Randomized,multicenter, phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase II randomized study to assess the efficacy, with response as the primary endpoint, and the toxicity of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized to GP (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) day 2) or GC (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin AUC=5 day 2). Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized to GP and 58 to GC. A total of 533 cycles were delivered (264 GP, 269 GC), with a median of four cycles/patient. The objective response rate was 41.9% (95% C.I., 29.6-54.2%) for GP and 31.0% (95% C.I., 18.2-42.8%) for GC (P=0.29). No significant differences between arms were observed in median survival (10.4 months GP, 10.8 months GC) and median time to progression (5.4 months GP, 5.1 months GC). Both regimens were very well tolerated with no statistical differences between arms in grade 3/4 toxicities. When all toxicity grades were combined, emesis, neuropathy and renal toxicity occurred more frequently on the GP arm (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: GC arm did not provide a significant difference in response rate compared with GP arm, with better overall tolerability. Carboplatin could be a valid alternative to cisplatin in the palliative setting.     

Randomized multicenter phase II study of gemcitabine versus docetaxel as first-line therapy with second-line crossover in advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: A randomized phase II study was performed to determine whether single-agent gemcitabine or docetaxel with the introduction of the opposite agent in case of disease progression (ie, in the second-line setting) is feasible and effective in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The doses were 1,000 mg/m2 for gemcitabine and 35 mg/m2 for docetaxel, each given on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. After a planned interim analysis, the docetaxel/gemcitabine arm (ie, docetaxel followed by gemcitabine) was closed after enrollment of 49 patients because of poor predefined feasibility. A total of 98 patients were recruited to the gemcitabine/docetaxel arm (ie, gemcitabine followed by docetaxel). RESULTS: Quality of life remained near baseline levels during the administration of 6 cycles of gemcitabine/docetaxel chemotherapy, whereas it deteriorated after 2 cycles of docetaxel/gemcitabine. Toxicity was comparable between arms. Median times to progression were 4.3 months and 2.2 months with gemcitabine/docetaxel and docetaxel/gemcitabine, respectively, and median overall survival times were 9 months (gemcitabine/docetaxel) and 5 months (docetaxel/gemcitabine; P=0.029, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that first-line gemcitabine followed by second-line weekly docetaxel is feasible, with promising survival in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

A randomized,phase III multicenter trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundPaclitaxel–carboplatin is used as the standard regimen for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was designed to compare gemcitabine + carboplatin or gemcitabine + paclitaxel to the standard regimen.Patients and methodsA total of 1135 chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1 (GC), gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m² on day 1 (GP), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m² plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1 (PC). Stratification was based on disease stage, baseline weight loss, and presence or absence of brain metastases. Cycles were repeated every 21 days for up to six cycles or disease progression.ResultsMedian survival (months) with GC was 7.9 compared with 8.5 for GP and 8.7 for PC. Response rates (RRs) were as follows: GC, 25.3%; GP, 32.1%; and PC, 29.8%. The GC arm was associated with a greater incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic events but a lower rate of neurotoxicity and alopecia when compared with GP and PC.ConclusionsNon-platinum and non-paclitaxel gemcitabine-containing doublets demonstrate similar overall survival and RR compared with the standard PC regimen. However, the treatment arms had distinct toxicity profiles.     

吉西他滨联合顺铂或卡铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的近期疗效

目的 :观察吉西他滨 (gemcitabine)联合顺铂与吉西他滨联合卡铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效和毒性反应。方法 :10 6例经病理组织学或细胞学证实的晚期非小细胞肺癌患者分为GP和GC两组 ,GP组应用吉西他滨 10 0 0mg/m2 ,静滴 ,第 1、8天 ;顺铂 30mg/m2 ,静滴 ,第 1～ 3天。GC组应用吉西他滨 10 0 0mg/m2 ,静滴 ,第 1、8天 ;卡铂ACU =5 ,静滴 ,第 1天。 2 1天为 1个周期 ,连用 2个周期评价疗效。结果 :GP组和GC组有效率 (CR PR)分别为 4 8.1%和 4 4 .2 % (P >0 .0 5 ) ;中位疾病进展时间分别为 6 .8个月和 6 .2个月 (P >0 .0 5 ) ;毒性反应中GP组消化道毒副反应较GC组大 ,差异有显著性 ;骨髓毒性两组相当 ,差异无显著性。结论 :吉西他滨联合顺铂及吉西他滨联合卡铂两方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效均较好 ,毒性反应轻微 ,患者耐受良好 ,尤其吉西他滨联合卡铂的消化道反应轻 ,患者易于接受 ,值得临床进一步研究。     

Phase II study of gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin at standard rate or fixed dose rate infusion in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods In this prospective study, patients with chemonaive advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine at a standard rate (gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m² over 30 min, the standard arm) or a fixed dose rate (gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m² over 120 min, the FDR arm) on days 1 and 8 every 3 week cycle. In both treatment arms, carboplatin at AUC of 5 was administered over 4 h following gemcitabine on day 1 of each cycle. Results From November 2003 to June 2005, a total of 42 patients, in which 7 (17%) patients had stage III_B disease and 35 (83%) had stage IV disease, were enrolled into this study. All patients were included in efficacy and toxicity assessment. No patient had a complete response. Seven (33%) patients in the standard arm and 10 (48%) in the FDR arm had a partial response. The median time to progression and median overall survival time in the standard arm was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.8–7 months) and 11.5 months (95% CI, 8.2–14.8 months), respectively, while in the FDR arm was 6.5 (95% CI, 4.4–8.6 months) months, 12.0 months (95% CI, 11.3–12.7 months), respectively. The most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 hematological toxicities were thrombocytopenia (38% patients in the standard arm and 43% in the FDR arm) and neutropenia (24% in the standard arm and 33% in the FDR arm). Although hematological toxicity occurred in a little higher percent of patients in the FDR arm than in the standard arm, there were no discernible differences by statistical analysis in both treatment arms (P > 0.05). And significant nonhematologic toxicities were infrequent and tolerable in both arms. No significant difference existed also (P > 0.05). Conclusion In this phase II study, gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin either at standard rate or fixed dose rate infusion was clinically effective and well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Randomized phase II study of carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by gemcitabine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine followed by docetaxel in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the chemotherapeutic regimens suitable for the outpatient settings, we conducted a randomized phase II study of carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by gemcitabine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine followed by docetaxel. METHODS: Group CP(n=25): carboplatin AUC 6.0 day 1 and paclitaxel 70 mg/m2 day 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks followed by gemcitabine 1.0 g/m2 day 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks; group CG(n=26): carboplatin AUC 2.0 and gemcitabine 0.8 g/m2 day 1, 8 every 3 weeks followed by docetaxel 60 mg/m2 day 1, 8 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The response rate of the first line therapy was 18.0% in group CP and 21.7% in group CG and that of the second line therapy was 10.0% and 14.3%, respectively. Time to progression of the first line therapy was 4.0 months in group CP and 4.3 months in group CG, that of the second line therapy was 2.1 months and 2.8 months, respectively. The median survival time was 10.9 months in group CP and 10.3 months in group CG. No statistically significant differences were documented in the response rate, time to progression, and overall survival between these two groups. Severe hematologic toxicity was rare in both groups and no symptomatic peripheral neuropathy was documented in carboplatin/paclitaxel therapy. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin /paclitaxel followed by gemcitabine and carboplatin/gemcitabine followed by docetaxel were well tolerated and equal in efficacy. Both regimens in this study seemed to be suitable for the outpatient settings because of their mild hematologic toxicity and peripheral neuropathy.     

Bi-weekly administration of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: multicenter phase II trial

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) have demonstrated activity as a first-line treatment in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted a multicenter phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bi-weekly administration of GEM plus VNR in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-six chemotherapy-naive elderly (age: >or=70 years) NSCLC patients were enrolled. Patients were eligible if they had histologically or cytologically confirmed unresectable NSCLC with measurable and/or assessable disease. Patients received GEM (1000 mg/m2) and VNR (25 mg/m2) every 2 weeks. RESULTS: The objective response rate of this treatment was 22.7% (95% confidence interval (CI), 10.3-35.1%), median survival time was 310 days, and median time to progression was 133 days. The one-year survival rate was 40.9% (95% CI, 26.3-55.4%), and most adverse events were mild. Only three (6.8%) patients needed to omit GEM because of grade 4 neutropenia or due to physician judgment. No patients suffered treatment-related death. CONCLUSIONS: Bi-weekly administration of GEM plus VNR in elderly patients was an effective, feasible and well-tolerated treatment schedule.     

Randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine plus weekly versus three-weekly paclitaxel in previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Gemcitabine and paclitaxel (Taxol) each provides an efficacious non-platinum option for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the optimal dosage and schedule of the two agents used in combination are not well defined. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine-paclitaxel on a traditional three-weekly schedule (Arm A) or a novel weekly schedule (Arm B) as follows-Arm A (three-weekly): gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 infused>30 min on days 1 and 8 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 infused>3 h on day 1 of a 21-day cycle or Arm B (weekly): gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 infused>30 min and paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 infused>1 h, both administered on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: One hundred patients received at least one dose of treatment. The weekly schedule, Arm B, was more efficacious and less hematologically toxic than Arm A. Confirmed complete and partial response rates were 28.2% and 26.8%, respectively. Median survival was 10.3 months on Arm B and 7.9 months on Arm A (log-rank P=0.10); 1- and 2-year survival rates also favor Arm B: 42.0% versus 34.0% and 18.0% versus 6.0%. Progression-free survival was 5.8 versus 4.8 months, again favoring Arm B (log-rank P=0.06). There was a two-fold lower frequency of grade 3/4 hematologic events with Arm B as follows: neutropenia (16% versus 30%), thrombocytopenia (4% versus 8%), and anemia (2% versus 6%). One patient (2%) in each treatment group developed febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: In this trial, both schedules were efficacious and tolerable, although the weekly schedule resulted in improved survival and lower hematologic toxicity compared with a three-weekly schedule. The weekly schedule of gemcitabine-paclitaxel indicates an improved therapeutic index.     

Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus gemcitabine plus paclitaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE: We conducted this randomized study comparing the activity and toxicity of paclitaxel and gemcitabine (PG) and paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) combinations for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus either carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve of 6 on day 1 (group A) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (group B) every 3 weeks. A retrospective cost analysis was conducted using Student's t test to compare independent samples between groups. RESULTS: A total of 509 patients (group A, 252 patients; group B, 257 patients) were enrolled; all characteristics were well balanced. The median survival time was 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8 to 12 months) for group A and 9.8 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 11.7 months) for group B (P =.32). Respective 1-year survival rates were 41.7% and 41.4%. The response rate for group A was 28.0% (2% complete response [CR], 26% partial response [PR] [95% CI, 22% to 34%]), and the response rate for group B was 35.0% (5% CR, 30% PR) [95% CI, 29% to 41%]) (P =.12). Toxicity was mild. Grades 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia for groups A and B were seen in 15% and 15%, 2% and 1%, and 5% and 2%, respectively. The mean total cost (outpatient clinic visits plus chemotherapy drug fee) for group A (euro; 7,612.64) versus group B (euro; 7,484.77) was not statistically significant (P <.66). CONCLUSION: The PG combination is as equally active and well tolerated as the PC combination in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Randomized phase III study of cisplatin plus irinotecan versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine, and cisplatin plus vinorelbine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Four-Arm Cooperative Study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of three platinum-based combination regimens against cisplatin plus irinotecan (IP) in patients with untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by a non-inferiority design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 602 patients were randomly assigned to one of four regimens: cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus irinotecan 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks (IP) carboplatin AUC 6.0 min x mg/mL (area under the concentration-time curve) on day 1 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (TC); cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 every 3 weeks (GP); and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 every 3 weeks (NP). RESULTS: The response rate, median survival time, and 1-year survival rate were 31.0%, 13.9 months, 59.2%, respectively, in IP; 32.4%, 12.3 months, 51.0% in TC; 30.1%, 14.0 months, 59.6% in GP; and 33.1%, 11.4 months, 48.3% in NP. No statistically significant differences were found in response rate or overall survival, but the non-inferiority of none of the experimental regimens could be confirmed. All the four regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The four regimens have similar efficacy and different toxicity profiles, and they can be used to treat advanced NSCLC patients.     

A phase II,multicenter, open-label randomized study of motesanib or bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundThis phase II study estimated the difference in objective response rate (ORR) among patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving paclitaxel–carboplatin (CP) plus motesanib or bevacizumab.Patients and methodsChemotherapy-naive patients (N = 186) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive CP plus motesanib 125 mg once daily (qd) (arm A), motesanib 75 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) 5 days on/2 days off (arm B), or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) (arm C). The primary end point was ORR (per RECIST). Other end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), motesanib pharmacokinetics, and adverse events (AEs).ResultsORRs in the three arms were as follows: arm A, 30% (95% confidence interval 18% to 43%); arm B, 23% (13% to 36%); and arm C, 37% (25% to 50%). Median PFS in arm A was 7.7 months, arm B 5.8 months, and arm C 8.3 months; median OS for arm A was 14.0 months, arm B 12.8 months, and arm C 14.0 months. Incidence of AEs was greater in arms A and B than in arm C. More grade 5 AEs not attributable to disease progression occurred in arm B (n = 10) than in arms A (n = 4) and C (n = 4). Motesanib plasma C_max and C_min values were consistent with its pharmacokinetic properties observed in previous studies.ConclusionsThe efficacy of 125 mg qd motesanib or bevacizumab plus CP was estimated to be comparable. Toxicity was higher but manageable in both motesanib arms. Efficacy and tolerability of motesanib 125 mg qd plus CP in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC are being further investigated in a phase III study.     

A phase II study of carboplatin plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a hoosier oncology group study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the toxicity and determine the response rate, duration of remission, and survival using gemcitabine plus carboplatin in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This was a phase II study of gemcitabine and carboplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC and Karnofsky Performance Status of at least 80. Gemcitabine was administered intravenously at 1,000 mg/m2 weekly for 3 weeks followed by 1 week rest. Carboplatin was administered immediately after gemcitabine at an area under the curve (AUC) of 5 given intravenously on day 1 of an every-4-week cycle. Seven patients were entered in the study and five were evaluable for toxicity. The median age of patients was 68 years (range, 52-72). The protocol was prematurely terminated because of severe and unexpected hematologic toxicity. Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was observed in four of the first five patients. These toxicities were all observed with the first course of chemotherapy. There were no objective responses seen. Median survival time was 130 days. Carboplatin plus gemcitabine was a logical combination. However, because of the severe thrombocytopenia associated with this regimen, we do not recommend this two-drug combination in the dose and schedule used in this study.     

Second-line treatment with irinotecan plus cisplatin vs cisplatin of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer pretreated with taxanes and gemcitabine: a multicenter randomised phase II study

The aim of this study was to compare the irinotecan/cisplatin regimen with cisplatin as second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) pretreated with a taxane/gemcitabine regimen. Patients (n = 147) with stage IV NSCLC pretreated with a taxane/gemcitabine regimen were randomly assigned to receive either irinotecan (110 mg m(-2), day 1 and 100 mg m(-2), day 8) and cisplatin (80 mg m(-2), day 8) (IC; n = 74) or CDDP (80 mg m(-2), day 1) (C; n = 73) every 3 weeks. Patients treated with IC and C had a median survival of 7.8 and 8.8 months, respectively (P = 0.933). The 1-year survival rate was 34.3% for IC-treated patients and 31.7% for C-treated patients. Cox's regression analysis revealed that response to treatment (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.787; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1578-4.922) and performance status (HR = 1.865; 95% CI: 1.199-2.872) was independent prognostic factors for survival. Overall response rate was 22.5% (95% CI: 12.8-32.2%) for IC-treated patients and 7.0% (95% CI: 1.15-13.6%) for C-treated patients (P = 0.012); tumour growth control (partial remission (PR) + stable disease (SD)) was observed in 26 (38%) IC and 25 (36%) C patients (P = 0.878). There was no difference in terms of quality of life between the two chemotherapy arms. The incidence of febrile neutropenia, grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea was significantly higher in the IC- than the C-treated patients. Other toxicities were mild. There were no treatment-related deaths in either arm. The IC regimen did not confer a survival benefit compared with C as second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC pretreated with a taxane/gemcitabine regimen, despite its better efficacy in terms of response rate.     

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.     

Long-duration, weekly treatment with gemcitabine plus vinorelbine for non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter phase II study

In this phase II study, gemcitabine and vinorelbine were combined at suboptimal doses for weekly administration in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary objectives were to determine objective response rate (ORR) and time to progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were safety and overall survival. Chemonaive patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC received vinorelbine (25 mg/m2) immediately followed by gemcitabine (800 mg/m2) once each week (on day 1) for 6 months without rest. From May 1998 to May 1999, 40 patients were enrolled (85% males; 70% stage IV) with a median age of 65.5. A total of 478 doses were administered, with a median of 9 per patient (range 2-72). The ORR was 27.5% (95% CI, 15.1-44.1%). The median TTP was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.4 months). At a median follow-up of 6.5 months, the median survival was 11.6 months, and survival rates at 1 and 2 year(s) were 47.5% and 15.8%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia, in 70% of patients, with febrile neutropenia in 28%. The most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicity was transaminase elevation, in 22.5% of patients, which was transient and reversible. The other most prominent toxicities were, unexpectedly, pulmonary and cardiac toxicities. Based on these results, weekly, long-term administration of gemcitabine-vinorelbine appears to be an active regimen in NSCLC that warrants further investigation.     

A phase II study with gemcitabine and split-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin is among the most active regimens for the treatment of NSCLC. However, the optimal dose and schedule for administration of the two drugs has not yet been determined. We investigated the activity and toxicity of a gemcitabine and split-dose cisplatin regimen in an outpatient setting for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2004 to May 2005 patients with stage IIIB or IV who had not had prior chemotherapy entered the study. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2, both given intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were entered this study. Patient characteristics were as follows: male/female, 34/11; median age (range), 62 (30-76) years; ECOG PS 0/1/2, 7/30/8; stage IIIB/IV, 18/27. A total of 168 cycles were delivered, with a median of 4 cycles (range, 1-6). All patients were evaluable for toxicity. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities according to the NCI toxicity criteria included neutropenia in 8 patients (18%), anemia in 4 (9%), thrombocytopenia in 7 (15%), and emesis in 1 (2%). Of 42 patients assessable for response, 23 patients showed a partial remission. On intent-to-treat basis, the overall response rate was 51% (95% CI, 37-65%). Median time to progression was 6.0 months (range, 1.2-12.0 months) and median overall survival was 13.1 months (range, 1.4-17 months). CONCLUSIONS: This regimen with gemcitabine and split-dose cisplatin using a 21-day schedule appears to be active and very well-tolerated in an outpatients setting for patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Combination chemotherapy with carboplatin, docetaxel, and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of carboplatin, docetaxel, and gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-five chemotherapy-naive patients with NSCLC were treated on an out-patient basis with carboplatin area under the curve 5 intravenous (IV) and gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2) IV on day 1 and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) IV and gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2) IV on day 8. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (150 ug/m(2) subcutaneously) was given prophylactically from day 3 to day 6 and day 10 to day 16. Chemotherapy was repeated every 4 weeks. Patients were evaluated for response every two cycles of treatment. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 58 years (range, 24 to 75 years). The performance status was 0 for 16 patients, 1 for 17 patients, and 2 for 12 patients. Nine patients (20%) had stage IIIB disease, and 36 (80%) had stage IV; histology was mainly squamous cell carcinoma (51.2% of patients) that was poorly differentiated (37.8%). All 45 patients were assessable for toxicity, and 41 were assessable for response. On an intent-to-treat analysis, the objective response rate was 46. 5% (21 out of 45 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.7% to 62. 5%). Of the 45 patients, four (8.8%) achieved a complete response (95% CI, 2.5% to 21.2%); 17 (37.7%) achieved a partial response (95% CI, 23.8% to 53.5%); seven (15.5%) had stable disease; and 14 (31. 1%) had progressive disease. The median survival time was 13.5 months, and the actuarial 1-year survival rate was 51.11%. The median duration of response was 7.6 months, and the time to tumor progression was 8.1 months. Grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 17.7% and 28.8% of patients, respectively. Twenty-one patients (46.6%) developed grade 3/4 neutropenia, and six patients (13.3%) were complicated with fever. Alopecia was universal. Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in four patients (8.8%); grade 3/4 neurotoxicity occurred in 10 patients (22.2%); and grade 2/3 allergic reaction occurred in three patients (16.6%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Six patients (13.3%) required a dose reduction, two of which required two reductions. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of carboplatin, docetaxel, and gemcitabine is an effective regimen for the treatment of chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC, causing only moderate toxicity.     

A randomized phase II trial of irinotecan plus carboplatin versus etoposide plus carboplatin treatment in patients with extended disease small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Superiority of irinotecan/cisplatin over etoposide/cisplatin was suggested in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This trial investigated irinotecan/carboplatin (IP) versus etoposide/carboplatin (EP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The interim analysis at the phase II/phase III transition point of the multicenter trial is reported. Extensive disease SCLC patients were randomized to receive carboplatin AUC 5 mg x min/ml either in combination with 50 mg/m2 of irinotecan on days 1, 8 and 15 (IP) or with etoposide 140 mg/m2 days 1-3 (EP). The primary end point was response rate and the secondary end points were toxicity and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized. Significant differences in grade 3 and 4 thrombopenia (17% IP versus 48% EP, P = 0.01) and neutropenia (26% IP versus 51% PE, P < 0.01) were found. Grade 3 and 4 diarrhea was more frequent with IP (18%) than with EP (6%) (P = 0.133). Response rates were 67% and 59% (P = 0.24) in the IP versus EP arm, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9 months (95% CI 7.1-10.9) in the IP arm and 6 months (95% CI 4.1-7.9) in the EP arm (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: IP is active, less toxic and appears to improve PFS. Based on the phase II results the trial has been extended to phase III to assess the impact on overall survival.