State-of-the art treatment of locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Despite the poor mortality figures from lung cancer, advances have been observed in the treatment of advanced (stages IIIB and IV) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the first instance, such advances have been achieved thanks to chemotherapy (CT) consisting of platinum-based compounds (results demonstrated in several phase III studies) and then thanks to newer cytotoxic agents such as gemcitabine. Used as monotherapy, gemcitabine provides a marked benefit compared to the standard treatment consisting of etoposide/cisplatin (EC) (21% objective response, 39% survival at 1 year). A good efficacy profile of this agent in combination with platinum analogs was also observed in randomized phase III studies, confirming the significant higher survival obtained with the gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) combination (in GC versus C protocols and that comparing four doublets of CT). Results observed with G without platinum analogs are comparable to those of treatment with a platinum agent. Other studies conducted with triplets of CT need to be confirmed. Newer non-cytotoxic agents have also been studied: the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody with or without CT may prolong survival; docetaxel improves overall survival outcomes compared to palliative therapy. In locally advanced stages, advances have been made possible by radiochemotherapy (RT/CT): several phase II and phase III studies using EC and RT have been conducted. Lastly, in induction treatments, CT appears to provide improvement.     

Gemcitabine and vinorelbine (GV) versus cisplatin, gemcitabine and vinorelbine (CGV) as first-line treatment in advanced non small cell lung cancer: Results of a prospective randomized phase II study

The objective of this study was to assess whether adding cisplatin to gemcitabine/vinorelbine combination improves the clinical outcome in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Chemotherapy-na?ve patients with advanced NSCLC; age < or = 75 years: Karnofsky performance status > or = 60%, and with adequate hematological, renal and hepatic function, were randomized into 2 treatment groups to receive Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 + vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 (GV group), or cisplatin 50 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 + vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 (CGV group). All drugs were administered on days 1 and 8 every three weeks: From September 1999 to March 2003, 114 patients were enrolled. No statistically significant difference was observed in GV vs CGV group in objective response (37 versus 47%, respectively; P = 0.5), median time to progression (5 versus 5.8 months; P = 0.6), overall survival (9 versus 10 months; P = 0.9) and 1-year survival (26 versus 28%; P = 0.9). Conversely, toxicities were significantly higher for CGV, including grade 3-4 neutropenia (24 versus 45%); neutropenic fever (4 versus 14%, including one toxic death); grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (2 versus 14%); and grade 3-4 emesis (2 versus 14%). Our results suggest that the combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine is less toxic than three-drug combination with cisplatin while showing similar efficacy.     

Gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer

Gemcitabine is considered to be one of the most active drugs in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). When used as a single agent, gemcitabine yielded response rates consistently > 20%, with a uniformly good tolerance profile. Preclinical data indicated synergism between gemcitabine and platinum compounds, such as cisplatin or carboplatin. The gemcitabine-cisplatin combination is considered one of the reference regimens for advanced NSCLC and the recommended schedule is gemcitabine 1000 - 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 - 8 and cisplatin 70 - 80 mg/m(2) on days 1 or 2. In order to avoid many of the non-haematological toxicities associated with cisplatin, several trials evaluated the gemcitabine-carboplatin combination. Previous trials using the 28-day schedule showed unacceptable haematological toxicity. Recent studies demonstrated the activity and feasibility of gemcitabine-carboplatin combination using a 21-day schedule, with carboplatin administered on day 1 and gemcitabine on days 1 and 8. Gemcitabine can be combined with one of the other new agents, such as the taxanes or vinorelbine, to create novel non-platinum-doublets. Although encouraging, the available data are still conflicting and non-platinum-based combinations are not indicated outside clinical trials. Three-drug combinations increased toxicity and failed to demonstrate any advantage over standard doublets in advanced NSCLC. Gemcitabine is active and well tolerated in elderly patients and represents a reasonable therapeutic option. Although no Phase III trials have been conducted to compare gemcitabine to the best supportive care or docetaxel in pretreated NSCLC, gemcitabine alone or in combination with vinorelbine or one of the taxanes can be considered a valid option for second-line treatment in patients who had a previous response or who achieved stable disease with a platinum-containing regimen. Gemcitabine is considered the most radiopotentiating agent available amongst the newer agents we have in terms of activity and toxicity, but the routine use of gemcitabine in combination with radical thoracic radiotherapy, although promising, is not yet recommended. Further testing of gemcitabine-based combinations with concurrent radiation is underway.     

Novel combination chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a vexing problem and long-term survival beyond 5 years is extremely rare. Five new agents, paclitaxel, docetaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine and irinotecan, have been introduced for the treatment of NSCLC and investigated extensively both preclinically and clinically. Monotherapy with one of these agents has produced survival benefits over the best supportive care in Phase III studies. Combination chemotherapy with a new agent and platinum produced a higher response rate than conventional cisplatin-based chemotherapy and improved survival was observed in some randomised trials. There was little difference in efficacy and toxicity between the chemotherapeutic regimens with a new agent and a platinum in Phase III trials, suggesting the clinical utility of these regimens is similar. Many trials have focused on regimens containing two new agents, with or without platinum. Preliminary results of Phase III trials of three drug combinations versus two drug combinations suggested the former to be more promising, in terms of response rates and survival. Whether the era of platinum-based chemotherapy in the treatment of NSCLC should continue or not must be determined by Phase III trials, evaluating the use of a platinum agent with one of the new agent combinations. These aggressive chemotherapeutic combinations will hopefully improve survival and quality of life for patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Novel combination chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a vexing problem and long-term survival beyond 5 years is extremely rare. Five new agents, paclitaxel, docetaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine and irinotecan, have been introduced for the treatment of NSCLC and investigated extensively both preclinically and clinically. Monotherapy with one of these agents has produced survival benefits over the best supportive care in Phase III studies. Combination chemotherapy with a new agent and platinum produced a higher response rate than conventional cisplatin-based chemotherapy and improved survival was observed in some randomised trials. There was little difference in efficacy and toxicity between the chemotherapeutic regimens with a new agent and a platinum in Phase III trials, suggesting the clinical utility of these regimens is similar. Many trials have focused on regimens containing two new agents, with or without platinum. Preliminary results of Phase III trials of three drug combinations versus two drug combinations suggested the former to be more promising, in terms of response rates and survival. Whether the era of platinum-based chemotherapy in the treatment of NSCLC should continue or not must be determined by Phase III trials, evaluating the use of a platinum agent with one of the new agent combinations. These aggressive chemotherapeutic combinations will hopefully improve survival and quality of life for patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Economic evaluation of gemcitabine alone and in combination with cisplatin in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of gemcitabine in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Gemcitabine was compared with best supportive care and gemcitabine/cisplatin was compared with three standard chemotherapies and four other novel chemotherapy combinations. Costs and effectiveness measures were based on resource and outcome data from previously reported clinical trials. All direct costs associated with NSCLC treatment were included and adjusted to year 2000 values. PERSPECTIVE: UK National Health Service. RESULTS: Gemcitabine plus best supportive care was associated with an incremental cost per progression-free life year gained of pound sterling5228 compared with best supportive care alone. In comparison with standard chemotherapies, gemcitabine/cisplatin was associated with an incremental cost per progression-free life year gained of pound sterling1751 versus etoposide/cisplatin and cost per 1-year survival gain of pound sterling5681 versus mitomycin/vinblastine/platinum. Incremental cost per tumour response was pound sterling2032 relative to etoposide/cisplatin, pound sterling5169 relative to mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin and pound sterling6240 relative to mitomycin/vinblastine/platinum. Compared with four novel (newer) combination chemotherapies gemcitabine/ cisplatin showed cost savings in each case, with the same or better outcome. Thus, gemcitabine/cisplatin showed improved cost effectiveness and dominance. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust to variations to the values of key parameters. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin was assessed to be a cost-effective or cost-saving therapy when compared with best supportive care, standard chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy combinations. Chemotherapy regimens containing gemcitabine therefore represent good value for money and efficient use of healthcare resources in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.     

New options in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

The options for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were expanded by the introduction of the taxanes. As a single agent, docetaxel produced response rates ranging from 15 to 22% in evaluable patients in the second-line setting, with median duration of responses ranging from 5.6 to 7.5 months. To confirm the results observed in the phase II studies, a phase III trial was conducted. Three-hundred and seventy-three patients with advanced NSCLC who had failed prior platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive docetaxel 100 mg/m2, docetaxel 75 mg/m2 or a reference arm consisting of vinorelbine or ifosfamide. Efficacy, safety and quality of life (using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale) were assessed. Data from this study are forthcoming and may confirm the benefits provided by the inclusion of docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC. Docetaxel is also an active single agent in the first-line setting, with response rates ranging from 24 to 38% in evaluable patients, with a median survival of 6-13 months. Based on the single-agent activity, it was logical to evaluate the efficacy of docetaxel in combination with other active agents. As such, docetaxel has been studied in with numerous other agents such as vinorelbine, gemcitabine, platinums, etc. Notably cisplatin and carboplatin has shown promising rates of response and response duration in phase II trials. These combinations have now entered randomized phase III study.     

Vinorelbine: a review of its use in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Vinorelbine is a semisynthetic vinca alkaloid that is effective as monotherapy in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the large comparative Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study (ELVIS), patients receiving vinorelbine monotherapy achieved an objective response rate of 19.7%. The median survival time and the 1-year survival rate were significantly higher in recipients of vinorelbine plus best supportive care than in recipients of best supportive care alone. Vinorelbine recipients generally scored better than recipients of best supportive care on quality-of-life (QOL) functioning scales and experienced significantly fewer lung cancer-related symptoms; however, QOL scores were worse with vinorelbine for parameters relating to drug tolerability. Comparative phase III trials investigating the efficacy of combination therapy with vinorelbine and other agents specifically in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC have been conducted only for the combination of vinorelbine and gemcitabine [the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) trial and the Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES)]. Objective response rates for vinorelbine/gemcitabine combination therapy in these phase III trials were 22 and 20%, respectively. The SICOG trial was closed early when an interim analysis demonstrated a significant survival advantage for combination therapy with vinorelbine plus gemcitabine over vinorelbine monotherapy. However, a survival advantage for combination therapy versus vinorelbine monotherapy was not demonstrated in the larger MILES trial. The main adverse effect of vinorelbine monotherapy in the elderly is myelosuppression. Adverse events associated with most antineoplastic agents, such as mild alopecia, nausea, vomiting and mucositis, were reported in clinical trials; however, these events were rarely severe. Mild-to-moderate neurotoxicity, including constipation (presumably from autonomic neuropathy), was also reported. The addition of gemcitabine to vinorelbine increased the incidence of both haematological and nonhaematological adverse events. However, there was no significant increase in the incidence of life-threatening toxicity. Vinorelbine as a single agent is effective in elderly patients with NSCLC and is associated with improved survival and at least a trend towards improved QOL parameters compared with best supportive care alone. Vinorelbine was associated with a generally manageable tolerability profile. The benefit of adding gemcitabine to vinorelbine for the treatment of NSCLC in the elderly is equivocal; improved survival was reported in one comparative trial, but not in another larger one. Vinorelbine is an effective and well tolerated palliative treatment option for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.     

培美曲塞或吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的比较研究

目的比较培美曲塞或吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的疗效及不良反应。方法选择晚期NSCLC患者50例,随机分为培美曲塞加顺铂组(PC组)和吉西他滨加顺铂组(GC组)各25例。PC组给予培美曲塞500mg/m2,第1天,GC组吉西他滨1000mg/m2,第1、8天,两组均给予顺铂30mg,第2～4天,均为21d一个周期。结果培美曲塞加顺铂组和吉西他滨加顺铂组有效率分别为48%和44%,两组之间有效率无统计学意义(P>0.05)。PC组粒细胞减少的发生率小于GC组。结论 PC方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效与GC方案的疗效相当,但毒副作用明显减少,可以作为一线治疗方案。     

Gemcitabine and carboplatin in combination for the treatment of advanced,metastatic, non-small cell lung cancer

The universally accepted first-line treatment for advanced (stage IIIB effusion/IV) non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with a good performance status is a platinum drug in combination with one of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, vinorelbine or docetaxel. Although cisplatin is generally the favoured platinum agent, gemcitabine partnered with carboplatin is convenient to administer and has a favourable toxicity profile. Here, the pharmacology, preclinical and clinical data to support the use of this regimen for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer is evaluated.     

Gemcitabine and carboplatin in combination for the treatment of advanced, metastatic, non-small cell lung cancer

The universally accepted first-line treatment for advanced (stage IIIB effusion/IV) non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with a good performance status is a platinum drug in combination with one of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, vinorelbine or docetaxel. Although cisplatin is generally the favoured platinum agent, gemcitabine partnered with carboplatin is convenient to administer and has a favourable toxicity profile. Here, the pharmacology, preclinical and clinical data to support the use of this regimen for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer is evaluated.     

Therapeutic strategies in neoadjuvant therapy of non-small cell lung cancer: benefits of gemcitabine

Stages of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that are potential candidates for surgical resection have been treated in several ways: surgery alone is curative in only two-thirds of cases and post-operative radiotherapy (RT) provides only weak control of advanced-stage disease. Since metastatic recurrence is due to the presence of micrometastases, chemotherapy (CT) can be envisaged, even at an early stage of the disease--first with the CT/RT induction combination, which improves survival (median survival: 15 months) and the resection rate (70%). Recent studies on neoadjuvant therapy have evaluated the usefulness of different induction CT regimens. Among these, the gemcitabine/cisplatin study protocol (GC), set up in a phase II study for patients with stage IIIA N2 NSCLC, was very effective [objective response (OR): 70.2%; median survival: 19 months] and should be promising for stages IB and II. Other studies involving platinum analogs have shown good OR rates inducing a high resection rate and a reduction in the spread to mediastinal lymph nodes. Major studies are ongoing, one of which compares GC + surgery versus surgery alone (stages IB-IIIA); the other regimen aims to evaluate GC versus paclitaxel/carboplatin as well as two induction strategies.     

The current status of docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Docetaxel is an active single agent in both first- and second-line therapy of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Randomized trials versus best supportive care have documented an improvement in overall survival for docetaxel therapy in both settings. Docetaxel also produced a significant 1-year survival rate improvement when compared with vinorelbine or ifosfamide as second-line therapy. Docetaxel has been extensively investigated in phase I/II studies in combination with cisplatin, carboplatin, irinotecan and gemcitabine. Substantial activity has been demonstrated. In a randomized phase II trial comparing docetaxel plus cisplatin with docetaxel plus gemcitabine, the efficacy of the two regimens was almost identical (response rates 32 and 34%; 1-year survival rates 42 and 38%). However, the combination of docetaxel with gemcitabine was associated with significantly less grade III/IV neutropenia, diarrhea and nausea/vomiting. Three drug regimens combining docetaxel with, for example, gemcitabine and carboplatin or with ifosfamide and cisplatin, are producing very high response rates in phase II trials. Whether three-drug combinations including docetaxel will result in an improved outcome for patients with advanced NSCLC remains to be determined.     

Docetaxel: new indication. First-line treatment of non small-cell lung cancer: no advance

(1) The reference first-line drug therapy for patients with non-operable non small-cell lung cancer is a combination of two cytotoxic agents, one of which is a platinum compound. The survival benefit is no more than a few months. (2) The docetaxel + cisplatin combination has now been authorised in France for first-line treatment of locally advanced and metastatic non small-cell lung cancer. Evaluation data includes the results of three comparative trials. (3) In one trial the docetaxel + cisplatin combination was no more effective than the docetaxel + carboplatin combination or the vinorelbine + cisplatin combination on either the survival time (9.4 to 11.3 months) or on other endpoints. (4) Similar results were obtained in a trial versus paclitaxel + cisplatin and gemcitabine + cisplatin (median survival time 8 months in each group). (5) In a trial versus vindesine + cisplatin, the median survival time was longer with docetaxel + cisplatin (11.3 versus 9.6 months). (6) It is difficult to analyse adverse effects in these unblinded trials. Globally, the docetaxel + cisplatin combination did not appear to be safer than the comparator combinations, particularly with regard to serious events. (7) Docetaxel, like paclitaxel, is infused intravenously every three weeks. The comparator combinations tested in the three clinical trials are infused once a week. (8) In practice, for first-line treatment of inoperable non small-cell lung cancer, the docetaxel + cisplatin combination is simply one of several options, and offers no advantages in terms of survival or adverse effects.     

Paclitaxel: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in non-small cell lung cancer.

A number of first-line chemotherapy options for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are advocated in treatment guidelines and/or by various clinical investigators. Platinum-based chemotherapy has clearly demonstrated efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC and is generally recommended as first-line therapy, although there is increasing interest in the use of non-platinum chemotherapy regimens. Among the platinum-based combinations currently used in clinical practice are regimens such as cisplatin or carboplatin combined with paclitaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, docetaxel or irinotecan. The particular combinations employed may vary between institutions and geographical regions. Several pharmacoeconomic analyses have been conducted on paclitaxel in NSCLC and most have focused on its use in combination with cisplatin. In terms of clinical efficacy, paclitaxel-cisplatin combinations achieved significantly higher response rates than teniposide plus cisplatin or etoposide plus cisplatin (previously thought to be among the more effective regimens available) in two large randomised trials. One of these studies showed a survival advantage for paclitaxel plus cisplatin [with or without a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)] compared with etoposide plus cisplatin. A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis incorporated data from one of the large randomised comparative trials and showed that the incremental cost per life-year saved for outpatient administration of paclitaxel plus cisplatin versus etoposide plus cisplatin was $US 22181 (30619 Canadian dollars; $Can) [1997 costs]. A European analysis incorporated data from the other large randomised study and showed slightly higher costs per responder for paclitaxel plus cisplatin than for teniposide plus cisplatin in The Netherlands ($US 30769 vs $US 29592) and Spain ($US 19 923 vs $US 19724) but lower costs per responder in Belgium ($US 22852 vs $US 25000) and France ($US28 080 vs $US 34747) [1995/96 costs]. In other cost-effectiveness analyses, paclitaxel plus cisplatin was associated with a cost per life-year saved relative to best supportive care of approximately $US 10000 in a US study (year of costing not reported) or $US 11200 in a Canadian analysis ($Can 15400; 1995 costs). Results were less favourable when combining paclitaxel with carboplatin instead of cisplatin and particularly when G-CSF was added to paclitaxel plus cisplatin. The Canadian study incorporated the concept of extended dominance in a threshold analysis and ranked paclitaxel plus cisplatin first among several comparator regimens (including vinorelbine plus cisplatin) when the threshold level was $Can 75000 ($US 54526) per life-year saved or per quality-adjusted life-year gained (1995 values). CONCLUSION: Current treatment guidelines for advanced NSCLC recognise paclitaxel-platinum combinations as one of the first-line chemotherapy treatment options. In two large head-to-head comparative clinical trials, paclitaxel plus cisplatin was associated with significantly greater response rates than cisplatin in combination with either teniposide or etoposide, and a survival advantage was shown for paclitaxel plus cisplatin (with or without G-CSF) over etoposide plus cisplatin. There are limitations to the currently available pharmacoeconomic data and further economic analyses of paclitaxel-carboplatin regimens are warranted, as this combination is widely used in NSCLC and appears to have some clinical advantages over paclitaxel plus cisplatin in terms of ease of administration and tolerability profile. Nevertheless, results of various cost-effectiveness studies support the use of paclitaxel-platinum combinations, particularly paclitaxel plus cisplatin, as a first-line chemotherapy treatment option in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

吉西他滨或长春瑞滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的系统评价

目的 利用Meta分析评价吉西他滨、长春瑞滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的有效性与安全性。方法 检索Pubmed数据库和CHKD数据库,纳入随机对照试验,用专用软件Review Manager Version4.2.2进行系统评价。结果 共有7个英文期刊文献研究1 561例患者,10个中文期刊文献研究864例患者纳入系统评价。英文期刊文献Meta分析结果显示吉西他滨+顺铂方案与长春瑞滨+顺铂方案在总缓解率上无区别,在一年生存率上吉西他滨+顺铂方案方案优于长春瑞滨+顺铂方案,中文期刊文献Meta分析结果显示两套方案在总缓解率和一年生存率上均无显著性差异。关于毒性反应方面的报道,中英文期刊文献Meta分析结果一致,吉西他滨+顺铂方案中性粒细胞减少发生率低于长春瑞滨+顺铂方案,血小板减少发生率高于长春瑞滨+顺铂方案,恶心呕吐发生率差异无统计学意义。结论 中英文期刊文献在评价吉西他滨、长春瑞滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的有效性上有区别。应重视提高中文期刊随机对照研究文献的质量,同时在晚期非小细胞肺癌治疗过程中,应结合患者具体情况,选择对患者生活质量影响较小的方案。     

Combination therapy versus single agent chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

There is proven evidence of improved symptom control with platinum-based chemotherapy in the palliation of non-small cell lung cancer, and small but definite improvements in progression-free and overall survival when compared with best supportive care. The newer chemotherapy agents vinorelbine, gemcitabine, docetaxel and paclitaxel all have single agent activity, and in combination with cisplatin these provide superior quality of life and/or survival compared with the single agents, albeit with some increase in haematological toxicity. Doublet chemotherapy consisting of a new agent combined with platinum, cisplatin by preference where tolerated, has become the standard of care for advanced disease. The use of a functional assessment of fitness, rather than chronological age alone, is appropriate in the treatment of elderly patients. Although in this group there is evidence that doublets are superior to single agents, treatment should be undertaken with caution. In the second line setting where patients are unlikely to tolerate combination therapy, single agents have proven superiority over best supportive care. Patients with poor performance status (PS2) without comorbidity may tolerate combination therapy, but currently available evidence is insufficient to allow a definitive recommendation for combination or single-agent chemotherapy.     

Combination therapy versus single agent chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

There is proven evidence of improved symptom control with platinum-based chemotherapy in the palliation of non-small cell lung cancer, and small but definite improvements in progression-free and overall survival when compared with best supportive care. The newer chemotherapy agents vinorelbine, gemcitabine, docetaxel and paclitaxel all have single agent activity, and in combination with cisplatin these provide superior quality of life and/or survival compared with the single agents, albeit with some increase in haematological toxicity. Doublet chemotherapy consisting of a new agent combined with platinum, cisplatin by preference where tolerated, has become the standard of care for advanced disease. The use of a functional assessment of fitness, rather than chronological age alone, is appropriate in the treatment of elderly patients. Although in this group there is evidence that doublets are superior to single agents, treatment should be undertaken with caution. In the second line setting where patients are unlikely to tolerate combination therapy, single agents have proven superiority over best supportive care. Patients with poor performance status (PS2) without comorbidity may tolerate combination therapy, but currently available evidence is insufficient to allow a definitive recommendation for combination or single-agent chemotherapy.     

Vinorelbine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. A pharmacoeconomic review.

Vinorelbine is a semisynthetic vinca alkaloid that is effective against advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Myelosuppression is the primary dose-limiting toxicity; vinorelbine is otherwise relatively well tolerated. Two studies assessed the cost effectiveness of vinorelbine with or without cisplatin based primarily on data from a phase III comparison with vindesine plus cisplatin. Survival and cost data from this study were supplemented with those from other sources. One model simulated total management costs for the 4986 patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC in Canada in 1992. The other applied US cost data to the outcomes from the phase III trial. Using vinorelbine monotherapy or vinorelbine plus cisplatin produced a survival benefit and net cost savings compared with best supportive care according to the Canadian model (and preliminary data from a third analysis, conducted in the US). In the Canadian analysis, incremental cost effectiveness for inpatient or outpatient vinorelbine plus cisplatin ranged from 7450 Canadian dollars ($Can) to $Can30,770 (1993 values) per year of life saved (YLS) compared with outpatient cisplatin plus either etoposide or vinblastine. Cost-effectiveness ratios for vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the US analysis (1994 values) were $US18,000 (vs cisplatin plus etoposide) and $US15,500 (vs cisplatin plus vindesine) per YLS [all inpatient administration]. Detailed pharmacoeconomic comparisons with other current standard regimens (e.g. paclitaxel plus either cisplatin or carboplatin) are not available. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the cost effectiveness of vinorelbine-based therapy is robust to changes in assumptions regarding efficacy and the cost of managing toxicity. Limitations of the available pharmacoeconomic data include the retrospective nature of the analyses, inclusion of data from sources other than the main phase III trial (e.g. those for best supportive care and some chemotherapy regimens), and exclusion of some costs for hospitalisation and/or management of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Although some limitations apply, the available data suggest that vinorelbine alone or in combination with cisplatin is cost saving compared with best supportive care for NSCLC, and that vinorelbine plus cisplatin is cost effective compared with some other combination regimens. The pharmacoeconomic placing of vinorelbine in relation to a number of other currently recommended first-line treatments for NSCLC has yet to be resolved, and data from ongoing multicentre phase III trials are awaited with interest. In the meantime, vinorelbine-based chemotherapy appears to be a suitable choice for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC from both clinical and pharmacoeconomic perspectives.     

Vinorelbine for non-small cell lung cancer

Importance of the field: Vinorelbine is a ‘third-generation’ vinca alkaloid approved for the treatment of NSCLC. The introduction of ‘third-generation’ drugs (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, taxanes) in platinum combination improved survival of patients with advanced NSCLC, with substantially similar results among the different drugs. Treatment toxicities are considerable in this setting.

Areas covered in this review: This narrative review reports a synthesis of evidence available from published clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the activity and safety of vinorelbine, used as single agent or in combination chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC, from 1990 to 2009.

What the reader will gain: When vinorelbine was administered in a weekly schedule without interruptions, the most common toxicity was neutropenia that often precluded administration of the drug, therefore, reducing the dose intensity. A schedule providing administration of vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks seemed to improve the tolerability of the drug. Tolerability of the drug did not result lower in the elderly subset. None of the other ‘third-generation’ drugs were clearly better tolerated than vinorelbine. Moreover, in the adjuvant setting, vinorelbine is the only third-generation drug that demonstrated, in combination with cisplatin, a consistent improvement in survival on a long-term basis.

Take home message: Vinorelbine is an active and generally manageable therapeutic option for the treatment of both early and advanced NSCLC.