Functional polymorphisms of the microsomal epoxide hydrolase gene: a reappraisal on a early-onset lung cancer patients series

As concomitant chemoradiotherapy for stage III NSCLC is associated with survival advantage in comparison to a sequential approach, we conducted a phase III randomised study aiming to determine the best sequence and safety of chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT), using a regimen with cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR). Unresectable stage III NSCLC patients received CDDP (60 mg/m(2)), GEM (1g/m(2), days 1 and 8) and VNR (25mg/m(2), days 1 and 8) with reduced dosage of GEM and VNR during radiotherapy (66Gy). Two cycles of CT with radiotherapy followed by two further cycles of CT alone were administered in arm A or the reverse sequence in arm B. The study was prematurely closed for poor accrual due to administrative problems. Forty-nine eligible patients were randomised. Response rates and median survival times were, respectively 57% (95% CI: 36-78%) and 17 months (95% CI: 9.3-24.6 months) in arm A and 79% (95% CI: 64-94%) and 23.9 months (95% CI: 13.3-34.5 months) in arm B (p>0.05). Chemotherapy dose-intensity was significantly reduced in arm A. Grade 3-4 oesophagitis occurred in 5 patients. One case of grade 5 radiation pneumonitis was observed. In conclusion, chemoradiotherapy with CDDP, GEM and VNR appears feasible as initial treatment or after induction chemotherapy. Consolidation chemoradiotherapy seems less toxic with a better observed response rates and survival although no valid conclusion can be drawn from the comparison of both arms.     

A randomized trial of three cisplatin-containing regimens in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a study of the Umbrian Lung Cancer Group

Survival in patients with locally advanced (stage III Mo) and metastatic (Ml) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is short. Phase II studies have reported objective responses ranging from 20% to 60% using cisplatin-based chemotherapeutic regimens, yet few have shown improvement in median survival. In our phase II pilot studies with cisplatin (CDDP) and etoposide (VP-16), we observed a 26% response rate; with CDDP, VP-16, and mitomycin-C, a 38% response rate was obtained in advanced NSCLC patients. A total of 156 consecutive patients with locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC were randomized to one of three treatment arms to determine whether the chemotherapy protocols had any effect on response rate and median survival in a large, randomized study. Arm 1 consisted of CDDP (120 mg/m2 x 3 weeks); arm 2, of CDDP (120 mg/m2) and VP-16 (100 mg/m2 given i.v. on days 1-3), repeated every 3 weeks; and arm 3, of CDDP (120 mg/m2) and VP-16 (100 mg/m2 on days 1-3) given every 3 weeks, plus mitomycin C (10 mg/m2 on days 1, 21, and 42, then every 6 weeks, for a maximal dose of 100 mg). After 71 patients had been enrolled in the study, we stopped accrual in the CDDP arm due to a lack of response [1 complete response (CR) in 24 patients; 4%] and continued enrollment in the two combination-chemotherapy arms. In the CDDP/VP-16 arm a 30% response rate [1 CR, 18 partial responses (PRs)] was obtained, and in the CDDP/VP-16 mitomycin C arm a 26% response rate (4 CRs, 11 PRs) was seen among a total of 150 evaluable patients. Responses were observed in 31% of patients with favorable performance status (PS) (ECOG 0-1) vs 14% in patients with a poor PS (ECOG 2-3). Of patients with locally advanced disease (III Mo), 17 (33%) obtained an objective response, compared with 20 patients (20%) with metastatic disease. Median survival was 18 weeks in the CDDP arm, 35 weeks in the CDDP/VP-16 arm, and 37 weeks in the CDDP/VP-16/mitomycin C arm. The median survival in the multimodal chemotherapy arms was significantly greater than that obtained with CDDP alone. Toxicity was predominantly myelosuppression in the mitomycin C-containing arm (27%, wtto grade 3-4). Our study shows that combination chemotherapy using CDDP/VP-16 is active and safe in the treatment of advanced NSCLC patients with a good performance status. The addition of mitomycin C did not improve the therapeutic response.     

Efficacy of the combination of cisplatin with either gemcitabine and vinorelbine or gemcitabine and paclitaxel in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomised trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG 0101).

BACKGROUND: Triplet regimens were occasionally reported to produce a higher response rate (RR) than doublets in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was conducted to assess (i) whether the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to either gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) or GEM and paclitaxel (PTX) significantly prolongs overall survival (OS) and (ii) to compare the toxicity of PTX-containing and VNR-containing combinations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stage III or IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to (i) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and VNR 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GV arm); (ii) GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and PTX 125 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GT arm); (iii) GV plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGV arm); and (iv) GT plus CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (PGT arm). Treatments were repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: A total of 433 (stage III, 160; stage IV, 273) patients were randomly allocated to the study. RR was 48% [95% confidence interval (CI), 42% to 54%] for triplets and 35% (95% CI, 32% to 38%) for doublets (P = 0.004). Median progression-free survival (6.1 versus 5.5 months, P = 0.706) and median OS (10.7 versus 10.5 months, P = 0.379) were similar. CDDP significantly increased the occurrence of severe neutropenia (35% versus 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% versus 4%), anaemia (9% versus 3%), vomiting (6% versus 0.5%), and diarrhoea (6% versus 2%). Conversely, frequency of severe neutropenia (30% versus 17%) and thrombocytopenia (11% versus 6%) was significantly higher with VNR-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Adding CDDP to GV or GT significantly increased RR, but did not prolong the OS of patients. Among doublets, the GT regimen should be preferred in view of its better safety profile.     

Triplet chemotherapy with cisplatin, gemcitabine and vinorelbine for malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND: The incidence of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is expected to increase due to delayed control of occupational exposure to asbestos in Japan. We investigated the use of triplet combination chemotherapy with cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) for the treatment of Japanese patients with MPM. METHODS: From December 2000 to August 2003, 12 patients received the following regimen: CDDP 40 mg/m(2), GEM 800 mg/m(2) and VNR 20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks. Among the 12 patients, six selected patients underwent an extrapleural pneumonectomy (EP) after a median of three cycles of triplet chemotherapy. RESULTS: The overall response rate for all patients and the response rate for chemotherapy-naive cases were 58 and 67%, respectively. The median survival time and survival rate at 2 years for all patients were 11 months and 50%, respectively. The 2-year survival rates for the patients with and without EP were 83.3 and 16.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Triplet chemotherapy with CDDP, GEM and VNR was thus found to be highly effective for patients with MPM and its toxicity was manageable. A multi-institutional phase II trial is now being planned to establish the effectiveness of this new regimen in chemotherapy-naive patients with MPM.     

Cisplatin, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase I study

Purpose: The objective of this study was to determine the maximally tolerable doses (MTDs) of vinorelbine (VNR) and gemcitabine (GEM) when combined with a fixed dose of cisplatin (CDDP).Patients and methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with stage IIIB–IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received a fixed dose of CDDP (50 mg/m²) and escalating doses of VNR (starting from 20 mg/m²) and GEM (starting from 800 mg/m²) on days 1 and 8, every three weeks. The single escalation of GEM alone, by 200 mg/m² at each step, was initially planned up to a dose of 1,200 mg/m², to be followed by increments of the VNR dose of 5 mg/m² at each step.Results: Thirty-one patients were enrolled at five different dose levels. The escalation was stopped at level 4 (GEM 1,200 mg/m² and VNR 25 mg/m²) since two of six patients of this cohort showed dose-limiting neutropenia at treatment cycle 1. Two different dose levels, GEM 1,200 mg/m² + VNR 20 mg/m², and GEM 1,000 mg/m² + VNR 25 mg/m², were fairly well tolerated. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Neutropenia was the main toxic effect, occurring in 76% of the total of 116 cycles delivered, and in 24% of them was of grades 3 or 4. A total of eight patients (26%) experienced grade 4 neutropenia lasting more than seven days; in five of them it occurred in the first course. Neutropenic fever was observed in four cases. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in only two patients. Non-hematologic toxicity was a minor problem in all patients but was never dose-limiting. No complete responses were obtained, but sixteen out of 31 (52%) patients achieved partial responses. The median duration of response was 20 (range 6–56+) weeks, while at a nine-month median follow-up, the median survival time has not yet been reached. To date, 18 patients are still alive. The one-year projected survival for all patients was 51%.Conclusions: Our results show that CDDP, VNR and GEM can be safely given together without substantial reductions in their individual dose intensities. In our opinion, the dose level of GEM 1,000 mg/m² + VNR 25 mg/m² given in combination with CDDP 50 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 of a three-week cycle can be recommended for phase II trials, since it provides a better balance in dose intensity of GEM and VNR. A phase II randomised study is underway to establish the activity of this new regimen (at the above-cited dose level) in chemo-naïve NSCLC patients.     

Gemcitabine and vinorelbine followed by docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multi-institutional phase II trial of nonplatinum sequential triplet combination chemotherapy (JMTO LC00-02)

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the sequential nonplatinum combination chemotherapy consisting of gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) followed by docetaxel (DOC) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we conducted the multiinstitutional phase II study. A total of 44 chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with GEM 1000 mg m(-2) and VNR 25 mg m(-2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for three cycles. DOC 60 mg m(-2) was then administrated intravenously at 3-week intervals for three cycles. Patients were evaluated for response and toxicity with each cycle of the treatment. The major objective response rate was 47.7% (95% confidence interval (CI), 33.8-62.1%). Median survival time (MST) was 15.7 months and 1-year survival rate was 59%. In the GEM/VNR cycle, grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 36.3%, grade 3/4 anaemia in two patients (4.5%) and grade 3 thrombocytopenia in one patient (2.3%). Grade 3 pneumonitis occurred in two patients (4.5%) in GEM/VNR cycles. In the DOC cycles, grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 39.4% but no patient experienced grade 3/4 anaemia or thrombocytopenia. Of the 44 eligible patients, 33 patients completed three cycles of GEM/VNR and 22 patients completed six cycles of planned chemotherapy (three cycles of GEM/VNR followed by three cycles of DOC). The sequential triplet nonplatinum chemotherapy consisted of GEM/VNR followed by DOC, and was very active and well tolerated. This study forms the basis for an ongoing phase III trial that compares this nonplatinum triplet and standard platinum doublet combination (carboplatin/paclitaxel).     

Multicentre randomised phase III study comparing the same dose and schedule of cisplatin plus the same schedule of vinorelbine or gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

This study compares two cytotoxic regimens comprising the same dose and schedule of cisplatin (CP) plus vinorelbine (VNR) or gemcitabine (GEM) administered under the same schedule to patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). From April 1998 to February 2003, 285 patients were randomised to receive either VNR 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 as an intravenous (i.v.) bolus plus CP 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 (regimen A) or GEM 1200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 as an i.v. 30-min infusion plus CP 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 (regimen B). Both treatments were recycled every 21 days. If no progression had occurred after six cycles, the patients continued to receive VNR or GEM monochemotherapy weekly. Cross-over of the two single agents was considered if disease progression occurred. Objective response (OR), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. 272 patients were ultimately eligible (137 on A and 135 on B). Their main characteristics were: male/female ratio 214/58; median age 63 (range 32-77) years; median Karnofsky Performance Status (PS) 80 (range 70-100); stage IIIB 34%, stage IV 61%, recurrent disease 5%; histology - epidermoid 29%, adenocarcinoma 53%, other NSCLC 18%. The characteristics of the patients in the two arms were well matched. The following response rates were observed in regimens A and B, respectively: complete response (CR) 0.7% and 3.7%, partial response (PR) 31.9% and 22.2% (P = 0.321). Median CR+PR duration was 8 months in both arms. Clinical benefit represented by an improvement in symptoms was evident in 25.7% and 28.1%, respectively. Median TTP was 5 months in both arms and median OS 11 months in both arms. Grade III-IV neutropenia occurred in 30.7% and 17.7% of the patients in arms A and B, respectively (P = 0.017); thrombocytopenia occurred in 0% and 9.3% (P = 0.004), respectively. No difference in the incidence of anaemia was observed. Non-haematological toxicity was generally mild: a higher incidence of grade 1-2 peripheral neurotoxicity and grade 1-2 local toxicity with regimen A and grade 1-2 liver toxicity with regimen B was reported. A pharmaco-economic comparison showed a difference between the two doublets, principally due to the different costs of VNR and GEM. Under the study conditions the combination of VNR or GEM with the same dose and schedule of CP produced similar OR, clinical benefits, TTP and OS in advanced NSCLC, and only mild toxicological differences were observed. Pharmaco-economic evaluation favoured the CP + VNR doublet.     

Combination of low-dose cisplatin and gemcitabine for treatment of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility, toxicity and efficacy of the combination of low-dose cisplatin (CDDP) and gemcitabine (GEM) in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II trial included 46 patients aged 70 years or older with previously untreated advanced NSCLC. All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. Treatment consisted of CDDP 50 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus GEM 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8. The regimen was repeated every 21 days. Patients received a minimum of three courses unless progressive disease was detected. RESULTS: A total of 190 GEM-CDDP courses were administered (median 4.1 courses per patient). The chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated. No patients developed grade 4 toxicity. Grade 3 toxicities were as follows: neutropenia in six patients (13%), and anemia, thrombopenia and nausea/vomiting in one (2%) each. Two patients (4%) had mild nephrotoxicity. Of the 46 patients, 16 had a partial response (35%, 95% confidence interval, CI, 28-52%), 17 (37%) remained stable and 13 (28%) had disease progression. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status improved in 17 patients (37%), whereas 25 (54%, 95% CI 44-74%) showed a clinical benefit. Median time to progression was 20 weeks. Overall median survival was 44 weeks, with a 1-year actuarial survival rate of 35%. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of low-dose CDDP and GEM for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC is an effective and well-tolerated chemotherapeutic approach.     

Bi-weekly administration of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: multicenter phase II trial

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) have demonstrated activity as a first-line treatment in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted a multicenter phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bi-weekly administration of GEM plus VNR in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-six chemotherapy-naive elderly (age: >or=70 years) NSCLC patients were enrolled. Patients were eligible if they had histologically or cytologically confirmed unresectable NSCLC with measurable and/or assessable disease. Patients received GEM (1000 mg/m2) and VNR (25 mg/m2) every 2 weeks. RESULTS: The objective response rate of this treatment was 22.7% (95% confidence interval (CI), 10.3-35.1%), median survival time was 310 days, and median time to progression was 133 days. The one-year survival rate was 40.9% (95% CI, 26.3-55.4%), and most adverse events were mild. Only three (6.8%) patients needed to omit GEM because of grade 4 neutropenia or due to physician judgment. No patients suffered treatment-related death. CONCLUSIONS: Bi-weekly administration of GEM plus VNR in elderly patients was an effective, feasible and well-tolerated treatment schedule.     

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.     

Preclinical and clinical evaluation of four gemcitabine plus carboplatin schedules as front-line treatment for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To explore the activity and tolerability of gemcitabine (GEM) and carboplatin (CBDCA) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) we tested four administration sequences on H460 NSCLC cells, and at the same time performed a randomized phase II trial using analogous schedules. PATIENTS AND METHODS: GEM was given first in two in vitro sequences, and CBDCA first in the other two; interaction was quantified calculating a combination index. Eighty-eight chemotherapy-na?ve, stage IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to receive either: GEM (1000 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 and CBDCA (AUC 5 mg.min/ml) on day 1, 4 h before GEM (arm A); same as arm A except CBDCA given 4 h after GEM (arm B); GEM on days 1 and 8 and CBDCA on day 2 (arm C); GEM on days 2 and 9 and CBDCA on day 1 (arm D). Courses were repeated every 21 days. RESULTS: In the preclinical study, CBDCA given before GEM produced a synergistic cytotoxic effect. Two complete and 29 partial responses occurred in 86 of 88 treated patients (intention-to-treat analysis 35%; 95% confidence interval 25.5% to 46.8%). One- and 2-year survivals were 44% and 11%, respectively. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 11%; grade 3/4 neutropenia in 17%; and non-hematological toxicity was insignificant. Median survival was 11 months (range 7-18+), but better in patients receiving CBDCA first (arms A and D) (13 versus 9 months) than in patients receiving GEM first (arms B and C). The response was greater (50% versus 31%) in arm A than in the other arms. CONCLUSIONS: The CBDCA/GEM combination is safe and active against stage IV NSCLC. Our preclinical and clinical findings suggest that administration of CBDCA before GEM gives the better outcome.     

Randomized phase II three-arm trial with three platinum-based doublets in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. An Italian Trials in Medical Oncology study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not tolerate cisplatin-based regimens because of its nonhemathological toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the response rate safety of new platinum analogue regimens, randomizing 147 patients with nonoperable IIIB/IV NSCLC to (i) carboplatin (area under the curve = 5 mg min/ml) on day 1 plus gemcitabine (GEM) (1000 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 for six cycles; (ii) same regimen for three cycles followed by docetaxel (Taxotere) (40 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 plus GEM (1250 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 for three cycles; (iii) oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2)) on day 1 plus GEM (1250 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 for six cycles. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat objective response rates were 25%, 25% and 30.6% in arms A, B and C, respectively. Median survival was 11.9, 9.2 and 11.3 months in arms A, B and C, respectively. Grade 3/4 neutropenia/anemia occurred in 29%/12.5%, 10%/16.5% and 8%/6% of arms A, B and C, respectively; grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 20.5%, 16.5% and 6%; grade 1/2 neurological toxicity in 43% of arm C. CONCLUSIONS: Oxaliplatin/GEM (arm C) had similar activity to carboplatin/GEM (arm A), but milder hematological toxicity and may be worth testing in a phase III study against carboplatin/GEM in patients not suitable for cisplatin. The sequential regimen gave no additional benefit.     

Cisplatin and vinorelbine as second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) resistant to taxol plus gemcitabine

The aim of the study was to evaluate the activity of cisplatin (CDDP) plus vinorelbine (VNR) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressing after paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. Treatment consisted of CDDP 80 mg/m(2) administered on day 1 and VNR 25 mg/m(2) administered on day 1 and 8, repeated every 3 weeks. Nine patients who relapsed after partial response and eight patients refractory to prior CT received a minimum of two treatment cycles: three patients achieved a PR (18%; 95% CI: 4-43%), four had stable disease and 10 had disease progression. All responses were observed among the nine patients responsive to prior treatment. Median survival was 35 weeks. No patients required dose-reduction, treatment discontinuation or delay because of toxicity. Our results indicate a reasonable antitumor efficacy and no relevant toxicity of a second-line CDDP-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. We recommend the use of this regimen for patients not refractory to primary treatment.     

A phase III randomized trial comparing vindesine and cisplatin with or without ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: long-term follow-up results and analysis of prognostic factors

In order to evaluate the activity and toxicity of a three-drug combination of vindesine, ifosfamide and cisplatin (VIP) for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we conducted a randomized trial comparing VIP with a two-drug combination of cisplatin and vindesine (VP). Between September 1987 and March 1992, a total of 132 patients with stage III or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to either VIP or VP. The VIP regimen consisted of vindesine (VDS 3 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8), ifosfamide (IFX 1300 mg/m(2) on days 1-5), and cisplatin (CDDP 20 mg/m(2) on days 1-5). The VP regimen consisted of VDS and CDDP with the same dose and schedule as the VIP regimen. Both regimens were repeated every 4 weeks. Objective response rates were 49.3% (95% confidence interval: 95%CI, 43.1-55.4%) in the VIP arm and 44.6% (95%CI, 38.4-50.2%) in the VP arm; the difference was not significant (P=0.5390). Median response duration, median survival time, and two-year survival rates were 26.5 weeks, 49.6 weeks, and 14.9% in the VIP arm and 28.7 weeks, 37.1 weeks, and 12.3% in the VP arm, respectively. There were also no significant differences between these two treatment arms. In comparison with the VP regimen, however, a survival advantage of the VIP regimen could be confirmed when the data were evaluated with Cox's multivariate analysis (P=0.0131). In both arms, the principal toxicity was myelosuppression, which was significantly more frequent in the VIP arm, although generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study suggested the survival advantage of the VIP regimen over the VP regimen for treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients

The aim of this study was to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine (GEM) with either paclitaxel (PTX) or vinorelbine (VNR) could be more effective than GEM or PTX alone in elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. A total of 264 NSCLC patients aged >70 years with ECOG performance status (PS)< or =2, or younger with PS=2, were randomly treated with: GEM 1200 mg m(-2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days; PTX 100 mg m(-2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days; GEM 1000 mg m(-2) plus PTX 80 mg m(-2) (GT) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days; GEM 1000 mg m(-2) plus VNR 25 mg m(-2) (GV) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. In all arms, an intra-patients dose escalation was applied over the first three courses, provided that no toxicity of WHO grade > or =2 had previously occurred. At present time, 217 (82%) patients had died. The median (months) and 1-year survival probability were 5.1 and 29% for GEM, 6.4 and 25% for PTX, 9.2 and 44% for GT, and 9.7 and 32% for GV. Multivariate analysis showed that PS< or =1 (hazard ratio (HR)=0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.90), and doublet treatments (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.99) were significantly associated with longer survival. Doublets produced no more toxicity than single agents. GT should be considered a reference regimen for elderly NSCLC patients with PS< or =1.     

Weekly gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy: a well-tolerated but ineffective chemotherapeutic regimen in advanced pancreatic cancer patients. A report from the Italian Group for the Study of Digestive Tract Cancer (GISCAD).

BACKGROUND: This phase II study was initiated to determine the activity and toxicity of a combination of gemcitabine (GEM) and cisplatin (CDDP) in patients with pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CDDP 35 mg/m(2) was given as a 30-min infusion and GEM 1000 mg/m(2) as a 30-min infusion. Both drugs were administered once weekly for 2 consecutive weeks out of every 3 weeks to chemonaive patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: Forty-five advanced pancreatic cancer patients received this regimen for a total of 180 cycles of chemotherapy. One complete and four partial responses have been observed for an overall response rate of 9% (95% confidence interval 10% to 11%). Twenty-one patients (46%) had stable disease and 19 progressed on therapy. The median time to progression was 3.6 months, with a median survival of 5.6 months. A clinical benefit was obtained in nine of 37 patients (24%). Side-effects were mainly represented by hematological toxicity. Grade 3/4 WHO toxicities included neutropenia (6% of the patients) and thrombocytopenia (11%). The dose of GEM and CDDP was reduced in 14 patients (31%) and treatment was delayed in 10 patients (22%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results in terms of response rate, clinical benefit and survival do not support an advantage for the combination of GEM and CDDP given by this schedule.     

Cisplatin and vinorelbine followed by ifosfamide plus epirubicin vs the opposite sequence in advanced unresectable stage III and metastatic stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized study of the Southern Italy Oncology Group (GOIM).

A multicentric, prospective phase III study was carried out with the aim of testing the so-called ''worst drug rule'' hypothesis, which suggests the use of an effective but ''less active'' regimen that first eradicates tumoral cells resistant to a second effective and ''more active'' regimen. With respect to this hypothesis, we considered the cisplatin plus vinorelbine regimen (CCDP/VNR) as the more active regimen compared with the non-cisplatin-containing regimen of ifosfamide plus high-dose epirubicin (IFO/EPI). Thus, a randomized study was carried out to compare the sequencial strategy of three cycles of CDDP/VNR followed by three cycles of IFO/EPI with the opposite sequence in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. A total of 100 consecutive previously untreated patients with stage III-IV non-small-cell lung cancer were centrally randomized in two arms according to stage of disease and the performance status. Patients allocated to arm A received CDDP (100 mg m-2 on day 1) plus VNR (25 mg m-2 i.v. on days 1 and 8) every 21 days for three cycles (step 1) followed, after restaging, by three cycles of IFO (2.5 g m-2 with mesna on day 1) plus high-dose EPI (100 mg m-2 on day 1) every 21 days (step 2). Patients in arm B received the opposite sequence. Type and rates of objective response were evaluated after step 1 and step 2 in agreement with WHO criteria and an intent-to-treat analysis. Patients were also analysed for toxicity patterns, time to progression and survival. After the first three cycles (step 1), overall response rate (ORR), calculated according to an intent-to-treat analysis, was 47% and 21% for arm A and arm B respectively (P = 0.0112). ORR for stage III patients was 55% and 14% for arm A and B respectively (P = 0.0097). In stage IV patients ORR was higher in arm A than in arm B (42% vs 28%) but not statistically significant (P = 0.4). Clinical responses to the shift of chemotherapy (step 2) showed that no patient pretreated with CDDP/VNR and subsequently treated with IFO/EPI showed further response, whereas in the inverse sequence arm CDDP/VNR was able to induce 26% partial response (PR) rate in patients pretreated with IFO/EPI. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.037). The overall median time to progression (TTP) of arm A and arm B did not significantly differ (6 vs 4 months; P = 0.665). However, median TTP of stage III patients was, respectively, 7 months for arm A and only 3 months for arm B. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.049). Median overall survival (OS) was 9 and 7 months respectively for arm A and arm B. Despite this trend the difference was not significant (P = 0.328). Median OS of stage III patients showed a statistically significant advantage for arm A over arm B (13 vs 7 months, P = 0.03). In addition, no statistically significant difference in OS was recorded for stage IV patients (both arms 7 months, P = 0.526). Our data do not confirm Day''s ''worst drug rule'' hypothesis, at least in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with the above-mentioned regimens. The combination of CDDP and VNR seems more active, at least in terms of response rate, than the IFO/EPI, which performed poorly.     

Front-line paclitaxel-vinorelbine versus paclitaxel-carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized phase III trial of advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was designed to compare a standard treatment such as carboplatin (CRP)-paclitaxel (PCT) with a new combination, vinorelbine (VRL)-PCT-two agents acting in microtubules. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and sixty patients (stage IIIa, IIIb and IV) were included and evaluated for response rate, survival and toxicity. Arm A patients were treated with the control combination of CRP 6 AUC and PCT 175 mg/m(2) repeated every 3 weeks for six cycles, and arm B with the investigational combination of VRL 25 mg/m(2) and PCT 135 mg/m(2) repeated every 2 weeks for nine cycles. The patients were well balanced with respect to gender, disease stage and performance status. Arm A received 849 cycles (mean 4.59 per patient) and arm B 951 cycles (mean 5.39 per patient). RESULTS: Complete and partial response rates were 45.95% and 42.86% for arms A and B, respectively. Median survival was 11 and 10 months, 1-year survival 42.7% and 37.85% and 2-year survival 10.12% and 19% for arms A and B, respectively. Toxicity was similar in all patients, except for neutropenia, which was significantly greater in arm B. CONCLUSIONS: PCT combined with VRL produces similar (non-significant) response rates, survival and toxicity (except for neutropenia, as noted above) to standard CRP-PCT treatment in untreated advanced-stage NSCLC.     

Gemcitabine alone or with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma: a prospective, randomized phase III study of the Gruppo Oncologia dell'Italia Meridionale

BACKGROUND: A prospective, randomized Phase III trial was performed to determine whether, compared with gemcitabine (GEM) alone, the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to GEM was able to improve the time to disease progression and the clinical benefit rate in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate, overall survival rate, and toxicity patterns of patients in the two treatment arms were evaluated as secondary end points. METHODS: Patients with measurable, locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomized to receive GEM (Arm A) or a combination of GEM and CDDP (Arm B). In Arm A, a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) GEM per week was administered for 7 consecutive weeks, and, after a 2-week rest, treatment was resumed on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle for 2 cycles. In Arm B, CDDP was given at a dose of 25 mg/m(2) per week 1 hour before GEM at the same dose that was used in Arm A. On Day 22, only GEM was administered. Patients were restaged after the first 7 weeks of therapy and then again after the other 2 cycles. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients entered the trial: Fifty-four patients were randomized to Arm A, and 53 patients were randomized to Arm B. The median time to disease progression was 8 weeks in Arm A and 20 weeks in Arm B; this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.048). In Arm A, one complete response and four partial responses were recorded on the basis of an intent-to-treat analysis, with an overall response rate of 9.2% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3-20%). In Arm B, there were no complete responses, whereas 14 partial responses were achieved, with an overall response rate of 26.4% (95%CI, 15-40%). This difference in the overall response rates was statistically significant (P = 0.02). The tumor growth control rate (i.e., total number of patients who achieved complete responses, partial responses, and stable disease) was 42.6% (95%CI, 29-57%) in Arm A and 56.6% (95%CI, 42-70%) in Arm B. A clinical benefit was observed in 21 of 43 patients (49%) in Arm A and in 20 of 38 patients (52.6%) in Arm B without any significant difference. The median overall survival was 20 weeks for patients in Arm A and 30 weeks for patients in Arm B (P = 0.43). Toxicity was mild in both treatment arms, with no significant differences between the two groups except for the statistically higher incidence of Grade 1-2 asthenia in Arm B (P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of CDDP to GEM significantly improved the median time to disease progression and the overall response rate compared with GEM alone. The clinical benefit rate was similar in both arms, whereas the median overall survival rate was more favorable for Arm B, although the difference did not attain statistical significance. The authors conclude that the combination of CDDP and GEM currently may be considered as an optimal treatment for patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.     

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine in stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a multicentre phase II clinical trial

A phase II study in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was carried out to evaluate the clinical activity and toxicity of the chemotherapeutic combination of gemcitabine+vinorelbine (GEM/VNR). Forty-five patients (40 male, 5 female) with a median age of 67 years (range 37-73) and a median ECOG performance status of 1 (range 0-2) were enrolled into the trial. Twenty patients had stage IIIB (two positive supraclavicular nodes and 20 cytologically positive pleural effusion), and 25 had stage IV NSCLC. GEM 1000 mg/m(2) diluted in 250 cc(3) of normal saline was administered iv on days 1, 8, and 15, while VNR was given 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks. The median number of courses/patient was 4 (range 3-7). According to an intent-to-treat analysis 2 (4%) patients had a complete response and 16 (36%; 95% CL 22-52%) had a partial response for an overall response rate of 40% (95% CL 26-56%). Twelve (27%) patients had stable disease and 15 (33%) were considered as treatment failures. Median overall survival of the whole series was 8+ months with 33% of patients alive at 1 year. Toxicity was generally mild. WHO grade 3-4 neutropenia was recorded in 22% of cases, grade 1-3 liver toxicity in 6% of patients and neutropenia-unrelated fever in 9%. This multicentre phase II study suggests that the GEM/VNR combination regimen is an active and well tolerated regimen in patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Larger studies comparing cisplatin-based regimens to new schedules without cisplatin are warranted.