma with reference to radiotherapy (RT) combined with MMC and fluorouracil (5-FU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease >4 cmN0 or N+ received RT (36Gy+2 week gap+23.4Gy) with either MMC/CDDP or MMC/5-FU (MMC 10mg/m(2) d1 of each sequence; 5-FU 200mg/m(2)/day c.i.v. daily; CDDP 25mg/m(2) weekly). Forty patients/arm were needed to exclude a RECIST objective response rate (ORR), 8 weeks after treatment, of <75% (Fleming 1, alpha=10%, beta=10%). RESULTS: The ORR was 79.5% (31/39) (lower bound confidence interval [CI]: 68.8%) with MMC/5-FU versus 91.9% (34/ 37) (lower bound CI: 82.8%) with MMC/CDDP. In the MMC/5-FU group, two patients (5.1%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity versus 11 (29.7%) in the MMC/CDDP group. Nine grade 3 haematological events occurred with MMC/CDDP versus none with 5-FU/MMC. The rate of other toxicities did not differ. There was no toxic death. Thirty-one patients in the MMC/5-FU arm (79.5%) and 18 in the MMC/CDDP arm (48.6%) were fully compliant with the protocol treatment (p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Radio-chemotherapy with MMC/CDDP seems promising as only MMC/CDDP demonstrated enough activity (RECIST ORR >75%) to be tested further in phase III trials; MMC/5-FU did not. MMC/CDDP also had an overall acceptable toxicity profile.