Randomized,multicenter, phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase II randomized study to assess the efficacy, with response as the primary endpoint, and the toxicity of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized to GP (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) day 2) or GC (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin AUC=5 day 2). Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized to GP and 58 to GC. A total of 533 cycles were delivered (264 GP, 269 GC), with a median of four cycles/patient. The objective response rate was 41.9% (95% C.I., 29.6-54.2%) for GP and 31.0% (95% C.I., 18.2-42.8%) for GC (P=0.29). No significant differences between arms were observed in median survival (10.4 months GP, 10.8 months GC) and median time to progression (5.4 months GP, 5.1 months GC). Both regimens were very well tolerated with no statistical differences between arms in grade 3/4 toxicities. When all toxicity grades were combined, emesis, neuropathy and renal toxicity occurred more frequently on the GP arm (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: GC arm did not provide a significant difference in response rate compared with GP arm, with better overall tolerability. Carboplatin could be a valid alternative to cisplatin in the palliative setting.     

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin in stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial

PURPOSE: This randomized, multicenter, phase III trial was conducted to compare the tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) in chemonaive patients with stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Secondary objectives were to evaluate response, duration of response, time to progressive disease (TTPD), and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were required to have stage IIIb or IV NSCLC, no previous chemotherapy, Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, bidimensionally measurable disease, and age 18-75 years. Randomized patients in both arms were given gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, followed on day 1 by cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (GP) or carboplatin AUC=5 (GC). Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days for a maximum of six cycles, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Enrolled patients in both arms, 87 in GP and 89 in GC, were well balanced for demographics and disease characteristics. Dose intensity was 93.8 and 92.7% for gemcitabine in GP/GC arms, respectively; 97.7% for cisplatin and 99.9% for carboplatin. Patients with at least one grade 3/4 toxicity excluding nausea, vomiting or alopecia, were 44% in GP arm and 54% in GC arm. The only significantly different toxicities were, nausea and vomiting in GP and thrombocytopenia in GC group. The overall response rates, median TTPD, response duration and survival were, 41/29%, 5.87/4.75 months, 7.48/5.15 months, and 8.75/7.97 months for GP and GC arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: GP and GC are effective and feasible regimens for advanced NSCLC, and are comparable in efficacy and toxicity. GC may offer acceptable option to patients with advanced NSCLC, especially those who are unable to receive cisplatin.     

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The Hoosier Oncology Group has previously reported the results of its phase II trial of the combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine. In that study of 27 assessable patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was 33%, with a median survival of 8.4 months. Based on such favorable results, the Hoosier Oncology Group designed this randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin alone in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 28-day cycle) or the combination of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle). RESULTS: From August 1995 to February 1997, 522 assessable chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized. Toxicity was predominantly hematologic and was more pronounced in the combination arm, with grade 4 neutropenia occurring in 35.3% of patients compared with 1.2% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. The incidence of neutropenic fevers was less than 5% in both arms. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 25. 4% of patients on the combination arm compared with 0.8% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. No serious hemorrhagic events related to thrombocytopenia were reported for either arm. The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin demonstrated a significant improvement over single-agent cisplatin with regard to response rate (30.4% compared with 11.1%, respectively; P <.0001), median time to progressive disease (5.6 months compared with 3.7 months, respectively; P =.0013), and overall survival (9.1 months compared with 7.6 months, respectively; P =.004). CONCLUSIONS: For the first-line treatment of NSCLC, the regimen of gemcitabine plus cisplatin is superior to cisplatin alone in terms of response rate, time to disease progression, and overall survival.     

Randomized phase III study of cisplatin plus irinotecan versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine, and cisplatin plus vinorelbine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Four-Arm Cooperative Study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of three platinum-based combination regimens against cisplatin plus irinotecan (IP) in patients with untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by a non-inferiority design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 602 patients were randomly assigned to one of four regimens: cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus irinotecan 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks (IP) carboplatin AUC 6.0 min x mg/mL (area under the concentration-time curve) on day 1 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (TC); cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 every 3 weeks (GP); and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 every 3 weeks (NP). RESULTS: The response rate, median survival time, and 1-year survival rate were 31.0%, 13.9 months, 59.2%, respectively, in IP; 32.4%, 12.3 months, 51.0% in TC; 30.1%, 14.0 months, 59.6% in GP; and 33.1%, 11.4 months, 48.3% in NP. No statistically significant differences were found in response rate or overall survival, but the non-inferiority of none of the experimental regimens could be confirmed. All the four regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The four regimens have similar efficacy and different toxicity profiles, and they can be used to treat advanced NSCLC patients.     

Phase III comparative study of high-dose cisplatin versus a combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: New effective chemotherapy is needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Paclitaxel administered as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be a potentially new useful agent for the treatment of NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and April 1996, 414 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to received either a control arm of high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or a combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) every 21 days. RESULTS: Compared with the cisplatin-only arm, there was a 9% improvement (95% confidence interval, 0% to 19%) in overall response rate for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (17% v 26%, respectively; P=.028). Median time to progression was 2.7 and 4.1 months in the control and paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, respectively (P=.026). The study, however, failed to show a significant improvement in median survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (8.6 months in the control arm v 8.1 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, P=.862). There was more hematotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and arthralgia/myalgia on the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, whereas the high-dose cisplatin arm produced more ototoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and nephrotoxicity. Quality of life (QOL) was similar overall between the two arms. CONCLUSION: This large randomized phase III trial failed to show a significant improvement in survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination compared with high-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination did produce a better clinical response, resulting in an increased time to progression while providing a similar QOL.     

Three-arm randomized study of two cisplatin-based regimens and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group--EORTC 08975.

PURPOSE: To compare the therapeutic efficacy of paclitaxel plus cisplatin (arm A) versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (arm B) and arm A versus paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (arm C) in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Materials and METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion, day 1) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) both combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (day 1) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion, day 1) combined with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8). Primary end point was comparison of overall survival for B versus A and C versus A. Secondary end points included response rate and duration, progression-free survival, toxicities, quality of life [QoL], and cost of treatment. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty patients (arm A, 159; arm B, 160; arm C, 161 patients) were enrolled; all baseline characteristics were balanced. Median survival times were as follows: arm A, 8.1 months; arm B, 8.9 months; arm C, 6.7 months. Response rates were 31.8% for arm A, 36.6% for arm B, and 27.7% for arm C. Other than myelosuppression (B v A, P <.005), no statistically or clinically significant differences were observed for secondary end points. The average treatment costs were 25% higher in arm C as compared with arms A and B. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine do not increase overall survival in patients with advanced NSCLC as compared with paclitaxel plus cisplatin. Treatment was well tolerated, and most QoL parameters were similar, but costs associated with the nonplatinum arm were highest.     

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project.

PURPOSE: To compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB (limited to T4 for pleural effusion and N3 for supraclavicular lymph nodes) or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The end points were the evaluation of quality of life (QoL), response rates, survival, and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seven patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days, or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3,000 mg/m(2), and mesna on day 1 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days. The whole-blood cell count was repeated on day 1 in both arms and weekly in the GC arm before each gemcitabine administration. RESULTS: No major differences in changes in QoL were observed between the two treatment arms. The objective response rate was 38% in the GC arm compared with 26% in the MIC arm (P =.029). The median survival time was 8.6 months in the GC arm and 9.6 months in the MIC arm (P =.877, log-rank test). Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly worse in the GC arm (64% v 28%, P <.001), whereas grade 3 and 4 alopecia was reported more commonly in the MIC arm (39% v 12%, P <. 001). CONCLUSION: We report an increased response rate without changes in QoL and a similar overall survival, time to progression, and time to treatment failure for the GC when compared with the MIC regimen in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.     

A randomized phase II trial of sequential gemcitabine plus vinorelbine followed by gemcitabine plus ifosfamide versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the treatment of chemo-naive patients with stages III and IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND: Third-generation platinum-based combinations are established as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Non-platinum regimens could be an alternative if they show similar efficacy with better tolerability. This randomized phase II trial compared the objective tumor response rate (ORR) of sequential gemcitabine plus vinorelbine followed by gemcitabine plus ifosfamide versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Secondary objectives included time to disease progression (TTP), overall survival and toxicity. METHODS: Chemo-naive patients with stages III and IV NSCLC and Karnofsky performance status >70 were assigned to receive either (a) gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) plus vinorelbine 25mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 for 2 cycles, followed by gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus ifosfamide 2000mg/m(2) on day 1 (GV-GI arm) for 2 cycles or (b) gemcitabine 1250mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 with cisplatin 70mg/m(2) on day 1 (GC arm) for 4 cycles. RESULTS: Between July 2001 and January 2003, 102 patients were enrolled (50 on the GV-GI arm and 52 on the GC arm). Patient characteristics were balanced between arms (GV-GI arm: median age 59 years, 84% male, 22 stage IIIB, 24 stage IV, 4 stage IIIA; GC arm: median age 56 years, 87% male, 27 stage IIIB, 23 stage IV, 2 stage IIIA). Of the 101 patients evaluable for response, ORR was significantly higher on the GC arm than on the GV-GI arm (25% versus 6%, respectively; p=0.007). No complete responses occurred. TTP was longer on the GC arm than on the GV-GI arm (median 135 and 79 days, respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.065). Survival was not significantly different between the arms (median 293 and 197 days, respectively; p=0.16). Although significantly more thrombocytopenia was reported on the GC arm (22% and 4%, respectively; p=0.02), it did not lead to more transfusions (15 transfusions in 5 patients versus 14 transfusions in 6 patients, respectively). There was no significant difference in other safety parameters between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: GC appears to produce better response in advanced NSCLC than GV-GI, with a trend towards longer TTP. Except for more thrombocytopenia with GC, similar toxicity profiles were observed.     

Randomized phase II study of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine compared with cisplatin/vinorelbine alone as first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Lung Cancer Cetuximab Study is an open-label, randomized phase II pilot study of cisplatin and vinorelbine combined with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted monoclonal antibody cetuximab versus cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in patients with advanced EGFR-expressing, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). End points of the study are activity, safety and pharmacokinetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following randomization, for a maximum of eight cycles, patients received three-weekly cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m(2), day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) alone or following cetuximab treatment (initial dose 400 mg/m(2), followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter). RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were randomly allocated to the study (43 per arm). Confirmed response rates were 28% in the cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (A) and 35% in the cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (B). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months in arm A and 5.0 months in arm B, with PFS rates at 12 months of 0% and 15%, respectively. Median survival was 7.3 months in arm A and 8.3 months in arm B. The 24-month survival rates were 0% and 16%, respectively. The cetuximab combination was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, the combination of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and the potential to improve activity over cisplatin/vinorelbine alone.     

Etoposide plus cisplatin with or without the combination of 4'-epidoxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide in treatment of extensive small-cell lung cancer: a French Federation of Cancer Institutes multicenter phase III randomized study

BACKGROUND: The combination of etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) is considered to be standard therapy for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). To determine whether drug intensification improves survival of patients with extensive SCLC, we compared this treatment with a four-drug regimen containing EP plus cyclophosphamide and 4'-epidoxorubicin (PCDE). METHODS: In a phase III clinical trial organized by the French Federation of Cancer Institutes, patients were randomly assigned to receive either EP (n = 109; etoposide at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 plus cisplatin at 100 mg/m(2) on day 2) or PCDE (n = 117; etoposide and cisplatin given as in EP plus cyclophosphamide at 400 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and 4'-epidoxorubicin at 40 mg/m(2) on day 1) every 4 weeks. Both groups received a total of six cycles. Survival differences were analyzed by Wilcoxon and log-rank tests. Associations of treatment group and putative prognostic variables with survival were tested in the Cox proportional hazards model. Quality of life was assessed from the responses to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (C30, health status and lung cancer module 13). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Patients in the PCDE arm had a statistically significant higher frequency of combined complete plus partial responses compared with those in the EP arm (21% plus 55% versus 13% plus 48%, respectively; P =.02 for difference in combined objective responses). Patients in the PCDE arm survived longer than those in the EP arm (1-year survival rate: 40% and 29%, respectively; median survival: 10.5 and 9.3 months, respectively; log-rank P =.0067). In the Cox model, the relative risk of death for patients in the PCDE arm compared with those in the EP arm was 0.70 (95% confidence interval = 0.51 to 0.95); the disease also progressed more slowly in patients in the PCDE arm. Hematologic toxicity was higher in the PCDE arm (22% with documented infections compared with 8% in the EP arm; P =.0038), and the toxicity-related death rate was 9% in the PCDE arm versus 5.5% in the EP arm (P =.22). The global health status showed similar improvement in both arms during treatment. CONCLUSION: Compared with the EP regimen, the PCDE regimen yielded higher response rates and better survival rates in patients with extensive SCLC without affecting the quality of life of the patients during chemotherapy.     

NP与GP方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌68例疗效分析

为了评价NP和GP方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效和不良反应。将1999年12月2日～2004年5月2日收治的68例非小细胞肺癌(nonsmallcelllungcancer,NSCLC)患者随机分为两组,分别应用NP和GP方案治疗。NP方案:长春瑞滨(NVB)25mg/m2,d1、d8;顺铂(DDP)50mg,d3～d5。GP方案:健择(Gemcitabine)1000mg/m2,d1、d8;DDP50mg,d3～d5,两种方案均21d为1个周期,至少治疗2个周期。结果为NP组35例,无CR,PR17例(48.6%),SD13例(37.1%),PD5例(14.3%),总有效率为48.6%(17/35),临床受益率85.7%(30/35)。GP组33例,CR1例(3.0%),PR14例(42.4%),SD13例(39.4%),PD5例(15.2%),总有效率为45.5%(15/33),临床受益率84.8%(28/33)。NP组和GP组中位进展时间分别为3.2和3.3个月,初治优于复治(NP组60%vs33%,GP组52.6%vs35.7%)。剂量限制性毒性主要为骨髓抑制,NP组和GP组白细胞及血小板下降的发生率分别为80%、22.9%和51.5%、51.5%。NP组静脉炎及胃肠道反应较GP组重(31.4%vs6.1%和57.1%vs45.5%)。初步研究结果提示,NP和GP方案治疗晚期NSCLC均安全有效,疗效相当,不良反应均可耐受。     

Randomized phase II trial of two different schedules of docetaxel plus cisplatin as first-line therapy in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the use of a weekly administration of docetaxel as a way of reducing its hematologic toxicity. The purpose of the current randomized study was to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of docetaxel plus cisplatin combination on 2 schedules in patients with previously untreated, advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Consenting patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on Day 1, plus 3-weekly (75 mg/m(2) on Day 1) or weekly (35 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week cycle) docetaxel, for up to 6 cycles. RESULTS: Of 86 patients accrued, 41 patients were treated with 3-weekly and 43 with weekly docetaxel plus cisplatin. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicity in the 3-weekly arm was neutropenia (56% of patients). In those receiving the weekly regimen, the frequent grade 3/4 toxicities were fatigue (44%) and nausea/vomiting (35%). The overall response rate was 40% with the 3-weekly and 39% with the weekly arm (P = .74). The median progression-free survival was 4.3 months in the 3-weekly arm and 3.9 months in the weekly arm (P = .08) and the median survival was 10.3 and 10.0 months, respectively (P = .76). Quality of life data showed no relevant difference between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: The weekly schedule of docetaxel plus cisplatin combination as first-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC, while feasible, has no clear advantage over the standard 3-weekly regimen.     

A randomised trial comparing 5-FU with 5-FU plus cisplatin in advanced pancreatic carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is moderately efficient as a treatment for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but patient survival and quality of life has improved with this modality in some trials. In a previous phase II trial, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus cisplatin (FUP) yielded a 26.5% response rate and a 29% survival rate at 1 year. The present study aimed to compare FUP with 5-FU alone, which was the control arm in former Mayo Clinic trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated cytologically or histologically proven metastatic or locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were deemed measurable or evaluable. Chemotherapy regimens consisted of a control FU arm (5-FU 500 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days) and the investigational FUP arm (continuous 5-FU 1000 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 or day 2). In both arms, chemotherapy was repeated at day 29. RESULTS: Two-hundred and seven patients from 18 centres were randomised: 103 in the FU arm and 104 in FUP arm. Treatment arms were balanced with respect to performance status grade 0-1 (83% versus 86%, respectively) and the presence of metastases (92% versus 89%, respectively). The median number of cycles administered was two in both arms (range 0-14). Five patients did not receive any chemotherapy and 45 received only one cycle. Toxicity (WHO grade 3-4) was lower with FU than with FUP (20% versus 48%, P <0.001), as was neutropenia (6% versus 23%), vomiting (4% versus 17%) and toxicity-related deaths (one versus four early in the trial). The response rate was low in both arms, but superior in the FUP arm: 12% versus 0% (intention-to-treat analysis, P <0.01). The survival rates at 6 months were 28% and 38% for the FU and FUP arms, respectively, and 1-year survival rates were 9% and 17% (log-rank test, P = 0.10). One-year progression-free survival was 0% with FU versus 10% with FUP (log-rank test, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In advanced pancreatic carcinomas with a poor prognosis, FUP was superior to FU in terms of response and progression-free survival, but not in terms of overall survival. The low response rate is partly related to the number of patients who received only one cycle of chemotherapy. A more effective, better tolerated version of this FUP combination is needed.     

Phase III randomized trial of docetaxel plus cisplatin versus vindesine plus cisplatin in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: the Japanese Taxotere Lung Cancer Study Group.

PURPOSE: Few randomized trials have demonstrated survival benefit of combination chemotherapy involving new agents plus cisplatin compared with classic combination chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary aim of this study was to test whether docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) improves survival compared with vindesine plus cisplatin (VdsC) in patients with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible, stage IV, chemotherapy-naive patients (n = 311) were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 3- or 4-week cycle, or vindesine 3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 4-week cycle. Cross-over administration of docetaxel and vindesine was prohibited for both treatment groups. RESULTS: Overall, 302 patients were eligible for evaluation. The DC arm demonstrated significant improvements compared with the VdsC arm in overall response rates (37% v 21%, respectively; P <.01) and median survival times (11.3 v 9.6 months, respectively; P =.014). Two-year survival rates were 24% for the DC arm compared with 12% for the VdsC arm. The physical domain of the Quality of Life for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs measure was significantly better in the DC arm than in the VdsC arm (P =.020). Toxicity was predominantly hematologic and was more severe in the VdsC arm. CONCLUSION: As first-line treatment for stage IV NSCLC, DC resulted in greater clinical benefit in terms of response rate (with marked improvements in overall and 2-year survival rates) and quality of life than did treatment with VdsC.     

Efficacy of the combination of cisplatin with either gemcitabine and vinorelbine or gemcitabine and paclitaxel in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomised trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG 0101).

BACKGROUND: Triplet regimens were occasionally reported to produce a higher response rate (RR) than doublets in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was conducted to assess (i) whether the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to either gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) or GEM and paclitaxel (PTX) significantly prolongs overall survival (OS) and (ii) to compare the toxicity of PTX-containing and VNR-containing combinations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stage III or IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to (i) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and VNR 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GV arm); (ii) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and PTX 125 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GT arm); (iii) GV plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGV arm); and (iv) GT plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGT arm). Treatments were repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: A total of 433 (stage III, 160; stage IV, 273) patients were randomly allocated to the study. RR was 48% [95% confidence interval (CI), 42% to 54%] for triplets and 35% (95% CI, 32% to 38%) for doublets (P = 0.004). Median progression-free survival (6.1 versus 5.5 months, P = 0.706) and median OS (10.7 versus 10.5 months, P = 0.379) were similar. CDDP significantly increased the occurrence of severe neutropenia (35% versus 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% versus 4%), anaemia (9% versus 3%), vomiting (6% versus 0.5%), and diarrhoea (6% versus 2%). Conversely, frequency of severe neutropenia (30% versus 17%) and thrombocytopenia (11% versus 6%) was significantly higher with VNR-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Adding CDDP to GV or GT significantly increased RR, but did not prolong the OS of patients. Among doublets, the GT regimen should be preferred in view of its better safety profile.     

Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus fluorouracil to paclitaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the antitumor activity and toxicity of the two induction chemotherapy treatments of paclitaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (FU; PCF) versus standard cisplatin and FU (CF), both followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT), in locally advanced head and neck cancer (HNC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included biopsy-proven, previously untreated, stage III or IV locally advanced HNC. Patients received either CF (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 plus FU 1000 [corrected] mg/m2 continuous infusion on days 1 through 5) or PCF (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on day 1, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 2, and FU 500 mg/m2 continuous infusion on days 2 through 6); both regimens were administered for three cycles every 21 days. Patients with complete response (CR) or partial response of greater than 80% in primary tumor received additional CRT (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43 plus 70 Gy). RESULTS: A total of 382 eligible patients were randomly assigned to CF (n = 193) or PCF (n = 189). The CR rate was 14% in the CF arm v 33% in the PCF arm (P < .001). Median time to treatment failure was 12 months in the CF arm compared with 20 months in the PCF arm (log-rank test, P = .006; Tarone-Ware, P = .003). PCF patients had a trend to longer overall survival (OS; 37 months in CF arm v 43 months in PCF arm; log-rank test, P = .06; Tarone-Ware, P = .03). This difference was more evident in patients with unresectable disease (OS: 26 months in CF arm v 36 months in PCF arm; log-rank test, P = .04; Tarone-Ware, P = .03). CF patients had a higher occurrence of grade 2 to 4 mucositis than PCF patients (53% v 16%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Induction chemotherapy with PCF was better tolerated and resulted in a higher CR rate than CF. However, new trials that compare induction chemotherapy plus CRT versus CRT alone are needed to better define the role of neoadjuvant treatment.     

培美曲塞或吉西他滨联合顺铂一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床随机对照研究

目的:比较培美曲塞联合顺铂(PEM)方案与吉西他滨联合顺铂(GEM)方案一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的疗效及耐受性.方法:30例经组织学确诊的ⅢB期或Ⅳ期初治NSCLC患者随机分成PEM组和GEM组,每组各15例.结果:PEM组RR为40.0％,PFS为5.60个月,OS为18.07个月;GEM组RR为20.0％,PFS为6.50个月,OS为18.10个月,两组比较差异均无统计学意义,P值分别为0.182、0.431和0.516.肺腺癌中PEM组RR、PFS及OS均好于GEM组,但差异无统计学意义,P＞0.05.两组主要毒副反应均为骨髓抑制和胃肠道反应,PEM组患者Ⅲ/Ⅳ度血液学毒性发生率均低于GEM组患者,差异无统计学意义,P＞0.05.结论:培美曲塞联合顺铂一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌,特别是肺腺癌,疗效确切,耐受性良好.     

NP和GP方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效分析

目的:评价NP和GP两组化疗方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(nonsmallcelllungcancer,NSCLC)的疗效和不良反应。方法:将有明确的病理学和(或)细胞学诊断的63例晚期NSCLC患者分为两组,NP组33例,国产长春瑞滨(盖诺,NVB)25mg/m2,静脉推注,d1、d8;顺铂(DDP)80～90mg/m2,静脉滴入,d1;GP组30例,吉西他滨(健择,GEM)1.25g/m2,静脉滴入,d1、d8;DDP80～90mg/m2,静脉滴入,d1。两组同时配合水化利尿,每21d为1个周期,化疗3个周期后评价疗效,化疗期间记录不良反应。结果:NP与GP方案的有效率分别为36.3%和40.0%,中位生存时间分别为12.2和12.0个月,1年生存率分别为47.2%和43.5%,2年生存率分别为21.1%和17.8%。不良反应主要为血液学毒性和恶心、呕吐。结论:NP和GP两组化疗方案在治疗晚期NSCLC的近期疗效、中位生存期、1年和2年生存率方面相近,化疗不良反应可耐受。     

培美曲塞联合顺铂在晚期男性肺腺癌一线治疗中的应用

目的：观察培美曲塞联合顺铂（PP组）与吉西他滨联合顺铂（GP组）作为一线化疗药物治疗晚期男性肺腺癌的疗效及毒副反应.方法：将74例经病理证实的晚期男性肺腺癌患者（Ⅲb和Ⅳ期）分为两组：GP组40例,PP组34例.PP组：培美曲塞500mg/m2,静脉滴注,第1天,持续3-4h;顺铂（DDP） 75 mg/m2,静脉点滴,第1天,每21天为1个周期.GP组：吉西他滨1250mg/m2,静脉点滴,第1、8天;顺铂用法同上,每3周为1个周期.连续4-6个周期.每2周期评价疗效及毒副反应.结果：PP组总有效率[完全缓解（CR）＋部分缓解（PR）]为44.1％,1年生存率为38.2％;GP组总有效率为42.5％,1年生存率为37.5％,两组间总有效率和1年生存率比较均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.最常见的毒副反应是骨髓抑制和胃肠道反应,其中骨髓抑制两组间比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论：培美曲塞联合顺铂方案可作为一线治疗晚期男性肺腺癌的选择.     

A phase III trial of docetaxel/carboplatin versus mitomycin C/ifosfamide/cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin C/vinblastine/cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised multicentre trial of the British Thoracic Oncology Group (BTOG1).

BACKGROUND: Phase III studies suggest that non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with cisplatin-docetaxel may have higher response rates and better survival compared with other platinum-based regimens. We report the final results of a randomised phase III study of docetaxel and carboplatin versus MIC or MVP in patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy proven stage III-IV NSCLC not suitable for curative surgery or radiotherapy were randomised to receive four cycles of either DCb (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), carboplatin AUC 6), or MIC/MVP (mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3 g/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), vinblastine 6 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2), respectively), 3 weekly. The primary end point was survival, secondary end points included response rates, toxicity and quality of life. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 17.4 months. Overall response rate was 32% for both arms (partial response = 31%, complete response = 1%); 32% of MIC/MVP and 26% of DCb patients had stable disease. One-year survival was 39% and 35% for DCb and MIC/MVP, respectively. Two-year survival was 13% with both arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia (74% versus 43%, P < 0.005), infection (18% versus 9%, P = 0.01) and mucositis (5% versus 1%, P = 0.02) were more common with DCb than MIC/MVP. The MIC/MVP arm had significant worsening in overall EORTC score and global health status whereas the DCb arm showed no significant change. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of DCb had similar efficacy to MIC/MVP but quality of life was better maintained.