Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin As Front-Line Treatment of Patients With Advanced Non—Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase III Trial

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (13) ◽  
pp. 2602-2609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vassilis Georgoulias ◽  
Alexandros Ardavanis ◽  
Athina Agelidou ◽  
Maria Agelidou ◽  
Vassilis Chandrinos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) or docetaxel (D) alone. Patients and Methods Chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DC (n = 167; docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on day 1, cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 2, and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) 150 μg/m2/d on days 3 to 9) or D (n = 152; 100 mg/m2 on day 1 without rhG-CSF) every 3 weeks. Results The overall response rates were 36.5% for DC (three complete responses and 58 partial responses) and 21.7% for D (one complete response and 32 partial responses; P = .004). The median OS was 10.5 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) and 8.0 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) for DC and D, respectively (P = .200). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 44% and 19% for DC and 43% and 15% for D, respectively. Median times to tumor progression were 4.0 and 2.5 months for DC and D, respectively (P = .580). Grade 2/3 anemia was significantly higher with DC than with D (33% v 16%; P = .0001). Fifteen (9%) DC and 12 (8%) D patients developed febrile neutropenia. Grade 3/4 nausea/vomiting (P = .0001), diarrhea (P = .007), neurotoxicity (P = .017), and nephroroxicity (P = .006) were significantly more common with DC than with D. There were five treatment-related deaths in the DC group and one in the D (P = .098). Conclusion DC regimen resulted in a higher response rate but without improvement in median time to tumor progession or OS compared with D. D could be a reasonable front-line chemotherapy for patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin Versus Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin in the Treatment of Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Southwest Oncology Group Trial

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (13) ◽  
pp. 3210-3218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Kelly ◽  
John Crowley ◽  
Paul A. Bunn ◽  
Cary A. Presant ◽  
Patra K. Grevstad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Resource Utilization ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Grade 3

PURPOSE: This randomized trial was designed to determine whether paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) offered a survival advantage over vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) for patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. Secondary objectives were to compare toxicity, tolerability, quality of life (QOL), and resource utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred two patients received VC (vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m2/d, day 1 every 28 days) and 206 patients received PC (paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 over 3 hours with carboplatin area under the curve of 6, day 1 every 21 days). Patients completed QOL questionnaires at baseline, 13 weeks, and 25 weeks. Resource utilization forms were completed at five time points through 24 months. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The objective response rate was 28% in the VC arm and 25% in the PC arm. Median survival was 8 months in both arms, with 1-year survival rates of 36% and 38%, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 leukopenia (P = .002) and neutropenia (P = .008) occurred more frequently on the VC arm. Grade 3 nausea and vomiting were higher on the VC arm (P = .001, P = .007), and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was higher on the PC arm (P < .001). More patients on the VC arm discontinued therapy because of toxicity (P = .001). No difference in QOL was observed. Overall costs on the PC arm were higher than on the VC arm because of drug costs. CONCLUSION: PC is equally efficacious as VC for the treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. PC is less toxic and better tolerated but more expensive than VC. New treatment strategies should be pursued.

Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin Versus Docetaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Trial

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (13) ◽  
pp. 2937-2945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vassilis Georgoulias ◽  
Alexandros Ardavanis ◽  
Xanthi Tsiafaki ◽  
Athina Agelidou ◽  
Penelope Mixalopoulou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Setting

Purpose To compare the activity and tolerability of docetaxel/gemcitabine (DG) and vinorelbine/cisplatin (VC) combinations in chemotherapy-naïve non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DG (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 [days 1 and 8] plus docetaxel 100 mg/m2 [day 8]) or VC (vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 [days 1 and 8] plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2 [day 8]) and prophylactic recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (150 μg/m2 subcutaneously [day 9 through 15]) every 3 weeks. Results A total of 413 randomly assigned patients were analyzed for response and toxicity (DG, n = 197; VC, n = 192). Median survival was 9.0 and 9.7 months (P = .965) for DG and VC arms, respectively; the corresponding 1-year survival rates were 34.3% and 40.8%, respectively. Overall response rate was 30% (95% CI, 23.9% to 36.3%) and 39.2% (95% CI, 32.5% to 45.9%; P = .053) for DG and VC, respectively. Toxicity was as follows (DG v VC): grade 2 to 4 anemia, 34% v 55% (P = .0001); grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, 16% v 37% (P = .0001); febrile neutropenia, 6% v 11% (P = .009); and grade 3 to 4 nausea and vomiting, 1% v 15% (P = .003). Nephrotoxicity occurred in 8% and ototoxicity in 2% of VC-treated patients. There were five and six treatment-related deaths in the DG and VC arms, respectively. Quality of life was improved in DG but not in VC patients. Conclusion Although the two regimens produced comparable overall survival, the DG regimen had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, DG could be used in the first-line setting of advanced NSCLC, especially for patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin.

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 Trial Comparing Oral S-1 Plus Carboplatin With Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin in Chemotherapy-Naïve Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a West Japan Oncology Group Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (36) ◽  
pp. 5240-5246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isamu Okamoto ◽  
Hiroshige Yoshioka ◽  
Satoshi Morita ◽  
Masahiko Ando ◽  
Koji Takeda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial

Purpose The primary goal of this open-label, multicenter, randomized phase III trial was to determine whether treatment with carboplatin plus the oral fluoropyrimidine derivative S-1 was noninferior versus that with carboplatin plus paclitaxel with regard to overall survival (OS) in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods A total of 564 patients were randomly assigned to receive either carboplatin (area under the curve, 5) on day 1 plus oral S-1 (40 mg/m2 twice per day) on days 1 to 14 or carboplatin (area under the curve, 6) plus paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) on day 1 every 21 days. Results At the planned interim analysis, with a total of 268 death events available, the study passed the O'Brien-Fleming boundary of 0.0080 for a positive result and noninferiority of carboplatin and S-1 compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel was confirmed for OS (hazard ratio, 0.928; 99.2% CI, 0.671 to 1.283). Median OS was 15.2 months in the carboplatin and S-1 arm and 13.3 months in the carboplatin and paclitaxel arm, with 1-year survival rates of 57.3% and 55.5%, respectively. Rates of leukopenia or neutropenia of grade 3/4, febrile neutropenia, alopecia, and neuropathy were more frequent in the carboplatin and paclitaxel arm, whereas thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were more common in the carboplatin and S-1 arm. The carboplatin and S-1 arm had significantly more dose delays than the carboplatin and paclitaxel arm. Conclusion Oral S-1 with carboplatin was noninferior in terms of OS compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC, and is thus a valid treatment option.

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.

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.

Phase III Study of Second-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Weekly Compared With 3-Weekly Docetaxel

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (33) ◽  
pp. 8389-8395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schuette ◽  
Sylke Nagel ◽  
Thomas Blankenburg ◽  
Christine Lautenschlaeger ◽  
Klaus Hans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Weekly Docetaxel ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose A phase III study to determine whether a weekly docetaxel schedule improves the therapeutic index compared with the classic 3-weekly schedule. Patients and Methods Patients with stage IIIB-IV non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks (3-weekly) and 35 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 (weekly) for ≤ eight cycles. End points included survival (primary), toxicity, and response. Results Of 215 patients enrolled, 208 (103 in the 3-weekly arm and 105 in the weekly arm) were assessable for response. At baseline, 24.5% of patients (51 out of 208) had received prior paclitaxel therapy and 43.3% of patients (90 out of 208) had been progression-free for more than 3 months after first-line therapy. After 12 months' follow-up, median survival was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.68 to 7.84 months) with 3-weekly docetaxel and 9.2 months (95% CI, 5.83 to 12.59 months) with weekly docetaxel (P = .07) after a median of four (range, one to eight) and two (range, one to eight) treatment cycles, respectively. Overall, response rates were 12.6% v 10.5% with 3-weekly versus weekly docetaxel. Significantly fewer patients reported grade 3 to 4 toxicities with weekly docetaxel versus 3-weekly docetaxel (P ≤ .05). There were significantly lower rates of grade 3 to 4 anemia (P ≤ .05), leucopenia (P < .0001), and neutropenia (P ≤ .001) with weekly versus 3-weekly treatment. No grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia or mucositis was reported. Conclusion Weekly docetaxel 35 mg/m2 demonstrated similar efficacy and better tolerability than standard 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and can be recommended as a feasible alternative second-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Phase II Study of Irinotecan Plus Cisplatin Induction Followed by Concurrent Twice-Daily Thoracic Irradiation With Etoposide Plus Cisplatin Chemotherapy for Limited-Disease Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (15) ◽  
pp. 3488-3494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji-Youn Han ◽  
Kwan Ho Cho ◽  
Dae Ho Lee ◽  
Hyae Young Kim ◽  
Eun-A Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Limited Disease

Purpose Irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) chemotherapy demonstrated a promising outcome with a high complete response (CR) rate in chemotherapy-naïve patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We evaluated the efficacy of induction IP chemotherapy followed by concurrent etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) chemotherapy with twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy (TDTRT) in limited-disease SCLC (LD-SCLC). Patients and Methods Between November 2001 and May 2003, 35 chemotherapy-naïve patients with LD-SCLC were enrolled. Thirty-three patients (94%) were male, and 29 (83%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The median age was 63 years. Treatment consisted of two 21-day cycles of cisplatin 40 mg/m2 and irinotecan 80 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on days 1 and 8 followed by two 21-day cycles of cisplatin 60 mg/m2 IV on days 43 and 64, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV on days 43 to 45 and 64 to 66, with concurrent TDTRT of total 45 Gy beginning on day 43. Results All 35 patients were assessable for response. The objective response rate was 97% (CR, 3; partial response [PR], 31) after induction chemotherapy and 100% (CR, 15; PR, 20) after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). After a median follow-up of 26.5 months, the median survival was 25.0 months (95% CI, 19.0 to 30.9) with 1- and 2-year overall survival rates of 85.7% and 53.9%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.9 months with a 1- and 2-year PFS of 58.5% and 36.1%, respectively. The most common toxicities were grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in 68% of patients during induction chemotherapy and 100% during CCRT. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 20% of patients during induction chemotherapy and 60% during CCRT. Conclusion IP induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent TDTRT with EP chemotherapy showed a promising activity with favorable 1- and 2-year survival rates. Based on the favorable outcome in this trial, this regimen should be evaluated in a large phase III trial.

Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (21) ◽  
pp. 3543-3551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti ◽  
Purvish Parikh ◽  
Joachim von Pawel ◽  
Bonne Biesma ◽  
Johan Vansteenkiste ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeCisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting.Patients and MethodsThis noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles.ResultsOverall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common.ConclusionIn advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document