Dakhil, Shaker R.

Purpose A pressing need exists for agents active against anthracycline- or taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC), or both. Previous clinical trials suggested that irinotecan might have such activity. We conducted this multicenter phase II study to assess efficacy and tolerability of two irinotecan schedules. Patients and Methods MBC patients who experienced disease progression after one to three chemotherapy regimens, including at least one anthracycline- or taxane-based regimen, were randomly assigned to irinotecan in 6-week cycles comprising 100 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks, then a 2-week rest (weekly) or 240 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Results The weekly arm had 52 assessable patients; the every-3-weeks arm had 51 assessable patients. In the weekly arm, the objective response (complete regression [CR] + partial regression [PR]) rate was 23% (one CR, 11 PR; 95% CI, 13% to 37%). Median response duration was 4.9 months (range, 1.9 to 15.9 months), and median overall survival was 9.7 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 14.2 months). In the every-3-weeks arm, the objective response rate was 14% (nine PR; 95% CI, 6% to 26%), median response duration was 4.2 months (range, 3.1 to 13.9 months), and median overall survival was 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 12.3 months). Treatment generally was well tolerated, especially in the weekly arm. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events with ≥ 10% incidence included neutropenia (29%) and diarrhea (17%) in the weekly arm and neutropenia (36%), vomiting (20%), dyspnea (18%), nausea (16%), and diarrhea (12%) in the every-3-weeks arm. Conclusion Irinotecan is active with good tolerability in refractory MBC. Irinotecan (especially weekly) warrants additional study as monotherapy and in combination regimens in this setting.

Purpose Studies suggest eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 fatty acid, augments weight, appetite, and survival in cancer-associated wasting. This study determined whether an EPA supplement—administered alone or with megestrol acetate (MA)—was more effective than MA. Patients and Methods Four hundred twenty-one assessable patients with cancer-associated wasting were randomly assigned to an EPA supplement 1.09 g administered bid plus placebo; MA liquid suspension 600 mg/d plus an isocaloric, isonitrogenous supplement administered twice a day; or both. Eligible patients reported a 5-lb, 2-month weight loss and/or intake of less than 20 calories/kg/d. Results A smaller percentage taking the EPA supplement gained ≥ 10% of baseline weight compared with those taking MA: 6% v 18%, respectively (P = .004). Combination therapy resulted in weight gain of ≥ 10% in 11% of patients (P = .17 across all arms). The percentage of patients with appetite improvement (North Central Cancer Treatment Group Questionnaire) was not statistically different: 63%, 69%, and 66%, in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P = .69). In contrast, 4-week Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy scores suggested MA-containing arms experienced superior appetite stimulation compared with the EPA arm, with scores of 40, 55, and 55 in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P = .004). Survival was not significantly different among arms. Global quality of life was not significantly different among groups. With the exception of increased impotence in MA-treated patients, toxicity was comparable. Conclusion This EPA supplement, either alone or in combination with MA, does not improve weight or appetite better than MA alone.