Interim analysis of a phase III trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine vs. either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non small-cell lung cancer. A Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group Study

In a previous phase II randomized study, a cisplatin/gemcitabine/vinorelbine (PGV) regimen produced a 50-week median survival time (MST) in advanced non small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The present trial was planned to randomly compare the outcome of patients treated with this new triplet regimen with those of patients receiving either cisplatin plus vinorelbine (PV) or cisplatin plus gemcitabine (PG) doublet combinations. One hundred eighty patients with stage IIIB (76) or IV (104) disease, aged 相似文献   

Phase I/II trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin and etoposide in patients with small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this phase I/II study were to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and activity of cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine (PEG) in the treatment of previously untreated patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaive patients received fixed doses of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (70 mg/m(2) on day 2) and escalating doses of etoposide (starting dose of 50 mg/m(2) on days 3, 4, and 5) every 3 weeks. No prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors were used. RESULTS: From September 1998 to April 2000, 56 patients with limited- or extensive-stage SCLC were enrolled and received a total of 235 cycles. Two different etoposide doses were tested in eight patients. At the second level (75 mg/m(2)), two out of two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (neutropenia and thrombocytopenia) and no further dose-escalation was attempted, thus an etoposide dose of 50 mg/m(2) was defined as the MTD. In the subsequent phase II evaluation, 48 additional patients were enrolled, for a total of 54 patients treated at the MTD. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 66.7 and 53.7% of patients, respectively. Non-hematologic toxicity was mild, with grade 3 diarrhea and fatigue as the main side effects. Two patients died of neutropenic sepsis (one at 75 mg/m(2) and the other at 50 mg/m(2) etoposide). Ten complete and 29 partial responses were reported, for an overall response rate of 72.2% (95% confidence interval, 56.6-85.0%). The median duration of response and median survival were 8.0 and 10 months, respectively, with a 1-year survival probability of 37.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of PEG is feasible and well tolerated as front-line chemotherapy in SCLC. A randomized comparison of this triplet is underway.     

Prospective randomized phase III trial of etoposide/cisplatin versus high-dose epirubicin/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer

High-dose epirubicin plus cisplatin was compared with the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Four hundred two previously untreated patients with SCLC were randomized to receive etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 or epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles. Patients were stratified according to treatment center and extent of disease (limited disease, n = 207; extensive disease, n = 195). Patients with limited disease were treated with thoracic radiation therapy after completion of chemotherapy, and those who exhibited a complete response were advised to receive prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint was survival, and secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), response, toxicity, and costs. Patient characteristics were generally well balanced in the 2 arms, even though more patients in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm had > 5% weight loss and poor Karnofsky performance index compared with the etoposide/cisplatin arm. One hundred thirty-four patients (66.3%) in the etoposide/cisplatin arm and 126 (63.0%) in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm received all 6 planned cycles of chemotherapy. Response rate, TTP, and survival did not differ significantly between the 2 arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and toxic deaths occurred more frequently in the etoposide/cisplatin arm. Epirubicin/cisplatin showed a similar activity with a slightly lower toxicity profile than the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin. The epirubicin/cisplatin regimen may be recommended in the treatment of SCLC.     

Phase I/II study of a combined gemcitabine, etoposide, and cisplatin chemotherapy regimen for metastatic urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND: The authors attempted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of gemcitabine in combination with etoposide and cisplatin as a chemotherapy regimen and investigated the safety and antitumor activity with the recommended doses of gemcitabine with etoposide and cisplatin for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: Patients age 75 years or younger with measurable lesions, creatinine clearance>or=50 mL per minute, and adequate bone marrow and hepatic function were studied. Etoposide and cisplatin were given on Days 1 through 3 at fixed doses of 75 mg/m2 and 25 mg/m2, respectively, and gemcitabine was given on Days 1, 8, and 15. In the Phase I component, gemcitabine was administered at increasing doses from 600 mg/m2. Cycles were repeated every 28 days unless progressive disease was encountered. RESULTS: In Phase I, with the initially fixed doses of etoposide and cisplatin, the MTD of gemcitabine could not be determined because of the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity at Level 1 in all 3 patients. When the doses of etoposide and cisplatin were modified to 60 mg/m2 and 20 mg/m2, respectively, the MTD of gemcitabine was 1000 mg/m2. Next, 19 additional patients were entered into Phase II with the recommended gemcitabine dose of 800 mg/m2, and 20 patients in all were treated at this dose level. The main toxicity was bone marrow suppression, with Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia recognized in 20 patients (100%) and 14 patients (70%), respectively, although no toxic deaths occurred. In total, all 31 patients at all dose levels had an assessable response, with 6 complete responses and 15 partial responses observed, for an overall response rate of 67.7%. Patients who had visceral metastasis had a significantly worse response rate than patients who had lymph node metastasis alone (50.0% vs. 78.9%; P=.042). The response rate (66.7%) for 21 patients who received prior chemotherapy was not different from that for 10 chemotherapy-naive patients. The median survival for all patients was 13.1 months, and 4 patients survived for >2 years with no evidence of disease. Patients younger than age 65 years had significantly better survival than patients age 65 years or older (P=.026). CONCLUSIONS: Although bone marrow toxicity was considerable, combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine, etoposide, and cisplatin appeared to be very active in patients with urothelial carcinoma and may be especially promising for younger patients, although further study is warranted.     

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

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

Sequential versus alternating administration of cisplatin/etoposide and topotecan as first-line treatment in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: preliminary results of a Phase III Trial of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group

BACKGROUND: This trial was designed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of sequential versus alternating administration of cisplatin/etoposide and topotecan in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred eighty-four chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized between the sequential therapy arm (n=142; 4 cycles of cisplatin 75 mg/m2 intravenously [I.V.] on day 1 with etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day I.V. on days 1-3 followed by 4 cycles of topotecan 1.5 mg/m2 per day I.V. on days 1-5) and the alternating arm (n=142; same doses of cisplatin/etoposide on cycles 1, 3, 5, and 7 and topotecan on cycles 2, 4, 6, and 8). Treatment cycles for both regimens were administered every 3 weeks. RESULTS: At this preliminary analysis, no statistically significant difference in the overall response rate, duration of response, time to disease progression, or median survival was observed between the 2 arms. A total of 756 cycles of the sequential therapy and 830 cycles of the alternating therapy were administered, with a median numbers of 6 and 7 cycles per patient, respectively. Topotecan was administered in 85 patients on the sequential arm and 132 patients on the alternating arm. Dose reductions for toxicity were similar in both arms. Grade 3/4 toxicities in the sequential and alternating arms, respectively, included neutropenia (51% and 52%; P=NS), anemia (12% and 11%; P=NS), febrile neutropenia (7% and 9%; P=NS), thrombocytopenia (19% and 20%; P=NS), and asthenia (8% and 2%; P=0.02). There were 4 toxicity-related deaths in the sequential arm versus 3 in the alternating arm. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary conclusion is that the sequential and alternating regimens resulted in comparable activity and tolerability in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage SCLC.     

Randomized trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine with either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: interim analysis of a phase III trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: In our previous phase II study, the cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine (PGV) regimen produced a median survival time (MST) of approximately 1 year in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The present study was aimed at comparing the MST of patients treated with this triplet regimen with the MSTs of patients receiving cisplatin and vinorelbine (PV) or cisplatin and gemcitabine (PG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 1997, patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, an age of < or = 70 years, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 1 were randomized to receive one of the following regimens: cisplatin 50 mg/m(2), gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (arm A); cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (arm B); or cisplatin 120 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 29 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2)/wk (arm C). According to the two-stage design for phase III trials, an interim analysis was planned when the first 60 patients per arm were assessable for survival. RESULTS: The survival data of 180 NSCLC patients (stage IIIB, 76 patients; stage IV, 104 patients) were analyzed in April 1999. Overall, 128 patients had died (PGV, n = 33; PG, n = 42; and PV, n = 53). The MST of patients in the PGV, PG, and PV arms was 51, 42, and 35 weeks, respectively, and the corresponding 1-year projected survival rates were 45%, 40%, and 34%, respectively. When only patients with stage IV disease were considered, an even stronger difference was seen between PGV (MST = 47 weeks) and both PG (34 weeks) and PV (27 weeks). At multivariate Cox analysis, the estimate hazard of death for patients receiving PGV compared with those receiving PV was 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.77; P <.01). The response rates were 47% in the PGV arm, 30% in the PG arm, 25% in the PV arm. Both hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were not substantially worse in patients who received the PGV regimen. CONCLUSION: The PGV regimen is associated with a substantial survival gain (MST > 3 months longer) when compared with the PV combination. Because this difference in survival met one of the early stopping rules, the accrual in the PV arm has been stopped (null hypothesis rejected). Enrollment still continues in the PGV and PG arm to ascertain whether the PGV regimen can also produce a significantly longer survival than that obtained with the PG regimen.     

A phase II study of cisplatin, etoposide and gemcitabine in an unfavourable group of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this phase II study was to determine toxicity, response rate, time to progression, and overall survival of cisplatin, etoposide and gemcitabine in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary tumour site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with no previous chemotherapy and not belonging to a treatable group were treated with cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 1, etoposide 70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2, and gemcitabine 700 mg m(2) on days 1 and 8, administered every 3 weeks. Stable or responding patients received a maximum of eight cycles. Twenty patients (67%) had more than three affected sites, and 25 patients (84%) had adenocarcinomas. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 36.6% (11 patients), including four complete responses (13.3%) and seven partial responses (23.3%), with a 95% confidence interval of 19.9-56. Median survival was 7.21 months and eight patients remained alive for >1 year. Myelosuppression was the most important toxicity, with grade 3-4 neutropenia in 18 patients (60%) in 32% of the cycles: eight patients had neutropenic fever and 10 patients had thrombopenia in 11% of cycles. No non-haematological grade 4 toxicity occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin, etoposide and gemcitabine is an active combination, inducing objective responses in a subset of heavily advanced disease patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. The role of adding gemcitabine to cisplatin and etoposide remains to be resolved as to the best schedule to diminish toxicity for the three-drug combination.     

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The Hoosier Oncology Group has previously reported the results of its phase II trial of the combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine. In that study of 27 assessable patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was 33%, with a median survival of 8.4 months. Based on such favorable results, the Hoosier Oncology Group designed this randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin alone in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 28-day cycle) or the combination of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle). RESULTS: From August 1995 to February 1997, 522 assessable chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized. Toxicity was predominantly hematologic and was more pronounced in the combination arm, with grade 4 neutropenia occurring in 35.3% of patients compared with 1.2% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. The incidence of neutropenic fevers was less than 5% in both arms. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 25. 4% of patients on the combination arm compared with 0.8% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. No serious hemorrhagic events related to thrombocytopenia were reported for either arm. The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin demonstrated a significant improvement over single-agent cisplatin with regard to response rate (30.4% compared with 11.1%, respectively; P <.0001), median time to progressive disease (5.6 months compared with 3.7 months, respectively; P =.0013), and overall survival (9.1 months compared with 7.6 months, respectively; P =.004). CONCLUSIONS: For the first-line treatment of NSCLC, the regimen of gemcitabine plus cisplatin is superior to cisplatin alone in terms of response rate, time to disease progression, and overall survival.     

Three-week versus four-week schedule of cisplatin and gemcitabine: results of a randomized phase II study.

BACKGROUND: The cisplatin and gemcitabine (GC) regimen is usually administered as a 4- or 3-week schedule; however, the best schedule to use is still unclear. We therefore started a randomized phase II trial to compare toxicity and dose intensity (DI) between these two GC schedules. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and an additional 11 patients with an advanced epithelial neoplasm [bladder (n = 5), head and neck (n = 3), cervix (n = 1), esophageal (n = 1) or unknown primary carcinoma (n = 1)] were randomized to receive cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 2 plus either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Planned DI (PDI) for the 4-week schedule was 750 mg/m(2)/week for gemcitabine and 17.5 mg/m(2)/week for cisplatin; for the 3-week regimen PDI was 666 mg/m(2)/week and 23 mg/m(2)/week for gemcitabine and cisplatin, respectively. RESULTS: From July 1998 to March 2000, 107 patients were randomized. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in 27.8% of patients in the 3-week versus 22.5% in the 4-week arm (P = 0.69), while grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia was higher in the 4-week arm (29.5% versus 5.5% of patients; P = 0.14). A total of 398 cycles of therapy were delivered. Overall, 51% of cycles were modified in dose, timing or both in the 4-week arm, and 19% in the 3-week arm. The 21-day schedule of GC leads to a similar received DI of gemcitabine and higher cisplatin DI. Both regimens had activity in NSCLC, with a response rate of 39% (38% for the 4-week arm, and 42% for the 3-week arm). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-week schedule has similar DI to the 4-week schedule. However the 3-week regimen has a better compliance profile and a comparable response rate in NSCLC, supporting the use of such a schedule.     

Randomized phase II study of cisplatin, irinotecan and etoposide combinations administered weekly or every 4 weeks for extensive small-cell lung cancer (JCOG9902-DI).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the toxicity and antitumor effect of cisplatin, irinotecan and etoposide combinations on two schedules, arms A and B, for previously untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer (E-SCLC), and to select the right arm for phase III trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized to receive either arm A (cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) day 1, weekly for 9 weeks, irinotecan 90 mg/m(2) day 1, on weeks 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, and etoposide 60 mg/m(2) days 1-3, on weeks 2, 4, 6, 8), or arm B (cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) day 1, irinotecan 60 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15, and etoposide 50 mg/m(2) days 1-3, every 4 weeks for four cycles). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support was provided in both arms. RESULTS: Full cycles were delivered to 73% and 70% of patients in arms A and B, respectively. Incidences of grade 3-4 neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, infection and diarrhea were 57, 43, 27, 7 and 7%, respectively, in arm A, and 87, 47, 10, 13 and 10%, respectively, in arm B. A treatment-related death developed in one patient in arm A. Complete and partial response rates were 7% and 77%, respectively, in arm A, and 17% and 60%, respectively, in arm B. Median survival time was 8.9 months in arm A, and 12.9 months in arm B. CONCLUSIONS: Arm B showed a promising complete response rate and median survival with acceptable toxicity in patients with E-SCLC, and should be selected for the investigational arm in phase III trials.     

Sequential chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus cisplatin, followed by vinorelbine, followed by gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: an Alpe-Adria Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary group study (ATOM 001)

Aim of this study was to determine the activity and toxicity of a sequential chemotherapy regimen in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Fifty-one previously untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were enrolled to receive two cycles of cisplatin plus paclitaxel (80/175 mg/m(2) every 21 days), followed by two cycles of vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days), followed by two cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days). Forty-one patients (82%) completed the planned six cycles. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was the major toxicity (41% of patients) and it was mainly associated with vinorelbine administration. Response rate after cisplatin plus paclitaxel was 18%; this percentage increased to 41% after vinorelbine, and it reached 43% upon completion of the entire six cycle treatment program. Median survival time was 14.4 months, 1-year survival rate was 53%, and 2-year survival rate was 18%. Median time to disease progression was 6.8 months. This sequential chemotherapy regimen is feasible and active in patients with advanced NSCLC. This pilot experience provides the basis for an ongoing randomized phase III trial comparing our sequential regimen versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine.     

Single-agent gemcitabine: an active and better tolerated alternative to standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

This randomized study was designed to determine the response rates, survival and toxicities of single-agent gemcitabine (GEMZAR) and a combination of cisplatin/etoposide in chemonaive patients with non-resectable, locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 was given as a 30-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod performance status 0-2, no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases. One hundred and forty-seven patients were enrolled, 72 in the gemcitabine and 75 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm. Patient characteristics were well-matched across both arms. Sixty-seven gemcitabine and 72 cisplatin/etoposide patients were qualified for efficacy analysis. There were no complete responses, but 12 partial responses in the gemcitabine arm and 11 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm, for protocol-qualified response but 12 partial responses in the gemcitabine arm and 11 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm, for protocol-qualified response rates of 17.9% (95%, CI: 9.6-29.2%,) and 15.3% (95% CI: 7.9-25.7%,), respectively. Median survival times were 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.9-7.3 months) for gemcitabine and 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.4-9.3 months) for cisplatin/etoposide. The 1-year survival probability estimate was 26% for gemcitabine and 24% for cisplatin/etoposide. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in time-to-event measures, but patients in the gemcitabine arm had a greater probability of achieving a tumour response after 2 months (probability estimate: 8 vs. 0%,) and of the response lasting at least 6 months (73 vs. 45%,). Clinical and haematologic toxicity was more pronounced in the cisplatin/etoposide arm. Quality-of-life measures indicated a significant worsening of symptomatology in the cisplatin/etoposide arm for hair loss, nausea and vomiting, and appetite loss. This randomized study provides further evidence that single-agent gemcitabine is an active and effective therapy for patients with non-resectable. locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and good performance status, and that it is better tolerated than the combination cisplatin/ etoposide.     

Prolonged gemcitabine infusion in advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma: a randomized phase II study of two different schedules in combination with cisplatin

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that a fixed infusion rate of 10 mg/m2 per minute may be more effective than the standard 30-minute infusion of gemcitabine. To investigate the activity and toxicity of the cisplatin plus gemcitabine combination with gemcitabine at a fixed infusion rate in patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), the authors conducted a randomized Phase II trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine at the 30-minute standard infusion (calibration arm) or cisplatin plus gemcitabine at a fixed infusion rate (experimental arm). METHODS: A total of 112 chemonaive patients with advanced NSCLC entered the study: 57 patients in Arm A and 55 patients in Arm B. The patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15 over 30 minutes (Arm A) or at a rate of 10 mg/m2 per minute (Arm B). In both treatment arms, cisplatin at a dose of 80 mg/m2 was administered on Day 15 every 28 days. RESULTS: The overall response rates in Arms A and B were 26% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 10-42%) and 34% (95% CI, 17-52%) (intent-to-treat-analysis), respectively. The median time to disease progression was 6 months (range, 1-26 months) and 8 months (range, 2-21 months), respectively, for Arms A and B and the median overall survival was 13 months (range, 2-26 months) for each arm. It is interesting to note that a high response rate (67%) of brain metastases was noted in the experimental arm. Toxicity was tolerable and comparable in the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this randomized Phase II trial demonstrated that cisplatin plus gemcitabine with gemcitabine at fixed infusion rate (10 mg/m2 per minute) is active and well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Neoadjuvant etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin for the treatment of olfactory neuroblastoma

BACKGROUND: The optimal chemotherapy regimen for the treatment of olfactory neuroblastoma has not been clearly defined. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with the combination of etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (VIP) for patients with olfactory neuroblastoma. METHODS: Eleven consecutive patients with newly diagnosed olfactory neuroblastoma were treated with etoposide (75 mg/m2), ifosfamide (1000 mg/m2), and cisplatin (20 mg/m2) all administered intravenously on Days 1-5. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. Patients were excluded from analysis if they had previously received surgery or radiotherapy. RESULTS: Nine patients achieved objective responses (objective response rate, 82%; 95% confidence interval, 52-95%), which included 2 complete responses and 7 partial responses. The major side effect was hematologic toxicity, with Grade 3/4 neutropenia observed after the receipt of 37% of all cycles and febrile neutropenia observed after the receipt of 2 cycles. All toxic events were reversible, and no chemotherapy-related deaths were documented. The median survival period was 18 months (range, 3-45 months). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant VIP chemotherapy was active in the treatment of olfactory neuroblastoma.     

A randomized study comparing two different schedules of administration of cisplatin in combination with gemcitabine in advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND: This randomized trial was designed to investigate the feasibility, toxicity, and activity of two different schedules of gemcitabine plus cisplatin in previously untreated patients with advanced (International Union Against Cancer (UICC) Stage IIIB-IV) nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). METHODS: From February 1997 to September 1998, 82 patients with advanced NSCLC were entered onto the study and were randomized to gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on Day 2 (arm A) or Day 15 (arm B) every 28 days. RESULTS: All the patients were assessable for toxicity (arm A/arm B: 151/177 cycles; median, 4 of 5 cycles per patient), and the following Grade 3-4 toxicities were reported (percentage of cycles in arm A vs. arm B): anemia, 7.9% and 2.3% (P < 0.05); leukopenia, 6.0% and 6.7%; thrombocytopenia, 15.0% and 1.6% (P < 0.01); no World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicities were observed. These side effects led to gemcitabine dose reductions in 35.1% of courses in arm A and 22.0% of courses in arm B (P < 0.05) and to gemcitabine omissions in 28.5% of courses in arm A versus 7.3% of courses in arm B (P < 0.01). Dose intensities (DIs) of gemcitabine were 607.5 mg/m(2)/week in arm A and 711.6 mg/m(2)/week in arm B (P < 0.01); DIs of cisplatin were 18. 1 mg/m(2)/week in arm A and 18.8 mg/m(2)/week in arm B. The total delivered doses of gemcitabine were 9315.5 mg/m(2) in arm A and 12, 631.0 mg/m(2) in arm B (P < 0.01); the total delivered doses of cisplatin were 277.1 mg/m(2) in arm A and 333.0 mg/m(2) in arm B (P < 0.01). Response rates according to intention to treat were 40.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.5-55.3) in arm A and 45% (95% CI, 29.5-60.5) in arm B. The overall median duration of response was 7.4 months; the median time to disease progression was 6 months (95% CI, 3-9) in arm A and 9 months (95% CI, 4-14) in arm B (P < 0.02); the median overall survival was 10 months (95% CI, 7.0-12.5) in arm A and 17 months (95% CI, 13.0-21.6) in arm B (P < 0.01); the 1-year survival rates were 34% and 63%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that arm B (cisplatin on Day 15) is less toxic than arm A (cisplatin on Day 2) and allows the administration of significantly higher total doses and dose intensities of chemotherapy. No significant differences in response rates were observed between the two schedules; patients on arm B experienced a significantly more prolonged progression free and overall survival; however, the study was not powered to detect differences in these outcomes.     

Unfavorable therapeutic index of cisplatin/gemcitabine/vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

In view of favorable reports with the 3-drug combination of PGV (cisplatin/gemcitabine/vinorelbine), this multicenter phase II study evaluated the therapeutic index of PGV in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Thirty-two patients with stage IV NSCLC and 1 with stage IIIB were studied. There were 23 men and 10 women, with a median age of 63 years (range, 38-80 years). Twelve patients had a performance status (PS) of 0, and 21 patients had a PS of 1. Treatment consisted of cisplatin 50 mg/m2, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 all given intravenously on days 1 and 8, in 21-day cycles. Fifteen patients (45%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 28%-64%) achieved a partial response. Median response duration was 3 months (range, 1-9 months). The median and 1-year survival rates were 9.4 months and 39% (95% CI, 23%-58%), respectively. The median number of cycles was 4. Only 3 patients (9%) completed treatment without regimen modifications. Median dose intensity (% planned) was cisplatin 24 mg/m2/week (72%), gemcitabine 483 mg/m2/week (72%), and vinorelbine 12 mg/m2/week (72%). Toxicities were predominantly hematologic, with grade 3/4 neutropenia (67%), febrile neutropenia (21%), and thrombocytopenia (67%). There were 3 (9%) treatment-related deaths due to neutropenic complications. This study confirms the substantial antineoplastic activity of PGV. We observed a high rate of severe hematologic toxicity, especially febrile neutropenia, despite a lower delivered dose intensity of PGV. Given these results, PGV appears to offer no therapeutic advantage to current doublet regimens.     

A phase I study of gemcitabine/cisplatin/etoposide in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE: To define the maximum tolerated dose and toxicity of combined cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine in patients with small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We undertook a phase I study in patients with either extensive small-cell lung cancer with or without prior chemotherapy, or limited disease who had progressed or recurred despite prior treatment. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, etoposide 50-100 mg/m2 i.v. day 1 followed by oral administration of 50-100 mg/m2 days 2 5, and gemcitabine at either 800 or 1000 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8, on a 3 weekly cycle. RESULTS: We treated 20 patients, 14 at the 800 mg/m2 gemcitabine dose level, and six at the 1000 mg/m2 dose level. The protocol initially used an etoposide dose of 100 mg/m2 etoposide daily (i.v. day 1 and orally days 2-5), but the first two patients died of septic complications. With reduction of the etoposide dose to 50 mg/m2 daily x 5, the regimen was well tolerated. At this etoposide dose, neutropenia, mucositis, and gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in one patient at each of the two gemcitabine dose levels. In addition, one patient receiving gemcitabine at the 1000 mg/m2 level experienced a possible allergic reaction. The overall response rate was 54%. Patients on gemcitabine at the 800 mg/m2 level who had not received prior chemotherapy had the highest response rate, at 75%. CONCLUSION: The recommended phase II doses for this regimen are cisplatin 75 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, etoposide 50 mg/m2 i.v. day 1 and orally days 2-5, and gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8. Future trials should further examine the optimal relative doses and schedule of gemcitabine and etoposide.     

吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗蒽环类和（或）紫杉类化疗后晚期乳腺癌疗效观察

目的观察吉西他滨(泽菲)联合顺铂治疗蒽环类和(或)紫杉类化疗后的转移性乳腺癌的疗效和毒副作用。方法蒽环类和(或)紫杉类化疗后的转移性乳腺癌患者29例,采用吉西他滨(泽菲)1000 mg/m2,d1、d8,静滴;顺铂30 mg/m2,d1、d8,静滴,21 d为1个周期。结果29例患者中,CR 1例,PR 11例,SD 9例,PD 8例,客观有效率为41.4%,中位生存期13.2个月,中位肿瘤进展时间5.4个月。毒副作用主要为中性粒细胞和血小板减少。结论吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗蒽环类和(或)紫杉类化疗失败的转移性乳腺癌有效率较高,有生存优势,毒副作用可耐受。     

Phase II study of induction chemotherapy with gemcitabine and vinorelbine followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with oral etoposide and cisplatin in patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE: For locoregionally advanced inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), concurrent chemoradiotherapy has become a standard therapy. We conducted a Phase II trial to examine the efficacy and toxicity of adding gemcitabine and vinorelbine induction chemotherapy to concurrent chemoradiotherapy with oral etoposide and cisplatin. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligibility included inoperable clinical Stage III NSCLC without pleural effusion, ECOG performance status 0-1, and weight loss < or =5%. Induction chemotherapy consisted of three cycles of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2, each given i.v. on Days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. During once-daily thoracic radiotherapy (1.8 Gy/day, total 63 Gy), two cycles of oral etoposide (100 mg on Days 1-5 and 8-12) plus cisplatin (50 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8) were given concurrently 4 weeks apart. RESULTS: Between April 2002 and November 2003, 42 patients were enrolled and 40 were included in response and toxicity evaluation. The median age was 59 years and 13 patients had IIIA and 27 had IIIB; 24 had squamous ca, 12 had adenocarcinoma, and 4 had others. Objective tumor responses were obtained in 29 patients (72.5%), including 18 (45.0%) after induction chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 23.8 months, the median survival time and progression-free survival was 23.2 months and 10.9 months, respectively, with 2-year survival rate of 43.9%. For the patients with supraclavicular nodal involvement, the median survival time was 11.8 months with 2-year survival rate of 16.7%, whereas the corresponding figures were 27.8 months and 52.0%, respectively, for those without supraclavicular nodal involvement. Toxicity of induction chemotherapy was mild and well tolerated. However, concurrent chemoradiotherapy was associated with G3/4 hematologic toxicity in 75.7%, G3 esophagitis in 24.2%, and two treatment-related deaths. There were nonlife-threatening late toxicities in additional 6 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Induction chemotherapy with gemcitabine and vinorelbine followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with etoposide and cisplatin showed very promising survival in patients with Stage III NSCLC, especially in those without supraclavicular nodal involvement, which warrants further evaluation.