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.     

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.     

Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine combination therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II randomized study of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: In a previous phase I study cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM), and vinorelbine (VNR) combination therapy was safe and very active in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was aimed at better defining the activity and toxicity of this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eleven chemotherapy-naive patients, age < or = 70 years, with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a performance status of 0 or 1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale) were randomized to two treatment arms. Patients on arm A received CDDP 50 mg/m2, GEM 1,000 mg/m2, and VNR 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of an every-3-weeks cycle (57 patients). Patients on arm B received CDDP 80 mg/m2, epirubicin 80 mg/m2, and vindesine 3 mg/m2, all delivered on day 1 every 4 weeks, plus lonidamine orally 150 mg three times daily (54 patients). In December 1996, randomization was stopped early, and an additional 30 patients were treated with the experimental regimen to obtain a more accurate estimation of its activity rate. RESULTS: Among 87 patients who received the CDDP-GEM-VNR combination, four complete responses (CRs) and 46 partial responses (PRs) were observed, for an overall response rate of 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46% to 68%). Two CRs and 18 PRs were recorded among 54 patients on arm B, giving a 37% activity rate (95% CI , 24% to 51%). After a median follow-up duration of 19 months, the median progression-free and overall survival durations were 32 and 50 weeks in arm A, and 18 and 33 weeks in arm B, respectively. World Health Organization grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 46% and 14% of patients in arm A and in 22% and 11% of those in arm B, respectively. Severe nonhematologic toxicity was uncommon in both arms. CONCLUSION: The CDDP-GEM-VNR combination is a highly effective treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and has a manageable toxicity. A phase III trial comparing this new combination with both CDDP-VNR and CDDP-GEM regimens is underway.     

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).     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Phase II study of sequential treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: three cycles of high-dose epirubicin plus cisplatin followed by weekly vinorelbine

Previous phase I, II, and III studies on high-dose epirubicin (HDEPI), alone or in combination with cisplatin (CP), indicate an interesting activity of this drug in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the toxicological profile of HDEPI limits its prolonged use. In our experience, vinorelbine (VNR) seems to be a suitable drug for long-term monotherapy for advanced NSCLC. On these grounds, advanced NSCLC patients were treated with the following strategy: 3 consecutive cycles of CP 60 mg/m2 and HDEPI 120 mg/m2 on day 1, every 3 weeks; then, irrespective of response, weekly VNR at a dose of 25 mg/m2 was administered at home. From December 1996 to March 1998, 25 patients entered the study. After receiving 3 cycles of CP/HDEPI, 8 patients (32%) had a partial response and 3 (12%) had a minor response. Nine patients had stable disease (36%) and 4 (16%) had progressive disease. Twenty-three patients received weekly VNR, and the median number of administrations was 10 (range, 1-38). After VNR treatment, we observed a partial response in 2 patients who previously had stable disease. Therefore, the overall response rate to sequential treatment was 40%; median time to progression was 7 months (range, 2-26 months). The major toxicities due to the CP/HDEPI regimen were neutropenia (72%) and alopecia (80%). During the VNR treatment, grade 3/4 neutropenia was seen in 36% of patients. The doses and the timing of VNR administrations were modified according to toxicity. Symptoms such as cough, dyspnea, and pain, present in 21 patients before the treatment, improved in 11 cases (52%). Median overall survival is 9 months (range, 3-40+ months); one patient is still alive after 40 months. One- and 2-year survival rates are, respectively, 44% and 16%. This study confirms the activity of CP/HDEPI in NSCLC and indicates that the sequential treatment of CP/HDEPI for 3 cycles followed by weekly VNR could be considered an effective strategy for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.     

双周多西紫杉联合FOLFOX4方案和DCF方案治疗晚期胃癌对照研究

目的:比较双周多西紫杉联合FOLFOX4方案和DCF方案治疗晚期胃癌的疗效及不良反应。方法:将53例经病理确诊的晚期胃癌患者随机分为两组。A组27例,采用双周多西紫杉联合FOLFOX4方案化疗:多西紫杉50mg/m2,静脉滴注,d1;草酸铂85mg/m2,静脉滴注2h,d1;亚叶酸钙200mg/m2,静脉滴注2h,d1、d2;氟尿嘧啶400mg/m2,静脉推注,d1、d2,氟尿嘧啶600mg/m2,持续静脉泵输注22h,d1、d2。每2周为1周期。B组26例,采用DCF方案化疗:多西紫杉75mg/m2,静脉推注,d1;氟尿嘧啶750mg/m2,静脉滴注,d1-5;顺铂20mg/m2,静脉滴注,d1-3。每3周为1周期。对两组的近期疗效、疾病进展时间、总生存期、生活质量改善情况、不良反应进行分析比较。结果:A组和B组的有效率分别为55.6%(15/27)和53.8%(14/26),无显著性差异(P=0.9005)。A组和B组的中位疾病进展时间为6.0月(1.9-12月)和5.1月(1-12月)(P=0.0414);中位生存时间10.5月(1-18月)和10.1月(1-17月)(P=0.7805)。A组和B组的生活质量改善为74.1%(20/27)和50.0%(13/26),无显著性差异(P=0.0707);两组主要不良反应在Ⅳ度白细胞减少、血小板减少以及恶心呕吐方面具有一定差异(P<0.05),腹泻、口腔炎、神经毒性、脱发、心脏毒性等指标无显西著性差异。结论:双周多紫杉联合FOLFOX4方案和DCF方案一线治疗晚期胃癌近期疗效较好,双周多西紫杉联合FOLFOX4方案在一定程度上延长了无进展生存时间,在生活质量改善上似乎也有一定的优势。在重度白细胞减少以及相关的感染发生率上优于DCF方案。提示晚期胃癌患者对双周多西紫杉联合FOL-FOX4方案具有更好的耐受性。     

Cisplatin and gemcitabine first-line chemotherapy followed by maintenance gemcitabine or best supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III trial

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this randomized phase III study was to show significant difference in median time to progression (TTP) in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with single-agent gemcitabine maintenance therapy versus best supportive care following gemcitabine plus cisplatin initial first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC received gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8) plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (day 1) every 21 days. Patients achieving objective response or disease stabilization following initial gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy were randomized (2:1 fashion) to receive maintenance gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) plus best supportive care (GEM arm), or best supportive care only (BSC arm). RESULTS: Between November 1999 and November 2002, we enrolled 352 patients (median age: 57 years; stage IV disease: 74%; Karnofsky performance status (KPS) >80: 41%). Following initial therapy, 206 patients were randomized and treated with gemcitabine (138) or best supportive care (68). TTP throughout the study period was 6.6 and 5 months for GEM and BSC arms, respectively, while values for the maintenance period were 3.6 and 2.0 months (for p < 0.001 for both). Median overall survival (OS) throughout study was 13.0 months for GEM and 11.0 months for BSC arms (p = 0.195). The toxicity profile was mild, with neutropenia being most common grade 3/4 toxicities. CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine, following initial therapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin, was feasible, and produced significantly longer TTP compared to best supportive care alone. Further studies are warranted to establish the place of maintenance chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

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.     

Phase II study of vinorelbine and gemcitabine for inoperable stage IIIB-IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the combination of vinorelbine and gemcitabine as a non-platinum chemotherapy regimen in patients with inoperable locally-advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Efficacy was assessed primarily in terms of response rate, and secondarily in terms of toxicity, time to progression and survival.Patients and methods: Patients with cytologically- or histologically-proven stage IIIB–IV NSCLC, bi-dimensionally measurable lesions, adequate haematological, hepatic and renal function, WHO performance status 2 and no previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy were eligible. The first 12 patients were entered in a pilot study and received vinorelbine (VNR) 30 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, and gemcitabine (GEM) 1000 mg/m² on days 1, 8 and 15, of a 28-day cycle. Subsequently, patients were entered in a phase II trial of VNR 35 mg/m² and GEM 1200 mg/m² on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Treatment consisted of three cycles of the chemotherapy, with a further three cycles for those patients who achieved stable disease or a complete or partial response (CR/PR) to the first three cycles. Patients who had achieved CR or PR after six cycles continued with the treatment until relapse.Results: The dosage and scheduling of VNR and GEM in the pilot study resulted in neutropenia necessitating reductions or delays in treatment, and consequently low dose intensity. The schedule was thus modified to VNR 35 mg/m² and GEM 1200 mg/m² on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for the phase II trial. Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the phase II trial, and 28 were evaluable for response. The overall intent-to-treat response rate of all 45 patients was 40% (18 of 45), comprising 4 CR (9%) and 14 PR (31%). For the 28 evaluable patients who received the fortnightly chemotherapy the response rate was 46% (13 of 28), CR 11% (3 of 28) and PR 36% (10 of 28). Seven patients (25%) had stable disease. The one-year cumulative survival rate for the 33 patients receiving the fortnightly chemotherapy was 24% and median time-to-progression 4 months (range 1–16 months). Median survival for these patients was eight months. Nine out of twelve patients in the pilot study (75%) suffered grade 3–4 neutropenia. There was one toxic death, attributed to neutropenic fever and sepsis, and two cases of pulmonary embolism. One patient suffered Grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Only eight patients (24%) on the fortnightly schedule suffered grade 3–4 neutropenia, resulting in dose reductions or delays for three of them (9%). None of the patients on the fortnightly schedule suffered thrombocytopenia or anaemia.Conclusions: The fortnightly schedule of gemcitabine and vinorelbine was a well-tolerated out-patient regimen, producing response and survival rates comparable to those of cisplatin combination regimens, but with a more favourable toxicity profile. Gemcitabine and vinorelbine should now be tested in a triplet combination with a taxane as the third drug, or against a platinum-containing regimen in a phase III study.     

A study of the combination of gemcitabine hydrochloride (LY188011) and cisplatin in non-small-cell lung cancer: 3-week schedule

Background. It has been reported that the combination of gemcitabine (LY188011; GEM) and cisplatin (CDDP) in a 4-week schedule showed a high response rate for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but GEM could not be administered on day 15 because of increased myelosuppression in many patients. The present study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GEM and CDDP in a 3-week schedule. Methods. Patients with unresectable NSCLC without prior chemotherapy were enrolled. We administered 1000 mg/m² of GEM on days 1 and 8, and 80 mg/m² of CDDP on day 1. The feasibility of the combination therapy was confirmed in 8 patients, and then 20 more patients were enrolled, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy for all 28 patients. Results. The response rate was 42.9% (12/28) and the median survival time was 12.6 months. Neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia or lymphocytopenia of grade 3 or higher were observed as hematological toxicity, and anorexia, nausea, fatigue, or vomiting of grade 3 were the nonhematological toxicities, but most of these toxicities were of grade 2 or less. For GEM and CDDP, 89% and 91% of the scheduled doses, respectively, were administered. Conclusion. This is the first study of the combination of GEM and CDDP with a 3-week schedule in Japan, and the results showed a low level of myelosuppression, high dose intensity, and high response rate, similar to the results reported in other countries. Accordingly, the combination of GEM and CDDP with a 3-week schedule may be a promising regimen for the treatment of NSCLC in Japan. Received: July 2, 2001 / Accepted: September 17, 2001     

Gemcitabine and vinorelbine in pretreated advanced breast cancer: A pilot study

Purpose:Gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) are both activeagainst advanced breast cancer (ABC), being able to induce a median ORR of25% and 40%, respectively. Because of their different mechanismof action and good tolerability, the combination of GEM and VNR has beentested in ABC. Patients and methods:Twenty-nine ABC patients pretreated withanthracycline-taxane were treated with GEM 1000 mg/m² on day 1, 8,15, and VNR 25 mg/m² on day 1 and 8 every twenty-eight days.Analysis of toxicity pattern, response rate, TTP and OS were carried out. Results:Twenty-nine patients were enrolled into the trial. TheORR was 48% (95% CI: 29–67): a CR was observed in threepatients (10%; 95% CI: 2–27), while eleven patients(38%; 95 CI: 21–58) achieved PR, eight (28%) had a SD, andseven (24%) progressed. Toxicity was mainly hematological and included:grade 3 leukopenia in 48% of cases without episodes of neutropenicfever, grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia in 10%, and grade 2 anemia in7%. Non-hematological toxicities were mild and rather infrequent. Conclusions:The GEM–VNR combination seems to be active inpretreated ABC with an acceptable toxicity pattern, and may well reppresentan interesting therapeutic choice after anthracycline/taxane regimens.     

培美曲塞或吉西他滨联合顺铂一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床随机对照研究

目的:比较培美曲塞联合顺铂(PEM)方案与吉西他滨联合顺铂(GEM)方案一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的疗效及耐受性.方法:30例经组织学确诊的ⅢB期或Ⅳ期初治NSCLC患者随机分成PEM组和GEM组,每组各15例.结果:PEM组RR为40.0％,PFS为5.60个月,OS为18.07个月;GEM组RR为20.0％,PFS为6.50个月,OS为18.10个月,两组比较差异均无统计学意义,P值分别为0.182、0.431和0.516.肺腺癌中PEM组RR、PFS及OS均好于GEM组,但差异无统计学意义,P＞0.05.两组主要毒副反应均为骨髓抑制和胃肠道反应,PEM组患者Ⅲ/Ⅳ度血液学毒性发生率均低于GEM组患者,差异无统计学意义,P＞0.05.结论:培美曲塞联合顺铂一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌,特别是肺腺癌,疗效确切,耐受性良好.     

两种不同方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效比较(英文)

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the recent efficacy and toxicity of a three-drug platinum-based regimen (A regimen): [cisplatin (DDP) + gemcitabine (GEM) + vinorelbine (NVB)] and a two-drug combination without a platinum drug (B regimen): GEM + NVB, which were used to treat 55 advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, in a bid to provide a guidance for clinical treatment. Methods: Twenty-four cases of advanced NSCLC (stage III-IV) patients were treated with A regimen ...     

Hybrid (intravenous and oral) administration of vinorelbine plus cisplatinum followed by oral vinorelbine as first-line therapy of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II study

BACKGROUND: The combination of alternate i.v./oral (hybrid) administration of vinorelbine (VNR) plus cisplatin (CDDP), followed by oral VNR, could result in a more suitable first-line regimen for patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in the outpatient setting. METHODS: The induction treatment consisted of CDDP 80 mg/m(2) i.v. and VNR 25 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1 and VNR 60 mg/m(2) oral day 8, every 3 weeks for 4 courses. A dose escalation of VNR to 80 mg/m(2) oral from day 8 of the second course and to 30 mg/m(2) i.v. from day 1 of the third course was planned in the absence of G3-4 toxicity. Pts with disease control after 4 courses underwent consolidation treatment with oral VNR 80 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks up to intolerance or progression. RESULTS: Fifty-three pts entered the study: 80% males; median age 63 years (range 43-71); median ECOG PS 0 (range 0-1); histotype: adenocarcinoma 59%, epidermoid 31%, undifferentiated 10%; disease stage: IIIB 22%, IV 70%, recurrent disease 8%. The objective response was as follows: 1 (2%) CR, 20 (38%) PR, 16 (30%) SD, 11 (21%) PD and 5 (9%) pts were not assessable. Median TTP and OS were 6 and 10 months, respectively. G3-4 neutropenia was observed in 23 and 24% of pts in the induction and in the consolidation phases, respectively, with febrile neutropenia in 6 pts (11%) and 2 (8%), respectively. G3-4 non-haematological toxicity was rare, being represented by nausea-vomiting and neurotoxicity in 3 pts (6%) in the induction phase. CONCLUSIONS: This combination regimen including hybrid administration of VNR plus CDDP is feasible, tolerable and effective as a first-line treatment in pts with aNSCLC.