Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized trial was designed to determine whether paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) offered a survival advantage over vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) for patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. Secondary objectives were to compare toxicity, tolerability, quality of life (QOL), and resource utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred two patients received VC (vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)/d, day 1 every 28 days) and 206 patients received PC (paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) over 3 hours with carboplatin area under the curve of 6, day 1 every 21 days). Patients completed QOL questionnaires at baseline, 13 weeks, and 25 weeks. Resource utilization forms were completed at five time points through 24 months. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The objective response rate was 28% in the VC arm and 25% in the PC arm. Median survival was 8 months in both arms, with 1-year survival rates of 36% and 38%, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 leukopenia (P =.002) and neutropenia (P =.008) occurred more frequently on the VC arm. Grade 3 nausea and vomiting were higher on the VC arm (P =.001, P =.007), and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was higher on the PC arm (P <.001). More patients on the VC arm discontinued therapy because of toxicity (P =.001). No difference in QOL was observed. Overall costs on the PC arm were higher than on the VC arm because of drug costs. CONCLUSION: PC is equally efficacious as VC for the treatment of advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. PC is less toxic and better tolerated but more expensive than VC. New treatment strategies should be pursued.     

A randomized trial comparing cisplatin plus cyclophosphamide versus cisplatin, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in advanced ovarian cancer

After primary surgery, 125 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 1c + IIb + IIc = 22 patients, FIGO III = 82 patients, FIGO IV = 21 patients) were randomly allocated to receive PC (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 + cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 on day 1 every 28 days) (corrected) or PAC (PC + doxorubicin 45 mg/m2). After six cycles, patients clinically disease-free or with resectable residual disease were submitted to second-look surgery. After restaging, patients in surgical complete response (CR) stopped treatment while those responding partially (PR) received six more courses; patients whose disease progressed were excluded from the study. Among patients with measurable disease, the following clinical response rates were observed: PC = 20% CR, 34.3% PR, 14.3% stable disease, and 31.4% progression; PAC = 40.6% CR, 15.6% PR, 12.5% stable disease, and 31.3% progression. In the 75 patients submitted to second look, the results have been the following: PC = 39.5% CR, 36.8% PR, 7.9% stable disease, and 15.8% progression; PAC = 62.2% CR, 18.9% PR, 10.8% stable disease, and 8.1% progression. The difference in surgical complete response in favor of the PAC regimen is significant (P less than .05). Median survival and progression-free survival were 800 and 400 days, respectively, for PAC arm; median survival and progression-free survival were 680 and 380 days, respectively, for PC. These differences are not significant. Probability of survival was affected by FIGO stage, amount of residual disease, histology, performance status, and response at second look, while no influence was observed according to grade of tumor differentiation and age. Our results demonstrate the usefulness of doxorubicin in terms of surgical CR.     

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin in stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial

PURPOSE: This randomized, multicenter, phase III trial was conducted to compare the tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) in chemonaive patients with stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Secondary objectives were to evaluate response, duration of response, time to progressive disease (TTPD), and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were required to have stage IIIb or IV NSCLC, no previous chemotherapy, Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, bidimensionally measurable disease, and age 18-75 years. Randomized patients in both arms were given gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, followed on day 1 by cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (GP) or carboplatin AUC=5 (GC). Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days for a maximum of six cycles, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Enrolled patients in both arms, 87 in GP and 89 in GC, were well balanced for demographics and disease characteristics. Dose intensity was 93.8 and 92.7% for gemcitabine in GP/GC arms, respectively; 97.7% for cisplatin and 99.9% for carboplatin. Patients with at least one grade 3/4 toxicity excluding nausea, vomiting or alopecia, were 44% in GP arm and 54% in GC arm. The only significantly different toxicities were, nausea and vomiting in GP and thrombocytopenia in GC group. The overall response rates, median TTPD, response duration and survival were, 41/29%, 5.87/4.75 months, 7.48/5.15 months, and 8.75/7.97 months for GP and GC arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: GP and GC are effective and feasible regimens for advanced NSCLC, and are comparable in efficacy and toxicity. GC may offer acceptable option to patients with advanced NSCLC, especially those who are unable to receive cisplatin.     

Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus gemcitabine plus paclitaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE: We conducted this randomized study comparing the activity and toxicity of paclitaxel and gemcitabine (PG) and paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) combinations for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus either carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve of 6 on day 1 (group A) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (group B) every 3 weeks. A retrospective cost analysis was conducted using Student's t test to compare independent samples between groups. RESULTS: A total of 509 patients (group A, 252 patients; group B, 257 patients) were enrolled; all characteristics were well balanced. The median survival time was 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8 to 12 months) for group A and 9.8 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 11.7 months) for group B (P =.32). Respective 1-year survival rates were 41.7% and 41.4%. The response rate for group A was 28.0% (2% complete response [CR], 26% partial response [PR] [95% CI, 22% to 34%]), and the response rate for group B was 35.0% (5% CR, 30% PR) [95% CI, 29% to 41%]) (P =.12). Toxicity was mild. Grades 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia for groups A and B were seen in 15% and 15%, 2% and 1%, and 5% and 2%, respectively. The mean total cost (outpatient clinic visits plus chemotherapy drug fee) for group A (euro; 7,612.64) versus group B (euro; 7,484.77) was not statistically significant (P <.66). CONCLUSION: The PG combination is as equally active and well tolerated as the PC combination in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE To compare the activity and tolerability of docetaxel/gemcitabine (DG) and vinorelbine/cisplatin (VC) combinations in chemotherapy-naive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DG (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) [days 1 and 8] plus docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) [day 8]) or VC (vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) [days 1 and 8] plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) [day 8]) and prophylactic recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (150 microg/m(2) subcutaneously [day 9 through 15]) every 3 weeks. Results A total of 413 randomly assigned patients were analyzed for response and toxicity (DG, n = 197; VC, n = 192). Median survival was 9.0 and 9.7 months (P = .965) for DG and VC arms, respectively; the corresponding 1-year survival rates were 34.3% and 40.8%, respectively. Overall response rate was 30% (95% CI, 23.9% to 36.3%) and 39.2% (95% CI, 32.5% to 45.9%; P = .053) for DG and VC, respectively. Toxicity was as follows (DG v VC): grade 2 to 4 anemia, 34% v 55% (P = .0001); grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, 16% v 37% (P = .0001); febrile neutropenia, 6% v 11% (P = .009); and grade 3 to 4 nausea and vomiting, 1% v 15% (P = .003). Nephrotoxicity occurred in 8% and ototoxicity in 2% of VC-treated patients. There were five and six treatment-related deaths in the DG and VC arms, respectively. Quality of life was improved in DG but not in VC patients. CONCLUSION Although the two regimens produced comparable overall survival, the DG regimen had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, DG could be used in the first-line setting of advanced NSCLC, especially for patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin.     

Randomized phase III trial of standard timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin versus circadian timed doxorubicin plus cisplatin in stage III and IV or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.

PURPOSE: To determine if circadian timed (CT) chemotherapy results in improved response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and lower toxicity, when compared with standard timed (ST) chemotherapy. Materials and METHODS: Eligibility criteria were stage III, IV, or recurrent endometrial cancer with poor potential for cure by radiation therapy or surgery; measurable disease; and no prior chemotherapy. Therapy was randomized to schedules of ST doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2, or CT doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 am plus cisplatin 60 mg/m2 at 6:00 pm. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks to a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS: The ST arm included 169 patients, and the CT arm included 173 patients. The objective response rate (complete responses plus partial responses) was 46% in the ST group compared with 49% in the CT group (P =.26, one tail). Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 11.2 months, respectively, in the ST group; and 5.9 and 13.2 months, respectively, in the CT group (PFS: P =.31; OS: P =.21, one tail). Median total doses were 209 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 349 mg/m2 cisplatin in the ST group, versus 246 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 354 mg/m2 cisplatin in the CT group. Grade 3 or 4 leukopenia occurred in 73% of patients in the ST arm and in 63% of patients in the CT arm. There were eight treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: In this trial, no significant benefit in terms of response rate, PFS or OS, or toxicity profile was observed with CT doxorubicin plus cisplatin in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cisplatin plus etoposide and carboplatin plus paclitaxel in a phase III randomized trial for non-small cell lung cancer

Aim: Carboplatin plus paclitaxel is a more costly chemotherapy regimen than cisplatin plus etoposide; however there have been reports of higher efficacy and less toxicity of this regimen. Thus, this study aimed to assess the cost‐effectiveness of these two chemotherapy regimens in advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Using the perspective of Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Thailand, direct medical costs, including chemotherapy, drugs, medical service charges, costs of adverse events, concomitant medication and survival time were directly gathered from 65 patients enrolled from August 2005 to November 2008. A one‐way sensitivity analysis was performed. An incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was also calculated. Results: Of these 65 patients, 30 received cisplatin plus etoposide (Arm I) and 35 received carboplatin plus paclitaxel (Arm II). The median survival time was not statistically significant (8.23 months vs 8.80 months in Arm I and II, respectively; P = 0.99). The total cost per patient in Arm II was about three times that in Arm I (95,548 Baht vs 29,692 Baht) while quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY) in Arm II were slightly above those in Arm I (0.587 vs 0.412). The ICER was equal to 375,958 Baht per QALY. Conclusion: With a cost‐effectiveness threshold of 100,000 Baht in Thailand, carboplatin plus paclitaxel was still not cost‐effective. While the selection of a suitable regimen for individual patients should not rely on drug and hospital costs alone, the overall cost, including the burden on patients, should be taken into consideration.     

Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide versus hydroxyurea in advanced prostatic cancer. A randomized Southwest Oncology Group study

Over a 24-month period, the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) conducted a randomized prospective chemotherapeutic trial in 158 patients with advanced prostatic cancer. Patients were initially randomized to receive either a combination of Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) or a single agent, hydroxyurea (H), and then crossed over to the other treatment on failure. Of the 137 evaluable patients, 43 (31%) had classically measurable metastatic disease in the lymph nodes, skin, chest, or liver. Focusing their efforts on this subset of patients with measurable disease, the authors of this report found the combination AC to have a superior response rate to the single agent, hydroxyurea. Objective response to AC was seen in 6 of 19 (32%) and in only one of 24 (4%) patients randomized to hydroxyurea (P = 0.06, Fisher's exact test). However, in the larger group of 137 evaluable patients, a survival advantage was not seen for those individuals treated with AC. Failure to demonstrate a survival advantage for an objectively superior drug combination would suggest the need for more active phase II agents in this disease.     

Phase III trial of standard-dose intravenous cisplatin plus paclitaxel versus moderately high-dose carboplatin followed by intravenous paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin in small-volume stage III ovarian carcinoma: an intergroup study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: To compare the progression-free and overall survival in small-volume residual ovarian cancer after treatment with intravenous (IV) cisplatin and paclitaxel or an experimental regimen of IV carboplatin followed by IV paclitaxel and intraperitoneal cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) over 24 hours followed by IV cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for six courses or IV carboplatin (area under curve 9) every 28 days for two courses, then IV paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) over 24 hours followed by intraperitoneal (IP) cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for six courses. RESULTS: Of the 523 patients who entered this trial, 462 were determined to be assessable, with prognostic factors well balanced between the treatments. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and gastrointestinal and metabolic toxicities were greater in the experimental arm. As a result, 18% of the patients received < or = two courses of IP therapy. Progression-free survival was superior for patients randomized to the experimental treatment arm (median, 28 v 22 months; relative risk, 0.78; log-rank P =.01, one-tail). There was a borderline improvement in overall survival associated with this regimen (median, 63 v 52 months; relative risk, 0.81; P =.05, one-tail). CONCLUSION: An experimental regimen including moderately high-dose IV carboplatin followed by IP paclitaxel and IV cisplatin yielded a significant improvement in progression-free survival when compared with a standard regimen of IV cisplatin and paclitaxel. Because the improvement in overall survival was of borderline statistical significance and toxicity was greater, the experimental arm is not recommended for routine use. However, the results provide direction for further clinical investigation in small-volume ovarian cancer.     

Phase II trial of edatrexate plus carboplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study

Background: Edatrexate and carboplatin are each active single agents in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Preclinical studies in NSCLC lines have demonstrated schedule-dependent synergy of edatrexate followed by carboplatin. In a phase I trial, we demonstrated the tolerability of this combination, the ability of ice-chip cryotherapy to ameliorate dose-limiting mucositis, and promising activity in NSCLC. This phase II trial (SWOG 9207) was undertaken to investigate the efficacy of this regimen in stage IV NSCLC. Methods: A total of 24 patients with stage IV disease were accrued to this Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) multicenter study. Treatment consisted of edatrexate 80 mg/m² (50% dose on day 8) intravenously weekly for 5 weeks, then every other week, and carboplatin 350 mg/m² every 28 days. Results: Of the 24 patients, 23 were assessable for toxicity and response; one was ineligible for study entry. Myelosuppression was the most significant toxicity; grade 3–4 neutropenia was seen in 8/23 patients. Two patients died of neutropenic sepsis during the first cycle of therapy, in both instances associated with the presence of pleural effusions. Although mild mucositis was common, it was dose-limiting (grade 3) in only three patients. Objective response was observed in 3/23 patients (13%). The median survival time was 7 months, and 30% of patients remained alive at one year. Conclusions: This study suggests that ice-chip cryotherapy is effective in reducing the severity of mucositis typically associated with this edatrexate schedule of administration. However, unexpectedly severe myelosuppression resulted in death from neutropenic sepsis in two patients with third space fluid collections, leading to a protocol amendment to exclude such patients from study entry. Furthermore, response and median survival with this dose schedule of edatrexate and carboplatin do not appear to be improved compared to other chemotherapeutic regimens tested by SWOG in this patient population. Received: 12 August 1996 / Accepted: 8 May 1997     

Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin with or without doxorubicin in ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

A randomized clinical trial was conducted in women with stage III ovarian carcinoma (less than or equal to 1 cm residual lesions), using cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin (CP) with or without doxorubicin. There were 349 evaluable patients, of whom 176 received CP while 173 patients received CP plus doxorubicin (CAP). Hematologic toxicity was almost identical. There was no significant difference in progression-free interval (PFI) (median, 22.7 months and 24.6 months), frequency of negative second-look laparotomy (30.2% and 32.8%), or survival (median, 31.2 months and 38.9 months) between CP and CAP, respectively. Thus, doxorubicin in the dose schedule employed does not improve combination chemotherapy of optimal stage III ovarian carcinoma. Several other findings, independent of treatment arm, were of interest. There was a significant difference in PFI and survival by residual disease category (yes v no) and by grade of differentiation (1 v 2 + 3). In multivariate analysis, age, residual disease at entry, cell type (clear cell carcinoma), and time from surgery to initiation of chemotherapy were significant predictors of survival. There was no difference in outcome comparing those who refused second-look with those who had a second-look.     

Phase III randomized trial of docetaxel plus cisplatin versus vindesine plus cisplatin in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: the Japanese Taxotere Lung Cancer Study Group.

PURPOSE: Few randomized trials have demonstrated survival benefit of combination chemotherapy involving new agents plus cisplatin compared with classic combination chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary aim of this study was to test whether docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) improves survival compared with vindesine plus cisplatin (VdsC) in patients with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible, stage IV, chemotherapy-naive patients (n = 311) were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 3- or 4-week cycle, or vindesine 3 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 4-week cycle. Cross-over administration of docetaxel and vindesine was prohibited for both treatment groups. RESULTS: Overall, 302 patients were eligible for evaluation. The DC arm demonstrated significant improvements compared with the VdsC arm in overall response rates (37% v 21%, respectively; P <.01) and median survival times (11.3 v 9.6 months, respectively; P =.014). Two-year survival rates were 24% for the DC arm compared with 12% for the VdsC arm. The physical domain of the Quality of Life for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs measure was significantly better in the DC arm than in the VdsC arm (P =.020). Toxicity was predominantly hematologic and was more severe in the VdsC arm. CONCLUSION: As first-line treatment for stage IV NSCLC, DC resulted in greater clinical benefit in terms of response rate (with marked improvements in overall and 2-year survival rates) and quality of life than did treatment with VdsC.     

A prospective randomized trial of fluorouracil versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a Hoosier Oncology Group trial

From May 1984 through December 1986, 141 patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum were entered on this Hoosier Oncology Group (HOG) trial evaluating the role of cisplatin in systemic therapy. Patients were stratified by the presence or absence of hepatic metastases and by performance status, and were subsequently randomized to receive fluorouracil (5-FU) (15 mg/kg/wk) alone or the same dose of 5-FU plus cisplatin (60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). The total duration of treatment was six cycles (18 weeks). In 132 fully evaluable patients the objective response rates were 19% for 5-FU and 22% for 5-FU plus cisplatin. Statistically, the median survival times of 40 and 39 weeks were not significantly different (P = .62). However, the median duration of remission (MDR) was superior (P = .05) for 5-FU alone. This study fails to confirm clinically significant synergy of 5-FU plus cisplatin in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.     

Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus alternating carboplatin and cisplatin for initial treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: long-term efficacy results: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the combination plus Carboplatin plus paclitaxel, which is considered the treatment of choice for initial chemotherapy of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) with a regimen combining alternating carboplatin and cisplatin plus paclitaxel. The two platinum derivatives have been previously combined as they are not totally cross-resistant and as they share no overlapping toxicities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AOC, after the initial cytoreductive surgery were randomized to either 6 courses of paclitaxel at 175 mg/m2 as 3 h infusion plus Carboplatin at 7 AUC (Arm A) or Paclitaxel at the same dose plus Carboplatin again at 7 AUC for cycles 1,3,5, while for cycles 2,4,6 Cisplatin at 75 mg/m2 substituted for Carboplatin (Arm B). RESULTS: 247 patients are analyzed. Significant differences were not found, both in terms of PFS (38 vs 39 months, p=0.95) and overall survival (40.6 vs 38.6 months, p=0.79). There was not also difference in 5-year survival rate (35% vs 39%) or 5-year PFS rate (23% vs 28%). Age >60, PS 2, stage IV disease and presence of residual disease were adversely related to the overall survival. CONCLUSION: Both regimens are well tolerated and effective. Alternating cisplatin with carboplatin does not improve the results compared with the standard combination.     

Exploratory phase III study of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the side effects and feasibility of cisplatin and carboplatin each in combination with paclitaxel as front-line therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) intravenously as a 3-hour infusion followed by either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or carboplatin (area under the plasma concentration-time curve of 5), both on day 1. The schedule was repeated every 3 weeks for at least six cycles. Women allocated to paclitaxel-cisplatin were admitted to the hospital, whereas the carboplatin regimen was administered to outpatients. RESULTS: A total of 208 eligible patients were randomized. Both regimens could be delivered in an optimal dose and without significant delay. Paclitaxel-carboplatin produced significantly less nausea and vomiting (P: <.01) and less peripheral neurotoxicity (P: =.04) but more granulocytopenia and thrombocytopenia (P: <.01). The overall response rate in 132 patients with measurable disease was 64% (84 of 132 patients), and in patients with elevated CA 125 levels at start, it was 74% (132 of 178 patients). With a median follow-up time of 37 months, the median progression-free survival time of all patients was 16 months and the median overall survival time was 31 months. The small number of patients entered onto the study caused wide confidence intervals (CIs) around the hazards ratio for progression-free survival of paclitaxel-carboplatin compared with paclitaxel-cisplatin (hazards ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.48) and did not allow conclusions about efficacy. CONCLUSION: Paclitaxel-carboplatin is a feasible regimen for outpatients with ovarian cancer and has a better toxicity profile than paclitaxel-cisplatin.     

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

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

Phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin with or without tirapazamine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Southwest Oncology Group Trial S0003.

PURPOSE: Tumor hypoxia confers chemotherapy resistance. Tirapazamine is a cytotoxin that selectively targets hypoxic cells. We conducted a phase III clinical trial to determine whether the addition of tirapazamine to paclitaxel and carboplatin offered a survival advantage when used in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 396 patients registered, 367 eligible patients were randomly assigned to either arm 1 (n = 181), which consisted of treatment every 21 days with paclitaxel 225 mg/m2/3 h, carboplatin (area under the curve = 6), and tirapazamine 260 mg/m2 in cycle 1 (which was escalated, if tolerable, to 330 mg/m(2) in cycle 2), or arm 2 (n = 186), which consisted of paclitaxel and carboplatin as in arm 1 with no tirapazamine. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the two arms. There were no statistically significant differences in response rates, progression-free survival, or overall survival. Patients on arm 1 had significantly (P < .05) more abdominal cramps, fatigue, transient hearing loss, febrile neutropenia, hypotension, myalgias, and skin rash and were removed from treatment more often as a result of toxicity than patients in arm 2 (26% v 13%, respectively; P = .003). More than 40% of patients did not have the tirapazamine dose escalated, primarily because of toxicity. The trial was closed early after an interim analysis demonstrated that the projected 37.5% improvement in survival (8 v 11 months median survival) in arm 1 was unachievable (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The addition of tirapazamine to paclitaxel and carboplatin does not result in improved survival in advanced NSCLC compared with paclitaxel and carboplatin alone but substantially increases toxicity.     

Topotecan versus observation after cisplatin plus etoposide in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: E7593--a phase III trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of topotecan in combination with standard chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) conducted a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable or assessable disease and an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2; stable brain metastases were allowed. All patients received four cycles of cisplatin and etoposide every 3 weeks (step 1; PE). Patients with stable or responding disease were then randomized to observation or four cycles of topotecan (1.5 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days, every 3 weeks; step 2). A total of 402 eligible patients were registered to step 1, and 223 eligible patients were registered to step 2 (observation, n = 111; topotecan, n = 112). RESULTS: Complete and partial response rates to induction PE were 3% and 32%, respectively. A 7% response rate was observed with topotecan (complete response, 2%; partial response, 5%). The median survival time for all 402 eligible patients was 9.6 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) from date of randomization on step 2 was significantly better with topotecan compared with observation (3.6 months v 2.3 months; P <.001). However, overall survival from date of randomization on step 2 was not significantly different between the observation and topotecan arms (8.9 months v 9.3 months; P =.43). Grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 50% and 3%, respectively, of PE patients in step 1 and 60% and 13% of topotecan patients in step 2. Grade 4/5 infection was observed in 4.6% of PE patients and 1.8% of topotecan patients. Grade 3/4 anemia developed in 22% of patients who received topotecan. No difference in quality of life between topotecan and observation was observed at any assessment time or for any of the subscale scores. CONCLUSION: Four cycles of PE induction therapy followed by four cycles of topotecan improved PFS but failed to improve overall survival or quality of life in extensive-stage SCLC. Four cycles of standard PE remains an appropriate first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC patients with good performance status.     

Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: In randomized trials the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel was superior to cisplatin and cyclophosphamide in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although in nonrandomized trials, carboplatin and paclitaxel was a less toxic and highly active combination regimen, there remained concern regarding its efficacy in patients with small-volume, resected, stage III disease. Thus, we conducted a noninferiority trial of cisplatin and paclitaxel versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ovarian cancer and no residual mass greater than 1.0 cm after surgery were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus a 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 (arm I), or carboplatin area under the curve 7.5 intravenously plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 hours (arm II). RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-two eligible patients were enrolled onto the study. Prognostic factors were similar in the two treatment groups. Gastrointestinal, renal, and metabolic toxicity, as well as grade 4 leukopenia, were significantly more frequent in arm I. Grade 2 or greater thrombocytopenia was more common in arm II. Neurologic toxicity was similar in both regimens. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 19.4 and 48.7 months, respectively, for arm I compared with 20.7 and 57.4 months, respectively, for arm II. The relative risk (RR) of progression for the carboplatin plus paclitaxel group was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.03) and the RR of death was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.02). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a chemotherapy regimen consisting of carboplatin plus paclitaxel results in less toxicity, is easier to administer, and is not inferior, when compared with cisplatin plus paclitaxel.     

Phase III randomized trial of 12 versus 3 months of maintenance paclitaxel in patients with advanced ovarian cancer after complete response to platinum and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group and Gynecologic Oncology Group trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether continuing paclitaxel for an extended time period in women with advanced ovarian cancer who had achieved a clinically defined complete response to a platinum/paclitaxel-based chemotherapy could prolong subsequent progression-free survival (PFS) and affect ultimate survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to either three or 12 cycles of single-agent paclitaxel administered every 28 days and were then followed up for progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: As of September 6, 2001, 277 patients (262 assessable) had entered the trial, with a total of 54 PFS events having developed among 222 patients with follow-up data. With the exception of peripheral neuropathy, there were no major differences in toxicity between the regimens. The median PFS was 21 and 28 months in the three-cycle and 12-cycle paclitaxel arms, respectively. One-sided P values from an unadjusted log-rank test and an adjusted Cox model analysis (for stratification factors) were.0035 and.0023, respectively, both in favor of the 12-cycle arm. The Cox model-adjusted three-cycle versus the 12-cycle progression hazard ratio was estimated to be 2.31 (99% confidence interval, 1.08 to 4.94). With a protocol-specified early termination boundary of P =.005, these findings led the Southwest Oncology Group Data Safety Monitoring Committee to discontinue the trial. As of the date of study closure, there was no difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Twelve cycles of single-agent paclitaxel administered to women with advanced ovarian cancer who attain a clinically defined complete response to initial platinum/paclitaxel-based chemotherapy significantly prolongs the duration of PFS.