Functional polymorphisms of the microsomal epoxide hydrolase gene: a reappraisal on a early-onset lung cancer patients series

As concomitant chemoradiotherapy for stage III NSCLC is associated with survival advantage in comparison to a sequential approach, we conducted a phase III randomised study aiming to determine the best sequence and safety of chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT), using a regimen with cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR). Unresectable stage III NSCLC patients received CDDP (60 mg/m(2)), GEM (1g/m(2), days 1 and 8) and VNR (25mg/m(2), days 1 and 8) with reduced dosage of GEM and VNR during radiotherapy (66Gy). Two cycles of CT with radiotherapy followed by two further cycles of CT alone were administered in arm A or the reverse sequence in arm B. The study was prematurely closed for poor accrual due to administrative problems. Forty-nine eligible patients were randomised. Response rates and median survival times were, respectively 57% (95% CI: 36-78%) and 17 months (95% CI: 9.3-24.6 months) in arm A and 79% (95% CI: 64-94%) and 23.9 months (95% CI: 13.3-34.5 months) in arm B (p>0.05). Chemotherapy dose-intensity was significantly reduced in arm A. Grade 3-4 oesophagitis occurred in 5 patients. One case of grade 5 radiation pneumonitis was observed. In conclusion, chemoradiotherapy with CDDP, GEM and VNR appears feasible as initial treatment or after induction chemotherapy. Consolidation chemoradiotherapy seems less toxic with a better observed response rates and survival although no valid conclusion can be drawn from the comparison of both arms.     

Cisplatin/carboplatin + etoposide + vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Gruppo Oncologico Campano.

A multicentre randomised phase III trial in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was undertaken to compare the therapeutic activity and toxicity of a cisplatin/carboplatin-etoposide-vinorelbine combination with that of a cisplatin-etoposide regimen. Patients with advanced (stage IIIB-IV) NSCLC were randomised, after stratification for stage (IIIB-IV) and performance status (0-1 and 2), to receive either (A) CDDP 40 mg m-2 + VP16 100 mg m-2 on days 1-3 as standard treatment or (B) CBDCA 250 mg m-2 on day 1 + CDDP 30 mg m-2 on days 2 and 3 + VP16 100 mg m-2 on days 1-3 + NVB 30 mg m-2 on day 1. Therapy was recycled on day 29 in both arms. We hypothesised a 15% minimum increment in the response rate with the experimental regimen over the 25% expected activity rate of the standard regimen. A two-stage design was chosen, which permitted the early termination of the trial (after the accrual of 52 patients in each arm) if the difference in response rates between the two regimens was less than 3% at the end of the first stage. A total of 112 patients (arm A = 57, arm B = 55) were enrolled in the study (53 with stage IIIB and 59 with stage IV), of which 105 eligible patients were evaluable for response on an "intention to treat'' basis. Seven patients were excluded because they did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Fifteen responses were observed in arm A (28%, 95% CI = 17-42) and 13 (one complete) in arm B (25%, 95% CI = 13-37). On multivariate logistic analysis, treatment did not affect the response rate, while stage IV and performance status 2 were significantly associated with a lower probability of response. Median survivals were similar in the two arms (31 vs 27 weeks). The experimental regimen was associated with an extremely poor median survival in patients with poor performance status (21 weeks). On Cox analysis, treatment failed to show a significant impact on survival: stage IV (relative risk = 1.6. CI = 1.0-2.6, P = 0.036) was the only prognostic variable significantly associated with a worse survival outcome and, although poor performance status adversely affected survival, this effect did not reach the level of statistical significance (relative risk = 1.6, CI = 0.98-2.5; P = 0.063). There were no significant differences in non-haematological toxicities between the two arms, although three patients in the control arm had to discontinue the treatment because of the persistence of severe nephrotoxicity (two patients) or neurotoxicity (one patient). In contrast, a significant increase in both neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was observed in the experimental arm. Four treatment-related deaths were registered in arm B (two due to neutropenic sepsis, one to myocardial failure and one to acute renal failure) compared with one toxic death (acute renal failure) in arm A. In view of these results, the trial was stopped and the null hypothesis (< 15% increase in response rate with the experimental regimen) has been accepted. Therefore, our combination does not deserve further evaluation as first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC patients. As our data suggest that an aggressive chemotherapy might have a negative impact on survival of patients with poor performance status, trials to evaluate the activity of new regimens should be conducted separately for each subset of patients with different performance status.     

Efficacy of the combination of cisplatin with either gemcitabine and vinorelbine or gemcitabine and paclitaxel in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomised trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG 0101).

BACKGROUND: Triplet regimens were occasionally reported to produce a higher response rate (RR) than doublets in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was conducted to assess (i) whether the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to either gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) or GEM and paclitaxel (PTX) significantly prolongs overall survival (OS) and (ii) to compare the toxicity of PTX-containing and VNR-containing combinations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stage III or IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to (i) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and VNR 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GV arm); (ii) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and PTX 125 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GT arm); (iii) GV plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGV arm); and (iv) GT plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGT arm). Treatments were repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: A total of 433 (stage III, 160; stage IV, 273) patients were randomly allocated to the study. RR was 48% [95% confidence interval (CI), 42% to 54%] for triplets and 35% (95% CI, 32% to 38%) for doublets (P = 0.004). Median progression-free survival (6.1 versus 5.5 months, P = 0.706) and median OS (10.7 versus 10.5 months, P = 0.379) were similar. CDDP significantly increased the occurrence of severe neutropenia (35% versus 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% versus 4%), anaemia (9% versus 3%), vomiting (6% versus 0.5%), and diarrhoea (6% versus 2%). Conversely, frequency of severe neutropenia (30% versus 17%) and thrombocytopenia (11% versus 6%) was significantly higher with VNR-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Adding CDDP to GV or GT significantly increased RR, but did not prolong the OS of patients. Among doublets, the GT regimen should be preferred in view of its better safety profile.     

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine combination therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II randomized study of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: In a previous phase I study cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM), and vinorelbine (VNR) combination therapy was safe and very active in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was aimed at better defining the activity and toxicity of this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eleven chemotherapy-naive patients, age < or = 70 years, with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a performance status of 0 or 1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale) were randomized to two treatment arms. Patients on arm A received CDDP 50 mg/m2, GEM 1,000 mg/m2, and VNR 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of an every-3-weeks cycle (57 patients). Patients on arm B received CDDP 80 mg/m2, epirubicin 80 mg/m2, and vindesine 3 mg/m2, all delivered on day 1 every 4 weeks, plus lonidamine orally 150 mg three times daily (54 patients). In December 1996, randomization was stopped early, and an additional 30 patients were treated with the experimental regimen to obtain a more accurate estimation of its activity rate. RESULTS: Among 87 patients who received the CDDP-GEM-VNR combination, four complete responses (CRs) and 46 partial responses (PRs) were observed, for an overall response rate of 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46% to 68%). Two CRs and 18 PRs were recorded among 54 patients on arm B, giving a 37% activity rate (95% CI , 24% to 51%). After a median follow-up duration of 19 months, the median progression-free and overall survival durations were 32 and 50 weeks in arm A, and 18 and 33 weeks in arm B, respectively. World Health Organization grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 46% and 14% of patients in arm A and in 22% and 11% of those in arm B, respectively. Severe nonhematologic toxicity was uncommon in both arms. CONCLUSION: The CDDP-GEM-VNR combination is a highly effective treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and has a manageable toxicity. A phase III trial comparing this new combination with both CDDP-VNR and CDDP-GEM regimens is underway.     

A randomized trial of chemotherapy followed by pelvic radiation therapy in stage IIIB carcinoma of the cervix.

Because of the poor results in stage III B carcinoma of the cervix with standard treatment using radiotherapy alone, we designed a randomized trial to determine whether administration of chemotherapy before pelvic irradiation would improve survival. Between May 1984 and August 1986, 107 patients with previously untreated squamous cell carcinoma were randomly assigned, after stratification by age (less than 50 v greater than 50 years), extent of parametrial involvement (unilateral v bilateral), and lymphangiographic findings (negative v positive) to pelvic radiotherapy (RT; arm A) or three cycles of chemotherapy (CT; bleomycin, vincristine, mitomycin, and cisplatin [BOMP]), followed by the same radiotherapy regimen (CT + RT; arm B). The groups were balanced by age, performance status, extent of parametrial involvement, bulkiness of cervical disease, nodal involvement, and presence of hydronephrosis. Minimal follow-up is 34 months. A complete local response was observed in 32.5% of the patients in arm A and in 47% of the patients in arm B (P = .19). Overall 5-year survival rates were 39% for the RT arm and 23% for the CT + RT approach (P = .02). Toxicity was severe in arm B and included fatal pulmonary toxicity in four patients. Locoregional and distant failures were similar in both groups. We conclude that, despite a satisfactory response rate, neoadjuvant BOMP chemotherapy adversely affects survival in stage III B cervical cancer and is associated with unacceptable toxicity.     

Multicentre randomised phase III study comparing the same dose and schedule of cisplatin plus the same schedule of vinorelbine or gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

This study compares two cytotoxic regimens comprising the same dose and schedule of cisplatin (CP) plus vinorelbine (VNR) or gemcitabine (GEM) administered under the same schedule to patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). From April 1998 to February 2003, 285 patients were randomised to receive either VNR 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 as an intravenous (i.v.) bolus plus CP 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 (regimen A) or GEM 1200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 as an i.v. 30-min infusion plus CP 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 (regimen B). Both treatments were recycled every 21 days. If no progression had occurred after six cycles, the patients continued to receive VNR or GEM monochemotherapy weekly. Cross-over of the two single agents was considered if disease progression occurred. Objective response (OR), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. 272 patients were ultimately eligible (137 on A and 135 on B). Their main characteristics were: male/female ratio 214/58; median age 63 (range 32-77) years; median Karnofsky Performance Status (PS) 80 (range 70-100); stage IIIB 34%, stage IV 61%, recurrent disease 5%; histology - epidermoid 29%, adenocarcinoma 53%, other NSCLC 18%. The characteristics of the patients in the two arms were well matched. The following response rates were observed in regimens A and B, respectively: complete response (CR) 0.7% and 3.7%, partial response (PR) 31.9% and 22.2% (P = 0.321). Median CR+PR duration was 8 months in both arms. Clinical benefit represented by an improvement in symptoms was evident in 25.7% and 28.1%, respectively. Median TTP was 5 months in both arms and median OS 11 months in both arms. Grade III-IV neutropenia occurred in 30.7% and 17.7% of the patients in arms A and B, respectively (P = 0.017); thrombocytopenia occurred in 0% and 9.3% (P = 0.004), respectively. No difference in the incidence of anaemia was observed. Non-haematological toxicity was generally mild: a higher incidence of grade 1-2 peripheral neurotoxicity and grade 1-2 local toxicity with regimen A and grade 1-2 liver toxicity with regimen B was reported. A pharmaco-economic comparison showed a difference between the two doublets, principally due to the different costs of VNR and GEM. Under the study conditions the combination of VNR or GEM with the same dose and schedule of CP produced similar OR, clinical benefits, TTP and OS in advanced NSCLC, and only mild toxicological differences were observed. Pharmaco-economic evaluation favoured the CP + VNR doublet.     

Ifosfamide and epirubicin combination in untreated sarcomas: two treatment schedules.

BACKGROUND : The Epirubicin (EPI) and ifosfamide (IFO) combination has been widely tested in soft tissue sarcomas, even though the optimal schedule of drug administration has still to be defined. In this article, we reviewed the activity and the toxicity of two EPI- and IFO-based schedules in newly diagnosed sarcomas. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 22 patients (group A) received a 'concurrent' schedule of short-infusion IFO at total dose of 7.5-9 g/m(2) over 5 days plus iv bolus EPI at 90-120 mg/m(2)/cycle, repeated every 3 weeks. The other 22 patients (group B) received a 'sequential' schedule of dose-intense, continuous infusion IFO at a total dose of 14-18 g/m(2) for 2 cycles followed by bimonthly EPI at 120-160 mg/m(2)/cycle. Application of growth factors was planned for each course of treatment. RESULTS: Since 1994, 44 consecutive patients have been treated. The overall response rate was 35% with no significant differences between the two treatment groups in terms of response rate (group A: 33%, group B: 37%), time to progression (group A: 7 months, group B: 8 months), and overall survival (group A: 12 months, group B: 15 months). General tolerance to treatment was better in group A. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred significantly more often with the sequential regimen. Severe hematologic toxicity was common but no toxic deaths were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this limited experience, a concurrent schedule of EPI and IFO seems to be an appropriate management strategy in the front-line therapy of advanced sarcomas. Nevertheless, a randomized trial is warranted to define the optimal dosages to be used for further clinical trials.     

Vinorelbine, ifosfamide and cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer.

To assess, in a multicenter setting, the effectiveness of a combination of vinorelbine, ifosfamide and cisplatin in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer, 123 patients (males=116) with a mean age of 60 years (range 27-75) with stage IIIb/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and performance status 相似文献   

A randomised study of carboplatin vs sequential ifosfamide/carboplatin for patients with FIGO stage III epithelial ovarian carcinoma. The London Gynaecologic Oncology Group.

In a study designed to compare response rates of patients with stage III epithelial ovarian carcinoma to ifosfamide and carboplatin, 152 patients were randomised to receive either sequential therapy with three cycles of ifosfamide followed by three cycles of carboplatin, or to six cycles of single agent carboplatin. Ifosfamide was given every 3 weeks in a dose of 5 gm m-2 as a 24 h infusion with mesna, 1 gm m-2 by i.v. bolus prior to ifosfamide, 3 gm m-2 with ifosfamide, and 1 gm m-2 as an 8 h infusion after ifosfamide. Carboplatin was given in a dose of 400 mg m-2 by short i.v. infusion every 4 weeks. Sixty-eight evaluable patients were randomised to sequential ifosfamide/carboplatin, and 67 to single agent carboplatin. Median follow-up is 36 months (range 5.5-82.3). After three cycles of treatment two patients in the ifosfamide/carboplatin arm achieved complete remission (CR), and 12 partial remission (PR) for an overall response rate of 29%, whereas in the carboplatin arm ten patients achieved CR, and 23 PR, for an overall response rate of 63% (P = 0.0008). Seven of 15 patients with progressive disease, and nine of 20 patients with stable disease at the initial response evaluation, following three cycles of ifosfamide, subsequently responded to carboplatin therapy so that the final response rate to the complete regimen was 65% for the ifosfamide/carboplatin arm, compared to 71% for the carboplatin arm (NS). For the ifosfamide/carboplatin arm, median recurrence free survival and overall survival were 14.1 months and 18.7 months. Corresponding figures for the carboplatin arm were 14.5 months and 21.5 months (NS). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. However 47% of patients in the ifosfamide/carboplatin arm developed alopecia sufficient to require a wig, compared to only 2% in the carboplatin arm. Ifosfamide is clearly less effective, and more toxic than carboplatin. Ifosfamide failures can however be effectively salvaged by subsequent carboplatin treatment. Ifosfamide cannot be recommended for single agent therapy in ovarian carcinoma, however the combination of carboplatin plus ifosfamide might be a suitable treatment to be tested in a future randomised study against carboplatin alone.     

5-Fluorouracil plus leucovorin is an effective adjuvant chemotherapy in curatively resected stage III colon cancer: long-term follow-up results of the adjCCA-01 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant postoperative treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin in curatively resected stage III colon cancer significantly reduces the risk of cancer recurrences and improves survival. The impact of 5-FU plus leucovorin on survival and tumor recurrence was analyzed in a long-term follow-up study in comparison with the effects of 5-FU plus levamisole in the prospective multicenter trial adjCCA-01. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a curatively resected stage III (International Union Against Cancer) colon cancer were stratified according to tumor, node and grading category and randomly assigned to receive one of the two adjuvant treatment schemes: 5-FU 400 mg/m2 body surface area intravenously in the first chemotherapy course, then 450 mg/m2 x 5 days, plus leucovorin 100 mg/m2, 12 cycles (arm A), or 5-FU plus levamisole (Moertel scheme; arm B). RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty (96.9%) of 702 patients enrolled into this study were eligible. To date, 261 patients have died, 117 on arm A and 144 on arm B (P = 0.007). After a median follow-up time of 82 months, the 5-FU plus leucovorin combination significantly improved disease-free survival [79.8 months in arm A versus 69.3 months in arm B (P = 0.012)] and significantly increased median overall survival (88.9 months in arm A versus 78.6 months in arm B; P = 0.003). Adjuvant treatment with 5-FU plus levamisole as well as 5-FU plus leucovorin was generally well tolerated; only a minority of patients experienced grade 3 and 4 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: After curative resection of a stage III colon cancer, adjuvant treatment with 5-FU plus leucovorin is generally well tolerated. This long-term follow-up study demonstrates that adjuvant treatment with 5-FU plus leucovorin given for 12 cycles is significantly more effective than 5-FU plus levamisole (Moertel scheme) in reducing tumor relapse and improving survival.     

A randomized study comparing two regimens of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in multimodal therapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Two regimens of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for previously untreated patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer were compared with the goal of identifying a regimen with a greater than 50% complete response (CR) rate. Patients with a performance status of 0 to 2 and normal end-organ function were randomized to receive either four cycles of neoadjuvant methotrexate, cisplatin, and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (MPF) (arm A), or four cycles of bleomycin, cisplatin, and methotrexate (PBM) alternating with cisplatin and 5-FU (PF) (arm B). Patients with a performance status of greater than 2 or a carbon monoxide diffusion capacity of less than 50% of the predicted value were assigned to the arm A regimen but were analyzed separately (arm C). Local therapy consisted of surgery (for patients with resectable disease) or radiation therapy followed by two cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with the regimen that was administered initially. Of the 42 patients who were evaluated, 16 were randomized to arm A, 13 to arm B, and 13 to arm C. The clinical CR rate was 19% on arm A (95% confidence interval, 0% to 38%), 39% on arm B (95% confidence interval, 12% to 66%) (P = 0.41), and 54% on arm C (95% confidence interval, 27% to 81%). At a median follow-up time of 35 months, the 2-year actuarial survival rate was 61% on arm A, 69% on arm B (the P value was not significant), and 38% on arm C. The 2-year survival rate for all 42 patients who were treated was 57% and the median survival time was 31 months. Toxicities of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on all arms consisted of mild to moderate myelosuppression and renal toxicity. The incidence of moderate to severe mucositis was significantly higher on arm A than arm B (P = 0.02). Two cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy were administered to only 11 of 42 patients due to patient refusal or cumulative toxicity. In conclusion, both neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens resulted in similar response and survival rates, but mucositis was more severe with arm A. However, since neither regimen was likely to cause a CR rate of greater than 50%, this study was closed to further patient accrual.     

Combination of cisplatin and vinorelbine as adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients--feasibility assessment of 5 consecutively treated patients

Post-operative adjuvant chemotherapy(POAC)combining cisplatin(CDDP)and vinorelbine(VNR)for non-small cell lung cancer(NSCLC)patients is considered as a standard regimen. However, some Japanese investigators point out the toxic profile of this regimen in the practice settings. Thus, five consecutive patients with mean age of 61.6 years old were treated to evaluate the feasibility of this regimen among Japanese patients. Three male and 2 female patients were enrolled, with post-operative stage of IIB/IIIA/IIIB in 1/2/2 patients, respectively. CDDP was administered on day 1 at 80 mg/m(2), and VNR on days 1 and 8 at 25 mg/m(2) intravenously, every 21 days. The regimen was aimed to complete 4 cycles, and 4 patients have completed the treatment without reducing the doses. Average treatment interval was 23 days. Four patients experienced grade(Gr)4 neutropenia, and 1 patient had Gr 3 liver damage. Other mild toxicities included Gr 1 nausea/vomiting in all patients, and Gr 1 GFR reduction in 3 patients. Combination of CDDP and VNR seems to be tolerable in terms of POAC, with relatively mild toxicity profile similar to the previous reports.     

Triplet chemotherapy with cisplatin, gemcitabine and vinorelbine for malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND: The incidence of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is expected to increase due to delayed control of occupational exposure to asbestos in Japan. We investigated the use of triplet combination chemotherapy with cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) for the treatment of Japanese patients with MPM. METHODS: From December 2000 to August 2003, 12 patients received the following regimen: CDDP 40 mg/m(2), GEM 800 mg/m(2) and VNR 20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks. Among the 12 patients, six selected patients underwent an extrapleural pneumonectomy (EP) after a median of three cycles of triplet chemotherapy. RESULTS: The overall response rate for all patients and the response rate for chemotherapy-naive cases were 58 and 67%, respectively. The median survival time and survival rate at 2 years for all patients were 11 months and 50%, respectively. The 2-year survival rates for the patients with and without EP were 83.3 and 16.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Triplet chemotherapy with CDDP, GEM and VNR was thus found to be highly effective for patients with MPM and its toxicity was manageable. A multi-institutional phase II trial is now being planned to establish the effectiveness of this new regimen in chemotherapy-naive patients with MPM.     

Randomized controlled trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and vinorelbine in patients with stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer in China

Aim:   The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of cisplatin plus vinorelbine as a regimen of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the improvement of surgical resectability and survival in Chinese patients with stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Methods:   Fifty-six patients with stage IIIA NSCLC were randomly assigned to undergo either surgery preceded by two cycles of chemotherapy with cisplatin plus vinorelbine (the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm) or immediate surgery (the primary surgery arm). The patients who had a complete resection received two to four cycles of chemotherapy, and those with incomplete resection received radiotherapy followed by two cycles of chemotherapy after surgery.
Results:   The overall response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 53.6%, with a complete response of 7.1%. A pathological complete response was seen in two patients (8%). The complete resection rates were 78.6% in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm and 60.7% in the primary surgery arm. The median overall survival and median disease-free survival was 30 months and 24 months, respectively, in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm as compared to 16 months and 11 months in the primary surgery arm ( P  = 0.04 and P  = 0.048). The 3-year and 5-year survival rate was 49.7% and 31.9%, respectively, for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm and 29.2% and 3.6% for the primary surgery arm.
Conclusion:   Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin plus vinorelbine regimen is effective and tolerable and can improve the overall survival and disease-free survival time in Chinese patients with stage IIIA NSCLC.     

A comparison of two doses of adriamycin in the primary chemotherapy of disseminated breast carcinoma

Forty-eight patients with advanced breast carcinoma who had not received prior chemotherapy (minimum follow up 21 months) were randomised to receive either adriamycin 70 mg m-2 i.v. 3-weekly for 8 cycles (Regimen A) or adriamycin 35 mg m-2 i.v. 3-weekly for 16 courses (Regimen B). Objective responses were seen in 14/24 (58%) patients with regimen A (4 complete) and 6/24 (25%) with regimen B (1 complete) (P less than 0.02). The median duration of response was 14 months with regimen A and 6.5 months with regimen B. The median duration of survival was 20 months and 8 months respectively (P less than 0.01). The toxicity was similar with each regimen. There was no evidence of deterioration in left ventricular ejection fraction nor congestive heart failure in any patient. It is concluded that when given at 3-weekly intervals adriamycin is a more effective treatment for advanced breast cancer at higher rather than lower dosage.     

Prospective randomised study of split-course radiotherapy versus cisplatin plus split-course radiotherapy in inoperable squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus

Between 1983 and 1989, 211 patients with inoperable squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus were randomised in a study comparing split-course irradiation (two courses of 20 Gy in five fractions of 4 Gy, separated by a rest of 2 weeks) (arm A) and the same split-course irradiation in combination with cisplatin (CDDP) (3-4 days before each of the two courses of radiotherapy, repeated every 3-4 weeks, for a total of six cycles) (arm B). The Cox's regression model with retrospective stratification was used to compare the two arms to correct for the imbalance at randomisation of the T classification. The median overall survival was 7.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.3-9.4) months in arm A and 9.6 (95% CI 8-13.5) months in arm B. The difference in overall survival was only borderline significant (P=0.048) with a reduction of the instantaneous rate of death of 24%. The 1 and 2 year overall survival rate were respectively 29% (95% CI 21-37%) and 15% (95% CI 8-22%) in arm A and 45% (95% CI 36-54%) and 20% (95% CI 13-27%) in arm B; thereafter, the survival curves became similar. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 5.0 (95% CI 4.6-5.7) versus 6.9 (95% CI 5.3-8.7) months (P=0.028) and the median time to local progression was 6.2 (95% CI 5.1-7.6) months versus 10.9 (95% CI 8.1-15.5) months (P=0.018), respectively, in arms A and B. Haematological toxicities were slightly more commonly observed in the combined group (1% versus 6%). This study shows that split-course irradiation in combination with CDDP is very well tolerated and should be preferred to radiotherapy alone.     

Concurrent versus sequential chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin and vinorelbine in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized study

PURPOSE: The superiority of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) over radiation alone in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been proven, but the relative merits of a concurrent schedule versus their sequential administration are less clear. This study compared the safety and efficacy of concurrent and sequential CRT, with chemotherapy (CT) consisting of a cisplatin and vinorelbine regimen, in patients with locally advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and two previously untreated patients (aged 42-75 years) with locally advanced, stage IIIA (n = 15) or stage IIIB (n = 87) NSCLC were entered into the study. The CT schedule consisted of up to four cycles of cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) at the first and fourth cycles (12.5 mg/m(2) during the 2nd/3rd cycles) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle. Radiotherapy (RT) was prescribed at a dose of 60 Gy/30 fractions, given as five fractions per week for 6 weeks. In the concurrent arm (arm A), RT was started on day 4 of cycle 2; whilst in the sequential arm (arm B), RT started within 2 weeks after completion of CT. Fifty-two patients were randomized to concurrent treatment and 50 to the sequential schedule. RESULTS: Overall survival was significantly longer in arm A (median survival 16.6 months) versus arm B (median survival 12.9 months) (P = 0.023 by means of log-rank test; hazard ratio HR = 0.61, 95% CI of HR (0.39-0.93)), and time to progression (TTP) was also significantly longer in arm A (median time to progression 11.9 months) versus arm B (median time to progression 8.5 months) (P = 0.024 by means of log-rank test; HR = 0.62, 95% CI of HR (0.38-0.93)). Ninety-eight patients were evaluable for response and 101 for toxicity. The overall response rate was significantly higher in arm A, 80% (with 21% complete response (CR)) compared with 47% (with 17% CR) in arm B (P = 0.001 by means of chi(2)-test). WHO grade 3 or 4 toxicity was more frequent in arm A than in arm B, with a significantly greater incidence of leucopenia (53% versus 19%, P = 0.009 by means of chi(2) test) and nausea/vomiting (39% versus 15%, P = 0.044 by means of chi(2) test). There were no treatment related deaths. CONCLUSION: In this study population, concurrent CRT demonstrated significant benefit in terms of response rate, overall survival and time to progression over sequential CRT. The concurrent CRT schedule was associated with higher toxicity; however, the adverse event profile was acceptable in both arms.     

Hepatocellular carcinoma in children and adolescents: results from the Pediatric Oncology Group and the Children's Cancer Group intergroup study.

PURPOSE: To determine surgical resectability, event-free survival (EFS), and toxicity in children with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) randomized to treatment with either cisplatin (CDDP), vincristine, and fluorouracil (regimen A) or CDDP and continuous-infusion doxorubicin (regimen B). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients were enrolled onto Pediatric Intergroup Hepatoma Protocol INT-0098 (Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) 8945/Children's Cancer Group (CCG) 8881). After initial surgery or biopsy, children with stage I (n = 8), stage III (n = 25), and stage IV (n = 13) HCC were randomly assigned to receive regimen A (n = 20) or regimen B (n = 26). RESULTS: For the entire cohort, the 5-year EFS estimate was 19% (SD = 6%). Patients with stage I, III, and IV had 5-year EFS estimates of 88% (SD = 12%), 8% (SD = 5%), and 0%, respectively. Five-year EFS estimates were 20% (SD = 9%) and 19% (SD = 8%) for patients on regimens A and B, respectively (P =.78), with a relative risk of 1.2 (95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 2.3) for regimen B when compared with regimen A. Outcome was similar for either regimen within disease stages. Events occurred before postinduction surgery I in 18 (47%) of 38 patients with stage III or IV disease, and tumor resection was possible in two (10%) of the remaining 20 children with advanced-stage disease after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Children with initially resectable HCC have a good prognosis and may benefit from the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Outcome was uniformly poor for children with advanced-stage disease treated with either regimen. New therapeutic strategies are needed for the treatment of advanced-stage pediatric HCC.     

A randomized study of cisplatin versus cisplatin plus vindesine for non-small cell lung carcinoma.

Between August 1983 and March 1985, a randomized study was conducted that compared cisplatin (CDDP) (80 mg/m2 on day 1) alone with CDDP plus vindesine (VDS) (3 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) in 160 consecutive patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There were no complete responses. The response rate for CDDP plus VDS (22 of 77 patients, 29%) was significantly higher than that for CDDP alone (9 of 78 patients, 12%) (P less than 0.05). However, no difference existed in the median duration of response (20 weeks for CDDP plus VDS versus 20 weeks for CDDP alone) or the median survival time (45 weeks for CDDP plus VDS versus 39 weeks for CDDP alone). No significant differences in toxicity were detected between the two arms; myelosuppression, alopecia, and peripheral neuropathy occurred more frequently with CDDP plus VDS and there was one lethal episode of hepatorenal syndrome in the CDDP plus VDS arm. Among the variables Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), age, sex, stage, weight loss, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, albumin level, histologic cell type, and chemotherapy arm, only chemotherapy arm was a significant factor leading to a major response (P = 0.019, multiple logistic regression analysis). The significant predictors of survival were PS (P = 0.000), sex (P = 0.000), and stage (P = 0.002) (Cox's proportional hazards model), with a PS of 0 or 1, female sex, and lower stage yielding the best survival. Although a significantly higher response rate was obtained in the combination arm than in the single agent arm, the survival benefit to patients receiving such combination chemotherapy was not determined and more effective chemotherapy regimens are required.     

不同化疗方案治疗Ⅲ～Ⅳ期非小细胞肺癌的近期疗效观察

 目的　观察比较MVP(丝裂霉素、长春地辛、顺铂),MIC(丝裂霉素、异环磷酰胺、顺铂)和MNP(丝裂霉素、去甲长春碱、顺铂)联合化疗方案治疗Ⅲ～Ⅳ期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的近期疗效和耐受性。方法　统计分析103例接受联合化疗的Ⅲ～Ⅳ期NSCLC,MVP组36例、MIC组30例,MNP组37例。结果　MVP组有效率30.6%,MIC组有效率33.3%、MNP组有效率48.6%,三组间疗效无显著性差异(P＞0.05)。主要毒副反应为骨髓抑制和胃肠道反应。结论　MVP、MIC和MNP方案治疗Ⅲ～Ⅳ期NSCLC疗效肯定,毒性可耐受,可以作为其一线治疗方案。