紫杉醇联合卡铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌

目的 :研究紫杉醇联合卡铂 (铂尔定 ) (PC方案 )治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的近期疗效和毒副作用。方法 :经病理组织学或细胞学证实的 4 8例非小细胞肺癌患者给予紫杉醇 5 5～ 6 0mg/m2 静滴 ,第 1、8、15天 ,卡铂按浓度 /时间曲线下面积 (AUC) =5给药 ,静滴 ,第 1天。 2 8天为一周期。结果 :全组CR 2例 ,PR 16例 ,NC 2 0例 ,PD 10例 ,总有效率为 37.5 %。其中初治组有效率为 4 6 .4 % (13/2 8) ,有两例CR ;复治组有效率为 2 5 .0 % (5 /2 0 ) ,无CR病例 ,两组差异有显著性 (P <0 .0 5 )。毒副反应为骨髓抑制 (白细胞下降及血小板减少 )、恶心 /呕吐和脱发。结论 :紫杉醇联合卡铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效较高 ,初治组疗效优于复治组 ,且毒性可耐受。     

Single-agent gemcitabine versus cisplatin-etoposide: Early results of a randomised phase II study in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Background: This randomised study was designed to determine the responserate, survival and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine andcisplatin–etoposide in chemo-naïve patients with locally advancedor metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.Patients and methods: Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² was given asa 30 min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin100 mg/m² on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m²on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria includedhistologically confirmed non-small-cell lung cancer, measurable disease,Zubrod PS 0–2; no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measuredlesion, and no CNS metastases.Results: 146 patients were enrolled, 71 patients on gemcitabine and 75patients on cisplatin–etoposide. Patient characteristics were wellmatched across both arms. Sixty-six gemcitabine patients and 72cisplatin–etoposidepatients were evaluable. Partial responses were seen in 12 gemcitabinepatients (18.2%; 95% CI: 9.8–30) and 11cisplatin–etoposide patients (15.3%; 95% CI:7.9–25.7).Early indications show no statistical differences between the two treatmentswith respect to time to disease progression or survival. Haematological andlaboratory toxicity were moderate and manageable. However, hospitalisationbecause of neutropenic fever was required for 6 (8%)cisplatin–etoposide patients but not for any gemcitabine patients.Non-haematological toxicity was more pronounced with significant differencesin nausea and vomiting (grade 3 and 4: 11% gemcitabine vs. 29%cisplatin–etoposide; despite the allowance for 5-HT^-3antiemetics during the first cycle of cisplatin–etoposide), and alopecia(grade 3 and 4: 3% gemcitabine vs. 62%cisplatin–etoposide).Conclusions: In this randomised study, single-agent gemcitabine was atleast as active but better tolerated than the combinationcisplatin–etoposide.     

Vinorelbine alternating oral and intravenous plus carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a multicentre phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Vinorelbine and carboplatin are both active agents in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Vinorelbine has recently been developed in an oral formulation, which is as active as the intravenous (i.v.) form. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two chemonaive patients with unresectable localised or metastatic NSCLC received i.v. vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin (AUC 5) on day 1 and oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m(2) on day 8 (or day 15 if neutrophils <1500/mm(3)) every 3 weeks in an open-label, multicentre phase II study. RESULTS: A total of 224 cycles were given, with the median number per patient of four (range one to eight). Eight responses out of 52 enrolled patients were documented and validated by an independent panel review, yielding a response rate of 18.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.8-29.6%] in the evaluable population. This response rate was balanced by a high rate of disease control (78.9% in the intention-to treat population and 90.9% in the evaluable population). The median progression-free and median survival were 5.1 months (95% CI 4.3-8.1) and 9.3 months (95% CI 6.8-11.4), respectively. Overall, the safety profile of the combination regimen alternating i.v. and oral vinorelbine appeared similar to that expected for each individual agent. Some lung cancer-specific items (pain, dyspnoea) improved or were stabilised by assessment using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of carboplatin with an alternating regimen of i.v./oral vinorelbine is a well tolerated regimen with a low level of toxicity and a low rate of serious adverse events. A high rate of disease control (partial response + no change) was achieved. Progression-free survival and overall survival fell within the expected range. This regimen is convenient and safe for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients.     

Randomized phase III trial comparing cisplatin-etoposide to carboplatin-paclitaxel in advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the regimen of carboplatin plus paclitaxel (investigational arm) versus the reference regimen of cisplatin plus etoposide for the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 369 patients were enrolled, 179 on arm A (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and etoposide 100 mg/m2) and 190 on arm B (carboplatin AUC=6 mg/ml min and paclitaxel 225 mg/m2), with cycles repeated every 3 weeks. The arms were well balanced with respect to age, performance status, weight loss, stage of disease and disease measurability. However, significantly more women were randomized to arm A than to arm B (P=0.039). RESULTS: The objective response rate (ORR) was 15% on arm A compared with 23% on arm B (P=0.061). Median survival time, time to progression and 1-year survival rates for arms A and B were 274 days and 233 days (P=0.086), 111 days and 121 days (P=0.877), and 37% and 32%, respectively. The most prevalent toxicities were neutropenia and leukopenia and they occurred at a higher rate in arm A than in arm B. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant survival advantage for carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with cisplatin-etoposide. However, there was an overall benefit in quality of life with the carboplatin-paclitaxel regimen.     

Phase I/II investigation of paclitaxel, ifosfamide and carboplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and tolerability of the three-drug combination of paclitaxel, ifosfamide and carboplatin (TIC) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. The specific objectives of the study were: (i) to define the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum-tolerated dose of ifosfamide administered as part of the combination; and (ii) to determine the overall response rate and overall survival of patients treated with this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated, stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled in one of three cohorts. Patients received paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) as a 1-h infusion on day 1 with carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 6 mg.min/ml on day 2. For dose level I, ifosfamide was administered at a dose of 2 g/m(2) on days 1 and 2. For dose levels II and III, the dose of ifosfamide was decreased to 1.5 g/m(2) on days 1 and 2 and the dose of carboplatin was decreased to AUC 5 mg.ml/min. Therapy for dose levels I and III included filgrastim support (5 micro g/kg/day), which was initiated on day 3 and continued until after day 11 or until an absolute neutrophil count >10 000/ micro l. Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days. Once the phase II dose was established, a full cohort of patients received therapy at this dose level to examine further the regimen's activity and tolerability. RESULTS: Neutropenia was the DLT encountered for dose levels I and II. No DLT was encountered in the initial six patients treated at dose level III, and therefore this dose level was declared the recommended phase II dose. A total of 49 patients were treated at the recommended phase II dose. The predominant non-hematological toxicity encountered with this triplet regimen was cumulative peripheral neuropathy. Of the 65 eligible patients enrolled in this study, 17 (26%) responded. There were 15 patients with partial responses (23%), two with regression, and 26 with stabilization of disease (40%). Median progression-free and overall survival were 4.8 and 9.4 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination TIC is well-tolerated. This triplet regimen produced response and survival rates in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer similar to those of other current combination chemotherapy regimens.     

Multicenter phase II trial of docetaxel and carboplatin in patients with stage IIIB and IV non-small-cell lung cancer

Purpose:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of docetaxel andcarboplatin as first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small-celllung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods:In this multicenter, phase II trial, 33patients with previously untreated stage IIIB (n = 8) or IV(n = 25) NSCLC received intravenous infusions of docetaxel 80mg/m² followed immediately by carboplatin dosed to AUC of 6mg/ml/min (Calvert's formula) every three weeks. Patients also receiveddexamethasone 8 mg orally twice daily for three days beginning one day beforeeach docetaxel treatment. Filgrastim was not allowed during the first cycleand was added only if a patient experienced febrile neutropenia or grade 4neutropenia lasting 7 days. Results:There were 1 complete and 11 partial responses for anobjective response rate of 43% (95% CI:24%–63%) in 28 evaluable patients and 36%(95% CI: 20%–55%) in the intent-to-treatpopulation. The median duration of response was 5.5 months (range3.0–12.5 months). The median survival was 13.9 months (range 1–35+months); one-year survival was 52%. The most common toxicity washematologic, which included grade 4 neutropenia (79% of patients and7% percent of cycles) and febrile neutropenia (15% of patients);there were no episodes of grade 3 or 4 infection. The most common severenonhematologic toxicities were asthenia (24%) and myalgia (12%);there were no grade 3 or 4 neurologic effects. Conclusions:The combination of docetaxel and carboplatin has anacceptable toxicity profile and is active in the treatment of previouslyuntreated patients with advanced NSCLC. This combination is being evaluatedin a randomized phase III trial involving patients with advanced andmetastatic NSCLC.     

Paclitaxel and gemcitabine versus carboplatin and gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. A phase III study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: This phase III study was designed to compare the combination paclitaxel (Taxol)-gemcitabine (PG) versus carboplatin-gemcitabine (CG) in patients with advanced inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with performance status of zero or one were randomized to gemcitabine 1 gm/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 (arm A) or carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve of 6 mg on day 1 (arm B) every 3 weeks. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response (OR), time to progression and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 512 patients were enrolled and 452 eligible (arm A, 225; arm B, 227) were analyzed. All characteristics were well balanced with the exception of vena cava obstruction symptoms and lymph node involvement. Median survival was 9.97 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.74-12.0] for group A and 10.49 (95% CI 9.04-11.94) for group B. There was no difference in the OS, 1-year survival, OR and TtP. However, statistically significant differences were seen in toxicity. CONCLUSION: The two regimens are equally active. Myelotoxicity is worse in the CG group whereas alopecia, myalgia and neurotoxicity worse in the PG group.     

A phase II study of weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin in previously untreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Purpose: Both paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin (C) have a significant activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Weekly administration of P is active, is dose intense, and has a favorable toxicity profile. To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of weekly P and C in advanced-stage NSCLC, we initiated this phase II study in patients with advanced NSCLC (III B with pleural effusion and stage IV). Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were treated with paclitaxel 100 mg/m² intravenously (iv) over 1 h followed by carboplatin AUC 2 iv over 30 min. This treatment was administered weekly for 3 of every 4 wk until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Results: Of the 30 patients enrolled in the study, one patient did not meet the eligibility criteria. Of the remaining 29 patients, 6 did not complete at least two cycles of treatment and hence were not assessable for response. The overall response rate was 43.5% (10/23) (all partial responses). An additional 43.5% had stable disease. The median time to progression was 162 d and the median duration of response was 169 d. Overall survival at 1 yr on intent-to-treat analyses was 44% and median survival was 10.8 mo. We observed the following grade 3/4 toxicities: hypersensitivity to paclitaxel (13%), hypersensitivity to carboplatin (3%), neutropenia (31%), thrombocytopenia (7%); 31% experienced grade 1 neuropathy and 17% experienced grade 2 neuropathy. Conclusions: We conclude that weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin is active and very well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

First-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with docetaxel and cisplatin: A multicenter phase II study

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the docetaxel-cisplatin combination in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically confirmed, measurable stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, a World Health Organization (WHO) performance status of 0–2 and adequate bone marrow, renal, hepatic and cardiac function were eligible for the study. Patients received docetaxel (100 mg/m²) as an one-hour infusion on day 1 and cisplatin (80 mg/m²) as a 30-min infusion with appropriate hydration on day 2. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; 150 µg/m² , SC) was given on days 3 to 13. Treatment was repeated every three weeks.Results: Fifty-three patients were enrolled (28 with stage IIIB and 25 with stage IV). One complete and 23 partial responses were observed (overall response rate (OR): 45%; 95% CI: 34.1%–61.8%). The response rate was 57% and 32% in patients with stages IIIB and IV disease (P = NS). The median time to progression was 36 weeks and the median survival 48 weeks; the one-year survival was 48%. Grade 3–4 neutropenia occurred in 23 patients, 15 of whom were hospitalized for neutropenic fever; two patients died of sepsis. Grade 2 neurotoxicity was observed in six patients and grade 3 in five patients; grade 3 fatigue occurred in seven patients, grade 3–4 mucositis in four patients and grade 3–4 diarrhea in six patients. Mild allergic reactions and oedema were observed in five and four patients, respectively. The median dose intensity was 30 mg/m² /week for docetaxel and 24 mg/m² /week for cisplatin, corresponding to 91% and 89% of the specified protocol doses, respectively.Conclusions: The docetaxel–cisplatin combination is an active regimen in advanced NSCLC, but hematologic toxicity remains high despite the prophylactic use of G-CSF.     

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.     

Randomised phase II study of docetaxel/cisplatin vs docetaxel/irinotecan in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group Study (WJTOG9803)

Docetaxel plus cisplatin and docetaxel plus irinotecan are active and well-tolerated chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A randomised phase II study compared their efficacy and toxicity in 108 patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC, who were randomised to receive docetaxel 60 mg m(-2) and cisplatin 80 mg m(-2) on day 1 (DC; n=51), or docetaxel 60 mg m(-2) on day 8 and irinotecan 60 mg m(-2) on day 1 and 8 (DI; n=57) every 3 weeks. Response rates were 37% for DC and 32% for DI patients. Median survival times and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 50 weeks (95% confidence interval: 34-78 weeks), 47 and 25% for DC, and 46 weeks (95% confidence interval: 37-54 weeks), 40 and 18% for DI, respectively. The progression-free survival time was 20 weeks (95% confidence interval: 14-25 weeks) with DC and 18 (95% confidence interval: 12-22 weeks) with DI. Significantly more DI than DC patients had grade 4 leucopenia and neutropenia (P<0.01); more DC patients had grade >/=2 thrombocytopenia (P<0.01). Nausea and vomiting was more pronounced with DC (P<0.01); diarrhoea was more common with DI (P=0.01). Three treatment-related deaths occurred in DC patients. In conclusion, although the DI and DC regimens had different toxicity profiles, there was no significant difference in survival.     

A phase II study of 9-aminocamptothecin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Background: 9-Aminocamptothecin (9-AC) is a synthetic analogue of camptothecin. Phase I studies, identified the maximum tolerated dose as 1416 µg/m2/day × 3 as continuous intravenous infusion (CVI) with dose-limiting neutropenia.Patients and methods: Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with measurable disease. Patients were initially treated at 1416 µg/m2/d × 3 by CVI followed by granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. This dose was decreased to 1100 µg/m2/d after the first 13 patients. Cycles were repeated every 14 days until tumor progression.Results: Fifty-eight patients were treated, thirteen at 1416 µg/m2/d and 45 at 1100 µg/m2/d. Fifty percent had adenocarcinoma and 17% squamous cell carcinoma. Seventy-one percent had stage IV disease. Five patients had a partial response (response duration 9–28 weeks) for an overall response rate of 8.6%, (95% confidence intervals (CI): 2.9%–19%). Median time to progression was 2.3 months and the median survival for the entire study population 5.4 months with a one-year survival rate of 30%. The one-year survival rate for 27 patients who received second line chemotherapy was 56.7%. Toxicities at 1416 µg/m2/d included grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in six and five of 13 patients, respectively; at 1100 µg/m2/d these toxicities were observed in 12 and three of 45 patients, respectively.Conclusion: 9-AC has modest single-agent activity in previously untreated NSCLC. Its further evaluation at the dose and schedule employed in this study does not seem indicated. Exploration of more prolonged administration schedules may be warranted.     

A phase II randomised trial comparing the cisplatin-etoposide combination chemotherapy with or without carboplatin as second-line therapy for small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase II randomised trial was performed with patients with SCLC to determine if the addition of carboplatin to cisplatin-etoposide might improve the response rate in second-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five eligible patients were randomised: 31 for CE (cisplatin 20 mg/m(2) and etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3) and 34 for CCE (carboplatin 200 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 30 mg/m(2) on days 2-3, etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3). RESULTS: Eighty-two per cent of these patients had an objective response to first-line therapy and, among responders, 63% had a treatment-free interval of >3 months after previous therapy. The best response rates were 29% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13-45] and 47% (95% CI 30-64) for CE and CCE, respectively, with median survival times of 4.3 and 7.6 months. Dose-intensity analysis revealed a significant improvement in the relative dose-intensity and etoposide absolute dose-intensity for CE. Toxicity was tolerable and comparable between the two study arms. CONCLUSION: CCE appears to be associated with a high objective response rate. The phase II randomised study design suggests that a comparison between the two regimens in a phase III trial would be interesting, but will probably be difficult to perform for reasons of accrual.     

吉西他滨加卡铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌

目的：观察吉西他滨(GEM)加卡铂(CBP)联合化疗治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的近期疗效及毒副作用。方法：27例Ⅲ～Ⅳ期NSCLC(初治10例，复治17例)，采用联合化疗：GEM1250mg／m^2，静脉滴注，第1、8天，CBP300mg／m^2，静脉滴注，第1天，21天为1个周期。结果：初治10例中CR PR 6例，有效率60％，复治17例中CR PR7例，有效率41．2％，总有效率44．4％，主要副作用为骨髓抑制。结论：GEM CBP联合化疗治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效较好，毒副反应可耐受。     

健择、卡铂联合治疗非小细胞肺癌的临床疗效

目的 观察健择、卡铂联合治疗非小细胞肺癌的疗效和毒性。方法 对50例Ⅲb-Ⅳ期非小细胞肺癌患者采用随机、双盲方法分为治疗组25例，对照组25例，治疗组采用健择1000mg/m^2第1、8天静脉滴注，卡铂300mg／m^2第1天静脉滴注，4周为一周期；对照组足叶乙甙0．1／m^2第1、2、3天静脉滴注，卡铂300mg／m^2第1天静脉滴注，3周为1周期；2周期后评价疗效。结果 治疗组25例可评价疗效，完全缓解6例，部分缓解8例，总有效率56％，中位缓解期3．8月；对照组25例可评价疗效，完全缓解2例，部分缓解7例，有效率36％。结论 健择、卡铂联合化疗治疗非小细胞肺癌效果较好。     

吉西他滨联合顺铂或卡铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的近期疗效

目的 :观察吉西他滨 (gemcitabine)联合顺铂与吉西他滨联合卡铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效和毒性反应。方法 :10 6例经病理组织学或细胞学证实的晚期非小细胞肺癌患者分为GP和GC两组 ,GP组应用吉西他滨 10 0 0mg/m2 ,静滴 ,第 1、8天 ;顺铂 30mg/m2 ,静滴 ,第 1～ 3天。GC组应用吉西他滨 10 0 0mg/m2 ,静滴 ,第 1、8天 ;卡铂ACU =5 ,静滴 ,第 1天。 2 1天为 1个周期 ,连用 2个周期评价疗效。结果 :GP组和GC组有效率 (CR PR)分别为 4 8.1%和 4 4 .2 % (P >0 .0 5 ) ;中位疾病进展时间分别为 6 .8个月和 6 .2个月 (P >0 .0 5 ) ;毒性反应中GP组消化道毒副反应较GC组大 ,差异有显著性 ;骨髓毒性两组相当 ,差异无显著性。结论 :吉西他滨联合顺铂及吉西他滨联合卡铂两方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效均较好 ,毒性反应轻微 ,患者耐受良好 ,尤其吉西他滨联合卡铂的消化道反应轻 ,患者易于接受 ,值得临床进一步研究。     

Phase I trial of carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose of paclitaxel administered weekly in combination with carboplatin and to assess its dose limiting toxicity and preliminary activity in patients with previously untreated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Carboplatin was administered at a fixed dose that maintained an area under the curve of 6. Paclitaxel was given over 1 h once a week for 3 weeks starting at 60 mg/m(2) and escalated in 10 mg/m(2) increments. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were treated with six dose levels (60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 mg/m(2)) of paclitaxel. The dose limiting toxicity was infection and the maximum tolerated dose was 110 mg/m(2). Nine of 21 (42.9%) patients demonstrated a therapeutic response. CONCLUSION: Weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin were well tolerated. Based on our results, 100 mg/m(2) of paclitaxel for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle, in combination with carboplatin, was recommended for a phase II study.     

Docetaxel and carboplatin is an active regimen in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study in Caucasian and Asian patients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to report response rates, survival and toxicity in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following docetaxel and carboplatin, and to explore potential differences in these end points between Caucasian and Asian patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients of good performance status with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were entered on a phase II study at three sites in Australia and Singapore. Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 6 were given every 3 weeks. Response to treatment and toxicity were graded by standard criteria. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival rates, and subgroups compared by the log-rank test. Cox's proportional hazards regression was used to determine which potentially explanatory variables independently affected the outcome. RESULTS: The response rate was 39% (95% confidence interval 27% to 52%), and 42% in evaluable patients. Response occurred in 65% of Asian and 31% of Caucasian patients (P = 0.01). Ethnicity was the only significant predictor of response in multivariate analysis. The 1-year survival rate was 53%. Performance status (P = 0.021), ethnicity (P = 0.035) and presence of bone or liver metastases (P = 0.011) were independent predictors of overall survival. Neutropenia (grade IV in 73% of patients), febrile neutropenia (26% patients) and diarrhea (grade III/IV in 11% of patients) were the major treatment related toxicities. A high rate (three of six) of febrile neutropenia in Singapore, including one treatment-related death in the initial patients treated, resulted in a reduction in the carboplatin dose to AUC 4.5 at that site. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen is active in advanced NSCLC. The potential impact of ethnicity on efficacy and toxicity of treatment requires further investigation.     

Randomized phase III study of cisplatin plus irinotecan versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine, and cisplatin plus vinorelbine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Four-Arm Cooperative Study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of three platinum-based combination regimens against cisplatin plus irinotecan (IP) in patients with untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by a non-inferiority design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 602 patients were randomly assigned to one of four regimens: cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus irinotecan 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks (IP) carboplatin AUC 6.0 min x mg/mL (area under the concentration-time curve) on day 1 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (TC); cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 every 3 weeks (GP); and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 every 3 weeks (NP). RESULTS: The response rate, median survival time, and 1-year survival rate were 31.0%, 13.9 months, 59.2%, respectively, in IP; 32.4%, 12.3 months, 51.0% in TC; 30.1%, 14.0 months, 59.6% in GP; and 33.1%, 11.4 months, 48.3% in NP. No statistically significant differences were found in response rate or overall survival, but the non-inferiority of none of the experimental regimens could be confirmed. All the four regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The four regimens have similar efficacy and different toxicity profiles, and they can be used to treat advanced NSCLC patients.     

A phase II study of oxaliplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of oxaliplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The treatment regimen was given as defined in a phase I investigation in patients with previously treated ovarian cancer. It consisted of paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) (1-h infusion) and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) (2-h infusion) given every 21 days. Eligible patients had stage IIIB (pleural effusion)/IV NSCLC, measurable disease, no prior chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate hematological, renal and hepatic function. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were enrolled with the following characteristics: 29% male (n = 11); 71% female (n = 27); median age 64.5 years (range 37-78); performance status of 0-1 84% (n = 32); stage IIIB 8% (n = 3); stage IV 92% (n = 35). One hundred and eighty-one cycles were administered, with a median of four per patient (range one to 12). The overall objective response rate for all 38 patients was 34.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.6% to 51.4%]. This response rate includes 13 patients who met criteria for a partial response. No complete responses were observed. Median overall survival time was 9.2 months (95% CI 6-12.4) and median progression-free survival time was 4.3 months (95% CI 2.1-6.5). The 1- and 2-year overall survival rates were 37% and 21%, respectively. Hematological toxicity included six patients with grade 4 neutropenia. Non-hematological toxicity consisted mainly of grades 1 and 2 neurosensory toxicity. Laryngodysesthesia was observed in two patients following oxaliplatin infusion. No grade 4 non-hematological toxicities were encountered. CONCLUSION: This regimen is well tolerated, and demonstrates activity in patients with advanced NSCLC.