Phase III trial comparing a defined duration of therapy versus continuous therapy followed by second-line therapy in advanced-stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare four cycles of therapy versus continuous therapy to determine the optimal duration of chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized to arm A (four cycles of carboplatin at an area under the curve of 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) every 21 days) or arm B (continuous treatment with carboplatin/paclitaxel until progression). At progression, all patients on both arms were to receive second-line weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m(2)/wk. The primary end points were survival and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty patients were randomized. Fifty-seven percent of arm A patients completed four courses of therapy. In the 116 arm B patients, the median number of cycles delivered was four (range, zero to 19 cycles). Forty-two percent received five or more cycles; 18% received eight or more cycles. Overall response rates were 22% and 24% for arms A and B, respectively (P =.80). Median survival time and 1-year survival rates were 6.6 months and 28% for arm A and 8.5 months and 34% for arm B, respectively (log-rank P =.63). Rates of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were similar between the two arms, except for neuropathy. The rate of grade 2 to 4 neuropathy increased from 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.6% to 26.2%) at cycle 4 to 43% (95% CI, 28.6% to 57.4%) at cycle 8. There were no differences in QOL. Only 45% of patients received second-line therapy (42% in arm A v 47% in arm B, P =.42). CONCLUSION: This study shows no overall benefit in survival, response rates, or QOL to continuing treatment with carboplatin/paclitaxel beyond four cycles in advanced NSCLC.     

Multicenter randomized trial for stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer using every-3-week versus weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin

PURPOSE: The combination of paclitaxel with carboplatin is effective in advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase III study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a weekly versus an every-3-week schedule in the first-line treatment of advanced-stage NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 and carboplatin at an area under the curve of 2 once weekly for 6-8 weeks (arm A) or paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin at an area under the curve of 6 on day 1 every 21 days (arm B). RESULTS: A total of 883 patients received >or= 1 chemotherapy cycle and were included in the results. The objective response rates observed (complete response plus partial response) were 38% for arm A and 33% for arm B. Median times to progression and median survival times were 6.1 months and 8.9 months in arm A and 7.2 months and 9.5 months in arm B, respectively. There were no significant differences between treatment arms. The chemotherapy was well tolerated in both schedules. However, grade 3/4 sensory neuropathy occurred more frequently with the every-3-week schedule (9.1% vs. 4.4%), whereas grade 3/4 diarrhea occurred more frequently with the weekly schedule (4.2% vs. 1.1%). CONCLUSION: In terms of response and survival, paclitaxel/carboplatin administered once weekly is comparable with the every-3-week schedule. Toxicity differences should be considered when choosing the appropriate schedule for the individual.     

Phase III trial of standard-dose intravenous cisplatin plus paclitaxel versus moderately high-dose carboplatin followed by intravenous paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin in small-volume stage III ovarian carcinoma: an intergroup study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: To compare the progression-free and overall survival in small-volume residual ovarian cancer after treatment with intravenous (IV) cisplatin and paclitaxel or an experimental regimen of IV carboplatin followed by IV paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) over 24 hours followed by IV cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for six courses or IV carboplatin (area under curve 9) every 28 days for two courses, then IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) over 24 hours followed by intraperitoneal (IP) cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for six courses. RESULTS: Of the 523 patients who entered this trial, 462 were determined to be assessable, with prognostic factors well balanced between the treatments. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and gastrointestinal and metabolic toxicities were greater in the experimental arm. As a result, 18% of the patients received < or = two courses of IP therapy. Progression-free survival was superior for patients randomized to the experimental treatment arm (median, 28 v 22 months; relative risk, 0.78; log-rank P =.01, one-tail). There was a borderline improvement in overall survival associated with this regimen (median, 63 v 52 months; relative risk, 0.81; P =.05, one-tail). CONCLUSION: An experimental regimen including moderately high-dose IV carboplatin followed by IP paclitaxel and IV cisplatin yielded a significant improvement in progression-free survival when compared with a standard regimen of IV cisplatin and paclitaxel. Because the improvement in overall survival was of borderline statistical significance and toxicity was greater, the experimental arm is not recommended for routine use. However, the results provide direction for further clinical investigation in small-volume ovarian 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.     

Phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin with or without tirapazamine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Southwest Oncology Group Trial S0003.

PURPOSE: Tumor hypoxia confers chemotherapy resistance. Tirapazamine is a cytotoxin that selectively targets hypoxic cells. We conducted a phase III clinical trial to determine whether the addition of tirapazamine to paclitaxel and carboplatin offered a survival advantage when used in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 396 patients registered, 367 eligible patients were randomly assigned to either arm 1 (n = 181), which consisted of treatment every 21 days with paclitaxel 225 mg/m2/3 h, carboplatin (area under the curve = 6), and tirapazamine 260 mg/m2 in cycle 1 (which was escalated, if tolerable, to 330 mg/m(2) in cycle 2), or arm 2 (n = 186), which consisted of paclitaxel and carboplatin as in arm 1 with no tirapazamine. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the two arms. There were no statistically significant differences in response rates, progression-free survival, or overall survival. Patients on arm 1 had significantly (P < .05) more abdominal cramps, fatigue, transient hearing loss, febrile neutropenia, hypotension, myalgias, and skin rash and were removed from treatment more often as a result of toxicity than patients in arm 2 (26% v 13%, respectively; P = .003). More than 40% of patients did not have the tirapazamine dose escalated, primarily because of toxicity. The trial was closed early after an interim analysis demonstrated that the projected 37.5% improvement in survival (8 v 11 months median survival) in arm 1 was unachievable (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The addition of tirapazamine to paclitaxel and carboplatin does not result in improved survival in advanced NSCLC compared with paclitaxel and carboplatin alone but substantially increases toxicity.     

A phase II randomised clinical trial comparing cisplatin, paclitaxel and ifosfamide with cisplatin, paclitaxel and epirubicin in newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: long-term survival analysis

To test the feasibility and efficacy of epirubicin and ifosfamide added to first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin and paclitaxel in a phase II randomised clinical trial. Patients with histologically proven epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to receive first-line polychemotherapy with cisplatin/paclitaxel/epirubicin (CEP) or cisplatin/paclitaxel/ifosfamide (CIP) for six cycles every 21 days. Two hundred and eight patients were randomised between the two treatment arms and the median number of cycles per patient was six. Toxicity was predominantly haematological with both regimens; however, anaemia, leucopaenia, neutropaenic fever and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and transfusion were significantly more frequent in the CIP treatment arm. Response rates were 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77-93%) in the CIP arm and 90% (95% CI 84-96%) in the CEP arm; complete response rates were 48 and 52%. After a median follow-up of 82 months, median overall survival (OS) was 51 and 65 months; 5-year survival rates were respectively 43 and 50%. In this clinical trial, both regimens showed good efficacy, but toxicity was heavier with the CIP regimen. Considering that more than 50% of patients were suboptimally debulked after the first surgery, OS seems to be longer than is commonly reported. This unexpected finding might be a consequence of the close surgical surveillance and aggressive chemotherapeutic approach.     

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.     

A phase III randomised trial comparing sequential chemotherapy using cisplatin-based regimen and paclitaxel to cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to determine whether in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the sequential administration of cisplatin-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel (Taxol) is superior to a cisplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by paclitaxel as salvage treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 485 chemotherapy naive patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with three courses of GIP (gemcitibine + ifosfamide + cisplatin), consisting of cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1, ifosfamide 3 g/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1 g/m(2) on days 1 and 8. Patients with nonprogressive disease were then randomised to further similar courses of GIP or courses of paclitaxel (225 mg/m(2) over 3 h every 3 weeks). RESULTS: Objective response or nonprogression after induction GIP occurred in 174 and 115 patients, respectively. After randomisation, there were 140 patients in the GIP arm and 141 in the paclitaxel arm. In terms of postrandomisation survival, there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.17) between the two arms. Median times were 9.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.8-11.6] and 11.9 (95% CI 9.4-14.3) months for paclitaxel and GIP, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that sex and haemoglobin were independent prognostic factors. After adjustment for these factors, the observed hazard ratio was 0.81 (95% CI 0.63-1.04) in favour of GIP (P = 0.10). Toxicity was tolerable; there was a significantly higher rate of grades III/IV thrombocytopenia with GIP and more alopecia with paclitaxel. CONCLUSION: Sequential chemotherapy using cisplatin-based regimen followed by paclitaxel does not result in better outcome than cisplatin-based chemotherapy using taxane as salvage treatment.     

Liposomal cisplatin combined with paclitaxel versus cisplatin and paclitaxel in non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III multicenter trial

BackgroundLiposomal cisplatin is a new formulation developed to reduce the systemic toxicity of cisplatin while simultaneously improving the targeting of the drug to the primary tumor and to metastases by increasing circulation time in the body fluids and tissues. The primary objectives were to determine nephrotoxicity, gastrointestinal side-effects, peripheral neuropathy and hematological toxicity and secondary objectives were to determine the response rate, time to tumor progression (TTP) and survival.Patients and methodsTwo hundred and thirty-six chemotherapy-naive patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly allocated to receive either 200 mg/m² of liposomal cisplatin and 135 mg/m² paclitaxel (arm A) or 75 mg/m² cisplatin and 135 mg/m² paclitaxel (arm B), once every 2 weeks on an outpatient basis. Two hundred and twenty-nine patients were assessable for toxicity, response rate and survival. Nine treatment cycles were planned.ResultsArm A patients showed statistically significant lower nephrotoxicity, grade 3 and 4 leucopenia, grade 2 and 3 neuropathy, nausea, vomiting and fatigue. There was no significant difference in median and overall survival and TTP between the two arms; median survival was 9 and 10 months in arms A and B, respectively, and TTP was 6.5 and 6 months in arms A and B, respectively.ConclusionsLiposomal cisplatin in combination with paclitaxel has been shown to be much less toxic than the original cisplatin combined with paclitaxel. Nephrotoxicity in particular was negligible after liposomal cisplatin administration. TTP and survival were similar in both treatment arms.     

Long-term results of a randomised phase III trial of weekly versus three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum induction therapy followed by standard or extended three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum in European patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BackgroundWeekly paclitaxel/carboplatin might improve survival in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We compared efficacy of first-line weekly to three-weekly paclitaxel/cis- or carboplatin (PCw and PC3w) induction therapy, followed by either three or six PC3w cycles.Patients and methodsIn this multicentre, randomised phase III trial with 2×2 design, patients with FIGO stage IIb–IV EOC were randomised to six cycles PCw (paclitaxel 90 mg/m², cisplatin 70 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 4) or three cycles PC3w (paclitaxel 175 mg/m², cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 6), followed by either three or six cycles PC3w. Primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were response rate (RR) and toxicity.ResultsOf 267 eligible patients, 133 received PCw and 134 PC3w. The first 105 patients received cisplatin, after protocol amendment the subsequent 162 patients received carboplatin. Weekly cisplatin was less well tolerated than weekly carboplatin. All PC3w cycles were well tolerated. At the end of all treatments, RR was 90.8% with no differences between the treatment arms. After a follow-up of median 10.3 years (range 7.1–14.8), median PFS was 18.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9–21.0) months for PCw and 16.4 (95% CI 13.5–19.2) months for PC3w (p = 0.78). Median OS was 44.8 (95% CI 33.1–56.5) months for PCw and 41.1 (95% CI 34.4–47.7) months for PC3w (p = 0.98).ConclusionsThere was no benefit in terms of OS, PFS or RR for a weekly regimen nor for extended chemotherapy as first-line treatment for EOC in European patients.     

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.     

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.     

Dose-dense cisplatin/paclitaxel. a well-tolerated and highly effective chemotherapeutic regimen in patients with advanced ovarian cancer

A randomised phase I/II trial with weekly cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, 15, 29, 36, 43) in combination with escalating doses of paclitaxel either 4-weekly or weekly was conducted in 49 patients with ovarian cancer; patients were chemotherapy-nai;ve or had a first relapse after platinum-based chemotherapy. Paclitaxel could be safely escalated to 225 mg/m(2) 4-weekly or 100 mg/m(2) weekly, with fatigue as the major adverse event. Myelosuppression, renal toxicity and neurotoxicity were mild to moderate. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed an approximately 2-fold reduction of DNA-adduct formation in leucocytes compared with cisplatin without paclitaxel. No pharmacokinetic interaction was found between paclitaxel and cisplatin. After (re-)induction, additional chemotherapy consisted of conventional paclitaxel/cisplatin, paclitaxel/carboplatin, paclitaxel single agent or carboplatin/cyclophosphamide. The overall response rate was 94% in 17 evaluable chemotherapy-nai;ve patients and 84% in 25 patients with recurrent disease. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17 months (chemotherapy-nai;ve: 23 months, recurrent: 11 months) and median overall survival was 41 months (chemotherapy-nai;ve: 48 months, recurrent: 24 months). In conclusion, both cisplatin/paclitaxel regimens showed excellent activity with manageable toxicity in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.     

Randomized phase II study of weekly paclitaxel versus paclitaxel and carboplatin as second-line therapy in disseminated melanoma: a multicentre trial of the Dermatologic Co-operative Oncology Group (DeCOG)

Stage melanoma IV has a poor prognosis, with a median survival time between 3 and 11 months from the diagnosis of distant metastases. Response rates in first-line regimens are around 20%. To date, no second-line treatment has been established. We performed a randomized, multicentre, second-line clinical phase II study of paclitaxel either as monotherapy or combined with carboplatin given on an outpatient basis. In arm A, paclitaxel was administered at a dose of 100 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 each week for 6 weeks. In arm B, paclitaxel was administered at a dose of 80 mg/m2 intravenously followed by carboplatin 200 mg/m2 on day 1 each week for 6 weeks. The next cycle was administered after a 2 week intermission. The response rate, survival time, time-to-progression and toxicity were assessed in both arms. The study was stopped after 40 patients because the overall response rate was below 10% in both arms. The median survival time after initiation of second-line treatment was 209 days (+/- 196 days) for patients treated with paclitaxel only, and 218 days for those treated with paclitaxel/carboplatin. The median time-to-progression was around 56 days in both arms. Two partial responses were observed after 16 weeks, lasting for 8 and 12 weeks, respectively. Although both treatment modalities were well tolerated, haematological toxicity was higher in the combination arm. This is so far the largest second-line clinical phase II study reported in melanoma. However, paclitaxel with or without carboplatin had only limited efficacy, and the combination of these drugs adds significantly to haematological toxicity without improving response or survival rates.     

Randomized phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin versus standard paclitaxel combined with carboplatin for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundThe optimal platinum doublet regimen in elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still uncertain. We conducted a randomized phase II study to compare the efficacy and safety of weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin with those of the standard schedule.Patients and methodsElderly patients (age ≥70 years) with advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to either the weekly arm {70 mg/m² paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 and carboplatin [area under the curve (AUC) = 6] on day 1} or the standard arm [200 mg/m² paclitaxel and carboplatin (AUC = 6) on day 1]. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR).ResultsEighty-two patients were enrolled. The ORR and median progression-free survival were 55% and 6.0 months for the weekly arm and 53% and 5.6 months for the standard arm. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy were observed in 41% and 0% of the patients in the weekly arm and in 88% and 25% in the standard arm, respectively.ConclusionsThis is the first randomized study that compares the platinum doublet designed specifically for the elderly. Regarding the safety, the weekly regimen was less toxic than the standard regimen and seems to be preferable for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: In randomized trials the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel was superior to cisplatin and cyclophosphamide in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although in nonrandomized trials, carboplatin and paclitaxel was a less toxic and highly active combination regimen, there remained concern regarding its efficacy in patients with small-volume, resected, stage III disease. Thus, we conducted a noninferiority trial of cisplatin and paclitaxel versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ovarian cancer and no residual mass greater than 1.0 cm after surgery were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus a 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 (arm I), or carboplatin area under the curve 7.5 intravenously plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 hours (arm II). RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-two eligible patients were enrolled onto the study. Prognostic factors were similar in the two treatment groups. Gastrointestinal, renal, and metabolic toxicity, as well as grade 4 leukopenia, were significantly more frequent in arm I. Grade 2 or greater thrombocytopenia was more common in arm II. Neurologic toxicity was similar in both regimens. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 19.4 and 48.7 months, respectively, for arm I compared with 20.7 and 57.4 months, respectively, for arm II. The relative risk (RR) of progression for the carboplatin plus paclitaxel group was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.03) and the RR of death was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.02). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a chemotherapy regimen consisting of carboplatin plus paclitaxel results in less toxicity, is easier to administer, and is not inferior, when compared with cisplatin plus paclitaxel.     

Induction chemotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by surgery or standard radiotherapy and concurrent daily low-dose cisplatin for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Five-year survival in patients with unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is less than 10%. In the present phase II study, 43 patients with locally advanced stage IIIA or selected IIIB NSCLC were given four courses of carboplatin AUC = 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion), every 3 weeks. Responsive patients, when possible, underwent surgery followed by standard radiotherapy (50 Gy) or radiotherapy (60 Gy), with concurrent cisplatin as intravenous continuous infusion of 4 mg/m2/d. Sixteen of the 42 evaluable patients achieved partial response (38%) and 3 complete response (CR) (7%) for an overall response rate of 45% (95% CI 30.1-60.2). R0 resectability rate was 29%, with 21% of pathologic CRs. Three more CRs were achieved with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in responsive but unresected patients. Grade III/IV hematologic toxicity was 9%, while one perioperative death occurred. The median duration of response was 14 months (range: 3-44+); median survival was 15 months (range: 9-47+). One-year and 2-year survival rates were 51% and 22%, respectively. The median survival in the responsive resected patients was 26 months, with 2-year survival of 57%. Carboplatin/paclitaxel represents an effective and well-tolerated induction therapy, suggesting its possible role in combination with radiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced NSCLC in alternative to cisplatin-based regimens.     

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.     

Induction chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus carboplatin followed by paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy in stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: a phase II trial

PURPOSE: We conducted a prospective phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of induction chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus carboplatin followed by concurrent radiotherapy with weekly paclitaxel in stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB NSCLC received two 3-week cycles of paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin (target area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) of 6 mg/ml) followed by weekly paclitaxel 50mg/m(2) concurrently with radiotherapy consisted of 2 Gy daily, 5 days per week (60 Gy total dose in 6 weeks). The median follow-up period was 5 years. RESULTS: Between March 1999 and January 2002, 21 patients were enrolled and analyzed. Ninety percent of patients completed the planned treatment schedule. The overall response rate was 76% (24% complete response and 52% partial response). The median overall survival time was 15 months and the 1-year, 2-year and 5-year overall survival rates were 57, 33 and 24%, respectively. The disease progression rate at 1 year was 43% and the median progression-free survival was 8 months. During the chemoradiation period, grade 3-4 oesophagitis and pneumonitis were observed in 24 and 14% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by weekly paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy was found to be active and tolerable in selected stage IIIB NSCLC patients. Further studies are needed to improve the safety profile and outcome in this setting.     

Combined chemoradiotherapy regimens of paclitaxel and carboplatin for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II locally advanced multi-modality protocol.

PURPOSE: This phase II noncomparative randomized trial was conducted to determine the optimal sequencing and integration of paclitaxel/carboplatin with standard daily thoracic radiation therapy (TRT), in patients with locally advanced unresected stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Survival data were compared with historical standard sequential chemoradiotherapy data from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresected stages IIIA and IIIB NSCLC, with Karnofsky performance status > or = 70% and weight loss < or = 10%, received two cycles of induction paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin (area under the plasma concentration time curve [AUC] = 6) followed by TRT 63.0 Gy (arm 1, sequential) or two cycles of induction paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 6) followed by weekly paclitaxel (45 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 2) with concurrent TRT 63.0 Gy (arm 2, induction/concurrent), or weekly paclitaxel (45 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 2)/TRT (63.0 Gy) followed by two cycles of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin (AUC = 6; arm 3, concurrent/consolidation). RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 39.6 months, median overall survival was 13.0, 12.7, and 16.3 months for arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. During induction chemotherapy, grade 3/4 granulocytopenia occurred in 32% and 38% of patients on study arms 1 and 2, respectively. The most common locoregional grade 3/4 toxicity during and after TRT was esophagitis, which was more pronounced with the administration of concurrent chemoradiotherapy on study arms 2 and 3 (19% and 28%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Concurrent weekly paclitaxel, carboplatin, and TRT followed by consolidation seems to be associated with the best outcome, although this schedule was associated with greater toxicity.