Docetaxel plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin in advanced pancreatic carcinoma: randomized phase II study 40984 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Group.

PURPOSE: To define the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin for advanced pancreatic carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and WHO performance status less than 2 were randomly assigned to receive 21-day cycles of gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 85 mg/m2 on day 8 (arm A) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 (arm B). Primary end points were tumor response and rate of febrile neutropenia grade. RESULTS: Of 96 randomly assigned patients (49 patients in arm A and 47 patients in arm B), 70 patients were analyzed for response (36 in arm A and 34 in arm B) and 89 patients were analyzed for safety (45 in arm A and 44 in arm B). Confirmed responses were observed in 19.4% (95% CI, 8.2% to 36.0%) of patients in arm A and 23.5% (95% CI, 10.7% to 41.2%) in arm B. In arm A, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.7 months), median survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.0 months), and 1-year survival was 30%. In arm B, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.6 months), median survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 4.8 to 8.7 months), and 1-year survival was 16%. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 9% and 16% of patients in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both regimens are well tolerated and show activity in advanced pancreatic carcinoma. The safety profile and survival analyses favor docetaxel plus gemcitabine for further evaluation.     

Prospective randomized trial comparing mitomycin, cisplatin, and protracted venous-infusion fluorouracil (PVI 5-FU) With epirubicin, cisplatin, and PVI 5-FU in advanced esophagogastric cancer.

PURPOSE: We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous-infusion fluorouracil (PVI 5-FU) (ECF) with the combination of mitomycin, cisplatin, and PVI 5-FU (MCF) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred eighty patients with adenocarcinoma, squamous carcinoma, or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized to receive either ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks and PVI 5-FU 200 mg/m(2)/d) or MCF (mitomycin 7 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks, and PVI 5-FU 300 mg/m(2)/d) and analyzed for survival, response, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 42.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37% to 48%) with ECF and 44.1% (95% CI, 38% to 50%) with MCF (P =.692). Toxicity was tolerable, and there were only two toxic deaths. ECF resulted in more grade 3/4 neutropenia and grade 2 alopecia, but MCF caused more thrombocytopenia and plantar-palmar erythema. Median survival was 9.4 months with ECF and 8.7 months with MCF (P =.315); at 1 year, 40.2% (95% CI, 34% to 46%) of ECF and 32.7% (95% CI, 27% to 38%) of MCF patients were alive. Median failure-free survival was 7 months with both regimens. Global QOL scores were better with ECF at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: This study confirms response, survival, and QOL benefits of ECF observed in a previous randomized study. The equivalent efficacy of MCF was demonstrated, but QOL was superior with ECF. ECF remains one of the reference treatments for advanced esophagogastric cancer.     

Definitive results of a phase II trial of cisplatin, epirubicin, continuous-infusion fluorouracil, and gemcitabine in stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of a cisplatin, epirubicin, gemcitabine, and fluorouracil (PEF-G) schedule on stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients < or = 70 years, with no prior chemotherapy and with bidimensionally measurable stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 2, and adequate bone marrow, kidney, and liver function were eligible for this trial. Eligibility criteria for clinical benefit assessment were pain with at least a daily analgesic consumption of two nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or Karnofsky performance status between 50 and 70. Treatment consisted of 40 mg/m2 each of cisplatin and epirubicin day 1, gemcitabine 600 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks, and fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/d as a protracted venous infusion. RESULTS: Between April 1997 and April 1999, 49 patients from a single institution were eligible for the study. Altogether, 203 cycles (median, four cycles) of PEF-G were delivered. The objective response rate was 58% in 43 assessable patients and 51% in the intent-to-treat population. Fourteen patients had stable disease. Grade 3 or 4 World Health Organization neutropenia occurred in 51% of cycles, thrombocytopenia in 28%, anemia in 7%, stomatitis in 5%, and diarrhea, and nausea, and vomiting in 2%. The median duration of response was 8.5 months. The median time to tumor progression was 7.5 months. The median survival was 11 months in the assessable population and 10 months in the intent-to-treat population. Clinical benefit was achieved in 22 (78%) of 28 assessable patients. CONCLUSION: PEF-G is a well-tolerated and safe regimen; it obtained a very high rate of durable responses and deserves further evaluation in a phase III trial.     

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin after incomplete (R1) resection of locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma

PURPOSE: To analyze, in a prospective clinical trial, the efficacy and toxicity of concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with incompletely (R1) resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2000 and 2002, a total of 30 pancreatic cancer patients were treated. Radiotherapy was performed in 15 patients up to a total dose of 45.0 Gy. An additional 15 patients received a total dose of 50.0 Gy according to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 50 reference point (equivalent to 45.0 Gy at the isodose, including 90% covering the former tumor area and local lymph nodes). Concurrent with radiotherapy, four applications of gemcitabine (300 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (30 mg/m(2)) were administered. After chemoradiotherapy, patients received four additional courses of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (50 mg/m(2)) on Days 1 and 15 in a 4-week cycle. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 10.6 months, and the median overall survival was 22.8 months. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rate was 81%, 43%, and 26%, respectively. After completion of chemoradiotherapy, distant metastasis was observed in 14 patients during a median follow-up of 15.0 months (range, 4.6-30.0). One patient developed both local recurrence and distant metastases. Hematologic toxicities were the most prominent side effects (leukopenia Grade 3 and 4 in 53% and 7% and thrombocytopenia Grade 3 and 4 in 33% and 7% of patients, respectively). Grade 3 and 4 GI toxicity was not observed. CONCLUSION: Postoperative chemoradiotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin after incomplete (R1) resection of pancreatic carcinoma is safe and feasible. A prolonged progression-free survival suggests high local efficacy, translating into a benefit of overall survival. On the basis of the favorable outcome of patients receiving gemcitabine/cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy, testing this combined treatment strategy appears warranted in a comparative trial.     

Phase II study of combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients na?ve to chemotherapy who had histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were entered. Gemcitabine was given at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 over 30 min on days 1, 8 and 15, and cisplatin was given at a dose of 80 mg/m2 over 150 min on day 1, in 28-day cycles. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were enrolled in this study between August 2001 and December 2003. There were no complete responses and 10 partial responses, resulting in an overall response rate of 26% (95% CI: 13.4-43.1%]. Twenty-one patients (55%) had stable disease, whereas 7 (18%) had progressive disease. The median time to progression was 4.2 months and the median overall survival was 7.5 months with a 1-year survival rate of 24%. Grade 3-4 toxicities included neutropenia in 26 patients (68%), thrombocytopenia in 19 (50%), anorexia in 15 (39%) and nausea in nine (24%). There was only one episode of neutropenic fever and there were no significant bleeding episodes or treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin administered by this schedule produced a good response rate associated with moderate but manageable toxicities in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.     

A multicenter, randomized, Phase II study of cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine as first-line treatment in patients with poor-prognosis small cell lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of combined cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine (PEG) and combined cisplatin plus gemcitabine (PG) in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage and poor-prognosis limited-stage small-cell lung carcinoma. METHODS: One hundred forty patients (70 patients in two arms) were randomized to receive either cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on Day 1, etoposide 50 mg/m2 on Days 1-3, and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 or cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on Day 1 plus gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8. Both regimens were recycled every 21 days. RESULTS: In total, 626 cycles were delivered (303 cycles of PEG and 323 cycles of PG), with a median of 4 cycles per patient in both arms. The objective response rate was 63% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 49-71%) for PEG and 57% (95%CI, 43-67%) for PG, with the suggestion of a higher complete response rate in the PEG arm (18.6% and 4.3%, respectively). A similar time to disease progression (6 months in the PEG arm and 7 months in the PG arm) and a similar median survival (9.5 months in the PEG arm and 10 months in the PG arm) were observed in both arms. The PEG regimen was associated with more severe hematologic toxicity in terms of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and a higher rate of treatment delays and dose reductions, whereas nonhematologic toxicities did not differ between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this Phase II randomized trial, the PEG regimen produced a higher complete response rate but more toxicity compared with the PG regimen in patients with extensive-stage or poor-prognosis, limited-stage small cell lung carcinoma.     

A phase II study of mitomycin C, cisplatin and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (MCF) in the treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site

Carcinoma of unknown primary site remains a common clinical diagnosis, accounting for between 5 and 10% of all cancer patients. Numerous combination chemotherapy regimens have been used in the management of carcinoma of unknown primary site, resulting in response rates of 0-48%. We present the results of a single centre phase II study of the use of the combination of mitomycin C (7 mg m(-2) on day 1 of cycles 1, 3 and 5) cisplatin (60 mg m(-2) on day 1) and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (300 mg m(-2) daily), MCF, delivered as a 21-day cycle, in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. Thirty-one patients with a diagnosis of carcinoma of unknown primary site were treated in Aberdeen Royal Infirmary between 1997 and 2001 with MCF. In total, 136 cycles of MCF were delivered (median of 5 cycles per patient). Toxicity was acceptable, with 19% grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, 16% grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia and 13% grade 3 or 4 nausea and vomiting. No cases of neutropenic sepsis were seen and there were no treatment-related deaths, however, six patients developed thrombotic complications. The overall response rate was 27% (CR 3%; PR 23%). Median time to progression was 3.4 months (95% CI 1.1-5.6 months) and median overall survival was 7.7 months (95% CI 5.7-9.8 months). Survival at 1 year was 28%, and at 2 years, 10%. MCF is a tolerable regimen with comparable toxicity, response rates and survival data to most platinum-based combination chemotherapy regimens in use for this devastating disease.     

Capecitabine and radiation therapy preceded and followed by combination chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the tolerance and toxicity of radiation therapy (RT) and capecitabine in patients with advanced, unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. To control micrometastatic disease, combination chemotherapy (gemcitabine and cisplatin) before and after combined modality therapy (CMT) was planned. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer were eligible. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 were administered on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle for two cycles. RT was then given to a dose of 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions. Patients were treated with capecitabine 1330 mg/m2 daily during RT. After CMT, two additional cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin completed the treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were treated. Eighteen patients completed CMT. One patient was removed from study during CMT for toxicity issues. Treatment delays and dose reductions were common during the final two cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin as a result of myelosuppression. Median survival was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.6, 13.7) for all 23 patients and 12.8 months (95% CI = 8.2, 18.9) for 18 patients without metastasis. CONCLUSION: Combined modality therapy with RT and capecitabine was well tolerated. Chemotherapy after CMT was difficult to complete owing to cumulative myelosuppression. Survival, response, and toxicity were comparable to infusional 5-fluorouracil and RT.     

A phase II study of cisplatin, etoposide and gemcitabine in an unfavourable group of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this phase II study was to determine toxicity, response rate, time to progression, and overall survival of cisplatin, etoposide and gemcitabine in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary tumour site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with no previous chemotherapy and not belonging to a treatable group were treated with cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 1, etoposide 70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2, and gemcitabine 700 mg m(2) on days 1 and 8, administered every 3 weeks. Stable or responding patients received a maximum of eight cycles. Twenty patients (67%) had more than three affected sites, and 25 patients (84%) had adenocarcinomas. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 36.6% (11 patients), including four complete responses (13.3%) and seven partial responses (23.3%), with a 95% confidence interval of 19.9-56. Median survival was 7.21 months and eight patients remained alive for >1 year. Myelosuppression was the most important toxicity, with grade 3-4 neutropenia in 18 patients (60%) in 32% of the cycles: eight patients had neutropenic fever and 10 patients had thrombopenia in 11% of cycles. No non-haematological grade 4 toxicity occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin, etoposide and gemcitabine is an active combination, inducing objective responses in a subset of heavily advanced disease patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. The role of adding gemcitabine to cisplatin and etoposide remains to be resolved as to the best schedule to diminish toxicity for the three-drug combination.     

Phase II trial of cisplatin, gemcitabine and treosulfan in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma

Gemcitabine plus treosulfan (GeT) is under investigation in metastatic uveal melanoma. In this phase II trial, cisplatin was added to a GeT regimen to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of two alkylating agents in combination with gemcitabine. Patients received 30 or 40 mg/m of cisplatin, 1000 mg/m of gemcitabine and 3000 mg/m of treosulfan on days 1 and 8. Therapy was repeated on day 29. A maximum of six cycles was administered. Nineteen patients were included in the trial, of whom 17 were evaluable for response. No objective response was observed; seven patients (41%) had stable disease and 10 (59%) progressed. The median progression-free survival of all 19 patients was 3.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-3.1]; the median overall survival was 7.7 months (95% CI, 1.9-13.8). Grade 3 and 4 thrombopenia and leucopenia occurred in eight and nine of the 19 patients, respectively. The addition of cisplatin to the GeT regimen results in excessive haematological toxicity without improvement in efficacy.     

动脉灌注结合全身静脉化疗治疗中晚期胰腺癌的临床观察

目的:观察动脉灌注结合全身静脉化疗治疗中晚期胰腺癌的疗效。方法:对12例中晚期胰腺癌患者选择性给予腹腔干动脉和/或肠系膜上动脉灌注吉西他滨和5-氟尿嘧啶,第8天再给予吉西他滨全身静脉化疗。3周为1个治疗周期,完成两个周期后复查CT评价疗效,观察临床受益反应、有效率、生存期及毒副反应。结果:全组患者临床受益率66.7%,有效率(CR PR)16.7%,中位生存时间6.7个月,6个月及9个月累积生存率分别为59.4%、29.6%。毒副反应多为Ⅰ°～Ⅱ°均能耐受。结论:动脉灌注结合全身静脉化疗治疗中晚期胰腺癌可获得较好的疗效,提高生存质量,毒副反应较小,值得临床推广应用。     

Randomized,multicenter, phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase II randomized study to assess the efficacy, with response as the primary endpoint, and the toxicity of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized to GP (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) day 2) or GC (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin AUC=5 day 2). Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized to GP and 58 to GC. A total of 533 cycles were delivered (264 GP, 269 GC), with a median of four cycles/patient. The objective response rate was 41.9% (95% C.I., 29.6-54.2%) for GP and 31.0% (95% C.I., 18.2-42.8%) for GC (P=0.29). No significant differences between arms were observed in median survival (10.4 months GP, 10.8 months GC) and median time to progression (5.4 months GP, 5.1 months GC). Both regimens were very well tolerated with no statistical differences between arms in grade 3/4 toxicities. When all toxicity grades were combined, emesis, neuropathy and renal toxicity occurred more frequently on the GP arm (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: GC arm did not provide a significant difference in response rate compared with GP arm, with better overall tolerability. Carboplatin could be a valid alternative to cisplatin in the palliative setting.     

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin in stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial

PURPOSE: This randomized, multicenter, phase III trial was conducted to compare the tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) in chemonaive patients with stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Secondary objectives were to evaluate response, duration of response, time to progressive disease (TTPD), and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were required to have stage IIIb or IV NSCLC, no previous chemotherapy, Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, bidimensionally measurable disease, and age 18-75 years. Randomized patients in both arms were given gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, followed on day 1 by cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (GP) or carboplatin AUC=5 (GC). Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days for a maximum of six cycles, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Enrolled patients in both arms, 87 in GP and 89 in GC, were well balanced for demographics and disease characteristics. Dose intensity was 93.8 and 92.7% for gemcitabine in GP/GC arms, respectively; 97.7% for cisplatin and 99.9% for carboplatin. Patients with at least one grade 3/4 toxicity excluding nausea, vomiting or alopecia, were 44% in GP arm and 54% in GC arm. The only significantly different toxicities were, nausea and vomiting in GP and thrombocytopenia in GC group. The overall response rates, median TTPD, response duration and survival were, 41/29%, 5.87/4.75 months, 7.48/5.15 months, and 8.75/7.97 months for GP and GC arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: GP and GC are effective and feasible regimens for advanced NSCLC, and are comparable in efficacy and toxicity. GC may offer acceptable option to patients with advanced NSCLC, especially those who are unable to receive cisplatin.     

低剂量持续静脉滴注吉西他滨一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床研究

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

Phase II study of gemcitabine combined with uracil-tegafur in metastatic pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE: The single agent gemcitabine is the standard first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. Recent studies of a combination of gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) revealed that survival data were superior to those with gemcitabine or 5-FU alone. The administration of oral uracil-tegafur (UFT) is more convenient and simulates the effect of a continuous or protracted infusion of 5-FU. Therefore, we conducted a phase II study of gemcitabine combined with UFT in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients and assessed the efficacy and the toxicity of the regimen. METHODS: Twenty-two pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients (18 males, 4 females) were enrolled from December 2000 to September 2002. The regimen consisted of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) once weekly for 3 consecutive weeks, and oral UFT 390 mg/m(2)/day (in 3 divided doses) on days 1-14. The cycle was repeated every 28 days. The objective tumor response was evaluated after 2 courses of chemotherapy. RESULTS: 82 cycles were administered in total, with a median of 3 cycles per patient (range 1-6 cycles). The median age was 52 years (range 28-69 years). Response to treatment could be assessed in all patients. The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% CI, 7.8-45.4) with no complete response and 5 partial responses. Four patients (18.2%) had stable disease and 13 patients (59.1%) had a progression. The median time to progression was 4.2 months (range 0.9-13.6). The median overall survival was 5.8 months (range 0.5-13.6). Of 10 patients eligible for the assessment of clinical benefit response, 4 (40%, 95% CI 12.2-73.8) showed clinical benefit. Among 21 patients with baseline CA 19-9 levels, CA 19-9 was reduced by 50% or more in 12 patients (57.1%). The chemotherapy was generally well tolerated and the most common grade 3-4 toxic side effects were neutropenia (18.2%), anemia (4.5%), and diarrhea (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and UFT in metastatic pancreatic cancer was tolerable for most patients but showed modest response rates and clinical benefit. However, a randomized phase III study should be conducted in order to further test the efficacy of the regimen.     

A phase II trial of weekly intravenous gemcitabine and cisplatin with continuous infusion fluorouracil in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We reported previously that the combination of gemcitabine and continuous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) has activity in renal cell carcinoma. Based upon in vitro synergy of gemcitabine/cisplatin and 5-FU/cisplatin, we hypothesized that the addition of cisplatin could improve the objective response rate of gemcitabine and 5-FU with manageable toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and a Cancer and Leukemia Group B performance status of 0 to 2 were enrolled. Ten had received prior systemic therapy. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 600 mg/m2 and cisplatin 20 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Continuous infusion 5-FU was given from day 1 to day 21. RESULTS: No complete responses and one partial response were observed for an objective response rate of 5% (95% confidence interval 0% to 24%). Two minor responses (25% to 50% regression) were also observed. The median overall survival was 10 months with 35% of patients surviving at 1 year. Grade 3-4 myelosuppression (mostly thrombocytopenia) occurred in nine (43%) patients. Nausea/vomiting and neuropathy were dose-limiting in an additional five patients. Only 51% of treatment cycles were delivered on time and without dose reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cisplatin to gemcitabine and 5-FU did not improve the objective response rate of gemcitabine and 5-FU alone and added to the toxicity. Due to the cumulative toxicity, further trials with this cisplatin-containing regimen in RCC are not indicated.     

Phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in locally advanced/metastatic oesophageal cancer

Palliative chemotherapy for inoperable/metastatic oesophageal cancer has limited activity. This study assesses the feasibility and activity of gemcitabine and cisplatin in this group of patients. In total, 42 patients with locally advanced/metastatic squamous or adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus were treated with gemcitabine 1250 mg m(-2) days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 75 mg m(-2) day 1 in a 21-day cycle. Interim safety analysis was carried out after the first 19 patients suggested significant toxicity. The dose of gemcitabine was subsequently reduced to 1000 mg m(-2). Patients were assessed for toxicity and response. The median number of treatment cycles per patient was 4 (range 1-6). Grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 37% of cycles; however, there was only one episode of neutropenic fever. Nonhaematological toxicities included fatigue, nausea and vomiting. Among 32 patients eligible for response, there were three complete responses and 16 partial responses (overall response rate of 45%); nine patients had stable disease. Median survival was 11 months. The response rate appears to be greatest in those with squamous carcinoma compared to adenocarcinoma (71 vs 33%, P=0.036). The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin in this schedule has manageable toxicity and significant activity in patients with locally advanced/metastatic oesophageal cancer and is worthy of further study.     

吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗蒽环类和（或）紫杉类化疗后晚期乳腺癌疗效观察

目的观察吉西他滨(泽菲)联合顺铂治疗蒽环类和(或)紫杉类化疗后的转移性乳腺癌的疗效和毒副作用。方法蒽环类和(或)紫杉类化疗后的转移性乳腺癌患者29例,采用吉西他滨(泽菲)1000 mg/m2,d1、d8,静滴;顺铂30 mg/m2,d1、d8,静滴,21 d为1个周期。结果29例患者中,CR 1例,PR 11例,SD 9例,PD 8例,客观有效率为41.4%,中位生存期13.2个月,中位肿瘤进展时间5.4个月。毒副作用主要为中性粒细胞和血小板减少。结论吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗蒽环类和(或)紫杉类化疗失败的转移性乳腺癌有效率较高,有生存优势,毒副作用可耐受。     

A Phase II study of gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients with metastatic pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic pancreatic carcinoma have a poor survival. Chemotherapy with gemcitabine is the standard first-line treatment. In a Phase II trial at one academic cancer center, the clinical safety and activity of combining gemcitabine and docetaxel were assessed. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, advanced pancreatic carcinoma were eligible. Bidimensionally measurable disease or evaluable disease with an elevated tumor marker, good performance status, and adequate organ function were required. Patients received docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) on Day 1 and gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. Ciprofloxacin was administered on Days 8-18. Dose attenuations were made as indicated for toxicity. Patients were restaged radiographically after every two cycles. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were enrolled, and 33 patients were evaluable for response. There were 23 men and 10 women among the evaluable patients. The median age was 63 years, and all patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Three patients had received prior chemoradiation for postresection adjuvant therapy. One hundred forty-six cycles of chemotherapy were administered, and 5 cycles (3%) in 4 patients (12%) were complicated by febrile neutropenia. Twenty percent and 11% of patients on Day 8 and Day 15 doses of gemcitabine, respectively, were omitted for toxicity. The objective response rate was 18%, and the median survival was 8.9 months (95% confidence interval, 5.2-11.2 months). The 1-year survival rate was 29%. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma is well tolerated and is associated with moderate activity despite aggressive dose reduction. Whether combination regimens are more effective than single agents in the treatment of patients with pancreatic carcinoma awaits evaluation in randomized studies.     

Phase I-II study of gemcitabine and fluorouracil as a continuous infusion in patients with pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities, and efficacy of gemcitabine combined with fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable, locally advanced, nonresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer were candidates for the study. 5-FU was given via protracted venous infusion (PVI) at a fixed dosage of 200 mg/m2/d, and gemcitabine was administered weekly for 3 consecutive weeks every 4 weeks. The initial dose of gemcitabine was 700 mg/m2 and was escalated in increments of 100 mg/m2/wk until the appearance of severe toxicity. Measurements of efficacy included the following: response rate; clinical benefit response, which is a composite measurement of pain, performance status, and weight loss; time to disease progression; and survival. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients received a total of 109 courses. Dose-limiting toxicity, which consisted of grade 4 neutropenia with fever (one patient) and grade 4 thrombocytopenia (one patient), was observed in two of three patients treated with 1,100 mg/m2/wk of gemcitabine. On the basis of these results, the MTD of gemcitabine with 5-FU via PVI on this schedule was 1,000 mg/m2. Sixteen patients developed grade 3-4 neutropenia, and three patients developed grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia. Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity consisted of diarrhea (two patients) and cutaneous toxicity, asthenia, edema, mucositis, and nausea and vomiting (one patient each). The delivered dose-intensity of gemcitabine was similar at the 1,000 mg/m2 dose level (599 mg/m2/wk) as at the 900 mg/m2 (601 mg/m2/wk) dose level. For this reason, the recommended dose of gemcitabine for phase II evaluation on this schedule was 900 mg/m2. Five patients had objective responses (one complete response and four partial responses; response rate, 19.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 39.3), and 10 patients had improvement of disease-related symptoms (45%; 95% CI, 24 to 67). After a median follow-up of 17.7 months (range, 7.8 to 24.8 months), the median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.3 to 11.4) and 10.3 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 12.5), respectively. CONCLUSION: The MTD of gemcitabine when combined with 5-FU via PVI on this schedule was 1,000 mg/m2/ wk; however, on the basis of administered dose-intensity, the recommended dose for additional investigation is 900 mg/m2. This combination chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and showed promising antitumor activity in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.