吉西他滨和顺铂联合重组人血管内皮抑制素治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌临床观察

目的评价吉西他滨和顺铂联合重组人血管内皮抑制素（恩度）治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效和安全性。方法 38例病理确诊的晚期非小细胞肺癌患者给予吉西他滨和顺铂联合恩度治疗,吉西他滨1000mg/m2,第1,8天,顺铂75mg/m2,第2天,恩度注射液7.5mg/m2加入500ml生理盐水中,滴注时间3～4小时,第1～14日,每21天为一周期。结果 38例患者入组,部分缓解13例,疾病稳定17例,疾病进展8例,客观有效率为34.2%,疾病控制率为78.9%。本组中位无进展生存期为4.6个月,95%CI为2.600～6.600个月,中位生存期为13.5个月,95%CI为9.599～17.401个月,1年生存率42.1%。结论吉西他滨和顺铂联合恩度治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌,有较好的疗效和安全性,具有较好临床应用前景。     

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

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

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin in stage IIIA/B non-small cell lung cancer

Purpose. We studied cisplatin plusgemcitabine as induction (neoadjuvant)therapy in patients with stage IIInon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) toassess its objective remission rate,resectability, survival, and toxicity. Patients and methods. Patients with stageIII NSCLC received 2 cycles of gemcitabine1250 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15,plus cisplatin 100 mg/m² on day 2.Subsequently, patients were assigned tolocal therapy – surgery or radiotherapy. Results. Twenty-nine eligiblepatients (male/female: 21/8) with a medianage of 59 years (range, 43–71 years) wereenrolled between October 1996 and February1999. A total of 80 cycles were given,with a median of 3 per patient (range, 1–4cycles). Overall, toxicities were mild;only one patient had febrile neutropenia,and there were no grade 4 non-hematologicaltoxicities. There was one toxic deathfollowing afebrile grade 4 neutropenia.Overall clinical response rate (2 completeresponses [CRs] + 16 partial responses[PRs]) was 62% (95% CI, 45%–79%);10 patients had stable disease and noneprogressed; one patient was not evaluable.Eight of the 18 operated patients hadpathological response: 1 CR and 7downstagings to N(–); 14 patients wereresected. Median survival was 17 months(95% CI, 13–21 months), with 1-year and2-year actuarial survival rates of 61%and 29%, respectively. Conclusions. Gemcitabine pluscisplatin is a very active andwell-tolerated induction regimen in stageIII NSCLC. Comparative studies with otherstandard regimens are warranted.     

Randomized phase II evaluation of aprinocarsen in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Summary Aprinocarsen is a specific antisense oligonucleotide inhibitor of protein kinase C-. This study aimed to evaluate the response rate to combination therapy with aprinocarsen, gemcitabine and cisplatin, in chemonaive patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC. Secondary objectives included comparison of response rate, time to event efficacy parameters, and toxicities on the 2 treatment arms. Patients with stage IV, or stage IIIB disease (N₃ and/or pleural/pericardial effusion), were randomized to either control or experimental arm. Patients on both arms received gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin 80 mg/m² on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Additionally, on the experimental arm, aprinocarsen was administered as 2 mg/kg continuous iv infusion on days 1–14, every 21 days. A total of 18 enrolled patients were randomized on the 2 arms. Further enrollment was terminated in March 2003 as a result of a phase III trial suggesting that aprinocarsen did not have an added survival benefit when combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin therapy in patients with NSCLC. Patients received a median of 4 cycles on control arm and 2.5 cycles on experimental arm. The response rate was 16.7% in the experimental arm and 44.4% in the control arm. Most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities were hematologic, with a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia in the experimental arm (87.5% vs. 33.3%). Despite the 14-day continuous infusion schedule, infection rate was not increased in the experimental arm. The present study did not show any advantage, in response rate or secondary endpoints, with aprinocarsen; however, the toxicity was not unduly increased, and aprinocarsen regimen was safely administered.     

多西他赛和吉西他滨分别联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌效果比较

目的 比较多西他赛与吉西他滨联合顺铂方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的临床疗效及不良反应.方法 120例晚期非小细胞肺癌患者完全随机分为2组.多西他赛组60例给予多西他赛37.5 mg/m2,第1、8天;顺铂25 mg/m2,第1～3天.吉西他滨组60例给予吉西他滨1000 mg/m2,第1、8天;顾铂用量同前.化疗每3周重复,每周期评价不良反应,评价疗效并随访生存期.结果 20例患者均可评价疗效和不良反应,2组有效率分别为多西他赛组45.0%(27/60)和吉西他滨组43.3%(26/60),1年生存率分别为45%和43.3%,两组之间有效率和1年生存率均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).不良反应主要为骨髓抑制和肝功能损害[多西他赛组白细胞产减少率为85.0%(51/60),吉西他滨组为78.0%(47/60),2组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);2组肝功能损害率分别为33.3%(20/60)、26.7%(16/60),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)].结论 多西他赛与吉西他滨联合顺铂方案治疗晚期NSCLC均具有较好的疗效,且两者的疗效相似,不良反应可以耐受,可以作为临床一线治疗.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus cisplatin and gemcitabine plus cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods A total of 120 patients with advanced NSCLC were divided into two groups. The patients received docetaxel in docetaxel group. In gemcitabine group the patients received gemcitabine and cisplatin. The treatment schedule was repeated every 3 weeks. The toxicity,quality response and survival rate of life were evaluated after every cycle. Results The response rates of the docetaxel group and the gemcitabine group were 45% and 43.3%,respectively. One-year survival rates in the two groups were 45% and 43.3%,respectively. The response rate,one-year survival time showed no significance (P ＞0.05). The main side effects were myelosupp ression,nausea and vomiting. Conclusion Regimens of DC and GC are both safe and effective in the treatment of advanced stage NSCLC. They can be used as the first regimen of chemotherapy in patients with advanced stage NSCLC.     

替吉奥和吉西他滨分别联合顺铂一线治疗EGFR野生型的晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床观察

目的:比较替吉奥联合顺铂方案和吉西他滨联合顺铂方案一线治疗表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)基因野生型的晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效和安全性。方法:选取2010年7月-2011年12月收治的68例符合入组标准的EGFR基因野生型的晚期非小细胞肺癌患者,将其随机分为2组,观察组采用替吉奥联合顺铂方案进行一线化疗;对照组采用吉西他滨联合顺铂方案进行一线化疗。比较2组患者的近期疗效、无进展生存期和不良反应。结果:替吉奥联合顺铂组(观察组)和吉西他滨联合顺铂组(对照组)的总有效率分别为41.2%和38.2%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);中位无进展生存期分别为5.4个月和5.1个月,差异无统计学意义(P=0.088);不良反应中替吉奥组的血小板降低发生率(11.8%)低于吉西他滨组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:替吉奥联合顺铂方案一线治疗EGFR基因野生型的晚期非小细胞肺癌具有较好疗效,且不良反应较轻。     

Cisplatin plus gemcitabine on days 1 and 4 every 21 days for solid tumors: Result of a dose-intensity study

Summary Background: Three and 4-week cisplatin-gemcitabine schedules have shown similar dose-intensity (DI) and activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The 3-week schedule is generally preferred because it enables better treatment compliance. To improve DI and compliance further, we delivered gemcitabine plus cisplatin over 4 days every 21 days. Methods: Patients with any stage NSCLC or epithelial neoplasms and an ECOG PS ≤2 were given gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on days 1 and 4 plus cisplatin 70 mg/m² on day 2 of a 21-day cycle. Minimax design was used and a received DI for gemcitabine of ≥580 mg/m²/wk was considered successful. Results: Thirty-nine patients (34 NSCLC, 5 epithelial neoplasias) were enrolled. SWOG grade 3–4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in 17.9% and 12.8% of patients, respectively. Nonhematological toxicity was minimal. Twenty-eight (18%) of 158 cycles required dose modifications and/or delays. Twenty-five patients received a gemcitabine dose intensity of ≥580 mg/m²/wk. The received DIs were 601.8 mg/m²/wk for gemcitabine and 21.0 for cisplatin, with a relative DIs of 90.3% and 90.1%, respectively. The response rate of 27 evaluable patients with NSCLC was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.3 to 62.7%). Conclusions: The shorter schedule of gemcitabine on days 1 and 4 plus cisplatin on day 2 produces an effective DI and a toxicity profile comparable to that of weekly regimens.     

A Phase II study of celecoxib,gemcitabine, and cisplatin in advanced pancreatic cancer

Summary Background. Pancreatic cancer is amongst the most chemoresistant malignancies. Expression of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzyme plays a major role in tumor progression and resistance to therapy. A Phase II study was undertaken to determine the effect of gemcitabine by fixed-dose rate infusion (FDR), cisplatin and the COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, on the 6-month survival rate in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods. The eligibility criteria included a pathologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. No prior gemcitabine therapy was allowed. Patients received a combination of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² over 100 minutes, cisplatin 35 mg/m² I.V. on days 1 and 8, and celecoxib continuously at a daily dose of 800 mg. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. Results. Twenty-two patients with metastatic pancreas cancer were enrolled (median age, 59.5 years; M:F, 13:9). The median number of cycles was 2 per patient. The median survival time was 5.8 months (90% CI, 3.6–7.6 months). The probability of survival at 6 months was 46% (90% CI, 27–62%). The major toxicity was neutropenia with grade 3 or 4 toxicities seen in 65% of patients. Conclusions. The addition of celecoxib to gemcitabine (by FDR) and cisplatin did not appear to increase activity of the chemotherapy doublet in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Celecoxib alone may not be sufficient to sensitize pancreatic cancer to the effects of conventional cytotoxic therapy.     

A pilot study of S-1 plus cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin for postoperative chemotherapy in histological stage IIIB-IV (M0) gastric cancer

Background Although its efficacy is unproven, 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FP) is used to prevent postoperative relapse in gastric cancer. We investigated the safety and feasibility of S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) vs. FP for stage IIIB-IV (M0) gastric cancer. Methods Following curative resection, 41 stage IIIB-IV (M0) gastric cancer patients were assigned to SP (eight 14-day cycles of S-1 [40 mg/m² twice daily] plus cisplatin [60 mg/m² day 1] administered every 3 weeks) or FP (six 3-day cycles of FU [1 g/m² per day] plus cisplatin [80 mg/m² day 1] every 4 weeks). Doses were reduced based on predefined criteria. Results Patient characteristics were balanced between the two arms. In total, 124 cycles of SP (N = 20, median = 7, range 1–8) and 113 cycles of FP (N = 21, median 6, range 1–6) were administered. The median relative dose intensity per patient was 75% (49.99–100%) for S-1, 100% (75–100%) for cisplatin in SP, and 100% (64–100%) for 5-FU, 100% (60–100%) for cisplatin in FP. The relative dose intensity of FP was stable, while that of SP decreased during treatment. After median follow-up of 7.9 months (3.8–14.55), the median RFS was not reached. Relapse occurred in two (10%) patients on SP and five (23.8%) in the FP arm (P = 0.24). The incidence of grade 3–4 granulocytopenia was 36.8% with SP and 14.3% with FP. Grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicities included fatigue (5.2% with SP vs. 4.8% with FP), vomiting (10.5% with SP vs. 0% with FP), and infection (5.2% with SP vs. 0% FP). Conclusion S-1 plus cisplatin was feasible and tolerable as adjuvant treatment for stage IIIB-IV (M0) gastric cancer. However, because of decreased relative dose intensity during treatment, further study is warranted to determine optimal dosage and combination.     

Phase I study of 17-allylamino-17 demethoxygeldanamycin,gemcitabine and/or cisplatin in patients with refractory solid tumors

Purpose: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and characterize the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of 17-AAG, gemcitabine and/or cisplatin. Levels of the proteins Hsp90, Hsp70 and ILK were measured in peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PMBC) lysates to assess the effects of 17-AAG. Experimental design: Phase I dose-escalating trial using a “3 + 3” design performed in patients with advanced solid tumors. Once the MTD of gemcitabine + 17-AAG + cisplatin was determined, dose escalation of 17-AAG with constant doses of gemcitabine and cisplatin was attempted. After significant hematologic toxicity occurred, the protocol was amended to evaluate three cohorts: gemcitabine and 17-AAG; 17-AAG and cisplatin; and gemcitabine, 17-AAG and cisplatin with modified dosing. Results: The 39 patients enrolled were evaluable for toxicity and response. The MTD for cohort A was 154 mg/m² of 17-AAG, 750 mg/m² of gemcitabine, and 40 mg/m² of cisplatin. In cohort A, DLTs were observed at the higher dose level and included neutropenia, hyperbilirubinemia, dehydration, GGT elevation, hyponatremia, nausea, vomiting, and thrombocytopenia. The MTD for cohort C was 154 mg/m² of 17-AAG and 750 mg/m² of gemcitabine, with one DLT observed (alkaline phosphatase elevation) observed. In cohort C, DLTs of thrombocytopenia, fever and dyspnea were seen at the higher dose level. The remaining cohorts were closed to accrual due to toxicity. Six patients experienced partial responses. Mean Hsp90 levels were decreased and levels of Hsp70 were increased compared to baseline. Conclusions: 17-AAG in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin demonstrated antitumor activity, but significant hematologic toxicities were encountered. 17-AAG combined with gemcitabine is tolerable and has demonstrated evidence of activity at the MTD. The recommended phase II dose is defined as 154 mg/m² of 17-AAG and 750 mg/m² of gemcitabine, and is currently being investigated in phase II studies in ovarian and pancreatic cancers. There is no recommended phase II dose for the cisplatin-containing combinations.     

Phase I/II study of gemcitabine and vinorelbine plus cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer

Purpose. We determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and efficacy ofgemcitabine plus vinorelbine combined withcisplatin in patients with non-small celllung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods. Chemo naive patientswith stage IIIA to IV non-small cell lungcancer received outpatient administrationof gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² andvinorelbine 25 mg/m² intravenously ondays 1 and 8 every 21 days. Doses ofgemcitabine and vinorelbine were escalatedby 250 mg/m² and 5 mg/m²,respectively, at each dose level. Cisplatin was administered at a fixed doseof 50 mg/m² on days 2 and 9. Afterthe MTD was reached, the study wascontinued as a phase II trial. Results. From January 1998 to March 1999, sixty-five patients were enrolled. Thefirst 38 patients participated in the phaseI evaluation. After 130 cycles, thedose-limiting toxicities were neutropenia,stomatitis, asthenia, and hepatotoxicityoccurring at the third and fourth doselevels (doses of gemcitabine/vinorelbine of1500/25 and 1000/30 mg/m²).For the subsequent phase II evaluation, 27additional patients, out of a total of 53,receiving the MTD of gemcitabine andvinorelbine (1000–1250/25 mg/m²)followed (24 hours later) by cisplatin50 mg/m². Thirty one (58%) of 53 assessable patients responded. Objectiveresponse for patients with stages III andIV disease, respectively, were 65% and47%. The median time to progression andthe overall survival time were 9 months(95% CI: 5–12) and 11 months (95 % CI:9–13), respectively. World HealthOrganization toxicity grade 3neutropenia was registered in 28 (54%) of52 assessable patients (2% with febrileneutropenia), and grade 3thrombocytopenia in 15 (29%) patients (4%with bleeding). Nausea/vomiting( grade 2) and asthenia (moderate tosevere) occurred in 24 (46%) and 14 (27%)patients, respectively. Conclusion. Gemcitabine1000–1250 mg/m plus vinorelbine25 mg/m² on days 1 and 8, followed bycisplatin 50 mg/m² 24 hours later, issafe for outpatient administration andactive in patients with NSCLC.     

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

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

Phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin in metastatic breast cancer

Our objectives were to assess the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line therapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients with stage IV MBC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were treated with gemcitabine 1200 mg/m on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin 75 mg/m on day 1 every 21 days. Up to 6 cycles were given. A total of 46 patients with a median age of 49 years (range 24-77) and Karnofsky performance status of 80 or above were enrolled. In total, 238 cycles were administered. Of the 42 patients evaluable for response, seven (17%) achieved a complete response and 27 (64%) a partial response, for an overall response rate of 81% [95% confidence interval (CI) 69-93%]. Median time to progression was 14.9 months (95% CI 0-30.2 months). Median duration of response was 24.2 months (95% CI 11.2-37.3 months). The median survival was 27.9 months (95% CI 23.1-32.7 months), and the 1- and 2-year survival probabilities were 71.4 and 61.4%, respectively. All patients were evaluable for toxicity, and grade 3/4 WHO toxicities included neutropenia (41.3%), anemia (8.7%), thrombocytopenia (8.7%), alopecia (26.1%) and nausea/vomiting (32.6%). We conclude that gemcitabine plus cisplatin is a highly effective and safe first-line treatment for patients with MBC. The time to progression of 14.9 months compares favorably with other standard treatments (anthracyclines, taxanes). A randomized study is required to further investigate the role of this combination as first-line treatment for MBC.     

A phase II trial of Triapine® (NSC# 663249) and gemcitabine as second line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study 1503

Background: The objective of ECOG 1503 was to determine the response rate of this combination in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Methods: Triapine 105 mg/m² IV on days 1, 8, and 15, and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15, of a 28 day cycle. Results: Eighteen patients enrolled. Three patients were not eligible due to protocol violations. No objective antitumor responses were seen. Three patients (20%) experienced stable disease (90% CI 5.7–44%). Median overall survival: 5.4 months (95% CI 4.2–11.6 months); median time to progression: 1.8 months (95% CI 1.7–3.5 months). Five patients developed acute infusion reactions to Triapine? related to elevated methemoglobinemia. Patients with MDR1 variant genotypes of C3435T experienced superior overall survival compared to non-variants (13.3 vs. 4.3 months, respectively, p = 0.023). Conclusion: This regimen did not demonstrate activity in relapsed NSCLC. Prolonged survival seen with MDR1 variant genotypes is hypothesis-generating.     

Phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemonaive patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

This phase II study evaluated the activity of gemcitabine (Gemzar) plus cisplatin (Platinol) as first-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Forty-two chemonaive patients with advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer received gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 3 weeks, up to eight cycles. The median number of cycles completed was 5 (range 2-8). Of the 41 patients evaluable for tumor response, 20 had a partial response and nine had a complete response, for an overall clinical and pathologic response rate of 70.7% (95% CI 56.8-84.6%). Median overall survival for all 42 patients was 23.4 months (95% CI 15.9-29.9 months) and the median progression-free survival time was 10.4 months (95% CI 9.4-13.5 months). The combination was generally manageable. Hematologic toxicity (grade 3/4 neutropenia: 31.0/21.4%; grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia: 9.5/4.8%; grade 3/4 anemia: 11.9/0%) and nausea and vomiting (grade 3/4: 35.7/31.0%) were the most common toxicities. There was one toxic death (septic shock due to hematologic toxicity-induced infection). We conclude that gemcitabine plus cisplatin is active and feasible as first-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Further clinical trials with the addition of gemcitabine to first-line treatment appear warranted.     

Phase Ⅱ trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Aim:

To investigate the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine (dFdC) administered on d 1 and 5 plus cisplatin administered on d 1 in chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods:

In each combination cycle, gemcitabine was administered at a dose of 1250 mg/m² as a 30 min intravenous (iv) infusion on d 1 and 5 followed by cisplatin at a dose of 75 mg/m² as a 3 h iv infusion on d 1 every 3 weeks. There was an interval of 1 h between the two infusions. Clinical response and toxicity of the regimen were observed. Furthermore, the plasma concentrations of gemcitabine (dFdC) and its metabolite (dFdU) at different time points were detected during the first cycle of infusion. Pharmacokinetic software (PKS) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters of gemcitabine and its metabolite dFdU.

Results:

A total of 28 patients was enrolled in the study. The median age was 54 years (range 27–75 years), and most patients were in good clinical condition. Twenty-seven patients received two or more treatment cycles. The overall clinical response rate was 33.3%. The median overall survival time was 13 months. The estimated median time to tumor progression (TTP) was 6.2 months, and the 1-year survival rate was 55.6%. Toxicities were tolerated. The main toxicity was myelosuppression; 35.7% of patients had grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities and 28.6% had grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities, which were commonly gastrointestinal responses. The pharmacokinetic parameters of dFdC and dFdU were not different between pre- and post-administration of gemcitabine on d 1 and 5. dFdU was minimal (0.729±0.637 μg/mL) before gemcitabine was infused on d 5, and gemcitabine was not present.

Conclusion:

The regimen is active and well tolerated in chemonaive patients with advanced NSCLC. After gemcitabine was administered on d 1 and 5, the pharmacokinetic parameters of dFdC and dFdU showed no difference from those before the infusion, and dFdU was minimal before gemcitabine was administered on d 5.     

泽菲联合顺铂治疗中晚期非小细胞肺癌近期疗效观察

目的评价泽菲(吉西他滨,GEM)联合顺铂(DDP)(GP方案)对中晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的疗效、临床受益情况和毒副作用。方法42例中晚期非小细胞肺癌,初治31例,复治11例,以GP方案化疗,每例持续2～3个周期,共102个周期。结果42例化疗患者,有效率(CR+PR)达52.4%(22/42),稳定(SD)者占35.7(15/42)%,进展(PD)者占11.9%(5/42)。毒副反应:Ⅲ～Ⅳ度白细胞减少者为30.9%,Ⅲ～Ⅳ度血小板减少者为14.2%,Ⅲ～Ⅳ度血红蛋白降低者为11.9%。结论GEM联合DDP治疗中晚期非小细胞肺癌有较好疗效,毒副反应轻,易耐受。     

吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效观察

目的评价吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的疗效和不良反应。方法初治的Ⅲb期或Ⅳ期NSCLC56例,采用吉西他滨1.2g/m2,第1,8天静脉滴注;顺铂80～100mg/m2静脉滴注,分3～4d用,21d为1个周期。应用2个周期后评价疗效。结果56例患者中,无完全缓解(CR)病例,部分缓解(PR)24例,稳定(SD)24例,进展(PD)8例,有效率(CR+PR)43%,不良反应主要为白细胞下降(80%)和消化道反应(82%)。结论吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗NSCLC疗效较好,不良反应可耐受。     

Increasing-dose gemcitabine plus low-dose cisplatin in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Gemcitabine, a pyrimidine analog active in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), is widely used with cisplatin. The potential activity of the combination has not been fully assessed: gemcitabine is not used at its maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and cisplatin shows a clearly dose-related toxicity. This trial was designed to assess the MTD and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of low-dose cisplatin and increasing gemcitabine dose. CHEMOTHERAPY: cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, gemcitabine starting at 1400 mg/m on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. Subsequent levels were increased by 200 mg/m2. Forty-two patients with metastatic NSCLC were enrolled (37 males; median age 61 years; squamous cell carcinoma 19 patients; performance status 2, in 13 patients; 18 patients had significant weight loss). MTD was found to be 2600 mg/m2 because of DLT in three of six patients: two neutropenic fever and one massive bleeding. Overall toxicity was generally mild consisting mainly of neutropenia. Asthenia was the most common non-hematological effect. Overall response rate was 19 out of 41 patients (46.3%) and median survival was 31 weeks. We conclude that the recommended dose for a phase II dose is gemcitabine 2400 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 as a 30-min infusion when given with cisplatin 50 mg/m2.     

GP和TP方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床对照研究

目的：对照研究吉西他滨（GEM）联合顺铂（DDP）及多西紫杉醇（TXT）联合奈达铂（NDP）两方案在治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床疗效及不良反应。方法：58例晚期非小细胞肺癌随机分成两组,吉西他滨（GP）组30例,多西紫杉醇组（TP）28例,比较两方案疗效。结果：GP组和TP组有效率分别为43.3%和46.4%,两组间差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。中位生存期（MST）：GP组为12.8个月,TP组为13.6个月,疾病缓解时间（DRT）分别为6.1个月及7.8个月。GP组和TP组1、2年期生存率分别为42.5%和44.7%,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。不良反应：TP组WBC下降36例,占67%,其中Ⅲ/Ⅳ度白细胞下降10例占22%,明显高于GP组（P〈0.05）。结论：GP方案和TP方案对晚期非小细胞肺癌近期临床疗效、中位生存期及疾病缓解时间相似,不良反应较TP发生率高,但骨髓抑制较TP组轻。因此,两种方案均可作为晚期非小细胞肺癌的一种安全、有效的化疗方案。