The current status of docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Docetaxel is an active single agent in both first- and second-line therapy of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Randomized trials versus best supportive care have documented an improvement in overall survival for docetaxel therapy in both settings. Docetaxel also produced a significant 1-year survival rate improvement when compared with vinorelbine or ifosfamide as second-line therapy. Docetaxel has been extensively investigated in phase I/II studies in combination with cisplatin, carboplatin, irinotecan and gemcitabine. Substantial activity has been demonstrated. In a randomized phase II trial comparing docetaxel plus cisplatin with docetaxel plus gemcitabine, the efficacy of the two regimens was almost identical (response rates 32 and 34%; 1-year survival rates 42 and 38%). However, the combination of docetaxel with gemcitabine was associated with significantly less grade III/IV neutropenia, diarrhea and nausea/vomiting. Three drug regimens combining docetaxel with, for example, gemcitabine and carboplatin or with ifosfamide and cisplatin, are producing very high response rates in phase II trials. Whether three-drug combinations including docetaxel will result in an improved outcome for patients with advanced NSCLC remains to be determined.     

Vinorelbine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. A pharmacoeconomic review.

Vinorelbine is a semisynthetic vinca alkaloid that is effective against advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Myelosuppression is the primary dose-limiting toxicity; vinorelbine is otherwise relatively well tolerated. Two studies assessed the cost effectiveness of vinorelbine with or without cisplatin based primarily on data from a phase III comparison with vindesine plus cisplatin. Survival and cost data from this study were supplemented with those from other sources. One model simulated total management costs for the 4986 patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC in Canada in 1992. The other applied US cost data to the outcomes from the phase III trial. Using vinorelbine monotherapy or vinorelbine plus cisplatin produced a survival benefit and net cost savings compared with best supportive care according to the Canadian model (and preliminary data from a third analysis, conducted in the US). In the Canadian analysis, incremental cost effectiveness for inpatient or outpatient vinorelbine plus cisplatin ranged from 7450 Canadian dollars ($Can) to $Can30,770 (1993 values) per year of life saved (YLS) compared with outpatient cisplatin plus either etoposide or vinblastine. Cost-effectiveness ratios for vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the US analysis (1994 values) were $US18,000 (vs cisplatin plus etoposide) and $US15,500 (vs cisplatin plus vindesine) per YLS [all inpatient administration]. Detailed pharmacoeconomic comparisons with other current standard regimens (e.g. paclitaxel plus either cisplatin or carboplatin) are not available. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the cost effectiveness of vinorelbine-based therapy is robust to changes in assumptions regarding efficacy and the cost of managing toxicity. Limitations of the available pharmacoeconomic data include the retrospective nature of the analyses, inclusion of data from sources other than the main phase III trial (e.g. those for best supportive care and some chemotherapy regimens), and exclusion of some costs for hospitalisation and/or management of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Although some limitations apply, the available data suggest that vinorelbine alone or in combination with cisplatin is cost saving compared with best supportive care for NSCLC, and that vinorelbine plus cisplatin is cost effective compared with some other combination regimens. The pharmacoeconomic placing of vinorelbine in relation to a number of other currently recommended first-line treatments for NSCLC has yet to be resolved, and data from ongoing multicentre phase III trials are awaited with interest. In the meantime, vinorelbine-based chemotherapy appears to be a suitable choice for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC from both clinical and pharmacoeconomic perspectives.     

Chemotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer in elderly patients

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may be considered typical of advanced age. More than 50% of NSCLC patients are diagnosed over the age of 65 and approximately one-third of all patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are over the age of 70. Elderly patients tolerate chemotherapy poorly as compared to their younger counterparts, because of the progressive reduction of organ function and comorbidities related to age. For this reason, these patients are often not considered eligible for aggressive cisplatin-based chemotherapy, the standard medical treatment of advanced NSCLC. At present, for early stages of the disease there are no indications for adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Combined chemo-radiotherapy in locally advanced disease increases toxicity and seems to determine no survival advantage as compared to the radiation therapy alone. In advanced disease, single agent vinorelbine has proven to be active and well-tolerated, and compared to best supportive care, improves survival and perhaps even the quality of life. Gemcitabine is active and well tolerated as well. Taxanes are in advanced phase of evaluation. A phase III randomized trial showed that polychemotherapy with gemcitabine and vinorelbine does not improve any outcome as compared to single agent chemotherapy with vinorelbine or gemcitabine. In clinical practice, single agent chemotherapy should remain the standard treatment. The two main research-lines to be explored in the near future are the introduction of biological agents in the treatment schemes and the development of specifically designed schedules of cisplatin-based regimens. However, practicing a multidimensional geriatric awsessment for individualized treatment choice in NSCLC elderly patients is mandatory.     

Vinorelbine for non-small cell lung cancer

Importance of the field: Vinorelbine is a ‘third-generation’ vinca alkaloid approved for the treatment of NSCLC. The introduction of ‘third-generation’ drugs (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, taxanes) in platinum combination improved survival of patients with advanced NSCLC, with substantially similar results among the different drugs. Treatment toxicities are considerable in this setting.

Areas covered in this review: This narrative review reports a synthesis of evidence available from published clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the activity and safety of vinorelbine, used as single agent or in combination chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC, from 1990 to 2009.

What the reader will gain: When vinorelbine was administered in a weekly schedule without interruptions, the most common toxicity was neutropenia that often precluded administration of the drug, therefore, reducing the dose intensity. A schedule providing administration of vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks seemed to improve the tolerability of the drug. Tolerability of the drug did not result lower in the elderly subset. None of the other ‘third-generation’ drugs were clearly better tolerated than vinorelbine. Moreover, in the adjuvant setting, vinorelbine is the only third-generation drug that demonstrated, in combination with cisplatin, a consistent improvement in survival on a long-term basis.

Take home message: Vinorelbine is an active and generally manageable therapeutic option for the treatment of both early and advanced NSCLC.     

Combination therapy versus single agent chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

There is proven evidence of improved symptom control with platinum-based chemotherapy in the palliation of non-small cell lung cancer, and small but definite improvements in progression-free and overall survival when compared with best supportive care. The newer chemotherapy agents vinorelbine, gemcitabine, docetaxel and paclitaxel all have single agent activity, and in combination with cisplatin these provide superior quality of life and/or survival compared with the single agents, albeit with some increase in haematological toxicity. Doublet chemotherapy consisting of a new agent combined with platinum, cisplatin by preference where tolerated, has become the standard of care for advanced disease. The use of a functional assessment of fitness, rather than chronological age alone, is appropriate in the treatment of elderly patients. Although in this group there is evidence that doublets are superior to single agents, treatment should be undertaken with caution. In the second line setting where patients are unlikely to tolerate combination therapy, single agents have proven superiority over best supportive care. Patients with poor performance status (PS2) without comorbidity may tolerate combination therapy, but currently available evidence is insufficient to allow a definitive recommendation for combination or single-agent chemotherapy.     

Combination therapy versus single agent chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

There is proven evidence of improved symptom control with platinum-based chemotherapy in the palliation of non-small cell lung cancer, and small but definite improvements in progression-free and overall survival when compared with best supportive care. The newer chemotherapy agents vinorelbine, gemcitabine, docetaxel and paclitaxel all have single agent activity, and in combination with cisplatin these provide superior quality of life and/or survival compared with the single agents, albeit with some increase in haematological toxicity. Doublet chemotherapy consisting of a new agent combined with platinum, cisplatin by preference where tolerated, has become the standard of care for advanced disease. The use of a functional assessment of fitness, rather than chronological age alone, is appropriate in the treatment of elderly patients. Although in this group there is evidence that doublets are superior to single agents, treatment should be undertaken with caution. In the second line setting where patients are unlikely to tolerate combination therapy, single agents have proven superiority over best supportive care. Patients with poor performance status (PS2) without comorbidity may tolerate combination therapy, but currently available evidence is insufficient to allow a definitive recommendation for combination or single-agent chemotherapy.     

Lung cancer in the elderly: current and future chemotherapeutic options

Lung cancer is a prevalent malignancy disproportionately affecting the elderly, and in our aging societies will only increase in magnitude. Physicians typically assume that elderly lung cancer patients will have poorer prognoses. This belief is in part based on certain physiological changes of aging affecting the kidneys, liver, and bone marrow. However, there are no data to clearly support or refute increased toxicity from chemotherapy or a lessened therapeutic effect in the elderly based on these changes, although it is a field worthy of further study. Retrospective studies of treatment of elderly non-small cell and small cell lung cancer patients do not suggest a worse prognosis based on advanced age alone. Clinicians are hampered by the lack of clinical trials focusing on or even including the elderly, despite the increased incidence of lung cancer in the elderly. Phase II studies in elderly non-small cell lung cancer patients concentrate on newer agents (vinorelbine and gemcitabine) alone or combined with platinum compounds in hopes of more favourable toxicity profiles. Phase III trials have demonstrated survival benefits, quality of life improvements, and acceptable toxicity profiles for vinorelbine compared to best supportive care alone and the combination of vinorelbine and gemcitabine compared to vinorelbine alone. Data are also sparse for elderly small cell lung cancer patients. Phase II studies focused on single agent oral etoposide also in hopes of lessening toxicity. However, phase III trials have shown improvement in survival and quality of life for multiagent intravenous chemotherapy compared to oral etoposide. Given the existing data, altering therapy for lung cancer patients based on age alone would not be warranted. Given the prevalence of the disease, future studies need to include an appropriate number of elderly patients with continued emphasis on quality of life in addition to survival.     

Gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer

Gemcitabine is considered to be one of the most active drugs in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). When used as a single agent, gemcitabine yielded response rates consistently > 20%, with a uniformly good tolerance profile. Preclinical data indicated synergism between gemcitabine and platinum compounds, such as cisplatin or carboplatin. The gemcitabine-cisplatin combination is considered one of the reference regimens for advanced NSCLC and the recommended schedule is gemcitabine 1000 - 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 - 8 and cisplatin 70 - 80 mg/m(2) on days 1 or 2. In order to avoid many of the non-haematological toxicities associated with cisplatin, several trials evaluated the gemcitabine-carboplatin combination. Previous trials using the 28-day schedule showed unacceptable haematological toxicity. Recent studies demonstrated the activity and feasibility of gemcitabine-carboplatin combination using a 21-day schedule, with carboplatin administered on day 1 and gemcitabine on days 1 and 8. Gemcitabine can be combined with one of the other new agents, such as the taxanes or vinorelbine, to create novel non-platinum-doublets. Although encouraging, the available data are still conflicting and non-platinum-based combinations are not indicated outside clinical trials. Three-drug combinations increased toxicity and failed to demonstrate any advantage over standard doublets in advanced NSCLC. Gemcitabine is active and well tolerated in elderly patients and represents a reasonable therapeutic option. Although no Phase III trials have been conducted to compare gemcitabine to the best supportive care or docetaxel in pretreated NSCLC, gemcitabine alone or in combination with vinorelbine or one of the taxanes can be considered a valid option for second-line treatment in patients who had a previous response or who achieved stable disease with a platinum-containing regimen. Gemcitabine is considered the most radiopotentiating agent available amongst the newer agents we have in terms of activity and toxicity, but the routine use of gemcitabine in combination with radical thoracic radiotherapy, although promising, is not yet recommended. Further testing of gemcitabine-based combinations with concurrent radiation is underway.     

Docetaxel: a review of its use in non-small cell lung cancer

Docetaxel, a semisynthetic member of the taxoid class of antineoplastic agents, is effective in the treatment of patients with locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In noncomparative trials in patients with NSCLC, docetaxel 75 or 100 mg/m2 produced objective response rates of 20 to 38% and 14 to 25% as a first-line or second-line monotherapy, respectively. In Japan, docetaxel 60 mg/m2 produced objective response rates of 19 to 25% in previously untreated patients. Docetaxel 100 or 75 mg/m2 produced significantly higher response rates than either vinorelbine or ifosfamide in previously treated patients; patients treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m2 had an improved 1-year survival rate compared with those who received vinorelbine or ifosfamide. Docetaxel monotherapy in chemotherapy-naive patients produced survival rates that are similar to those reported for most platinum-containing standard combinations such as cisplatin plus vinorelbine. Combination of docetaxel with one other antineoplastic resulted in objective response rates of 20 to 54% in chemotherapy-naive patients; triple chemotherapy combinations produced responses in 51 and 60% of patients. Promising results from a few small studies and one large phase II study have also indicated a potential role for docetaxel as neoadjuvant therapy. The main dose-limiting adverse event associated with docetaxel is neutropenia, and fluid retention is common in many patients. The tolerability profile is generally acceptable in the majority of patients, although extra care has to be taken in patients with impaired liver function to minimise the risk of severe or febrile neutropenia. Conclusions. Docetaxel is generally well tolerated by patients receiving treatment for locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC, and produces response and survival rates equivalent to many current standard treatment options. Comparative studies have shown that docetaxel monotherapy provides significant survival benefits over best supportive care or treatment with vinorelbine or ifosfamide. Response and 1-year survival rates with docetaxel monotherapy are particularly encouraging in patients refractory or resistant to cisplatin or carboplatin, for whom treatment options are few. Neoadjuvant docetaxel has produced improved survival compared with local treatment alone. Combinations of docetaxel with other antineoplastic agents have produced relatively high response and 1-year survival rates; however, further comparative studies are required to confirm these benefits. In the meantime, docetaxel is a welcome addition to the options available for patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Economic evaluation of gemcitabine alone and in combination with cisplatin in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of gemcitabine in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Gemcitabine was compared with best supportive care and gemcitabine/cisplatin was compared with three standard chemotherapies and four other novel chemotherapy combinations. Costs and effectiveness measures were based on resource and outcome data from previously reported clinical trials. All direct costs associated with NSCLC treatment were included and adjusted to year 2000 values. PERSPECTIVE: UK National Health Service. RESULTS: Gemcitabine plus best supportive care was associated with an incremental cost per progression-free life year gained of pound sterling5228 compared with best supportive care alone. In comparison with standard chemotherapies, gemcitabine/cisplatin was associated with an incremental cost per progression-free life year gained of pound sterling1751 versus etoposide/cisplatin and cost per 1-year survival gain of pound sterling5681 versus mitomycin/vinblastine/platinum. Incremental cost per tumour response was pound sterling2032 relative to etoposide/cisplatin, pound sterling5169 relative to mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin and pound sterling6240 relative to mitomycin/vinblastine/platinum. Compared with four novel (newer) combination chemotherapies gemcitabine/ cisplatin showed cost savings in each case, with the same or better outcome. Thus, gemcitabine/cisplatin showed improved cost effectiveness and dominance. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust to variations to the values of key parameters. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin was assessed to be a cost-effective or cost-saving therapy when compared with best supportive care, standard chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy combinations. Chemotherapy regimens containing gemcitabine therefore represent good value for money and efficient use of healthcare resources in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.     

晚期非小细胞肺癌应用吉西他滨维持治疗的疗效分析

目的比较晚期非小细胞肺癌行4周期一线含铂方案联合化疗后,单药吉西他滨维持治疗与最佳支持治疗两组之间无进展生存期（PFS）和总生存（OS）之间的差别。方法选择经过一线化疗后获得疾病控制的Ⅲb期或Ⅳ期非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）患者62例,随机分为维持治疗组和对照观察组,维持治疗组给予吉西他滨按1g.m^-2d1、d8维持化疗,三周重复一次,直至疾病进展;对照观察组只给予最佳支持治疗,观察两组患者的PFS和OS的差别。结果维持治疗组的中位PFS为4．2月,明显优于对照观察组的2．9月,两组比较差异有显著性意义（P〈0．05）;维持治疗组和对照观察组的中位OS分别为13．7个月和11．4个月,两组比较差异无显著性意义（P〉0．05）。结论非小细胞肺癌4周期一线含铂方案联合化疗后采用单药吉西他滨维持治疗能改善PFS,副作用轻微,耐受性好。     

Optimal pharmacotherapeutic strategies for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Increases in both life expectancy and cancer incidence with age result in a significant rise in lung cancer rates among elderly patients, with a median age at diagnosis of between 63 and 70 years. However, elderly patients are under-represented in clinical trials and generally receive suboptimal treatment, mainly because of fears about increased toxicity of chemotherapy. Indeed, physiological modification of renal and haematopoietic functions with age together with co-morbidity and associated polypharmacy may alter the metabolism of chemotherapy drugs, resulting in greater toxicity. Moreover, performance status (PS), the main prognostic factor in younger patients, does not correlate well with geriatric indexes such as activities of daily living, cognition and physical performance, and comprehensive geriatric assessment is important in elderly patients. Until 2010, based on the small number of clinical trials designed for elderly patients, monotherapy was the recommended treatment for those with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whereas for fit younger patients, a platinum-based doublet was and continues to be the recommended first-line therapy. However, at the plenary session of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, results were presented from a randomized controlled trial conducted by the French Intergroup of Thoracic Oncology that demonstrated that in PS 0-2 patients aged≥70 years with advanced NSCLC, monthly carboplatin with weekly paclitaxel resulted in significantly longer survival than single-agent therapy (vinorelbine or gemcitabine). It should be noted that even in a priori unfavourable prognostic subgroups (patients with a PS score of 2, those aged>80 years or those with an activities of daily living scale score of <6), doublet therapy was associated with a survival advantage over monotherapy. Thus, the new paradigm of treatment of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC and a PS score of 0-2 should now be monthly carboplatin with weekly paclitaxel. While there have been no trials of second-line therapy for NSCLC specifically in elderly patients, exploratory subgroup analyses indicate that docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib may provide outcomes in elderly patients similar to those reported in younger patients. However, specific second-line therapy trials in elderly patients are required as the elderly patients in trials conducted to date were probably highly selected to fit the inclusion criteria. There is no more room for nihilism in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Such patients should be evaluated carefully by geriatric indexes and, if they have a PS score of 0-2, may be treated with platinum-based (mostly carboplatin) doublet therapy in the same manner as their younger counterparts. The optimal second line treatment remains to be determined.     

长春瑞滨软胶囊单药治疗老年晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效观察

目的观察长春瑞滨软胶囊药治疗老年人晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效及不良反应。方法22例Ⅲ期或Ⅳ期非小细胞肺癌患者,年龄均大于70岁。其中治疗组10例口服长春瑞滨软胶囊2疗程,治疗组和对照组均给予对症及支持治疗。依据WHO标准评价近期客观疗效及毒性,并观察KPS评分变化。结果治疗组CR＋PR3例,SD6例,PD1例;对照组CR＋PR0例,SD5例,PD7例。部分患者出现消化道不良反应,治疗组1例出现1度骨髓抑制。结论单药运用长春瑞滨软胶囊口服给药方便,不良反应轻微,可以延缓病情的进展、延缓生活质量下降。     

Novel combination chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a vexing problem and long-term survival beyond 5 years is extremely rare. Five new agents, paclitaxel, docetaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine and irinotecan, have been introduced for the treatment of NSCLC and investigated extensively both preclinically and clinically. Monotherapy with one of these agents has produced survival benefits over the best supportive care in Phase III studies. Combination chemotherapy with a new agent and platinum produced a higher response rate than conventional cisplatin-based chemotherapy and improved survival was observed in some randomised trials. There was little difference in efficacy and toxicity between the chemotherapeutic regimens with a new agent and a platinum in Phase III trials, suggesting the clinical utility of these regimens is similar. Many trials have focused on regimens containing two new agents, with or without platinum. Preliminary results of Phase III trials of three drug combinations versus two drug combinations suggested the former to be more promising, in terms of response rates and survival. Whether the era of platinum-based chemotherapy in the treatment of NSCLC should continue or not must be determined by Phase III trials, evaluating the use of a platinum agent with one of the new agent combinations. These aggressive chemotherapeutic combinations will hopefully improve survival and quality of life for patients with advanced NSCLC.     

长春瑞滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌

目的观察长春瑞滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的疗效及毒副反应。方法长春瑞滨25mg/m2,第一、五天,顺铂25mg/m2,第一～三天,第二十一天为1周期,两周期以上评价疗效。结果可评价疗效57例,其中完全缓解(CR)1例,部分缓解(PR)23例,无变化(NC)20例,疾病进展(PD)13例,总有效率CR PR42.1%。全组中位PFS为4个月,中位生存期9个月。主要毒副反应为骨髓抑制、恶心、呕吐。结论长春瑞滨联合DDP治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效高,毒副反应可耐受,可以作为治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的一线治疗方案。     

Novel combination chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a vexing problem and long-term survival beyond 5 years is extremely rare. Five new agents, paclitaxel, docetaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine and irinotecan, have been introduced for the treatment of NSCLC and investigated extensively both preclinically and clinically. Monotherapy with one of these agents has produced survival benefits over the best supportive care in Phase III studies. Combination chemotherapy with a new agent and platinum produced a higher response rate than conventional cisplatin-based chemotherapy and improved survival was observed in some randomised trials. There was little difference in efficacy and toxicity between the chemotherapeutic regimens with a new agent and a platinum in Phase III trials, suggesting the clinical utility of these regimens is similar. Many trials have focused on regimens containing two new agents, with or without platinum. Preliminary results of Phase III trials of three drug combinations versus two drug combinations suggested the former to be more promising, in terms of response rates and survival. Whether the era of platinum-based chemotherapy in the treatment of NSCLC should continue or not must be determined by Phase III trials, evaluating the use of a platinum agent with one of the new agent combinations. These aggressive chemotherapeutic combinations will hopefully improve survival and quality of life for patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Docetaxel (taxotere) in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Docetaxel is a new semi-synthetic anticancer agent derived from bacatin III of the needles of the European yew Taxus baccata. Docetaxel has a novel mechanism of action since it binds to tubulin inducing its polymerization and promoting stable microtubule formation. Several differences exist between docetaxel and paclitaxel: (i) broader activity of docetaxel against freshly explanted human tumors than paclitaxel; (ii) a 2-fold higher affinity than paclitaxel; (iii) 2.5-fold more potent than paclitaxel as an inhibitor of cell replication and (iv) docetaxel acts at the S-phase whereas paclitaxel at the G(2)/M phases of the cell cycle. Preclinical and phase II studies revealed that docetaxel is active against NSCLC. In chemotherapy-na ve patients with NSCLC response rates ranged from 19% to 54% with a median duration of survival ranging from 6.3 months to 11 months, and 1-year survival ranging from 21% to 71%. Docetaxel as single agent provided a survival as well as a clinical benefit over BSC in untreated patients with NSCLC. Docetaxel has been efficiently combined with cisplatin (ORR 33%-46%), carboplatin (ORR 30%-48%), vinorelbine (ORR 20%-51%), gemcitabine (ORR 37%-47%), with a median survival ranging from 5-14 months. A preliminary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial comparing docetaxel/CDDP with docetaxel/gemcitabine revealed that the two regimens had comparable activity in terms, of response rates, duration of response, TTP and overall survival; however, the docetaxel/gemcitabine combination has a most favourable toxicity profile compared to docetaxel/CDDP. Docetaxel has also demonstrated radiosensitizing properties and encouraging results have been achieved in combination with irradiation. Finally, docetaxel has shown an important activity in previously-treated patients with NSCLC with ORR ranging from 16% to 25% with a median survival ranging from 7.2 months to 10.5 months. Randomized trials revealed that second-line docetaxel confers a survival benefit over either BSC or ifosfamide/vinorelbine in pretreated patients with NSCLC.     

Phase II trial of i.v. vinorelbine and cisplatin in inoperable locally advanced or disseminated non-small-cell lung cancer: the South African experience

PURPOSE: This multicentre phase II trial was conducted in South Africa to evaluate the activity of a combination of vinorelbine, administered in a new schedule, and cisplatin, in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 1995 and December 1996, 35 patients were enrolled. All patients had at least one bidimensionally measurable lesion. Vinorelbine was administered intravenously on day 1 and day 8 at a dose of 30 mg/m2 and cisplatin was administered intravenously on day 1 at a dose of 100 mg/m2. The chemotherapy cycle was repeated every three weeks. RESULTS: Of 35 evaluable patients, 14 (40%) achieved a response (one complete response and 13 partial responses). The median time to progression was 6.4 months (range 12-572 days) and the median survival was 15.7 months (range 12-882+ days). One-year survival was 56%. Toxicity was manageable and consisted of nausea and vomiting (grade 3 in 45% of patients) and grade 3-4 neutropenia seen in 13 patients with three patients experiencing grade 3 infection. Other side-effects were mild, including constipation grade 3 in 9.1%. A total of 153 courses were administered with patients receiving a median dose intensity of 81.7% for vinorelbine, while that of cisplatin was 74.1%. CONCLUSION: The combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin demonstrated substantial activity in terms of objective response and survival with manageable side-effects in patients with advanced NSCLC. These findings confirm the data from previous randomised studies. Further studies are ongoing in order to evaluate the efficacy of this combination in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.     

Oral vinorelbine in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: rationale and implications for patient management

Vinorelbine is an established treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), both as a single agent and in combination chemotherapy. Recently, an oral form of this agent has been developed. Before accepting an established agent in a different administration form, rigorous testing is required to answer such questions as reliable bioavailability, continued safety and preservation of efficacy. In addition, an oral agent must provide patient convenience and acceptance, while being an economically sound approach.Oral vinorelbine was found to have acceptable and reliable pharmacokinetic profiles at clinically relevant dosage levels. Oral vinorelbine was found to have approximately 40% bioavailability; thus, a dose of 80 mg/m(2) orally is the equivalent of 30 mg/m(2) intravenously, and 60 mg/m(2) orally is the equivalent of 25 mg/m(2) intravenously. Studies also concluded a lack of food effect on the administration of oral vinorelbine. In addition, no drug-drug interactions were found with a variety of commonly used antineoplastic agents.Vinorelbine, either orally or intravenously, has been investigated in randomised phase II trials as a single agent and in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin in patients with NSCLC. In general, response and survival results with oral vinorelbine appeared similar to the intravenous agent. Adverse-effect profiles were also similar for the two formulations. Clearly, the issue of venous irritation does not exist with oral vinorelbine; however, nausea and vomiting were more frequent when vinorelbine was administered orally compared with intravenously when no planned antiemetic therapy is given.     

Phase II study of gemcitabine in combination with vinorelbine versus gemcitabine followed by vinorelbine for metastatic breast cancer

Background No clear data are available concerning the superiority of combination chemotherapy to sequential therapy using agents beyond 1st or 2nd line chemotherapy for treating patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods Patients were randomized to receive a combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine or gemcitabine until disease progression followed by vinorelbine monotherapy. Quality of life was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires. Results Forty-two patients were randomized to the combination arm and 40 were randomized to the sequential arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the arms. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 4 (range, 1–23) for the combination arm and 6 (range, 1–25) for the sequential arm. Patients receiving combination therapy had a higher composite response rate (26.8% vs. 12.5%; P = 0.106) but a shorter median time to treatment failure (3.6 vs. 4.4 months, P = 0.252) as compared to patients receiving sequential monotherapy. Median overall survival for the combination and sequential arms was 10.6 months and 8.9 months, respectively (P = 0.436). Toxicities were manageable and similar in both arms. Quality of life measurements in global health, role, and social function were superior in the combination arm (P < 0.05). Conclusions Combined gemcitabine and vinorelbine therapy appears comparable to sequential monotherapy for heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer as demonstrated by improved quality of life outcomes with similar therapeutic efficacies and incidences of adverse events.