Elderly subgroup analysis of a randomized phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (TAX 326)

BACKGROUND: Controversy continues over whether elderly patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) should receive platinum-based chemotherapy. TAX 326 reported improved survival with docetaxel-cisplatin (DC) versus vinorelbine-cisplatin (VC) for advanced NSCLC. DC and docetaxel-carboplatin (DCb) were better tolerated than VC. We analyzed the efficacy and toxicity in patients ages < 65 and > or = 65 years. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive, TNM Stage IIIB-IV NSCLC patients were randomized to DC (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), d1 q3w), DCb (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 6 mg/mL.min, d1 q3w), or VC (vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2), d1, 8, 15, and 22 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2), d1 q4w). RESULTS: Of 1218 patients, 401 were age > or = 65 years (149/118/134 DC/DCb/VC arms). In the elderly, median survival was 12.6 versus 9.9 months, 1-year survival was 52% versus 41%, 2-year survival was 24% versus 17% for DC versus VC, respectively. DCb survival results were similar to those for VC: median, 9.0 months; 1-year, 38%; 2-year, 19%. Survival outcomes were similar between elderly and younger patients across treatment arms. Compared with younger patients, elderly patients reported moderately higher incidences of NCI CTC (version 1.0) Grade 3-4 asthenia, infection, and pulmonary toxicities across treatment arms, and diarrhea and sensory neurotoxicity for cisplatin-containing arms. Most hematologic toxicities occurred with similar incidences between elderly and younger patients, although neutropenia was slightly increased in elderly patients. CONCLUSION: First-line docetaxel-cisplatin chemotherapy showed similar activity in elderly and younger patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC; elderly patients tolerated docetaxel-platinum well despite experiencing slightly more toxicity than younger patients.     

Phase III trial of gemcitabine and carboplatin versus mitomycin,ifosfamide, and cisplatin or mitomycin,vinblastine, and cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND: The authors compared gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The primary objective was survival. Secondary objectives were time to disease progression, response rates, evaluation of toxicity, disease-related symptoms, World Health Organization performance status (PS), and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Three hundred seventy-two chemotherapy-na?ve patients with International Staging System Stage III/IV NSCLC who were ineligible for curative radiotherapy or surgery were randomized to receive either 4 cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8, and 15) plus carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve, 5; given on Day 1) every 4 weeks (the GC arm) or MIC/MVP every 3 weeks (the MIC/MVP arm). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in median survival (248 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 236 days in the GC arm) or time to progression (225 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 218 days in the GC arm) between the 2 treatment arms. The 2-year survival rate was 11.8% in the MIC/MVP arm and 6.9% in the GC arm. The 1-year survival rate was 32.5% in the MIC/MVP arm and 33.2% in the GC arm. In the MIC/MVP arm, 33% of patients responded (4 complete responses [CRs] and 57 partial responses [PRs]) whereas in the GC arm, 30% of patients responded (3 CRs and 54 PRs). Nonhematologic toxicity was comparable for patients with Grade 3-4 symptoms, except there was more alopecia among patients in the MIC/MVP arm. GC appeared to produce more hematologic toxicity and necessitated more transfusions. There was no difference in performance status, disease-related symptoms, or QoL between patients in the two treatment arms. Fewer inpatient stays for complications were required with GC. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study failed to demonstrate any difference in efficacy between the newer regimen of GC and the older regimens of MIC and MVP. Cancer 2003;98:542-53.     

Effect of chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer on patients' quality of life. A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not have curative treatment options; therefore, treatments should prolong survival and improve quality of life (QoL). We compared the effect on QoL of two docetaxel-platinum regimens with vinorelbine-cisplatin. METHODS: QoL was assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and the general EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) in 926 chemotherapy-na?ve patients with stages IIIB to IV NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive: docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2, every 3 weeks (DC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin 6 mg/ml min, every 3 weeks (DCb); or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/week plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2, every 4 weeks (VC). RESULTS: Overall, patients treated with either docetaxel-containing regimen had better QoL than VC-treated patients (LCSS global item "QoL today": P=0.064 for DC and P=0.016 for DCb versus VC; EQ-5D global item "health state today": P=0.016 for DC and P<0.001 for DCb versus VC). DC-treated patients experienced improved pain relief compared with VC (P=0.033), whereas pain relief with DCb and VC was similar. Patients treated with either docetaxel regimen had more favorable changes in performance status (P=0.065 for DC and P<0.001 for DCb versus VC) and mean weight loss (0.06 kg, gain of 0.08 kg, and 2.27 kg for DC, DCb, and VC, respectively; P<0.001 for both DC versus VC and DCb versus VC). CONCLUSION: The TAX 326 study shows that docetaxel-platinum regimens relieve symptoms and improve QoL in patients with advanced NSCLC. DCb and DC were superior to VC in all QoL outcomes assessed except for the difference between DC and VC in LCSS "QoL today", which was not significant.     

Bolus versus 5-day continuous infusion of cisplatin with mitomycin and vindesine in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase III prospective randomised trial of the Italian Oncology Group for Clinical Research (GOIRC)

The aim of this randomised trial was to compare the efficacy of bolus versus continuous infusion cisplatin combined with mitomycin C and vindesine (MVP) for chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 97 patients (49 given bolus cisplatin-arm A and 48 given continuous infusion cisplatin--arm B) were evaluable for response. In arm A, 2 patients achieved a complete response (CR), 21 achieved a partial response (PR), whilst in arm B, 14 patients achieved a PR (29%) (P = 0.07). Median survival was 8 months in both arms. Myelosuppression was the most frequent and severe toxicity, with a higher incidence of grade 3-4 leucopenia in arm A when compared with arm B (44% versus 25%). In conclusion, there is no advantage for a cisplatin 5 day infusion in the MVP regimen.     

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.     

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.     

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project.

PURPOSE: To compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB (limited to T4 for pleural effusion and N3 for supraclavicular lymph nodes) or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The end points were the evaluation of quality of life (QoL), response rates, survival, and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seven patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days, or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3,000 mg/m(2), and mesna on day 1 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days. The whole-blood cell count was repeated on day 1 in both arms and weekly in the GC arm before each gemcitabine administration. RESULTS: No major differences in changes in QoL were observed between the two treatment arms. The objective response rate was 38% in the GC arm compared with 26% in the MIC arm (P =.029). The median survival time was 8.6 months in the GC arm and 9.6 months in the MIC arm (P =.877, log-rank test). Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly worse in the GC arm (64% v 28%, P <.001), whereas grade 3 and 4 alopecia was reported more commonly in the MIC arm (39% v 12%, P <. 001). CONCLUSION: We report an increased response rate without changes in QoL and a similar overall survival, time to progression, and time to treatment failure for the GC when compared with the MIC regimen in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.     

Phase III randomized trial comparing moderate-dose cisplatin to combined cisplatin and carboplatin in addition to mitomycin and ifosfamide in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer

A phase III randomized trial was conducted in patients with metastatic NSCLC, to determine if, in association with mitomycin (6 mg m(-2)) and ifosfamide (3 g m(-2)), the combination of moderate dosages of cisplatin (60 mg m(-2)) and carboplatin (200 mg m(-2)) - CarboMIP regimen - improved survival in comparison with cisplatin (50 mg m(-2)) alone - MIP regimen. A total of 305 patients with no prior chemotherapy were randomized, including 297 patients assessable for survival (147 in the MIP arm and 150 in the CarboMIP arm) and 268 patients assessable for response to chemotherapy. All but eight (with malignant pleural effusion) had stage IV disease. There was a 27% (95% CI, 19-34) objective response (OR) rate to MIP (25% of the eligible patients) and a 33% (95% CI, 24-41) OR rate to CarboMIP (29% of the eligible patients). This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.34). Duration of response was not significantly different between both arms. There was also no difference (P = 0.67) in survival: median survival times were 28 weeks (95% Cl, 24-32) for MIP and 32 weeks (95% Cl, 26-35) for CarboMIP, with respectively 1-year survival rates of 24% and 23% and 2-year survival rates of 5% and 2%. The main toxicities consisted in emesis, alopecia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia, that were, except alopecia, significantly more severe in the CarboMIP arm. Our trial failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in response or survival when patients with metastatic NSCLC were treated, in addition to ifosfamide and mitomycin, by combination of moderate dosages of cisplatin and carboplatin instead of moderate dosage of cisplatin alone. The results support the use of a moderate dose (50 mg m(-2)) of cisplatin in combination with ifosfamide and mitomycin for the chemotherapy of this disease.     

Phase I study of cisplatin and docetaxel plus mitomycin C in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel, cisplatin and mitomycin C are some of the active drugs used in the treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose of the three drugs in combination for such patients. METHODS: Chemotherapy-native patients with metastatic NSCLC were enrolled in this study. The doses of docetaxel and cisplatin were fixed at 60 and 80 mg/m2, respectively. It was planned to increase the dose of mitomycin C from 4 to 6 and 8 mg/m2. All drugs were administered on day 1 and repeated every 3-4 weeks. RESULTS: All six patients received 60 mg/m2 of docetaxel and 80 mg/m2 of cisplatin, three of them with 4 mg/m2 of mitomycin C (level 1) and the other three with 6 mg/m2 of mitomycin C (level 2). Two of the three level 2 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in first cycle: febrile neutropenia and grade 3 hyponatremia. Based on these data, the MTD was concluded to be 60 mg/m2 for docetaxel, 80 mg/m2 for cisplatin and 6 mg/m2 for mitomycin C. Evaluation of the data from all of the cycles, however, showed that four of the six patients experienced DLTs. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of mitomycin C to docetaxel and cisplatin resulted in relatively high toxicities. It was impossible to use a high enough dose of mitomycin C to improve the survival of NSCLC patients. We therefore concluded that further evaluation of this combination is unwarranted.     

A randomized study of two vindesine plus cisplatin-containing regimens with the addition of mitomycin C or ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

The current trial was carried out to assess the survival enhancement achieved, if any, by adding ifosfamide to vindesine and cisplatin (IVP) in contrast to mitomycin plus vindesine and cisplatin (MVP). Between June 1986 and September 1988, 110 patients were randomly allocated to receive either ifosfamide (3 g/m2 plus 3 g/m2 of mesna) or mitomycin 8 mg/m2, on days 1, 29, and 71 only. In both arms vindesine was given 3 mg/m2 weekly X 5 then every 2 weeks. In the MVP arm, 120 mg/m2 of cisplatin was administered on days 1 and 29 and then every 6 weeks, whereas in the IVP arm 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin was given on the same time schedule. One hundred three patients were evaluable for response and toxicity and 56% of patients had Mountain's Stage IV disease. The response rate was 26% (14/53 patients) in the MVP arm (95% confidence interval, 14%-39%) and 20% (ten of 50 patients) in the IVP arm (95% confidence interval, 10%-34%). Neither the response rate nor the median survival times were significantly different, although more nephrotoxicity was produced in the MVP arm, grade 1+ in 43% versus 26% in IVP arm (P = 0.04). Results obtained from this study fail to demonstrate that mitomycin or ifosfamide have a synergistic effect on the efficacy of the vindesine/cisplatin combination.     

Mitomycin C plus vindesine plus etoposide (MEV) versus mitomycin C plus vindesine plus cisplatin (MVP) in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III multicentre randomised trial

PURPOSE:: To compare mitomycin C plus vindesine plus etoposide (MEV) vs.mitomycin C plus vindesine plus cisplatin (MVP) in the treatmentof stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS:: 204 patients were entered in a phase III multicentre randomisedtrial from June 1990 to December 1994 and stratified accordingto the ECOG performance status (0–1 vs. 2). MVP was givenin the following dosages: mitomycin C 8 mg/m² + vindesine 3mg/m² + cisplatin 100 mg/m² i.v. day 1 and vindesine 3 mg/m²i.v. day 8 with cycles repeated every 4 weeks. MEV was givenin the following dosages: mitomycin C 8 mg/m² + vindesine 3mg/m² i.v. day 1 and etoposide 100 mg/m² i.v. days 1 to 3 withcycles repeated every 3 weeks. For both treatments a maximumof 6 cycles was planned. Response and toxicity were evaluatedaccording to WHO. Subjective responses were assessed by numericalscales. Analyses were made on the basis of intent to treat. RESULTS:: The objective response rate was 21.4% (1 CR + 21 PR among 103patients) in the MEV and 28.7% (1 CR + 28 PR among 101 patients)in the MVP arm (P=0.48). Symptoms were similar in the two arms.196 patients progressed and 182 died. The median times to progressionwere 10 weeks (95% CI 9–12) and 12 weeks (95% CI 10–15)and median survivals were 29 weeks (95% CI 25–36) and28 weeks (95% CI 25–35) in the MEV and MVP arms, respectively.The relative risks of progressing and of dying were 0.89 (95%CL 0.66–1.20) and 0.96 CL 0.71–1.30), respectively,for patients receiving MVP as compared with those receivingMEV at multivariate analysis adjusted by sex, age, histologictype, number of metastatic sites, performance status at entry,and centre. CONCLUSIONS:: In the present study, no significant dfferences were observedin response rate, survival or palliation of symptoms betweenthe MEV and MVP regimens, while toxicity was significantly morefrequent and severe with MVP. Thus, MEV should be considereda reasonable alternative to the MVP regimen in the treatmentof stage IV NSCLC. chemotherapy, non-cisplatin-containing, regimen, stage IV NSCLC     

Gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized study of the London Lung Cancer Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III randomized trial compared two chemotherapy regimens, gemcitabine plus carboplatin and mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin, in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The regimens were compared with regard to effects on survival, response rates, toxicity, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had previously untreated stage IIIB or IV NSCLC suitable for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Randomly assigned patients were to receive four cycles, each at 3-week intervals, of carboplatin area under the curve of 5 on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GCa) or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3g/m(2), and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1 (MIC). RESULTS: Between February 1999 and August 2001, 422 patients (GCa, n = 212; MIC, n = 210) were randomly assigned in the United Kingdom. The majority of patients received the intended four cycles (GCa, 64%; MIC, 61%). There was a significant survival advantage for GCa compared with MIC (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0. 93; P = .008). Median survival was 10 months with GCa and 7.6 months with MIC (difference, 2.4 months; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.0), and 1-year survival was 40% with GCa and 30% with MIC (difference, 10%; 95% CI, 3% to 18%). Overall response rates were similar (42% for GCa v 41% for MIC; P = .84). More thrombocytopenia occurred with GCa (P = .03), but this was not associated with increased hospital admission or fatality. GCa caused less nausea, vomiting, constipation, and alopecia and was associated with fewer admissions for administration and better quality of life. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced NSCLC, GCa chemotherapy was shown to be a better-tolerated treatment that conferred a survival advantage over MIC.     

A randomized trial comparing vindesine plus cisplatin with mitomycin C, vindesine plus cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Thirty-six evaluable patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer were randomized to treatments involving vindesine (3 mg/m2 X 3) plus cisplatin (80-120 mg/m2) versus mitomycin C (8 mg/m2) plus vindesine (2 mg/m2 X 3) plus cisplatin (80-120 mg/m2). The response rate for the vindesine and cisplatin combination was 29%, versus 47% for the mitomycin C, vindesine and cisplatin combination. There was no evidence of improved duration of response in patients given mitomycin C, vindesine and cisplatin. The median survival for patients given mitomycin C, vindesine and cisplatin was 11.4 months, compared with 10.3 months for those given vindesine and cisplatin. Toxicity was almost comparable for the two treatments. The utility of addition of mitomycin C to vindesine and cisplatin should be evaluated in further investigations.     

Duration of chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized trial of three versus six courses of mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin.

PURPOSE: So far there are no published data on optimal duration of chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); six or more courses are usually recommended. We have carried out a multicenter randomized trial comparing three versus six courses of chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIb or IV NSCLC were randomized at start of treatment to receive either three or six courses of mitomycin 8 mg/m(2) (courses 1, 2, 4, and 6), vinblastine 6 mg/m(2), and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) (MVP) every 21 days. Treatment was stopped early in both arms for progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Key end points were overall survival, duration of symptom relief, and quality-of-life assessment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 with lung cancer-specific module QLQ-LC13. RESULTS: Three hundred eight patients were randomized. Seventy-two percent of the 155 patients randomized to three courses completed treatment. In the 153 patients randomized to six courses, 73% completed three courses and 31% six courses. Median survival was 6 versus 7 months, respectively, and 1-year survival 22% versus 25% (P =.2). Median duration of symptom relief was 4.5 months (both arms), and 8% versus 18% had continuing symptom relief (P =.4). Quality-of-life parameters were the same or improved for patients randomized to only three courses, including significantly decreased fatigue (P =.03) and a trend toward decreased nausea and vomiting (P =.06). CONCLUSION: Our findings show no evidence for additional clinical benefit by continuing MVP chemotherapy beyond three courses. This challenges current orthodoxy of six courses or more. Further trials addressing duration of chemotherapy are now warranted, particularly with newer chemotherapy schedules.     

Cisplatin versus carboplatin in combination with mitomycin and vinblastine in advanced non small cell lung cancer. A multicenter, randomized phase III trial

BACKGROUND: In advanced not selected NSCLC chemotherapy achieved an advantage of approximately 1-2 months on median survival versus best supportive care. Chemotherapy seems to improve symptoms control, even if randomised studies with quality of life as first endpoint are lacking and often chemotherapy toxicity compromises the frail cost/benefit ratio. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact on QoL, substituting cisplatin, a pivot drug in NSCLC therapy, with carboplatin, an analogue with an improved toxicity profile. The combination of cisplatin with Mitomycin and Vinblastine was one of the most frequently used in the palliative setting at the time of design of our study. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive MVP regimen (Mitomycin-C 8 mg/m2 d1, Vinblastine 4 mg/m2 d 1-8, Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 d1) or MVC regimen (Mitomycin-C 8 mg/m2 d1, Vinblastine 4 mg/m2 d 1-8, Carboplatin 300 mg/m2 d1) every 3 weeks. The QoL was evaluated by the Spitzer QL-Index and by the EORTC QLQ-C30+LC 13 questionnaires before chemotherapy, after one cycle, after three cycles, and then every 6 weeks in the first 6 months and every 3 months thenafter. RESULTS: From September 1994 to July 1997, 153 consecutive patients were randomized to MVP (75 patients) or MVC arm (78 patients). Despite difficulties in carrying out and analysing QoL items in such patients, the global QoL evaluated by the Spitzer's questionnaire suggested an advantage for MVC regimen (P=0.05) and a significant difference was observed in global health subdomain (P=0.04). The disease-related symptoms improved with time, and the benefits lasted for the entire treatment period. When evaluated with the EORTC questionnaire there was significantly less nausea and vomiting (P=0.0001), appetite loss (P=0.01), insomnia (P=0.03), constipation (P=0.01) and peripheral neuropathy (P=0.01) in favour of MVC, and a trend for less hair loss (P=0.05). The advantage lasted for all the duration of chemotherapy. No differences were observed in global quality of life subdomain (P=0.40) between the two regimen. QoL was the first endpoint and the statistical power was inadequate to assess other parameters. However, we reported a response rate of 43.1 and 38.6%, respectively, in MVP and MVC arm (P=0.59) and a median survival of 10.2 and 7.2 months, respectively, for cisplatin and carboplatin arm (P=0.39). CONCLUSIONS: The carboplatin containing regimen (MVC) has a significant better toxicity profile than the cisplatin containing (MVP) regimen as proven both by the EORTC questionnaires and by the WHO toxicity data reported by physicians. No significant differences in terms of response rate, time to progression and overall survival were observed between the two regimen. The two chemotherapy regimen showed a similar effectiveness in symptom palliation when evaluated with C30 addendum of EORTC QOL questionnaire. With the Spitzer's questionnaires a trend towards an improved quality of life index was observed during treatment with the carboplatin combination in comparison to the cisplatin combination. This difference, however, was not observed when the global quality of life was evaluated with the EORTC patients compiled questionnaires. A carboplatin containing regimen with better toxicity profile and a similar potentiality for symptoms control offers an option in comparison to similar cisplatin containing combinations in the palliative treatment of advanced NSCLC.     

Survival advantage for carboplatin substituting cisplatin in combination with vindesine and mitomycin C for stage IIIB and IV squamous-cell bronchogenic carcinoma: a randomized phase III study

This communication represents the definitive report of a randomized phase III study comparing cisplatin and carboplatin, in combination with vindesine and mitomycin C in stage IIIB and IV squamous-cell bronchogenic carcinoma. A total of 221 patients entered the study and were randomized into two arms. Of these, 114 patients (109 evaluable for activity) were randomized to arm A, receiving cisplatin 120 mg/m(2), mitomycin C 8 mg/m(2) and vindesine 3 mg/m(2) per cycle; 107 patients (101 evaluable for activity) were randomized to arm B receiving carboplatin 500 mg/m(2) with the same doses of mitomycin C and vindesine per cycle. Patients with progressive disease (PD) were excluded from the study after the 2nd cycle, and those with stable disease (SD), partial response (PR) and complete response (CR) received six cycles of chemotherapy (or less in case of early progression). Patients were stratified according to the clinical stage (IIIB vs. IV), performance status (0+1 vs. 2+3) and tumor histological grade (I+II vs. III). In the cisplatin arm two patients (1.9%) achieved a CR, 38 (34.9%) a PR, 45 (41.2%) a SD and 24 (22.0%) had PD; the overall response rate was 40/109 (36.8%). In the carboplatin arm five patients (5.0%) achieved a CR, 31 (30.7%) a PR, 40 (39.6%) a SD, and 25 (24.7%) had PD; the overall response rate was 36/101 (35.7%). No statistically significant difference in response rate was present between the two arms, and the response rate was not influenced by performance status, histological grade or clinical stage. The Kaplan-Meyers curves displayed a significant advantage both for time to progression (P=0.005) and overall survival (P=0.008) for patients in the carboplatin arm. The advantage for patients receiving carboplatin instead of cisplatin appeared evident in univariate setting for patients with a good performance status and clinical stage IV, and occurred irrespectively of tumor histological grade; response duration and survival of responders was identical in the two arms. Patients achieving a stable disease survived longer in the carboplatin than in the cisplatin arm (P=0.012). Thus, substitution of cisplatin by carboplatin in the combination chemotherapy regimen, although more hematologically toxic (but less emetogenic) resulted in a similar response rate, but a significantly longer time to progression and overall survival.     

A phase III trial of mitomycin C alone versus mitomycin C, vinblastine, and cisplatin for metastatic squamous cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND. In an effort to confirm the efficacy of mitomycin C against metastatic squamous cell lung carcinoma and to compare the efficacy of single-agent therapy with a combination containing cisplatin, the authors conducted a randomized Phase III trial of mitomycin C alone versus mitomycin C, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP). METHODS. All patients had advanced squamous cell lung carcinoma, and survival was the primary end point. There were 133 eligible patients who received either mitomycin C alone (n = 64) or MVP (n = 69). The two groups were similar with respect to performance score, disease status, age, sex, and stage. RESULTS. The major objective response rates were 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18-41%) and 43% (95% CI, 32-55%) for mitomycin C alone and MVP, respectively (P = 0.1). The median time to progression was 83 days for mitomycin C alone, compared with 119 days for MVP (P = 0.026). The median survival time was 114 days for mitomycin C and 163 days for MVP (P = 0.09). The 1-year survival rates were equivalent. Myelosuppression was the major toxicity, and there were significantly greater leukocyte nadirs with MVP therapy (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION. Mitomycin C has antitumor activity against squamous cell lung carcinoma when used alone or in combination with MVP. The regimen containing cisplatin had marginally increased activity that did not translate into a clinically significant survival advantage.     

A randomized phase III trial of oral S-1 plus cisplatin versus docetaxel plus cisplatin in Japanese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: TCOG0701 CATS trial

BackgroundPlatinum-based two-drug combination chemotherapy has been standard of care for patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary aim was to compare overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced NSCLC between the two chemotherapy regimens. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response, safety, and quality of life (QoL).Patients and methodsPatients with previously untreated stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 and adequate organ function were randomized to receive either oral S-1 80 mg/m²/day on days 1–21 plus cisplatin 60 mg/m² on day 8 every 4–5 weeks, or docetaxel 60 mg/m² on day 1 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m² on day 1 every 3–4 weeks, both up to six cycles.ResultsA total of 608 patients from 66 sites in Japan were randomized to S-1 plus cisplatin (n = 303) or docetaxel plus cisplatin (n = 305). OS for oral S-1 plus cisplatin was noninferior to docetaxel plus cisplatin [median survival, 16.1 versus 17.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 1.013; 96.4% confidence interval (CI) 0.837–1.227]. Significantly higher febrile neutropenia (7.4% versus 1.0%), grade 3/4 neutropenia (73.4% versus 22.9%), grade 3/4 infection (14.5% versus 5.3%), and grade 1/2 alopecia (59.3% versus 12.3%) were observed in the docetaxel plus cisplatin than in the S-1 plus cisplatin. There were no differences found in PFS or response between the two arms. QoL data investigated by EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13 favored the S-1 plus cisplatin.ConclusionOral S-1 plus cisplatin is not inferior to docetaxel plus cisplatin and is better tolerated in Japanese patients with advanced NSCLC.Clinical trial numberUMIN000000608.     

Random prospective study of vindesine versus vindesine plus high-dose cisplatin versus vindesine plus cisplatin plus mitomycin C in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

In this phase III randomized study, 124 evaluable patients with unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized to vindesine v cisplatin (120 mg/m2) plus vindesine v cisplatin (60 mg/m2) plus vindesine plus mitomycin C. The objective response rate for cisplatin and vindesine was 27% v 20% for cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin C, and 14% for vindesine alone (P = .25 for cisplatin and vindesine v vindesine). The percentage of patients having stable disease (no progression for a minimum of 3 months) was 20% (cisplatin and vindesine), 27% (cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin C), and 26% (vindesine alone), respectively. The median survival time for vindesine was 18 weeks, compared with 26 weeks for cisplatin and vindesine and 17 weeks for cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin C. Overall survival was not statistically different for cisplatin plus vindesine v vindesine (P = .65). There was no evidence for improved duration of remission or survival of responders with the cisplatin (120 mg/m2) and vindesine arm. This study failed to demonstrate sufficient therapeutic benefit for cisplatin and vindesine (+/- mitomycin C) compared with single-agent vindesine to justify the increased cost and toxicity of these combination regimens.     

Clinical study of combination chemotherapy with mitomycin C, vindesine and cisplatin (MVP therapy) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Thirty-seven patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer were treated with the combination chemotherapy (MVP therapy) with mitomycin C (8 mg/m2), vindesine (3 mg/m2 X 2) and cisplatin (60 mg/m2). The partial responders were 13 cases (35%), and the median survival time was 271 days. In this study the cisplatin dose was less than in any other report of "MVP" therapy. But both the response rate and the median survival time did not differ from those reported elsewhere. The side effects (bone marrow suppression, renal toxicity, etc.) were mild, and did not prevent the continuance of this therapy. Thus, we could repeat more than 6 courses of "MVP" therapy for 8 patients. Nowadays, it is difficult to obtain complete responders with any chemotherapy for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer. To prolong lives of patients and maintain good quality of life, we recommend chemotherapy with low toxicity in often-repeatable courses.