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.     

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.     

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.     

A multicentre randomised phase II study of carboplatin in combination with gemcitabine at standard rate or fixed dose rate infusion in patients with advanced stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intracellular gemcitabine triphosphate (dFdCTP) levels can be optimised by administering gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate infusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with chemonaive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomised to receive gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate gemcitabine 750 mg/m(2) over 75 min (arm A) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) over 30 min (arm B) on days 1 and 8 every three week cycle. Carboplatin at AUC of 5 was administered in both treatment arms on day 1 of each cycle. End points were activity, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of plasma and intracellular gemcitabine. RESULTS: 76 patients were randomised. Response rate was 34% in arm A and 42% in arm B. Toxicity and quality of life scores were similar for both treatment arms. Mean plasma Cmax(gemcitabine) and mean dFdCTP AUC in arm A was 20.8 microM +/- 17.2 microM and 35,079 +/- 18,216 microM*min respectively and in arm B, 41.2 +/- 13.9 microM and 32 249 +/- 11 267 microM*min respectively. dFdCTP saturation was reached in Arm B but not in Arm A. CONCLUSION: The saturability of dFdCTP accumulation in Arm A suggests optimal delivery of gemcitabine is achieved using fixed rate infusion compared to 30-min infusion. Fixed dose rate gemcitabine is active and feasible, supporting the concept of fixed dosing rate of gemcitabine in advanced NSCLC. However, this entails a longer infusion time with associated higher costs involved.     

Randomized, multicenter, open-label phase II study of gemcitabine plus single-dose versus split-dose carboplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine/carboplatin is a convenient and effective treatment for advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but modification of the schedule to diminish thrombocytopenia is worthwhile. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-eight chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomized from 15 centers in Germany to receive gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5 on day 1 (arm A) or carboplatin area under the curve 2.5 on days 1 and 8 (arm B), every 21 days for 4 cycles. RESULTS: The 2 arms (A vs. B) were well balanced with regard to patient baseline characteristics: stage IV 72.5% versus 69%, median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 versus 1. The incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was as follows (percentage of patients in arm A vs. B): leukopenia 37.5% versus 27% (P = 0.075), granulocytopenia 36% versus 36%, and thrombocytopenia 51% versus 35% (P = 0.017). Nonhematologic toxicity was modest and comparable with both schedules. The overall response rate was 46% versus 36% (P = 0.12), and 24% versus 42% had stable disease. Median progression-free survival (5.8 months vs. 6.1 months) and overall survival (11.7 months vs. 10.7 months) were not significantly different between arms A and B. CONCLUSION: Splitting the dose of carboplatin between days 1 and 8 on the same days as gemcitabine results in a significantly decreased incidence of severe thrombocytopenia, without compromising the activity of the combination.     

Paclitaxel/Carboplatin/gemcitabine versus gemcitabine/vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II/III study of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network

PURPOSE: This prospective randomized study compared overall survival (OS) in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when treated with the platinum agent-based triple drug combination of paclitaxel/carboplatin/gemcitabine (PCG) versus the nonplatinum agent-based doublet drug combination of gemcitabine/vinorelbine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced (stages IIIB, IV, and recurrent) chemotherapy-naive patients with NSCLC and performance status 0-2 were randomly assigned to the PCG arm (paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1, carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve of 5 on day 1, and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or to the gemcitabine/vinorelbine arm (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15, every 28 days). RESULTS: A total of 337 patients were randomly assigned to the 2 arms. The median time to progression was 6 months for PCG and 3.9 months for gemcitabine/vinorelbine with 1- and 2-year progression-free survival rates of 13% and 2% versus 14% and 4% (P = .324 log rank). Median OS for PCG was 10.3 months versus 10.7 months for gemcitabine/vinorelbine with 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates of 38%, 12%, and 2% versus 45%, 12%, and 6%, respectively (P = 0.269 log rank). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, nausea/vomiting, myalgia/arthralgia, and neuropathy were significantly greater in the PCG arm. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in OS or progression-free survival when comparing PCG and gemcitabine/vinorelbine, and gemcitabine/vinorelbine was significantly less toxic. Gemcitabine/vinorelbine is a reasonable nonplatinum agent-based doublet therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Phase II study of gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin at standard rate or fixed dose rate infusion in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods In this prospective study, patients with chemonaive advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine at a standard rate (gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m² over 30 min, the standard arm) or a fixed dose rate (gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m² over 120 min, the FDR arm) on days 1 and 8 every 3 week cycle. In both treatment arms, carboplatin at AUC of 5 was administered over 4 h following gemcitabine on day 1 of each cycle. Results From November 2003 to June 2005, a total of 42 patients, in which 7 (17%) patients had stage III_B disease and 35 (83%) had stage IV disease, were enrolled into this study. All patients were included in efficacy and toxicity assessment. No patient had a complete response. Seven (33%) patients in the standard arm and 10 (48%) in the FDR arm had a partial response. The median time to progression and median overall survival time in the standard arm was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.8–7 months) and 11.5 months (95% CI, 8.2–14.8 months), respectively, while in the FDR arm was 6.5 (95% CI, 4.4–8.6 months) months, 12.0 months (95% CI, 11.3–12.7 months), respectively. The most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 hematological toxicities were thrombocytopenia (38% patients in the standard arm and 43% in the FDR arm) and neutropenia (24% in the standard arm and 33% in the FDR arm). Although hematological toxicity occurred in a little higher percent of patients in the FDR arm than in the standard arm, there were no discernible differences by statistical analysis in both treatment arms (P > 0.05). And significant nonhematologic toxicities were infrequent and tolerable in both arms. No significant difference existed also (P > 0.05). Conclusion In this phase II study, gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin either at standard rate or fixed dose rate infusion was clinically effective and well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Intra-patient alternated dose escalation of paclitaxel and gemcitabine versus paclitaxel followed by fixed dose rate infusion of gemcitabine in fit elderly non-small cell lung cancer patients. A Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group randomised phase II trial

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to select the best schedule of administration for the paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination in fit elderly patients affected by locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients in stage III or IV NSCLC, aged 70 years or more and in ECOG performance status (PS)相似文献   

低剂量持续静脉滴注吉西他滨一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床研究

背景与目的:目前已将吉西他滨联合顺铂作为晚期非小细胞肺癌的一线化疗方案,吉西他滨的常规使用剂量和方法是1000mg/m2半小时静脉滴注,第1、8天,每3周为一个疗程。本研究旨在评价低剂量吉西他滨持续6h静脉滴注联合顺铂一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的有效性和安全性。方法:48例经病理和/或细胞学检查确诊、未经化疗的晚期非小细胞肺癌患者,采用吉西他滨250mg/m2持续静脉滴注6h,第1、8天,顺铂75mg/m2,每3周为一疗程,连续使用2疗程以上。结果:48例患者中46例可评价疗效,所有患者可评价不良反应。完全缓解率2.2%,部分缓解率30.3%,总有效率为32.5%,中位治疗至进展时间为5.1个月,中位生存时间为10.2个月,1年生存率36.6%。白细胞减少发生率为60.4%,血小板减少发生率为39.5%,Ⅲ～Ⅳ度的白细胞和血小板减少发生率分别为20.8%和12.5%。结论:低剂量吉西他滨持续6h静脉滴注联合顺铂一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效确切、不良反应轻。     

Randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine plus weekly versus three-weekly paclitaxel in previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Gemcitabine and paclitaxel (Taxol) each provides an efficacious non-platinum option for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the optimal dosage and schedule of the two agents used in combination are not well defined. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine-paclitaxel on a traditional three-weekly schedule (Arm A) or a novel weekly schedule (Arm B) as follows-Arm A (three-weekly): gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 infused>30 min on days 1 and 8 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 infused>3 h on day 1 of a 21-day cycle or Arm B (weekly): gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 infused>30 min and paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 infused>1 h, both administered on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: One hundred patients received at least one dose of treatment. The weekly schedule, Arm B, was more efficacious and less hematologically toxic than Arm A. Confirmed complete and partial response rates were 28.2% and 26.8%, respectively. Median survival was 10.3 months on Arm B and 7.9 months on Arm A (log-rank P=0.10); 1- and 2-year survival rates also favor Arm B: 42.0% versus 34.0% and 18.0% versus 6.0%. Progression-free survival was 5.8 versus 4.8 months, again favoring Arm B (log-rank P=0.06). There was a two-fold lower frequency of grade 3/4 hematologic events with Arm B as follows: neutropenia (16% versus 30%), thrombocytopenia (4% versus 8%), and anemia (2% versus 6%). One patient (2%) in each treatment group developed febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: In this trial, both schedules were efficacious and tolerable, although the weekly schedule resulted in improved survival and lower hematologic toxicity compared with a three-weekly schedule. The weekly schedule of gemcitabine-paclitaxel indicates an improved therapeutic index.     

Open-label,randomized study of individualized,pharmacokinetically (PK)-guided dosing of paclitaxel combined with carboplatin or cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BackgroundVariable chemotherapy exposure may cause toxicity or lack of efficacy. This study was initiated to validate pharmacokinetically (PK)-guided paclitaxel dosing in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to avoid supra- or subtherapeutic exposure.Patients and methodsPatients with newly diagnosed, advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive up to 6 cycles of 3-weekly carboplatin AUC 6 or cisplatin 80 mg/m² either with standard paclitaxel at 200 mg/m² (arm A) or PK-guided dosing of paclitaxel (arm B). In arm B, initial paclitaxel dose was adjusted to body surface area, age, sex, and subsequent doses were guided by neutropenia and previous-cycle paclitaxel exposure [time above a plasma concentration of 0.05 µM (T_c>0.05)] determined from a single blood sample on day 2. The primary end point was grade 4 neutropenia; secondary end points included neuropathy, radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsAmong 365 patients randomly assigned, grade 4 neutropenia was similar in both arms (19% versus 16%; P = 0.10). Neuropathy grade ≥2 (38% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and grade ≥3 (9% versus 2%, P < 0.001) was significantly lower in arm B, independent of the platinum drug used. The median final paclitaxel dose was significantly lower in arm B (199 versus 150 mg/m², P < 0.001). Response rate was similar in arms A and B (31% versus 27%, P = 0.405), as was adjusted median PFS [5.5 versus 4.9 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91–1.49, P = 0.228] and OS (10.1 versus 9.5 months, HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81–1.37, P = 0.682).ConclusionPK-guided dosing of paclitaxel does not improve severe neutropenia, but reduces paclitaxel-associated neuropathy and thereby improves the benefit–risk profile in patients with advanced NSCLC.Clinical trial informationNCT01326767 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01326767).     

A randomized phase II study of docetaxel or vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin against inoperable, chemo-naïve non-small-cell lung cancer in Taiwan

Cisplatin plus a third-generation anti-cancer drug, such as vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or the taxanes, are the standard regimen used in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and there is no significant difference in efficacy among the different regimens. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) in chemo-na?ve NSCLC patients. From December 2003 to May 2005, 94 patients were enrolled. The treatment dose was D 60 mg/m2 and C 60 mg/m2 intravenous infusion (IV) on day 1, or V 25 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8, and C 60 mg/m2 IV on day 1, every 3 weeks. In all, 209 cycles of DC and 230 cycles of VC were given to the patients in the DC (median five cycles) and VC (median five cycles) arms, respectively. There were 19 partial responses and one complete response (overall 43.5%) in the DC arm, and no complete responses, but 22 partial responses (overall 45.8%), in the VC arm. Myelosuppression was the major toxicity occurring in both arms, with grades 3 or 4 neutropenia occurring in 72.9% and 71.7% of patients, respectively. Except for alopecia (p=0.005) and diarrhea (p<0.001), which were more common in the DC arm, no significant differences in toxicity profiles were found between the two treatment arms. The median time to disease progression was 4.7 months in the DC arm and 6.3 months in the VC arm (p=0.7355). Median survival time was 13 months in the DC arm and 13.8 months in the VC arm (p=0.9656). The 1-year survival rate was 55.5% and 51.7%, respectively. After treatment, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scales showed no significant difference between the two treatment arms. We concluded that both DC and VC are appropriate regimens for use in the first-line treatment of Chinese NSCLC patients. Asthenia, one of the major side effects of docetaxel, was not a major problem in the present study. Although both regimens produced a high incidence of severe neutropenia, the majority of patients recovered rapidly without sequelae; and VC treatment is still a standard chemotherapy for Chinese NSCLC patients in Taiwan.     

Randomized,Multicenter, Open-Label Phase II Study of Gemcitabine plus Single-Dose Versus Split-Dose Carboplatin in the Treatment of Patients with Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundGemcitabine/carboplatin is a convenient and effective treatment for advanced-stage non– small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but modification of the schedule to diminish thrombocytopenia is worthwhile.Patients and MethodsOne hundred fifty-eight chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomized from 15 centers in Germany to receive gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5 on day 1 (arm A) or carboplatin area under the curve 2.5 on days 1 and 8 (arm B), every 21 days for 4 cycles.ResultsThe 2 arms (A vs. B) were well balanced with regard to patient baseline characteristics: stage IV 72.5% versus 69%, median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 versus 1. The incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was as follows (percentage of patients in arm A vs. B): leukopenia 37.5% versus 27% (P = 0.075), granulocytopenia 36% versus 36%, and thrombocytopenia 51% versus 35% (P = 0.017). Nonhematologic toxicity was modest and comparable with both schedules. The overall response rate was 46% versus 36% (P = 0.12), and 24% versus 42% had stable disease. Median progression-free survival (5.8 months vs. 6.1 months) and overall survival (11.7 months vs. 10.7 months) were not significantly different between arms A and B.ConclusionSplitting the dose of carboplatin between days 1 and 8 on the same days as gemcitabine results in a significantly decreased incidence of severe thrombocytopenia, without compromising the activity of the combination.     

Cisplatin and gemcitabine first-line chemotherapy followed by maintenance gemcitabine or best supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III trial

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this randomized phase III study was to show significant difference in median time to progression (TTP) in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with single-agent gemcitabine maintenance therapy versus best supportive care following gemcitabine plus cisplatin initial first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC received gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8) plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (day 1) every 21 days. Patients achieving objective response or disease stabilization following initial gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy were randomized (2:1 fashion) to receive maintenance gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) plus best supportive care (GEM arm), or best supportive care only (BSC arm). RESULTS: Between November 1999 and November 2002, we enrolled 352 patients (median age: 57 years; stage IV disease: 74%; Karnofsky performance status (KPS) >80: 41%). Following initial therapy, 206 patients were randomized and treated with gemcitabine (138) or best supportive care (68). TTP throughout the study period was 6.6 and 5 months for GEM and BSC arms, respectively, while values for the maintenance period were 3.6 and 2.0 months (for p < 0.001 for both). Median overall survival (OS) throughout study was 13.0 months for GEM and 11.0 months for BSC arms (p = 0.195). The toxicity profile was mild, with neutropenia being most common grade 3/4 toxicities. CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine, following initial therapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin, was feasible, and produced significantly longer TTP compared to best supportive care alone. Further studies are warranted to establish the place of maintenance chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

A phase III trial of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine in patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomized phase III study compared the overall survival (OS) of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine (PG) versus standard gemcitabine (G) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer and no prior systemic therapy (including 5-fluorouracil as a radiosensitizer) were randomized to receive either 1,250 mg/m(2) gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) after gemcitabine on day 8 (PG arm) of each 21-day cycle, or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (G arm). RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-five patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics were randomly assigned (283 PG, 282 G). OS was not improved on the PG arm (6.2 months) compared with the G arm (6.3 months) (P=0.8477). Progression-free survival (3.9 versus 3.3 months; P=0.1109) and time to treatment failure (3 versus 2.2 months; P=0.2680) results were similar. Tumor response rate (14.8% versus 7.1%; P=0.004) was significantly better on the PG arm. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (45.1% versus 12.8%), thrombocytopenia (17.9% versus 6.2%), anemia (13.9% versus 2.9%), febrile neutropenia (9.9% versus 0.4%; all P <0.001) and fatigue (15% versus 6.6%; P=0.002) were significantly more common on the PG arm. Four treatment-related deaths occurred on the PG arm and none in the G arm. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed plus gemcitabine therapy did not improve OS. Single-agent gemcitabine remains the standard of care for advanced pancreatic cancer.     

Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus etoposide plus cisplatin for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Korean Cancer Study Group experience

BACKGROUND: Several randomized trials have demonstrated superior response rates and survivals for new agent platinum doublets than for older platinum doublets in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however, few trials have been performed in Asian populations. Thus, we conducted a randomized study to compare gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP) with etoposide-cisplatin (EP) in Korean patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1, or etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1. Treatment was repeated every 21 days in both groups. The primary endpoint was response rate. RESULTS: Between May 2000 and December 2001, 83 patients at 9 Korean centers were enrolled in this study. The GP arm showed a significantly higher response rate (52.6% versus 19.4%; P = 0.002), a longer time to progression (4.3 months in both arms; P = 0.018) and a marginally significant prolongation of overall survival (18.3 months versus 10.9 months; P = 0.059) than the EP arm. Grades 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia (18% versus 0%) was more common in the GP arm whereas grades 3 and 4 neutropenia was more common in EP arm (48.7% versus 71.8%). Other toxicities were comparable in both arms. CONCLUSION: GP provided a significantly higher response rate and a longer time to progression than EP and should be considered a standard treatment in advanced NSCLC in Korean population.     

Metformin Addition to Chemotherapy in Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: an Open Label Randomized Controlled Study

Purpose: To evaluate effects of metformin on clinical outcome of non-diabetic patients with stage IV NSCLC.Materials and Methods: A prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled pilot study was conducted on patientswith stage IV NSCLC with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) of 0-2,excluding patients with diabetes and lactic acidosis. Thirty chemo-naïve, non-diabetic patients with stage IVNSCLC were enrolled. Fifteen patients received intravenous gemcitabine/cisplatin regimen alone (arm B) whilefifteen patients received the same regimen plus daily oral metformin 500mg (arm A). The effect of metformin onchemotherapy-response rates, survival, and adverse events in these patients was evaluated. Results: Objectiveresponse rate (ORR) and median overall survival (OS) in arms A and B were 46.7% versus 13.3% respectively,p=0.109 and 12 months versus 6.5 months, respectively, p=0.119. Median progression free survival (PFS) inarms A and B was 5.5 months versus 5 months, p=0.062. No significant increase in toxicity was observed in armA versus arm B. Percentage of patients who experienced nausea was significantly lower in arm A versus armB, at 26.7% versus 66.7% respectively, p=0.028. Conclusions: Metformin administration reduced occurrenceof chemotherapy induced-nausea. Non-statistically significant improvements in the ORR or OS were observed.Metformin had no effect on PFS.     

Pilot study of gemcitabine (10 mg/m<Superscript>2</Superscript> per min) and cisplatin

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine and cisplatin are routinely used in combination. In this combination, gemcitabine at conventional doses of 1000-1500 mg/m(2) is delivered weekly as a 30-minute bolus. Laboratory data suggest that the synthesis of gemcitabine triphosphate is saturable, and that gemcitabine infused at a rate of 10 mg/m(2) per min optimizes accumulation of the triphosphate. Early clinical experience suggests that gemcitabine delivered by a more prolonged infusion is more myelosuppressive. In this pilot study, we wished to assess if full-dose gemcitabine when given with cisplatin could be delivered by this more prolonged infusion. METHODS: In this study, all patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m(2). All gemcitabine doses were delivered at 10 mg/m(2) per min. For the initial cohort (level 1) the gemcitabine dose was 800 mg/m(2) per min. Subsequent escalations were 1000 mg/m(2) per min (level 2), and 1250 mg/m(2) per min (levels 3 and 4). For the first three cohorts, patients received gemcitabine on days 1, 8, and 15 and cisplatin on day 15 on a 28-day cycle. Patients on level 4 received gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin on day 8 on a 21-day cycle. Dose omissions or delays (holds) were mandated for NCI CTC grade 3 or 4 granulocytopenia or grade 2-4 thrombocytopenia. RESULTS: Entered onto this dose-finding study were 23 patients (12 male, 11 female) with advanced solid tumors. Seven patients were treatment-naive. Six patients were treated on level 1, five each on levels 2 and 3 and seven on level 4. Patients received one to seven cycles of treatment. Myelosuppression-related dose holds occurred at all levels. First-cycle dose holds occurred in three of six, four of five, three of five and two of seven patients on successive levels. First-cycle grade 3 or 4 granulocytopenia/thrombocytopenia occurred in three patients on level 1, one patient on level 2, two patients on level 3 and three patients on level 4. There were no partial or complete responses. Four patients were removed for toxicity (three myelosuppression, one nephrotoxicity), one at physician discretion, and 15 with disease progression. Three patients stopped therapy with stable disease after 5-6 months. On level 3, three of five patients remained on therapy for 4 months or more, compared to only one patient on each of the other three levels. CONCLUSIONS Weekly gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2), utilizing a 10 mg/m(2) per min infusion rate, can be delivered with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) with tolerable toxicity. When used in combination with cisplatin, however, the benefit of this fixed dose rate infusion gemcitabine compared to standard bolus gemcitabine remains to be determined.     

Induction gemcitabine in standard dose or prolonged low-dose with cisplatin followed by concurrent radiochemotherapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II clinical trial

Background

The optimal combination of chemotherapy with radiation therapy for treatment locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains an open issue. This randomized phase II study compared gemcitabine in two different schedules and cisplatin - as induction chemotherapy, followed by radiation therapy concurrent with cisplatin and etoposid.

Patients and methods.

Eligible patients had microscopically confirmed inoperable non-metastatic non-small cell lung cancer; fulfilled the standard criteria for platin-based chemotherapy; and signed informed consent. Patients were treated with 3 cycles of induction chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Two different aplications of gemcitabine were compared: patients in arm A received gemcitabine at 1250 mg/m² in a standard half hour i.v. infusion on days 1 and 8; patients in arm B received gemcitabine at 250 mg/m² in prolonged 6-hours i.v. infusion on days 1 and 8. In both arms, cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 2 was administered. All patients continued treatment with radiation therapy with 60–66 Gy concurrent with cisplatin 50 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 29 and 36 and etoposid 50 mg/m² on days 1–5 and 29–33. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR) after induction chemotherapy; secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

From September 2005 to November 2010, 106 patients were recruited to this study. No statistically signifficant differences were found in RR after induction chemotherapy between the two arms (48.1% and 57.4%, p = 0.34). Toxicity profile was comparable and mild with grade 3/4 neutropenia as primary toxicity in both arms. One patient in arm B suffered from acute peripheral ischemia grade 4 and an amputation of lower limb was needed. With a median follow-up of 69.3 months, progression-free survival and median survival in arm A were 15.7 and 24.8 months compared to 18.9 and 28.6 months in arm B. The figures for 1- and 3-year overall survival were 73.1% and 30.8% in arm A, and 81.5 % and 44.4% in arm B, respectively.

Conclusions

Among the two cisplatin-based doublets of induction chemotherapy for inoperable NSCLC, both schedules of gemcitabine have a comparable toxicity profile. Figures for RR, PFS and OS are among the best reported in current literature. While there is a trend towards better efficacy of the treament with prolonged infusion of gemcitabine, the difference between the two arms did not reach statistical significance.     

A randomized phase II trial of sequential gemcitabine plus vinorelbine followed by gemcitabine plus ifosfamide versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the treatment of chemo-naive patients with stages III and IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND: Third-generation platinum-based combinations are established as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Non-platinum regimens could be an alternative if they show similar efficacy with better tolerability. This randomized phase II trial compared the objective tumor response rate (ORR) of sequential gemcitabine plus vinorelbine followed by gemcitabine plus ifosfamide versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Secondary objectives included time to disease progression (TTP), overall survival and toxicity. METHODS: Chemo-naive patients with stages III and IV NSCLC and Karnofsky performance status >70 were assigned to receive either (a) gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) plus vinorelbine 25mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 for 2 cycles, followed by gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus ifosfamide 2000mg/m(2) on day 1 (GV-GI arm) for 2 cycles or (b) gemcitabine 1250mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 with cisplatin 70mg/m(2) on day 1 (GC arm) for 4 cycles. RESULTS: Between July 2001 and January 2003, 102 patients were enrolled (50 on the GV-GI arm and 52 on the GC arm). Patient characteristics were balanced between arms (GV-GI arm: median age 59 years, 84% male, 22 stage IIIB, 24 stage IV, 4 stage IIIA; GC arm: median age 56 years, 87% male, 27 stage IIIB, 23 stage IV, 2 stage IIIA). Of the 101 patients evaluable for response, ORR was significantly higher on the GC arm than on the GV-GI arm (25% versus 6%, respectively; p=0.007). No complete responses occurred. TTP was longer on the GC arm than on the GV-GI arm (median 135 and 79 days, respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.065). Survival was not significantly different between the arms (median 293 and 197 days, respectively; p=0.16). Although significantly more thrombocytopenia was reported on the GC arm (22% and 4%, respectively; p=0.02), it did not lead to more transfusions (15 transfusions in 5 patients versus 14 transfusions in 6 patients, respectively). There was no significant difference in other safety parameters between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: GC appears to produce better response in advanced NSCLC than GV-GI, with a trend towards longer TTP. Except for more thrombocytopenia with GC, similar toxicity profiles were observed.