Carcinoma of unknown primary site: treatment with 1-hour paclitaxel, carboplatin, and extended-schedule etoposide.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of a novel chemotherapy combination that includes paclitaxel, carboplatin, and extended-schedule etoposide in the treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary tumor site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-five patients with carcinoma of unknown primary tumor site were treated with the following regimen, administered every 21 days: paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 by 1-hour intravenous (I.V.) infusion on day 1, carboplatin at an estimated area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 6.0 on day 1, and etoposide 50 mg alternated with 100 mg orally on days 1 through 10. Responding patients received a total of four courses of treatment. The following histologies were included: adenocarcinoma, 30 patients; poorly differentiated carcinoma (PDC) or poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (PDA), 21; poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma, three; and squamous carcinoma, one. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 53 assessable patients (47%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 33% to 61%) had major objective responses to treatment (seven complete responses). Response rates were similar in patients with adenocarcinoma versus PDC (45% and 48%, respectively). The actuarial median survival time for the entire group was 13.4 months. The regimen was well tolerated, with only seven hospitalizations for treatment of neutropenia and fever (4% of courses) and no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: The combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and extended-schedule etoposide is highly active and well tolerated in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary tumor site. Response rates and survival in this multicenter community-based trial compare favorably with all previously studied empiric regimens. In addition, this regimen is substantially less toxic and easier to administer than the cisplatin-based regimens previously used in this setting. If this level of efficacy is confirmed, this treatment should be considered standard first-line therapy in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary tumor site.

Weekly docetaxel in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced breast cancer: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel administered weekly to elderly or poor-performance status patients with advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with advanced breast cancer who were either over the age of 65 or considered to be poor candidates for combination chemotherapy received docetaxel 36 mg/m2 weekly for 6 consecutive weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment. The median age of patients in this trial was 74 years, and 73% of patients had one or more visceral sites of metastases. Seventy-five percent of patients received weekly docetaxel as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer, and the other 25% received it as second-line treatment. Thirty-six patients were assessable for efficacy, and all patients were assessed for toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 448 doses of weekly docetaxel were administered to 41 patients. Thirteen patients (36%) had objective responses to treatment, and an additional 13 patients (36%) had stable disease or minor response. Median time to progression for responding and stable patients was 7 months (range, 3 to 27 months). Median survival for the entire group was 13 months, with 1- and 2-year actuarial survival rates of 61% and 29%, respectively. Severe neutropenia occurred in only 0.4% of courses, and no other hematologic toxicity was observed. Grade 3/4 fatigue was the most common toxicity, occurring in 20% of patients. CONCLUSION: Weekly docetaxel therapy is active and well tolerated by elderly and/or poor-performance status patients with advanced breast cancer. This treatment can be administered with minimal myelosuppression. Weekly docetaxel provides an additional option for treatment in this difficult subgroup of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Well-tolerated combination regimens containing weekly docetaxel merit evaluation for this patient population.

Paclitaxel, carboplatin, and extended-schedule etoposide in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer: comparison of sequential phase II trials using different dose-intensities.

PURPOSE: In two sequential phase II studies, we evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of adding paclitaxel to a standard platinum/etoposide regimen in the first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred seventeen patients with small-cell lung cancer were treated between June 1993 and July 1996. The first 38 patients received a lower-dose regimen: paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 by 1-hour infusion, carboplatin at an area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 5.0, and etoposide 50 mg alternating with 100 mg orally on days 1 to 10. When only mild myelosuppression was observed, doses of paclitaxel and carboplatin were increased in the subsequent 79 patients (paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 by 1-hour infusion and carboplatin at an AUC of 6.0). All patients received four courses of treatment, administered at 21-day intervals. Patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer also received thoracic radiation therapy (1.8 Gy/d; total dose, 45 Gy) administered concurrently with courses 3 and 4 of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Seventy-two of 79 patients (91%) who receive the higher-dose regimen had major responses. Thirty-two of 38 (84%) with extensive-stage disease responded (21% complete response rate); median survival was 10 months for this group. With limited-stage disease, the overall response rate was 98%, with 71% complete responses; the median survival time has not been reached at 16 months. Median survival in extensive-stage patients was longer in patients who received the higher-dose regimen (10 months) than in the previous group treated with lower doses (7 months; P = .008). The higher-dose regimen was well tolerated, with myelosuppression being the major toxicity. Compared with the lower-dose regimen, grade 3/4 neutropenia increased from 8% to 38% of courses, but the incidence of hospitalization for neutropenia and fever did not increase. Other nonhematologic toxicities were uncommon, and did not increase substantially with the higher-dose regimen. CONCLUSION: Paclitaxel can be added at full dose (200 mg/m2) to a carboplatin/etoposide combination while maintaining a tolerable toxicity profile. Median survival times in both extensive- and limited-stage patients compare favorably with other reported regimens. This regimen merits further investigation, and a randomized trial to compare this regimen with a standard carboplatin/etoposide combination is underway.

Phase II trial evaluating triplet chemotherapy using gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and carboplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the combination of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Previously untreated patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled into this trial. Sixty-nine patients from the phase II portion and eight patients from the phase I portion were treated with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously on days I and 8, paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 as a 1-hour infusion on day 1, and carboplatin at an area under the curve of 5.0 intravenously on day 1. Treatment courses were repeated every 21 days. The phase II component of the study was completed at 13 community-based practices in the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network. Thirty-four of 71 fully evaluable patients had an objective response (48%, two complete and 32 partial responses). Twenty-five patients (35%) were stable and 12 (17%) progressed. The median response duration was 6 months (range, 3 to 14 months) and the median survival was 9.9 months, with 1- and 2-year survival rates of 47% and 21%, respectively. The combination of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and carboplatin has been shown to be safe and effective; thus, this three-drug regimen will be compared with a standard two-drug regimen, paclitaxel/carboplatin, in a phase III study.

Phase I trial of PCNU.

In a phase I trial, 28 patients with advanced solid tumors were given PCNU daily for 5 days by iv infusion over 20 minutes at 6-week intervals. The total dose for each course ranged from 25 to 150 mg/m2 in six escalation steps. Myelosuppression was dose-limiting, with a platelet count depression regularly observed at doses of greater than or equal to 82.5 mg/m2. Leukopenia occurred only at higher doses. Nausea was uncommon, and vomiting did not occur. There were no adverse drug-related effects on renal or hepatic function. No antitumor activity was observed. A dose range of 100-125 mg/m2 iv for each 5-day course (20-25 mg/m2/day) is recommended for phase II studies.

Carcinoma of unknown primary site.

BACKGROUND: The long term survival and toxicity associated with the chemotherapy combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and extended-schedule etoposide used for the treatment of patients with metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary site were evaluated. METHODS: Seventy-one patients were treated between March 1995 and November 1996 with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and oral etoposide every 21 days. Stable or responding patients received four to eight courses of therapy. The following histologies were represented: well differentiated adenocarcinoma (34 patients); poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma or poorly differentiated carcinoma (30 patients); poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (6 patients); and squamous cell carcinoma (1 patient). RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of assessable patients had major responses to therapy (95% confidence interval, 39%-55%), and 10 patients (15%) had complete responses. There were no response differences among the major histologic types. The median survival for all 71 patients was 11 months, and the 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year survival rates were 48%, 20%, and 14%, respectively. The minimum follow-up period was 34 months (range, 34-50 mos). The regimen was tolerated well with no treatment-related deaths and only 12 hospitalizations for neutropenia and fever. There was no serious long term toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In this large Phase II trial, the combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and oral etoposide produced major responses or stable disease status in nearly 80% of patients who had carcinoma of unknown primary site. The median survival and 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year survival rates were noteworthy. The current study obtained similar or superior results to those seen with chemotherapy for many other groups of patients, such as those who had well defined advanced malignancies, those who were considered to have responsive tumors, and those who had obtained substantial benefits from cytotoxic therapy. Although the regimen reported in the current study can become an attractive option for many patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site, there remains a need for further clinical trials.

Randomized, double blind, dose-response trial across four oral doses of dolasetron for the prevention of acute emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Oral Dolasetron Dose-Response Study Group.

BACKGROUND: This double blind parallel group study assessed the acute antiemetic efficacy of four oral doses of dolasetron mesylate in cancer patients receiving their first course of intravenous chemotherapy with doxorubicin and/or cyclophosphamide. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive 25, 50, 100, or 200 mg of dolasetron mesylate 30 minutes prior to chemotherapy and were monitored for nausea and emetic episodes for the next 24 hours. RESULTS: Three hundred and nineteen cancer patients at 32 sites completed the study. Most patients were female (81%); of this group, 69% had breast carcinoma. A highly statistically significant linear trend demonstrating improved response with higher doses was detected for complete response (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) (P < 0.001), for complete plus major response (0-2 emetic episodes and no rescue medication) (P < 0.001), and for patient visual analog scale assessments of nausea (P = 0.001) and general satisfaction with antiemetic therapy (P = 0.001). No serious adverse events were noted. The most frequent adverse event was mild, self-limiting headache, which has been reported with other drugs in this class. CONCLUSIONS: Single oral doses of dolasetron mesylate were found to be effective in preventing acute emesis in cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Phase I/II trial of paclitaxel by 1-hour infusion, carboplatin, and gemcitabine in the treatment of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin is widely used in the treatment of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. In this Phase I/II study the authors evaluated the feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of adding a third active antineoplastic agent, gemcitabine, to the paclitaxel/carboplatin combination for the treatment of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. METHODS: Patients with advanced (AJCC Stage IIIB or IV) nonsmall cell lung carcinoma previously untreated with chemotherapy were eligible for this trial. The maximum tolerated doses, determined in the Phase I trial and subsequently used in the Phase II trial, were: paclitaxel, 200 mg/m2, as a 1-hour infusion on Day 1; carboplatin, at area under the curve dose of 5.0 intravenously (i.v.), on Day 1; and gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2 i.v., on Days 1 and 8. Treatment courses were repeated every 21 days. The Phase II study was conducted in 13 community-based practices in the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network; 77 patients were treated between December 1996 and September 1997. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 77 patients (44%) in the Phase II trial had major responses (partial responses, 32 patients and complete responses, 2 patients). An additional 25 patients (33%) had stable disease or minor response; only 23% of patients progressed or were removed from study at or prior to first reevaluation. The median survival was 9.4 months, with a 45% actuarial 1-year survival rate. Myelosuppression was the most common toxicity, with Grade 3/4 NCI Common Toxicity Criteria leukopenia and thrombocytopenia in 49% and 45% of patients, respectively. However, only 11 patients (14%) required hospitalization for neutropenia/ fever, and none had bleeding complications. Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included fatigue (41%), arthralgias/myalgias (26%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), nausea/emesis (6%), and hypersensitivity reactions (4%). There was one treatment-related death due to sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: This three-drug regimen is active and has acceptable toxicity in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Myelosuppression, particularly thrombocytopenia, is increased in comparison to the paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen. Fatigue also may be increased, but other nonhematologic toxicities are not altered substantially by adding gemcitabine. Although the response rate and median survival are improved modestly compared with our previous experience with paclitaxel/carboplatin, definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of this regimen await the completion of randomized trials.

Improved control of cisplatin-induced emesis with high-dose metoclopramide and with combinations of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and diphenhydramine. Results of consecutive trials in 255 patients.

A series of consecutive trials were undertaken to determine whether higher doses of intravenous metoclopramide and combinations of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and diphenhydramine would improve antiemetic control or decrease treatment-related side effects in patients receiving cisplatin at 120 mg/m2. Metoclopramide and dexamethasone were studied because of their proven efficacy as single agents and their differing mechanisms of action and side effects. Diphenhydramine was used because of its possible antiemetic properties and its ability to control acute dystonic reactions. Two hundred fifty-five patients who had never received chemotherapy or antiemetics were observed in the hospital for the 24 hours following cisplatin administration. The addition of dexamethasone or dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine to intravenous metoclopramide 2 mg/kg produced both improved antiemetic control and a decrease in treatment-associated diarrhea (P = 0.002). The use of metoclopramide alone at a dose of 3 mg/kg for only two doses appeared as effective as 2 mg/kg for five doses. When dexamethasone and diphenhydramine were given with metoclopramide 3 mg/kg for two intravenous dosages, 81% of patients experienced no emesis and 93% had two or fewer vomiting episodes. The antiemetic results of this 2-hour "short-course" regimen were superior to metoclopramide 2 mg/kg, with (P = 0.002) or without (P = 0.0001) dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. It was concluded that combinations of metoclopramide plus dexamethasone plus diphenhydramine improve antiemetic control, facilitate the usage of higher doses of metoclopramide, and decrease the incidence of treatment-related side effects.

Randomized trial comparing vindesine plus cisplatin with vinblastine plus cisplatin in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, with an analysis of methods of response assessment.

One hundred eight patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin (120 mg/m2) with either vindesine (3 mg/m2) or vinblastine (6 mg/m2). None had previously received chemotherapy. An additional goal was to determine if the observation of visible evaluable lesions was as accurate a method of response assessment as the observation of bidimensionally measurable lesions in non-small cell lung cancer. When vindesine plus cisplatin was compared to vinblastine plus cisplatin, response rates (33% vs 41%), median response durations (8.6 vs 5.6 months), and median survival times of responding patients (18.4 vs 16.2 months) were similar. Response rates, response durations, and survival times of responding patients determined through the observation of evaluable or measurable indicator lesions did not differ significantly. More patients receiving vinblastine plus cisplatin experienced wbc counts less than 2100/mm3 (P = 0.003). The two regimens demonstrated comparable response and survival data but clinically significant leukopenia was more common in vinblastine-treated patients. There was no difference in response data obtained through the study of patients with measurable and evaluable indicator lesions.