Phase II study of the combination carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with ovarian cancer

Background: Recently the feasibility of combining carboplatin withpaclitaxel has been demonstrated in dose-finding studies. Maximum tolerateddoses were 550 mg/m² and 200 mg/m² (threehours), respectively. We report now a phase II study in ovarian cancerpatients.Patients and methods: Twenty-one chemo-naïve patients with optimally(n = 6) or suboptimally (n = 15) debulked stage III or IV ovarian cancer weretreated every three weeks for six courses with paclitaxel (200mg/m²) as a three-hour infusion, immediately followed bycarboplatin (550 mg/m²) as a 30-minute infusion.Results: Uncomplicated neutropenia was the principal toxicity, with mildanemia occurring regularly. As observed in the preceding phase I study, arelative lack of thrombocytopenia, generally grade III was found. Othertoxicities consisted of mild neurotoxicity, nausea and vomiting, alopecia,myalgia, and bone pain. All suboptimally debulked patients responded totherapy. Overall, 12 patients underwent second-look laparoscopy, whichrevealed a pathologically confirmed complete remission in six. The medianfollow-up interval at the time of analysis was 14 months. Twelve patients arecurrently free of progression, at 8+ to 19± months after the start oftherapy.Conclusion: The carboplatin/paclitaxel combination appears to be awell-tolerated regimen, yielding high response rates. This combination has nowgone forward to be evaluated in prospective randomized trials versus thecisplatin/paclitaxel combination.     

Phase I study of carboplatin, doxorubicin and weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Doxorubicin is an active compound in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), but adding it to carboplatin-paclitaxel causes toxicity. Toxicity can be reduced by weekly administration. We examined the tolerability of weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin and doxorubicin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy na?ve patients with EOC were treated with doxorubicin (50 mg/m(2) day 1), carboplatin (AUC 6 day 1) and paclitaxel (days 1, 8, 15, 21), 28-day cycle. Three patients were treated at each paclitaxel dose level, starting at 60, 75 and 90 mg/m(2)/week. If more than two patients in a cohort experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) three more patients were treated at the dose level below. RESULTS: Twelve patients with advanced EOC received a median of six cycles (range 2-6) of the three-drug combination. DLT occurred at dose level 3: prolonged grade 4 febrile neutropenia, 1 patient; grade 3 peripheral neuropathy, 1 patient. All six patients treated at dose level 2 experienced short-lived grade 4 neutropenia, which led to dose modifications resulting in an actual delivered dose of paclitaxel of 64 mg/m(2)/week. Eight out of 12 patients had measurable disease on CT scan: four obtained a partial remission; three had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of carboplatin, doxorubicin and paclitaxel in patients with EOC is active and its main toxicity is myelosuppression. Dose intensity of paclitaxel can be maintained in a three-drug combination through weekly administration (65 mg/m(2)).     

Phase I/II study of the combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

Purpose: We performed a phase I/II study evaluating the combination ofpaclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients withadvanced ovarian cancer. The aim of this study was to define a feasible andsafe combination regimen that could be recommended for future phase IIIstudies.Design: This study was a parallel two-arm, non-randomized, open trial. Ina first step, carboplatin was administered at a fixed dose of AUC 5 andpaclitaxel was escalated in 25 mg/m² steps starting at 135mg/m². Paclitaxel was given as a three-hour infusion.Carboplatin was administered on day 1 following paclitaxel in one study armand 24 hours after paclitaxel infusion on day 2 in the other study arm.Carboplatin was escalated to AUC 6 and AUC 7.5 after the MTD for paclitaxelhad been defined. Treatment was repeated every three weeks.Patients: Sixty-one patients with untreated histologically confirmedepithelial ovarian cancer were recruited of whom 59 were found eligible andevaluable for toxicity. Thirty-three patients with bidimensionally measurabledisease were evaluable for tumor response.Results: We could not detect any advantage of the two-day schedule comparedwith the more convenient one-day schedule. Dose limiting toxicities wereneutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and neurotoxicity. Except for two patients,toxicity was acceptable and clinically managable. One patient died ofneutropenic sepsis and one further patient developed grade III peripheralneurotoxicity that did not resolve within two months after chemotherapy hadbeen terminated. Overall objective response rate was 70%. The MTD forpaclitaxel was 185 mg/m² and AUC 6 for carboplatin,respectively. Secondary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not allow further doseescalation and therefore is not generally recommended.Conclusions: Paclitaxel 185 mg/m² given as three-hourinfusion followed by carboplatin AUC 6 is a feasible and safe regimen and canbe recommended for phase III trials. Observed response rates justify furtherevaluation of this combination. A randomized phase III trial comparing athree-hour infusion of paclitaxel 185 mg/m² combined witheither carboplatin AUC 6 or cisplatin 75 mg/m² as first-linechemotherapy of advanced ovarian cancer has recently been initiated by ourgroup.     

Phase II trial of a paclitaxel and carboplatin combination in Asian patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Purpose: An earlier phase II trial of paclitaxel in patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) demonstrated a response rate of 22%. Hence we proceeded to study the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin in these patients.Patients and methods: The 21-day regimen was as follows: i.v. paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over three hours preceded by standard premedications, followed by i.v. carboplatin dosed at AUC of six infused over one hour. Only chemotherapy-naïve patients with histological diagnoses of undifferentiated carcinoma of the nasopharynx, systemic metastases and radiologically measurable lesions were eligible.Results: Thirty-two patients were accrued to this study. Twenty patients (62%) had at least two sites of metastasis. The main grade 3–4 toxicity was neutropenia (31%). Nine patients (28%) developed neutropenic sepsis, which caused the demise of one of them. Twenty-four patients (75%) responded to treatment, with one (3%) attaining a complete response. The median time to progression of disease was seven months and the median survival was 12 months. At one year, 52% of the patients were alive.Conclusions: The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin is an active regimen in NPC. Its convenience of administration and good tolerability make it an attractive alternative regimen to consider for patients with metastatic disease.     

Efficacy and safety of the paclitaxel and carboplatin combination in patients with previously treated advanced ovarian carcinoma

Background: Platinum compounds are the most active drugs in ovarian cancer treatment; cisplatin and carboplatin demonstrated similar efficacies but different toxicity profiles. Paclitaxel combined with cisplatin as first-line treatment improved overall survival when compared to a cisplatin-cyclophosphamide combination, but generated higher rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and neurotoxicity. The paclitaxel-carboplatin combination may be better tolerated than cisplatin–paclitaxel.Design: The objective of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin in previously treated advanced ovarian cancer patients.Patients and methods: During or after platinum-based chemotherapy, 73 patients with progressive advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma were enrolled to receive every four weeks a three-hour infusion of paclitaxel 175 mg/m² followed by a 30-minute carboplatin infusion. The carboplatin dose was calculated to obtain the recommended area concentration-versus-time under the curve of 5 mg·ml^-1·min.Results: Toxicity and response could be evaluated for 72 and 62 patients, respectively. Eleven complete and 15 partial responses gave an overall response rate of 42% (95% CI: 30%–54%). Response rates for platinum-refractory patients and those with early (3 and <12 months) and late (>12 months) relapses were 24%, 33% and 70%, respectively. The respective median response duration, the median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 8, 6 and 14 months. Myelosuppression was the most frequent and severe toxicity. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred, respectively in 30% and 23% of the cycles; 6% of the cycles benefited from medullary growth factors. Only one episode of febrile neutropenia was observed. Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia occurred, respectively during 3% and 1% of the cycles. Alopecia was frequent. Transient peripheral neuropathy developed in 47% of patients but was severe in only one patient. One early death was attributed to progressive disease and possibly to therapy.Conclusion: This combined paclitaxel–carboplatin therapy is effective and can be safely administered to ovarian cancer patients who relapse after one or two regimens of platinum-based chemotherapy.     

Phase II study of paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced gastric cancer previously treated with 5-fluorouracil and platinum

BACKGROUND: The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin has been used to treat patients with many types of tumor, including gastric cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of this combination in advanced gastric cancer patients previously treated with 5-fluorouracil and platinum. METHODS: Patients who had pathologically been proven to have measurable lesions were treated with paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) for 3 h) and carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve (AUC = 6)] on day 1 and in 21 day cycles. RESULTS: A partial response was achieved in 10 of 45 patients [22%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 10-34]. Of the 32 patients previously treated with cisplatin, four (13%) achieved partial response, whereas, of the 13 patients previously treated with heptaplatin, six (46%) achieved partial response. In all patients, the median time to progression was 14 weeks (95% CI, 10-18), and the median overall survival was 32 weeks (95% CI, 26-38). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (40% of patients) and neuropathy (2.2%). Two patients developed neutropenic fever. However, there were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin is feasible in patients with advanced gastric cancer who were previously treated with 5-fluorouracil and platinum.     

Optimising the combination dosing strategy of abemaciclib and vemurafenib in BRAF-mutated melanoma xenograft tumours

Background:

Resistance to BRAF inhibition is a major cause of treatment failure for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma patients. Abemaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, overcomes this resistance in xenograft tumours and offers a promising drug combination. The present work aims to characterise the quantitative pharmacology of the abemaciclib/vemurafenib combination using a semimechanistic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling approach and to identify an optimum dosing regimen for potential clinical evaluation.

Methods:

A PK/biomarker model was developed to connect abemaciclib/vemurafenib concentrations to changes in MAPK and cell cycle pathway biomarkers in A375 BRAF-mutated melanoma xenografts. Resultant tumour growth inhibition was described by relating (i) MAPK pathway inhibition to apoptosis, (ii) mitotic cell density to tumour growth and, under resistant conditions, (iii) retinoblastoma protein inhibition to cell survival.

Results:

The model successfully described vemurafenib/abemaciclib-mediated changes in MAPK pathway and cell cycle biomarkers. Initial tumour shrinkage by vemurafenib, acquisition of resistance and subsequent abemaciclib-mediated efficacy were successfully captured and externally validated. Model simulations illustrate the benefit of intermittent vemurafenib therapy over continuous treatment, and indicate that continuous abemaciclib in combination with intermittent vemurafenib offers the potential for considerable tumour regression.

Conclusions:

The quantitative pharmacology of the abemaciclib/vemurafenib combination was successfully characterised and an optimised, clinically-relevant dosing strategy was identified.     

Phase I trial of carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose of paclitaxel administered weekly in combination with carboplatin and to assess its dose limiting toxicity and preliminary activity in patients with previously untreated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Carboplatin was administered at a fixed dose that maintained an area under the curve of 6. Paclitaxel was given over 1 h once a week for 3 weeks starting at 60 mg/m(2) and escalated in 10 mg/m(2) increments. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were treated with six dose levels (60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 mg/m(2)) of paclitaxel. The dose limiting toxicity was infection and the maximum tolerated dose was 110 mg/m(2). Nine of 21 (42.9%) patients demonstrated a therapeutic response. CONCLUSION: Weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin were well tolerated. Based on our results, 100 mg/m(2) of paclitaxel for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle, in combination with carboplatin, was recommended for a phase II study.     

A study of paclitaxel,carboplatin, and bortezomib in the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND:

Chemotherapy has not been reported to have a significant impact on survival for patients with metastatic melanoma. Bortezomib was shown to have additive/synergistic effects with several chemotherapeutic agents, including paclitaxel and platinum. A phase 1 trial of this 3‐drug combination reported that 6 of 28 patients treated with bortezomib followed by paclitaxel and carboplatin achieved a partial response (including 2 of 5 patients with metastatic melanoma).

METHODS:

A 2‐stage phase 2 clinical trial was conducted to assess the antitumor activity of this 3‐agent combination in patients with metastatic melanoma who had received at most 1 prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Treatment included bortezomib at a dose of 1.3 mg/m² intravenously on Days 1, 4, and 8; paclitaxel at a dose of 175 mg/m²; and carboplatin at an area under the concentration (AUC) of 6 on Day 2 of a 21‐day cycle. The primary endpoint of this trial was tumor response rate (TRR).

RESULTS:

Seventeen eligible patients were enrolled. A median of 4 cycles were administered (range, 1‐7 cycles). Three patients discontinued treatment due to persistent grade 4 (based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]) neutropenia with grade 3 leukopenia (2 patients) or grade 4 pulmonary embolism (1 patient). Grade ≥3 toxicities included neutropenia (71%), leukopenia (41%), thrombocytopenia (29%), and arthralgia (12%). Two partial responses were observed (TRR, 11.8%). Four patients had stable disease at >12 weeks. The median progression‐free survival was 3.2 months, and the median overall survival was 7.0 months.

CONCLUSIONS:

Due to insufficient clinical efficacy, this trial did not proceed to second‐stage accrual. The combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bortezomib demonstrated limited clinical benefit and was associated with significant toxicity. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Phase I study of saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with paclitaxel and/or carboplatin in patients with solid tumours

Background:

As a prelude to combination studies aimed at resistance reversal, this dose-escalation/dose-expansion study investigated the selective Src kinase inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel.

Methods:

Patients with advanced solid tumours received saracatinib once-daily oral tablets in combination with either carboplatin AUC 5 every 3 weeks (q3w), paclitaxel 175 mg m⁻² q3w, paclitaxel 80 mg m⁻² every 1 week (q1w), or carboplatin AUC 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg m⁻² q3w. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability.

Results:

A total of 116 patients received saracatinib 125 (N=20), 175 (N=44), 225 (N=40), 250 (N=9), or 300 mg (N=3). There were no clear dose-related trends within each chemotherapy regimen group in number or severity of adverse events (AEs). However, combining all groups, the occurrence of grade ⩾3 asthenic AEs (all causality) was dose-related (125 mg, 10% 175 mg, 20% ⩾225 mg, 33%), and grade ⩾3 neutropenia occurred more commonly at doses ⩾225 mg. There was no evidence that saracatinib affected exposure to carboplatin or paclitaxel, or vice versa. Objective responses were seen in 5 out of 44 patients (11%) receiving carboplatin plus paclitaxel q3w, and 5 out of 24 (21%) receiving paclitaxel q1w.

Conclusion:

Saracatinib doses up to 175 mg with paclitaxel with/without carboplatin showed acceptable toxicity in most patients, and are suitable for further trials.     

A phase II study of weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin in previously untreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Purpose: Both paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin (C) have a significant activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Weekly administration of P is active, is dose intense, and has a favorable toxicity profile. To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of weekly P and C in advanced-stage NSCLC, we initiated this phase II study in patients with advanced NSCLC (III B with pleural effusion and stage IV). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were treated with paclitaxel 100 mg/m² intravenously (iv) over 1 h followed by carboplatin AUC 2 iv over 30 min. This treatment was administered weekly for 3 of every 4 wk until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Results: Of the 30 patients enrolled in the study, one patient did not meet the eligibility criteria. Of the remaining 29 patients, 6 did not complete at least two cycles of treatment and hence were not assessable for response. The overall response rate was 43.5% (10/23) (all partial responses). An additional 43.5% had stable disease. The median time to progression was 162 d and the median duration of response was 169 d. Overall survival at 1 yr on intent-to-treat analyses was 44% and median survival was 10.8 mo. We observed the following grade 3/4 toxicities: hypersensitivity to paclitaxel (13%), hypersensitivity to carboplatin (3%), neutropenia (31%), thrombocytopenia (7%); 31% experienced grade 1 neuropathy and 17% experienced grade 2 neuropathy. Conclusions: We conclude that weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin is active and very well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Comparison of outcomes for elderly patients treated with weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus the standard 3-weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes between elderly (aged > or = 70 years) patients treated with paclitaxel on a weekly basis and with carboplatin (every 4 weeks) versus the standard 3-weekly regimen of carboplatin and paclitaxel for first-line therapy of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. METHODS: Of the 444 patients enrolled, 136 (31%) were aged > or = 70 years. Seventy-two patients were randomized to the weekly schedule (paclitaxel, 100 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 of 4 weeks; carboplatin, area under the curve [AUC] = 6 mg/mL.min on Day 1 every 4 weeks), and 64 patients were randomized to the standard schedule (paclitaxel, 225 mg/m(2); carboplatin, AUC = 6 mg/mL.min on Day 1 every 21 days). Patients with stable disease or objective response after 4 cycles of therapy were eligible for maintenance therapy with weekly paclitaxel (70 mg/m(2), 3 of 4 weeks). RESULTS: The response rate for elderly patients was 26% on the weekly regimen and 19% on the standard schedule. The median survival duration for the weekly and the standard schedules was 37 weeks and 31 weeks, respectively. The 1-year survival rates were similar at 31% and 33%. Grade 3 to 4 anemia was more common on the weekly schedule (16% vs 6%), whereas grade 3 neuropathy was less common (5.5% vs 9.5%). Nausea and emesis were also less frequent on the weekly schedule. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy was similar between the weekly regimen and the standard regimen of carboplatin and paclitaxel for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC and may be advantageous based on its favorable tolerability profile.     

Phase I dose escalation study of topotecan combined with alternating schedules of paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced solid tumors

Background:Combining topotecan with other cytotoxics has been problematic due to marrow suppression. A phase I trial was initiated to identify the optimal sequence and maximum-tolerated dose of topotecan in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin. Patients and methods:Patients with advanced cancer and performance status ECOG 2. The starting dose was paclitaxel 175 mg/m² day 1, carboplatin AUC 6.0 day 1, and topotecan 0.5 mg/m² daily day 1–5 (early sequence). The next course of paclitaxel and carboplatin administration was delayed to day 5 (late sequence). Treatment was repeated every three weeks. After determining maximum-tolerated dose without cytokines, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was added and further dose escalation was pursued. Results:Fifty-one patients were entered; men : women ratio 30 : 21. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) for the early sequence was neutropenia at doses paclitaxel mg/m²/carboplatin AUC 5/topotecan mg/m² (PCT) 175/5/0.75 for four to five days. DLT for the late sequence was neutropenia at PCT doses of 175/5/1.0 for four days. G-CSF 5 µg/kg subcutaneously starting day 6 permitted further topotecan dose escalation. After adding G-CSF, late sequence DLT was neutropenia at doses 175/5/1.25 for four days. Forty-six patients were evaluable for response and of those, there were thirteen partial responses. Conclusions:The late sequence resulted in less toxicity and was better tolerated. The early sequence maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) was 175/6/0.5 for five days. The late sequence MTD was PCT 175/5/0.75 for five days. The late sequence MTD with G-CSF was 175/5/1.0 for four days. The recommended phase II PCT dose is the late sequence 175/5/1.0 for four days with G-CSF.     

紫杉醇联合卡铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床观察

目的评价紫杉醇联合卡铂化疗对晚期非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）病人的疗效和毒副作用。方法紫杉醇每次剂量135mg／m^2,3h内静脉滴注,d1给药。在紫杉醇化疗前给予地塞米松,笨海拉明和西咪替丁预防过敏反应。卡铂每次剂量300mg／m^2,1h内静脉滴注,d1给药,3wk一个周期。结果总有效率为46．9％,初治者21例,有效率52.4％,复治者11例,有效率36．4％,中位生存期6．5mo。毒性反应主要为脱发、骨髓抑制、消化道反应及肌肉疼痛、周围神经毒性、肝功能异常、皮疹为轻度反应。结论紫杉醇加卡铂是治疗晚期NSCLC有效的联合化疗方案,其毒性反应容易耐受,对既往化疗应用过顺铂,恶心、呕吐〈Ⅲ度病人,是比较理想的方案之一。     

Phase I/II investigation of paclitaxel, ifosfamide and carboplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and tolerability of the three-drug combination of paclitaxel, ifosfamide and carboplatin (TIC) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. The specific objectives of the study were: (i) to define the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum-tolerated dose of ifosfamide administered as part of the combination; and (ii) to determine the overall response rate and overall survival of patients treated with this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated, stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled in one of three cohorts. Patients received paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) as a 1-h infusion on day 1 with carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 6 mg.min/ml on day 2. For dose level I, ifosfamide was administered at a dose of 2 g/m(2) on days 1 and 2. For dose levels II and III, the dose of ifosfamide was decreased to 1.5 g/m(2) on days 1 and 2 and the dose of carboplatin was decreased to AUC 5 mg.ml/min. Therapy for dose levels I and III included filgrastim support (5 micro g/kg/day), which was initiated on day 3 and continued until after day 11 or until an absolute neutrophil count >10 000/ micro l. Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days. Once the phase II dose was established, a full cohort of patients received therapy at this dose level to examine further the regimen's activity and tolerability. RESULTS: Neutropenia was the DLT encountered for dose levels I and II. No DLT was encountered in the initial six patients treated at dose level III, and therefore this dose level was declared the recommended phase II dose. A total of 49 patients were treated at the recommended phase II dose. The predominant non-hematological toxicity encountered with this triplet regimen was cumulative peripheral neuropathy. Of the 65 eligible patients enrolled in this study, 17 (26%) responded. There were 15 patients with partial responses (23%), two with regression, and 26 with stabilization of disease (40%). Median progression-free and overall survival were 4.8 and 9.4 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination TIC is well-tolerated. This triplet regimen produced response and survival rates in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer similar to those of other current combination chemotherapy regimens.     

Phase I and pharmacological study of an oxaliplatin and carboplatin combination in advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Phase I and pharmacokinetic study to determine the maximal tolerated dose and the recommended dose, as well as the optimal sequence of a carboplatin/oxaliplatin combination delivered every 3 weeks. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either carboplatin [area under the curve (AUC)-based individually calculated dose (starting dose AUC 4 mg.min/ml), 1 h intravenous (i.v.) infusion] followed by oxaliplatin (110 mg/m(2), 2 h i.v. infusion), every 3 weeks, or the reverse sequence. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were included and only one dose level was assessed. In group A, 10 patients received 23 cycles of carboplatin followed by oxaliplatin. In group B, 6 patients received 20 cycles with the reverse sequence. Delayed recovery from hematological toxicities was treatment-limiting, with mainly moderate thrombocytopenia and neutropenia as dose-limiting toxicities for group A (5 of 10 patients for each) and thrombocytopenia for group B (3 of 6 patients). No febrile neutropenia or grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity occurred. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed similar mean total platinum AUCs for the two groups: 37.2 +/- 13.7 and 33.6 +/- 9.9 mg.h/l, respectively. One complete response and two partial responses (World Health Organization-International Union Against Cancer criteria, response rate 18.8%) were seen in ovarian, Fallopian and neuroendocrine carcinomas, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This platinum combination appears feasible and active at the dose of AUC 4 mg.min/ml for carboplatin (Chatelut formula) and oxaliplatin 110 mg/m(2); however, it does not allow a significant increase in platinum dose-intensity delivery.     

Phase III randomised trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin with paclitaxel/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a cooperative multinational trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of paclitaxel with cisplatin or carboplatin has significant activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase III study of chemotherapy-na?ve advanced NSCLC patients was designed to assess whether response rate in patients receiving a paclitaxel/carboplatin combination was similar to that in patients receiving a paclitaxel/cisplatin combination. Paclitaxel was given at a dose of 200 mg/m(2) (3-h intravenous infusion) followed by either carboplatin at an AUC of 6 or cisplatin at a dose of 80 mg/m(2), all repeated every 3 weeks. Survival, toxicity and quality of life were also compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive one of the two combinations, stratified according to centre, performance status, disease stage and histology. The primary analyses of response rate and survival were carried out on response-evaluable patients. Survival was also analysed for all randomised patients. Toxicity analyses were carried out on all treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 618 patients were randomised. The two treatment arms were well balanced with regard to gender (83% male), age (median 58 years), performance status (83% ECOG 0-1), stage (68% IV, 32% IIIB) and histology (38% squamous cell carcinoma). In the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm, 306 patients received a total of 1311 courses (median four courses, range 1-10 courses) while in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, 302 patients received a total of 1321 courses (median four courses, range 1-10 courses). In only 76% of courses, carboplatin was administered as planned at an AUC of 6, while in 96% of courses, cisplatin was given at the planned dose of 80 mg/m(2). The response rate was 25% (70 of 279) in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm and 28% (80 of 284) in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (P = 0.45). Responses were reviewed by an independent radiological committee. For all randomised patients, median survival was 8.5 months in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm and 9.8 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm [hazard ratio 1.20, 90% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.40]; the 1-year survival rates were 33% and 38%, respectively. On the same dataset, a survival update after 22 months of additional follow-up yielded a median survival of 8.2 months in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm and 9.8 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (hazard ratio 1.22, 90% CI 1.06-1.40; P = 0.019); the 2-year survival rates were 9% and 15%, respectively. Excluding neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, which were more frequent in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm, and nausea/vomiting and nephrotoxicity, which were more frequent in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, the rate of severe toxicities was generally low and comparable between the two arms. Overall quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13) was also similar between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first trial comparing carboplatin and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Although paclitaxel/carboplatin yielded a similar response rate, the significantly longer median survival obtained with paclitaxel/cisplatin indicates that cisplatin-based chemotherapy should be the first treatment option.     

Recombinant human angiostatin (rhAngiostatin) in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study from Indiana University.

Background: Recombinant human angiostatin (rhAngiostatin) functions as a potent inhibitor of angiogenesis. This study combined rhAngiostatin with a standard chemotherapy regimen in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methods: Eligible patients had chemotherapy-naïve stage IIIB (with pleural effusion) or IV NSCLC, performance status (PS) 0 or 1, no history of bleeding, brain metastasis or requirements for anti-coagulation. Patients received carboplatin (AUC 5) intravenously and paclitaxel (175 mg/m²) intravenously day 1 + subcutaneous rhAngiostatin at either 15 mg or 60 mg twice daily. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks, for up to six cycles. Patients without progression after completing at least four cycles were continued on maintenance rhAngiostatin until disease progression.Results: Patient characteristics (n = 24) were: 16 males, median age 66 years (range 45–78), 54% PS 1, 83.3% stage IV and 62.5% adenocarcinoma. Grade 3/4 toxicities included: fatigue 47.8%, neutropenia 39.1%, dyspnea 39.1%, vascular 26.1% and infection 17.4%. The overall response rate was 39.1%, 39.1% stable disease and 21.7% progressive disease. Median time to progression was 144 days, and 1-year survival was 45.8%.Conclusions: rhAngiostatin in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin is feasible and results in a high disease control rate in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Phase I study of CT-2103, a polymer-conjugated paclitaxel, and carboplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of CT-2103 (poly L-glutamic acid-paclitaxel) in combination with carboplatin in patients with histologically proven solid tumors that were either refractory to conventional treatment or for which no conventional therapy was available. Patients and Methods: Twenty-two adult patients with advanced solid tumors were treated in this dose escalation study. Patients were treated every 21 days with CT-2103 at 175, 210, 225, or 250 mg/m² (doses expressed as units of conjugated-paclitaxel) via 10-20 minute intravenous (IV) infusion, followed one hour later with carboplatin administered at AUC 5 or 6 via 30 minute IV infusion. No prophylaxis for hypersensitivity was administered with initial treatment. Doses were administered every 21 days until progressive disease or dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed. Toxicity was evaluated using NCI Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v2.0 (CTCAE v2.0); response to treatment was evaluated using Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Results: The MTD was determined to be 225 mg/m². DLTs observed at 250 mg/m² were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. No hypersensitivity reactions were observed. Three patients achieved partial responses (PR). Fifteen patients received at least 3 cycles of treatment without observation of progressive disease. Median survival time was 5.9 months. Patients that demonstrated partial responses were all ovarian cancer patients that had previously failed paclitaxel therapy. The only Grade 4, nonhematologic treatment-related toxicity was febrile neutropenia. Grade 4 neutropenia (9 patients) was observed across all dose groups. Twelve patients developed thrombocytopenia (Grade 3/4) while receiving combination therapy. All had resolution of thrombocytopenia with discontinuation of carboplatin, suggesting that carboplatin, and not CT-2103, contributed mainly to platelet toxicity. Conclusion: CT-2103 administered at 225 mg/m² every 21 days in combination with carboplatin administered at AUC 6 has a manageable safety profile in patients with solid tumors; further clinical investigation is recommended, especially in patients with ovarian or non-small cell lung cancer.