Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine combination therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II randomized study of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: In a previous phase I study cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM), and vinorelbine (VNR) combination therapy was safe and very active in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was aimed at better defining the activity and toxicity of this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eleven chemotherapy-naive patients, age < or = 70 years, with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a performance status of 0 or 1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale) were randomized to two treatment arms. Patients on arm A received CDDP 50 mg/m2, GEM 1,000 mg/m2, and VNR 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of an every-3-weeks cycle (57 patients). Patients on arm B received CDDP 80 mg/m2, epirubicin 80 mg/m2, and vindesine 3 mg/m2, all delivered on day 1 every 4 weeks, plus lonidamine orally 150 mg three times daily (54 patients). In December 1996, randomization was stopped early, and an additional 30 patients were treated with the experimental regimen to obtain a more accurate estimation of its activity rate. RESULTS: Among 87 patients who received the CDDP-GEM-VNR combination, four complete responses (CRs) and 46 partial responses (PRs) were observed, for an overall response rate of 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46% to 68%). Two CRs and 18 PRs were recorded among 54 patients on arm B, giving a 37% activity rate (95% CI , 24% to 51%). After a median follow-up duration of 19 months, the median progression-free and overall survival durations were 32 and 50 weeks in arm A, and 18 and 33 weeks in arm B, respectively. World Health Organization grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 46% and 14% of patients in arm A and in 22% and 11% of those in arm B, respectively. Severe nonhematologic toxicity was uncommon in both arms. CONCLUSION: The CDDP-GEM-VNR combination is a highly effective treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and has a manageable toxicity. A phase III trial comparing this new combination with both CDDP-VNR and CDDP-GEM regimens is underway.     

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.     

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin, epirubicin and VP-16 for stage IIIA-IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer: a pilot study.

Twenty patients with stage IIIA-IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer were treated with cisplatin, epirubicin and VP-16 (PEV) neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CDDP, 70 mg/m2, i.v., d 1; EDX, 60 mg/m2, i.v., d 1; VP-16, 100 mg/m2, i.v., d 1-2-3; every 3 weeks). A partial response was obtained in 11 cases (55%), stable disease in 3 cases (15%), and progressive disease in 6 cases (30%). After chemotherapy, 8 (40%) patients, all achieving a partial response, were elegible for surgery: 5 (25%) had a complete resection (4 IIIA and 1 IIIB) and 3 (15%) an incomplete resection. The treatment was well tolerated. These data show that PEV is an active regimen for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in NSCLC and recommend this therapeutic approach for stage IIIA patients.     

A randomized study comparing cisplatin or carboplatin with etoposide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Protocol 07861

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Lung Cancer Working Party conducted a randomized trial comparing cisplatin (CDDP; 120 mg/m2, day 1) and carboplatin (CBDCA; 325 mg/m2, day 1) in combination with etoposide (VP16; 100 mg/m2, days 1, 2, and 3) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two hundred twenty-eight patients were eligible for survival and 202 assessable for response. We obtained 27 of 100 objective responses (ORs; 27%) in the CDDP arm and 16 of 102 (16%) in the CBDCA arm (P = .07). There was no significant difference in survival. Toxicity, consisting mainly of myelosuppression and renal function impairment, was significantly increased in the patients receiving the CDDP treatment. We conclude that CDDP plus VP16 was more active but also more toxic than CBDCA plus VP16 in advanced NSCLC.     

Pilot combination phase II study of mitomycin C plus cisplatin for non-small cell lung cancer

Fifteen patients (six patients with adenocarcinoma, seven patients with squamous cell carcinoma, and two patients with large cell carcinoma) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were evaluable for mitomycin C (MMC; 8 mg/m2 day 1, 8, every 3-4 weeks) plus cisplatin (CDDP; 80 mg/m2 day 1, every 3-4 weeks). Ten patients had had prior chemotherapy. Among 15 evaluable patients, no patient achieved complete response, and two patients showed partial response. The response rate of MMC plus CDDP against NSCLC was 13.3%. Toxic effects included anorexia (80%), nausea and vomiting (67%), leukopenia (53%), anemia (47%), nephrotoxicity (47%), thrombopenia (27%), liver injury (27%), and fever (7%). These toxic effects were reversible and manageable. The combination of MMC and CDDP appears to be valuable regimen against advanced NSCLC.     

Cisplatin plus VP-16 combination chemotherapy in advanced refractory breast cancer.

Twenty-nine patients with advanced refractory breast cancer were treated with cisplatin 20 mg/m2/d and VP-16 100 mg/d for 5 days every 3-4 weeks. Ten patients received mitomycin C 10 mg/m2 every 6 weeks additionally. Partial response was obtained in 10 of 26 evaluable patients (38%). The response rates for the group treated with and without mitomycin C were 40% and 37.5%, respectively. Median response duration was 5.5 months in partial responders. Median survival was 9.5 months for partial responders and 2 months for the rest of the patients. Cisplatin and VP-16 combination can be considered as a salvage treatment in heavily pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer.     

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.     

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.     

Phase II study of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

A phase II study of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (CDDP, 80 mg/m2, every 3 weeks) was performed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The overall response rate to CDDP was 14% (6/42). In patients without prior chemotherapy, the response rate was 20% (2/10), and in patients with prior chemotherapy, the response rate was 13% (4/31). The major side effect was gastrointestinal toxicity. It was concluded that CDDP at a dose of 80 mg/m2 every 3 weeks is effective against NSCLC.     

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

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

The clinical effect of medroxyprogesterone (MPA) in elderly patients with lung cancer

Eighty-nine patients over 70 years old with untreated lung cancer, of various cell type and in various stages, were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (CT) alone or CT combined with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA). CT consisted of cisplatin, 60 mg/m2 i.v., along with etoposide (VP-16), 150 mg/m2 i.v., on day 1. The VP-16 was increased to 200 mg/m2, orally, on day 3. The entire regimen was given every 4 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. MPA was administered in daily 500-mg doses, i.m., 5 days a week for 1 month, followed by 1000 mg i.m., once a week, for 5 months. Changes in body weight and appetite were documented. After two cycles of CT, 64 patients were found to be evaluable for response. Forty-five had non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 19 had small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Thirty-seven patients had received CT alone and 27 CT plus MPA. In NSCLC, the objective response to CT alone was 36% versus 37% with CT plus MPA. In SCLC, the corresponding figures were 63% and 22%. The overall objective response rate was 60% in NSCLC and 48% in SCLC. Median survival using CT alone was 10 months for NSCLC patients and 11 months for SCLC patients. Using CT plus MPA, it was 10 months for NSCLC patients and 7 months for SCLC patients. In the control arm, 1-year survival was 42% for NSCLC patients and 48% for SCLC patients; in those who were given MPA, it was 48% for NSCLC patients and 9% for SCLC patients. Improved appetite and weight gain were reported more frequently by MPA patients, and they did not complain of CT's usual side effects. The fact that MPA had no significant effect on CT response or survival in patients also treated with a combination of cisplatin and VP-16, along with the small survival advantage for the control group in SCLC patients, suggests that combining MPA and CT may result in improved quality of life.     

Temozolomide and cisplatin versus temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma: a randomized phase II study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Temozolomide (TMZ) is an oral alkylating agent that produces methyl adducts at the 0.6 position of guanine. The methyl adducts are removed by the DNA repair enzyme AGAT. As demonstrated by in vitro studies, cisplatin (CDDP) is able to down-regulate the AGAT activity, suggesting that CDDP could enhance the antitumor activity of TMZ. We designed a randomized phase II study to evaluate and compare the activity and safety profile of the combination versus single-agent TMZ in patients with advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to April 2002, 132 patients were enrolled on the study. Patient and tumor characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Patients with cerebral metastases were included. Patients received TMZ 200 mg/m(2)/day orally for five consecutive days every 4 weeks or TMZ + CDDP 200 mg/m(2) daily on days 1-5 and 75 mg/m(2) of CDDP on day 1. RESULTS: Tumor responses (complete and partial responses) were seen in 16 patients (26%) in arm A and 19 patients (29%) in arm B. The median time to progression (TTP) was 3.8 months in arm A and 5.8 months in arm B. The median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months in arm A and 12 months in arm B. The difference between treatment arms regarding objective response rates, TTP and OS were not statistically significant. Toxicity was comparable between the two arms for anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, constipation and arthralgias/myalgias. There was significantly more grade 3 and 4 emesis in the combination arm. CONCLUSIONS: No clear benefit in terms of response rates, median TTP or OS was shown with the combination of TMZ + CDDP. Additionally, the combination was associated with higher incidence of grade 3 and 4 emesis.     

Multicenter, randomized trial for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer using weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by maintenance weekly paclitaxel or observation.

PURPOSE: To explore the efficacy and safety of three regimens of weekly paclitaxel plus carboplatin as initial therapy and the feasibility of subsequent maintenance therapy versus observation in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred one patients were randomly assigned to one of the following arms: arm 1, paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks with carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] = 6) on day 1; arm 2, paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 and carboplatin (AUC = 2) weekly for 3 of 4 weeks; or arm 3, paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 cycle 1 and 100 mg/m2 cycle 2 and carboplatin (AUC = 2) weekly for 6 of 8 weeks. Patients who responded (n = 130) at week 16 were randomly assigned to either weekly paclitaxel therapy (70 mg/m2, 3 of 4 weeks; n = 65) or observation (n = 65). RESULTS: For the 390 assessable patients, the objective response rates observed with initial therapy were 32% for arm 1, 24% for arm 2, and 18% for arm 3. The median time to progression and median survival times were 30 and 49 weeks for arm 1, 21 and 31 weeks for arm 2, and 27 and 40 weeks for arm 3, respectively. The 1-year survival rates were 47% for arm 1, 31% for arm 2, and 41% for arm 3. CONCLUSION: Arm 1, paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks with carboplatin (AUC = 6) administered on day 1, demonstrates the most favorable therapeutic index in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Treatment of limited small-cell lung cancer with etoposide and cisplatin alternating with vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide versus concurrent etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide and chest radiotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group Study

The Goldie-Coldman model explaining the kinetics of tumor cell kill and drug resistance has a potential application in designing chemotherapy regimes. In this Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trial we tested the alternation of two potentially noncrossresistant drug combinations with a concurrent drug combination in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer. The concurrent drug combination consisted of etoposide (VP-16), 75 mg/m2/intravenously (IV), days 1, 2, and 3; vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), 40 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (EVAC). The alternating combination consisted of VP-16, 100 mg/m2/IV, days 1, 2, and 3; and cisplatin (CDDP), 100 mg/m2/IV, day 1, alternating with vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin, 50 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (VP-16/CDDP-VAC). Chemotherapy was administered at 3-week intervals for six cycles both before and after chest (5,000 rads/5 weeks) and whole brain radiotherapy (3,000 rads/2 weeks). One hundred ninety-nine patients received EVAC and 201 received the alternating combination. There was no significant difference in the response rate to the initial six cycles of treatment with EVAC (CR, 40%) versus the alternating combination (CR, 38%). There was no significant difference between the best response, EVAC (CR, 48%) and VP-16/CDDP-VAC (CR, 51%). Median survival for all randomized patients on EVAC is 15.1 months versus 16.5 months on the alternating combination (P = .58). Toxicities consisted primarily of bone marrow suppression, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, peripheral neuropathies, and alopecia. As in previous trials, the chest was the most common site of relapse (33%). There were no differences in the incidence and sites of relapse between the two treatment arms. These treatments appear equally effective at inducing remission and prolonging survival in patients with small-cell lung cancer.     

A randomized study of two vindesine plus cisplatin-containing regimens with the addition of mitomycin C or ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

The current trial was carried out to assess the survival enhancement achieved, if any, by adding ifosfamide to vindesine and cisplatin (IVP) in contrast to mitomycin plus vindesine and cisplatin (MVP). Between June 1986 and September 1988, 110 patients were randomly allocated to receive either ifosfamide (3 g/m2 plus 3 g/m2 of mesna) or mitomycin 8 mg/m2, on days 1, 29, and 71 only. In both arms vindesine was given 3 mg/m2 weekly X 5 then every 2 weeks. In the MVP arm, 120 mg/m2 of cisplatin was administered on days 1 and 29 and then every 6 weeks, whereas in the IVP arm 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin was given on the same time schedule. One hundred three patients were evaluable for response and toxicity and 56% of patients had Mountain's Stage IV disease. The response rate was 26% (14/53 patients) in the MVP arm (95% confidence interval, 14%-39%) and 20% (ten of 50 patients) in the IVP arm (95% confidence interval, 10%-34%). Neither the response rate nor the median survival times were significantly different, although more nephrotoxicity was produced in the MVP arm, grade 1+ in 43% versus 26% in IVP arm (P = 0.04). Results obtained from this study fail to demonstrate that mitomycin or ifosfamide have a synergistic effect on the efficacy of the vindesine/cisplatin combination.     

Continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil with versus without low-dose, consecutive administration of cisplatin in advanced colorectal cancer. A prospective randomized phase II study

Recently, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer by continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with low-dose cisplatin (CDDP) has improved efficacy without severe toxicities. The possible effectiveness of 5-FU+low-dose CDDP for colorectal cancer (CRC) is intriguing. One hundred fifty-five patients with far-advanced CRC including at least one measurable lesion were enrolled in a prospective randomized clinical trial funded by the Japanese Foundation for Multidisciplinary Treatment of Cancer. These patients were assigned to the two arms to assess the value of low-dose CDDP when added to a continuous intravenous infusion of 5-FU at a dose of 300 mg/m(2)/24 hrs in a one-week cycle consisting of 5 days of treatment and 2 days of rest for at least 12 weeks. CD-DP was given intravenously at a dose of 3 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 and days 8-12, and then at a dose of 7 mg/m(2) twice a week. Three patients were excluded from the trial. The response rate in the 5-FU+low-dose CDDP arm (n=75) was significantly higher than that in the 5-FU arm (n=77) (25.3% vs. 11.7%; P = 0.037). There was no significant difference in the median overall survival time between the 5-FU+low-dose CDDP arm and the 5-FU arm (479 and 491 days, respectively). Grades 3/4 toxicities occurred infrequently in both arms. The quality of life was almost the same between the arms. Low-dose CDDP improved the response rate while keeping toxicities within clinically acceptable limits. However, this combined treatment did not confer a survival advantage over treatment with continuous infusion of 5-FU alone for patients with far-advanced CRC; that might be attributable to the short CDDP administration setting of 12 weeks.     

Randomized comparison of two combination regimens versus minimal chemotherapy in nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a Southeastern Cancer Study Group Trial

Patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), good performance status, and no prior chemotherapy were randomized to receive one of three regimens: intravenous vindesine (V) 3 mg/m2 every 2 weeks; V 3 mg/m2 weekly for 5 weeks, followed by a dose every 2 weeks plus mitomycin (VM) 20 mg/m2 day 1 and then 15 mg/m2 every 6 weeks; or V at the more intensive dose rate plus cisplatin (VC) 120 mg/m2 with forced diuresis on days 1 and 29 and then every 6 weeks. A total of 435 patients were enrolled in the trial, with 410 (94%) assessable for prognostic characteristics and survival. Among the 375 patients assessable for response, only 58 (15%) achieved objective response. Single-agent V every 2 weeks was inactive (response rate less than 1%), effectively acting as a no-treatment arm. Among assessable patients receiving VM, 33 (27%) responded; among patients receiving VC, 24 (19%) responded. There was no statistically significant survival difference among the treatment arms, with median survival among those treated with V 14.8 weeks, VM 20.4 weeks, and VC 24.7 weeks; VC achieved borderline significance (P = .06) compared with V. In a prognostic factor analysis, treatment was not a significant factor (P = .447) for survival. Thus, in this large multicenter trial, neither a high-dose cisplatin combination nor a noncisplatin regimen (VM) with a comparable response rate had a significant survival advantage over minimal chemotherapy. New approaches are needed in advanced NSCLC.     

Continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil with escalating doses of intermittent cisplatin and etoposide. A phase I study

Continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (CI 5-FU) and the combination of cisplatin (CDDP) plus etoposide (VP-16) have emerged as salvage regimens for metastatic breast carcinoma (MBC). In this study, 18 patients (15 with MBC) were entered into a Phase I study to determine the maximum intermittent doses of CDDP and VP-16 that could be added to 200 mg/m2/d CI 5-FU. The maximum tolerated dose of the combination was 40 mg/m2 of CDDP and 60 mg/m2 of VP-16 weekly for the first 8 weeks and every other week thereafter. The dose-limiting toxicities of the regimen were myelosuppression and thrombocytopenia. Two complete responses (both patients had received no previous chemotherapy) and one partial response were noticed. This regimen at the doses described here is appropriate for Phase II trials as an alternative to doxorubicin-based regimens for MBC.     

A phase III randomised study comparing two different dose-intensity regimens as induction chemotherapy followed by thoracic irradiation in patients with advanced locoregional non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the role of chemotherapy dose intensity in patients with initially unresectable non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with survival as primary end point, by testing two different regimens as induction chemotherapy followed by thoracic irradiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had pathologically proven NSCLC, an initially unresectable non-metastatic tumour without homolateral malignant pleural effusion, no prior history of malignancy and had received no prior therapy. Treatment was randomised for chemotherapy between three courses of MIP (mitomycin C 6 mg/m2; ifosfamide 3 g/m2; cisplatin 50 mg/m2) or SuperMIP (mitomycin C 6 mg/m2; ifosfamide 4.5 g/m2; cisplatin 60 mg/m2, carboplatine 200 mg/m2), followed by chest irradiation (60 Gy; five times per week, for 6 weeks). If the tumour became resectable after chemotherapy, surgery was performed, followed by mediastinal irradiation. RESULTS: A total of 351 patients were eligible: 176 in the MIP arm and 175 in the SuperMIP arm, with 43% and 51% stages IIIA and IIIB, respectively. There was a significantly higher objective response rate with SuperMIP (46%) compared with MIP (35%) (P=0.03) [95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the response rates, 1% to 22%]. After induction chemotherapy, surgery was performed in 54 (15%) patients (27 per arm) and chest irradiation in 203 (57%) patients (102 in the MIP arm and 101 in the SuperMIP). In terms of survival, there was no statistically significant difference between the two study arms (P=0.16), with median survival times of, for MIP and SuperMIP, respectively, 12.5 (95% CI 10.1-14.9) and 11.2 (95% CI 9.7-12.8) months. Haematological toxicity and dosage reductions were higher with SuperMIP, which was nevertheless associated with a significantly increased absolute dose intensity. CONCLUSIONS: High dose-intensity induction chemotherapy does not improve survival in initially unresectable non metastatic NSCLC.     

Phase III randomized trial comparing moderate-dose cisplatin to combined cisplatin and carboplatin in addition to mitomycin and ifosfamide in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer

A phase III randomized trial was conducted in patients with metastatic NSCLC, to determine if, in association with mitomycin (6 mg m(-2)) and ifosfamide (3 g m(-2)), the combination of moderate dosages of cisplatin (60 mg m(-2)) and carboplatin (200 mg m(-2)) - CarboMIP regimen - improved survival in comparison with cisplatin (50 mg m(-2)) alone - MIP regimen. A total of 305 patients with no prior chemotherapy were randomized, including 297 patients assessable for survival (147 in the MIP arm and 150 in the CarboMIP arm) and 268 patients assessable for response to chemotherapy. All but eight (with malignant pleural effusion) had stage IV disease. There was a 27% (95% CI, 19-34) objective response (OR) rate to MIP (25% of the eligible patients) and a 33% (95% CI, 24-41) OR rate to CarboMIP (29% of the eligible patients). This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.34). Duration of response was not significantly different between both arms. There was also no difference (P = 0.67) in survival: median survival times were 28 weeks (95% Cl, 24-32) for MIP and 32 weeks (95% Cl, 26-35) for CarboMIP, with respectively 1-year survival rates of 24% and 23% and 2-year survival rates of 5% and 2%. The main toxicities consisted in emesis, alopecia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia, that were, except alopecia, significantly more severe in the CarboMIP arm. Our trial failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in response or survival when patients with metastatic NSCLC were treated, in addition to ifosfamide and mitomycin, by combination of moderate dosages of cisplatin and carboplatin instead of moderate dosage of cisplatin alone. The results support the use of a moderate dose (50 mg m(-2)) of cisplatin in combination with ifosfamide and mitomycin for the chemotherapy of this disease.