PURPOSE Based on preclinical evidence that the antitumor effects of the combination of interleukin-2 (IL-2) and interferon alfa (IFN alpha) are greater than those of either cytokine alone, we have performed a phase I trial of recombinant IL-2 (rIL-2) and recombinant human IFN alpha 2a (rHuIFN alpha 2a) in patients with refractory malignancies. This study was an extension of an earlier trial that identified reversible myelosuppression as the dose-limiting toxicity of this combination. The present trial used modified definitions of unacceptable toxicity to allow exploration of higher doses of rIL-2. PATIENTS AND METHODS Both rHuIFN alpha 2a 10.0 x 10(6) U/m2 intramuscularly (IM) and rIL-2 were administered three times weekly for 4 consecutive weeks. IL-2 was given by intravenous (IV) bolus injection at doses that were escalated in successive cohorts of four to six patients, provided that toxicity at the preceding dose level was acceptable. Unacceptable toxicity was defined as an elevation of the serum creatinine level to greater than 5 mg/dL, an elevation of the serum bilirubin level to greater than 5 mg/dL, dyspnea at rest, hypotension refractory to pressors, altered mental status, or other toxicities of grade 3 to 4, using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Toxicity Criteria. The doses of rIL-2 administered were 4.0 x 10(6), 6.0 x 10(6), 8.0 x 10(6), 10.0 x 10(6), 12.0 x 10(6), 14.0 x 10(6), 18.0 x 10(6), 22.0 x 10(6), and 26.0 x 10(6) BRMP (Hoffman-LaRoche) U/m2. At a dose of rIL-2 10.0 x 10(6) BRMP U/m2, patients were also treated with doses of rHuIFN alpha 2a of 1.0 x 10(6) and 0.1 x 10(6) U/m2. RESULTS A total of 57 patients were treated. Intolerable side effects (hypotension, pulmonary, and CNS toxicity) were produced by rIL-2 26.0 x 10(6) BRMP U/m2 and rHuIFN alpha 2a 10.0 x 10(6) U/m2. Two of 21 patients with renal cell carcinoma showed objective responses, and five of 17 patients with malignant melanoma responded. Two of these responses in melanoma were complete and continue to be longlasting. CONCLUSIONS When given with rHuIFN alpha 2a 10.0 x 10(6) U/m2 as described above, the maximum-tolerated dose of rIL-2 is 22.0 x 10(6) BRMP U/m2. This dose of rIL-2 is equivalent to 50 to 60 MIU/m2, depending on the conversion factor used. Based on this experience and other trials, we favor phase II trials in renal cell carcinoma using an alternative dose schedule of this cytokine combination, in which rIL-2 is administered by continuous infusion. We suggest that phase II trials of this combination in patients with melanoma use an rIL-2 dose of 8.0 x 10(6) BRMP U/m2 by IV bolus injection three times weekly in combination with rHuIFN alpha 2a 10.0 x 10(6) U/m2 IM three times weekly.
PURPOSE This study evaluates the outcome of myeloablative chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow rescue (ABMR) with or without radiotherapy in children younger than 6 years of age with recurrent malignant brain tumors who had not previously been exposed to conventional fractionated external-beam irradiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients underwent surgery and/or conventional chemotherapy at the time of recurrence to achieve minimal residual disease (two of these patients also underwent local single-fraction gamma-knife radiosurgery). Myeloablative chemotherapy was then administered with carboplatin, thiotepa, and etoposide (16 patients), thiotepa and etoposide (three patients), or thiotepa, etoposide, and carmustine (BCNU; one patient). Autologous bone marrow was re-infused 72 hours after chemotherapy. Twelve patients received external-beam irradiation after recovery from ABMR. RESULTS Twenty patients with recurrent brain tumors aged 0.7 to 5.9 years (median, 2.9 years) at ABMR were evaluated. Two patients died of toxicity related to myeloablative therapy. Eight patients died of progressive disease. Ten of 20 (50%) patients (primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET)/medulloblastoma, three patients; cerebral PNET, three patients; glioblastoma multiforme, two patients; anaplastic astrocytoma, one patient; pineal PNET, one patient) are alive and disease free at a median of 37.9 months (range, 9.7 to 98.2 months) from ABMR (3-year overall survival [OS] rate of 43% +/- 13% and event-free survival [EFS] rate of 47% +/- 14%]. Seven of these 10 patients also received irradiation post-ABMR. CONCLUSION Myeloablative chemotherapy with ABMR followed by additional external-beam irradiation appears to be an effective retrieval therapy for some young children with recurrent malignant brain tumors.
Computerized tomography (CT) scans of the head were done on 93 children with acute lymphocytic leukemia in continuous complete remission who had been randomly assigned to three different methods of central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis. Twenty-nine children had received six doses of intrathecal methotrexate, 30 had received six doses of intrathecal methotrexate plus 2400 rad of cranial irradiation, and 34 had received six doses of intrathecal methotrexate plus three courses of intermediate-dose intravenous methotrexate. The overall incidence of abnormal scans was 35%, of which 91% were felt to represent minimal abnormalities. CT scan abnormalities were noted in 30% of the children receiving intrathecal methotrexate only, in 40% of those receiving intrathecal methotrexate plus cranial irradiation, and in 35% of those receiving intrathecal methotrexate plus intermediate dose methotrexate. These differences were not statistically significant. None of the three methods of CNS prophylaxis resulted in significant CT scan abnormalities. However, the few moderately or markedly abnormal scans evaluated were restricted to patients who received intrathecal methotrexate plus cranial irradiation. The clinical significance of CT scan abnormalities in leukemic children receiving these treatments remains unclear.
A sequential clinical trial is designed with given significance level and power to detect a certain difference in the parameter of interest and the trial will be stopped early when data collected at an early stage of the trial have produced enough, in one sense or another, evidence for the conclusion of the hypotheses. Different sequential test designs are available for a same requirement of significance level and power. On the other hand, a same set of observed data can be interpreted as outcomes of different sequential designs with the same significance level and power. Therefore for same observed data, the conclusion of a test may be significant by one sequential design but insignificant by another sequential test design. This phenomenon may lead to the question of whether applying sequential test design to clinical trials is rational. Withstanding this challenge, the sequential conditional probability ratio test (SCPRT) offers a special feature such that a conclusion made at an early stopping is unlikely to be reversed if the trial were not stopped but continued to the planned end. The SCPRT gives a sound reason to stop a trial early; that is, if the trial were not stopped as it should, then adding more data and continuing the trial by the planned end would not change the conclusion. With an SCPRT procedure, a sequential clinical trial is designed not only with given significance level and power, but also with a given probability of discordance which controls the chance that conclusion at an early stage would differ from that at the final stage of the trial. In particular, the SCPRT procedure based on Brownian motion on information time is simple to use and can be applied to clinical trials with different endpoints and different distributions.
To determine the role of amifostine as a protectant against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in patients with average-risk (AR) medulloblastoma treated with craniospinal radiotherapy and four cycles of cisplatin-based, dose-intense chemotherapy and stem-cell rescue.
