No abstract

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of the liposome‐encapsulated doxorubicin, TLC D‐99 (Myocet, Elan Pharmaceuticals, Princeton, NJ), and conventional doxorubicin in first‐line treatment of metastatic breast carcinoma (MBC). METHODS Two hundred twenty‐four patients with MBC and no prior therapy for metastatic disease were randomized to receive either TLC D‐99 (75 mg/m2) or doxorubicin (75 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary efficacy endpoint was response rate. Responses were assessed using World Health Organization criteria and were required to be of at least 6 weeks' duration. The primary safety endpoint was cardiotoxicity. Cardiac function was monitored by multiple‐gated radionuclide cardioangiography scan, and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was scored at a central laboratory. Patients were removed from study if LVEF declined 20 or more EF units from baseline to a final value of greater than or equal to 50%, or by 10 or more units to a final value of less than 50%, or onset of clinical congestive heart failure (CHF). RESULTS Median age was 54 years in both treatment groups. All relevant prog nostic factors were balanced, with the exception that there were significantly more progesterone receptor positive patients in the doxorubicin‐treated group. Protocol‐defined cardiotoxicity was observed in 13% of TLC D‐99 patients (including 2 cases of CHF) compared to 29% of doxorubicin patients (including 9 cases of CHF). Median cumulative doxorubicin dose at onset of cardiotoxicity was 785 mg/m2 for TLC D‐99 versus 570 mg/m2 for doxorubicin (P = 0.0001; hazard ratio, 3.56). The overall response rate was 26% in both treatment groups. The median TTP was 2.9 months on TLC D‐99 versus 3.1 months on doxorubicin. Median survival was 16 versus 20 months with a nonsignificant trend in favor of doxorubicin (P = 0.09). Clinical toxicities, commonly associated with doxorubicin, appeared less common with TLC D‐99, although the difference was not statistically significant. There was only one report of palmar‐plantar erythrodysesthesia (Grade 2) with this liposomal formulation of doxorubicin. CONCLUSIONS Single‐agent TLC D‐99 produces less cardiotoxicity than doxorubicin, while providing comparable antitumor activity. Cancer 2002;94:25–36. © 2002 American Cancer Society.

No abstract

BACKGROUND We examined the efficacy of olanzapine for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS In a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we compared olanzapine with placebo, in combination with dexamethasone, aprepitant or fosaprepitant, and a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3–receptor antagonist, in patients with no previous chemotherapy who were receiving cisplatin (≥70 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or cyclophosphamide–doxorubicin. The doses of the three concomitant drugs administered before and after chemotherapy were similar in the two groups. The two groups received either 10 mg of olanzapine orally or matching placebo daily on days 1 through 4. Nausea prevention was the primary end point; a complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue medication) was a secondary end point. RESULTS In the analysis, we included 380 patients who could be evaluated (192 assigned to olanzapine, and 188 to placebo). The proportion of patients with no chemotherapy-induced nausea was significantly greater with olanzapine than with placebo in the first 24 hours after chemotherapy (74% vs. 45%, P = 0.002), the period from 25 to 120 hours after chemotherapy (42% vs. 25%, P = 0.002), and the overall 120-hour period (37% vs. 22%, P = 0.002). The complete-response rate was also significantly increased with olanzapine during the three periods: 86% versus 65% (P<0.001), 67% versus 52% (P = 0.007), and 64% versus 41% (P<0.001), respectively. Although there were no grade 5 toxic effects, some patients receiving olanzapine had increased sedation (severe in 5%) on day 2. CONCLUSIONS Olanzapine, as compared with placebo, significantly improved nausea prevention, as well as the complete-response rate, among previously untreated patients who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02116530.)

The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist L-754,030 prevents delayed emesis after treatment with cisplatin. Moreover, combining L-754,030 with granisetron plus dexamethasone improves the prevention of acute emesis.