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.     

A phase I/II study of carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to investigate the recommended dose of paclitaxel for use in combination with a fixed dose of carboplatin and to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of carboplatin-paclitaxel combination chemotherapy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: One hundred and ten patients were enrolled in the Phase I/II study and 97 patients were evaluated for further analysis, excluding 13 ineligible patients or patients with infringement of protocol: 15 patients for the Phase I and 82 for the Phase II study. In the Phase I trial, we studied dose escalation using a carboplatin dose of AUC 5 and paclitaxel levels of 150, 175 and 200 mg/m(2). The grades of toxicity of the regimen of all patients enrolled in the Phase II study (n = 82), the progression-free survival time (PFS) of optimal-debulked patients and complete responders (n = 62) and the response rate of suboptimal-debulked patients (n = 39) were investigated. RESULTS: After observing grade 4 neutropenia in four of six patients in the paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) administration group, we chose 175 mg/m(2) as the recommended dose of paclitaxel in this regimen. At this dose, the median of PFS and response rate were 432 days (range, 19-907 days) and 66.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combination chemotherapy using paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC 5 is very well tolerated and highly effective for the treatment of ovarian cancer.     

Phase III randomised trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin with paclitaxel/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a cooperative multinational trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of paclitaxel with cisplatin or carboplatin has significant activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase III study of chemotherapy-na?ve advanced NSCLC patients was designed to assess whether response rate in patients receiving a paclitaxel/carboplatin combination was similar to that in patients receiving a paclitaxel/cisplatin combination. Paclitaxel was given at a dose of 200 mg/m(2) (3-h intravenous infusion) followed by either carboplatin at an AUC of 6 or cisplatin at a dose of 80 mg/m(2), all repeated every 3 weeks. Survival, toxicity and quality of life were also compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive one of the two combinations, stratified according to centre, performance status, disease stage and histology. The primary analyses of response rate and survival were carried out on response-evaluable patients. Survival was also analysed for all randomised patients. Toxicity analyses were carried out on all treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 618 patients were randomised. The two treatment arms were well balanced with regard to gender (83% male), age (median 58 years), performance status (83% ECOG 0-1), stage (68% IV, 32% IIIB) and histology (38% squamous cell carcinoma). In the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm, 306 patients received a total of 1311 courses (median four courses, range 1-10 courses) while in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, 302 patients received a total of 1321 courses (median four courses, range 1-10 courses). In only 76% of courses, carboplatin was administered as planned at an AUC of 6, while in 96% of courses, cisplatin was given at the planned dose of 80 mg/m(2). The response rate was 25% (70 of 279) in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm and 28% (80 of 284) in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (P = 0.45). Responses were reviewed by an independent radiological committee. For all randomised patients, median survival was 8.5 months in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm and 9.8 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm [hazard ratio 1.20, 90% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.40]; the 1-year survival rates were 33% and 38%, respectively. On the same dataset, a survival update after 22 months of additional follow-up yielded a median survival of 8.2 months in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm and 9.8 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (hazard ratio 1.22, 90% CI 1.06-1.40; P = 0.019); the 2-year survival rates were 9% and 15%, respectively. Excluding neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, which were more frequent in the paclitaxel/carboplatin arm, and nausea/vomiting and nephrotoxicity, which were more frequent in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, the rate of severe toxicities was generally low and comparable between the two arms. Overall quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13) was also similar between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first trial comparing carboplatin and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Although paclitaxel/carboplatin yielded a similar response rate, the significantly longer median survival obtained with paclitaxel/cisplatin indicates that cisplatin-based chemotherapy should be the first treatment option.     

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.     

Combining platinum, paclitaxel and anthracycline in patients with advanced gynaecological malignancy

Two meta-analyses have suggested that the addition of an anthracycline to platinum-based chemotherapy may improve survival in advanced ovarian cancer, and two randomised trials have demonstrated superiority of paclitaxel over cyclophosphamide in platinum combinations. A combination of platinum, anthracycline and paclitaxel would, therefore, be a reasonable experimental arm of any future randomised trial in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC). Patients who required chemotherapy for EOC but were ineligible for standard trials or had other gynaecological tumours that required similar platinum-based chemotherapy were considered for this pilot. The platinum/anthracycline/paclitaxel regimen (G-CAT) was given 3-weekly and consisted of doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) or epirubicin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) bolus, paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) (i.v.) over 3 h and either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) (i.v.) or carboplatin AUC 6, with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at the neutrophil nadir. Different combinations were used in order to determine the least toxic regimen. Toxicity and response were assessed according to CTC and WHO criteria, respectively. 26 patients entered the study, 13 with EOC and 13 with other gynaecological cancers (peritoneal, fallopian tube, mixed Mullerian). Median age was 49 years (range: 27-67). 8 patients received carboplatin/doxorubicin/paclitaxel, 8 cisplatin/doxorubicin/paclitaxel and 10 carboplatin/epirubicin/paclitaxel. A total of 135 cycles of chemotherapy were delivered, with a median of 6 cycles per patient (range: 2-6). 54 (40%) cycles required G-CSF support and 17 (65%) patients required at least one dose reduction. All patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia and 13 (50%) patients developed grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (12 of whom had received carboplatin). There were 4 (15%) patients with grade 3/4 infections but no septic deaths. Non-haematological toxicities were manageable, lethargy occurred in 75% of cisplatin-treated patients. Grade 1/2 cardiotoxicity, as assessed pre- and post-treatment by left ventricular ejection fraction, was observed in 6/13 (46%) patients who had received doxorubicin and 2/7 (29%) epirubicin-treated patients. No clinically detectable cardiac toxicity was encountered. The response rate in 25 evaluable patients was 76% (12 CR, 7 PR). Dose intensity was highest in the carboplatin/epirubicin/paclitaxel combination. G-CAT shows high activity and can be administered safely, but only very fit patients are suitable for this regimen as it is associated with considerable toxicity. Carboplatin/epirubicin/paclitaxel was the best tolerated regimen overall.     

Exploratory phase III study of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the side effects and feasibility of cisplatin and carboplatin each in combination with paclitaxel as front-line therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) intravenously as a 3-hour infusion followed by either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or carboplatin (area under the plasma concentration-time curve of 5), both on day 1. The schedule was repeated every 3 weeks for at least six cycles. Women allocated to paclitaxel-cisplatin were admitted to the hospital, whereas the carboplatin regimen was administered to outpatients. RESULTS: A total of 208 eligible patients were randomized. Both regimens could be delivered in an optimal dose and without significant delay. Paclitaxel-carboplatin produced significantly less nausea and vomiting (P: <.01) and less peripheral neurotoxicity (P: =.04) but more granulocytopenia and thrombocytopenia (P: <.01). The overall response rate in 132 patients with measurable disease was 64% (84 of 132 patients), and in patients with elevated CA 125 levels at start, it was 74% (132 of 178 patients). With a median follow-up time of 37 months, the median progression-free survival time of all patients was 16 months and the median overall survival time was 31 months. The small number of patients entered onto the study caused wide confidence intervals (CIs) around the hazards ratio for progression-free survival of paclitaxel-carboplatin compared with paclitaxel-cisplatin (hazards ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.48) and did not allow conclusions about efficacy. CONCLUSION: Paclitaxel-carboplatin is a feasible regimen for outpatients with ovarian cancer and has a better toxicity profile than paclitaxel-cisplatin.     

Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 2.

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies indicate that gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE), an orally active epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may enhance antitumor efficacy of cytotoxics, and combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin had acceptable tolerability in a phase I trial. Gefitinib monotherapy demonstrated unparalleled antitumor activity for a biologic agent, with less toxicity than docetaxel, in phase II trials in refractory, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial evaluated gefitinib plus paclitaxel and carboplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under concentration/time curve of 6 mg/min/mL (day 1 every 3 weeks) plus gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, or placebo. After a maximum of six cycles, daily gefitinib or placebo continued until disease progression. End points included overall survival, time to progression (TTP), response rate (RR), and safety evaluation. Results A total of 1,037 patients were recruited. Baseline demographic characteristics were well balanced. There was no difference in overall survival (median, 8.7, 9.8, and 9.9 months for gefitinib 500 mg/d, 250 mg/d, and placebo, respectively; P =.64), TTP, or RR between arms. Expected dose-related diarrhea and skin toxicity were observed in gefitinib-treated patients, with no new significant/unexpected safety findings from combination with chemotherapy. Subset analysis of patients with adenocarcinoma who received > or = 90 days' chemotherapy demonstrated statistically significant prolonged survival, suggesting a gefitinib maintenance effect. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib showed no added benefit in survival, TTP, or RR compared with standard chemotherapy alone. This large, placebo-controlled trial confirmed the favorable gefitinib safety profile observed in phase I and II monotherapy trials.     

The combination of carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel: a safe and active regimen in advanced non small-cell lung cancer patients. A phase I-II study

The combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel given every three weeks is a tolerated and reasonably active regimen in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was designed to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a fixed dose of carboplatin with an area under the curve (AUC) of 6 and escalating doses of weekly paclitaxel with an initial dose of 50 mg/m2 with 10 mg/m2 increments at each level in untreated NSCLC patients (phase I study). The study continued with a phase II study. Thirty patients entered the phase I study. The MTD was: carboplatin AUC = 6 on days 1 and 28 plus paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (1 hour) on days 1, 8,15, 28. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was severe neutropenia and cardiological toxicity. Subsequently, 42 patients entered the phase II study with the same treatment schedule. The 2-drug combination was globally well tolerated. The overall response rate (RR) was 42% [CI 95%: 26.3-57.7], stable disease (SD) 29% and progression (PD) 29%. The median duration of response was 8.0 mos (range: 1.0-19.0).The median time to progression was 8.0 mos (range: 7.0-19.0) and the median survival was 14.0 months (range: 9.0-19.0). The association of carboplatin AUC = 6 and weekly paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 proved to be manageable, active and extremely safe even in elderly patients (one third of all patients in our cohort). The survival results were interesting: the median survival time was 14 months (9-19 months) and the 1- and 2-year survival was 59% and 16%, respectively.     

Phase I/II study of concurrent twice-weekly paclitaxel and weekly cisplatin with radiation therapy for stage III non-small cell lung cancer

The optimal chemoradiation regimen for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been determined. In this phase I/II study, the use of twice-weekly paclitaxel concomitant with weekly cisplatin and thoracic radiotherapy (RT) was evaluated. Patients with stage III NSCLC (without pleural effusion or cervical lymphadenopathy) were treated with thoracic RT (60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks) with concurrent weekly cisplatin 20 mg/m(2) and escalating doses of twice-weekly paclitaxel (starting dose of paclitaxel of 20 mg/m(2) increased in increments of 5 mg/m(2)) in successive cohorts of three to six patients until two or more patients experienced dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) at a particular dose level. All patients were planned to be given a further two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy consisting of paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) and carboplatin AUC 5 after completion of RT. Twenty-five patients were enrolled in this study from two institutions. At a dose of paclitaxel 35 mg/m(2), two of four treated patients had DLTs (1 grade 3 oesophagitis and pulmonary toxicity; 1 grade 3 oesophagitis and infection). The recommended dose was therefore determined to be 30 mg/m(2) and a total of 15 patients were enrolled in an expanded cohort at this level. The overall response rate for all patients was 64% (95% CI: 43-82%). The estimated median survival was 23.6 months with an estimated 1-year and 2-year survival of 72 and 49%, respectively. Paclitaxel can be safely given twice-weekly at a dose of 30 mg/m(2) in combination with weekly cisplatin (20 mg/m(2)) and thoracic RT (60 Gy), and this regimen has significant activity in stage III NSCLC.     

Phase I/II study of the combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

Purpose: We performed a phase I/II study evaluating the combination ofpaclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in patients withadvanced ovarian cancer. The aim of this study was to define a feasible andsafe combination regimen that could be recommended for future phase IIIstudies.Design: This study was a parallel two-arm, non-randomized, open trial. Ina first step, carboplatin was administered at a fixed dose of AUC 5 andpaclitaxel was escalated in 25 mg/m² steps starting at 135mg/m². Paclitaxel was given as a three-hour infusion.Carboplatin was administered on day 1 following paclitaxel in one study armand 24 hours after paclitaxel infusion on day 2 in the other study arm.Carboplatin was escalated to AUC 6 and AUC 7.5 after the MTD for paclitaxelhad been defined. Treatment was repeated every three weeks.Patients: Sixty-one patients with untreated histologically confirmedepithelial ovarian cancer were recruited of whom 59 were found eligible andevaluable for toxicity. Thirty-three patients with bidimensionally measurabledisease were evaluable for tumor response.Results: We could not detect any advantage of the two-day schedule comparedwith the more convenient one-day schedule. Dose limiting toxicities wereneutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and neurotoxicity. Except for two patients,toxicity was acceptable and clinically managable. One patient died ofneutropenic sepsis and one further patient developed grade III peripheralneurotoxicity that did not resolve within two months after chemotherapy hadbeen terminated. Overall objective response rate was 70%. The MTD forpaclitaxel was 185 mg/m² and AUC 6 for carboplatin,respectively. Secondary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not allow further doseescalation and therefore is not generally recommended.Conclusions: Paclitaxel 185 mg/m² given as three-hourinfusion followed by carboplatin AUC 6 is a feasible and safe regimen and canbe recommended for phase III trials. Observed response rates justify furtherevaluation of this combination. A randomized phase III trial comparing athree-hour infusion of paclitaxel 185 mg/m² combined witheither carboplatin AUC 6 or cisplatin 75 mg/m² as first-linechemotherapy of advanced ovarian cancer has recently been initiated by ourgroup.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cisplatin plus etoposide and carboplatin plus paclitaxel in a phase III randomized trial for non-small cell lung cancer

Aim: Carboplatin plus paclitaxel is a more costly chemotherapy regimen than cisplatin plus etoposide; however there have been reports of higher efficacy and less toxicity of this regimen. Thus, this study aimed to assess the cost‐effectiveness of these two chemotherapy regimens in advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Using the perspective of Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Thailand, direct medical costs, including chemotherapy, drugs, medical service charges, costs of adverse events, concomitant medication and survival time were directly gathered from 65 patients enrolled from August 2005 to November 2008. A one‐way sensitivity analysis was performed. An incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was also calculated. Results: Of these 65 patients, 30 received cisplatin plus etoposide (Arm I) and 35 received carboplatin plus paclitaxel (Arm II). The median survival time was not statistically significant (8.23 months vs 8.80 months in Arm I and II, respectively; P = 0.99). The total cost per patient in Arm II was about three times that in Arm I (95,548 Baht vs 29,692 Baht) while quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY) in Arm II were slightly above those in Arm I (0.587 vs 0.412). The ICER was equal to 375,958 Baht per QALY. Conclusion: With a cost‐effectiveness threshold of 100,000 Baht in Thailand, carboplatin plus paclitaxel was still not cost‐effective. While the selection of a suitable regimen for individual patients should not rely on drug and hospital costs alone, the overall cost, including the burden on patients, should be taken into consideration.     

A phase II study of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and hyperfractionated radiation therapy for locally advanced inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (a Vanderbilt Cancer Center Affiliate Network Study)

PURPOSE: We conducted a prospective phase II study to determine the response rate, toxicity, and survival rate of concurrent weekly paclitaxel, carboplatin, and hyperfractionated radiation therapy (paclitaxel/carboplatin/HFX RT) followed by 2 cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin for locally advanced unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin regimen was designed to optimize the radiosensitizing properties of paclitaxel during the concurrent phase of treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-three patients with unresectable stage IIIA and IIIB NSCLC from the Vanderbilt Cancer Center and Affiliate Network (VCCAN) institutions were entered onto the study from June 1996 until May 1997. Weekly intravenous (IV) paclitaxel (50 mg/m(2)/l-hour) and weekly carboplatin (AUC 2) plus concurrent hyperfractionated chest RT (1.2 Gy/BID/69.6 Gy) were delivered for 6 weeks followed by 2 cycles of paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC 6). RESULTS: Forty-two patients were evaluable for response and toxicities. Three patients achieved a complete response (7.2%) and 30 patients achieved a partial response (71.4%), for an overall response rate of 78.6% [95% C.I. (66.2%-91.0%)]. The 1- and 2-year overall and progression-free survival rates of all 43 patients were 61.6% and 35% respectively, with a median survival time of 14.3 months. The median follow-up time was 14 months. Esophagitis was the principal toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 esophagitis occurred in 11 patients (26%). There was an incidence of 7% grade 3 and 9.5% grade 4 pulmonary toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly paclitaxel, carboplatin, plus concurrent hyperfractionated RT is a well-tolerated outpatient regimen. The response rate from this regimen is encouraging and appears to be at least equivalent to the more toxic chemoradiation trials. These findings warrant further clinical evaluation of weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin/HFX RT in a phase III study.     

First-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with paclitaxel/carboplatin with or without epirubicin (TEC versus TC)--a gynecologic cancer intergroup study of the NSGO, EORTC GCG and NCIC CTG

Background The addition of anthracyclines to platinum-based chemotherapy may provide benefit in survival in ovarian cancer patients. We evaluated the effect on survival of adding epirubicin to standard carboplatin and paclitaxel. Patients and methods We carried out a prospectively randomized phase III study comparing carboplatin plus paclitaxel (TC; area under the curve 5 and 175 mg/m(2)) with the same combination and epirubicin (TEC; 75 mg/m(2) i.v.). Between March 1999 and August 2001, 887 patients with epithelial ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages IIB-IV were randomized to receive either TC (442 patients) or TEC (445 patients). Results Median time to progression was 16.4 months in the TEC arm and 16.0 months in the TC arm (hazard ratio 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-1.2). Median overall survival time was 42.4 months for the TEC arm and 40.2 for the TC arm (hazard ratio 0.96; 95% CI: 0.8-1.1). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxic effects and most grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxic effects were more frequent in the TEC arm. Accordingly, a quality-of-life analysis showed inferiority of TEC versus TC. Conclusion The addition of epirubicin to standard carboplatin and paclitaxel treatment did not improve survival in patients with advanced ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer.     

Randomized phase III trial comparing cisplatin-etoposide to carboplatin-paclitaxel in advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the regimen of carboplatin plus paclitaxel (investigational arm) versus the reference regimen of cisplatin plus etoposide for the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 369 patients were enrolled, 179 on arm A (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and etoposide 100 mg/m2) and 190 on arm B (carboplatin AUC=6 mg/ml min and paclitaxel 225 mg/m2), with cycles repeated every 3 weeks. The arms were well balanced with respect to age, performance status, weight loss, stage of disease and disease measurability. However, significantly more women were randomized to arm A than to arm B (P=0.039). RESULTS: The objective response rate (ORR) was 15% on arm A compared with 23% on arm B (P=0.061). Median survival time, time to progression and 1-year survival rates for arms A and B were 274 days and 233 days (P=0.086), 111 days and 121 days (P=0.877), and 37% and 32%, respectively. The most prevalent toxicities were neutropenia and leukopenia and they occurred at a higher rate in arm A than in arm B. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant survival advantage for carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with cisplatin-etoposide. However, there was an overall benefit in quality of life with the carboplatin-paclitaxel regimen.     

Improved therapeutic index of carboplatin plus cyclophosphamide versus cisplatin plus cyclophosphamide: final report by the Southwest Oncology Group of a phase III randomized trial in stages III and IV ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare cisplatin-cyclophosphamide versus carboplatin-cyclophosphamide as primary chemotherapy for stage III (suboptimal) and stage IV ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred forty-two patients were randomly assigned to treatment with six courses of intravenous (i.v.) cisplatin 100 mg/m2 plus i.v. cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2, or i.v. carboplatin 300 mg/m2 plus i.v. cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2. RESULTS: The estimated median survivals were 17.4 and 20.0 months for the cisplatin and carboplatin study arms, respectively. The null hypothesis of a 30% survival superiority with the cisplatin arm was rejected at the P = .02 level. Clinical response rates were 52% for the cisplatin arm and 61% for the carboplatin arm. Pathologic complete response rates were similar for both study arms. There was less thrombocytopenia on the cisplatin arm (P less than .001); however, there was less nausea and emesis (P less than or equal to .001 for courses 1 to 5), renal toxicity (P less than .001), anemia (P = .01), hearing loss (P less than .001), tinnitus (P = .01), neuromuscular toxicities (P = .001), and alopecia (P less than .001) on the carboplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin-cyclophosphamide proved to have a significantly better therapeutic index than cisplatin-cyclophosphamide in patients with stage III (suboptimal) and stage IV ovarian cancer.     

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.     

吉西他滨加卡铂与紫杉醇加顺铂治疗晚期鼻咽癌的疗效比较

目的:研究吉西他滨(GEM)加卡铂(CBP)与紫杉醇(DOC)加顺铂(DDP)治疗晚期鼻咽癌临床疗效及毒副反应。方法:GEM+CBP组(1组)用GEM1000mg/m2,静脉滴入,d1、d8;CBP400mg/m2,静脉滴入,d1,间隔21～28d为1个周期。DOC+DDP组(2组)用DOC135mg/m2,静脉滴入,d1;DDP30mg/m2,静脉滴入,d1～d3,间隔21～28d为1周期;完成2个周期后评价疗效。结果:1组化疗30例,完全缓解(CR)3例,部分缓解(PR)18例,总有效率(CR+PR)为70.0%(21/30);2组CR1例,PR12例,总有效率为43.3%(13/30),u=2.017,P=0.044。毒副反应主要表现为血液系统和消化系统,其中1组的骨髓抑制较重,而2组的消化系统反应较重,不良反应可耐受、可逆转。结论:对于在治疗后未控及复发的晚期鼻咽癌患者,两组均取得较好的疗效;GEM+CBP组较DOC+DDP组的缓解率高,患者耐受较好,较容易接受。     

Cisplatin and escalating doses of paclitaxel and epirubicin in advanced ovarian cancer. A phase I study

PURPOSE: The combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin is considered the standard regimen for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). A meta-analysis has shown that the incorporation of anthracyclines into first-line chemotherapy might improve long-term survival by 7-10%. We designed a phase I-II study in patients with AOC using a combination of a fixed dose of cisplatin with paclitaxel and epirubicin both given at escalating doses every 3 weeks. The objectives of this study were to determine both the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the antitumor activity of this combination. METHODS: Six different dose levels were planned. The starting doses were cisplatin 75 mg/m2, paclitaxel 140 mg/m2, and epirubicin 50 mg/m2. The doses of paclitaxel were escalated in 20-mg/m2 increments, alternating with 20-mg/m2 increments of epirubicin. Ten patients with AOC entered the phase I study. Three patients each were enrolled at level I and level II and four patients at level III, and at each level, 15 courses were administered. Patients received a median of five courses. RESULTS: Nonhematological toxicity was generally mild, except for grade 3 mucositis in one course at levels II and III, and grade 3 vomiting in one course at levels I and III. Hematological toxicities were grade 3-4 neutropenia in 60%, 47% and 60% of courses at levels I, II and III, respectively, and grade 3 anemia in one course at level III. At level III two of four patients developed a dose-limiting toxicity which was grade 4 neutropenia lasting more than 1 week. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD was reached at level II with cisplatin 75 mg/m2, paclitaxel 160 mg/m2, and epirubicin 50 mg/m2. The phase II part of the study is currently ongoing.     

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.