Carboplatin-oral etoposide personalized dosing in elderly non-small cell lung cancer patients. Gruppo Oncologico Cooperativo Sud-Italia.

The toxicity and therapeutic activity, including the effect on quality of life, of the carboplatin-oral etoposide combination, given with an intrapatient dose escalation, was tested in 38 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients aged over 70 years, and in 8 younger patients with a performance status of 2. In the absence of grade 3-4 toxicity, doses were escalated as follows: first course (carboplatin AUC 4; etoposide 50 mg twice daily orally days 1-14); second course (carboplatin AUC 5; etoposide 50 mg twice daily orally days 1-14); third course (carboplatin AUC 5; etoposide 50 mg twice daily orally days 1-21). A total of 141 chemotherapy cycles were delivered. The treatment was, in general, well tolerated and no toxic deaths occurred. More than 60% of patients received 100% of the planned dose intensity. Transient grade 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia occurred in 6 and 2 patients, respectively, but only 2 patients had to be hospitalised because of fever. All patients were evaluated for activity on an 'intention to treat basis'. Ten partial responses and 20 stable disease were recorded, for an overall response rate of 22% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 11-36). 9/38 (24%; 95% CI = 12-41) elderly patients obtained a partial response. The median response duration was 4 months. A quality of life improvement was observed in 19 of the 46 enrolled patients (41%; 95% CI = 27-57), and 15/46 (33%; 95% CI = 19-48) showed a performance status improvement. The quality of life score improved in 17/38 (45%) elderly patients. 8/10 responders and 11/20 patients with stable disease showed a concomitant improvement in quality of life. At a median potential follow-up of 16 months (range 2-21), 31 patients had had progression of disease and 23 had died, for a median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) of 5 and 10 months, respectively. The median survival time was 11 months in the elderly patients. The median time to subjective impairment (TSI) was 6 months (7 months in the elderly group). One-year estimated TTP, TSI and OS rates were 22, 29 and 41%, respectively. At multivariate Cox analysis, a > 25% improvement in the quality of life score was more predictive of a better survival outcome than the response achievement.

Cisplatin/carboplatin + etoposide + vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Gruppo Oncologico Campano.

A multicentre randomised phase III trial in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was undertaken to compare the therapeutic activity and toxicity of a cisplatin/carboplatin-etoposide-vinorelbine combination with that of a cisplatin-etoposide regimen. Patients with advanced (stage IIIB-IV) NSCLC were randomised, after stratification for stage (IIIB-IV) and performance status (0-1 and 2), to receive either (A) CDDP 40 mg m-2 + VP16 100 mg m-2 on days 1-3 as standard treatment or (B) CBDCA 250 mg m-2 on day 1 + CDDP 30 mg m-2 on days 2 and 3 + VP16 100 mg m-2 on days 1-3 + NVB 30 mg m-2 on day 1. Therapy was recycled on day 29 in both arms. We hypothesised a 15% minimum increment in the response rate with the experimental regimen over the 25% expected activity rate of the standard regimen. A two-stage design was chosen, which permitted the early termination of the trial (after the accrual of 52 patients in each arm) if the difference in response rates between the two regimens was less than 3% at the end of the first stage. A total of 112 patients (arm A = 57, arm B = 55) were enrolled in the study (53 with stage IIIB and 59 with stage IV), of which 105 eligible patients were evaluable for response on an "intention to treat' basis. Seven patients were excluded because they did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Fifteen responses were observed in arm A (28%, 95% CI = 17-42) and 13 (one complete) in arm B (25%, 95% CI = 13-37). On multivariate logistic analysis, treatment did not affect the response rate, while stage IV and performance status 2 were significantly associated with a lower probability of response. Median survivals were similar in the two arms (31 vs 27 weeks). The experimental regimen was associated with an extremely poor median survival in patients with poor performance status (21 weeks). On Cox analysis, treatment failed to show a significant impact on survival: stage IV (relative risk = 1.6. CI = 1.0-2.6, P = 0.036) was the only prognostic variable significantly associated with a worse survival outcome and, although poor performance status adversely affected survival, this effect did not reach the level of statistical significance (relative risk = 1.6, CI = 0.98-2.5; P = 0.063). There were no significant differences in non-haematological toxicities between the two arms, although three patients in the control arm had to discontinue the treatment because of the persistence of severe nephrotoxicity (two patients) or neurotoxicity (one patient). In contrast, a significant increase in both neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was observed in the experimental arm. Four treatment-related deaths were registered in arm B (two due to neutropenic sepsis, one to myocardial failure and one to acute renal failure) compared with one toxic death (acute renal failure) in arm A. In view of these results, the trial was stopped and the null hypothesis (< 15% increase in response rate with the experimental regimen) has been accepted. Therefore, our combination does not deserve further evaluation as first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC patients. As our data suggest that an aggressive chemotherapy might have a negative impact on survival of patients with poor performance status, trials to evaluate the activity of new regimens should be conducted separately for each subset of patients with different performance status.