Fractionated cyclophosphamide and etoposide for children with advanced or refractory solid tumors: a phase II window study

The role of chemotherapy for metastatic, relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma

Despite a large number of publications on outcomes of second-line chemotherapy for osteosarcoma, there is little consensus on efficacy of the therapy.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to systematically categorize published evidence for chemotherapy for metastatic, relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma in order to provide an updated and comprehensive analysis of the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a search of PubMed and EMBASE to identify published articles reporting on validated clinical outcomes measures (the rate of complete response [CR] and partial response [PR], the rate of stable disease [SD] and progressive disease [PD] and the 5-year overall survival) after chemotherapy in patients with metastatic, relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma. A total of 20 articles were identified and stratified by different regimens. Finally, six regimens that have at least two drugs were reviewed. Weighted averages of each outcome were computed.

RESULTS

The weighted average overall response rate (CR + PR) for the combination of ifosfamide, etoposide and high-dose methotrexate therapy was 62 %, and the tumor control rate (CR + PR + SD) was 92.3 %; the highest of all six regimens. The weighted average overall response rate and tumor control rate of ifosfamide-etoposide therapy (41.7 and 77.9 %, respectively) were the highest of the two-drug regimens. Weighted average overall response rate and tumor control rate for the remaining regimens were 20.5 and 56.8 %, respectively, for cyclophosphamide-etoposide; 30.0 and 73.5 % for ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide; 12.0 and 40.0 % for cyclophosphamide-topotecan; and 14.5 and 36.4 % for gemcitabine-docetaxel.

CONCLUSION

A chemotherapy regimen comprising both a cell cycle-specific drug and a cell cycle-nonspecific drug could increase response rates. The combination of ifosfamide and etoposide therapy is our first choice in two-drug regimens. Regarding three-drug regimens, adding a cell cycle-specific drug to ifosfamide-etoposide therapy may result in a better response rate than adding a cell cycle-nonspecific drug, or any other two-drug regimens in current studies. Hence, we recommend the use of second-line chemotherapy based on the combination ifosfamide-etoposide regimen in patients with metastatic, relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma.

Phase 2 trial of two courses of cyclophosphamide and etoposide for relapsed high-risk osteosarcoma patients

BACKGROUND

A phase 2 trial was carried out to assess the antineoplastic activity of 2 courses of cyclophosphamide-etoposide in relapsed osteosarcoma patients.

METHODS

Twenty-six relapsed osteosarcoma patients with a median age of 18.5 years (8.3-47.1) were enrolled. Seven patients were in first relapse (27%), 11 in second relapse (42%), 7 in third relapse (27%), and 1 in fourth relapse (4%). Eighteen patients had bone metastasis at study entry (69%). Cyclophosphamide was given at 4 g/m(2) on Day 1 followed by etoposide at 200 mg/m(2) on Days 2, 3, and 4. Second cyclophosphamide and etoposide was planned at 21 days to 28 days from the previous one. The primary endpoint of the study was the clinical benefit at 4 months measured as progression-free survival.

RESULTS

Progression-free survival at 4 months was 42%. Five patients achieved responses (19%), 9 patients had stable disease (35%), and 12 had tumor progression (46%). Overall survival (OS) at 1 year was 50%. The only grade 4 extrahematological toxicities were fever (5%), acute bronchospasm (4%) and stomatitis (18%). Six patients (23%) underwent radical surgery after cyclophosphamide and etoposide x2.

CONCLUSIONS

Cyclophosphamide and etoposide x2 may arrest osteosarcoma progression in a significant number of patients (54%). Osteosarcoma progression arrest after cyclophosphamide and etoposide x2 translates in a better OS. Cyclophosphamide and etoposide x2 had good tolerability and the toxicity was time-limited and resolved in all cases.

One- and two-stage designs for phase II window studies

The primary goal of phase II window studies in cancer is testing new single agents or combination therapies for newly diagnosed patients who are less likely to have multiple-drug-resistant tumours than the typical phase II patients who have failed one or more chemotherapeutic regimens. In addition, by utilizing newly diagnosed patients, one can assess the responsiveness in a population more representative of where the phase II agent might be applied in a true phase III setting. In general, the outcome of a patient on a phase II window study can be categorized as response, stable disease, or early disease progression. Phase II window studies sometimes require early stopping rules for both insufficient response rate and excessive early progression rates. In this paper, one-stage and two-stage designs for phase II window studies are developed, requiring the monitoring of two rates. It is shown that the power function is monotone in response rate and early disease progression rate. Consequently, the significance level and power are easy to compute. Computational procedures are described and examples are provided. The proposed method can be applied to other studies with categorical outcomes.

Pooled analysis of phase II window studies in children with contemporary high-risk metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group

PURPOSE

The Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group has conducted five upfront window trials in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma to identify promising new treatment agents.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This pooled analysis identified a total of 420 patients (115 from Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study III [IRS-III] and 305 from the five window trials). We assessed window therapy response rate, failure-free survival (FFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Response rates (complete + partial response) assessed at week 6 of window therapy ranged from 41% to 55% and did not predict FFS (P = .073) or OS (P = .31). FFS was influenced by trial (P = .048); patients enrolled onto IRS-III and the ifosfamide/etoposide and ifosfamide/doxorubicin trials fared best. When grouped and compared with topoisomerase I poison trials, ifosfamide/topoisomerase II inhibitor trials had superior FFS (P = .013). However, there was no difference in survival.

CONCLUSION

Upfront phase II window trials can efficiently provide robust estimates of activity for new agents and combinations in newly diagnosed patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. Our data indicate that, for some phase II window trials, the risk of treatment failure may be increased but that the trend towards lower survival for some of the window trials compared with IRS-III is not statistically significant. Window nonresponders did not suffer worse FFS or OS than patients who responded to window therapy. Finally, these results provide a rationale for incorporating ifosfamide, etoposide, doxorubicin, and topoisomerase I poisons in future trials of high-risk metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma.

Hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide with high-doses of arabinosylcytosine and methotrexate (HyperCHiDAM Verona 897)

BACKGROUND

Patients who have aggressive, refractory or recurrent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) that are refractory to first-line anthracycline-containing regimens (ACRs) have a dismal outcome. Achieving complete remission (CR) is essential for a favorable outcome. To improve the CR rate in these patients, the authors designed a new protocol that contained hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide (CTX), high-dose arabinosylcytosine (HiDAC), and high-dose methotrexate (MTX) delivered sequentially in the same cycle and followed by the administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) (HyperCHiDAM Verona 897).

METHODS

Between February 1998 and May 2002, 28 consecutive adult patients (median age, 44 years) with aggressive NHL (B-lineage in 21%, T-lineage in 7%, and Ki-67 percentage > 50 in 82%) were entered on the protocol after they had failed on ACRs (15 patients with refractory disease, 6 patients with stable disease, 5 patients with recurrent disease, and 2 patients in partial remission). Patients characteristics were as follows: Twenty-two patients had Stage III-IV NHL (78.6%), 19 patients had B symptoms (67.8%), 22 patients had extranodal disease (78.6%), 12 patients had bulky mass (42.8%), 18 patients elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels (66%), and 8 patients had high-intermediate/high International Prognostic Index scores (64.3%). Patients received hyperfractionated CTX (300 mg/m(2)) and HiDAC (2 g/m(2)) every 12 hours on Days 2-4 and received high-dose MTX (400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 1600 mg/m(2) as a 24-hour continuous infusion on Day 1 with folinic rescue), followed by G-CSF. Subsequently, 15 patients underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT), and 4 patients underwent allogeneic SCT.

RESULTS

A CR was achieved by 18 of 28 patients (64.3%), a partial remission was achieved by 6 patients (21.4%), 4 patients were nonresponders or had progressive disease (14.3%), and there was 1 early toxic death (3.5%). Two of 18 patients developed recurrent disease (11.1%). The median follow-up for all patients was 35 months (range, from 2 months to > or = 74 months). Among the patients who achieved a continuous CR, the median follow-up was 48 months (range, from > or = 32 months to > or = 73 months). At the time of the current report, 13 of 28 patients (46.42%) were event-free.

CONCLUSIONS

HyperCHiDAM Verona 897 was an effective regimen for patients with aggressive NHL who failed on ACRs, and it allowed patients to undergo subsequent SCT.

Treatment of refractory osteosarcoma with fractionated cyclophosphamide and etoposide

PURPOSE

Standard multiagent chemotherapy for osteosarcoma may include platinum compounds, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate. By identifying new chemotherapeutic strategies, the outcome of these patients can be improved and the toxicity of treatment regimens decreased.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The authors evaluated the activity of the combination of cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2 per day for 5 days) and etoposide (100 mg/m2 per day for 5 days) given with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to children with osteosarcoma unresponsive to conventional treatment.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients with refractory osteosarcoma were treated with this combination. Twelve patients had been previously treated with a multiagent regimen that included carboplatin, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and doxorubicin. Seven of 11 evaluable patients had a poor histologic response in their primary tumor at the time of definitive surgery (Huvos grade 1 or 2). Sites of relapse included lung, bone, and brain. A total of 47 courses were given. An overall response rate of 28.5% was achieved. A complete response was obtained in one patient (7.1%), a partial response was obtained in three patients (21.4%), and stable disease for 1 to 4 months was achieved in five patients (35.7%). Five patients (35.7%) had progressive disease. Grade 4 neutropenia was the primary form of toxicity observed; the median duration of absolute neurophil count less than 500/microL was 4 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of cyclophosphamide and etoposide resulted in a response rate of 28.5% in patients with refractory or relapsed osteosarcoma, and its incorporation into front-line therapies deserves further evaluation.