Measurable or assessable disease in lung cancer trials: does it matter?

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 2677-2681 ◽  
Author(s):  
J R Jett ◽  
J Q Su ◽  
J E Krook ◽  
R M Goldberg ◽  
J W Kugler
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Systemic Chemotherapy ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Time To Progression ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Measurable Disease ◽  
Nsclc Patients

PURPOSE The goals of this study were to analyze and compare the major clinical response rates and survival of patients with either measurable or assessable disease status to treatment with systemic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS All patients had stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and were enrolled onto three consecutive phase III clinical trials. Patients were stratified by disease status (measurable or assessable) before randomization to systemic chemotherapy. The three trials were conducted in the setting of a multicenter cooperative oncology group. Composite data were obtained for the three trials. Major clinical responses, time to progression, and survival were analyzed and compared in patients with measurable or assessable disease using standard statistical methods. RESULTS Four hundred twenty-six patients were enrolled onto the three trials from June 1981 through August 1990. Measurable disease was present in 236 patients (55%) and assessable disease in 190 (45%). Each study was well balanced for the number of patients with measurable or assessable disease on either treatment regimen. A major clinical response was observed in 71 patients with measurable disease (30%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24 to 36). Forty patients with assessable disease responded to treatment (21%; 95% CI, 16 to 28) (P = .04). The time to progression for all patients (P = .23) and for responders only (P = .10) was not significantly different based on disease status. Overall survival and survival of responders only was not significantly different, but patients with assessable disease tended to do better. Using multivariate analysis, sex and disease status had a borderline influence on the major response rate (P = .05). Performance score (PS) was the only factor that was significantly correlated with survival. CONCLUSION NSCLC patients with assessable disease have major clinical response rates, time to progression, and survival that are similar to those of NSCLC patients with measurable disease. This study supports the inclusion of patients with assessable-disease lung cancer in both phase II and III trials conducted in the cooperative group setting.

Treatment of Brain Metastases of Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Comparing Teniposide and Teniposide With Whole-Brain Radiotherapy—A Phase III Study of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Cooperative Group

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (19) ◽  
pp. 3400-3408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter E. Postmus ◽  
Hanny Haaxma-Reiche ◽  
Egbert F. Smit ◽  
Harry J. M. Groen ◽  
Hanna Karnicka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Whole Brain Radiotherapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Time To Progression ◽  
Brain Radiotherapy ◽  
Combined Modality ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
The Brain

PURPOSE: Approximately 60% of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) develop brain metastases. Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) gives symptomatic improvement in more than 50% of these patients. Because brain metastases are a sign of systemic progression, and chemotherapy was found to be effective as well, it becomes questionable whether WBRT is the only appropriate therapy in this situation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III study, SCLC patients with brain metastases were randomized to receive teniposide with or without WBRT. Teniposide 120 mg/m2 was given intravenously three times a week, every 3 weeks. WBRT (10 fractions of 3 Gy) had to start within 3 weeks from the start of chemotherapy. Response was measured clinically and by computed tomography of the brain. RESULTS: One hundred twenty eligible patients were randomized. A 57% response rate was seen in the combined-modality arm (95% confidence interval [CI], 43% to 69%), and a 22% response rate was seen in the teniposide-alone arm (95% CI, 12% to 34%) (P < .001). Time to progression in the brain was longer in the combined-modality group (P = .005). Clinical response and response outside the brain were not different. The median survival time was 3.5 months in the combined-modality arm and 3.2 months in the teniposide-alone arm. Overall survival in both groups was not different (P = .087). CONCLUSION: Adding WBRT to teniposide results in a much higher response rate of brain metastases and in a longer time to progression of brain metastases than teniposide alone. Survival was poor in both groups and not significantly different.

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.

Results of phase III trial of rh-endostatin (YH-16) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (16_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7138-7138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Sun ◽  
J. Wang ◽  
Y. Liu ◽  
X. Song ◽  
Y. Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Nsclc Patients
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document