R. Cioffi

Randomized Trial Comparing Cisplatin, Gemcitabine, and Vinorelbine With Either Cisplatin and Gemcitabine or Cisplatin and Vinorelbine in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Interim Analysis of a Phase III Trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group

PURPOSE In our previous phase II study, the cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine (PGV) regimen produced a median survival time (MST) of approximately 1 year in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The present study was aimed at comparing the MST of patients treated with this triplet regimen with the MSTs of patients receiving cisplatin and vinorelbine (PV) or cisplatin and gemcitabine (PG). PATIENTS AND METHODS From April 1997, patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, an age of < or = 70 years, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 1 were randomized to receive one of the following regimens: cisplatin 50 mg/m(2), gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (arm A); cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (arm B); or cisplatin 120 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 29 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2)/wk (arm C). According to the two-stage design for phase III trials, an interim analysis was planned when the first 60 patients per arm were assessable for survival. RESULTS The survival data of 180 NSCLC patients (stage IIIB, 76 patients; stage IV, 104 patients) were analyzed in April 1999. Overall, 128 patients had died (PGV, n = 33; PG, n = 42; and PV, n = 53). The MST of patients in the PGV, PG, and PV arms was 51, 42, and 35 weeks, respectively, and the corresponding 1-year projected survival rates were 45%, 40%, and 34%, respectively. When only patients with stage IV disease were considered, an even stronger difference was seen between PGV (MST = 47 weeks) and both PG (34 weeks) and PV (27 weeks). At multivariate Cox analysis, the estimate hazard of death for patients receiving PGV compared with those receiving PV was 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.77; P <.01). The response rates were 47% in the PGV arm, 30% in the PG arm, 25% in the PV arm. Both hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were not substantially worse in patients who received the PGV regimen. CONCLUSION The PGV regimen is associated with a substantial survival gain (MST > 3 months longer) when compared with the PV combination. Because this difference in survival met one of the early stopping rules, the accrual in the PV arm has been stopped (null hypothesis rejected). Enrollment still continues in the PGV and PG arm to ascertain whether the PGV regimen can also produce a significantly longer survival than that obtained with the PG regimen.

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 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)⩽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 ⩾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⩽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⩽1.

Cisplatin, Gemcitabine, and Paclitaxel in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase I-II Study

PURPOSE Because both cisplatin-paclitaxel and cisplatin-gemcitabine combinations are generally considered to be among the most active regimens in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, this study aimed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of paclitaxel when combined with fixed doses of cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced NSCLC patients and aimed to define the therapeutic activity of this new regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS From October 1996 to September 1998, 75 patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC, who were either chemotherapy-naive (65 patients) or who had been pretreated (10 patients), received fixed doses of cisplatin (50 mg/m(2)) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) and escalating doses of paclitaxel in a 1-hour infusion, all on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. RESULTS Five different paclitaxel doses were tested, for a total of 275 cycles delivered. The escalation was stopped at the paclitaxel dose of 75 mg/m(2) in pretreated patients, whereas it continued to 150 mg/m(2) in chemotherapy-naive patients. A total of 65 chemotherapy-naive patients were treated. A paclitaxel dose of 125 mg/m(2) was recommended for phase II, and a total of 39 patients were treated at this level, for a total of 158 cycles delivered. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Five patients were hospitalized because of sepsis, and packed RBC transfusion was required in 13 patients. Grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 23 (31%) and eight (11%) patients, respectively. Overall, 74 of the 75 patients were assessable for response. Four complete (CR) and 38 partial (PR) responses were recorded, for an overall response rate (ORR) of 57%. Three of the ten pretreated patients achieved a PR, compared with four CRs and 35 PRs in the 64 chemotherapy-naive patients (ORR, 61%). Thirty-eight of 39 patients included in phase II were assessable for response and quality of life (QOL) (one patients disease was not measurable). Two CRs and 24 PRs were recorded in this group, for an ORR of 68% (95% confidence interval, 51% to 82%). The QOL score improved in 27 of 38 (71%) patients. The median survival time was 15 months in the 65 chemotherapy-naive patients, but it had not yet been reached in the 39 patients included in phase II, for whom the 1-year projected survival was 70%. CONCLUSION The cisplatin-gemcitabine-paclitaxel combination is a feasible and well-tolerated approach in advanced NSCLC patients. Both a major response and a QOL improvement can be obtained in a high proportion of patients, with a median survival time exceeding 1 year. A phase III trial comparing this combination with other effective regimens is under way.

Carboplatin plus vinorelbine plus G-CSF in elderly patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a poorly tolerated regimen. Results of a multicentre phase II study

PURPOSE AND METHODS A multicentre phase II trial (single-stage design) was undertaken to test the activity and toxicity of carboplatin (AUC 5 according to Calvert, day 1) plus vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8) with lenograstim support, every 3 weeks in the first line treatment of elderly patients, aged 65 or more, affected by extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The primary end-point of the trial was the objective response rate. Twenty-three responses among 37 patients were considered necessary to proceed to a phase III trial. RESULTS Twenty-eight patients were enrolled (median age 70 years). Treatment was remarkably toxic. Three patients died while on treatment. Eleven patients (39.3%, 95% exact confidence interval (CI): 21.5-59.4) had an objective response, that was complete in 2 cases. Median time to progression was 5.1 months (95% CI: 3.3-6.7). Median survival was 7.9 months (95% CI: 4.8-14.4). CONCLUSION Carboplatin plus vinorelbine is poorly tolerated and not sufficiently active to warrant phase III comparison with standard chemotherapy regimens in elderly patients with extensive SCLC.

Gemcitabine combined with either pemetrexed or paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer A randomized phase II SICOG trial

PURPOSE To estimate the safety, activity, and impact on quality of life of a combination of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the context of a randomized two-stage phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients in stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to receive either gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on day 1, and pemetrexed (Alimta) 500 mg/m(2) followed by gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on day 8 of a 3-weekly cycle (GA arm), or paclitaxel 120 mg/m(2) followed by gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2), both given on days 1 and 8 of a 3-weekly cycle (PG arm). RESULTS 105 (GA arm, 51; PG arm, 54) eligible patients (stage IV, 32 and 30, respectively) were enrolled into this study; thereafter, accrual was stopped due to first-stage analysis. The response rate was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10-33%) in the GA arm, and 32% (95% CI, 20-46%) in the PG arm. Median progression-free survival was 5.1 (95% CI, 3.7-6.5) months in the GA arm, and 8.3 (95% CI, 5.9-10.7) months in the PG arm, while median overall survival was 10.5 (95% CI 7.1-13.9), and 13.3 (95% CI 11.7-14.9) months, respectively. Severe neutropenia (36% vs 22%), and febrile neutropenia (14% vs 7%) were more common with the GA regimen, while hair loss (52% vs 16%) and any grade peripheral neuropathy (31% vs 2%) occurred more frequently with PG regimen. Other severe side effects of GA regimen were diarrhoea (10%), liver enzyme derangement (10%), and fatigue (8%). CONCLUSION The GA regimen was tolerated and moderately active in advanced or metastatic NSCLC. However, this combination did not yield any advantage in comparison with the PG regimen, and does not deserve further evaluation.

Partial substitution of cisplatin with carboplatin in combination with etoposide in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a multicentric randomised Phase II trial

Seventy previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC were randomised, after stratification for stage (IIIB vs. IV) and Performance Status (0-1 vs. 2), to receive either treatment A: CDDP 40 mg/m2 + VP16 100 mg/m2 day 1-3 (37 patients); or treatment B: CBDCA 250 mg/m2 day 1 + CDDP 30 mg/m2 day 2, 3 + VP16 100 mg/m2 day 1-3 (33 patients). Therapy was recycled on day 29 in both arms. The two arms were well balanced for the main pretreatment characteristics. Sixty-six patients (32 with Stage IIIB and 34 with Stage IV disease) were evaluable for toxicity and response (arm A = 34, arm B = 32), while four ineligible patients were excluded from analysis. Acute toxicity was assessed at recycling. Non-hematologic toxicity was higher in arm A. However, the reduction of nephrotoxicity (9% vs. 23%) in arm B was lower than expected. Leukopenia (15 vs. 5 patients) or thrombocytopenia (7 vs. 0 patients) of any grade affected more patients of arm B. Moreover, Grade 3-4 leukopenia (six patients) or thrombocytopenia (four patients) was observed only in arm B. Seventeen patients responded: 11/34 (32%; 95% C.I. = 17-50%) in arm A, and 6/32 (19%; 95% C.I. = 7-36%) in arm B. Median survival times of 40 and 34 weeks, respectively, were reported in arm A and B. Stage IIIB and squamous cell histology were associated with a higher probability of response. In conclusion, the partial replacement of CDDP with CBDCA in combination with VP16 slightly improves the tolerance of the treatment in terms of nephro- and neurotoxicity; however, it induces a significant increase in hematologic toxicity. In view of this unfavourable toxicologic profile and of the discouraging response rate observed, this regimen cannot be recommended as standard treatment in advanced NSCLC.