Five year follow-up and dose delivery analysis of cisplatin, iproplatin or carboplatin in combination with cyclophosphamide in advanced ovarian carcinoma

Eighty eight patients with FIGO stage IIb/c (postoperative residual) or III/IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomised to receive cycles of cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) with either iproplatin (240 mg/m2), cisplatin (100 mg/m2) or carboplatin (300 mg/m2). A total of six cycles were given at monthly intervals. Patients were well-balanced for major prognostic factors. There was no significant difference in overall response rate (iproplatin arm, 64.3%, cisplatin arm 72.7% and carboplatin arm 66.7%). There were more complete remissions on the carboplatin arm, 45.8% compared with 21.4% on iproplatin and 22.7% on cisplatin but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.11). With a median follow up of 50 months the median survival for the iproplatin arm is 18 months, for the cisplatin arm 19 months and for the carboplatin arm 24 months (p = 0.15). Toxicity was greatest with cisplatin and least with carboplatin. Myelotoxicity limited the dose delivery of iproplatin as measured by total dose, dose intensity and dose intensity product. Carboplatin is at least as effective and less toxic than cisplatin when used in conjunction with cyclophosphamide for the treatment of ovarian carcinoma, and this analogue has been selected for dose intensification studies in this tumour at the Christie Hospital.     

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.     

Induction chemotherapy with cisplatin/docetaxel versus cisplatin/5-fluorouracil for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomised phase II study

A combination of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) is considered the standard induction chemotherapy regimen for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). The present study compares the efficacy and safety of a new combination of cisplatin/docetaxel versus the PF regimen. A total of 83 chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced SCCHN were randomised to receive every 21 d (i) docetaxel 85 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and cisplatin 40 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 2 (arm A) or (ii) cisplatin 100 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 followed by 5-fluorouracil 1000 mg/m2 in 24 h continuous infusion for 5 d (arm B). A total of 287 cycles (range 1-3 per patient) were administered. Among 76 patients evaluable for response, the overall response rate in arm A was 70% (complete response (CR) 26%, partial response (PR) 44%) and in arm B 69% (CR 16%, PR 54%), respectively. Median survival in arm A was 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.8-11.1) and 9.9 months (95% CI: 7.4-14.6) for arm B. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicity in arm A was neutropaenia (34.1%) and diarrhoea (9.8%) versus mucositis (29.3%) and neutropaenia (19.5%) in arm B. Both schedules present a similar efficacy, with different but acceptable toxicity patterns.     

Randomized phase III clinical trial evaluating weekly cisplatin for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

This randomized, open label, phase III clinical trial (1988-1992) compared the efficacy and safety of a dose-dense regimen of single-agent cisplatin with a standard 3-weekly schedule in first-line chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Two hundred eighty-five patients were randomly assigned to the experimental dose-dense arm (cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) weekly × nine cycles) or to the control (standard treatment) arm (cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), administered on day 1 every 21 days × six cycles). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), overall response to chemotherapy, and toxicity. Toxicity and response to treatment were compared with the χ(2) test using trend or exact correction. PFS and OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses and treatment hazard ratios (HRs) with the Cox proportional hazards model. All statistical tests were two-sided. After a median follow-up of 16.8 years, no differences were observed between the two treatments in PFS (experimental arm: 17.2 months; control arm: 18.1 months; HR = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 1.40; P = .57) and in OS (experimental arm: 35 months; control arm: 32 months; HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.26; P = .97). Thus, increasing dose intensity of cisplatin does not improve PFS or OS compared with standard chemotherapy.     

Gemcitabine administered as a short infusion versus a fixed dose rate in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Previous studies have indicated that, in combination with cisplatin, fixed dose rate gemcitabine may be more efficacious than standard infusion gemcitabine. This open-label, randomised phase II study was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these regimens as treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Latin American patients. Sixty-four patients were randomised to receive up to six cycles of treatment with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on Day 1 plus either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) over 30 min on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle (standard arm, N=33) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) at a fixed dose rate of 10 mg/m(2)/min on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle (FDR arm, N=31). In the standard arm, 9 of 33 (27%) patients responded compared with 6 of 30 (20%) patients in the FDR arm (odds ratio: 0.67, 95% CI, 0.21-2.2; p=0.56). Median overall survival was 7.5 months in the standard arm and 9.9 months in the FDR arm. One-year survival rates were 35% and 37% in the standard arm and the FDR arm, respectively. Patients in the FDR arm experienced more grade 3/4 haematological toxicity than those in the standard arm (48% versus 21%). The results of this trial do not support FDR administration of gemcitabine in preference to the standard administration in Latin American patients with NSCLC.     

Phase III study in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two courses of cisplatin/gemcitabine followed by a randomization to three additional courses of the same combination or gemcitabine alone.

BACKGROUND: This randomised phase III study investigated if in responsive and stable disease (SD) stage IV patients after two courses of cisplatin and gemcitabine, single-agent gemcitabine (experimental arm) was not inferior in terms of overall survival (OS) to cisplatin-gemcitabine (standard arm). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Noninferiority was defined as an increase in the hazard of death (HR) < or = 1.33 in the experimental arm. From January 2001 to February 2004, 340 patients were registered and 250 were randomised. Cisplatin was administered on day 1 at 75 mg/m2 and Gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 at 1250 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Response rate after two courses was 29%. The 1-year progression-free survival was 13% in both arms. One-year survival was 52% in the standard and 42% in the experimental arm for an HR of 1.21 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.51]. Postprogression survival was in favour of the standard arm (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.99-1.70, P = 0.051). Grades 3-4 toxicity favoured in the experimental arm. CONCLUSION: In responsive and SD patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer it was not possible to demonstrate that three courses of gemcitabine alone are not inferior, in terms of OS, to the standard approach of three courses of cisplatin-gemcitabine.     

Combining platinum, paclitaxel and anthracycline in patients with advanced gynaecological malignancy

Two meta-analyses have suggested that the addition of an anthracycline to platinum-based chemotherapy may improve survival in advanced ovarian cancer, and two randomised trials have demonstrated superiority of paclitaxel over cyclophosphamide in platinum combinations. A combination of platinum, anthracycline and paclitaxel would, therefore, be a reasonable experimental arm of any future randomised trial in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC). Patients who required chemotherapy for EOC but were ineligible for standard trials or had other gynaecological tumours that required similar platinum-based chemotherapy were considered for this pilot. The platinum/anthracycline/paclitaxel regimen (G-CAT) was given 3-weekly and consisted of doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) or epirubicin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) bolus, paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) (i.v.) over 3 h and either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) (i.v.) or carboplatin AUC 6, with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at the neutrophil nadir. Different combinations were used in order to determine the least toxic regimen. Toxicity and response were assessed according to CTC and WHO criteria, respectively. 26 patients entered the study, 13 with EOC and 13 with other gynaecological cancers (peritoneal, fallopian tube, mixed Mullerian). Median age was 49 years (range: 27-67). 8 patients received carboplatin/doxorubicin/paclitaxel, 8 cisplatin/doxorubicin/paclitaxel and 10 carboplatin/epirubicin/paclitaxel. A total of 135 cycles of chemotherapy were delivered, with a median of 6 cycles per patient (range: 2-6). 54 (40%) cycles required G-CSF support and 17 (65%) patients required at least one dose reduction. All patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia and 13 (50%) patients developed grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (12 of whom had received carboplatin). There were 4 (15%) patients with grade 3/4 infections but no septic deaths. Non-haematological toxicities were manageable, lethargy occurred in 75% of cisplatin-treated patients. Grade 1/2 cardiotoxicity, as assessed pre- and post-treatment by left ventricular ejection fraction, was observed in 6/13 (46%) patients who had received doxorubicin and 2/7 (29%) epirubicin-treated patients. No clinically detectable cardiac toxicity was encountered. The response rate in 25 evaluable patients was 76% (12 CR, 7 PR). Dose intensity was highest in the carboplatin/epirubicin/paclitaxel combination. G-CAT shows high activity and can be administered safely, but only very fit patients are suitable for this regimen as it is associated with considerable toxicity. Carboplatin/epirubicin/paclitaxel was the best tolerated regimen overall.     

Comparison of platinum concentrations in human head and neck tumours following administration of carboplatin, iproplatin or cisplatin

Tumour tissue levels of platinum were determined in patients with head and neck tumours receiving carboplatin (11 patients, 400 mg/m2) and iproplatin (5 patients, 360 mg/m2). The platinum concentrations ranged from 1.1 +/- 0.4 ng Pt/mg tissue (iproplatin administration) to 1.4 +/- 0.3 ng Pt/mg tissue (carboplatin administration). These results were compared with published platinum levels after cisplatin administration. Although the administered dose of carboplatin (1.08 mmol/m2) and iproplatin (0.86 mmol/m2) was higher than the cisplatin one (0.33 mmol/m2), no significant statistical differences were observed in the resulting platinum tissue levels. The constancy of tumour platinum level after treatment with different platinum complexes could be explained, at least for carboplatin and cisplatin, by both the tumour diffusion properties and the reactivity of the drugs.     

Paclitaxel, cisplatin and lonidamine in advanced ovarian cancer. A phase II study

A potential way to improve the results obtained with the standard carboplatin/cisplatin (CDDP)-paclitaxel treatment regimen in advanced ovarian cancer is to incorporate a modulating agent such as lonidamine (LND). In fact, LND has been shown to revert the resistance to cisplatin and to potentiate cisplatin activity experimental models and in clinical studies. 35 consecutive patients with advanced ovarian cancer, not previously treated with chemotherapy were treated with paclitaxel at a dose of 135 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) on day 1 (in a 3 h infusion) and cisplatin at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) iv on day 2 plus LND orally (p.o.) at a dose of 450 mg/die for 6 consecutive days starting two days before chemotherapy, every 3 weeks for six cycles. Complete plus partial responses were observed in 8 (80%) out of the 10 women with measurable disease. In the 25 patients with evaluable disease, only four clinical progressions were observed (16%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 28.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.2-34.8) and 46.5 (95% CI 32.4-60.00) months respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was observed in 9 (26%) patients. Alopecia, nausea and vomiting (Grade 3) were observed in 33 (94%) and 5 (14%) patients, respectively. In conclusion, the combination of CDDP/paclitaxel plus LND is active and tolerable in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.     

Platinum analogue combination chemotherapy: cisplatin and carboplatin--a phase I trial with pharmacokinetic assessment of the effect of cisplatin administration on carboplatin excretion

Cisplatin (NSC 119875) and carboplatin (NSC 241240) are platinum (II) analogues with very different spectra of toxicity. Cisplatin dose is limited by nausea and vomiting, renal dysfunction, and dose-related peripheral neuropathy, whereas carboplatin is myelosuppressive. There are also clinical and laboratory data that suggest that these drugs may not be completely cross-resistant. Therefore, the following phase I trial of combination therapy with cisplatin and carboplatin was undertaken. Since carboplatin toxicity is enhanced in the presence of renal impairment, carboplatin excretion was also evaluated in selected patients at the maximum tolerated dose. Thirty-three patients received 50 mg/m2 cisplatin and doses of carboplatin between 160 mg/m2 and 400 mg/m2. Sequential 20-minute infusions of carboplatin and then cisplatin were able to be administered at the standard doses of carboplatin (320 and 400 mg/m2) with thrombocytopenia to the degree expected if carboplatin alone had been given. However, 280 mg/m2 carboplatin followed by 25 mg/m2 cisplatin/d X 3 caused unexpectedly severe thrombocytopenia in seven of eight patients (median platelet nadir 45,000/microL; range, 12 to 321,000/microL; nadir was less than 90,000 in seven of eight patients). In three patients treated with 280 mg/m2 carboplatin plus 25 mg/m2/d X 3 cisplatin, pharmacokinetics of carboplatin were compared during consecutive monthly cycles without and with cisplatin. Modestly increased areas under the curve (AUC) for carboplatin (15% and 35%) with cisplatin were seen in the two patients who experienced more pronounced platelet suppression with combination therapy. No other limiting or unusual toxicity was seen with this combination. Responses, primarily in "platinum responsive" tumors, were seen. The combination of cisplatin plus carboplatin is feasible and merits further study.     

Chemoradiation comparing cisplatin versus carboplatin in locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: randomised, non-inferiority, open trial

PurposeThis single centre, open labelled, randomised non-inferiority trial compared concurrent chemoradiotherapy with carboplatin versus standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC).Patients and methodsFrom August 1999 to December 2004, 206 patients with locally advanced NPC were randomised with 101 to cisplatin arm and 105 to carboplatin arm. Planned radiotherapy was the same in both groups. All the patients were evaluated for toxicity and survival according to the as-treated principle.ResultsWith a median follow-up of 26.3 months (range 3–74.6 months), 59% of patients in the cisplatin arm completed the planned concurrent chemoradiation treatment, compared to 73% in the carboplatin arm. Forty-two percent of cisplatin patients completed the 3 cycles of adjuvant therapy compared to 70% in the carboplatin group. There were more renal toxicity, leucopenia, and anaemia in the cisplatin group, and more thrombocytopenia in the carboplatin arm. The 3 year disease free survival rates were 63.4% for the cisplatin group and 60.9% for the carboplatin group (p = 0.9613) (HR 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50–0.98). The 3 year overall survival rates were 77.7% and 79.2% for cisplatin and carboplatin groups, respectively (p = 0.9884) (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.63–1.010).ConclusionWe concluded that the tolerability of carboplatin based regimen is better than that of the cisplatin regimen. Moreover, the treatment efficacy of carboplatin arm is not different from the standard regimen in the treatment of locoregional advanced stage NPC.     

Cisplatin and carboplatin combination as second-line chemotherapy in dacarbazine-resistant melanoma patients

High-dose cisplatin regimens have been shown to be highly active in advanced melanoma patients but are associated with unacceptable side effects. In order to increase the platinum dose but avoid severe side effects, we treated 15 dacarbazine (DTIC)-resistant metastatic melanoma patients with a combination regimen of cisplatin (100 mg/m2) and carboplatin (200 mg/m2), two platinum analogues with a similar mode of action but a different toxicity pattern. After a mean follow-up period of 10.7 months (range 4-18 months), two patients (13.3%) achieved complete remission and two patients (13.3%) showed partial remission, giving an overall response rate of 26.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2-49%). Furthermore, three patients (20%; 95% CI 0-40.2%) experienced stable disease. The median duration of response was 7.1 months (95% CI 4.2-10.0 months), and the median overall survival was 12.5 months (95% CI 5.8-19.2 months), with eight patients still alive. The main side effects were haematological (leukopenia/thrombocytopenia World Health Organization [WHO] grade I-IV; anaemia WHO grade I-III), gastrointestinal (WHO grade I-III), neurological (WHO grade I-II) and renal (WHO grade I) toxicity. Nevertheless, except in one patient, side effects did not result in discontinuation of therapy. Despite the small number of patients treated in this preliminary study, we believe that combining cisplatin and carboplatin represents a novel, active and well-tolerated therapeutic option as second-line chemotherapy in DTIC-resistant advanced melanoma patients.     

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.     

A randomised trial of low-dose/high-frequency chemotherapy as palliative treatment of poor-prognosis small-cell lung cancer: a Cancer research Campaign trial.

We report the results of a randomised trial in extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) of a novel approach to palliative chemotherapy. A widely used 3 weekly regimen was compared with the same drugs given at half the dose but twice the frequency with the same intended overall dose intensity (DI). A total of 167 patients defined as having extensive SCLC with adverse prognostic features were randomised to receive either a 3 weekly regimen of cisplatin 60 mg m-2 i.v. on day 1 and etoposide 120 mg m-2 i.v. on day 1 and 100 mg b.d. orally on days 2 and 3 alternating with cyclophosphamide 600 mg m-2 i.v., doxorubicin 50 mg m-2 i.v. and vincristine 2 mg i.v. all on day 1 for a maximum of six courses (3 weekly); or treatment with the same drugs but with each course consisting of half the 3 weekly dose given every 10 or 11 days for a maximum of 12 courses. In the 10/11 day regimen overall response rate was 58.9% (95% CI, 47.9-69.2%) with 12.8% complete responses (CR). For the 3 weekly treatment the overall response rate was 44.9% (95% CI, 35.0-55.5%) with 10.1% CR. Median survival was similar in the two arms at 6.4 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.3 months) and 5.8 months (95% CI, 4.0-6.6 months) respectively. Survival at 1 year was 9.9% (95% CI, 5.0-18.5%) and 8.9% (95% CI, 4.6-16.6%). The 95% CI for the difference in survival at 1 year is -7.09% to +9.09%. Haematological toxicity and treatment delays owing to infection were more frequent with the 10/11 day regimen but other toxicities were equal in both arms. Other aspects of quality of life were measured in a small representative cohort of patients using a daily diary card (DDC). There was a trend of improved quality of life on the 10/11 day arm, but there was little difference between the two treatments. The trial shows that a low-dose/high-frequency regimen with the same DI as conventionally scheduled chemotherapy gives similar response rates and survival. This and other modifications of the schedule may offer new approaches to palliative treatment of advanced cancer. However, in this trial there was no significant benefit in toxicity or other aspects of quality of life.     

Randomized multicentric phase II study of carboplatin/gemcitabine and cisplatin/vinorelbine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer GFPC 99-01 study (Groupe français de pneumo-cancérologie)

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and carboplatin in the treatment of previously untreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A randomized phase II study was conducted by the Groupe Fran?ais de Pneumo-Cancérologie (GFPC) in 15 centers. The patients were randomized in either arm A (GC): gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8+carboplatin AUC 6 mg/(mLmin) on day 1; or in arm B (VP): vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 weekly+cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1. Treatment cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were randomized with stage IV or stage III NSCLC with malignant pleural effusion: 51 patients in arm A and 49 patients in arm B. A total of 190 cycles were administered in the GC arm and 172 cycles in the VP arm, with a median of four cycles per patient in each arm. The dose intensity was 84.9% for gemcitabine, 99.8% for carboplatin, 97.7% for cisplatin and 67.7% for vinorelbine. The objective response rates were 19.6% (95% CI, 9.8-33.1) for GC and 29.2% (95% CI, 17.0-44.1) for VP in an ITT analysis. The response duration was 169 days in arm A and 226 days in arm B. The TTP was similar with 140 days (GC) and 148 days (VP), respectively. Overall survival rates were 334 days in the GC combination and 304 days in the VP combination. Overall, the treatment was safe and toxicities observed were different in each arm: neutropenia was the most common toxicity in the VP treatment, whereas thrombocytopenia was more frequent in the GC combination. Anemia was similar in both arms. Non-haematologic toxicity was mild. One toxic death in arm A and three toxic deaths in arm B were observed. CONCLUSION: In terms of response rate, the gemcitabine-carboplatin combination was not efficient enough to allow further phase III study. Survival data are in the same range as the standard arm. This chemotherapy is feasible and may represent an alternative to a standard cisplatin-based regimen, allowing treatment in an outpatient setting.     

Phase III randomized trial comparing moderate-dose cisplatin to combined cisplatin and carboplatin in addition to mitomycin and ifosfamide in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer

A phase III randomized trial was conducted in patients with metastatic NSCLC, to determine if, in association with mitomycin (6 mg m(-2)) and ifosfamide (3 g m(-2)), the combination of moderate dosages of cisplatin (60 mg m(-2)) and carboplatin (200 mg m(-2)) - CarboMIP regimen - improved survival in comparison with cisplatin (50 mg m(-2)) alone - MIP regimen. A total of 305 patients with no prior chemotherapy were randomized, including 297 patients assessable for survival (147 in the MIP arm and 150 in the CarboMIP arm) and 268 patients assessable for response to chemotherapy. All but eight (with malignant pleural effusion) had stage IV disease. There was a 27% (95% CI, 19-34) objective response (OR) rate to MIP (25% of the eligible patients) and a 33% (95% CI, 24-41) OR rate to CarboMIP (29% of the eligible patients). This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.34). Duration of response was not significantly different between both arms. There was also no difference (P = 0.67) in survival: median survival times were 28 weeks (95% Cl, 24-32) for MIP and 32 weeks (95% Cl, 26-35) for CarboMIP, with respectively 1-year survival rates of 24% and 23% and 2-year survival rates of 5% and 2%. The main toxicities consisted in emesis, alopecia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia, that were, except alopecia, significantly more severe in the CarboMIP arm. Our trial failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in response or survival when patients with metastatic NSCLC were treated, in addition to ifosfamide and mitomycin, by combination of moderate dosages of cisplatin and carboplatin instead of moderate dosage of cisplatin alone. The results support the use of a moderate dose (50 mg m(-2)) of cisplatin in combination with ifosfamide and mitomycin for the chemotherapy of this disease.     

Long-term results of a randomised phase III trial of weekly versus three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum induction therapy followed by standard or extended three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum in European patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BackgroundWeekly paclitaxel/carboplatin might improve survival in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We compared efficacy of first-line weekly to three-weekly paclitaxel/cis- or carboplatin (PCw and PC3w) induction therapy, followed by either three or six PC3w cycles.Patients and methodsIn this multicentre, randomised phase III trial with 2×2 design, patients with FIGO stage IIb–IV EOC were randomised to six cycles PCw (paclitaxel 90 mg/m², cisplatin 70 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 4) or three cycles PC3w (paclitaxel 175 mg/m², cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 6), followed by either three or six cycles PC3w. Primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were response rate (RR) and toxicity.ResultsOf 267 eligible patients, 133 received PCw and 134 PC3w. The first 105 patients received cisplatin, after protocol amendment the subsequent 162 patients received carboplatin. Weekly cisplatin was less well tolerated than weekly carboplatin. All PC3w cycles were well tolerated. At the end of all treatments, RR was 90.8% with no differences between the treatment arms. After a follow-up of median 10.3 years (range 7.1–14.8), median PFS was 18.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9–21.0) months for PCw and 16.4 (95% CI 13.5–19.2) months for PC3w (p = 0.78). Median OS was 44.8 (95% CI 33.1–56.5) months for PCw and 41.1 (95% CI 34.4–47.7) months for PC3w (p = 0.98).ConclusionsThere was no benefit in terms of OS, PFS or RR for a weekly regimen nor for extended chemotherapy as first-line treatment for EOC in European patients.     

Original article: Five year follow-up and dose delivery analysis of cisplatin, iproplatin or carboplatin in combination with cyclophosphamide in advanced ovarian carcinoma

Eighty eight patients with FIGO stage Ilb/c (postoperative residual)or III/TV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomised to receivecycles of cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m²) with either iproplatin(240 mg/m²), cisplatin (100 mg/m²) or carboplatin (300 mg/m²).A total of six cycles were given at monthly intervals. Patientswere well-balanced for major prognostic factors. There was nosignificant difference in overall response rate (iproplatinarm, 64.3%, cisplatin arm 72.7% and carboplatin arm 66.7%).There were more complete remissions on the carboplatin arm,45.8% compared with 21.4% on iproplatin and 22.7% on cisplatinbut the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.11).With a median follow up of 50 months the median survival forthe iproplatin arm is 18 months, for the cisplatin arm 19 monthsand for the carboplatin arm 24 months (p=0.15). Toxicity wasgreatest with cisplatin and least with carboplatin. Myelotoxicitylimited the dose delivery of iproplatin as measured by totaldose, dose intensity and dose intensity product. Carboplatinis at least as effective and less toxic than cisplatin whenused in conjunction with cyclophosphamide for the treatmentof ovarian carcinoma, and this analogue has been selected fordose intensification studies in this tumour at the ChristieHospital. ovarian carcinoma, cisplatin, carboplatin, CHIP     

Dose-escalation study of carboplatin (day 1) and cisplatin (day 3): tolerance and relation to leukocyte and buccal cell platinum--DNA adducts

Carboplatin and cisplatin have similar antitumor activities but different toxicities. Combining these two analogs may be expected to balance the toxicities and allow higher doses of platinum compounds to be administered with tolerable toxicity. To test this concept, a Phase I trial of carboplatin in combination with cisplatin was performed. Thirty-three eligible patients received carboplatin doses ranging from 200-480 mg/m2 on day 1 and cisplatin doses ranging from 50-100 mg/m2 on day 3 of the 28 day cycle. A 2-day interval ensured no interference in renal excretion of carboplatin by cisplatin. Myelosuppression was the dose limiting toxicity. With the usual full dose of carboplatin, 480 mg/m2, patients tolerated 50 mg/m2 of cisplatin, without apparent additional toxicity. At 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin, non-hematologic as well as hematologic toxicities frequently precluded administration of more than 300 mg/m2 of carboplatin. Platinum-DNA adduct quantitation was done in leukocytes and buccal cells during cycle 1 in most patients. The adduct-specific immunosignal in buccal cells was always increased after carboplatin and in all but one after cisplatin. The level of adducts in buccal cells increased with increasing doses of carboplatin and cisplatin. In leukocytes, measurable levels of adducts were formed after carboplatin with further contribution made by cisplatin but not obviously in a dose dependent fashion. We conclude from the toxicities observed, that combinations of carboplatin with cisplatin may have advantages over either drug alone in certain clinical situations; and that further study of platinum-DNA adducts may shed light on platinum dose-response relationships.     

A comparison of the toxicity and efficacy of cisplatin and carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer. The Swons Gynaecological Cancer Group

Eighty-eight patients with stage IIB-III epithelial ovarian cancer were randomised to receive first line single agent cisplatin (100 mg/m2) monthly or carboplatin (400 mg/m2) monthly for up to 5 cycles. Crossover to the opposite analogue occurred with progression or lack of response. All patients were premedicated with i.v. methylprednisolone (500 mg at 0 hours and 250 mg at 3 hours) and the first 20 patients in both groups received lorazepam and prochloperazine for nausea and vomiting. The median number of vomiting episodes per cycle with cisplatin was 16 and with carboplatin 2 (p less than 0.001). In the cisplatin arm 27/40 (67.5%) developed mild renal toxicity, 9/40 (22.5%) WHO grade I neurotoxicity and 18/40 (45%) evidence of ototoxicity at audiometry. To date we have seen no neuro- or ototoxicity with carboplatin and 1/40 (2.5%) have developed WHO grade I renal toxicity. Myelosuppression and anaemia was more common with carboplatin but only 1 episode of grade IV thrombocytopenia has been seen with first line carboplatin. The clinical response rate (CR+PR) for cisplatin was 19/40 and for carboplatin 27/40. Actuarial survival for cisplatin group at 24 months was 50% and for carboplatin group 58% with no significant difference. Carboplatin appears less toxic than cisplatin producing to date similar survival and response as a single agent.