Role of gemcitabine in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: review of the main phase II and phase III trials

Marked advances in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been made thanks to new agents. Among these agents, gemcitabine appears to be a major compound in advanced stage NSCLC chemotherapy. To start with, several phase III trials (conducted in Europe and in the USA) studied the gemcitabine/cisplatin combination (GC): US study protocois compared GC to cisplatin alone, to the standard treatment (etoposide/cisplatin) or to platinum/taxane doublets; in these studies, as a result of treatment with GC, a higher survival rate was observed. A study conducted in Italy, which is undergoing analysis, observes GC versus paclitaxel/carboplatin versus cisplatin/vinorelbine. In addition, in newer clinical protocols, it was observed that gemcitabine combined with taxanes or with vinorelbine demonstrated efficacy at least equal to that of combinations with platinum analogs. Newer agents acting on epithelial growth factor are also undergoing evaluation.     

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

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

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

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

吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌临床观察

目的观察吉西他滨联合顺铂治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的近期疗效及毒副反应。方法吉西他滨1．2／m^2,第一、八天;顺铂25mg／m^2,第二～四天,21天为1周期,两周期以上评价疗效。结果可评价疗效43例,其中CR1例,PR19例,NC20例,PD3例,总有效率CR PR46．5％。主要毒副反应为骨髓抑制、恶心、呕吐。结论吉西他滨联合DDP治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌疗效高,毒副反应轻,可以作为治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的一线治疗方案。     

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

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

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

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

Vinorelbine for non-small cell lung cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cisplatin plus gemcitabine on days 1 and 4 every 21 days for solid tumors: Result of a dose-intensity study

Summary Background: Three and 4-week cisplatin-gemcitabine schedules have shown similar dose-intensity (DI) and activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The 3-week schedule is generally preferred because it enables better treatment compliance. To improve DI and compliance further, we delivered gemcitabine plus cisplatin over 4 days every 21 days. Methods: Patients with any stage NSCLC or epithelial neoplasms and an ECOG PS ≤2 were given gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on days 1 and 4 plus cisplatin 70 mg/m² on day 2 of a 21-day cycle. Minimax design was used and a received DI for gemcitabine of ≥580 mg/m²/wk was considered successful. Results: Thirty-nine patients (34 NSCLC, 5 epithelial neoplasias) were enrolled. SWOG grade 3–4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in 17.9% and 12.8% of patients, respectively. Nonhematological toxicity was minimal. Twenty-eight (18%) of 158 cycles required dose modifications and/or delays. Twenty-five patients received a gemcitabine dose intensity of ≥580 mg/m²/wk. The received DIs were 601.8 mg/m²/wk for gemcitabine and 21.0 for cisplatin, with a relative DIs of 90.3% and 90.1%, respectively. The response rate of 27 evaluable patients with NSCLC was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.3 to 62.7%). Conclusions: The shorter schedule of gemcitabine on days 1 and 4 plus cisplatin on day 2 produces an effective DI and a toxicity profile comparable to that of weekly regimens.     

Chemotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer: non-cisplatin based combinations

The rationale for the association of two cytotoxic agents is based on obtaining the best possible synergy with the lowest level of interactive toxicity. The original mechanism of action of gemcitabine makes this drug a logical choice in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSSLC). Numerous phase I and phase II studies assessing the use of gemcitabine-based combinations in NSSLC are currently underway. These associations without cisplatin will quite naturally be positioned as second line therapy for NSSLC. The high response rates, however, also make these combinations particularly interesting candidates for first-line therapy, and they are shortly to be compared in phase II trials with traditional cisplatin-based treatment regimens. Protocols using cisplatin-based associations already have proven efficacy, but the same is expected to apply to other protocols without cisplatin, particularly those using innovative drugs such as gemcitabine, vinorelbine and taxanes. The different studies already concluded, or those currently underway, therefore constitute a basis for developing sequential treatment strategies in NSSLC. Gemcitabine is one of the new tools available to practitioners to improve patient prognosis in terms of clinical benefits and improved survival.     

Phase II trial of alternating intravenous and oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Summary Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several platinum-based doublets have been tested in phase II/III trials with equivalent results in terms of tumour response and survival. Our study was designed to evaluate activity, tolerability and convenience of alternating intravenous (i.v.) and oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin in advanced NSCLC. Forty chemo-naive patients with stage IV or relapsed unresectable disease and good performance status were enrolled to receive i.v. cisplatin 40 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 plus i.v. vinorelbine 25 mg/m² on day 1, every 3 weeks. Oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m² was given at home on day 5, without checking of blood cell count. A total of 175 treatment cycles were delivered. The overall response rate was 30% (one complete, 11 partial responses). Median time to progression and overall survival were 5 and 10 months, respectively. The main toxicity was haematological, with grade 3–4 neutropenia observed in 75% of patients, without febrile neutropenia. Non-haematological toxicity was mild. This schedule of cisplatin and vinorelbine treatment showed a good toxicity profile and an efficacy similar to other standard regimens. Oral vinorelbine could be administered safely at home on day 5.     

Increasing-dose gemcitabine plus low-dose cisplatin in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Gemcitabine, a pyrimidine analog active in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), is widely used with cisplatin. The potential activity of the combination has not been fully assessed: gemcitabine is not used at its maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and cisplatin shows a clearly dose-related toxicity. This trial was designed to assess the MTD and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of low-dose cisplatin and increasing gemcitabine dose. CHEMOTHERAPY: cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, gemcitabine starting at 1400 mg/m on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. Subsequent levels were increased by 200 mg/m2. Forty-two patients with metastatic NSCLC were enrolled (37 males; median age 61 years; squamous cell carcinoma 19 patients; performance status 2, in 13 patients; 18 patients had significant weight loss). MTD was found to be 2600 mg/m2 because of DLT in three of six patients: two neutropenic fever and one massive bleeding. Overall toxicity was generally mild consisting mainly of neutropenia. Asthenia was the most common non-hematological effect. Overall response rate was 19 out of 41 patients (46.3%) and median survival was 31 weeks. We conclude that the recommended dose for a phase II dose is gemcitabine 2400 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 as a 30-min infusion when given with cisplatin 50 mg/m2.     

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

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

Gemcitabine in bladder cancer

Gemcitabine, a deoxycytidine analogue, is an inhibitor of DNA synthesis. With myelosupression being its most serious toxicity, gemcitabine has, however, a favourable toxicity profile. It was tested in urothelial bladder cancer at different stages of the disease. In superficial Bacillus Calmette-GuErin (BCG)-resistant bladder cancer as well as in BCG-intolerant patients, intravesical gemcitabine instillation has demonstrated a significant activity. In the adjuvant setting, the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) has proved to be a feasible protocol. In locally advanced and metastatic disease, GC is admitted as a standard alternative first-line regimen. Gemcitabine is also an interesting choice for unfit patients when used as a single treatment or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents as carboplatin or taxanes. This article reviews most of the studies performed in order to promote the usefulness of gemcitabine in bladder cancer.     

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

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

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

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

Docetaxel (taxotere) in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Docetaxel is a new semi-synthetic anticancer agent derived from bacatin III of the needles of the European yew Taxus baccata. Docetaxel has a novel mechanism of action since it binds to tubulin inducing its polymerization and promoting stable microtubule formation. Several differences exist between docetaxel and paclitaxel: (i) broader activity of docetaxel against freshly explanted human tumors than paclitaxel; (ii) a 2-fold higher affinity than paclitaxel; (iii) 2.5-fold more potent than paclitaxel as an inhibitor of cell replication and (iv) docetaxel acts at the S-phase whereas paclitaxel at the G(2)/M phases of the cell cycle. Preclinical and phase II studies revealed that docetaxel is active against NSCLC. In chemotherapy-na ve patients with NSCLC response rates ranged from 19% to 54% with a median duration of survival ranging from 6.3 months to 11 months, and 1-year survival ranging from 21% to 71%. Docetaxel as single agent provided a survival as well as a clinical benefit over BSC in untreated patients with NSCLC. Docetaxel has been efficiently combined with cisplatin (ORR 33%-46%), carboplatin (ORR 30%-48%), vinorelbine (ORR 20%-51%), gemcitabine (ORR 37%-47%), with a median survival ranging from 5-14 months. A preliminary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial comparing docetaxel/CDDP with docetaxel/gemcitabine revealed that the two regimens had comparable activity in terms, of response rates, duration of response, TTP and overall survival; however, the docetaxel/gemcitabine combination has a most favourable toxicity profile compared to docetaxel/CDDP. Docetaxel has also demonstrated radiosensitizing properties and encouraging results have been achieved in combination with irradiation. Finally, docetaxel has shown an important activity in previously-treated patients with NSCLC with ORR ranging from 16% to 25% with a median survival ranging from 7.2 months to 10.5 months. Randomized trials revealed that second-line docetaxel confers a survival benefit over either BSC or ifosfamide/vinorelbine in pretreated patients with NSCLC.     

吉西他滨联合卡铂治疗老年晚期非小细胞肺癌

目的观察吉西他滨加卡铂联合方案治疗老年晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的疗效和不良反应。方法老年和非老年组各47例晚期NSCLC接受化疗治疗,方案为吉西他滨1000mg/m2静脉滴注30min第1、8天,卡铂AUC5静脉滴注,第1天,21～28d为一个周期,每例患者至少化疗2周期。结果老年组与非老年组有效率分别为40.4%与44.7%,无显著性差异(P<0.05);不良反应主要为骨髓抑制。结论吉西他滨加卡铂联合方案治疗老年晚期NSCLC有效率高,毒性可以耐受,值得临床推广。