Random prospective study of vindesine versus vindesine plus high-dose cisplatin versus vindesine plus cisplatin plus mitomycin C in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

1986 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
pp. 1037-1043 ◽  
Author(s):  
L H Einhorn ◽  
P J Loehrer ◽  
S D Williams ◽  
S Meyers ◽  
T Gabrys ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Mitomycin C ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Small Cell Lung

In this phase III randomized study, 124 evaluable patients with unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized to vindesine v cisplatin (120 mg/m2) plus vindesine v cisplatin (60 mg/m2) plus vindesine plus mitomycin C. The objective response rate for cisplatin and vindesine was 27% v 20% for cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin C, and 14% for vindesine alone (P = .25 for cisplatin and vindesine v vindesine). The percentage of patients having stable disease (no progression for a minimum of 3 months) was 20% (cisplatin and vindesine), 27% (cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin C), and 26% (vindesine alone), respectively. The median survival time for vindesine was 18 weeks, compared with 26 weeks for cisplatin and vindesine and 17 weeks for cisplatin, vindesine, and mitomycin C. Overall survival was not statistically different for cisplatin plus vindesine v vindesine (P = .65). There was no evidence for improved duration of remission or survival of responders with the cisplatin (120 mg/m2) and vindesine arm. This study failed to demonstrate sufficient therapeutic benefit for cisplatin and vindesine (+/- mitomycin C) compared with single-agent vindesine to justify the increased cost and toxicity of these combination regimens.

Phase III Comparative Study of High-Dose Cisplatin Versus a Combination of Paclitaxel and Cisplatin in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (19) ◽  
pp. 3390-3399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Gatzemeier ◽  
Joachim von Pawel ◽  
Maya Gottfried ◽  
G.P. M. ten Velde ◽  
Karin Mattson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Time To Progression ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Improvement In Survival

PURPOSE: New effective chemotherapy is needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Paclitaxel administered as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be a potentially new useful agent for the treatment of NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and April 1996, 414 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to received either a control arm of high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m2) or a combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2, 3-hour infusion) and cisplatin (80 mg/m2) every 21 days. RESULTS: Compared with the cisplatin-only arm, there was a 9% improvement (95% confidence interval, 0% to 19%) in overall response rate for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (17% v 26%, respectively; P = .028). Median time to progression was 2.7 and 4.1 months in the control and paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, respectively (P = .026). The study, however, failed to show a significant improvement in median survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (8.6 months in the control arm v 8.1 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, P = .862). There was more hematotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and arthralgia/myalgia on the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, whereas the high-dose cisplatin arm produced more ototoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and nephrotoxicity. Quality of life (QOL) was similar overall between the two arms. CONCLUSION: This large randomized phase III trial failed to show a significant improvement in survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination compared with high-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination did produce a better clinical response, resulting in an increased time to progression while providing a similar QOL.

REPLATINUM Phase III randomized study: RRx-001 + platinum doublet versus platinum doublet in third-line small cell lung cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (30) ◽  
pp. 3427-3433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Oronsky ◽  
Tony R Reid ◽  
Christopher Larson ◽  
Scott Caroen ◽  
Mary Quinn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Platinum Doublet

RRx-001 is a cysteine-directed anticancer alkylating agent with activity in a Phase II study in platinum refractory small cell lung cancer. Here, we describe the design of REPLATINUM, an open-label, Phase III trial. 120 patients with previously platinum-treated small cell lung cancer in third line will be randomized 1:1 to receive RRx-001 followed by four cycles of a platinum doublet, and then alternating cycles of RRx-001 and single agent platinum until progression versus four cycles of a platinum doublet. At radiologic progression on the platinum doublet, patients may cross over to the RRx-001 arm. Primary objective: to demonstrate superior progression-free survival in the RRx-001 population. Secondary objectives: to demonstrate superiority for overall survival and objective response rate. Clinical Trial registration: NCT03699956

TRIBUTE: A Phase III Trial of Erlotinib Hydrochloride (OSI-774) Combined With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Chemotherapy in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (25) ◽  
pp. 5892-5899 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy S. Herbst ◽  
Diane Prager ◽  
Robert Hermann ◽  
Lou Fehrenbacher ◽  
Bruce E. Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Treatment Center ◽  
Small Cell Lung

Purpose Erlotinib is a potent reversible HER1/epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor with single-agent activity in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib was combined with chemotherapy to determine if it could improve the outcome of patients with NSCLC. Patients and Methods TRIBUTE randomly assigned patients with good performance status and previously untreated advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC to erlotinib 150 mg/d or placebo combined with up to six cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel, followed by maintenance monotherapy with erlotinib. Random assignment was stratified by stage, weight loss in the previous 6 months, measurable disease, and treatment center. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response (OR), and duration of response. Results There were 1,059 assessable patients (526 erlotinib; 533 placebo). Median survival for patients treated with erlotinib was 10.6 v 10.5 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.16; P = .95). There was no difference in OR or median TTP. Patients who reported never smoking (72 erlotinib; 44 placebo) experienced improved OS in the erlotinib arm (22.5 v 10.1 months for placebo), though no other prespecified factors showed an advantage in OS with erlotinib. Erlotinib and placebo arms were equivalent in adverse events (except rash and diarrhea). Conclusion Erlotinib with concurrent carboplatin and paclitaxel did not confer a survival advantage over carboplatin and paclitaxel alone in patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC. Never smokers treated with erlotinib and chemotherapy seemed to experience an improvement in survival and will undergo further investigation in future randomized trials.

Randomized, Phase III Study of Weekly Paclitaxel in Combination With Carboplatin Versus Standard Every-3-Weeks Administration of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel for Patients With Previously Untreated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandra P. Belani ◽  
Suresh Ramalingam ◽  
Michael C. Perry ◽  
Renato V. LaRocca ◽  
David Rinaldi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Weekly Paclitaxel ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Alternative Treatment Option

Purpose To compare the efficacy and safety of weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin administered every 4 weeks to the standard regimen of paclitaxel and carboplatin administered every 3 weeks for the treatment of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Four hundred forty-four patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomly assigned to either arm 1 (n = 223), paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks with carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) = 6 mg/mL · min on day 1 of each 4 week cycle, or arm 2 (n = 221), paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC = 6 on day 1 of each 3-week cycle. After four cycles of therapy, patients in both treatment arms were eligible to continue weekly paclitaxel (70 mg/m2, 3 of 4 weeks) as maintenance therapy until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Results The objective response rate was 27.6% for arm 1 and 19.2% for arm 2. Median time to progression (TTP) was 18.4 and median survival (MS) was 38.6 weeks for arm 1. For arm 2, the median TTP and MS were 16.7 weeks and 42.9 weeks respectively. Grade 3/4 anemia was more common with arm 1, although grade 2/3 neuropathy and arthralgia were less common. The remainder of the toxicities were similar between the two arms. Conclusion All efficacy parameters were similar between the two treatment arms. The favorable nonhematologic toxicity profile of arm 1 makes this an alternative treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Phase II Study of Pemetrexed and Carboplatin Plus Bevacizumab With Maintenance Pemetrexed and Bevacizumab As First-Line Therapy for Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (20) ◽  
pp. 3284-3289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jyoti D. Patel ◽  
Thomas A. Hensing ◽  
Alfred Rademaker ◽  
Eric M. Hart ◽  
Matthew G. Blum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Time Curve ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeThis study evaluated the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed, carboplatin, and bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed and bevacizumab in patients with chemotherapy-naive stage IIIB (effusion) or stage IV nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and MethodsPatients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve of 6, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for six cycles. For patients with response or stable disease, pemetrexed and bevacizumab were continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.ResultsFifty patients were enrolled and received treatment. The median follow-up was 13.0 months, and the median number of treatment cycles was seven (range, one to 51). Thirty patients (60%) completed ≥ six treatment cycles, and nine (18%) completed ≥ 18 treatment cycles. Among the 49 patients assessable for response, the objective response rate was 55% (95% CI, 41% to 69%). Median progression-free and overall survival rates were 7.8 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 11.5 months) and 14.1 months (95% CI, 10.8 to 19.6 months), respectively. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was modest—anemia (6%; 0), neutropenia (4%; 0), and thrombocytopenia (0; 8%). Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities were proteinuria (2%; 0), venous thrombosis (4%; 2%), arterial thrombosis (2%; 0), fatigue (8%; 0), infection (8%; 2%), nephrotoxicity (2%; 0), and diverticulitis (6%; 2%). There were no grade 3 or greater hemorrhagic events or hypertension cases.ConclusionThis regimen, involving a maintenance component, was associated with acceptable toxicity and relatively long survival in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. These results justify a phase III comparison against the standard-of-care in this patient population.

Phase III Study of Erlotinib in Combination With Cisplatin and Gemcitabine in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 1545-1552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Gatzemeier ◽  
Anna Pluzanska ◽  
Aleksandra Szczesna ◽  
Eckhard Kaukel ◽  
Jaromir Roubec ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Double Blind

Purpose Erlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL). Results A total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild). Conclusion Erlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Focus on Pemetrexed Disodium

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. CMT.S5262
Author(s):  
Josephine Feliciano ◽  
Jyoti Patel
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Folic Acid Supplementation ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Line Setting

Pemetrexed (Alimta, Eli Lilly) is a multi-targeted anti-folate originally approved for its use in malignant mesothelioma. Based on results from phase III clinical investigations, it is now approved for use as a single agent in the second-line setting and in combination with platinum therapy in the first-line setting for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. It is also under investigation in earlier stages of non small cell lung cancer including in the adjuvant setting and with radiation. It has shown to be particularly efficacious for non-squamous histology and is well tolerated. Toxicity includes, but is not limited to hematologic toxicity and gastrointestinal toxicity, which are minimized by vitamin B12 and folic acid supplementation. Recent analyses also suggest cost-effectiveness of this agent in patient with advanced, non-squamous cell non-small cell lung cancer.

Phase III randomized trial comparing cisplatin and carboplatin with or without ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. European Lung Cancer Working Party.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 1388-1396 ◽  
Author(s):  
J P Sculier ◽  
M Paesmans ◽  
J Thiriaux ◽  
J Lecomte ◽  
G Bureau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Moderate Dose

PURPOSE A phase III randomized trial in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was performed to determine if the addition of ifosfamide to moderate-dose cisplatin and carboplatin improved response rate (primary end point) and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 529 patients were randomized to receive a combination of moderate-dose carboplatin (200 mg/m2 intravenously [i.v.] on day 1) and cisplatin (30 mg/m2 i.v. on days 2 and 3) with (CCI arm) or without (CC arm) ifosfamide (1.5 g/m2 i.v. on days 1 to 3). There were 248 eligible patients on the CC arm and 257 on the CCI arm, with 220 and 238 patients assessable for response, respectively. All but 23 had stage IV disease with pleural effusion. RESULTS There was a 16% objective response (OR) rate to CC and a 31% OR rate to CCI. That observed difference was highly statistically significant (P < 0.001). Duration of response and survival were not statistically different between arms. The CCI regimen was associated with significantly more acute toxicities: emesis, alopecia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia. The frequency of chronic renal, auditive, and peripheral neurologic toxicity was low in both arms (4.6% and 6.6%, respectively, after six courses of chemotherapy). The relative dose-intensity (RDI) of the CCI arm was significantly lower than that of the CC arm. CONCLUSION The addition of ifosfamide to moderate-dose cisplatin and carboplatin significantly improves the antitumoral response rate, but has no apparent effect an survival in advanced NSCLC.

A mathematical model of drug resistance applied to treatment for small-cell lung cancer.

1988 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 457-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
W M Gregory ◽  
B G Birkhead ◽  
R L Souhami
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Mathematical Model ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Doubling Time ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Tumor Doubling Time

A mathematical model has been applied to patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in order to estimate the proportions of resistant and sensitive tumor at presentation, and the efficacy of the treatment, measured in terms of proportions of tumor killed with each cycle of therapy. The model uses estimates of tumor volume obtained from computed tomographic (CT) scans of the chest before each course of chemotherapy. Application of the model to a trial using single-agent high-dose cyclophosphamide (HDC) showed that HDC killed approximately 94% of the sensitive tumor on each application, but that the proportion of tumor resistant to HDC rose from an average of 1% to an average of 15% after the first cycle, assuming a 30-day tumor doubling time. These estimates proved fairly insensitive to different assumptions about tumor doubling time and inaccuracies in volume measurement and may thus provide a useful additional evaluation technique for some clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document