Phase II study of the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat (PXD101) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

The inhibition of histone deacetylase (HDAC) can induce differentiation, growth arrest, and apoptosis in cancer cells. This phase II multicenter study was undertaken to estimate the efficacy of belinostat, a potent inhibitor of both class I and class II HDAC enzymes, for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Adults with MDS and ≤2 prior therapies were treated with belinostat 1,000 mg/m(2) IV on days 1-5 of a 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was a proportion of confirmed responses during the first 12 weeks of treatment. Responding patients could receive additional cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Twenty-one patients were enrolled, and all were evaluable. Patients were a median 13.4 months from diagnosis, and 14 patients (67%) had less than 5% bone marrow blasts. Seventeen patients (81%) were transfusion dependent. Prior therapy included azacytidine (n = 7) and chemotherapy (n = 8). The patients were treated with a median of four cycles (range, 1-8) of belinostat. There was one confirmed response-hematologic improvement in neutrophils-for an overall response rate of 5% (95% CI, 0.2-23). Median overall survival was 17.9 months. Grades 3-4 toxicities considered at least to be possibly related to belinostat were: neutropenia (n = 10), thrombocytopenia (n = 9), anemia (n = 5), fatigue (n = 2), febrile neutropenia (n = 1), headache (n = 1), and QTc prolongation (n = 1). Because the study met the stopping rule in the first stage of enrollment, it was closed to further accrual.

Safety and resource utilization by non-small cell lung cancer histology: results from the randomized phase III study of pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in chemonaïve patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: A prespecified analysis of the large, randomized, phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer showed significant improvement in survival for nonsquamous patients treated with pemetrexed/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin. Selected grade 3/4 toxicities and resource utilization favored pemetrexed in the overall population, but detailed safety results by histology have not been reported. METHODS: Treated patients were included in this analysis of safety by histology. At each cycle, adverse events were assessed, and concomitant medications, transfusions, and hospitalizations were recorded. Measures were summarized by histology and compared between arms with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: When analyzed by squamous and nonsquamous histology, safety and resource utilization for each treatment arm paralleled those of the overall population. Selected toxicities did not vary by histology. Concomitant medication use and hospitalizations were also very similar to the patterns observed in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Although previous efficacy analyses showed a significant pemetrexed treatment advantage for nonsquamous patients, results of this analysis indicate that safety and resource utilization do not vary by histology and are consistent with the overall population. The safety and resource utilization of patients treated with pemetrexed/cisplatin are predictable, reproducible, and consistent with the established favorable safety profile of pemetrexed, regardless of histology.

A study of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bortezomib in the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma: a phase 2 consortium study.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy has not been reported to have a significant impact on survival for patients with metastatic melanoma. Bortezomib was shown to have additive/synergistic effects with several chemotherapeutic agents, including paclitaxel and platinum. A phase 1 trial of this 3-drug combination reported that 6 of 28 patients treated with bortezomib followed by paclitaxel and carboplatin achieved a partial response (including 2 of 5 patients with metastatic melanoma). METHODS: A 2-stage phase 2 clinical trial was conducted to assess the antitumor activity of this 3-agent combination in patients with metastatic melanoma who had received at most 1 prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Treatment included bortezomib at a dose of 1.3 mg/m2 intravenously on Days 1, 4, and 8; paclitaxel at a dose of 175 mg/m2; and carboplatin at an area under the concentration (AUC) of 6 on Day 2 of a 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint of this trial was tumor response rate (TRR). RESULTS: Seventeen eligible patients were enrolled. A median of 4 cycles were administered (range, 1-7 cycles). Three patients discontinued treatment due to persistent grade 4 (based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]) neutropenia with grade 3 leukopenia (2 patients) or grade 4 pulmonary embolism (1 patient). Grade>or=3 toxicities included neutropenia (71%), leukopenia (41%), thrombocytopenia (29%), and arthralgia (12%). Two partial responses were observed (TRR, 11.8%). Four patients had stable disease at >12 weeks. The median progression-free survival was 3.2 months, and the median overall survival was 7.0 months. CONCLUSIONS: Due to insufficient clinical efficacy, this trial did not proceed to second-stage accrual. The combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bortezomib demonstrated limited clinical benefit and was associated with significant toxicity.

A phase I study of 7-t-butyldimethylsilyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin in adult patients with refractory or metastatic solid malignancies.

PURPOSE: 7-t-Butyldimethylsilyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin (AR-67) is a novel third generation camptothecin selected for development based on the blood stability of its pharmacologically active lactone form and its high potency in preclinical models. Here, we report the initial phase I experience with i.v. AR-67 in adults with refractory solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODS: AR-67 was infused over 1 hour daily five times, every 21 days, using an accelerated titration trial design. Plasma was collected on the 1st and 4th day of cycle 1 to determine pharmacokinetic parameters. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were treated at nine dosage levels (1.2-12.4 mg/m(2)/d). Dose-limiting toxicities were observed in five patients and consisted of grade 4 febrile neutropenia, grade 3 fatigue, and grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Common toxicities included leukopenia (23%), thrombocytopenia (15.4%), fatigue (15.4%), neutropenia (11.5%), and anemia (11.5%). No diarrhea was observed. The maximum tolerated dosage was 7.5 mg/m(2)/d. The lactone form was the predominant species in plasma (>87% of area under the plasma concentration-time curve) at all dosages. No drug accumulation was observed on day 4. Clearance was constant with increasing dosage and hematologic toxicities correlated with exposure (P < 0.001). A prolonged partial response was observed in one subject with non-small cell lung cancer. Stable disease was noted in patients with small cell lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and duodenal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: AR-67 is a novel, blood-stable camptothecin with a predictable toxicity profile and linear pharmacokinetics. The recommended phase II dosage is 7.5 mg/m(2)/d five times every 21 days.

Phase II study of picoplatin as second-line therapy for patients with small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to confirm the efficacy and safety of picoplatin, a cisplatin analog designed to overcome platinum resistance, in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) with platinum-refractory/-resistant disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients received intravenous picoplatin 150 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Tumor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival were evaluated. Adverse events were assessed for frequency, severity, and relationship to treatment. Quality of life was assessed with the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale instrument. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were treated with picoplatin (median number of cycles, two; range one to 10). Three patients (4%) had a partial response, 33 (43%) had stable disease (four of these were unconfirmed partial responses), 36 (47%) had progressive disease, and five were not assessable for response. Median progression-free survival was 9.1 weeks (95% CI, 7.0 to 12.1 weeks). Median overall survival was 26.9 weeks (95% CI, 21.1 to 33.4). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (48%), neutropenia (25%), and anemia (20%). The most commonly reported adverse events of any severity included thrombocytopenia (64%), anemia (49%), neutropenia (39%), nausea (27%), fatigue (16%), and dyspnea (16%). No severe neurotoxicity or nephrotoxicity were observed. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Picoplatin demonstrated clinical efficacy in platinum-refractory SCLC. The major toxicity was hematologic. These results warrant further evaluation in this patient population.

Recent advances with topotecan in the treatment of lung cancer.

Topotecan is a semisynthetic derivative of camptothecin that specifically targets topoisomerase I. It has well-established antineoplastic properties and has been successfully combined with other antineoplastic agents with activity dependent on DNA disruption, such as cisplatin and etoposide. Topotecan is indicated for the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) sensitive disease after failure of first-line chemotherapy and metastatic ovarian carcinoma after failure of initial or subsequent chemotherapy. Since the approval of topotecan for the second-line treatment of SCLC, studies have been conducted in the first-line setting. Recent studies demonstrate the utility of i.v. topotecan in combination with cisplatin for untreated SCLC. Further, an oral formulation of topotecan is currently under investigation and may provide added convenience for patients. Oral topotecan has been studied in the first- and second-line settings for both SCLC and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Three recent phase III trials have demonstrated the activity of oral topotecan. In the first study of chemotherapy-naïve patients with extensive-disease SCLC, oral topotecan plus cisplatin provided efficacy and safety similar to those of etoposide plus cisplatin. In a second study of patients with relapsed SCLC, treatment with oral topotecan showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful longer overall survival time and improvement in dyspnea and quality of life compared with best supportive care alone in all prognostic groups. Finally, in previously treated patients with NSCLC, single-agent oral topotecan was shown to be noninferior in 1-year survival rate relative to the current standard of i.v. docetaxel. In future studies, oral topotecan will represent a good candidate for combination therapy with other i.v. or oral chemotherapy agents, monoclonal antibodies, and small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Phase III study of oral compared with intravenous topotecan as second-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Single-agent intravenous (IV) topotecan is an effective treatment for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of first-line chemotherapy. This open-label, randomized, phase III study compared oral and IV topotecan in patients with SCLC sensitive to initial chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with limited- or extensive-disease SCLC, documented complete or partial response to first-line therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 2, and measurable recurrent disease (WHO criteria) with a treatment-free interval of > or = 90 days were assigned to treatment with either oral topotecan 2.3 mg/m2/d on days 1 through 5 or IV topotecan 1.5 mg/m2/d on days 1 through 5 every 21 days. Primary end point was response rate as confirmed by an external reviewer blinded to treatment. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients were randomly assigned. In intent-to-treat analysis, response rates were 18.3% with oral topotecan (n = 153) and 21.9% with IV topotecan (n = 151), with a difference (oral -IV) of -3.6% (95% CI, -12.6% to 5.5%). Median survival time was 33.0 weeks for oral and 35.0 weeks for IV topotecan; 1- and 2-year survival rates were 32.6% and 12.4% for oral topotecan, respectively, and 29.2% and 7.1% for IV topotecan, respectively. Third-line chemotherapy was similar for both groups (33% for oral; 35% for IV). Incidence of grade 4 toxicity in patients who received oral and IV topotecan was as follows: neutropenia in 47% and 64%, thrombocytopenia in 29% and 18%, grade 3 or 4 anemia in 23% and 31%, and sepsis in 3% and 3%, respectively. The most frequent nonhematologic adverse events (all grades) included nausea (43% oral; 42% IV), alopecia (26% oral; 30% IV), fatigue (31% oral; 36% IV), and diarrhea (36% oral; 20% IV). CONCLUSION: Oral topotecan demonstrates activity and tolerability similar to IV topotecan in chemotherapy-sensitive SCLC patients and offers patients a convenient alternative to IV therapy.

Open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase III study comparing oral topotecan/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin as treatment for chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study compared oral topotecan/intravenous cisplatin (TC) with intravenous (IV) etoposide/cisplatin (PE) in patients with untreated extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 784 patients were randomly assigned to either oral topotecan 1.7 mg/m2/d x 5 with IV cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 5 (n = 389) or IV etoposide 100 mg/m2/d x 3 with IV cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 395) every 21 days. RESULTS: Overall survival (primary end point) was similar between groups (P = .48; median: TC, 39.3 weeks v PE, 40.3 weeks). One-year survival was 31% (95% CI, 27% to 36%) in both groups and the difference of -0.03 (95% CI, -6.53 to 6.47) met the predefined criteria of < or = 10% absolute difference for noninferiority of TC relative to PE. Response rates were similar between groups (TC, 63% v PE, 69%). Time to progression was slightly but statistically longer with PE (log-rank P = .02; median: TC, 24.1 weeks v PE, 25.1 weeks). The regimens were similarly tolerable. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred more frequently with PE (84% v 59%), whereas grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently with TC (38% v 21% and 38% v 23%, respectively). Lung Cancer Symptom Scale scores were statistically better with PE, but the differences were small and of debatable clinical significance. CONCLUSION: Oral topotecan with cisplatin provides similar efficacy and tolerability to the standard (etoposide with cisplatin) in untreated ED-SCLC and may provide greater patient convenience compared with intravenous etoposide and cisplatin.

Emerging role of weekly topotecan in recurrent small cell lung cancer.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive tumor that often metastasizes before the primary cancer is diagnosed. Patients with SCLC are typically elderly and often have comorbidities that may predispose them to adverse events during therapy. Although topotecan (Hycamtin; GlaxoSmithKline; Philadelphia, PA), 1.5 mg/m(2)/day via a 30-minute i.v. infusion on days 1-5 of a 21-day cycle, is a standard therapy for relapsed SCLC, this regimen can result in significant neutropenia, especially in previously treated patients. This hematologic toxicity is noncumulative and reversible, but its management can be challenging in this poor-prognosis population. Therefore, alternate treatment regimens have been investigated. Weekly topotecan (4.0 mg/m(2)) is currently investigational and has shown promising activity and favorable tolerability in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer, another aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. Preliminary results from a phase II trial of weekly bolus topotecan (4.0 mg/m(2)) in patients with recurrent SCLC were recently reported, and this regimen was generally well tolerated. Furthermore, weekly topotecan has been successfully included in several combination therapy regimens in patients with a variety of solid tumors. In untreated SCLC patients, a combination regimen of weekly topotecan, paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Princeton, NJ), and cisplatin (Platinol; Bristol-Myers Squibb) was explored and found to be well tolerated and active in patients with extensive and limited-stage disease. Further clinical trials of weekly topotecan and regimens that include weekly topotecan in the SCLC setting are warranted.

A randomized phase I and pharmacological trial of sequences of 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea and temozolomide in patients with advanced solid neoplasms.

PURPOSE: O(6)-alkylguanine-DNA alkyltransferase (AGAT) is modulated by methylating agents, which, in turn, abrogates nitrosourea resistance in preclinical studies. The feasibility of administering various sequences of 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea (BCNU) and temozolomide (TEM) in patients with advanced solid neoplasms was evaluated in this Phase I and pharmacological study to assess this premise in the clinical setting. The study also sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) levels of BCNU and TEM as a function of Seq, to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) behavior of TEM administered both before and after BCNU, assess AGAT fluctuations in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and seek preliminary evidence of anticancer activity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sixty-three patients were randomized to receive treatment with oral TEM daily on days 1-5 and BCNU administered i.v., either on day 1 before TEM [Sequence (Seq) B-->T] or day 5 after TEM (Seq T-->B). Treatment was repeated every 6 weeks. Blood sampling for PK studies was performed on both days 1 and 5 of course one. PBMCs were sampled to evaluate major sequence-dependent effects on AGAT levels. RESULTS: Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were the principal dose-limiting toxicities of the BCNU/TEM regimen. These effects were more prominent in patients receiving Seq T-->B, resulting in a much lower MTD of 80/100 mg/m(2)/day compared with 150/110 mg/m(2)/day for Seq B-->T. Notable antitumor activity was observed in patients with glioblastoma multiforme, sarcoma, and ovarian carcinoma. No sequence-dependent PK effects were noted to account for sequence-dependent toxicological effects. At the MTD level, AGAT activity in PBMCs decreased 3-fold, on average, and AGAT fluctuations did not appear to be sequence-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: The principal toxicities of the BCNU/TEM regimen were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, which were consistent and predictable, albeit sequence-dependent. Seq T-->B was substantially more myelosuppressive, resulting in disparate MTDs and dose levels recommended for subsequent disease-directed evaluations (150/110 and 80/100 mg/m(2)/day for Seq B-->T and T-->B, respectively). Sequence-dependent differences in TEM PK do not account for this clinically relevant magnitude of sequence-dependent toxicity. The characteristics of the myelosuppressive effects of BCNU/TEM, the paucity of severe nonhematological toxicities, and antitumor activity at tolerable doses warrant disease-directed evaluations on this schedule.

Development of docetaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Docetaxel, a semisynthetic taxane initially developed for the treatment of breast cancer, has a high degree of activity in lung cancer. Although the mechanisms of action of the taxanes docetaxel and paclitaxel are identical, docetaxel has almost a twofold higher binding affinity for the target site, beta tubulin. In clinical trials, individuals previously treated with paclitaxel benefited from docetaxel. Docetaxel is the standard of care in second-line therapy of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and is effective, alone and in combination, in first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. The standard in first-line therapy of metastatic NSCLC is a platinum doublet with one of the third-generation chemotherapy agents, docetaxel, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine. Each of these doublets offers similar therapeutic benefit. In a phase-III study comparing docetaxel-cisplatin and docetaxel-carboplatin with vinorelbine-cisplatin, patients treated in the two docetaxel arms had consistently improved global QoL compared to patients treated with the vinorelbine-cisplatin doublet. This landmark study led to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of cisplatin-docetaxel for the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Non-platinum doublets such as docetaxel-gemcitabine have also demonstrated efficacy and safety. Docetaxel has undergone extensive evaluation and is the only agent approved for use in both first- and second-line therapy of advanced NSCLC.

Single-agent chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

The survival and quality of life benefits of combination chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are now well recognized. Since many clinical trials have been conducted in relatively young patients with good performance status, many elderly patients and patients with poor performance status are not offered chemotherapy because of concerns about higher risks of toxicity. The newer agents, including topotecan, are active as single agents in NSCLC, achieving response rates of up to 30%. Overall survival and symptoms may be improved when these agents are added to best supportive care. They are well tolerated in both elderly patients and patients with poor performance status. The major toxicity with the standard 5-day administration schedule of topotecan is myelosuppression, but weekly schedules may offer reduced toxicity while maintaining efficacy. Thus, single-agent therapy with newer agents is generally considered in elderly and poor performance status patients. However, combination chemotherapy may also be appropriate for some patients in these subgroups. Future studies of chemotherapy in NSCLC should not exclude elderly patients and patients with poor performance status.

Options for first- and second-line therapy in small cell lung cancer--a workshop discussion.

In a case study-based workshop, physicians were asked to discuss various aspects of patient management in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). For first-line chemotherapy, most investigators recommended treatment with etoposide/cisplatin, with possible dosing variations according to tolerability and convenience. In France (but not elsewhere), medical oncologists tend to use a four-drug regimen (etoposide/cisplatin/cyclophosphamide/epirubicin), based on the results of an extensive-stage SCLC trial. Alternative first-line regimens, such as vincristine/ifosfamide/carboplatin/etoposide (VICE) and topotecan/platinum, are currently being explored. Options for therapy in patients with recurrent disease are more varied, although there was consensus that active treatment at relapse should be considered. Regimens include topotecan (alone or in combination), cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine (CAV) and re-induction with the earlier first-line agents. Studies are also investigating the potential benefits of other combinations, including topotecan/vinorelbine and paclitaxel/carboplatin. For patients with relapsed extensive-stage SCLC and brain metastases, whole brain radiation therapy was considered appropriate for both palliative and therapeutic reasons. The potential role of combination therapy with topotecan/temozolomide, both of which cross the blood-brain barrier, is currently being investigated.

Second-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer. The case for systemic chemotherapy.

Small-cell lung cancer is an aggressive tumor associated with high rates of regional or distant metastases at diagnosis. Although highly chemosensitive to agents given in the first-line setting (e.g., etoposide and cisplatin), most patients relapse and have a poor prognosis. Treatment options for relapsed patients include radiotherapy for limited-stage disease and chemotherapy or combined modalities for advanced-stage disease. In clinical practice, however, some oncologists maintain that chemotherapy provides an insufficient survival benefit to justify the sometimes debilitating toxicity associated with the more active regimens in particular. Other potential barriers to further treatment include patient comorbidities, performance status, site(s) of progression, progression-free interval, and previous treatments. However, numerous clinical trials demonstrate that some patients benefit from treatment, achieving prolonged survival, symptom palliation, improved quality of life, and the opportunity, albeit rare, for durable remission. Additionally, several novel chemotherapeutics are available that alone or in combination help patients lead an improved quality of life. Finally, alternative routes and schedules--oral formulations, weekly administration, and prolonged treatment vacations--have been developed to deliver chemotherapy to patients with poor performance status or multiple comorbidities. This article reviews the advantages and disadvantages of treating recurrent small-cell lung cancer and summarizes the utility of several active agents.

Irinotecan plus gemcitabine induces both radiographic and CA 19-9 tumor marker responses in patients with previously untreated advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase II, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study evaluated the efficacy and safety of irinotecan and gemcitabine as combination chemotherapy for previously untreated patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received repeated 21-day cycles at starting doses of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes followed immediately by irinotecan 100 mg/m(2) over 90 minutes, both given intravenously on days 1 and 8. Patients were evaluated for objective tumor response, changes in the serum tumor marker CA 19-9, time to tumor progression (TTP), survival, and safety. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were treated. Eleven patients (24%) had 50% or greater reductions in tumor area. These were confirmed one cycle later in nine patients (response rate, 20%; 95% confidence interval, 8% to 32%). Among 44 patients with baseline CA 19-9 determinations, CA 19-9 decreased during therapy in 22 patients (50%) and was reduced by 50% or more in 13 patients (30%). Median TTP was 2.8 months (range, 0.3 to 10.8 months). There were significant (P <.001) correlations between proportional changes in CA 19-9 and radiographic changes in tumor area with regard to extent of change (r =.67), timing of minimum on-study values (r =.85), and tumor progression (r =.89). Median survival was 5.7 months (range, 0.4 to 19.4+ months), and the 1-year survival rate was 27%. Severe toxicities were uncommon and primarily limited to grade 4 neutropenia (2%), grade 4 vomiting (2%), and grade 3 diarrhea (7%). CONCLUSION: Irinotecan/gemcitabine is a new combination that offers encouraging activity in terms of radiographic and CA 19-9 response and notable 1-year survival in pancreatic cancer. The regimen was well tolerated, with minimal grade 3 and 4 toxicities and excellent maintenance of planned dose-intensity.

Challenging the platinum combinations: Docetaxel (Taxotere) combined with gemcitabine or vinorelbine in non-small cell lung cancer.

The limited single-agent activity of cisplatin, its toxicity profile, and the inconvenience involved in hydrating patients has compelled researchers to investigate other treatments as possible alternative therapies in non-small cell lung cancer. More recently, interest has focused on the potential of nonplatinum combinations. Phase II studies show that the combination of docetaxel (Taxotere; Aventis, Antony, France) and gemcitabine is active in stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer not previously treated by chemotherapy. Response rates of up to 54% and a median survival time of 13 months have been reported. These data are comparable with the achievements of cisplatin-based combinations. A randomized phase II trial of docetaxel plus gemcitabine versus docetaxel plus cisplatin found that the two regimens were equally active in terms of response rate, median, and 1-year survival. However, the combination of docetaxel with gemcitabine produced significantly less neutropenia and nonhematologic toxicities. In combination, from 80% to 100% of the full single-agent gemcitabine and docetaxel doses can safely be administered once every 3 weeks. The combination of docetaxel plus vinorelbine is also active in non-small cell lung cancer and preliminary data suggest that this schedule with prophylactic filgrastim may optimize tolerability and dose intensity. In a phase II study using this approach, a confirmed response rate of 51% was obtained in 35 patients. At 12 months, the predicted median survival is 14 months and the predicted 1-year survival rate is 60%. Excessive lacrimation, fatigue, and onycholysis were cumulative toxicities. However, the incidence of mucositis and neuropathy was low with the combination of docetaxel and vinorelbine. Docetaxel combined with other new agents, particularly gemcitabine, may offer another useful alternative to cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with good performance status.