Phase II trial of carboplatin plus oral etoposide for elderly patients with small-cell lung cancer.

A phase II trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the Egorin''s carboplatin dosing formula with 14-day oral etoposide in 38 elderly patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The overall response rate was 81%. Median survival times were 15.1 months for 16 limited-disease (LD) and 8.6 months for 22 extensive-disease (ED) patients. Myelosuppression was the principal side-effect. This regimen is an active regimen in the treatment of elderly SCLC patients.     

Phase I study of weekly alternating therapy with irinotecan/cisplatin and etoposide/cisplatin for patients with small-cell lung cancer

The combination of IP (irinotecan/cisplatin) has been shown to confer a survival benefit compared with EP (etoposide/cisplatin) in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Based on this and potential synergy from sequential inhibition of topoisomerases I and II, we conducted a phase I study to assess the feasibility of weekly therapy alternating IP and EP. The doses of EP were fixed (etoposide 60 mg/m2 on days 1-3 and cisplatin 20 mg/m2 on day 1). The dose of irinotecan was escalated in serial cohorts at 3 dose levels: 80, 90, and 100 mg/m2 on day 1. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given on days 2-5 and days 4-7 after IP and EP, respectively. Patients with limited-stage SCLC received chemoradiation during weeks 4-6 with etoposide 120 mg/m2 on days 1-3, cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1, and thoracic radiation 1.5 Gy twice daily in 30 fractions. Patients received 12 weeks of therapy. To evaluate dose escalation in subsequent cohorts, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was initially assessed during weeks 1-3 of treatment. Characteristics of the 18 patients accrued are as follows: performance status 0/1, n = 9; female sex, n = 9; extended-stage SCLC, n = 16; and median age, 53 years. Four patients treated at irinotecan dose level 1 (80 mg/m2), 6 patients at dose level 2 (90 mg/m2), and 6 patients at dose level 3 (100 mg/m2) did not experience DLT in weeks 1-4 and completed therapy without major incident. The only 2 patients to experience DLT during weeks 1-4 were treated at dose level 2. Both were hospitalized during week 4 and subsequently died. However, patients had already been accrued at dose level 3 and tolerated therapy well. Therefore, the trial design was modified to assess DLT during weeks 1-4, and additional patients were cautiously added to the dose level 2 and 3 cohorts. Analysis of summary toxicity data resulted in a recommendation that dose level 3 be used in phase II based on the probability of DLT of 16% (95% CI, 3%-29%). Responses in 16 evaluable patients include complete response in 1 patient, partial response in 14 patients, and minor response in 1 patient. With the exception of the 2 deaths, the therapy was well tolerated and active. Phase II evaluation of the regimen in patients with extensive-stage SCLC is ongoing.     

Phase II trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the activity and toxicity of the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin in the treatment of chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients with measurable stage IV carcinoma of the urothelium were enrolled onto this trial. Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) was administered intravenously for 30 to 60 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Cisplatin was administered after gemcitabine on day 1 of each cycle. The first 11 patients received an initial cisplatin dose of 100 mg/m(2). Due to the hematologic toxicity observed in several of these patients, the dose was reduced to 75 mg/m(2) in the remaining 35 patients. Patients were treated with six cycles, unless disease progression or severe toxicity necessitated earlier discontinuation. RESULTS: Ten of the 46 patients achieved a complete response and nine showed a partial response. The overall response rate was 41%. The median time to treatment failure was 5.5 months. The median survival was 14.3 months, and the 1-year survival probability was 54%. Most of the toxicities were hematologic and, in general, easily manageable. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin is active in the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer in chemotherapy-naive patients and has an acceptable clinical safety profile. Studies are under way to further define the place of gemcitabine in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer.     

Phase II study of cisplatin/etoposide and endostar for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

Purpose  

To investigate the efficacy and safety of endostar, a novel recombinant human endostatin, plus cisplatin, and etoposide in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC).     

A phase I study of gemcitabine/cisplatin/etoposide in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE: To define the maximum tolerated dose and toxicity of combined cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine in patients with small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We undertook a phase I study in patients with either extensive small-cell lung cancer with or without prior chemotherapy, or limited disease who had progressed or recurred despite prior treatment. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, etoposide 50-100 mg/m2 i.v. day 1 followed by oral administration of 50-100 mg/m2 days 2 5, and gemcitabine at either 800 or 1000 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8, on a 3 weekly cycle. RESULTS: We treated 20 patients, 14 at the 800 mg/m2 gemcitabine dose level, and six at the 1000 mg/m2 dose level. The protocol initially used an etoposide dose of 100 mg/m2 etoposide daily (i.v. day 1 and orally days 2-5), but the first two patients died of septic complications. With reduction of the etoposide dose to 50 mg/m2 daily x 5, the regimen was well tolerated. At this etoposide dose, neutropenia, mucositis, and gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in one patient at each of the two gemcitabine dose levels. In addition, one patient receiving gemcitabine at the 1000 mg/m2 level experienced a possible allergic reaction. The overall response rate was 54%. Patients on gemcitabine at the 800 mg/m2 level who had not received prior chemotherapy had the highest response rate, at 75%. CONCLUSION: The recommended phase II doses for this regimen are cisplatin 75 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, etoposide 50 mg/m2 i.v. day 1 and orally days 2-5, and gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8. Future trials should further examine the optimal relative doses and schedule of gemcitabine and etoposide.     

Randomised phase II trial of irinotecan plus cisplatin vs irinotecan, cisplatin plus etoposide repeated every 3 weeks in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer

Patients with previously untreated extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer were treated with irinotecan 60 mg m(-2) on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 60 mg m(-2) on day 1 with (n=55) or without (n=54) etoposide 50 mg m(-2) on days 1-3 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support repeated every 3 weeks for four cycles. The triplet regimen was too toxic to be considered for further studies.     

Phase II trial of gemcitabine and irinotecan in previously treated patients with small-cell lung cancer

Purpose To investigate the activity of gemcitabine combined with irinotecan in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients and methods SCLC patients who had experienced treatment failure with one prior chemotherapy were eligible. Patients were required to have a performance status of 0–2 and adequate organ function. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) and irinotecan (150 mg/m²) on days 1 and 15 of a 28 day cycle. Results Thirty-one patients were enrolled and 30 patients received protocol treatment (10 had refractory disease and 20 had sensitive disease). The median age was 64 years, and the median performance status was one. An objective response was obtained in 36.7% (95% CI: 17.3.1–56.0%) of the patients. The median overall survival time was 14.4 months, and the 1 year survival rate was 51%. The chief grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (3%), diarrhea (9%), and liver dysfunction (3%). The only grade 4 toxicities were one case of grade 4 neutropenia (3.3%) and one case of grade 4 thrombocytopenia (3.3%). Conclusion Gemcitabine plus irinotecan is an active regimen that seems to be well-tolerated by patients with previously treated SCLC.     

Phase I study of etoposide, cisplatin and irinotecan triplet in patients with advanced-stage small-cell lung cancer

Aim The irinotecan–cisplatin combination has emerged as a new standard for the treatment of advanced-stage small-cell lung cancer (AS-SCLC). To move forward we developed a 3-day regimen of cisplatin, etoposide and irinotecan.Methods Successive cohorts of AS-SCLC patients were treated with irinotecan administered as a single 1-h infusion in combination with fixed doses of cisplatin (20 mg/m²) and etoposide (75 mg/m²), both given for three consecutive days (ECI regimen). Irinotecan dose was escalated from 60 mg/m² by 40-mg/m² increments. At mid-step between the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the previous dose level, patients were randomized for the day of administration of irinotecan (day 1 vs day 3).Results A total of 36 AS-SCLC patients received 166 courses of treatment at four dose levels. The MTD of irinotecan was 140 mg/m² (three dose-limiting toxicities, DLTs), and the recommended optimal dose (ROD) 120 mg/m² (two DLTs). DLTs were febrile neutropenia and grade 3 diarrhea. Other toxicities were mild. No difference in toxicity was seen between the two time schedules. A 77% (95% CI 63.25–90.75%) response rate was recorded among 31 evaluable patients and the median survival was 12 months.Conclusions The ECI regimen was well tolerated and showed considerable activity in patients with AS-SCLC. Phase II/III evaluation is ongoing.The results of this trial were presented at ECCO 12, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 2003.     

Phase I/II trial of pimasertib plus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

The selective MEK1/2 inhibitor pimasertib has shown anti‐tumour activity in a pancreatic tumour model. This phase I/II, two‐part trial was conducted in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPaCa) (NCT01016483). In the phase I part, oral pimasertib was given once daily discontinuously (5 days on/2 days off treatment) or twice daily continuously (n = 53) combined with weekly gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) in 28‐day cycles to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of pimasertib. In the phase II part, patients were randomised to pimasertib (RP2D) or placebo plus weekly gemcitabine (n = 88) to investigate progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The RP2D was determined to be 60 mg BID. PFS and OS outcomes did not indicate any treatment benefit for pimasertib over placebo in combination with gemcitabine (median PFS 3.7 and 2.8 months, respectively, HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.58–1.42: median OS 7.3 vs. 7.6 months, respectively). KRAS status did not influence PFS or OS. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 91.1% and 85.7% for pimasertib/gemcitabine and placebo/gemcitabine respectively, but there was a higher incidence of ocular events with pimasertib/gemcitabine (28.9% vs. 4.8% for placebo/gemcitabine). In conclusion, no clinical benefit was observed with first‐line pimasertib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with mPaCa.     

Phase II trial of gemcitabine/irinotecan in refractory or relapsed small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine and irinotecan have shown a broad range of activity in solid tumors, including small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), with a synergistic effect on SCLC cell lines. The objective of this phase II trial was to evaluate the activity of gemcitabine/irinotecan in patients with relapsed SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients (15 with refractory disease and 20 with sensitive disease) who had experienced treatment failure with 1 previous chemotherapy regimen were recruited. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle for a maximum of 6 cycles. Eligibility criteria included an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and signed informed consent. RESULTS: All 35 patients were assessable for response, survival, and toxicity. Best objective responses exhibited were as follows: complete response in 2 patients (6%), partial response in 4 (11%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21%-61%), stable disease in 7 (20%; 95% CI, 9%-45%), and progressive disease in 22 (63%; 95% CI, 17%-57%). Median time to disease progression was 3.4 months and median survival was 5.8 months. The 1-year survival rate was 34%. Toxicity was mainly hematologic. Grade 3/4 nausea and vomiting occurred in 9% of patients, neuropathy occurred in 2.8%, and diarrhea occurred in 14.3%. Survival was not significantly different for patients with refractory versus sensitive disease. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine/irinotecan was shown to be active as second-line chemotherapy, especially in patients with refractory disease.     

Phase II trial of combination chemotherapy with cisplatin, carboplatin and etoposide in stage IIIB and IV small-cell lung cancer

Purpose: A phase II trial combining cisplatin, carboplatin and etoposide was conducted in previously untreated patients with stage IIIB and IV small-cell lung cancer, in an attempt to increase response rates and prolong survival. Methods: Previously untreated patients with small-cell lung cancer, with measurable disease, aged ≤ 72 years, performance status ≤ 2, and adequate hematologic, hepatic and renal function were enrolled in the study. They were treated with 80 mg/m² cisplatin on day 1, 100 mg/m² carboplatin on days 2, 3 and 8, and 50 mg/m² etoposide on days 1, 2, 3 and 8. Results: A total of 46 patients (20 with stage IIIB and 26 with stage IV disease) were enrolled in the study. A total of 186 courses of chemotherapy were given, and the dose was reduced in 27 courses (15%). The chemotherapy was repeated for four or more courses in 30 patients. There were 10 complete responses and 32 partial responses, for a total response rate of 91% (95% confidence interval, 79% to 98%). The median survival time and 2-year survival rates were 18 months and 22% for stage IIIB disease, and 14 months and 15% for stage IV disease. Major side effects were hematologic: leukopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or more occurred in 48%, 46%, and 43% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The three-drug regimen of cisplatin, carboplatin and etoposide is feasible and active against small-cell lung cancer. Received: 21 May 1997 / Accepted: 11 September 1997     

Phase II study of irinotecan plus cisplatin induction followed by concurrent twice-daily thoracic irradiation with etoposide plus cisplatin chemotherapy for limited-disease small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) chemotherapy demonstrated a promising outcome with a high complete response (CR) rate in chemotherapy-na?ve patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We evaluated the efficacy of induction IP chemotherapy followed by concurrent etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) chemotherapy with twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy (TDTRT) in limited-disease SCLC (LD-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2001 and May 2003, 35 chemotherapy-na?ve patients with LD-SCLC were enrolled. Thirty-three patients (94%) were male, and 29 (83%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The median age was 63 years. Treatment consisted of two 21-day cycles of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 and irinotecan 80 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8 followed by two 21-day cycles of cisplatin 60 mg/m2 i.v. on days 43 and 64, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 i.v. on days 43 to 45 and 64 to 66, with concurrent TDTRT of total 45 Gy beginning on day 43. RESULTS: All 35 patients were assessable for response. The objective response rate was 97% (CR, 3; partial response [PR], 31) after induction chemotherapy and 100% (CR, 15; PR, 20) after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). After a median follow-up of 26.5 months, the median survival was 25.0 months (95% CI, 19.0 to 30.9) with 1- and 2-year overall survival rates of 85.7% and 53.9%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.9 months with a 1- and 2-year PFS of 58.5% and 36.1%, respectively. The most common toxicities were grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in 68% of patients during induction chemotherapy and 100% during CCRT. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 20% of patients during induction chemotherapy and 60% during CCRT. CONCLUSION: IP induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent TDTRT with EP chemotherapy showed a promising activity with favorable 1- and 2-year survival rates. Based on the favorable outcome in this trial, this regimen should be evaluated in a large phase III trial.     

Phase II randomized study comparing the toxicity profile of gemcitabine plus cisplatin with gemcitabine plus oral etoposide in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE: This is a randomized phase II study designed to compare the toxicity profile of a non-platinum-based with a platinum-based regimen in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Eighty-nine chemotherapy-na?ve patients were randomized either to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2, 30-min infusion on days 1, 8 and 15) and oral etoposide (50 mg, days 1-14; GE group) or gemcitabine at the same schedule and cisplatin (75 mg/m2 on day 15; GP group). The primary endpoint is toxicity, and secondary endpoints include response rate, survival outcome and quality of life (QOL). Results: The incidence of WHO grade 3 or 4 anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was 29, 44 and 22% (GE group), and 28, 49 and 23% (GP group), respectively (p = 0.75, 0.95 and 0.87, respectively). The rate of grade 2 or above nausea was numerically higher in the GP arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (GE 15.5%, GP 27.7%, p = 0.20). The rate of vomiting in the GE and GP arms was 20.0 and 20.5%, respectively (p = 0.96). However, subjective changes in QOL scores on nausea and vomiting were significantly higher in the GP arm (p = 0.001). Other symptoms including sore mouth and hair loss were significantly higher in the GE arm (p = 0.003 and 0.007, respectively). There were also significant differences observed in emotional (p = 0.014), cognitive (p = 0.028) and social functioning (p = 0.034) in favor of GP. The differences in tumor response (35.5 and 46.5% for GE and GP, respectively) were not significantly different. Median time to disease progression (33.8 and 40.7 weeks, respectively) and overall survival (41.4 and 57.3 weeks, respectively) were of borderline significance in favor of the GP arm (p = 0.055). Conclusion: This toxicity profile of GE is similar to GP, but the apparent inferior efficacy may discourage further investigation.     

Phase II study of irinotecan plus cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy for the patients with limited-disease small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: A recently conducted randomized, phase III study that compared irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) with etoposide plus cisplatin for the patients with extensive disease SCLC revealed a superior median survival rate and a superior 2-year survival rate for the IP combination therapy. Yet there have been few such reports on the patients suffering with limited disease SCLC (LD-SCLC). We conducted a phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of administering IP with concurrent radiotherapy for the patients with LD-SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty chemotherapy-na?ve patients with LD-SCLC were enrolled in our study. The patients were treated with 40 mg/m(2) irinotecan on days 1, 8 and 15 and with 60 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day 1 every 4 weeks until a maximum of six cycles was delivered. Once-daily radiotherapy included the administration of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. After completion of the radiation therapy, the dose of irinotecan was increased to 60 mg/m(2). RESULTS: The response rate was 85% (CR: 6; partial response, PR: 11). The median survival was 20.0 months (95% CI: 15.6-24.4 months) with 1-year and 2-year overall survival rates of 85 and 35%, respectively. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 12 months (95% CI: 6.2-18.1 months) with a 1-year PFS of 36%. The major hematologic toxicities of this regimen were neutropenia (60%), leukopenia (55%), anemia (20%) and thrombocytopenia (10%). The non-hematologic toxicities were nausea/vomiting (55%), diarrhea (35%) and dysphagia (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that IP with concurrent radiotherapy is an effective and tolerable regimen for the treatment of LD-SCLC and these findings warrant further investigation.     

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

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

Prospective randomized phase III trial of etoposide/cisplatin versus high-dose epirubicin/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer

High-dose epirubicin plus cisplatin was compared with the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Four hundred two previously untreated patients with SCLC were randomized to receive etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 or epirubicin 100 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days for a total of 6 cycles. Patients were stratified according to treatment center and extent of disease (limited disease, n = 207; extensive disease, n = 195). Patients with limited disease were treated with thoracic radiation therapy after completion of chemotherapy, and those who exhibited a complete response were advised to receive prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint was survival, and secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), response, toxicity, and costs. Patient characteristics were generally well balanced in the 2 arms, even though more patients in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm had > 5% weight loss and poor Karnofsky performance index compared with the etoposide/cisplatin arm. One hundred thirty-four patients (66.3%) in the etoposide/cisplatin arm and 126 (63.0%) in the epirubicin/cisplatin arm received all 6 planned cycles of chemotherapy. Response rate, TTP, and survival did not differ significantly between the 2 arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and toxic deaths occurred more frequently in the etoposide/cisplatin arm. Epirubicin/cisplatin showed a similar activity with a slightly lower toxicity profile than the reference regimen of etoposide/cisplatin. The epirubicin/cisplatin regimen may be recommended in the treatment of SCLC.     

Randomised phase II trial of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine vs gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with pretreated metastatic breast cancer

Background:

An increasing proportion of patients are exposed to anthracyclines and/or taxanes in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Re-exposure in the metastatic stage is limited by drug resistance, thus evaluation of non-cross-resistant regimens is mandatory.

Methods:

Anthracycline-pretreated patients were randomly assigned to three gemcitabine-based regimens. Chemotherapy consisted of gemcitabine 1.000 mg m⁻² plus vinorelbin 25 mg m⁻² on days 1+8 (GemVin), or plus cisplatin 30 mg m⁻² on days 1+8 (GemCis), or plus capecitabine 650 mg m⁻² b.i.d. orally days 1–14 (GemCap), q3w. The primary end point was response rate.

Results:

A total of 141 patients were recruited on the trial. The overall response rates were 39.0% (GemVin), 47.7% (GemCis) and 34.7% (GemCap). Median progression-free survival was estimated with 5.7, 6.9 and 8.3 months, respectively. Corresponding median survival times were 17.5 (GemVin), 13.0 (GemCis) and 19.4 months (GemCap). Neutropenia ⩾grade 3 occurred in 16.7% (Gem/Vin), 4.4% (GemCis) and 0% (Gem/Cap), whereas non-haematological toxicities were rarely severe except grade 3 hand–foot syndrome in 2.0% of the GemCap patients (per patient analysis).

Conclusions:

This randomised phase II trial has revealed comparable results for three gemcitabine-based regimens regarding treatment efficacy and toxicity. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy appears to be a worthwhile treatment option for pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer.     

Phase II trial of irinotecan and cisplatin with early concurrent radiotherapy in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: A Phase II trial of irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) with early concurrent radiotherapy was performed in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC) to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: For untreated LD-SCLC patients, irinotecan (60 mg/m2, Days 1, 8, and 15) and cisplatin (40 mg/m2, Days 1 and 8) were repeated every 4 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles. Thoracic radiotherapy of 1.8 Gy/day was begun on Day 1 of the second chemotherapy cycle, up to a total of 45 to 54 Gy. Prophylactic cranial irradiation (30 Gy in 10 fractions) was performed on patients with a complete response (CR). RESULTS: Thirty-three LD-SCLC patients were enrolled. The median age was 60 years and 31 patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 1. Twelve (36.4%) patients had N3 disease. The response rate was 87.9%, with a CR rate of 45.5%. At a median follow-up period of 27 months the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 14.4 and 26.1 months, respectively, with 2-year PFS and OS rates of 26.8% and 54.9%. The dominating toxicity was neutropenia, with grade 3-5 of 81.8%. The most common grade 3-5 nonhematologic toxicities were diarrhea (21.2%), anorexia (21.2%), and fatigue (21.2%). Grade 3-5 radiation esophagitis and pneumonitis occurred in 18.2% and 9.1% of patients, respectively. There were 2 treatment-related deaths from sepsis and radiation pneumonitis. CONCLUSIONS: IP with early concurrent radiotherapy was effective and tolerable in untreated LD-SCLC.