Intravenous ibandronate reduces the incidence of skeletal complications in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases

Background: This phase III study compared the efficacy of the new potent bisphosphonate, ibandronate, with placebo as intravenous (i.v.) therapy in metastatic bone disease due to breast cancer. Patients and methods: A total of 466 patients were randomised to receive placebo (n = 158), or 2 mg (n = 154) or 6 mg (n = 154) ibandronate every 3-4 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary efficacy parameter was the number of 12-week periods with new bone complications, expressed as the skeletal morbidity period rate (SMPR). Bone pain, analgesic use and safety were evaluated monthly. Results SMPR was lower in both ibandronate groups compared with the placebo group; the difference was statistically significant for the ibandronate 6 mg group (P = 0.004 versus placebo). Consistent with the SMPR, ibandronate 6 mg significantly reduced the number of new bone events (by 38%) and increased time to first new bone event. Patients on ibandronate 6 mg also experienced decreased bone pain scores and analgesic use. Treatment with ibandronate was well tolerated. Conclusions: These results indicate that 6 mg i.v. ibandronate is effective and safe in the treatment of bone metastases from breast cance

Single-agent gemcitabine versus cisplatin-etoposide: Early results of a randomised phase II study in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Background This randomised study was designed to determine the response rate, survival and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine and cisplatin-etoposide in chemo-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and methods Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 was given as a 30 min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small-cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod PS 0-2; no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases. Results 146 patients were enrolled, 71 patients on gemcitabine and 75 patients on cisplatin-etoposide. Patient characteristics were well matched across both arms. Sixty-six gemcitabine patients and 72 cisplatin-etoposide patients were evaluable. Partial responses were seen in 12 gemcitabine patients (18.2%; 95% CI: 9.8-30) and 11 cisplatin-etoposide patients (15.3%; 95% CI: 7.9-25.7). Early indications show no statistical differences between the two treatments with respect to time to disease progression or survival. Haematological and laboratory toxicity were moderate and manageable. However, hospitalisation because of neutropenic fever was required for 6 (8%) cisplatin-etoposide patients but not for any gemcitabine patients. Non-haematological toxicity was more pronounced with significant differences in nausea and vomiting (grade 3 and 4: 11% gemcitabine vs. 29% cisplatin-etoposide; despite the allowance for 5-HT3 antiemetics during the first cycle of cisplatin-etoposide), and alopecia (grade 3 and 4: 3% gemcitabine vs. 62% cisplatin-etoposide). Conclusions In this randomised study, single-agent gemcitabine was at least as active but better tolerated than the combination cisplatin-etoposid

Single-agent gemcitabine versus cisplatin-etoposide: Early results of a randomised phase II study in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Background This randomised study was designed to determine the response rate, survival and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine and cisplatin-etoposide in chemo-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and methods Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 was given as a 30 min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small-cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod PS 0-2; no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases. Results 146 patients were enrolled, 71 patients on gemcitabine and 75 patients on cisplatin-etoposide. Patient characteristics were well matched across both arms. Sixty-six gemcitabine patients and 72 cisplatin-etoposide patients were evaluable. Partial responses were seen in 12 gemcitabine patients (18.2%; 95% CI: 9.8-30) and 11 cisplatin-etoposide patients (15.3%; 95% CI: 7.9-25.7). Early indications show no statistical differences between the two treatments with respect to time to disease progression or survival. Haematological and laboratory toxicity were moderate and manageable. However, hospitalisation because of neutropenic fever was required for 6 (8%) cisplatin-etoposide patients but not for any gemcitabine patients. Non-haematological toxicity was more pronounced with significant differences in nausea and vomiting (grade 3 and 4: 11% gemcitabine vs. 29% cisplatin-etoposide; despite the allowance for 5-HT3 antiemetics during the first cycle of cisplatin-etoposide), and alopecia (grade 3 and 4: 3% gemcitabine vs. 62% cisplatin-etoposide). Conclusions In this randomised study, single-agent gemcitabine was at least as active but better tolerated than the combination cisplatin-etoposid

Intravenous ibandronate reduces the incidence of skeletal complications in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases.

This phase III study compared the efficacy of the new potent bisphosphonate, ibandronate, with placebo as intravenous (i.v.) therapy in metastatic bone disease due to breast cancer.Clinical TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIIJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Improved quality of life after long-term treatment with the bisphosphonate ibandronate in patients with metastatic bone disease due to breast cancer.

Bone metastases occur in most women with advanced breast cancer and can lead to considerable morbidity and a rapid deterioration in the patient's quality of life. It was the aim of the present study to assess changes in quality of life and bone pain due to intravenous (i.v.) ibandronate, a potent third-generation bisphosphonate. In a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer, 466 women were randomised to receive placebo, 2 mg ibandronate or 6 mg ibandronate for up to 96 weeks. Treatment was administered i.v. at 3- or 4-weekly intervals. Clinical endpoints included the incidence of adverse events, quality of life (assessed using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Scale - Core 30 questionnaire (QLQ-C30)), and bone pain (assessed on a 5-point scale from 0=none to 4=intolerable). Ibandronate was generally well tolerated. Compared with baseline measurements, the bone pain score was increased at the last assessment in both the placebo and 2 mg ibandronate groups, but was significantly reduced in the patients receiving 6 mg ibandronate (-0.28+/-1.11, P < 0.001). A significant improvement in quality of life was demonstrated for patients treated with ibandronate (P < 0.05) for all global health status. Overall, at the last assessment, the 6 mg ibandronate group showed significantly better functioning compared with placebo (P = 0.004), and had significantly better scores on the domains of physical, emotional, and social functioning, and in global health status (P < 0.05). Significant improvements in the symptoms of fatigue and pain were also observed in the 6 mg ibandronate group. I.v. ibandronate treatment leads to significant improvements in quality of life, and is an effective and well-tolerated palliative treatment in patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer.Clinical TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIIJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trialinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe