Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether docetaxel plus platinum regimens improve survival and affect quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with vinorelbine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1,218) with stage IIIB to IV NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (DC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the curve of 6 mg/mL * min every 3 weeks (DCb); or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (VC). RESULTS: Patients treated with DC had a median survival of 11.3 v 10.1 months for VC-treated patients (P =.044; hazard ratio, 1.183 [97.2% confidence interval, 0.989 to 1.416]). The 2-year survival rate was 21% for DC-treated patients and 14% for VC-treated patients. Overall response rate was 31.6% for DC-treated patients v 24.5% for VC-treated patients (P =.029). Median survival (9.4 v 9.9 months [for VC]; P =.657; hazard ratio, 1.048 [97.2 confidence interval, 0.877 to 1.253]) and response (23.9%) with DCb were similar to those results for VC. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar with all three regimens. Grade 3 to 4 anemia, nausea, and vomiting were more common (P <.01) with VC than with DC or DCb. Patients treated with either docetaxel regimen had consistently improved QoL compared with VC-treated patients, who experienced deterioration in QoL. CONCLUSION: DC resulted in a more favorable overall response and survival rate than VC. Both DC and DCb were better tolerated and provided patients with consistently improved QoL compared with VC. These findings demonstrate that a docetaxel plus platinum combination is an effective treatment option with a favorable therapeutic index for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC.     

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.     

Random prospective study of vindesine versus vindesine plus high-dose cisplatin versus vindesine plus cisplatin plus mitomycin C in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

In this phase III randomized study, 124 evaluable patients with unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized to vindesine v cisplatin (120 mg/m2) plus vindesine v cisplatin (60 mg/m2) plus vindesine plus mitomycin C. The objective response rate for cisplatin and vindesine was 27% v 20% for cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin C, and 14% for vindesine alone (P = .25 for cisplatin and vindesine v vindesine). The percentage of patients having stable disease (no progression for a minimum of 3 months) was 20% (cisplatin and vindesine), 27% (cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin C), and 26% (vindesine alone), respectively. The median survival time for vindesine was 18 weeks, compared with 26 weeks for cisplatin and vindesine and 17 weeks for cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin C. Overall survival was not statistically different for cisplatin plus vindesine v vindesine (P = .65). There was no evidence for improved duration of remission or survival of responders with the cisplatin (120 mg/m2) and vindesine arm. This study failed to demonstrate sufficient therapeutic benefit for cisplatin and vindesine (+/- mitomycin C) compared with single-agent vindesine to justify the increased cost and toxicity of these combination regimens.     

Docetaxel versus docetaxel plus cisplatin as front-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, multicenter phase III trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) or docetaxel (D) alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-na?ve patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DC (n = 167; docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 2, and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) 150 microg/m(2)/d on days 3 to 9) or D (n = 152; 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 without rhG-CSF) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The overall response rates were 36.5% for DC (three complete responses and 58 partial responses) and 21.7% for D (one complete response and 32 partial responses; P =.004). The median OS was 10.5 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) and 8.0 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) for DC and D, respectively (P =.200). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 44% and 19% for DC and 43% and 15% for D, respectively. Median times to tumor progression were 4.0 and 2.5 months for DC and D, respectively (P =.580). Grade 2/3 anemia was significantly higher with DC than with D (33% v 16%; P =.0001). Fifteen (9%) DC and 12 (8%) D patients developed febrile neutropenia. Grade 3/4 nausea/vomiting (P =.0001), diarrhea (P =.007), neurotoxicity (P =.017), and nephroroxicity (P =.006) were significantly more common with DC than with D. There were five treatment-related deaths in the DC group and one in the D (P =.098). CONCLUSION: DC regimen resulted in a higher response rate but without improvement in median time to tumor progression or OS compared with D. D could be a reasonable front-line chemotherapy for patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin.     

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.     

Randomised phase II study of docetaxel/cisplatin vs docetaxel/irinotecan in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group Study (WJTOG9803)

Docetaxel plus cisplatin and docetaxel plus irinotecan are active and well-tolerated chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A randomised phase II study compared their efficacy and toxicity in 108 patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC, who were randomised to receive docetaxel 60 mg m(-2) and cisplatin 80 mg m(-2) on day 1 (DC; n=51), or docetaxel 60 mg m(-2) on day 8 and irinotecan 60 mg m(-2) on day 1 and 8 (DI; n=57) every 3 weeks. Response rates were 37% for DC and 32% for DI patients. Median survival times and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 50 weeks (95% confidence interval: 34-78 weeks), 47 and 25% for DC, and 46 weeks (95% confidence interval: 37-54 weeks), 40 and 18% for DI, respectively. The progression-free survival time was 20 weeks (95% confidence interval: 14-25 weeks) with DC and 18 (95% confidence interval: 12-22 weeks) with DI. Significantly more DI than DC patients had grade 4 leucopenia and neutropenia (P<0.01); more DC patients had grade >/=2 thrombocytopenia (P<0.01). Nausea and vomiting was more pronounced with DC (P<0.01); diarrhoea was more common with DI (P=0.01). Three treatment-related deaths occurred in DC patients. In conclusion, although the DI and DC regimens had different toxicity profiles, there was no significant difference in survival.     

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 randomized phase III trial of oral S-1 plus cisplatin versus docetaxel plus cisplatin in Japanese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: TCOG0701 CATS trial

BackgroundPlatinum-based two-drug combination chemotherapy has been standard of care for patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary aim was to compare overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced NSCLC between the two chemotherapy regimens. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response, safety, and quality of life (QoL).Patients and methodsPatients with previously untreated stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 and adequate organ function were randomized to receive either oral S-1 80 mg/m²/day on days 1–21 plus cisplatin 60 mg/m² on day 8 every 4–5 weeks, or docetaxel 60 mg/m² on day 1 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m² on day 1 every 3–4 weeks, both up to six cycles.ResultsA total of 608 patients from 66 sites in Japan were randomized to S-1 plus cisplatin (n = 303) or docetaxel plus cisplatin (n = 305). OS for oral S-1 plus cisplatin was noninferior to docetaxel plus cisplatin [median survival, 16.1 versus 17.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 1.013; 96.4% confidence interval (CI) 0.837–1.227]. Significantly higher febrile neutropenia (7.4% versus 1.0%), grade 3/4 neutropenia (73.4% versus 22.9%), grade 3/4 infection (14.5% versus 5.3%), and grade 1/2 alopecia (59.3% versus 12.3%) were observed in the docetaxel plus cisplatin than in the S-1 plus cisplatin. There were no differences found in PFS or response between the two arms. QoL data investigated by EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13 favored the S-1 plus cisplatin.ConclusionOral S-1 plus cisplatin is not inferior to docetaxel plus cisplatin and is better tolerated in Japanese patients with advanced NSCLC.Clinical trial numberUMIN000000608.     

Randomized phase III trial of standard timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin versus circadian timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin in stage III and IV or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

PURPOSE: To determine if circadian timed (CT) chemotherapy results in improved response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and lower toxicity, when compared with standard timed (ST) chemotherapy. Materials and METHODS: Eligibility criteria were stage III, IV, or recurrent endometrial cancer with poor potential for cure by radiation therapy or surgery; measurable disease; and no prior chemotherapy. Therapy was randomized to schedules of ST doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2, or CT doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 am plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 pm. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks to a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS: The ST arm included 169 patients, and the CT arm included 173 patients. The objective response rate (complete responses plus partial responses) was 46% in the ST group compared with 49% in the CT group (P =.26, one tail). Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 11.2 months, respectively, in the ST group; and 5.9 and 13.2 months, respectively, in the CT group (PFS: P =.31; OS: P =.21, one tail). Median total doses were 209 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 349 mg/m2 cisplatin in the ST group, versus 246 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 354 mg/m2 cisplatin in the CT group. Grade 3 or 4 leukopenia occurred in 73% of patients in the ST arm and in 63% of patients in the CT arm. There were eight treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: In this trial, no significant benefit in terms of response rate, PFS or OS, or toxicity profile was observed with CT doxorubicin plus cisplatin in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma.     

A randomized trial comparing vindesine plus cisplatin with mitomycin C, vindesine plus cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Thirty-six evaluable patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer were randomized to treatments involving vindesine (3 mg/m2 X 3) plus cisplatin (80-120 mg/m2) versus mitomycin C (8 mg/m2) plus vindesine (2 mg/m2 X 3) plus cisplatin (80-120 mg/m2). The response rate for the vindesine and cisplatin combination was 29%, versus 47% for the mitomycin C, vindesine and cisplatin combination. There was no evidence of improved duration of response in patients given mitomycin C, vindesine and cisplatin. The median survival for patients given mitomycin C, vindesine and cisplatin was 11.4 months, compared with 10.3 months for those given vindesine and cisplatin. Toxicity was almost comparable for the two treatments. The utility of addition of mitomycin C to vindesine and cisplatin should be evaluated in further investigations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A randomized study of cisplatin versus cisplatin plus vindesine for non-small cell lung carcinoma.

Between August 1983 and March 1985, a randomized study was conducted that compared cisplatin (CDDP) (80 mg/m2 on day 1) alone with CDDP plus vindesine (VDS) (3 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) in 160 consecutive patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There were no complete responses. The response rate for CDDP plus VDS (22 of 77 patients, 29%) was significantly higher than that for CDDP alone (9 of 78 patients, 12%) (P less than 0.05). However, no difference existed in the median duration of response (20 weeks for CDDP plus VDS versus 20 weeks for CDDP alone) or the median survival time (45 weeks for CDDP plus VDS versus 39 weeks for CDDP alone). No significant differences in toxicity were detected between the two arms; myelosuppression, alopecia, and peripheral neuropathy occurred more frequently with CDDP plus VDS and there was one lethal episode of hepatorenal syndrome in the CDDP plus VDS arm. Among the variables Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), age, sex, stage, weight loss, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, albumin level, histologic cell type, and chemotherapy arm, only chemotherapy arm was a significant factor leading to a major response (P = 0.019, multiple logistic regression analysis). The significant predictors of survival were PS (P = 0.000), sex (P = 0.000), and stage (P = 0.002) (Cox's proportional hazards model), with a PS of 0 or 1, female sex, and lower stage yielding the best survival. Although a significantly higher response rate was obtained in the combination arm than in the single agent arm, the survival benefit to patients receiving such combination chemotherapy was not determined and more effective chemotherapy regimens are required.     

A randomized phase II study of docetaxel or vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin against inoperable, chemo-naïve non-small-cell lung cancer in Taiwan

Cisplatin plus a third-generation anti-cancer drug, such as vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or the taxanes, are the standard regimen used in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and there is no significant difference in efficacy among the different regimens. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) in chemo-na?ve NSCLC patients. From December 2003 to May 2005, 94 patients were enrolled. The treatment dose was D 60 mg/m2 and C 60 mg/m2 intravenous infusion (IV) on day 1, or V 25 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8, and C 60 mg/m2 IV on day 1, every 3 weeks. In all, 209 cycles of DC and 230 cycles of VC were given to the patients in the DC (median five cycles) and VC (median five cycles) arms, respectively. There were 19 partial responses and one complete response (overall 43.5%) in the DC arm, and no complete responses, but 22 partial responses (overall 45.8%), in the VC arm. Myelosuppression was the major toxicity occurring in both arms, with grades 3 or 4 neutropenia occurring in 72.9% and 71.7% of patients, respectively. Except for alopecia (p=0.005) and diarrhea (p<0.001), which were more common in the DC arm, no significant differences in toxicity profiles were found between the two treatment arms. The median time to disease progression was 4.7 months in the DC arm and 6.3 months in the VC arm (p=0.7355). Median survival time was 13 months in the DC arm and 13.8 months in the VC arm (p=0.9656). The 1-year survival rate was 55.5% and 51.7%, respectively. After treatment, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scales showed no significant difference between the two treatment arms. We concluded that both DC and VC are appropriate regimens for use in the first-line treatment of Chinese NSCLC patients. Asthenia, one of the major side effects of docetaxel, was not a major problem in the present study. Although both regimens produced a high incidence of severe neutropenia, the majority of patients recovered rapidly without sequelae; and VC treatment is still a standard chemotherapy for Chinese NSCLC patients in Taiwan.     

Amifostine plus cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer: a multicenter phase II study

PURPOSE: to evaluate the activity and toxicity of the combination cisplatin plus vinorelbine plus amifostine in advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: a two-stage Simon design was applied. To proceed after the first stage, responses from seven of 19 patients were needed. Overall, 17 responses from 40 treated patients were required to comply with the design parameter. Inclusion criteria were cyto-histologically proven stage IIIB-IV NSCLC; age of 70 years or less; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less; normal cardiac, hepatic, renal and bone marrow functions; and no previous chemotherapy. Patients were staged by physical examination, biochemistry, chest radiograph, brain, thoracic and abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans, and bone scan. All patients received cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) intravenously (iv) day 1, vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) iv days 1-8-15-22, amifostine 740 mg/m(2) iv day 1 every 4 weeks up to six cycles. Eleven of 40 enrolled patients were stage IIIB and 29 stage IV, with a median age of 57 years (range, 38-70 years). RESULTS: all patients were evaluable for response and toxicity (intention to treat analysis). We observed 20 (50%) objective responses, with four (10%) complete responses. Median time to progression was 20 weeks, and median survival was 45 weeks. The toxicity was manageable. The reported main toxicities were neutropenia grade 4 in 10% of patients, grade 1 and grade 3 nephrotoxicity both in 5% of patients and grade 1 amifostine-related hypotension in 15% of patients. CONCLUSION: these data show that cisplatin plus vinorelbine plus amifostine is an active and feaseable regimen in stage IIIB-IV NSCLC. A phase III trial comparing cisplatin plus vinorelbine versus cisplatin plus vinorelbine plus amifostine in advanced NSCLC is warranted.     

Mitomycin C plus vindesine plus etoposide (MEV) versus mitomycin C plus vindesine plus cisplatin (MVP) in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III multicentre randomised trial

PURPOSE:: To compare mitomycin C plus vindesine plus etoposide (MEV) vs.mitomycin C plus vindesine plus cisplatin (MVP) in the treatmentof stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS:: 204 patients were entered in a phase III multicentre randomisedtrial from June 1990 to December 1994 and stratified accordingto the ECOG performance status (0–1 vs. 2). MVP was givenin the following dosages: mitomycin C 8 mg/m² + vindesine 3mg/m² + cisplatin 100 mg/m² i.v. day 1 and vindesine 3 mg/m²i.v. day 8 with cycles repeated every 4 weeks. MEV was givenin the following dosages: mitomycin C 8 mg/m² + vindesine 3mg/m² i.v. day 1 and etoposide 100 mg/m² i.v. days 1 to 3 withcycles repeated every 3 weeks. For both treatments a maximumof 6 cycles was planned. Response and toxicity were evaluatedaccording to WHO. Subjective responses were assessed by numericalscales. Analyses were made on the basis of intent to treat. RESULTS:: The objective response rate was 21.4% (1 CR + 21 PR among 103patients) in the MEV and 28.7% (1 CR + 28 PR among 101 patients)in the MVP arm (P=0.48). Symptoms were similar in the two arms.196 patients progressed and 182 died. The median times to progressionwere 10 weeks (95% CI 9–12) and 12 weeks (95% CI 10–15)and median survivals were 29 weeks (95% CI 25–36) and28 weeks (95% CI 25–35) in the MEV and MVP arms, respectively.The relative risks of progressing and of dying were 0.89 (95%CL 0.66–1.20) and 0.96 CL 0.71–1.30), respectively,for patients receiving MVP as compared with those receivingMEV at multivariate analysis adjusted by sex, age, histologictype, number of metastatic sites, performance status at entry,and centre. CONCLUSIONS:: In the present study, no significant dfferences were observedin response rate, survival or palliation of symptoms betweenthe MEV and MVP regimens, while toxicity was significantly morefrequent and severe with MVP. Thus, MEV should be considereda reasonable alternative to the MVP regimen in the treatmentof stage IV NSCLC. chemotherapy, non-cisplatin-containing, regimen, stage IV NSCLC     

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.     

Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a rapidly progressing malignancy with a median survival time of 6 to 9 months, have previously responded poorly to chemotherapy. We conducted a phase III trial to determine whether treatment with pemetrexed and cisplatin results in survival time superior to that achieved with cisplatin alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients who were not eligible for curative surgery were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1, or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1. Both regimens were given intravenously every 21 days. RESULTS: A total of 456 patients were assigned: 226 received pemetrexed and cisplatin, 222 received cisplatin alone, and eight never received therapy. Median survival time in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm was 12.1 months versus 9.3 months in the control arm (P =.020, two-sided log-rank test). The hazard ratio for death of patients in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus those in the control arm was 0.77. Median time to progression was significantly longer in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm: 5.7 months versus 3.9 months (P =.001). Response rates were 41.3% in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus 16.7% in the control arm (P <.0001). After 117 patients had enrolled, folic acid and vitamin B12 were added to reduce toxicity, resulting in a significant reduction in toxicities in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin and vitamin supplementation resulted in superior survival time, time to progression, and response rates compared with treatment with cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Addition of folic acid and vitamin B12 significantly reduced toxicity without adversely affecting survival time.     

A phase III randomized trial comparing vindesine and cisplatin with or without ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: long-term follow-up results and analysis of prognostic factors

In order to evaluate the activity and toxicity of a three-drug combination of vindesine, ifosfamide and cisplatin (VIP) for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we conducted a randomized trial comparing VIP with a two-drug combination of cisplatin and vindesine (VP). Between September 1987 and March 1992, a total of 132 patients with stage III or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to either VIP or VP. The VIP regimen consisted of vindesine (VDS 3 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8), ifosfamide (IFX 1300 mg/m(2) on days 1-5), and cisplatin (CDDP 20 mg/m(2) on days 1-5). The VP regimen consisted of VDS and CDDP with the same dose and schedule as the VIP regimen. Both regimens were repeated every 4 weeks. Objective response rates were 49.3% (95% confidence interval: 95%CI, 43.1-55.4%) in the VIP arm and 44.6% (95%CI, 38.4-50.2%) in the VP arm; the difference was not significant (P=0.5390). Median response duration, median survival time, and two-year survival rates were 26.5 weeks, 49.6 weeks, and 14.9% in the VIP arm and 28.7 weeks, 37.1 weeks, and 12.3% in the VP arm, respectively. There were also no significant differences between these two treatment arms. In comparison with the VP regimen, however, a survival advantage of the VIP regimen could be confirmed when the data were evaluated with Cox's multivariate analysis (P=0.0131). In both arms, the principal toxicity was myelosuppression, which was significantly more frequent in the VIP arm, although generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study suggested the survival advantage of the VIP regimen over the VP regimen for treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.