Single-agent pemetrexed or sequential pemetrexed/gemcitabine as front-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in elderly patients or patients ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial.

INTRODUCTION: This randomized phase II trial evaluated single-agent pemetrexed or sequential pemetrexed/gemcitabine in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were elderly (> or = 70 years) or younger than 70 years and ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 received either 500 mg/m2 of pemetrexed (day 1, every 3 weeks) for eight cycles, or the same dosage of pemetrexed for cycles 1 and 2 and then 1200 mg/m2 of gemcitabine (days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks) for cycles 3 and 4 (repeated once for a total of eight cycles). All patients were given vitamin B12 and folic acid supplementation. RESULTS: From July 2003 to July 2004, 87 patients (44 pemetrexed; 43 pemetrexed/gemcitabine) received treatment. The median time to progression was 4.5 (95% confidence interval: 3.0-9.3) and 4.1 months (95% confidence interval: 1.7-5.8) for the pemetrexed and pemetrexed/gemcitabine arms, respectively, and the median progression-free survival time was 3.3 months for both arms. Tumor response rates for the pemetrexed and pemetrexed/gemcitabine arms were 4.5% and 11.6%, respectively. The median overall survival time was 4.7 months for the pemetrexed arm and 5.4 months for the pemetrexed/gemcitabine arm, with respective 1-year survival rates of 28.5% and 28.1%. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity consisted of neutropenia (4.5% pemetrexed; 2.3% pemetrexed/gemcitabine), febrile neutropenia (4.5% pemetrexed; 4.7% pemetrexed/gemcitabine), thrombocytopenia (4.5% pemetrexed; 7.0% pemetrexed/gemcitabine), and anemia (6.8% pemetrexed; 4.7% pemetrexed/gemcitabine). No grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities exceeded 4.7% in either arm. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent pemetrexed and sequential pemetrexed/gemcitabine have shown moderate activity and are well tolerated as first-line treatments for advanced NSCLC in elderly patients or patients unsuitable for platinum-based combination chemotherapy.

Phase III study of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial.

PURPOSE: Erlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: A total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild). CONCLUSION: Erlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

Effect of chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer on patients' quality of life. A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not have curative treatment options; therefore, treatments should prolong survival and improve quality of life (QoL). We compared the effect on QoL of two docetaxel-platinum regimens with vinorelbine-cisplatin. METHODS: QoL was assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and the general EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) in 926 chemotherapy-naïve patients with stages IIIB to IV NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive: docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2, every 3 weeks (DC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin 6 mg/ml min, every 3 weeks (DCb); or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/week plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2, every 4 weeks (VC). RESULTS: Overall, patients treated with either docetaxel-containing regimen had better QoL than VC-treated patients (LCSS global item "QoL today": P=0.064 for DC and P=0.016 for DCb versus VC; EQ-5D global item "health state today": P=0.016 for DC and P<0.001 for DCb versus VC). DC-treated patients experienced improved pain relief compared with VC (P=0.033), whereas pain relief with DCb and VC was similar. Patients treated with either docetaxel regimen had more favorable changes in performance status (P=0.065 for DC and P<0.001 for DCb versus VC) and mean weight loss (0.06 kg, gain of 0.08 kg, and 2.27 kg for DC, DCb, and VC, respectively; P<0.001 for both DC versus VC and DCb versus VC). CONCLUSION: The TAX 326 study shows that docetaxel-platinum regimens relieve symptoms and improve QoL in patients with advanced NSCLC. DCb and DC were superior to VC in all QoL outcomes assessed except for the difference between DC and VC in LCSS "QoL today", which was not significant.

Efficient palliation in patients with small-cell lung cancer by a combination of paclitaxel, etoposide and carboplatin: quality of life and 6-years'-follow-up results from a randomised phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Based on the promising activity of paclitaxel in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) we conducted a randomized phase III trial to evaluate whether a combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin and etoposide phosphate (TEC) improves survival and time to progression as well as tolerability and quality of life (QoL) compared to a regimen of carboplatin, etoposide phosphate and vincristine (CEV) in SCLC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six hundred and fourteen patients with stages I-IV SCLC were randomly assigned between January 1998 and December 1999 to both treatment arms. All patients were evaluated for response rate, survival, side effects and quality of life with overall survival (OS) serving as primary endpoint. A final analysis was done after a six-year follow-up. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and tested with the log-rank test. Quality of life data were assessed in using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and evaluated by calculating and comparing the mean scores as well as applying longitudinal techniques. RESULTS: Six hundred and eight patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. The long-term follow-up confirms the significant survival benefit for the paclitaxel, etoposide, carboplatin (TEC) regimen with a median OS of 12.5 months compared to 11.7 months for the CEV arm (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.43; P=.030). The 5-year survival rates were 14% for the experimental versus 6 % for the CEV arm. Significant survival prolongation was also observed in the subgroup of patients with stage IV disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.00-1.60; P=.047). The previously reported clinical benefit in form of an overall reduction of grade 3/4 toxicity was backed by the results of the comprehensive QoL analysis we report hereby. TEC significantly improves the relevant QoL parameters like global overall QoL or physical functioning. CONCLUSION: When administered in combination with etoposide and carboplatin, paclitaxel is able to offer in SCLC patients with extensive disease a survival benefit without additional toxicities, but with gains in patient-reported quality of life. In terms of efficient palliative care, TEC might be seen as an alternative to standard cisplatin plus etoposide in patients requesting a powerful palliative regimen not compromising any survival benefit.

Phase III study comparing oral topotecan to intravenous docetaxel in patients with pretreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase III study compared oral topotecan versus intravenous (IV) docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC, performance status < or = 2, who had received only one prior chemotherapy regimen, were randomly assigned to treatment with oral topotecan 2.3 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 5 or IV docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1 every 21 days. RESULTS: A total of 829 patients were randomly assigned. In intent-to-treat analysis, 1-year survival rates were 25.1% with topotecan and 28.7% with docetaxel. The difference of -3.6% (95% CI, -9.59% to 2.48%) met the predefined criteria for noninferiority of topotecan relative to docetaxel because the lower limit of the 95% CI was above -10%. Median survival was 27.9 weeks with topotecan and 30.7 weeks with docetaxel. Although not statistically significant (log-rank P = .057), the higher survival rate with docetaxel was maintained across the entire treatment period. The median time to progression was 11.3 weeks with topotecan versus 13.1 weeks with docetaxel (log-rank P = .02). The overall response rate was 5% in each group. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred more frequently with docetaxel (60% v 50%). Grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently with topotecan (26% v 10% and 26% v 7%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Oral topotecan provides activity in the treatment of relapsed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Both regimens were well tolerated with differing safety profiles. Topotecan may provide an option for patients who desire an orally available treatment after relapse.

Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel, etoposide, and carboplatin versus carboplatin, etoposide, and vincristine in patients with small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel administered in combination with a topoisomerase-II inhibitor (such as etoposide) and carboplatin is an effective and safe first-line treatment for patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We conducted a randomized phase III multicenter trial to determine whether paclitaxel plus etoposide plus carboplatin improves the outcome of patients with primary SCLC relative to standard chemotherapy (carboplatin, etoposide, and vincristine). METHODS: Between January 1998 and December 1999, 614 patients with SCLC stages I-IV were randomly assigned to the standard arm (309 patients) or the experimental arm (305 patients). Treatment courses were repeated every 21 days for a maximum of six courses. All patients were evaluated for response rate, survival, and toxicities every two courses. The primary endpoint was survival. Survival curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients were evaluable for all endpoints (standard arm 307 patients, experimental arm 301 patients). The hazard ratio [HR] of death for patients receiving the standard treatment was statistically significantly higher than that for patients receiving the experimental treatment (HR = 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.45; P =.024). Progression-free survival was also statistically significantly shorter for patients in the standard arm relative to that of patients in the experimental arm (HR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.42). There were no differences in the response rates (complete and partial combined) to the treatments (standard arm: 69.4%, 95% CI = 63.9% to 74.5%; experimental arm: 72.1%, 95% CI = 66.7% to 77.1%; difference = 2.7%, 95% CI = 4.5% to 9.9%). Rates of severe grade of anemia, leukocytopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were lower in the experimental arm than in the standard arm. CONCLUSION: Patients with previously untreated SCLC who received paclitaxel, etoposide, and carboplatin showed improved overall and progression-free survival and less frequent hematologic toxicities than those who received the standard therapy.

Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether docetaxel plus platinum regimens improve survival and affect quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with vinorelbine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1,218) with stage IIIB to IV NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (DC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the curve of 6 mg/mL * min every 3 weeks (DCb); or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (VC). RESULTS: Patients treated with DC had a median survival of 11.3 v 10.1 months for VC-treated patients (P =.044; hazard ratio, 1.183 [97.2% confidence interval, 0.989 to 1.416]). The 2-year survival rate was 21% for DC-treated patients and 14% for VC-treated patients. Overall response rate was 31.6% for DC-treated patients v 24.5% for VC-treated patients (P =.029). Median survival (9.4 v 9.9 months [for VC]; P =.657; hazard ratio, 1.048 [97.2 confidence interval, 0.877 to 1.253]) and response (23.9%) with DCb were similar to those results for VC. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar with all three regimens. Grade 3 to 4 anemia, nausea, and vomiting were more common (P <.01) with VC than with DC or DCb. Patients treated with either docetaxel regimen had consistently improved QoL compared with VC-treated patients, who experienced deterioration in QoL. CONCLUSION: DC resulted in a more favorable overall response and survival rate than VC. Both DC and DCb were better tolerated and provided patients with consistently improved QoL compared with VC. These findings demonstrate that a docetaxel plus platinum combination is an effective treatment option with a favorable therapeutic index for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Total pulmonary vein occlusion as a consequence of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation mimicking primary lung disease.

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation has recently been used for curative treatment of atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three of 239 patients who underwent ablation close to the pulmonary vein (PV) ostia at our institute developed severe hemoptysis, dyspnea, and pneumonia as early as 1 week and as late as 6 months after the ablation. Because the patients were arrhythmia-free, the treating physician initially attributed the symptoms to new-onset pulmonary disease (e.g., bronchopulmonary neoplasm). After absent PV flow was confirmed by transesophageal echocardiography, transseptal contrast injection depicted a totally occluded PV in all three patients. Successful recanalization, even in chronically occluded Pvs, was performed in all patients. During follow-up, Doppler flow measurements by transesophageal echocardiography demonstrated restenosis in all primarily dilated PV, which led to stent implantation. CONCLUSION: PV stenosis/occlusion after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation occurs in a subset of patients. However, because in-stent restenosis occurred in two patients after 6 to 10 weeks, final interventional strategy for PV stenosis or occlusion remains unclear. To prevent future PV stenosis or occlusion, a decrease in target temperature and energy of radiofrequency current or the use of new energy sources (ultrasound, cryothermia, microwave) seems necessary.

Long-term survival in SCLC after treatment with paclitaxel, carboplatin and etoposide--a phase II study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the toxicity and feasibility of adding paclitaxel to a standard platinum/etoposide regimen in the first-line treatment of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine patients with limited disease (LD) or extensive disease without distant metastases (ED I) were treated in this multi-centered phase II trial between April 1996 and June 1997. Paclitaxel administration (175 mg/m(2) by a 1 h intravenous infusion) was immediately followed by a 30 min infusion of carboplatin at an area under the concentration time curve (AUC) of 5 on day 1 and etoposide 50 mg orally twice daily (bid) was given on days 2-8. Courses were repeated every 21 days. Patients who had an objective response continued treatment for a maximum of 6 courses. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were assessable for response. Overall response rate (RR) was 82.1% with 17.8% complete remissions and 64.3% partial remissions. Median survival for LD patients was 20.5 months with a 1 year survival rate of 71.4% and a 3 year survival rate of 21.4%. Median survival of ED I patients was 11 months with a 1 year survival rate of 31.3% and a 3 year survival rate of 3.1%. Overall median survival was 18.1 months with a 1 year survival rate of 56.8% and a 3 year survival rate of 14.8%. Median progression-free intervals were 12.3 months for patients with LD stage of the disease and 8 months with ED I stage. Grade 3/4 toxicity was primarily hematologic. Grade 3/4 leucopenia occurred in 16.0% of courses and febrile episodes were detected in 0.3% of courses. Non-hematologic toxicities were uncommon. Grade 3 GI-tract toxicities or peripheral neuropathy appeared in less than 1% of the courses. Toxicities were detected according to WHO toxicity criteria. CONCLUSION: Paclitaxel can be added at full dose (175 mg/m(2)) to a carboplatin/etoposide combination while maintaining a tolerable toxicity profile. Efficacy data, RR, progression-free interval and survival in both, extensive and limited stage patients compare favorably with other reported data. This new regimen will be further evaluated in comparison to standard regimens in a phase III trial.