A phase I/II study of gemcitabine and fractionated cisplatin in an outpatient setting using a 21-day schedule in patients with advanced and metastatic bladder cancer

A randomised phase III trial of MVAC (methotrexate, vincristine, doxorubicin, cisplatin) vs gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) (G 1000 mg m(-2) days 1, 8, and 15 plus C 70 mg m(-2) day 2, q 4 wks) indicated GC had similar efficacy and lower toxicity (JCO 2000). Significant haematologic toxicities in the GC arm occurred on day 15, necessitating dose adjustments in 37% of cycles. We conducted a phase I/II dose escalation trial using GC on a 21-day cycle, with G and C split between days 1 and 8. The objective of the study to define maximum-tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), objective response rate, and overall survival. In all, 32 patients with locally advanced, relapsed, or metastatic disease received: dose level 1, G/C 1000/35; level 2, 1100/35; level 3, 1200/35; level 4, 1200/45 mg m(-2) (G and C given on days 1 and 8 every 3 wks). A total of 19 patients had glomerular filtration rate <60 ml min(-1) and 19 patients had metastatic disease. Dose-limiting toxicity was haematologic (grade 4 thrombocytopenia) at dose level 2. Of 151 cycles, at day 15, platelets were <100 in 61 cycles; neutrophils <0.5, platelets <50 in 26 cycles. Only seven cycles were deferred due to haematological toxicity; four for renal toxicity (chemotherapy instituted posthydration). Overall response rate was 65.5% on an intention-to-treat analysis (75% [21/28] for assessable patients), with four complete responses (12.5%) and 17 partial responses (53%). After the median follow-up of 17.2 months (range 13.1-32.4 months), 12 patients remain alive. The overall median survival was 16 months (range 10.1-26.6 months). G plus C every 3 weeks is active and well tolerated in an outpatient setting, even in patients receiving prior platinum-based regimens and with poor renal reserve

Phase II study of second-line therapy with DTIC, BCNU, cisplatin and tamoxifen (Dartmouth regimen) chemotherapy in patients with malignant melanoma previously treated with dacarbazine

This study assessed response rates to combination dacarbazine (DTIC), BCNU (carmustine), cisplatin and tamoxifen (DBPT) chemotherapy in patients with progressive metastatic melanoma previously treated with DTIC, as an evaluation of DBPT as a second-line regimen, and as an indirect comparison of DBPT with DTIC. Thirty-five consecutive patients received DBPT. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised 17 patients with progressive disease (PD) on DTIC + tamoxifen therapy who were switched directly to DBPT. Group 2 comprised 18 patients not immediately switched to DBPT and included patients who had either a partial response (PR; one patient) or developed stable disease (SD; four patients) with DTIC, or received adjuvant DTIC (nine patients). All except four patients had received tamoxifen at the time of initial DTIC treatment. Median times since stopping DTIC were 22 days (range 20–41) and 285 days (range 50–1240) in Groups 1 and 2 respectively. In Group 1, one patient developed SD for 5 months and the remainder had PD. In Group 2, there were two PRs, four patients with SD (4, 5, 6, and 6 months), and 11 with PD. These results indicate that the DBPT regimen is not of value in melanoma primarily refractory to DTIC. There were responses in patients not directly switched from DTIC to DBPT, suggesting combination therapy may be of value in a small subgroup of melanoma patients. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig

Phase II multicentre study of docetaxel plus cisplatin in patients with advanced urothelial cancer

A multicentre phase II trial was undertaken to evaluate the activity and toxicity of docetaxel plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients with urothelial cancer. Thirty-eight patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma of the bladder, renal pelvis or ureter received the combination of docetaxel 75 mg m−2 and cisplatin 75 mg m−2 on day 1 and repeated every 21 days, to a maximum of six cycles. The median delivered dose-intensity was 98% (range 79–102%) of the planned dose for both drugs. There were seven complete responses and 15 partial responses, for and overall response rate of 58% (95% CI, 41–74%). Responses were even seen in three patients with hepatic metastases. The median time to progression was 6.9 months, and the median overall survival was 10.4 months. Two patients who achieved CR status remain free of disease at 4 and 3 years respectively. Grade 3–4 granulocytopenia occurred in 27 patients, resulting in five episodes of febrile neutropenia. There was one toxic death in a patient with grade 4 granulocytopenia who developed acute abdomen. Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia was rare (one patient). Other grade 3–4 toxicities observed were anaemia (three patients), vomiting (five patients), diarrhoea (four patients), peripheral neuropathy (two patients) and non-neutropenic infections (seven patients). Docetaxel plus cisplatin is an effective and well-tolerated regimen for the treatment of advanced urothelial cancer, and warrants further investigation

Gemcitabine and docetaxel as first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma: a phase II study

The purpose of the study was to investigate the toxicity and efficacy of the combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel in untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. Patients with previously untreated, locally advanced/recurrent or metastatic urothelial carcinoma stage-IV disease were eligible. Patients with Performance status: PS ECOG >3 or age >75 years or creatinine clearance <50 ml min−1 were excluded. Study treatment consisted of docetaxel 75 mg m−2 (day 8) and gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 (days 1+8), every 21 days for a total of six to nine cycles. A total of 31 patients with urothelial bladder cancer, 25 men and six women, aged 42–74 (median 64) years were enrolled. The majority of patients had a good PS (51.6%; PS 0). In all, 15 (48.3%) patients had locally advanced or recurrent disease only and 16 (54.8%) presented with distant metastatic spread, with multiple site involvement in 22.5%. Toxicity was primarily haematologic, and the most frequent grade 3–4 toxicities were anaemia 11 (6.7%) thrombocytopenia eight (4.9%), and neutropenia 45 (27.6%), with 10 (6.1%) episodes of febrile neutropenia. No toxic deaths occurred. A number of patients had some cardiovascular morbidity (38.7%). Nonhaematological toxicities except alopecia (29 patients) were mild. Overall response rate was 51.6%, including four complete responses (12.9%) and 12 partial responses (38.7%), while a further five patients had disease stabilisation (s.d. 16.1%). The median time to progression was 8 months (95% CI 5.1–9.2 months) and the median overall survival was 15 months (95% CI 11.2–18.5 months), with 1-year survival rate of 60%. In conclusion, this schedule of gemcitabine and docetaxel is very active and well tolerated as a first-line treatment for advanced/relapsing or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Although its relative efficacy and tolerance as compared to classic MVAC should be assessed in a phase III setting, the favourable toxicity profile of this regimen may offer an interesting alternative, particularly in patients with compromised renal function or cardiovascular disease

Use of low-dose combined therapy with gemcitabine and paclitaxel for advanced urothelial cancer patients with resistance to cisplatin-containing therapy: a retrospective analysis

Purpose The prognosis of patients with advanced and recurrent urothelial cancer (UC) is poor. Although cisplatin (CDDP)-containing chemotherapy is the most effective regimen in these patients, there is no other established chemotherapeutic regimen. We administered combination therapy with low-dose gemcitabine (GEM) and paclitaxel (PTX), named low-dose gemcitabine-paclitaxel (LD-GP) therapy, as salvage therapy for these patients. The aim was to evaluate the anti-tumoral effects, relief of pain, and toxicity of LD-GP therapy in patients with resistance to CDDP-containing therapy. Patients and methods Thirty-five patients with advanced UC, previously treated with CDDP-containing regimens, were treated with LD-GP therapy (GEM, 700 mg/m 2 + PTX, 70 mg/m 2 on day 1 and 8, repeated every 28 days). Pain was measured on a visual analog scale before and after treatment. Pain relief and survival were compared between this and other treatment regimens. Results None of the patients had complete response to LD-GP therapy. Partial response and stable disease were seen in 25.7 and 62.9 % of patients, respectively. Kaplan- Meier curves showed better survival in patients with LDGP therapy than with others (p = 0.034). Twenty-eight patients (80.0 %) had adequate pain relief, and only two patients needed to increase their analgesics. Other regimens demonstrated pain relief in 30.4 % of patients. Common toxicities included leukopenia, with five patients requiring granular colony-stimulating factor therapy (14.3 %). The most common non-hematologic toxicity was fatigue (n = 7, 17.1 %). Conclusions LD-GP therapy is feasible and well tolerated as salvage therapy in patients with advanced UC with resistance to CDDP-containing therapy

Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research. Methods We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis. Results We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented. Conclusions Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes