A randomized study comparing cisplatin or carboplatin with etoposide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Protocol 07861.

1990 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1556-1562 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Klastersky ◽  
J P Sculier ◽  
H Lacroix ◽  
G Dabouis ◽  
G Bureau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Working Party ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Function Impairment

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Lung Cancer Working Party conducted a randomized trial comparing cisplatin (CDDP; 120 mg/m2, day 1) and carboplatin (CBDCA; 325 mg/m2, day 1) in combination with etoposide (VP16; 100 mg/m2, days 1, 2, and 3) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two hundred twenty-eight patients were eligible for survival and 202 assessable for response. We obtained 27 of 100 objective responses (ORs; 27%) in the CDDP arm and 16 of 102 (16%) in the CBDCA arm (P = .07). There was no significant difference in survival. Toxicity, consisting mainly of myelosuppression and renal function impairment, was significantly increased in the patients receiving the CDDP treatment. We conclude that CDDP plus VP16 was more active but also more toxic than CBDCA plus VP16 in advanced NSCLC.

Cisplatin versus cisplatin plus etoposide in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer Working Party, Belgium.

1989 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 1087-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Klastersky ◽  
J P Sculier ◽  
G Bureau ◽  
P Libert ◽  
P Ravez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Working Party ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Significant Difference

We conducted a randomized study comparing the survival after treatment with cisplatin (120 mg/m2) or cisplatin plus etoposide (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, and 3) in 162 evaluable patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). No statistically significant difference in survival was detected; the median survival was 26 and 22 weeks, respectively, for patients receiving cisplatin and for those receiving cisplatin plus etoposide. The objective response rate was 19% for cisplatin and 26% for the combination; the corresponding response rates were 17% and 43% in patients with limited disease. No significant differences were detected between the two study arms as far as toxicity was concerned, except for alopecia and granulocytopenia, which occurred more frequently in patients treated with cisplatin plus etoposide.

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.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 2133-2141 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Giaccone ◽  
T A Splinter ◽  
C Debruyne ◽  
G S Kho ◽  
P Lianes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
World Health ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Significant Difference

PURPOSE To compare two cisplatin based chemotherapy schedules in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS A 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. RESULTS Fifteen 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. CONCLUSION Although survival was not improved, arm B offers a better palliation for advanced NSCLC patients than arm A.

scholarly journals Three-Arm Randomized Study of Two Cisplatin-Based Regimens and Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group—EORTC 08975

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (21) ◽  
pp. 3909-3917 ◽  
Author(s):  
Egbert F. Smit ◽  
Jan P.A.M. van Meerbeeck ◽  
Pilar Lianes ◽  
Channa Debruyne ◽  
Catherine Legrand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
European Organization ◽  
End Points

Purpose: To compare the therapeutic efficacy of paclitaxel plus cisplatin (arm A) versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (arm B) and arm A versus paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (arm C) in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion, day 1) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) both combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (day 1) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion, day 1) combined with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8). Primary end point was comparison of overall survival for B versus A and C versus A. Secondary end points included response rate and duration, progression-free survival, toxicities, quality of life [QoL], and cost of treatment. Results: Four hundred eighty patients (arm A, 159; arm B, 160; arm C, 161 patients) were enrolled; all baseline characteristics were balanced. Median survival times were as follows: arm A, 8.1 months; arm B, 8.9 months; arm C, 6.7 months. Response rates were 31.8% for arm A, 36.6% for arm B, and 27.7% for arm C. Other than myelosuppression (B v A, P < .005), no statistically or clinically significant differences were observed for secondary end points. The average treatment costs were 25% higher in arm C as compared with arms A and B. Conclusion: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine do not increase overall survival in patients with advanced NSCLC as compared with paclitaxel plus cisplatin. Treatment was well tolerated, and most QoL parameters were similar, but costs associated with the nonplatinum arm were highest.

scholarly journals Digital Pathology and PD-L1 Testing in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Workshop Record

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 1800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Pagni ◽  
Umberto Malapelle ◽  
Claudio Doglioni ◽  
Gabriella Fontanini ◽  
Filippo Fraggetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Digital Pathology ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Standard Quality ◽  
A Minor

A meeting among expert pathologists was held in 2019 in Rome to verify the results of the previous harmonization efforts on the PD-L1 immunohistochemical testing by scoring a representative series of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) digital slides. The current paper shows the results of this digital experimental meeting and the expertise achieved by the community of Italian pathologists. PD-L1 protein expression was determined using tumor proportion score (TPS), i.e., the percentage of viable tumor cells showing partial or complete membrane staining at any intensity. The gold standard was defined as the final PD-L1 score formulated by a panel of seven lung committed pathologists. PD-L1 status was clustered in three categories, namely negative (TPS < 1), low (TPS 1–49%), and high (TPS ≥ 50%). In 23 cases (71.9%) PD-L1 staining was performed using the companion diagnostic 22C3 pharmDx kit on Dako Autostainer, while in nine (28.1%) cases it was performed using the SP263 Ventana kit on BenchMark platform. A complete PD-L1 scoring agreement between the panel of experts and the participants was reached in 57.1% of cases, whereas a minor disagreement in 16.1% of cases was recorded. Italian pathologists performed best in strong positive cases (i.e., tumor proportion score TPS > 50%), whereas only 10.8% of disagreement with the gold standard was observed, and 55.6% regarded a single challenging case. The worst performance was achieved in the negative cases, with 32.0% disagreement. A significant difference resulted from the analysis of the data separated by the different clones used: 22.3% and 38.1% disagreement (p = 0.01) was found in the group of cases analyzed by 22C3 and SP263 antibody clones, respectively. In conclusion, this workshop record proposed the application of a digital pathology platform to share controversial cases in educational meetings as an alternative possibility for improving the interpretation and reporting of specific histological tools. Due to the crucial role of PD-L1 TPS for the selection of patients for immunotherapy, the identification of unconventional approaches as virtual slides to focus experiences and give more detailed practical verifications of the standard quality reached may be a considerable option.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document