This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Siefker-Radtke, A. O. Articles by Logothetis, C. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Siefker-Radtke, A. O. Articles by Logothetis, C. J. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Phase III Trial of Fluorouracil, Interferon Alfa-2b, and Cisplatin Versus Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin in Metastatic or Unresectable Urothelial Cancer

From the Center for Genitourinary Oncology and Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, and Cancer Center of Kansas/Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS.

Address reprints requests to Randall E. Millikan, MD, Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Box 427, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030-4009; email: rmillika{at}notes.mdacc.tmc.edu

PURPOSE: Previously, we developed a novel biochemotherapy regimen combining interferon alfa-2b with fluorouracil and cisplatin (FAP). We now report the results of a prospective randomized trial comparing FAP with methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (M-VAC), the standard chemotherapy regimen for locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the response rates and overall survival of patients with metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer treated with these two chemotherapy regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1992 and September 1999, 172 previously untreated patients were registered and randomly assigned to treatment with either FAP or M-VAC. Patients were followed until their death.

RESULTS: The pretreatment clinical characteristics of the groups were similar except for sex (P < .01). Sex did not affect prognosis or survival. The objective response rate for patients assigned to FAP was 42% (35 of 83 patients), with complete response observed in eight (10%) of 83 patients. Among the patients assigned to M-VAC, 51 (59%) of 86 had an objective response, with complete response observed in 21 (24%) of 86. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of median survival was 12.5 months for both groups. Both regimens were quite toxic, with more mucocutaneous toxicity in the FAP arm and more myelosuppression in the M-VAC arm.

CONCLUSION: Although overall survival was not significantly different, patients assigned to M-VAC had a much better chance of responding to front-line therapy. Thus, FAP is very likely to be inferior to M-VAC and is certainly no less toxic. FAP cannot be recommended as part of the standard armamentarium for urothelial cancer.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Bajorin The Phase III Candidate: Can We Improve the Science of Selection? J. Clin. Oncol., January 15, 2004; 22(2): 211 - 213. [Full Text] [PDF]