P.E. Postmus

Prognostic factors in patients with pleural mesothelioma: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer experience.

PURPOSEnIdentification of prognostic factors in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma based on prospectively collected international data.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnFrom October 1984 to October 1993, 204 eligible adult patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma were entered into five consecutive prospective European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) phase II clinical trials designed to assess the efficacy of various anticancer drugs (mitoxantrone, epidoxorubicin, etoposide, and paclitaxel). The Cox model was used to assess 13 factors related to biology and disease history with respect to survival.nnnRESULTSnThe median survival duration was 12.6 months from diagnosis and 8.4 months from trial entry. In the multivariate analysis, poor prognosis was associated with a poor performance status, a high WBC count, a probable/possible histologic diagnosis of mesothelioma, male gender, and having sarcomatous tissue as the histologic subtype. Taking these five factors into consideration, patients were classified into two groups: a good-prognosis group (1-year survival rate, 40%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 30% to 50%) and a poor-prognosis group (1-year survival, 12%; 95% CI, 4% to 20%).nnnCONCLUSIONnThese results may help to design new clinical trials in pleural mesothelioma by selecting more homogenous groups of patients.

Randomized study of paclitaxel-cisplatin versus cisplatin-teniposide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Cooperative Group.

PURPOSEnTo compare two cisplatin based chemotherapy schedules in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnA total of 332 patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 either in combination with teniposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 3, and 5 (arm A) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 by 3-hour infusion on day 1 (arm B); cycles were repeated every 3 weeks.nnnRESULTSnFifteen patients were ineligible; patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms: 71% were male, 71% had less than 5% weight loss, 89% had a World Health Organization (WHO) performance status of 0 to 1, 51% had adenocarcinoma, and 61% had stage IV disease. Hematologic toxicity was significantly more severe in arm A (leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia grade 3 or 4: 66% v 19%, 83% v 55%, 36% v 2% in arms A and B, respectively), which resulted in more febrile neutropenia (27% v 3% in arms A and B, respectively), dose reductions, and treatment delays. There were a total of nine toxic deaths, six due to neutropenic sepsis: five in arm A and one in arm B. In contrast, arthralgia/myalgia (grade 2 or 3, 4% v 17%), peripheral neurotoxicity (grade 2 or 3, 6% v 29%), and hypersensitivity reactions (1% v 7%, all grades) were significantly more frequent in arm B. The frequency and severity of other toxicities were comparable between the two arms. Responses were one complete and 44 partial on arm A (28%) and two complete and 61 partial (41%) on arm B (P = .018). There was no significant difference in survival, with median and 1-year survivals 9.9 versus 9.7 months and 41% versus 43%, respectively in arm A and B. Progression-free survival was 4.9 and 5.4 months in arm A and B, respectively. Selected centers participated in a quality-of-life (QoL) assessment, which was performed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and LC-13 administered at baseline and every 6 weeks thereafter. Arm B achieved a better score at week 6 for emotional, cognitive and social functioning, global health status, fatigue, and appetite loss, which was lost at 12 weeks. In conclusion, arm B appears superior to arm A with regard to response rate, side effects, and QoL.nnnCONCLUSIONnAlthough survival was not improved, arm B offers a better palliation for advanced NSCLC patients than arm A.

Pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel and carboplatin in a dose-escalating and dose-sequencing study in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The European Cancer Centre.

PURPOSEnTo investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin (C) in a sequence-finding and dose-escalating study in untreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnFifty-five chemotherapy-naive patients with NSCLC were entered onto the pharmacokinetic part of a large phase I trial in which P was administered as a 3-hour infusion at dosages of 100 to 250 mg/m2, and C over 30 minutes at dosages of 300 to 400 mg/m2. Patients were randomized for the sequence of administration, first C followed by P or vice versa. Each patient received the alternate sequence during the second and subsequent courses.nnnRESULTSnThe most important hematologic toxicity encountered-was neutropenia. Hematologic toxicity was not dependent on the sequence in which P and C were administered, but there was cumulative neutropenia. Nonhematologic toxicities consisted mainly of vomiting, myalgia, and arthralgia. No sequence-dependent pharmacokinetic interactions for the P area under the concentration-time curve (P-AUC), maximal plasma concentration (P-Cmax), or time above a threshold concentration of 0.1 mumol/L (P-T > or = 0.1 mumol/L) were observed. However, there was a significant difference for the metabolite 6 alpha-hydroxypaclitaxel AUC (6OHP-AUC). Higher 6OHP-AUCs were observed when C was administered before P. The mean plasma ultrafiltrate AUC of C (CpUF-AUC) at the dosage of 300 mg/m2 for the sequence C-->P was 3.52 mg/mL.min (range, 1.94 to 5.83) and 3.62 mg/mL.min for the sequence P-->C (range, 1.91 to 5.01), which is not significantly different (P = .55). Of 45 assessable patients, there were five major responders (three complete responders and two partial responders). Four of five responses occurred at dosages above dose level 4 (P 175 mg/m2 + C 300 mg/m2). The median survival duration was best correlated with the P dose (4.8 months for doses < 175 mg/m2 v 7.9 months for doses > or = 175 mg/m2, P = .07; P-T > or = 0.1 mumol/L, 4.8 months for < 15 hours v 8.2 months for > or = 15 hours, P = .06).nnnCONCLUSIONnThere was no pharmacokinetic-sequence interaction between C and P in this study. A clear dose-response relation with respect to response rate and survival was observed. The pharmacokinetic parameter P-T > or = 0.1 mumol/L was related to improved survival in this study.

Second-Line Chemotherapy in Relapsing or Refractory Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Review

PURPOSEnSince the increased use of first-line chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), second-line chemotherapy may nowadays be considered for a growing group of patients. Guidelines for second-line treatment have to be developed yet.nnnMETHODSnWe reviewed the published literature on second-line chemotherapy for NSCLC with emphasis on the role of factors such as pretreatment, response to first-line treatment, and length of disease-free-interval.nnnRESULTSnThirty-four single-agent-studies and 24 multidrug-studies on second-line treatment were identified. Docetaxel has been studied most extensively and is the only agent that has been studied in randomized phase III trials. Different definitions of sensitivity applied by different authors and conflicting results have been reported about the influence of response to prior chemotherapy.nnnCONCLUSIONnSince most patients are treated with a platinum-based regimen in the first line, platinum resistance usually is a major consideration for the use of second-line agents. We argue, however, that a more general definition of drug resistance is more appropriate than resistance to platinum only. Criteria to select NSCLC patients for second-line treatment have not been defined yet. This is also important in light of the upcoming necessity to test new drugs in pretreated instead of treated patients. Guidelines for second-line treatment of NSCLC based on clinical information on drug sensitivity to first-line therapy need to be developed.

Retreatment with the induction regimen in small cell lung cancer relapsing after an initial response to short term chemotherapy

In 37 patients with small cell lung cancer treatment with five cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and etoposide (CDE), resulted in 23 complete (CR) and 14 partial responses (PR). Median response duration was 34 weeks. At relapse all patients were retreated with CDE. In 23 (62%) patients this gave a second response (6 CR, 17 PR). Factors influencing the occurrence of a second response were: 1. a CR after the first five cycles of CDE; 18 out of 23 CR patients responded again whereas only five of the 14 PR patients responded (P less than 0.01). 2. 15 out of 19 patients with a first response duration greater than 34 weeks reached a second response and in eight of the other 18 patients retreatment was successful (P less than 0.05). Reinduction at relapse, after short term chemotherapy and a treatment-free interval, with the induction regimen is an effective second line treatment in patients with an initial CR and a first response duration of greater than 34 weeks.

Randomized trial of alternating versus sequential radiotherapy/chemotherapy in limited-disease patients with small-cell lung cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Cooperative Group Study.

PURPOSEnTo evaluate the effectiveness of alternating or sequential schedules of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE) chemotherapy and irradiation in patients with previously untreated small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).nnnMATERIALS AND METHODSnA total of 335 eligible patients were randomized between five courses of CDE chemotherapy followed by thoracic irradiation 50 Gy in 20 daily fractions (S) and the same total dose of chemotherapy and irradiation split into four courses of five daily fractions delivered on days 14 to 21 of the second and subsequent chemotherapy courses (A). Patients had a median age of 61 years (range, 33 to 75); 224 (66%) were male; the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) was 0 or 1 in 311; and 254 had weight loss less than 10%.nnnRESULTSnThe overall median survival duration was 15 months, with 62% (95% confidence interval [CI], 57% to 67%) 1-year, 25% (95% CI, 20% to 30%) 2-year, and 14% (95% CI, 10% to 18%) 3-year survival rates. There was no significant difference between the arms. The median survival time was 14 months in A and 15 months in S. One-year survival was 60% in A (95% CI, 53% to 67%) and 64% in S (95% CI, 57% to 71%); 2-year survival was 26% in A (95% CI, 19% to 33%) and 23% in S (95% CI, 16% to 30%); and 3-year survival was 12% in A (95% CI, 6% to 18%) and 15% in S (95% CI, 9% to 21%). World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 90% of A and 77% of S patients (P < .001) and WHO grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 33% of A and 20% of S patients (P < .001). Rates of other acute and late toxicities were similar in both arms. Hematologic toxicity compromised treatment dose delivery; less than 50% of A patients received greater than 95% of prescribed chemotherapy and 77% their full radiation course, compared with 60% and 93% for arm S (P < .009). Local relapse was the site of first failure in 60% of all patients and 75% of these suffered an in-field relapse; no difference could be seen between the two arms.nnnCONCLUSIONnThis trial failed to confirm the superiority of an alternating schedule of delivery. For this combination of chemotherapy and irradiation, hematologic toxicity compromised treatment delivery and could have contributed to the overall result. The poor rates of local control are disappointing and require intensification of the radiation therapy strategy.

Pharmacokinetic schedule finding study of the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with solid tumors

PURPOSEnTo determine possible schedule dependent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between gemcitabine (2,2-difluorodeoxycytidine, dFdC) and cisplatin (cis-diammine-dichloroplatinum, CDDP) in patients with advanced stage solid tumors in a phase I trial.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnA total of 33 patients with advanced stage solid tumors were treated with gemcitabine (30-min infusion, 800 mg/m2) and cisplatin (one-hour infusion, 50 mg/m2). Sixteen patients had a four-hour interval between gemcitabine (days 1, 8, 15) and cisplatin (days 1 and 8), followed by the reverse schedule and seventeen patients had a 24-hour interval between gemcitabine (days 1, 8, 15) and cisplatin (days 2 and 9), followed by the reverse schedule. Gemcitabine and cisplatin pharmacokinetics were measured in plasma and white blood cells (WBC), isolated from blood samples taken at several time points after the start of treatment.nnnRESULTSnA four-hour time interval between both agents did not reveal major differences in plasma pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine, dFdU (deaminated gemcitabine) and platinum (Pt), and of gemcitabine-triphosphate (dFdCTP) accumulation and Pt-DNA adduct formation in WBC between the two different sequences of gemcitabine and cisplatin. In the patients treated with the 24-hour interval, cisplatin before gemcitabine did not significantly change peak gemcitabine levels and the AUC of plasma dFdU, but tended to increase dFdCTP AUC in WBC 1.5-fold (P < 0.06). Gemcitabine before cisplatin decreased the plasma AUC of Pt 2.1-fold (P = 0.03). No significant differences in Pt-DNA adduct levels in WBC were found, although gemcitabine before cisplatin tended to increase the 24-hour retention of Pt-DNA adducts. Creatinine clearance on day 28 was related to the peak plasma levels of total Pt (linear regression coefficient (r) = 0.47, P = 0.02, n = 26). Furthermore, the increase in the Pt-GG to Pt-AG ratio 24 hours after cisplatin treatment was related to the overall response of patients (r = 0.89, P < 0.01, n = 8).nnnCONCLUSIONSnOf all schedules the treatment of patients with cisplatin 24 hours before gemcitabine led to the highest dFdCTP accumulation in WBC and total Pt levels in plasma. These characteristics formed the basis for further investigation of this schedule in a phase II clinical study.

Paclitaxel for malignant pleural mesothelioma: A phase II study of the EORTC Lung Cancer Cooperative Group

The EORTC Lung Cancer Cooperative Group undertook a phase II study of paclitaxel in 25 chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Paclitaxel was given intravenously at a dose of 200 mg m-2 as a 3 h infusion every 3 weeks, after standard premedication with corticosteroids and antihistamines. This regimen was well tolerated, with < 4% of cycles resulting in severe toxicity. No major objective responses were observed and ten patients had stable disease. Median survival time was 39 weeks and the 1 year survival rate was 30%. In conclusion, paclitaxel at the dose and schedule investigated in this trial had no major activity in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Teniposide for brain metastases of small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Cooperative Group.

PURPOSEnHere we report the results of a phase II study of teniposide, one of the most active drugs against small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), in patients with brain metastases.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnPatients with SCLC who presented with brain metastases at diagnosis (n = 11) or during follow-up evaluation after treatment (n = 69) were treated with teniposide at a dose of 150 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 3, and 5 at 3-week intervals in an outpatient setting. Response in the brain was evaluated by brain computed tomography (CT) after two, six, and 12 courses.nnnRESULTSnIn 26 of 80 assessable patients, an intracranial response was seen, with a response rate of 33% (95% confidence interval, 22% to 44%). The median response duration was 5.4 months for patients with a complete response (CR) and 4.2 months for patients with a partial response (PR). Patients who required corticosteroids for peritumoral edema had a significantly lower response rate than patients who did not receive corticosteroids. Neurologic function at the start of treatment had a significant influence (neurologic function 1 better than 2, respectively, better than 3 and 4; P < .001), as did the number of cycles of previous chemotherapy (0 better than 1 to 5 cycles, respectively, better than > 5 cycles; P = .043). Grade 3/4 leukocytopenia and thrombocytopenia were seen in 3% and 39%, respectively, of 80 patients. Toxicity-related death was seen in eight patients, seven of whom were previously treated with chemotherapy.nnnCONCLUSIONnTeniposide is active against brain metastases of SCLC. It is a suitable drug for palliation, especially of patients without extensive pretreatment and with a good neurologic function and performance status. Patients previously treated with cranial radiotherapy are also candidates for this therapy. If systemic chemotherapy is considered for tumor progression outside the brain, radiotherapy of brain metastases might be omitted or delayed pending the effect of chemotherapy. The use of corticosteroids in patients with brain metastases treated with chemotherapy might influence the efficacy of the chemotherapy.

Etoposide in malignant pleural mesothelioma: Two phase II trials of the EORTC lung cancer cooperative group

Intravenous and oral etoposide (VP 16-213) were tested in two sequential phase II trials in chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. In the first trial, etoposide was given intravenously (i.v.) at a dose of 150 mg/m2 on days 1, 3 and 5 every 3 weeks. The second trial investigated a daily oral dose of 100 mg for 21 days followed by a 2-week treatment-free period, and then recycling. In both trials, the treatment was given until disease progression, intolerable toxicity or patient refusal. In the i.v. trial, 49 patients were included, 2 patients were ineligible. The oral trial recruited 45 patients, 4 patients were not eligible. In both trials, the main side-effects were moderate leucopenia, alopecia, nausea and vomiting. Two partial responses (4%) and three partial responses (7%) were reported in the i.v. and oral trials, respectively. The median survival was 29 weeks and 38 weeks in the i.v. and oral trials, respectively. In conclusion, further investigation of etoposide in malignant mesothelioma is not recommended.