Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized trial was designed to determine whether paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) offered a survival advantage over vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) for patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. Secondary objectives were to compare toxicity, tolerability, quality of life (QOL), and resource utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred two patients received VC (vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)/d, day 1 every 28 days) and 206 patients received PC (paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) over 3 hours with carboplatin area under the curve of 6, day 1 every 21 days). Patients completed QOL questionnaires at baseline, 13 weeks, and 25 weeks. Resource utilization forms were completed at five time points through 24 months. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The objective response rate was 28% in the VC arm and 25% in the PC arm. Median survival was 8 months in both arms, with 1-year survival rates of 36% and 38%, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 leukopenia (P =.002) and neutropenia (P =.008) occurred more frequently on the VC arm. Grade 3 nausea and vomiting were higher on the VC arm (P =.001, P =.007), and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was higher on the PC arm (P <.001). More patients on the VC arm discontinued therapy because of toxicity (P =.001). No difference in QOL was observed. Overall costs on the PC arm were higher than on the VC arm because of drug costs. CONCLUSION: PC is equally efficacious as VC for the treatment of advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. PC is less toxic and better tolerated but more expensive than VC. New treatment strategies should be pursued.     

紫杉醇联合顺铂及长春瑞滨联合卡铂治疗老年晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床对照研究

为了探讨紫杉醇联合顺铂及长春瑞滨联合卡铂方案对老年晚期非小细胞肺癌(non-smallcelllungcancer,NSCLC)的疗效和毒副反应,选取初治晚期NSCLC65例,分别应用TP(紫杉醇 顺铂)、NE(长春瑞滨 卡铂)方案治疗。每例均完成2个周期化疗后评价疗效及毒副反应。结果两组患者近期有效率TP组为41·9%(13/31),NE组为41·2%(14/34),差异无统计学意义,P>0·05。中位生存期TP组8·1个月,NE组7·2个月,差异无统计学意义,P>0·05。两组毒副反应均以骨髓抑制、脱发及恶心呕吐为主,TP组恶心呕吐发生率为87·1%,NE组为73·5%,白细胞减少TP组为74·9%,NE组为85·3%。两组病例均无化疗相关死亡发生。初步研究结果提示,TP、NE联合方案是治疗老年晚期NSCLC有效且耐受性较好的方案。     

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

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

Decision framework for chemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Best supportive care has long been considered to be the standard therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is now evidence from randomized trials that a number of chemotherapy regimens can palliate cancer-related symptoms and modestly improve survival. We show how cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to make choices between different (ambulatory) chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: Clinical algorithms describing the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of metastatic NSCLC were incorporated into Statistics Canada's Population Health Model. Using consistent methodology, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of several chemotherapeutic interventions: a combination of vindesine (VDS) plus cisplatin, etoposide (VP-16) plus cisplatin, vinblastine (VLB) plus cisplatin, vinorelbine (Navelbine; NVB) plus cisplatin, paclitaxel (Taxol) plus cisplatin, and gemcitabine (GEM) and NVB alone. We calculated the total chemotherapy costs in 1995 Canadian dollars, the cost per case, the average life-years saved, and the cost per life-year saved. Using the Population Health Model, we then constructed an advanced decision framework that rank-ordered the various treatment regimens so as to optimize benefit below various cost-effectiveness thresholds. RESULTS: One regimen (VLB plus cisplatin) appears to result in better survival and lower health care expenditures than best supportive care. By use of cost-effectiveness thresholds of $25,000 and $50,000 per life-year gained, NVB plus cisplatin is the preferred regimen. When quality of life is considered, however, GEM is preferred to NVB plus cisplatin at a threshold value of $50,000. At thresholds of $75 000 and $100,000, paclitaxel plus cisplatin at a dose of 135 mg/m(2) is the preferred regimen. At thresholds of $50,000 and above, best supportive care is the least preferred regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This decision framework allows the comparison of different treatment regimens based on various cost-effectiveness thresholds. Our analysis also supports the use of chemotherapy regimens and the abandonment of best supportive care as the standard of care for patients with advanced NSCLC. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1321-9].     

紫杉醇脂质体联合顺铂方案一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床随机对照研究

背景与目的紫杉醇联合顺铂方案(pacilitaxel plus cisplatin,TP)是目前一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)的标准方案之一。本研究旨在比较紫杉醇脂质体联合顺铂(liposome pacilitaxelplus cisplatin,LP)方案与TP方案一线治疗晚期NSCLC的近期疗效、远期生存及毒副反应。方法 100例患者随机分为两组,分别静脉注射紫杉醇脂质体和紫杉醇注射液150 mg/m~2,第1天,联合顺铂75mg/m~2,第1天-2天,21天一个周期。结果 100例患者均可评价疗效,其中LP组中位无进展生存期(progression free survival,PFS)为5.1个月,中位总生存期(overall survival,OS)为9.0个月,客观反应率(response rate,RR)为26%;TP组中位PFS为4.2个月,中位OS为9.3个月,RR为24%;两组比较均无统计学差异(P=0.110;P=0.342;P=0.890)。两组Ⅲ度+Ⅳ度毒性反应均无统计学差异(P>0.05),LP组末梢神经炎发生率低于TP组(8%vs 28%,P=0.030)。结论 LP方案一线治疗晚期NSCLC疗效与TP方案相当,末梢神经炎发生率低于TP方案。     

Single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the cancer and leukemia group B (study 9730).

PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy of combination chemotherapy versus single-agent therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 561 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel alone or in combination with carboplatin. RESULTS: The response rate was 17% in the paclitaxel arm and 30% in the carboplatin-paclitaxel arm (P < .0001). Median failure-free survival was 2.5 months in the paclitaxel arm and 4.6 months in the carboplatin-paclitaxel arm (P = .0002). Median survival times were 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 7.8) and 8.8 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 9.9), and 1-year survival rates were 32% (95% CI, 27% to 38%), and 37% (95% CI, 32% to 43%), respectively. The overall survival distributions were not statistically different: hazard ratio = 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.17; P = .25). Hematological toxicity and nausea were more frequent in the combination arm, but febrile neutropenia and toxic deaths were equally low in both arms. There was no significant survival difference in elderly patients. Performance status 2 patients treated with combination chemotherapy had a better survival rate than those treated with single-agent therapy (P = .019). CONCLUSION: Combination chemotherapy improves response rate and failure-free survival compared with single-agent therapy, but there was no statistically significant difference in the primary end point of overall survival. The results in elderly patients were similar to younger patients. Performance status 2 patients had a superior outcome when treated with combination chemotherapy.     

OV21/PETROC: a randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup phase II study of intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and optimal debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer

BackgroundThe purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).Patients and methodsWe carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB–IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL).ResultsBetween 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57–1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47–1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone.ConclusionIn women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy.Clinical trial numberclinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543.     

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

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

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: Platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens are the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although toxicity is common and may significantly affect the patient's quality of life (QoL). This trial aimed to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine had benefits in terms of QoL, without influencing negatively on survival, compared with cisplatin-containing regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB (effusion and supraclavicular nodes) or IV documented NSCLC who were younger than 70 years of age were randomly assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (GemVin) or either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (cisplatin-based). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scales were used for QoL analysis. RESULTS: Five hundred one patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The median age was 62 years. There were no significant differences in global QoL scores between the two arms after 2 months of treatment. However, worsening scores for appetite, vomiting, and alopecia were significantly more common in the cisplatin-based arm. Median survival was 38 v 32 weeks and median progression-free survival was 23 v 17 weeks in the cisplatin-based versus GemVin arms, respectively. For the GemVin arm the hazard ratio for death was 1.15 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.37) and the hazard ratio for progression was 1.29 (90% CI, 1.10 to 1.52). Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, vomiting, alopecia, and ototoxicity were significantly more frequent with cisplatin-based treatment. CONCLUSION: Global QoL is not improved with GemVin, although advantages in some components of QoL were apparent. GemVin is less toxic than standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There is a nonsignificant slight survival advantage with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. GemVin could be offered to advanced NSCLC patients who express concern about toxicity.     

Three-arm randomized study of two cisplatin-based regimens and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group--EORTC 08975.

PURPOSE: To compare the therapeutic efficacy of paclitaxel plus cisplatin (arm A) versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (arm B) and arm A versus paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (arm C) in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Materials and METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion, day 1) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) both combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (day 1) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion, day 1) combined with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8). Primary end point was comparison of overall survival for B versus A and C versus A. Secondary end points included response rate and duration, progression-free survival, toxicities, quality of life [QoL], and cost of treatment. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty patients (arm A, 159; arm B, 160; arm C, 161 patients) were enrolled; all baseline characteristics were balanced. Median survival times were as follows: arm A, 8.1 months; arm B, 8.9 months; arm C, 6.7 months. Response rates were 31.8% for arm A, 36.6% for arm B, and 27.7% for arm C. Other than myelosuppression (B v A, P <.005), no statistically or clinically significant differences were observed for secondary end points. The average treatment costs were 25% higher in arm C as compared with arms A and B. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine do not increase overall survival in patients with advanced NSCLC as compared with paclitaxel plus cisplatin. Treatment was well tolerated, and most QoL parameters were similar, but costs associated with the nonplatinum arm were highest.     

Randomized double-blind trial of combined modality treatment with or without amifostine in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Greater toxicities have been recognized to be a consequence of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was designed to determine if the use of amifostine could reduce treatment-related toxicities associated with the use of paclitaxel plus carboplatin and thoracic radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC were treated with two cycles of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin (area under the time-concentration curve = 6), followed by thoracic radiotherapy (64 Gy) with concurrent weekly paclitaxel 60 mg/m2. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 740 mg/m2 of amifostine (arm A) or placebo (arm B) before each dose of paclitaxel and carboplatin. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated at each visit and nerve conduction tests were performed before and after treatment for the objective assessment of neurotoxicity. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between arms A and B in grade 3 to 4 neutropenia. In all 72 neurophysiological parameters measured, there was no significant difference between the two treatment arms, although there was a trend toward fewer patients showing deterioration in arm A for six of the parameters. Grade 2 to 3 esophagitis occurred in 43% of patients in arm A and in 70% of patients in arm B. The difference of -27% (95% confidence limit = -50%, 0.4%) was not statistically significant. Response rates and survival were also not significantly different between the two arms. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with amifostine showed a trend toward reducing the severity of esophagitis associated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, but it did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant protective effect on hematologic or neurologic toxicities induced by paclitaxel and carboplatin.     

Prospective randomized study of four novel chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: a minnie pearl cancer research network trial

BACKGROUND: The authors compared the toxicity, response rate, and progression free survival of four chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced (Stage IIIB and IV) nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 267 patients entered this randomized Phase II trial on one of four arms: paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine (Arm A); paclitaxel, carboplatin, and vinorelbine (Arm B); paclitaxel and gemcitabine (Arm C); and gemcitabine and vinorelbine (Arm D). Patient characteristics were similar in all treatment arms. At the time of tumor progression, patients were removed from study and were treated at the discretion of their physician. RESULTS: Patients received a median of four courses of chemotherapy in all arms, and there was no difference in the dose delivered. There were no statistical differences in response rates (range, 32-45%), median progression free survival (range, 4.9-6.6 months), or progression free survival at 1 year (range, 8-19%). Actuarial survival in all four arms was not different, with a median survival ranging from 8.7 months to 10.7 months and a 1-year survival rate of 38-44%. Each arm was compared with a historic control with a median survival of 8 months. Arm D (gemcitabine and vinorelbine) approached significance at the 0.05 level. CONCLUSIONS: Two-drug combinations containing the newer drugs without a platinum drug were less toxic than three-drug, platinum-based regimens. There were no significant differences in objective response rates or progression free survival when the four regimens were compared. The two-drug combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine was the least toxic and, thus, may be superior. A Phase III trial comparing combined gemcitabine and vinorelbine with combined paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine is ongoing.     

Phase II study of concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in combination with weekly paclitaxel plus carboplatin in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: LOGIK0401

Objectives

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy for regionally advanced stage III non-small cell lung cancer is the standard treatment method. However, the clinical implications of consolidation chemotherapy following chemoradiation have been unclear. Therefore, we conducted a phase II study of concurrent weekly carboplatin plus paclitaxel treatment in combination with radiotherapy followed by vinorelbine monotherapy. The primary endpoint was the 1-year survival rate.

Patients and methods

Chemonaive PS 0–1 patients with stage IIIA/B NSCLC were enrolled. During the concurrent chemoradiation phase, patients were treated with weekly paclitaxel 40 mg/m² plus carboplatin AUC 2. The primary tumor and involved nodes received 60 Gy in 2-Gy fractions over 6 weeks. During the consolidation phase, vinorelbine 25 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 was repeated for three cycles.

Results

A total of 40 eligible patients (72.5 % male; median age, 63 years; range 29–74 years) were analyzed for efficacy. Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common histology (47.5 %), and more patients had clinical stage IIIB (55 %) cancer. The average radiation dose was 56.5 Gy, and the average number of carboplatin plus paclitaxel cycles was 4.93. Seventeen patients proceeded to the consolidation chemotherapy phase, and 14 completed three cycles of vinorelbine monotherapy. The objective response rate was 75.0 %, including 1 patient who achieved a complete response. Progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 46 weeks [95 % confidence interval (CI) 31–64 weeks] and 110 weeks (95 % CI 90–184 weeks), respectively. The OS rate at 1 and 2 years was 85.0 % (95 % CI 69.6–93.0 %) and 53.9 % (95 % CI 37.1–68.0 %), respectively.

Conclusion

Concurrent chemoradiation with weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by vinorelbine consolidation is effective for stage III non-small cell lung cancer and shows a generally mild toxicity profile.     

Randomized trial of paclitaxel plus supportive care versus supportive care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: In phase II trials, paclitaxel has been shown to have antitumor activity in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the survival and quality-of-life (QOL) benefits of paclitaxel used as a single agent compared with supportive care alone have not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 157 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received no prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either best supportive care alone (78 patients) or paclitaxel plus supportive care (79 patients). Paclitaxel was administered as a 3-hour intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. Supportive care included palliative radiotherapy and supportive therapy with corticosteroids, antibiotics, analgesics, antiemetics, transfusions, and other symptomatic therapy as required. The primary end point of the study was survival. Time to disease progression, response rate, adverse events, and QOL were secondary end points. RESULTS: Pretreatment characteristics were evenly distributed between the two arms. Survival was statistically significantly better in the paclitaxel plus supportive care arm than in the supportive care alone arm (two-sided P =.037) (median survival = 6.8 months versus 4.8 months). Cox multivariate analysis showed paclitaxel plus supportive care to be statistically significantly associated with improved survival (two-sided P =.048). QOL was similar for both treatment arms, except for the functional activity score of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, where QOL data statistically significantly favored the paclitaxel plus supportive care arm (two-sided P =.043). CONCLUSION: The addition of paclitaxel to best supportive care significantly improved survival and time to disease progression compared with best supportive care in patients with advanced NSCLC and may improve some aspects of QOL.     

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

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

Cost-effectivenes of paclitaxel plus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel/cisplatin, compared with standard etoposide/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We obtained the primary survival and resource utilization data from a large three-arm randomized trial comparing: paclitaxel 135 mg m(-2) by 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion + cisplatin; paclitaxel 250 mg m(-2) by 24-h i.v. infusion + cisplatin + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF); and standard etoposide/cisplatin in patients with stage IIIb or IV NSCLC. We also modelled the regimens with paclitaxel 135 mg m(-2) + cisplatin administered as an outpatient by 3-h infusion, as clinical data suggest that this is equivalent to 24-h infusion. We collected costing data from the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre and applied it to the resources consumed in the randomized trial. We integrated these data into the Statistics Canada POpulation HEalth Model (POHEM), which generated hypothetical cohorts of patients treated with each regimen. The POHEM model assigned diagnostic work-up, treatment, disease progression and survival characteristics to each individual in these cohorts and tabulated the costs associated with each. We did sensitivity analyses around the costs of chemotherapy and its administration, and the survival differences between the two regimens. All costs are in 1997 Canadian dollars ($1.00 Canadian approximately Pound 0.39 sterling). The perspective is that of the Canadian health care system. In the trial, the two paclitaxel-containing arms had almost identical survival curves with a median survival of 9.7 months compared with 7.4 months for etoposide/cisplatin. As administered in the trial, paclitaxel/cisplatin cost $76,370 per life-year gained (LYG) and paclitaxel/cisplatin/G-CSF $138,578 per LYG relative to etoposide/cisplatin. However, when modelled as an outpatient 3-h infusion, paclitaxel/cisplatin was moderately cost-effective at $30,619 per LYG. When compared with historical controls treated with best supportive care, this regimen of paclitaxel/cisplatin cost $4539 per LYG. Assuming a 3-h paclitaxel infusion yields the same survival advantage as the 24-h infusion did in the randomized trial, paclitaxel/cisplatin is a cost-effective improvement over standard etoposide/cisplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.     

长春瑞滨联合铂类治疗中晚期子宫内膜癌

目的：比较长春瑞滨和紫杉醇分别与铂类联合治疗中晚期子宫内膜癌的近期疗效及毒副反应。方法：33例晚期子宫内膜癌，治疗组（NP方案组）21例，长春瑞滨＋顺铂或卡铂化疗，长春瑞滨25mg／m^2，静注d1、8；顺铂25mg／m^2，静注d1～3，或卡铂（300mg／m^2或者AUC4～5）静脉滴注d1。对照组（TP方案组）12例：紫杉醇135～150mg／m^2，静注d1；顺铂或卡铂用法同前。结果：全组均完成2周期以上化疗，其中CR4例．PR14例，NC10例，PD5例。有效率（CR＋PR）54．54％。NP方案组，CR2例，PR9例，有效率（CR＋PR）52．38％；TP方案组，CR2例，PR5例，有效率（CR＋PR）58．33％，两组间无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。副反应主要为骨髓抑制、白细胞、血小板减少，Ⅲ～Ⅳ度发生率，NP组为71．43％，TP组为75．0％（P〉0．05）。结论：长春瑞滨＋铂类联合与紫杉醇＋铂类联合化疗治疗中晚期子宫内膜癌有相同的疗效且毒副反应可以耐受。     

Docetaxel/platinum in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: recent randomized trials

The role of docetaxel-containing doublets as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced and metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was evaluated in a large randomized trial. Docetaxel/cisplatin and docetaxel/carboplatin were compared with the reference regimen of vinorelbine/cisplatin. After adjustment for imbalances in prognostic factors, the overall survival of patients treated with docetaxel/cisplatin was significantly better than that of patients treated with vinorelbine/cisplatin, the reference regimen. Survival for patients on the docetaxel/carboplatin arm was noninferior to the same reference regimen. The major grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia, which affected approximately three fourths of the participants. Overall, the docetaxel/platinum arms were well tolerated. Both docetaxel/carboplatin and docetaxel/cisplatin appear to be effective first-line chemotherapy combinations for advanced NSCLC and are efficacious treatment options in this setting. The future of NSCLC therapy might lie in the development of novel treatment paradigms that involve the integration of targeted agents with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy.     

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

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