Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phase I/II trial reveals severe toxicity and no survival benefit from dose-escalated M-VAC in advanced urothelial carcinoma, suggesting limited utility for intensified dosing.
PURPOSE: This multicenter cooperative group phase I/II trial evaluated the toxicity and efficacy of escalated dosages of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (M-VAC) with recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From November 1990 through October 1991, 35 patients with advanced urothelial cancer previously untreated with chemotherapy were treated with escalated dosages of M-VAC (M-VACII). In patients with prior pelvic radiotherapy, standard M-VAC (M-VACI) was administered plus rhG-CSF. For other patients, M-VACII dosages were methotrexate 40 mg/m2 (days 1, 15, and 22), vinblastine 4 mg/m2 (days 2, 15, and 22), doxorubicin 40 mg/m2 (day 2), and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 (day 2). In addition, rhG-CSF was administered at a dosage of 300 micrograms subcutaneously on days 4 to 11. Cycles were repeated every 4 weeks. For patients who tolerated the first course of therapy, subsequent escalation by 25% of all drugs was performed. RESULTS: Six complete responses and 15 partial responses were observed (60%; 95% confidence interval, 42% to 76%). The median duration of response was 4.6 months, and the median survival time was 9.4 months (range, 0.5 to 23.5+). Twenty-eight of 35 patients experienced grade 3 or 4 leukopenia, including 14 patients who developed fever associated with neutropenia. Eight (23%) early deaths were observed. CONCLUSION: This regimen (M-VACII) with escalated dosages of M-VAC was associated with significant toxicity and had no apparent benefit over M-VACI therapy with regard to complete response rate or survival. Further evaluation of the dose-intensity of the components of this regimen in this disease is likely to be of limited benefit to patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Loehrer et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: