|
|
|
|
|
These are 3 examples of clinical trials that have changed practice. It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to conduct these studies under the future legislation. If the drugs used in these studies (all of them being marketed for other indications) had to be provided by the researchers the studies would not have been possible. If the set of conditions required by the new legislation would have applied (disregarding the drug supply issue) at least one and probably two of these trials would not have been conducted. These studies have been selected because they illustrate three different situations (improvement in quality of life, reduction of costs and improvement in survival) where academic clinical research has made a substantial contribution to improvement in health care. There are plenty of such examples across all disciplines of medicine.
Larynx preservation in pyriform sinus cancer: preliminary results of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial. EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Cooperative Group. (EORTC 24891)
Summary
This study has demonstrated the benefit of administering a neo-adjuvant chemotherapy to reduce the tumor burden before surgery and enable the preservation of the larynx during the surgery without compromising the long term survival of patients. Since this trial was published, patients operated can keep their natural voice instead of having to speak with artificial means.
Abstract
Lefebvre JL, Chevalier D, Luboinski B, Kirkpatrick A, Collette L, Sahmoud T.
Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.
BACKGROUND: As a general rule, surgery whenever possible, followed by irradiation is considered to be the standard treatment for cancer of the hypopharynx, thus sacrificing natural speech. In most patients, surgery includes removal of the larynx. PURPOSE: A prospective, randomized phase III study was conducted by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) starting in 1990 to compare a larynx-preserving treatment (induction chemotherapy plus definitive, radiation therapy in patients who showed a complete response or surgery in those who did not respond) with conventional treatment (total laryngectomy with partial pharyngectomy, radical neck dissection, and postoperative irradiation) in previously untreated and operable patients with histologically proven squamous cell carcinomas of the pyriform sinus or aryepiglottic fold, but free of other cancers. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: 1) immediate surgery with postoperative radiotherapy (50-70 Gy) or 2) induction chemotherapy (cisplatin [100 mg/m2] given as a bolus intravenous injection on day 1, followed by infusion of fluorouracil [1000 mg/m2 per day] on days 1-5). An endoscopic evaluation was performed after each cycle of chemotherapy. After two cycles, only partial and complete responders received a third cycle. Patients with a complete response after two or three cycles of chemotherapy were treated thereafter by irradiation (70 Gy); nonresponding patients underwent conventional surgery with postoperative radiation (50-70 Gy). Salvage surgery was also performed when patients relapsed after chemotherapy and irradiation. The trial was designed to test the equivalence of the two treatment arms; i.e., the induction chemotherapy treatment would be judged equivalent to immediate surgery if the relative risk of death for induction chemotherapy compared with immediate surgery was significantly less than 1.43 using a one-sided hypothesis test at the .05 level of significance. RESULTS: Two hundred two patients entered the trial and were randomly assigned; only 194 were eligible for treatment (94 in the immediate-surgery arm and 100 in the induction-chemotherapy arm). In the induction-chemotherapy arm, complete response was seen in 52 (54%) of 97 patients with local disease (primary tumor) and in 31 (51%) of 61 patients with regional disease (involvement of the neck). Treatment failures at local, regional, and second primary sites occurred at approximately the same frequencies in the immediate-surgery arm (12%, 19%, and 16%, respectively) and in the induction-chemotherapy arm (17%, 23%, and 13%, respectively). In contrast, there were fewer failures at distant sites in the induction-chemotherapy arm than in the immediate-surgery arm (25% versus 36%, respectively; P = .041). The median duration of survival was 25 months in the immediate-surgery arm and 44 months in the induction-chemotherapy arm and, since the observed hazard ratio was 0.86 (logrank test, P = .006), which was significantly less than 1.43, the two treatments were judged to be equivalent. The 3- and 5-year estimates of retaining a functional larynx in patients treated in the induction-chemotherapy arm were 42% (95% confidence interval = 31%-53%) and 35% (95% confidence interval = 22%-48%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Larynx preservation without jeopardizing survival appears feasible in patients with cancer of the hypopharynx. On the basis of these observations, the EORTC has now accepted the use of induction chemotherapy followed by radiation as the new standard treatment in its future phase III larynx preservation trials.
Reference
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996 Jul 3;88(13):890-9.
ANNEX 1B
Randomised trial of two regimens of chemotherapy in operable osteosarcoma: a study of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup. (EORTC 80861)
Summary
This trial has demonstrated that the administration of a 2 drugs regimen as opposed to a complex 10 drugs regimen (which was the standard treatment) was shorter in duration, better tolerated and as efficacious in patients suffering from Osteosarcoma.
Beyond the clear benefit for the patients, this trial also illustrates the possible economical impact academic trials may have for the society. For obvious reasons, no pharmaceutical company will ever support such initiative.
Abstract
Souhami RL, Craft AW, Van der Eijken JW, Nooij M, Spooner D, Bramwell VH, Wierzbicki R, Malcolm AJ, Kirkpatrick A, Uscinska BM, Van Glabbeke M, Machin D.
University College London Medical School, UK.
BACKGROUND: A previous trial by the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup (EOI) suggested that a short intensive chemotherapy regimen with doxorubicin and cisplatin might produce survival of operable, non-metastatic osteosarcoma similar to that obtained with complex and longer-duration drug regimens based on the widely used T10 multi-drug protocol. We undertook a randomised multicentre trial to compare these two approaches. METHODS: 407 patients with operable, non-metastatic osteosarcoma were randomly assigned the two-drug regimen (six cycles [18 weeks] of doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 on days 1-3 and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1) or a multi-drug regimen (preoperatively vincristine, high-dose methotrexate, and doxorubicin; postoperatively bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, dactinomycin, vincristine, methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin; this protocol took 44 weeks). Surgery was scheduled for week 9 for the two-drug group and week 7 for the multi-drug group. Analyses of survival and progression-free survival were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Of 407 randomised patients, 391 were eligible and have been followed up for at least 4 years (median 5-6 years). Toxic effects were qualitatively similar with the two regimens. However, 188 (94%) of 199 patients completed the six cycles of two-drug treatment, whereas only 97 (51%) of 192 completed 18 or more of the 20 cycles of the multi-drug regimen. The proportion showing a good histopathological response (> 90% tumour necrosis) to preoperative chemotherapy was about 29% with both regimens and was strongly predictive of survival. Overall survival was 65% at 3 years and 55% at 5 years in both groups (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% CI 0.69-1.27]). Progression-free survival at 5 years was 44% in both groups (hazard ratio 1.01 [0.77-1.33]). INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in survival between the two-drug and multi-drug regimens in operable, non-metastatic osteosarcoma. The two-drug regimen is shorter in duration and better tolerated, and is therefore the preferred treatment. However, 5-year survival is still unsatisfactory and new approaches to treatment, such as dose intensification, are needed to improve results.
Reference
Lancet. 1997 Sep 27;350(9082):911-7.
ANNEX 1C
Effects of concomitant cisplatin and radiotherapy on inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. (EORTC 08844)
Summary
This study demonstrated that the combination of radiotherapy and Cisplatin (a marketed drug for other indications) increased significantly the overall survival of patients as compared to the standard treatment which was radiotherapy alone. Cisplatin in this setting has been used to increase the sensitivity of tumor cells to radiations. The dose of cisplatin used in this setting is largely inferior to the dose normally prescribed in other malignant indications for which cisplatin is used as a cytotoxic agent. However, in this trial cisplatin is used outside of its registered indication…
Abstract
Schaake-Koning C, van den Bogaert W, Dalesio O, Festen J, Hoogenhout J, van Houtte P, Kirkpatrick A, Koolen M, Maat B, Nijs A, et al.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam .
BACKGROUND AND METHODS. Cisplatin (cis-diamminedichloroplatinum) has been reported to enhance the cell-killing effect of radiation, an effect whose intensity varies with the schedule of administration. We randomly assigned 331 patients with non metastatic inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer to one of three treatments: radiotherapy for two weeks (3 Gy given 10 times, in five fractions a week), followed by a three-week rest period and then radiotherapy for two more weeks (2.5 Gy given 10 times, five fractions a week); radiotherapy on the same schedule, combined with 30 mg of cisplatin per square meter of body-surface area, given on the first day of each treatment week; or radiotherapy on the same schedule, combined with 6 mg of cisplatin per square meter, given daily before radiotherapy. RESULTS. Survival was significantly improved in the radiotherapy-daily-cisplatin group as compared with the radiotherapy group (P = 0.009): survival in the radiotherapy-daily-cisplatin group was 54 percent at one year, 26 percent at two years, and 16 percent at three years, as compared with 46 percent, 13 percent, and 2 percent, respectively, in the radiotherapy group. Survival in the radiotherapy-weekly-cisplatin group was intermediate (44 percent, 19 percent, and 13 percent) and not significantly different from survival in either of the other two groups. The survival benefit of daily combined treatment was due to improved control of local disease (P = 0.003). Survival without local recurrence was 59 percent at one year and 31 percent at two years in the radiotherapy-daily-cisplatin group; 42 percent and 30 percent, respectively, in the radiotherapy-weekly-cisplatin group; and 41 percent and 19 percent, respectively, in the radiotherapy group. Cisplatin induced nausea and vomiting in 86 percent of the patients given it weekly and in 78 percent of those given it daily; these effects were severe in 26 percent and 28 percent, respectively. CONCLUSIONS. Cisplatin, given daily in combination with the radiotherapy described here to patients with non metastatic but inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer, improved rates of survival and control of local disease.
Reference
N Engl J Med. 1992 Feb 20;326(8):524-30.