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 randomized trial of doxorubicin + cisplatin versus doxorubicin + 24-h paclitaxel + filgrastim in endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to determine whether 24-h paclitaxel plus doxorubicin and filgrastim was superior to cisplatin plus doxorubicin in patients with endometrial cancer with respect to response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible chemotherapy-na?ve patients were randomly assigned to doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) followed by cisplatin 50 mg/m2 i.v. (arm 1, n=157) or doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 i.v. followed 4 h later by paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 i.v. over 24 h plus filgrastim 5 microg/kg on days 3-12 (arm 2, n=160). Starting doses were reduced for prior pelvic radiotherapy and age > 65 years. Both regimens were to be repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of seven cycles. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in response rate (40% versus 43%), PFS (median 7.2 versus 6 months) or OS (median 12.6 versus 13.6 months) for arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. Toxicities were primarily hematological, with 54% (arm 1) and 50% (arm 2) of patients experiencing grade 4 granulocytopenia. Gastrointestinal toxicities were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Doxorubicin and 24-h paclitaxel plus filgrastim was not superior to doxorubicin and cisplatin in terms of response, PFS or survival in advanced endometrial cancer.     

Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus alternating carboplatin and cisplatin for initial treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: long-term efficacy results: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the combination plus Carboplatin plus paclitaxel, which is considered the treatment of choice for initial chemotherapy of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) with a regimen combining alternating carboplatin and cisplatin plus paclitaxel. The two platinum derivatives have been previously combined as they are not totally cross-resistant and as they share no overlapping toxicities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AOC, after the initial cytoreductive surgery were randomized to either 6 courses of paclitaxel at 175 mg/m2 as 3 h infusion plus Carboplatin at 7 AUC (Arm A) or Paclitaxel at the same dose plus Carboplatin again at 7 AUC for cycles 1,3,5, while for cycles 2,4,6 Cisplatin at 75 mg/m2 substituted for Carboplatin (Arm B). RESULTS: 247 patients are analyzed. Significant differences were not found, both in terms of PFS (38 vs 39 months, p=0.95) and overall survival (40.6 vs 38.6 months, p=0.79). There was not also difference in 5-year survival rate (35% vs 39%) or 5-year PFS rate (23% vs 28%). Age >60, PS 2, stage IV disease and presence of residual disease were adversely related to the overall survival. CONCLUSION: Both regimens are well tolerated and effective. Alternating cisplatin with carboplatin does not improve the results compared with the standard combination.     

Randomized phase III trial of cisplatin with or without topotecan in carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

PURPOSE: On the basis of reported activity of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) or topotecan plus cisplatin in advanced cervix cancer, we undertook a randomized trial comparing these combinations versus cisplatin alone, to determine whether survival is improved with either combination compared with cisplatin alone, and to compare toxicities and quality of life (QOL) among the regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly allocated to receive cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks (CPT); cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) day 1 plus topotecan 0.75 mg/m(2) days 1 to 3 every 3 weeks (CT); or methotrexate 30 mg/m(2) days 1, 15, and 22, vinblastine 3 mg/m(2) days 2, 15, and 22, doxorubicin 30 mg/m(2) day 2, and cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) day 2 every 4 weeks (MVAC). Survival was the primary end point; response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) were secondary end points. QOL data are reported separately. RESULTS: The MVAC arm was closed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board after four treatment-related deaths occurred among 63 patients, and is not included in this analysis. Two hundred ninety-four patients enrolled onto the remaining regimens: 146 to CPT and 147 to CT. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity was more common with CT. Patients receiving CT had statistically superior outcomes to those receiving CPT, with median overall survival of 9.4 and 6.5 months (P = .017), median PFS of 4.6 and 2.9 months (P = .014), and response rates of 27% and 13%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized phase III trial to demonstrate a survival advantage for combination chemotherapy over cisplatin alone in advanced cervix cancer.     

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

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

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

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

替吉奥联合紫杉醇或奥沙利铂治疗进展期胃癌的临床观察

目的 观察替吉奥（S-1）联合紫杉醇或奥沙利铂一线治疗进展期胃癌的临床疗效和不良 反应。方法 91例进展期胃癌患者分为替吉奥联合奥沙利铂(SOX组)和紫杉醇(PS组)方案化疗,其 中SOX组44 例,PS组47例。所有患者S-1均是80 mg/m2,分2次餐后口服,d1~d14;SOX组：奥沙 利铂 130 mg/m2,d1,静脉滴注;PS组：紫杉醇 80 mg/m2,d1、8,静脉滴注。均21天为1周期。结 果 SOX组和PS组的有效率分别为36.4%和40.4%(P=0.691),两组的中位无疾病进展时间(5.0月 vs. 5.4 月,P=0.45)和中位生存时间(13.5月 vs. 16.4月,P=0.76)无显著差异。SOX组和PS组的不良反应主要 是中性粒细胞减少、胃肠道反应、乏力;SOX组和PS组的恶心、呕吐发生率分别为79.5％和51.1％(P ＜0.05)。结论 替吉奥联合紫杉醇或奥沙利铂治疗进展期胃癌有效率和生存期相当,均有较好的疗 效,不良反应可以耐受。     

Sequential versus concurrent paclitaxel and carboplatin for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in elderly patients and patients with poor performance status: results of two Phase II, multicenter trials

The primary objective of these trials was to determine the 1-year survival of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (ANSCLC) patients (> or =70 years with PS 0-2 or > or =18 years with PS 2) receiving sequential paclitaxel and carboplatin (P --> C) or concurrent P + C. The secondary objectives were assessment of toxicities and quality of life. A total of 121 patients with NSCLC were treated. P--> C patients received paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2)) weekly x 3, followed by 1 week of rest; these 4-week cycles were repeated until relapse. At relapse, patients received carboplatin (AUC = 5, IV) on Day 1 of each 3-week cycle until evidence of further progression or lack of improvement. P + C patients received paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC = 2), weekly x 3, followed by 1 week of rest, until relapse. Patients in both studies were premedicated prior to paclitaxel administration. Sequential P + C resulted in a median survival of 8.2 months (range: <1-18.8) and P + C patients had a median survival of 9.2 months (range: <1-22.0). In both groups (P--> C) and P + C), the 1-year survival was 31%. For patients treated sequentially, treatment-related AEs (TRAE, > or =Grade 3) included fatigue (7%), neuropathy (5%), and leukopenia and diarrhea (3%, each). Grade 4 AEs were limited to neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and sepsis (1 episode each). For patients receiving concurrent P + C, TRAE included neutropenia and leukopenia (15%, each) and shortness of breath and bilateral bone pain (10%, each). Leukopenia (n = 2) and neutropenia (n = 1) were the only Grade 4 events reported. The analysis of quality of life (QOL) questionnaires indicated that there were no obvious differences between treatment groups during the study. These drugs and treatment schema were well-tolerated when administered in the community setting and resulted in survival rates that were similar to what is reported in the literature with combination therapy administered to "high risk" patients. Finding the optimal chemotherapy regimen, that can be tolerated, remains a challenge in elderly patients.     

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.     

Maintenance daily oral etoposide versus no further therapy following induction chemotherapy with etoposide plus ifosfamide plus cisplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a Hoosier Oncology Group randomized study.

BACKGROUND: We performed this phase III study to determine whether the addition of 3 months of oral etoposide in non-progressing patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treated with four cycles of etoposide plus ifosfamide plus cisplatin (VIP) improves progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with extensive SCLC with a Karnofsky performance score (KPS) > or =50, adequate renal function and bone marrow reserve were eligible. Patients with CNS metastasis were eligible and received concurrent whole-brain radiotherapy. All patients received etoposide 75 mg/m2, ifosfamide 1.2 g/m2 and cisplatin 20 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-4 every 3 weeks for four cycles. Non-progressing patients were randomized to oral etoposide 50 mg/m2 for 21 consecutive days every 4 weeks for three courses versus no further therapy until progression. RESULTS: From September 1993 to June 1998, 233 patients were entered and treated with VIP with 144 non-progressing patients subsequently randomized to oral etoposide (n = 72) or observation (n = 72). Minimum follow up for all patients is 2 years. Toxicity with oral etoposide was mild. There was an improvement in median PFS favoring the maintenance arm of 8.23 versus 6.5 months (P = 0.0018). There was a trend towards an improvement in median (12.2 versus 11.2 months), 1-year (51.4% versus 40.3%), 2-year (16.7% versus 6.9%) and 3-year (9.1% versus 1.9%) survival (P = 0.0704) favoring the maintenance arm. CONCLUSIONS: Three months of oral etoposide in non-progressing patients with extensive SCLC was associated with a significant improvement in PFS and a trend towards improved overall survival.     

Paclitaxel, cisplatin and lonidamine in advanced ovarian cancer. A phase II study

A potential way to improve the results obtained with the standard carboplatin/cisplatin (CDDP)-paclitaxel treatment regimen in advanced ovarian cancer is to incorporate a modulating agent such as lonidamine (LND). In fact, LND has been shown to revert the resistance to cisplatin and to potentiate cisplatin activity experimental models and in clinical studies. 35 consecutive patients with advanced ovarian cancer, not previously treated with chemotherapy were treated with paclitaxel at a dose of 135 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) on day 1 (in a 3 h infusion) and cisplatin at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) iv on day 2 plus LND orally (p.o.) at a dose of 450 mg/die for 6 consecutive days starting two days before chemotherapy, every 3 weeks for six cycles. Complete plus partial responses were observed in 8 (80%) out of the 10 women with measurable disease. In the 25 patients with evaluable disease, only four clinical progressions were observed (16%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 28.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.2-34.8) and 46.5 (95% CI 32.4-60.00) months respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was observed in 9 (26%) patients. Alopecia, nausea and vomiting (Grade 3) were observed in 33 (94%) and 5 (14%) patients, respectively. In conclusion, the combination of CDDP/paclitaxel plus LND is active and tolerable in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.     

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

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

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.     

Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized trial was designed to determine whether paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) offered a survival advantage over vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) for patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. Secondary objectives were to compare toxicity, tolerability, quality of life (QOL), and resource utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred two patients received VC (vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)/d, day 1 every 28 days) and 206 patients received PC (paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) over 3 hours with carboplatin area under the curve of 6, day 1 every 21 days). Patients completed QOL questionnaires at baseline, 13 weeks, and 25 weeks. Resource utilization forms were completed at five time points through 24 months. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The objective response rate was 28% in the VC arm and 25% in the PC arm. Median survival was 8 months in both arms, with 1-year survival rates of 36% and 38%, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 leukopenia (P =.002) and neutropenia (P =.008) occurred more frequently on the VC arm. Grade 3 nausea and vomiting were higher on the VC arm (P =.001, P =.007), and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was higher on the PC arm (P <.001). More patients on the VC arm discontinued therapy because of toxicity (P =.001). No difference in QOL was observed. Overall costs on the PC arm were higher than on the VC arm because of drug costs. CONCLUSION: PC is equally efficacious as VC for the treatment of advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. PC is less toxic and better tolerated but more expensive than VC. New treatment strategies should be pursued.     

Phase III randomized study of cisplatin versus paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with suboptimal stage III or IV ovarian cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study.

PURPOSE: To assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with suboptimally debulked epithelial ovarian cancer receiving cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or 24-hour infusion paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) or the combination of paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) followed by cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After stratification for disease measurability, patients were randomized to receive six cycles of one of the treatments every 3 weeks. If measurable, complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) was determined. RESULTS: Six hundred fourteen of 648 patients who entered onto the trial were eligible. Monotherapies were discontinued more frequently (cisplatin because of toxicity or patient refusal [17%], and paclitaxel because of progression [20%]) compared with the combination therapy (7% and 6%, respectively). Neutropenia, fever, and alopecia were more severe with paclitaxel-containing regimens; whereas anemia, thrombocytopenia, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and gastrointestinal toxicity were more severe with cisplatin-containing regimens. The CR/PR rates on paclitaxel monotherapy were significantly lower compared with the cisplatin regimens (42% v 67%, respectively; P <.001). The relative hazard (RH) of first progression or death was significantly greater among those randomized to paclitaxel (RH = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.73; P <.001) when compared with cisplatin; however, RH did not differ significantly between the two cisplatin regimens (RH = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.895 to 1.30). Relative to cisplatin, the death rate on paclitaxel was 15% greater (RH = 1.15; 95% CI, 0. 929 to 1.42), and the death rate on the combination treatment was 1% less (RH = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.795 to 1.23). These differences among treatment groups were not statistically significant (P =.31). CONCLUSION: Cisplatin alone or in combination yielded superior response rates and PFS relative to paclitaxel. However, OS was similar in all three arms, and the combination therapy had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel remains the preferred initial treatment option.     

Phase III trial of doxorubicin with or without cisplatin in advanced endometrial carcinoma: a gynecologic oncology group study.

PURPOSE: Doxorubicin and cisplatin have activity in endometrial carcinoma and at initiation of this study ranked as the most active agents. This trial of stage III, IV, or recurrent disease evaluated whether combining these agents increases response rate (RR) and prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) over doxorubicin alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 299 patients registered, 281 (94%) were eligible. Regimens were doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously or doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a total of 500 mg/m(2) doxorubicin. RESULTS: There were 12 (8%) complete (CR) and 26 (17%) partial responses (PR) among 150 patients receiving doxorubicin versus 25 (19%) CRs and 30 (23%) PRs among patients receiving the combination. The overall response rate was higher among patients receiving the combination (42%) compared with patients receiving doxorubicin (25%; P =.004). Median PFS was 5.7 and 3.8 months, respectively, for the combination and single agent. The PFS hazard ratio was 0.736 (95% CI, 0.577 to 0.939; P =.014). Median OS was 9.0 and 9.2 months, respectively, for the combination and single agent. Overall death rates were similar in the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.928; 95% CI, 0.727 to 1.185). Nausea, vomiting, and hematologic toxicities were common. The combination produced more grade 3 to 4 leukopenia (62% v 40%), thrombocytopenia (14% v 2%), anemia (22% v 4%), and nausea/vomiting (13% v 3%). CONCLUSION: Adding cisplatin to doxorubicin in advanced endometrial carcinoma improves RR and PFS with a negligible impact on OS and produces increased toxicity. These results have served as a building block for subsequent phase III trials in patients with disseminated and high-risk limited endometrial carcinoma.     

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and paclitaxel in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase I-II study. Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Because both cisplatin-paclitaxel and cisplatin-gemcitabine combinations are generally considered to be among the most active regimens in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, this study aimed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of paclitaxel when combined with fixed doses of cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced NSCLC patients and aimed to define the therapeutic activity of this new regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From October 1996 to September 1998, 75 patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC, who were either chemotherapy-naive (65 patients) or who had been pretreated (10 patients), received fixed doses of cisplatin (50 mg/m(2)) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) and escalating doses of paclitaxel in a 1-hour infusion, all on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Five different paclitaxel doses were tested, for a total of 275 cycles delivered. The escalation was stopped at the paclitaxel dose of 75 mg/m(2) in pretreated patients, whereas it continued to 150 mg/m(2) in chemotherapy-naive patients. A total of 65 chemotherapy-naive patients were treated. A paclitaxel dose of 125 mg/m(2) was recommended for phase II, and a total of 39 patients were treated at this level, for a total of 158 cycles delivered. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Five patients were hospitalized because of sepsis, and packed RBC transfusion was required in 13 patients. Grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 23 (31%) and eight (11%) patients, respectively. Overall, 74 of the 75 patients were assessable for response. Four complete (CR) and 38 partial (PR) responses were recorded, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 57%. Three of the ten pretreated patients achieved a PR, compared with four CRs and 35 PRs in the 64 chemotherapy-naive patients (ORR, 61%). Thirty-eight of 39 patients included in phase II were assessable for response and quality of life (QOL) (one patient's disease was not measurable). Two CRs and 24 PRs were recorded in this group, for an ORR of 68% (95% confidence interval, 51% to 82%). The QOL score improved in 27 of 38 (71%) patients. The median survival time was 15 months in the 65 chemotherapy-naive patients, but it had not yet been reached in the 39 patients included in phase II, for whom the 1-year projected survival was 70%. CONCLUSION: The cisplatin-gemcitabine-paclitaxel combination is a feasible and well-tolerated approach in advanced NSCLC patients. Both a major response and a QOL improvement can be obtained in a high proportion of patients, with a median survival time exceeding 1 year. A phase III trial comparing this combination with other effective regimens is under way.     

长春瑞滨或紫杉醇联合顺铂治疗晚期乳腺癌的临床观察

目的观察长春瑞滨或紫杉醇联合顺铂治疗晚期乳腺癌的疗效和毒副反应。方法将200例晚期乳腺癌患者随机分为NP方案组和TP方案组2组,每组100例。NP方案组:长春瑞滨50 mg.d-1,d1,8;顺铂30 mg·m-2,d1～5。TP方案组:紫杉醇110～140 mg·m-2,d2;顺铂30 mg·m-2,d1～5。结果 NP方案组总有效率为61%,中位生存期为7.5个月;TP方案组总有效率为55%,中位生存期为7.2个月,比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。结论 NP与TP方案治疗晚期乳腺癌疗效相当。     

Mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: effects on survival and quality of life.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. We describe the two largest reported, randomized, parallel trials designed to determine whether the addition of chemotherapy influences duration and quality of life in localized, unresectable (mitomycin, ifosfamide, cisplatin [MIC]1 trial) and extensive (MIC2 trial) disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ambulatory patients with NSCLC, aged 75 years or younger, with localized disease, were randomized in MIC1 to receive up to four cycles of chemotherapy (CT: mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3 g/m(2), and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2)) every 21 days, followed by radical radiotherapy (CT + RT) or radiotherapy (RT) alone. Extensive-stage patients were randomized in MIC2 to identical chemotherapy plus palliative care (CT + PC) or palliative care (PC) alone. Short-term change in quality of life (QOL) was assessed in a subgroup of patients. Data from the two trials were combined to allow multivariate and stratified survival analyses. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-seven eligible patients were randomized, 446 in MIC1 and 351 in MIC2. MIC CT improved survival in both trials (significantly in MIC2). The median survival time in MIC1 was 11.7 months (CT + RT) versus 9.7 months (RT alone) (P =.14); whereas in MIC2, median survival time was 6.7 months (CT + PC) compared with 4. 8 months (PC alone) (P =.03). QOL, assessed in 134 patients from start of trial to week 6, showed improvement with chemotherapy and deterioration with standard treatment. In the combined analysis of 797 randomized patients, the positive effect of MIC on survival was significant overall (P =.01) and after adjusting for prognostic factors (P =.01). CONCLUSION: MIC chemotherapy prolongs survival in unresectable NSCLC without compromising QOL.