Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether two commonly used newer platinum-based regimens offer any advantage over vinorelbine-cisplatin (reference regimen) in response rate for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 2 every 21 days (GC arm), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) (3-hour infusion) then carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve of 6 mg/mL x min), both on day 1 every 21 days (PCb arm), or vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk for 12 weeks then every other week plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) day 1 every 28 days (VC arm). RESULTS: Six hundred twelve patients were randomized to treatment (205 GC, 204 PCb, and 203 VC). Overall response rates for the GC (30%) and PCb (32%) arms were not significantly different from that of the VC arm (30%). There were no differences in overall survival, time to disease progression, or time to treatment failure. Median survival for the GC, PCb, and VC groups was 9.8, 9.9, and 9.5 months, respectively. Neutropenia was significantly higher on the VC arm (GC 17% or PCb 35% v VC 43% of cycles, P <.001), as was thrombocytopenia on the GC arm (GC 16% v VC 0.1% of cycles, P <.001). Alopecia and peripheral neurotoxicity were most common on the PCb arm, as was nausea/vomiting on the VC arm (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Efficacy end points were not significantly different between experimental and reference arms, although toxicities showed differences. These findings suggest that chemotherapy in NSCLC has reached a therapeutic plateau.     

Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether docetaxel plus platinum regimens improve survival and affect quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with vinorelbine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1,218) with stage IIIB to IV NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (DC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the curve of 6 mg/mL * min every 3 weeks (DCb); or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (VC). RESULTS: Patients treated with DC had a median survival of 11.3 v 10.1 months for VC-treated patients (P =.044; hazard ratio, 1.183 [97.2% confidence interval, 0.989 to 1.416]). The 2-year survival rate was 21% for DC-treated patients and 14% for VC-treated patients. Overall response rate was 31.6% for DC-treated patients v 24.5% for VC-treated patients (P =.029). Median survival (9.4 v 9.9 months [for VC]; P =.657; hazard ratio, 1.048 [97.2 confidence interval, 0.877 to 1.253]) and response (23.9%) with DCb were similar to those results for VC. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar with all three regimens. Grade 3 to 4 anemia, nausea, and vomiting were more common (P <.01) with VC than with DC or DCb. Patients treated with either docetaxel regimen had consistently improved QoL compared with VC-treated patients, who experienced deterioration in QoL. CONCLUSION: DC resulted in a more favorable overall response and survival rate than VC. Both DC and DCb were better tolerated and provided patients with consistently improved QoL compared with VC. These findings demonstrate that a docetaxel plus platinum combination is an effective treatment option with a favorable therapeutic index for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC.     

Economic analysis of vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: It is increasingly important to have timely information about the economic impact of new cancer therapies in today's cost-conscious environment. Nearly 170 000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer annually in the United States. We performed an economic analysis alongside Southwest Oncology Group Trial S9509 to estimate the cost-effectiveness of cisplatin plus vinorelbine versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. There were no statistically significant differences in survival or cancer-related quality of life between the treatment arms. METHODS: Use of both protocol and nonprotocol lung cancer-related health care was tracked for 24 months from the initiation of therapy. To determine expenditures, nationally standardized costs were applied to each type of health care service used, and these were summed over time. Lifetime expenditures and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each arm of the trial were calculated with the use of a multivariate regression technique that accounts for censoring. Student's t tests were used to compare the difference in costs between the arms. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Cancer-related health care costs over the period of observation averaged 40,292 dollars (95% CI = 36,226 dollars to 44,359 dollars) for patients in the cisplatin plus vinorelbine arm versus 48,940 dollars (95% CI = 44,674 dollars to 53,208 dollars) for patients in the carboplatin plus paclitaxel arm (P =.004), with a mean difference of 8648 dollars (95% CI = 2634 dollars to 14,662 dollars). Protocol chemotherapy drugs and medical procedures costs were statistically significantly higher in the paclitaxel arm (P =.0003 and P<.0001, respectively), whereas protocol chemotherapy delivery costs were statistically significantly higher in the vinorelbine arm (P<.0001). There was no difference between the arms in costs for blood products, supportive care medications, nonprotocol-related inpatient or outpatient care, and nonprotocol chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with carboplatin plus paclitaxel is substantially and statistically significantly more expensive than treatment with cisplatin plus vinorelbine. The majority of the cost difference is due to the additional cost of the protocol chemotherapy (approximately 12,000 dollars). Notable differences in costs of downstream health care were not apparent.     

Phase III trial comparing a defined duration of therapy versus continuous therapy followed by second-line therapy in advanced-stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare four cycles of therapy versus continuous therapy to determine the optimal duration of chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized to arm A (four cycles of carboplatin at an area under the curve of 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) every 21 days) or arm B (continuous treatment with carboplatin/paclitaxel until progression). At progression, all patients on both arms were to receive second-line weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m(2)/wk. The primary end points were survival and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty patients were randomized. Fifty-seven percent of arm A patients completed four courses of therapy. In the 116 arm B patients, the median number of cycles delivered was four (range, zero to 19 cycles). Forty-two percent received five or more cycles; 18% received eight or more cycles. Overall response rates were 22% and 24% for arms A and B, respectively (P =.80). Median survival time and 1-year survival rates were 6.6 months and 28% for arm A and 8.5 months and 34% for arm B, respectively (log-rank P =.63). Rates of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were similar between the two arms, except for neuropathy. The rate of grade 2 to 4 neuropathy increased from 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.6% to 26.2%) at cycle 4 to 43% (95% CI, 28.6% to 57.4%) at cycle 8. There were no differences in QOL. Only 45% of patients received second-line therapy (42% in arm A v 47% in arm B, P =.42). CONCLUSION: This study shows no overall benefit in survival, response rates, or QOL to continuing treatment with carboplatin/paclitaxel beyond four cycles in advanced NSCLC.     

Phase III trial of standard-dose intravenous cisplatin plus paclitaxel versus moderately high-dose carboplatin followed by intravenous paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin in small-volume stage III ovarian carcinoma: an intergroup study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: To compare the progression-free and overall survival in small-volume residual ovarian cancer after treatment with intravenous (IV) cisplatin and paclitaxel or an experimental regimen of IV carboplatin followed by IV paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) over 24 hours followed by IV cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for six courses or IV carboplatin (area under curve 9) every 28 days for two courses, then IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) over 24 hours followed by intraperitoneal (IP) cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for six courses. RESULTS: Of the 523 patients who entered this trial, 462 were determined to be assessable, with prognostic factors well balanced between the treatments. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and gastrointestinal and metabolic toxicities were greater in the experimental arm. As a result, 18% of the patients received < or = two courses of IP therapy. Progression-free survival was superior for patients randomized to the experimental treatment arm (median, 28 v 22 months; relative risk, 0.78; log-rank P =.01, one-tail). There was a borderline improvement in overall survival associated with this regimen (median, 63 v 52 months; relative risk, 0.81; P =.05, one-tail). CONCLUSION: An experimental regimen including moderately high-dose IV carboplatin followed by IP paclitaxel and IV cisplatin yielded a significant improvement in progression-free survival when compared with a standard regimen of IV cisplatin and paclitaxel. Because the improvement in overall survival was of borderline statistical significance and toxicity was greater, the experimental arm is not recommended for routine use. However, the results provide direction for further clinical investigation in small-volume ovarian cancer.     

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.     

Phase III comparative study of high-dose cisplatin versus a combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: New effective chemotherapy is needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Paclitaxel administered as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be a potentially new useful agent for the treatment of NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and April 1996, 414 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to received either a control arm of high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or a combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) every 21 days. RESULTS: Compared with the cisplatin-only arm, there was a 9% improvement (95% confidence interval, 0% to 19%) in overall response rate for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (17% v 26%, respectively; P=.028). Median time to progression was 2.7 and 4.1 months in the control and paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, respectively (P=.026). The study, however, failed to show a significant improvement in median survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (8.6 months in the control arm v 8.1 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, P=.862). There was more hematotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and arthralgia/myalgia on the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, whereas the high-dose cisplatin arm produced more ototoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and nephrotoxicity. Quality of life (QOL) was similar overall between the two arms. CONCLUSION: This large randomized phase III trial failed to show a significant improvement in survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination compared with high-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination did produce a better clinical response, resulting in an increased time to progression while providing a similar QOL.     

Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: In randomized trials the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel was superior to cisplatin and cyclophosphamide in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although in nonrandomized trials, carboplatin and paclitaxel was a less toxic and highly active combination regimen, there remained concern regarding its efficacy in patients with small-volume, resected, stage III disease. Thus, we conducted a noninferiority trial of cisplatin and paclitaxel versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ovarian cancer and no residual mass greater than 1.0 cm after surgery were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus a 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 (arm I), or carboplatin area under the curve 7.5 intravenously plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 hours (arm II). RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-two eligible patients were enrolled onto the study. Prognostic factors were similar in the two treatment groups. Gastrointestinal, renal, and metabolic toxicity, as well as grade 4 leukopenia, were significantly more frequent in arm I. Grade 2 or greater thrombocytopenia was more common in arm II. Neurologic toxicity was similar in both regimens. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 19.4 and 48.7 months, respectively, for arm I compared with 20.7 and 57.4 months, respectively, for arm II. The relative risk (RR) of progression for the carboplatin plus paclitaxel group was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.03) and the RR of death was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.02). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a chemotherapy regimen consisting of carboplatin plus paclitaxel results in less toxicity, is easier to administer, and is not inferior, when compared with cisplatin plus paclitaxel.     

Vinorelbine/carboplatin vs gemcitabine/carboplatin in advanced NSCLC shows similar efficacy, but different impact of toxicity

This randomised phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was conducted to compare vinorelbine/carboplatin (VC) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) regarding efficacy, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity. Chemonaive patients with NSCLC stage IIIB/IV and WHO performance status 0-2 were eligible. No upper age limit was defined. Patients received vinorelbine 25 mg m(-2) or gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin AUC4 on day 1 and three courses with 3-week cycles. HRQOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, before chemotherapy and every 8 weeks until 49 weeks. During 14 months, 432 patients were included (VC, n=218; GC, n=214). Median survival was 7.3 vs 6.4 months, 1-year survival 28 vs 30% and 2-year survival 7 vs 7% in the VC and GC arm, respectively (P=0.89). HRQOL, represented by global QOL, nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea and pain, showed no significant differences. More grade 3-4 anaemia (P<0.01), thrombocytopenia (P<0.01) and transfusions of blood (P<0.01) or platelets (P<0.01) were observed in the GC arm. There was more grade 3-4 leucopoenia (P<0.01) in the VC arm, but the rate of neutropenic infections was the same (P=0.87). In conclusion, overall survival and HRQOL are similar, while grade 3-4 toxicity requiring interventions are less frequent when VC is compared to GC in advanced NSCLC.     

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.     

Improved therapeutic index of carboplatin plus cyclophosphamide versus cisplatin plus cyclophosphamide: final report by the Southwest Oncology Group of a phase III randomized trial in stages III and IV ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare cisplatin-cyclophosphamide versus carboplatin-cyclophosphamide as primary chemotherapy for stage III (suboptimal) and stage IV ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred forty-two patients were randomly assigned to treatment with six courses of intravenous (i.v.) cisplatin 100 mg/m2 plus i.v. cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2, or i.v. carboplatin 300 mg/m2 plus i.v. cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2. RESULTS: The estimated median survivals were 17.4 and 20.0 months for the cisplatin and carboplatin study arms, respectively. The null hypothesis of a 30% survival superiority with the cisplatin arm was rejected at the P = .02 level. Clinical response rates were 52% for the cisplatin arm and 61% for the carboplatin arm. Pathologic complete response rates were similar for both study arms. There was less thrombocytopenia on the cisplatin arm (P less than .001); however, there was less nausea and emesis (P less than or equal to .001 for courses 1 to 5), renal toxicity (P less than .001), anemia (P = .01), hearing loss (P less than .001), tinnitus (P = .01), neuromuscular toxicities (P = .001), and alopecia (P less than .001) on the carboplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin-cyclophosphamide proved to have a significantly better therapeutic index than cisplatin-cyclophosphamide in patients with stage III (suboptimal) and stage IV ovarian cancer.     

Randomized phase II study of carboplatin/gemcitabine versus vinorelbine/gemcitabine in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group (WJTOG) 0104

BACKGROUND: Combined gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) and combined gemcitabine and vinorelbine (GV) are active and well tolerated chemotherapeutic regimens for patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors conducted a randomized Phase II study of GC versus GV to compare them in terms of efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight patients with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to receive either carboplatin at an area under the curve of 5 on Day 1 combined with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 (n = 64 patients) or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 combined with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 (n = 64 patients) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Response rates were 20.3% for the GC patients and 21.0% for the GV patients. In the GC arm, the median survival was 432 days, and the a 1-year survival rate was 57.6%; in the GV arm, the median survival was 385 days, and the 1-year survival rate was 53.3% in the GV arm. The median progression-free survival was 165 days in the GC arm and 137 days in the GV arm. Severe hematologic toxicity (Grade 4) was significantly more frequent in the GC arm (45.3% vs. 25.8% in the GV arm; P = .022). Most notably, the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly higher in the GC arm (81.3% vs. 6.5% in the GV arm; P < .001). Conversely, severe nonhematologic toxicity (Grade 3 or 4) was more common in the GV arm (7.8% vs. 19.4% in the GC arm; P = .057). CONCLUSIONS: Although the GV and GC regimens had different toxicity profiles, there was no significant difference in survival among patients with NSCLC in the current study.     

Phase III study of cisplatin with or without paclitaxel in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a gynecologic oncology group study.

PURPOSE: To determine whether cisplatin plus paclitaxel (C+P) improved response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), or survival compared with cisplatin alone in patients with stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible: patients with measurable disease, performance status (PS) 0 to 2, and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function received either cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or C+P (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 135 mg/m2) every 3 weeks for six cycles. Tumor measurements and quality-of-life (QOL) assessments were obtained before each treatment cycle. RESULTS: Of 280 patients entered, 6% were ineligible. Among 264 eligible patients, 134 received cisplatin and 130 received C+P. Groups were well matched with respect to age, ethnicity, PS, tumor grade, disease site, and number of cycles received. The majority of all patients had prior radiation therapy (cisplatin, 92%; C+P, 91%). Objective responses occurred in 19% (6% complete plus 13% partial) of patients receiving cisplatin versus 36% (15% complete plus 21% partial) receiving C+P (P = .002). The median PFS was 2.8 and 4.8 months, respectively, for cisplatin versus C+P (P < .001). There was no difference in median survival (8.8 months v 9.7 months). Grade 3 to 4 anemia and neutropenia were more common in the combination arm. There was no significant difference in QOL scores, although a disproportionate number of patients (cisplatin, n = 50; C+P, n = 33) dropped out of the QOL component, presumably because of increasing disease, deteriorating health status, or early death. CONCLUSION C+P is superior to cisplatin alone with respect to response rate and PFS with sustained QOL.     

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

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

Phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin with or without tirapazamine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Southwest Oncology Group Trial S0003.

PURPOSE: Tumor hypoxia confers chemotherapy resistance. Tirapazamine is a cytotoxin that selectively targets hypoxic cells. We conducted a phase III clinical trial to determine whether the addition of tirapazamine to paclitaxel and carboplatin offered a survival advantage when used in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 396 patients registered, 367 eligible patients were randomly assigned to either arm 1 (n = 181), which consisted of treatment every 21 days with paclitaxel 225 mg/m2/3 h, carboplatin (area under the curve = 6), and tirapazamine 260 mg/m2 in cycle 1 (which was escalated, if tolerable, to 330 mg/m(2) in cycle 2), or arm 2 (n = 186), which consisted of paclitaxel and carboplatin as in arm 1 with no tirapazamine. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the two arms. There were no statistically significant differences in response rates, progression-free survival, or overall survival. Patients on arm 1 had significantly (P < .05) more abdominal cramps, fatigue, transient hearing loss, febrile neutropenia, hypotension, myalgias, and skin rash and were removed from treatment more often as a result of toxicity than patients in arm 2 (26% v 13%, respectively; P = .003). More than 40% of patients did not have the tirapazamine dose escalated, primarily because of toxicity. The trial was closed early after an interim analysis demonstrated that the projected 37.5% improvement in survival (8 v 11 months median survival) in arm 1 was unachievable (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The addition of tirapazamine to paclitaxel and carboplatin does not result in improved survival in advanced NSCLC compared with paclitaxel and carboplatin alone but substantially increases toxicity.     

奥沙利铂加长春瑞滨与顺铂加长春瑞滨治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的随机对照研究

目的探索奥沙利铂＋长春瑞滨（NL方案）与顺铂＋长春瑞滨（NP方案）治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）的疗效、不良反应及患者的生活质量。方法可评价疗效的NSCLC患者以2：1比例随机分入治疗组与对照组。治疗组70例,化疗方案为长春瑞滨25mg／m^2静脉冲入,第1。8天;奥沙利铂130mg／m^2静脉滴注,第2天;21d为1个周期。对照组32例,化疗方案为顺铂80mg／m^2静脉滴注,分2—3d给予;长春瑞滨用法同治疗组。结果治疗组与对照组的有效率分别为35．7％和43．8％（P=0．4）,中位肿瘤进展时间分别为4．7个月和5．5个月（P=0．6）,1年生存率分别为38．5％和58．6％（P=0．07）。治疗组Ⅰ-Ⅱ度感觉异常发生率为68．4％,显著高于对照组的36．4％（P：0．0017）;而治疗组I一Ⅱ度粒细胞减少率为49．4％,显著低于对照组的70．6％（P：0．037）。两组患者各项生活质量评分差异无统计学意义。结论奥沙利铂＋长春瑞滨治疗晚期NSCLC疗效确切,患者耐受性良好,为晚期NSCLC的治疗提供了一种新的选择。     

Randomized phase III trial of standard timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin versus circadian timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin in stage III and IV or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

PURPOSE: To determine if circadian timed (CT) chemotherapy results in improved response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and lower toxicity, when compared with standard timed (ST) chemotherapy. Materials and METHODS: Eligibility criteria were stage III, IV, or recurrent endometrial cancer with poor potential for cure by radiation therapy or surgery; measurable disease; and no prior chemotherapy. Therapy was randomized to schedules of ST doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2, or CT doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 am plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 pm. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks to a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS: The ST arm included 169 patients, and the CT arm included 173 patients. The objective response rate (complete responses plus partial responses) was 46% in the ST group compared with 49% in the CT group (P =.26, one tail). Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 11.2 months, respectively, in the ST group; and 5.9 and 13.2 months, respectively, in the CT group (PFS: P =.31; OS: P =.21, one tail). Median total doses were 209 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 349 mg/m2 cisplatin in the ST group, versus 246 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 354 mg/m2 cisplatin in the CT group. Grade 3 or 4 leukopenia occurred in 73% of patients in the ST arm and in 63% of patients in the CT arm. There were eight treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: In this trial, no significant benefit in terms of response rate, PFS or OS, or toxicity profile was observed with CT doxorubicin plus cisplatin in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma.     

Randomized trial of paclitaxel plus supportive care versus supportive care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: In phase II trials, paclitaxel has been shown to have antitumor activity in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the survival and quality-of-life (QOL) benefits of paclitaxel used as a single agent compared with supportive care alone have not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 157 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received no prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either best supportive care alone (78 patients) or paclitaxel plus supportive care (79 patients). Paclitaxel was administered as a 3-hour intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. Supportive care included palliative radiotherapy and supportive therapy with corticosteroids, antibiotics, analgesics, antiemetics, transfusions, and other symptomatic therapy as required. The primary end point of the study was survival. Time to disease progression, response rate, adverse events, and QOL were secondary end points. RESULTS: Pretreatment characteristics were evenly distributed between the two arms. Survival was statistically significantly better in the paclitaxel plus supportive care arm than in the supportive care alone arm (two-sided P =.037) (median survival = 6.8 months versus 4.8 months). Cox multivariate analysis showed paclitaxel plus supportive care to be statistically significantly associated with improved survival (two-sided P =.048). QOL was similar for both treatment arms, except for the functional activity score of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, where QOL data statistically significantly favored the paclitaxel plus supportive care arm (two-sided P =.043). CONCLUSION: The addition of paclitaxel to best supportive care significantly improved survival and time to disease progression compared with best supportive care in patients with advanced NSCLC and may improve some aspects of QOL.     

Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial.

PURPOSE: Treatment with cisplatin-based chemotherapy provides a modest survival advantage over supportive care alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To determine whether a new agent, paclitaxel, would further improve survival in NSCLC, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a randomized trial comparing paclitaxel plus cisplatin to a standard chemotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin and etoposide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was carried out by a multi-institutional cooperative group in chemotherapy-naive stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients randomized to receive paclitaxel plus cisplatin or etoposide plus cisplatin. Paclitaxel was administered at two different dose levels (135 mg/m(2) and 250 mg/m(2)), and etoposide was given at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) daily on days 1 to 3. Each regimen was repeated every 21 days and each included cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). RESULTS: The characteristics of the 599 patients were well-balanced across the three treatment groups. Superior survival was observed with the combined paclitaxel regimens (median survival time, 9.9 months; 1-year survival rate, 38.9%) compared with etoposide plus cisplatin (median survival time, 7.6 months; 1-year survival rate, 31.8%; P =. 048). Comparing survival for the two dose levels of paclitaxel revealed no significant difference. The median survival duration for the stage IIIB subgroup was 7.9 months for etoposide plus cisplatin patients versus 13.1 months for all paclitaxel patients (P =.152). For the stage IV subgroup, the median survival time for etoposide plus cisplatin was 7.6 months compared with 8.9 months for paclitaxel (P =.246). With the exceptions of increased granulocytopenia on the low-dose paclitaxel regimen and increased myalgias, neurotoxicity, and, possibly, increased treatment-related cardiac events with high-dose paclitaxel, toxicity was similar across all three arms. Quality of life (QOL) declined significantly over the 6 months. However, QOL scores were not significantly different among the regimens. CONCLUSION: As a result of these observations, paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) combined with cisplatin has replaced etoposide plus cisplatin as the reference regimen in our recently completed phase III trial.