Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Versus a Cisplatin-Based Triplet Versus Nonplatinum Sequential Doublets in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Spanish Lung Cancer Group Phase III Randomized Trial

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (17) ◽  
pp. 3207-3213 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Alberola ◽  
C. Camps ◽  
M. Provencio ◽  
D. Isla ◽  
R. Rosell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Cancer Group ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Nsclc Patients

Purpose: To compare the survival benefit obtained with cisplatin plus gemcitabine, a cisplatin-based triplet, and nonplatinum sequential doublets in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: Stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for six cycles (CG); cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for six cycles (CGV); or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 plus vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for three cycles, followed by vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus ifosfamide 3 g/m2 day 1, every 3 weeks for three cycles (GV–VI). Results: Five hundred fifty-seven patients were assigned to treatment (182 CG, 188 CGV, 187 GV–VI). Response rates were significantly inferior for the nonplatinum sequential doublet (CG, 42%; CGV, 41%; GV–VI, 27%; CG v GV–VI, P = .003). No differences in median survival or time to progression were observed. Toxicity was higher for the triplet: grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (GC, 32%; CGV, 57%; GV–VI, 27%; P < .05); neutropenic fever (CG, 4%; CGV, 19%; GV–VI, 5%; P < .0001); grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia (CG, 19%; CGV, 23%; GV–VI, 3%; P = .0001); and grade 3 to 4 emesis (GC, 22%; GCV, 32%; GV–VI, 6%; P < .0001). Conclusion: On the basis of these results, CG remains a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

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.

Intensive weekly chemotherapy for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 1632-1638 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Murray ◽  
A Shah ◽  
D Osoba ◽  
R Page ◽  
H Karsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Thoracic Irradiation ◽  
Extensive Stage

The regimen of cisplatin, vincristine, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CODE) was designed to double the dose intensity of these drugs in comparison with a standard regimen (alternating cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine [CAV] and etoposide-cisplatin [EP]) for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). The dose intensity was increased by more frequent treatments rather than by increasing the dose size. The structure of this outpatient protocol includes weekly administration of chemotherapy, alternation of myelosuppressive and nonmyelosuppressive treatments, supportive corticosteroids, gastroprotective agents, and prophylactic antibiotics. Although the duration of chemotherapy was brief (9 to 12 weeks), the total cumulative doses of drugs delivered were similar to the standard regimen. Patients with no residual disease outside the chest after chemotherapy received thoracic irradiation, and patients with complete responses (CRs) received prophylactic cranial irradiation. Eligible extensive-stage SCLC patients were ambulatory, younger than 66 years of age, and free of brain metastasis. Forty-eight extensive-stage SCLC patients were treated. Forty-five (94%) responded to chemotherapy, with 19 (40%) attaining CR. After consolidative thoracic irradiation, the CR rate was 56%. The median time to progression was 43 weeks, and the median survival was 61 weeks. The 2-year survival rate was 30%. The most common site of first relapse was brain (38%). Although two patients (4%) died of toxicity, overall toxicity was acceptable for an outpatient regimen. We conclude that the CODE regimen reliably produces palliative remissions for selected extensive-stage SCLC patients, and it may be associated with durable remissions for some patients. The results of this pilot study are sufficiently promising to justify a phase III trial of CODE versus standard (alternating CAV and EP) chemotherapy.

Phase III Study Comparing Amrubicin Plus Cisplatin With Irinotecan Plus Cisplatin in the Treatment of Extensive-Disease Small-Cell Lung Cancer: JCOG 0509

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 1262-1268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miyako Satouchi ◽  
Yoshikazu Kotani ◽  
Taro Shibata ◽  
Masahiko Ando ◽  
Kazuhiko Nakagawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Point Estimate ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Extensive Disease ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose This randomized phase III trial was conducted to confirm noninferiority of amrubicin plus cisplatin (AP) compared with irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) in terms of overall survival (OS) in chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients and Methods Chemotherapy-naive patients with ED-SCLC were randomly assigned to receive IP, composed of irinotecan 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1 every 4 weeks, or AP, composed of amrubicin 40 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, and 3 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks. Results A total of 284 patients were randomly assigned to IP (n = 142) and AP (n = 142) arms. The point estimate of OS hazard ratio (HR) for AP to IP in the second interim analysis exceeded the noninferior margin (HR, 1.31), resulting in early publication because of futility. In updated analysis, median survival time was 17.7 (IP) versus 15.0 months (AP; HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.85), median progression-free survival was 5.6 (IP) versus 5.1 months (AP; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.73), and response rate was 72.3% (IP) versus 77.9% (AP; P = .33). Adverse events observed in IP and AP arms were grade 4 neutropenia (22.5% v 79.3%), grade 3 to 4 febrile neutropenia (10.6% v 32.1%), and grade 3 to 4 diarrhea (7.7% v 1.4%). Conclusion AP proved inferior to IP in this trial, perhaps because the efficacy of amrubicin as a salvage therapy was differentially beneficial to IP. IP remains the standard treatment for extensive-stage SCLC in Japan.

Randomized Phase III Study of Gemcitabine-Cisplatin Versus Etoposide-Cisplatin in the Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Cardenal ◽  
M. Paz López-Cabrerizo ◽  
Antonio Antón ◽  
Vicente Alberola ◽  
Bartomeu Massuti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Grade 3

PURPOSE: We conducted a randomized trial to compare gemcitabine-cisplatin with etoposide-cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary end point of the comparison was response rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 135 chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) days 1 and 8 or etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV days 1 to 3 along with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 IV day 1. Both treatments were administered in 21-day cycles. One hundred thirty-three patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis of response. RESULTS: The response rate (externally validated) for patients given gemcitabine-cisplatin was superior to that for patients given etoposide-cisplatin (40.6% v 21.9%; P = .02). This superior response rate was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression (6.9 months v 4.3 months; P = .01) without an impairment in quality of life (QOL). There was no statistically significant difference in survival time between both arms (8.7 months for gemcitabine-cisplatin v 7.2 months for etoposide-cisplatin; P = .18). The overall toxicity profile for both combinations of drugs was similar. Nausea and vomiting were reported more frequently in the gemcitabine arm than in the etoposide arm. However, the difference was not significant. Gemcitabine-cisplatin produced less grade 3 alopecia (13% v 51%) and less grade 4 neutropenia (28% v 56% ) but more grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia (56% v 13%) than did etoposide-cisplatin. However, there were no thrombocytopenia-related complications in the gemcitabine arm. CONCLUSION: Compared with etoposide-cisplatin, gemcitabine-cisplatin provides a significantly higher response rate and a delay in disease progression without impairing QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC.

scholarly journals Efficacy and toxicities of combination maintenance therapy in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: an up-to-date meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianming Hu ◽  
Jiawei Hu ◽  
Xiaolan Liu ◽  
Long Li ◽  
Xue Bai
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Nsclc Patients

Abstract Background: Single agent maintenance therapy has been approved for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to its potential survival benefits, but whether combined maintenance therapy would improve the survival of advanced NSCLC remains undetermined. Methods: Relevant trials were identified by searching electronic databases and conference meetings. Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combination maintenance therapy in advanced NSCLC patients were included. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade 3–4 toxicities. Results: A total of 1950 advanced NSCLC patients received combination maintenance treatment from six trials were included for analysis. The use of doublet maintenance therapy in NSCLC patients significantly improved PFS (HR 0.74, 95%CI: 0.59–0.93, P = 0.010), but not for OS (HR 0.95, 95%CI: 0.85–1.07, P = 0.40) in comparison with single agent maintenance therapy. Similar results were observed in sub-group analysis according to treatment regimens. In addition, there was no significantly risk difference between doublet and single agent maintenance therapy in terms of grade 3/4 hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities. Conclusion: The findings of the present study show that doublet combination maintenance therapy is superior to single agent maintenance therapy in terms of PFS, without increased grade 3–4 toxicities. Future prospective studies are recommended to clearly assess the long-term clinical benefit of doublet maintenance therapy and its impact on health-related quality of life.

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

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 1451-1457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Comella ◽  
Giuseppe Frasci ◽  
Nicola Panza ◽  
Luigi Manzione ◽  
Giuseppe De Cataldis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Nsclc Patients

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 ≤ 70 years, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1 were randomized to receive one of the following regimens: cisplatin 50 mg/m2, gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (arm A); cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (arm B); or cisplatin 120 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2/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.

Combination of irinotecan and etoposide for treatment of refractory or relapsed small-cell lung cancer.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 3329-3334 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Masuda ◽  
K Matsui ◽  
S Negoro ◽  
N Takifuji ◽  
K Takeda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Median Response ◽  
Grade 3

PURPOSE To determine the response rate, survival, and toxicity of irinotecan (CPT-11), a topoisomerase I inhibitor, combined with etoposide, a topoisomerase II inhibitor, in refractory or relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Twenty-five patients with refractory or relapsed SCLC were entered onto the trial. All 25 patients had been pretreated with some form of cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy and had also received previous etoposide- or anthracyclinecontaining chemotherapy. The median time off chemotherapy was 6.7 months (range, 0.9 to 23.5). Patients were treated at 4-week intervals using CPT-11 (a starting dose of 70 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15) plus etoposide (80 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 to 3), with a subsequent dose based on toxicity. In addition, recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF; 2 microg/kg/d) was given from day 4 to day 21, except on the days of CPT-11 administration. RESULTS All patients were assessable for toxicity and survival. Twenty-four patients were assessable for response. There were 14 partial responses (PRs) and three complete responses (CRs), for an overall response rate of 71% (95% confidence interval, 53% to 89%). The median response duration was 4.6 months. Median survival was 271 days. Major toxicities were myelosuppression (predominantly leukopenia) and diarrhea. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 56% and 20% of patients, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 diarrhea was observed in 4%. There was one treatment-related death due to severe myelosuppression. CONCLUSION A combination of CPT-11 and etoposide with rhG-CSF support is an active therapy against refractory or relapsed SCLC and deserves to be studied more extensively in a phase III trial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document