Prophylactic G-CSF and antibiotics enable a significant dose-escalation of triplet-chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) the clinical benefit of a platinum-based doublet is only modest, therefore, attenuated dosed three-drug combinations are investigated. We hypothesized that with adequate support a full dosed chemotherapy triplet is feasible. The study was designed as a dose finding study of paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naive patients. Paclitaxel was given as a 3-h infusion on day 1, followed by fixed doses of teniposide (or etoposide) 100 mg/m² days 1, 3, 5 and cisplatin 80 mg/m² day 1 every 3 weeks. As myelotoxicity was expected to be the dose-limiting toxicity, prophylactic G-CSF and antibiotic support was evaluated. Indeed, paclitaxel 120 mg/m² resulted in dose-limiting neutropenia, despite G-CSF support. Teniposide/etoposide day 1, 3, 5 was less myelotoxic compared to day 1, 2, 3. G-CSF support allowed paclitaxel dose-escalation to 250 mg/m². The addition of prophylactic antibiotics enabled dose-escalation to 275 mg/m² without reaching MTD. In conclusion, G-CSF and antibiotics prophylaxis enables the delivery of a full dosed chemotherapy triplet in previously untreated NSCLC patients.     

Decision framework for chemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Best supportive care has long been considered to be the standard therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is now evidence from randomized trials that a number of chemotherapy regimens can palliate cancer-related symptoms and modestly improve survival. We show how cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to make choices between different (ambulatory) chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: Clinical algorithms describing the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of metastatic NSCLC were incorporated into Statistics Canada's Population Health Model. Using consistent methodology, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of several chemotherapeutic interventions: a combination of vindesine (VDS) plus cisplatin, etoposide (VP-16) plus cisplatin, vinblastine (VLB) plus cisplatin, vinorelbine (Navelbine; NVB) plus cisplatin, paclitaxel (Taxol) plus cisplatin, and gemcitabine (GEM) and NVB alone. We calculated the total chemotherapy costs in 1995 Canadian dollars, the cost per case, the average life-years saved, and the cost per life-year saved. Using the Population Health Model, we then constructed an advanced decision framework that rank-ordered the various treatment regimens so as to optimize benefit below various cost-effectiveness thresholds. RESULTS: One regimen (VLB plus cisplatin) appears to result in better survival and lower health care expenditures than best supportive care. By use of cost-effectiveness thresholds of $25,000 and $50,000 per life-year gained, NVB plus cisplatin is the preferred regimen. When quality of life is considered, however, GEM is preferred to NVB plus cisplatin at a threshold value of $50,000. At thresholds of $75 000 and $100,000, paclitaxel plus cisplatin at a dose of 135 mg/m(2) is the preferred regimen. At thresholds of $50,000 and above, best supportive care is the least preferred regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This decision framework allows the comparison of different treatment regimens based on various cost-effectiveness thresholds. Our analysis also supports the use of chemotherapy regimens and the abandonment of best supportive care as the standard of care for patients with advanced NSCLC. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1321-9].     

Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial.

PURPOSE: Treatment with cisplatin-based chemotherapy provides a modest survival advantage over supportive care alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To determine whether a new agent, paclitaxel, would further improve survival in NSCLC, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a randomized trial comparing paclitaxel plus cisplatin to a standard chemotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin and etoposide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was carried out by a multi-institutional cooperative group in chemotherapy-naive stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients randomized to receive paclitaxel plus cisplatin or etoposide plus cisplatin. Paclitaxel was administered at two different dose levels (135 mg/m(2) and 250 mg/m(2)), and etoposide was given at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) daily on days 1 to 3. Each regimen was repeated every 21 days and each included cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). RESULTS: The characteristics of the 599 patients were well-balanced across the three treatment groups. Superior survival was observed with the combined paclitaxel regimens (median survival time, 9.9 months; 1-year survival rate, 38.9%) compared with etoposide plus cisplatin (median survival time, 7.6 months; 1-year survival rate, 31.8%; P =. 048). Comparing survival for the two dose levels of paclitaxel revealed no significant difference. The median survival duration for the stage IIIB subgroup was 7.9 months for etoposide plus cisplatin patients versus 13.1 months for all paclitaxel patients (P =.152). For the stage IV subgroup, the median survival time for etoposide plus cisplatin was 7.6 months compared with 8.9 months for paclitaxel (P =.246). With the exceptions of increased granulocytopenia on the low-dose paclitaxel regimen and increased myalgias, neurotoxicity, and, possibly, increased treatment-related cardiac events with high-dose paclitaxel, toxicity was similar across all three arms. Quality of life (QOL) declined significantly over the 6 months. However, QOL scores were not significantly different among the regimens. CONCLUSION: As a result of these observations, paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) combined with cisplatin has replaced etoposide plus cisplatin as the reference regimen in our recently completed phase III trial.     

Taxanes as first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and practice guideline

This evidence-based practice guideline on the use of paclitaxel (Taxol^®) or docetaxel (Taxotere^®) as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who are candidates for palliative first-line chemotherapy is based on a systematic search and review of literature published in full or in abstract form between 1985 and April 2005. Forty-five randomized trials, including 11 abstracts, were reviewed and clinicians in the province of Ontario, Canada, provided feedback on a draft version of the guideline. Two phase III trials detected a statistically significant survival advantage for a taxane (paclitaxel or docetaxel) with best supportive care versus best supportive care alone. Among the nine fully published phase III trials comparing platinum-based chemotherapies, taxane-platinum combinations achieved higher response rates compared with older chemotherapy combinations, although significantly longer survival was observed only for docetaxel-cisplatin compared with vindesine-cisplatin. Response rates and survival were generally not significantly different for taxane-platinum combinations compared with other current chemotherapy combinations, although the toxicity profile of the regimens varied. However, in one large trial, improved tumor response and modest survival and quality of life benefits were associated with docetaxel-cisplatin compared with vinorelbine-cisplatin. No statistically significant survival differences were detected in the three fully published phase III trials comparing a taxane-gemcitabine combination with a taxane-platinum regimen.

Recommendations: (i) paclitaxel or docetaxel combined with cisplatin is recommended as one of a number of chemotherapy options for the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in patients with a good performance status; (ii) carboplatin may be combined with a taxane if a patient is unable or unwilling to take cisplatin; (iii) a taxane-gemcitabine combination may be considered for patients with a contraindication to cisplatin and carboplatin; (iv) no firm recommendation can be made on the optimal dose and schedule of taxane-based chemotherapy; however, commonly used regimens include cisplatin 75 mg/m² combined with either docetaxel 75 mg/m² or paclitaxel 135 mg/m² (24-h infusion) and carboplatin AUC 6 combined with paclitaxel 225 mg/m² (3-h infusion); (v) a single-agent taxane may be used if combination chemotherapy is considered inappropriate.     

Cost-minimisation analysis of three regimens of chemotherapy (docetaxel-cisplatin, paclitaxel-cisplatin, paclitaxel-carboplatin) for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficiency (the evaluation of efficacy in relation to costs) of three first-line treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stage IIIB and IV) used in the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) study: docetaxel/cisplatin (75/75 mg/m(2)/day, 1 h intravenous (i.v.) infusion of docetaxel), paclitaxel/cisplatin (175/75 mg/m(2)/day, 3 or 24 h i.v. infusion of paclitaxel) and paclitaxel/carboplatin (175/400 or 225/400 mg/m(2)/day, 3 h i.v. infusion of paclitaxel). METHODS: The results of the ECOG 1594 phase III clinical trial (Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 19 (2000) 2) demonstrated equivalent efficacy (survival, objective response) between the treatment options. To differentiate between the treatment options, we performed a cost-minimisation analysis, using a pharmacoeconomic model. RESULTS: The average estimated treatment cost per patient (median, 4 cycles) with docetaxel/cisplatin would be 1067836 Spanish pesetas (Ptas) (6418 Euros; 5741 US dollars (USD)), 1365304 or 1439369 Ptas (8205 or 8651 Euros; 7340 or 7738 USD) with paclitaxel/cisplatin (3 or 24 h infusions, respectively), and 1417995 or 1616784 Ptas (8522 or 9717 Euros; 7623 or 8692 USD) (paclitaxel dose of 175 or 225 mg/m(2)/day, respectively) with paclitaxel/carboplatin. CONCLUSION: According to our study, the treatment option docetaxel/cisplatin, with equal efficacy, would result in a cost saving of between 297468 and 548948 Ptas (1788 and 3299 Euros; 1599 and 2951 USD) per patient treated. This difference is mainly due to the lower treatment cost of docetaxel.     

Phase I and pharmacological study of paclitaxel given over 3 h with cisplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: To establish the toxicities and maximum tolerated dose of paclitaxel given over 3 h in combination with cisplatin, to determine the pharmacokinetic profiles of these two drugs and to observe their antitumor activity, we conducted a combination phase I study in non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients received paclitaxel doses of 150-210 mg/m2 given over 3 h and cisplatin doses of 60-80 mg/m2 as a 1 h infusion 2 h after the end of the paclitaxel infusion. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients with previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled. Granulocytopenia was the most frequent hematological toxicity and the most prominent non-hematological toxicity was sensory dominant neuropathy. Two of six patients experienced dose limiting toxicities (leukopenia, infection and neuropathy) at a dose of paclitaxel 210 mg/m2 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2, which was considered the maximum tolerated dose. There were seven partial responses among 24 evaluable patients, for an overall response rate of 29%. The median survival time was 341 days and the 1 year survival rate was 45.8%. As the paclitaxel pharmacokinetic parameters in this study were consistent with those of our previous single agent study, we found no significant drug-drug interaction between the 3 h infusion paclitaxel and cisplatin. CONCLUSION: The recommended doses for further study are determined to be paclitaxel 180 mg/m2 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2. This is a well-tolerated and active regimen for non-small cell lung cancer. In view of the promising survival outcome, further evaluation in prospective randomized trials versus other regimens is warranted.     

Counting the costs of chemotherapy in a National Cancer Institute of Canada randomized trial in nonsmall-cell lung cancer

An economic evaluation was undertaken of a previously reported National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) trial of chemotherapy in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). That trial had demonstrated a survival benefit associated with the use of either vindesine and cisplatin (VP) or cyclosphosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (CAP) in relation to best supportive care (BSC). The economic technique used in this evaluation was cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). All costs were determined from the viewpoint of two provincial health care plans. When compared with BSC, the survival benefit of 8 weeks in favor of patients receiving CAP chemotherapy was associated with an economic saving of $949.49 (in 1984 Canadian dollars). This translated into a savings of $6,171.69 per year of life gained. The mean survival benefit of 12.8 weeks that was obtained with VP chemotherapy compared with BSC was associated with an increased cost of $3,637.60 per patient, or $14,777.75 per year of life gained. The economic evaluation demonstrated that the majority of costs on each of the three treatment arms was related to hospitalization and not to the use of chemotherapy agents. These results compare favorably with estimates of cost-effectiveness (CE) of commonly used treatments for other diseases and demonstrate that a policy of supportive care is associated with costs that may exceed those of active treatment. It is concluded that economic factors should not adversely affect decisions regarding the use of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC.     

放射治疗同时化疗Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌

目的 评价放射治疗结合不同化疗方案治疗不能手术的Ⅲ期非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）疗效。方法 62例不能手术的Ⅲ期NSCLC患者随机分为2个组：29例每周接受1次紫杉醇30mg、顺铂30mg化疗（紫杉醇组）,33例每周接受1次依托泊甙（VP-16）100mg、顺铂30mg化疗（VP-16组）。连续5～6周,均同时配合常规分割放射治疗（2Gy/次,5次/周）,照射野包括肺部原发灶和纵隔淋巴引流区,总剂量为60～70Gy。结果 紫杉醇组总有效（CR PR）为82.8%,完全缓解（CR）率为10.3%,VP-16组总有效率为54.6%,CR率为18.0%。2个组总有效率差异有显著性意义(X^2=4.41,P=0.038）。中位生存期、1、2年生存率紫杉醇组分别为12.8个月、52.2%、27.3%,VP-16组分别为9.8月、42.8%、18.4%,2个组差异无显著性意义。化疗的毒副作用主要是骨髓抑制和消化道反应,但均可耐受。结论 紫杉醇组治疗不能手术的Ⅲ期NSCLC近期有效率明显优于VP-16组,但不提高生存率。     

Cisplatin, etoposide, and paclitaxel with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in untreated patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a phase II trial of the Southwest Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine the efficacy and toxicity of cisplatin, etoposide, and paclitaxel (PET) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Chemo-naive adult patients with a performance status (PS) of 0-2 and adequate organ function were eligible. Patients received cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) i.v., etoposide 80 mg/m-2 i.v., and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) i.v. over a 3-h period on day 1 followed by etoposide 160 mg/m(2) p.o. on days 2 and 3 every 21 days for six cycles. G-CSF 5 microg/kg was injected s.c. on days 4-14. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were assessable. The median age was 60 years; 50% were male, 78% had PS of 0-1, 28% had PS of 2, 53% had multiple sites, and 13% had brain involvement. The overall response rate was 57% with 10 (12%) of 84 patients achieving a complete response. Median progression-free survival was 6 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5-7 months] with a median survival of 11 months (95% CI, 8-13 months) and a 1-year survival rate of 43% (95% CI, 33-54%). Six patients (7%) died from toxicity. Grade 5 toxicity occurred in 3 (14%) of 22 patients (with a PS of 2) versus 3 (5%) of 61 patients (with a PS of 0-1; P, not significant). Grade 4 neutropenia developed in 40% of patients. Grade 3 nonhematological toxicities were primarily nausea (20%), vomiting (16%), and fatigue (14%). CONCLUSION: The survival result achieved was superior to prior SWOG experiences; however, the toxic death rate was unacceptably high in PS-2 patients. These results provide the largest database for the ongoing randomized Intergroup trial comparing PET to cisplatin+etoposide in PS-0-1 patients with ES-SCLC.     

Paclitaxel steady-state plasma concentration as a determinant of disease outcome and toxicity in lung cancer patients treated with paclitaxel and cisplatin.

The principal purpose of this study was to evaluate relationships between paclitaxel plasma steady-state concentration (Css) and both disease outcome and toxicity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with paclitaxel and cisplatin in an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Phase III study E5592. Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIb and IV NSCLC were randomized to treatment with either 75 mg/m2 cisplatin i.v. on day 1 and 100 mg/m2 etoposide i.v. on days 1-3 (EC arm) or 75 mg/m2 cisplatin i.v. combined with either a low dose of paclitaxel (135 mg/m2, 24-h i.v. infusion; PC arm) or a higher dose of paclitaxel (250 mg/m2 i.v., 24-h i.v. infusion) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PCG arm). End-of-24-h-infusion paclitaxel concentrations, which have been demonstrated to be nearly equal to CssS on this schedule, were obtained during the first and second courses in patients on the PC and PCG arms. Relationships between the average paclitaxel Css (Css,avg) and the best response to treatment, time to treatment failure (TTF), survival, and worst grade of leukopenia and neurotoxicity were evaluated by univariate analysis. A multivariate model was used to assess the influence of paclitaxel Css in conjunction with other potentially relevant patient variables that may affect disease outcome, including the paclitaxel treatment arm, age, sex, performance status, weight loss during the previous 6 months, and disease stage. Paclitaxel Css in both courses 1 and 2 were obtained in 71 patients treated with PC and 75 patients treated with PCG. Although Css,avgS in patients treated with PC and PCG were significantly different (median, 0.32 versus 0.81 micromol/liter; P < 0.0001), response rates were not (33.8 versus 26.7%; P = 0.3719). In addition, there were no differences between the PC and PCG arms in TTF (median, 5.1 versus 5.5 months, P = 0.6201) or survival (median, 11.6 versus 11.3 months, P = 0.7173). Combined analysis of paclitaxel concentrations from both treatment arms revealed no significant difference in paclitaxel Css,avg between responders and nonresponders [median, 0.40 (range, 0.16-1.6) micromol/liter versus 0.55 (range, 0.11-3.6)], and Css,avgS were similar in patients segregated according to whether they had a complete response, partial response, stable disease, or progressive disease as their best response to treatment (P = 0.7612). In addition, the relationship between Css,avg and TTF was weak (r2 = 0.00003, P = 0.94), as was the relationship between Css,avg and survival (P = 0.1267). With regard to the principal toxicities, neither the propensity to develop neuromuscular and neurosensory toxicity nor the worst grade of these adverse effects were related to Css,avg (P = 0.5000 and 0.2033, respectively); however, the relationship between Css,avg and the worst grade of leukopenia experienced was marginally significant (P = 0.0796). In a multivariate model, neither the combined effect of relevant demographic and stratification variables nor paclitaxel Css,avg predicted for either response (P = 0.1544) or TTF (P = 0.2574), whereas the combined effect of all covariates predicted for survival (P = 0.0249). With regard to individual covariates, a lower disease stage (stage IIIb) was the only significant positive determinant of response (P = 0.0173), female sex was the only significant favorable predictor for TTF (P = 0.0195), and a lower ECOG performance status (= 0) was the only significant positive determinant of survival (P = 0.0121) in the multivariate model. In summary, paclitaxel Css,avg was not a determinant of response, TTF, or survival in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with paclitaxel as a 24-h i.v. infusion combined with cisplatin. On the basis of both the clinical and pharmacodynamic results of E5592, there is no compelling reason to treat patients with advanced NSCLC with paclitaxel on a 24-h i.v. schedule at doses of > 135 mg/m2 in combination with cisplatin, although highe     

Phase II trial of paclitaxel by 96-hour continuous infusion in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Our purpose was to determine the antitumor efficacy and safety profile of the combination of paclitaxel administered by 96-h continuous i.v. infusion followed by bolus cisplatin in patients with untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Fifty-eight patients with untreated advanced or recurrent NSCLC were enrolled between October 1995 and December 1998. The median patient age was 60 years (age range, 34-75 years). Twenty-four patients were female. The majority of patients (n = 52) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1. Twelve patients had stage IIIB NSCLC, 43 had stage IV disease, and 3 had recurrent disease after prior resection. Seven patients had received cranial irradiation for brain metastases, and 5 patients had received bone irradiation before enrollment. Patients were treated with paclitaxel (120 mg/m2/96 h) by continuous i.v. infusion followed by cisplatin (80 mg/m2) on day 5. Therapy was administered every 3 weeks as tolerated until disease progression or a maximum of six cycles. A total of 264 cycles of therapy were administered. Twenty-nine patients received all six cycles. Forty-six patients had measurable disease, with 20 patients achieving a partial response, and no complete responses were seen (overall response rate, 43%; 95% confidence interval, 29-60%). The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months. At a median potential follow-up of 27.2 months, the median survival for all 58 enrolled patients was 8.5 months, and the actuarial 1-year survival was 37% (95% confidence interval, 25.9-50.5%). This is the most extensive evaluation of prolonged continuous infusional paclitaxel in patients with advanced-stage cancer. In contrast to predictions from in vitro cytotoxicity models, the regimen does not appear to be obviously superior to shorter infusion times in the clinical setting. Additional trials of this regimen in patients with NSCLC are therefore of low priority.     

Paclitaxel by 1-h infusion in combination with carboplatin in advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC)

In our previous study, FCCC 93-024, paclitaxel by 24-h infusion combined with carboplatin yielded a response rate of 62% and median survival of 54 weeks in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Myelosuppression proved dose-limiting, requiring the routine use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). Based on the reported activity of 1-h paclitaxel infusion in NSCLC and minimal myelosuppression at doses of 135 and 200 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and the suggestion of a dose-response relationship, we launched an intrapatient dose escalation trial of combination carboplatin and 1-h paclitaxel. Chemotherapy-na?ve patients with advanced NSCLC received paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 1-h and carboplatin dosed to a fixed targeted area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 7.5 at three weekly intervals for six cycles. In the absence of grade 4 myelosuppression, paclitaxel was escalated by 35 mg/m2/cycle on an intrapatient basis to a maximum dose of 280 mg/m2 by cycle 4. G-CSF was not routinely used. 57 patients (pts) were accrued from November 1994 through to April 1996. 44 pts (77%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 1. Median age was 64 (range: 34-80) years. Cumulative peripheral sensory neuropathy proved dose-limiting and prohibitive in the first 20 evaluable patients (cohort A): grade > or = 1 in 15 patients (75%), grade 3 in 6 (30%), generally occurring at paclitaxel doses > or = 215 mg/m2 and obligating 3 patients to have treatment halted in the absence of disease progression. The protocol, therefore, was revised and the initial paclitaxel dose reduced to 135 mg/m2 with intrapatient dose escalation of 40 mg/m2/cycle to a maximum dose of 215 mg/m2, recapitulating the original dosing schema used in FCCC 93-024. 35 patients were enrolled in this second cohort (B); 33 proved evaluable. Whilst 17 (52%) experienced peripheral sensory neuropathy, grade 3 neurotoxicity developed in only 3 (9%). Myelosuppression also was less pronounced, with 42% exhibiting grade 4 granulocytopenia and 30% grade > or = 3 thrombocytopenia in cohort B compared with 70% and 50%, respectively in cohort A. Of the first 22 patients accrued to cohort A, 12 (55%) had major objective responses. Median survival was 48.5 weeks, 1-year survival rate 45% and 2-year survival rate 18%. Of 33 evaluable patients in cohort B, 9 (27%) had major objective responses. Median survival was 46 weeks, 1-year survival rate 47% and 2-year survival rate 12%. Combination paclitaxel by 1-h infusion and carboplatin at a fixed targeted AUC of 7.5 is active in advanced NSCLC. Neurotoxicity, not myelosuppression, proved dose-limiting at paclitaxel doses exceeding 215 mg/m2. Lower doses may be associated with lower response rates, but do not appear to compromise survival.     

Economic analysis of a randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (Italian GEMVIN3/NCIC CTG BR14 trial)

Background/objective

Non-platinum-based chemotherapy is a potential alternative to platinum doublet therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in selected patients. We determined the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine/vinorelbine (GEMVIN), versus cisplatin/gemcitabine (PG) or cisplatin/vinorelbine (PV), from a government payer perspective.

Methods

Results from a randomized trial of GEMVIN versus PG or PV demonstrated no significant difference in global quality of life (primary endpoint) or overall survival between regimens, but superior progression-free survival for platinum-based regimens. A cost analysis was conducted using direct medical costs of treatment, grade 3 or 4 toxicity management, and investigations for the mean number of cycles per study arm. Costs were calculated using Canadian dollars in 2005, and then in 2013 after drug patent expiry.

Results

In 2005, GEMVIN was the most expensive regimen ($6868), and PV the least expensive ($4650), with an incremental cost of GEMVIN over PV of $2218. Diagnostic and administration costs did not differ significantly among regimens; GEMVIN had the lowest toxicity costs. The principal cost driver in 2005 was the cost of chemotherapy. In 2013, toxicity and administration costs emerged as major drivers; GEMVIN was less costly than PV and PG, (cost savings of $413 over PV).

Conclusion

Despite similar outcomes, GEMVIN was more expensive than PV or PG in 2005 because of higher chemotherapy costs. By 2013, after chemotherapy drug patent expiry, GEMVIN became the least costly regimen. Economic considerations in oncology change over time, and should be revisited in policy decisions based on cost.     

Phase II study of paclitaxel (Genaxol) and cisplatin combination in treating Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of 3-h paclitaxel infusion (Genaxol) combined with cisplatin as the first line chemotherapy for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality of life of the combination of paclitaxel (Genaxol) and cisplatin on Chinese patients. METHODS: Forty-five patients with histology confirmed NSCLC, who met the selection criteria were enrolled in this study between June 1999 and May 2000. They were all at an advanced stage, i.e. stage IIIB with pleural effusion, or stage IV. Paclitaxel (Genaxol) at a dose of 175 mg/m(2) and cisplatin at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) were administered every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 45 eligible patients, one had a CR and 19 achieved a PR. The overall response was 44.4% (95% CI: 29.3-59.5%). Eleven (24.4%) patients were in stable disease. The median time to disease progression for all patients was 5.5 months (95% CI: 4.0-7.0 months). The median survival was 11.1 months (95% CI: 6.6-15.6 months), the 1-year survival probability was 46.5%. Major non-hematology toxicities were asthenia, paresthesias, nausea, and vomiting. Hematological toxicity results showed 18 (40%) patients experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia but there was no febrile neutropenia, three (6.6%) patients experienced Grade 3 anemia, and one (2.2%) patient experienced Grade 3 thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: The combined paclitaxel and cisplatin regimen is safe and effective in the treatment of NSCLC but the quality of life is disappointed.     

A phase II study of paclitaxel plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Japanese patients

We performed a clinical phase II trial of the combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with locally advanced (stage IIIB) or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using a 3-h infusion of paclitaxel followed by a 1 to 2-h infusion of cisplatin, with a short premedication regimen. Treatment was repeated every 21 days for at least two cycles. The patients received paclitaxel 180 mg/m2 followed by cisplatin 80 mg/m2. Enrolled in the trial were 33 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB (15%) or stage IV (85%) NSCLC. Their median age was 61 years (range 43-71 years). Of the 33 patients, 10 (30%) were women and 23 (70%) were men, and 82% had adenocarcinoma. With 78 courses of chemotherapy administered, 32 patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. Hematologic toxicities were moderate: Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 37% of the cycles (53% of patients). Other toxicities consisted mainly of grade 1 or 2 alopecia and nausea/vomiting, but also included grade 1 or 2 neuropathy (47%), hypotension (grade 1 in 6%, grade 3 in 3%) and allergic reactions (grade 1 or 2 in 16%, grade 3 in 3%). Of 32 patients evaluable for response, a partial response was achieved in 10 (31%; 95% confidence interval 16% to 50%), stable disease was seen in 16 (50%), and disease progression was seen in 2 (6%). The median survival time was 14.8 months and the 1-year survival rate was 56%. These results suggest that the combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin is a well-tolerated and active regimen in Japanese patients with advanced NSCLC. In view of the promising survival outcomes, further evaluation in prospective randomized trials with other regimens is warranted.     

Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer：opportunities for advancement

Locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) continues to be a challenging disease to treat. With high rates of both local and distant failures, there is significant interest in finding more biologically active chemotherapy regimens that can contribute to reduce both failures. The phase III PROCLAIM trial, recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology entitled“PROCLAIM: randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed–cisplatin or etoposide–cisplatin plus thoracic radiation therapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer”, compared two different chemotherapy regimens given concurrently with radiotherapy in patients with stage III non-squamous lung cancer: pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin plus etoposide. Both groups received con-solidation chemotherapy. After enrolling 598 of planned 600 patients, the study was stopped early due to futility as no difference was seen in the primary end-point of overall survival. Since PROCLAIM was designed as a superiority trial, these results suggest that pemetrexed regimens do not offer a clinical advantage over standard cisplatin plus etopo-side. There are some subpopulations who might still benefit from pemetrexed, especially if clinicians are concerned about myelosuppression-related adverse events. Future trials are needed to investigate novel biologic agents and irradiation techniques that can result in more durable local and distant disease control in locally advanced NSCLC.     

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of losoxantrone and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

A Phase I and pharmacological study was performed to evaluate the feasibility, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and pharmacokinetics of the anthrapyrazole losoxantrone in combination with paclitaxel in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. Losoxantrone was administered as a 10-min infusion in combination with paclitaxel on either a 24- or 3-h schedule. The starting dose level was 40 mg/m2 losoxantrone and 135 mg/m2 paclitaxel (as a 24- or 3-h i.v. infusion) without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Administration of these agents at the starting dose level and dose escalation was feasible only with G-CSF support. The following dose levels (losoxantrone/paclitaxel, in mg/m2) of losoxantrone and paclitaxel as a 3-h infusion were also evaluated: 50/135, 50/175, 50/200, 50/225, and 60/225. The sequence-dependent toxicological and pharmacological effects of losoxantrone and paclitaxel on the 24- and 3-h schedules of paclitaxel were also assessed. The MTD was defined as the dose at which >50% of the patients experienced DLT during the first two courses of therapy. DLTs, mainly myelosuppression, occurring during the first course of therapy were noted in four of six and five of eight patients treated with 40 mg/m2 losoxantrone and 135 mg/m2 paclitaxel over 24 and 3 h, respectively, without G-CSF. DLTs during the first two courses of therapy were observed in one of six patients at the 50/175 (losoxantrone/paclitaxel) mg/m2 dose level, two of four patients at the 50/200 mg/m2 dose level, one of four patients at the 50/225 mg/m2 dose level, and two of five patients at the 60/225 mg/m2 dose level. The degree of thrombocytopenia was worse, albeit not statistically significant, when 24-h paclitaxel preceded losoxantrone, with a mean percentage decrement in platelet count during course 1 of 80.7%, compared to 43.8% with the reverse sequence (P = 0.19). Losoxantrone clearance was not significantly altered by the sequence or schedule of paclitaxel. Cardiac toxicity was observed; however, it was not related to total cumulative dose of losoxantrone. An unacceptably high rate of DLTs at the first dose level of 40 mg/m2 losoxantrone and 135 mg/m2 paclitaxel administered as either a 24- or 3-h i.v. infusion precluded dose escalation without G-CSF support. The addition of G-CSF to the regimen permitted further dose escalation without reaching the MTD. Losoxantrone at 50 mg/m2 followed by paclitaxel (3-h i.v. infusion) at 175 mg/m2 with G-CSF support is recommended for further clinical trials.     

Single-agent gemcitabine: an active and better tolerated alternative to standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

This randomized study was designed to determine the response rates, survival and toxicities of single-agent gemcitabine (GEMZAR) and a combination of cisplatin/etoposide in chemonaive patients with non-resectable, locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 was given as a 30-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod performance status 0-2, no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases. One hundred and forty-seven patients were enrolled, 72 in the gemcitabine and 75 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm. Patient characteristics were well-matched across both arms. Sixty-seven gemcitabine and 72 cisplatin/etoposide patients were qualified for efficacy analysis. There were no complete responses, but 12 partial responses in the gemcitabine arm and 11 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm, for protocol-qualified response but 12 partial responses in the gemcitabine arm and 11 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm, for protocol-qualified response rates of 17.9% (95%, CI: 9.6-29.2%,) and 15.3% (95% CI: 7.9-25.7%,), respectively. Median survival times were 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.9-7.3 months) for gemcitabine and 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.4-9.3 months) for cisplatin/etoposide. The 1-year survival probability estimate was 26% for gemcitabine and 24% for cisplatin/etoposide. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in time-to-event measures, but patients in the gemcitabine arm had a greater probability of achieving a tumour response after 2 months (probability estimate: 8 vs. 0%,) and of the response lasting at least 6 months (73 vs. 45%,). Clinical and haematologic toxicity was more pronounced in the cisplatin/etoposide arm. Quality-of-life measures indicated a significant worsening of symptomatology in the cisplatin/etoposide arm for hair loss, nausea and vomiting, and appetite loss. This randomized study provides further evidence that single-agent gemcitabine is an active and effective therapy for patients with non-resectable. locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and good performance status, and that it is better tolerated than the combination cisplatin/ etoposide.     

紫杉醇脂质体联合顺铂方案一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床随机对照研究

背景与目的紫杉醇联合顺铂方案(pacilitaxel plus cisplatin,TP)是目前一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)的标准方案之一。本研究旨在比较紫杉醇脂质体联合顺铂(liposome pacilitaxelplus cisplatin,LP)方案与TP方案一线治疗晚期NSCLC的近期疗效、远期生存及毒副反应。方法 100例患者随机分为两组,分别静脉注射紫杉醇脂质体和紫杉醇注射液150 mg/m~2,第1天,联合顺铂75mg/m~2,第1天-2天,21天一个周期。结果 100例患者均可评价疗效,其中LP组中位无进展生存期(progression free survival,PFS)为5.1个月,中位总生存期(overall survival,OS)为9.0个月,客观反应率(response rate,RR)为26%;TP组中位PFS为4.2个月,中位OS为9.3个月,RR为24%;两组比较均无统计学差异(P=0.110;P=0.342;P=0.890)。两组Ⅲ度+Ⅳ度毒性反应均无统计学差异(P>0.05),LP组末梢神经炎发生率低于TP组(8%vs 28%,P=0.030)。结论 LP方案一线治疗晚期NSCLC疗效与TP方案相当,末梢神经炎发生率低于TP方案。     

Phase III comparison of high-dose paclitaxel + cisplatin + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor versus low-dose paclitaxel + cisplatin in advanced head and neck cancer: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E1393.

PURPOSE: To determine dose-response effects and the activity of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin in patients with incurable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred ten patients with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease were randomly placed in either Arm A, paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) (24-hour infusion) + cisplatin 75mg/m(2) + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or Arm B, paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) (24-hour infusion) + cisplatin 75 mg/m(2). Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks until progression or a total of 12 cycles for complete responses. Primary outcomes were event-free and overall survival. RESULTS: No significant differences in outcomes were observed between the high- and low-dose paclitaxel regimens. The estimated median survival was 7.3 months (95% confidence interval, 6.0 to 8.6). The 1-year survival rate was 29%, and event-free survival was 4.0 months. The objective response rate (complete response plus partial response) was 35% for the high-dose patients and 36% for the low-dose patients. Myelosuppression was the most frequent toxicity: grade 3 or 4 granulocytopenia, 70% of patients in Arm A and 78% in Arm B; febrile neutropenia, 27% of patients in Arm A and 39% in Arm B. Grade 5 toxicities occurred in 22 patients (10.5%). Treatment was terminated early in 31% because of excessive toxicity or patient refusal. CONCLUSION: This phase III multicenter trial showed (1) no advantage for high-dose paclitaxel and (2) excessive hematologic toxicity associated with both regimens. Therefore, neither of the paclitaxel regimens evaluated in this trial can be recommended.