PURPOSE: To compare fotemustine and dacarbazine (DTIC) in terms of overall response rate (ORR) as primary end-point and overall survival, duration of responses, time to progression, time to occurrence of brain metastases (BM), and to assess safety and quality of life in patients with disseminated cutaneous melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either intravenous fotemustine 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 weeks or DTIC 250 mg/m2/d for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks (two cycles). Nonprogressive patients received a maintenance treatment every 4 weeks (fotemustine 100 mg/m2 or DTIC 250 mg/m2 for 5 days). RESULTS:Two hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to fotemustine or DTIC arms. The best ORR was higher in the fotemustine arm than in the DTIC arm in the intent-to-treat population (n=229; 15.2% v 6.8%; P=.043) and in full analysis set (n=221) (15.5% v 7.2%; P=.053). Similar median durations of responses (5.8 months with fotemustine v 6.9 months with DTIC) and time to progression (1.8 v 1.9 months, respectively) were observed. In patients without BM at inclusion, the median time to BM was 22.7 months with fotemustine versus 7.2 months with DTIC (P=.059). Median survival was 7.3 months with fotemustine versus 5.6 months with DTIC (P=.067). The main toxicity was grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (51% with fotemustine v 5% with DTIC) and thrombocytopenia (43% v 6%, respectively). No significant difference was noted for quality of life between arms. CONCLUSION:ORR was higher in the fotemustine arm compared to the DTIC arm in first-line treatment of disseminated melanoma. A trend in favor of fotemustine in terms of overall survival and time to BM was evidenced.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare fotemustine and dacarbazine (DTIC) in terms of overall response rate (ORR) as primary end-point and overall survival, duration of responses, time to progression, time to occurrence of brain metastases (BM), and to assess safety and quality of life in patients with disseminated cutaneous melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either intravenous fotemustine 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 weeks or DTIC 250 mg/m2/d for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks (two cycles). Nonprogressive patients received a maintenance treatment every 4 weeks (fotemustine 100 mg/m2 or DTIC 250 mg/m2 for 5 days). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to fotemustine or DTIC arms. The best ORR was higher in the fotemustine arm than in the DTIC arm in the intent-to-treat population (n=229; 15.2% v 6.8%; P=.043) and in full analysis set (n=221) (15.5% v 7.2%; P=.053). Similar median durations of responses (5.8 months with fotemustine v 6.9 months with DTIC) and time to progression (1.8 v 1.9 months, respectively) were observed. In patients without BM at inclusion, the median time to BM was 22.7 months with fotemustine versus 7.2 months with DTIC (P=.059). Median survival was 7.3 months with fotemustine versus 5.6 months with DTIC (P=.067). The main toxicity was grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (51% with fotemustine v 5% with DTIC) and thrombocytopenia (43% v 6%, respectively). No significant difference was noted for quality of life between arms. CONCLUSION: ORR was higher in the fotemustine arm compared to the DTIC arm in first-line treatment of disseminated melanoma. A trend in favor of fotemustine in terms of overall survival and time to BM was evidenced.
Authors: Paul B Chapman; Axel Hauschild; Caroline Robert; John B Haanen; Paolo Ascierto; James Larkin; Reinhard Dummer; Claus Garbe; Alessandro Testori; Michele Maio; David Hogg; Paul Lorigan; Celeste Lebbe; Thomas Jouary; Dirk Schadendorf; Antoni Ribas; Steven J O'Day; Jeffrey A Sosman; John M Kirkwood; Alexander M M Eggermont; Brigitte Dreno; Keith Nolop; Jiang Li; Betty Nelson; Jeannie Hou; Richard J Lee; Keith T Flaherty; Grant A McArthur Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Enrique Espinosa; Alfonso Berrocal; José Antonio López Martín; María González Cao; Pablo Cerezuela; José Ignacio Mayordomo; Salvador Martín Algarra Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Stuart J Gallagher; John F Thompson; James Indsto; Lyndee L Scurr; Margaret Lett; Bo-Fu Gao; Ruth Dunleavey; Graham J Mann; Richard F Kefford; Helen Rizos Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Richard D Carvajal; Michael K Wong; John A Thompson; Michael S Gordon; Karl D Lewis; Anna C Pavlick; Jedd D Wolchok; Patrick B Rojas; Jonathan D Schwartz; Agop Y Bedikian Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 9.162