Amisulpride prevents nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain significant clinical problems, especially in the delayed phase (24-120 h after chemotherapy). Amisulpride is a dopamine D2/D3-receptor antagonist previously shown to be an effective intravenous antiemetic. We conducted a randomised, double-blind study to characterise the dose response of oral amisulpride in delayed phase CINV. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide regimen for breast cancer received, on day 1, 20 mg amisulpride and 8-16 mg ondansetron intravenously followed, once daily on days 2-4, by 10, 20 or 40 mg oral amisulpride or placebo. A control group receiving standard three-drug prophylaxis was enrolled for assay sensitivity purposes. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis or rescue medication use, in the delayed phase. RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen subjects were evaluable per protocol. CR rate (24-120 h) was 20% with placebo and 46% with 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.006 after multiplicity adjustment); in the three-drug control group, it was 59%. Emesis, nausea and 0-120-h CR rate were significantly improved with 10 mg amisulpride compared to placebo. Higher doses of amisulpride were not more effective than 10 mg. In patients with acute phase CR, delayed phase CR rate was 44% for placebo, 75% for 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.022) and 70% for the 3-drug control. No significant differences were seen between groups in safety parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Amisulpride 10 mg orally is safe and superior to placebo at preventing delayed CINV caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01857232.

Everolimus with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment for metastatic large-cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma: a multicenter phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung (LCNEC) is a rare disease with poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Neuroendocrine tumors frequently show overactivation of the mTOR pathway. Based on the good activity of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in different types of neuroendocrine tumors and the results of a previous phase I trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of everolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel as upfront treatment for patients with advanced LCNEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter phase II trial chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV LCNEC received 5 mg everolimus daily combined with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 5 every 3 weeks for a maximum of four cycles followed by maintenance everolimus 5 mg daily until progression. Efficacy parameters were determined based on central radiologic assessment. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients with a mean age of 62 ±9 years and a predominance of male (71%) smokers (98%) were enrolled in 10 German centers. The overall response rate was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31%-60%), the disease control rate 74% (CI 59%-85%), the median progression-free survival 4.4 (CI 3.2-6) months and the median overall survival 9.9 (CI 6.9-11.7) months. The progression-free survival rate at 3 months (primary end point) was 76% (CI 64%-88%) according to Kaplan-Meier. Grade-3/4 toxicities occurred in 51% of patients and mainly consisted of general physical health deterioration (8%), cytopenias (24%), infections (10%) and gastrointestinal problems (8%). Typical everolimus-related adverse events, like stomatitis, rash and ocular problems occurred only in a minority of patients (<15%) and were exclusively of grade 1-2. CONCLUSION: Everolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is an effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment for patients with metastatic LCNEC. REGISTERED CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS: EudraCT number 2010-022273-34, NCT01317615.

Open-label, randomized study of individualized, pharmacokinetically (PK)-guided dosing of paclitaxel combined with carboplatin or cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: Variable chemotherapy exposure may cause toxicity or lack of efficacy. This study was initiated to validate pharmacokinetically (PK)-guided paclitaxel dosing in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to avoid supra- or subtherapeutic exposure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed, advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive up to 6 cycles of 3-weekly carboplatin AUC 6 or cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) either with standard paclitaxel at 200 mg/m(2) (arm A) or PK-guided dosing of paclitaxel (arm B). In arm B, initial paclitaxel dose was adjusted to body surface area, age, sex, and subsequent doses were guided by neutropenia and previous-cycle paclitaxel exposure [time above a plasma concentration of 0.05 µM (Tc>0.05)] determined from a single blood sample on day 2. The primary end point was grade 4 neutropenia; secondary end points included neuropathy, radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 365 patients randomly assigned, grade 4 neutropenia was similar in both arms (19% versus 16%; P = 0.10). Neuropathy grade ≥2 (38% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and grade ≥3 (9% versus 2%, P < 0.001) was significantly lower in arm B, independent of the platinum drug used. The median final paclitaxel dose was significantly lower in arm B (199 versus 150 mg/m(2), P < 0.001). Response rate was similar in arms A and B (31% versus 27%, P = 0.405), as was adjusted median PFS [5.5 versus 4.9 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.49, P = 0.228] and OS (10.1 versus 9.5 months, HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.37, P = 0.682). CONCLUSION: PK-guided dosing of paclitaxel does not improve severe neutropenia, but reduces paclitaxel-associated neuropathy and thereby improves the benefit-risk profile in patients with advanced NSCLC. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT01326767 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01326767).

A randomized phase II study of the telomerase inhibitor imetelstat as maintenance therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Continuation or 'switch' maintenance therapy is commonly used in patients with advancd non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we evaluated the efficacy of the telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, as switch maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary end point of this open-label, randomized phase II study was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with non-progressive, advanced NSCLC after platinum-based doublet (first-line) chemotherapy (with or without bevacizumab), any histology, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 were eligible. Randomization was 2 : 1 in favor of imetelstat, administered at 9.4 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle, or observation. Telomere length (TL) biomarker exploratory analysis was carried out in tumor tissue by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and telomerase fluorescence in situ hybridization. RESULTS: Of 116 patients enrolled, 114 were evaluable. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with imetelstat. Median PFS was 2.8 and 2.6 months for imetelstat-treated versus control [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.844; 95% CI 0.54-1.31; P = 0.446]. Median survival time favored imetelstat (14.3 versus 11.5 months), although not significantly (HR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.41-1.12; P = 0.129). Exploratory analysis demonstrated a trend toward longer median PFS (HR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.14-1.3; P = 0.124) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.11-1.46; P = 0.155) in imetelstat-treated patients with short TL, but no improvement in median PFS and OS in patients with long TL (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.39-1.88; and HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.2-1.28; P = 0.145). CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance imetelstat failed to improve PFS in advanced NSCLC patients responding to first-line therapy. There was a trend toward a improvement in median PFS and OS in patients with short TL. Short TL as a predictive biomarker will require further investigation for the clinical development of imetelstat.

A phase II randomized study evaluating the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Iniparib is a novel anticancer agent initially considered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, but subsequently shown to act via non-selective protein modification through cysteine adducts. This randomized phase II study investigated the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed stage IV NSCLC were randomized 2 : 1 to receive gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2), days 1/8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2), day 1) with [gemcitabine/cisplatin/iniparib (GCI)] or without [gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC)] iniparib (5.6 mg/kg, days 1/4/8/11) every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The study was not designed for formal efficacy comparison, the control arm being to benchmark results against the literature. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (39 GC and 80 GCI). More GCI patients were male (80% GCI and 67% GC) and had PS 0 (61% GCI and 49% GC). The ORR was 25.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0%-42.1%] with GC versus 20.0% (95% CI 11.9%-30.4%) with GCI, which did not allow rejection of the null hypothesis (ORR with GCI ≤20%; P = 0.545). Median PFS was 4.3 (95% CI 2.8-5.6) months with GC and 5.7 (95% CI 4.6-6.6) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.40). Median OS was 8.5 (95% CI 5.5 to not reached) months with GC, and 12.0 (95% CI 8.9-17.1) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.48-1.27). More GCI patients received second-line treatment (51% GC and 68% GCI). Toxicity was similar in the two arms. Grade 3-4 toxicities included asthenia (28% GC and 8% GCI), nausea (3% GC and 14% GCI), and decreased appetite (10% in each). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of iniparib to GC did not improve ORR over GC alone. The GCI safety profile was comparable to GC alone. Imbalances in PS and gender distribution may have impacted study results regarding PFS and OS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01086254.

Biomarker analysis in a phase III study of pemetrexed-carboplatin versus etoposide-carboplatin in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical results of a randomized phase III trial comparing pemetrexed-carboplatin (PC) with etoposide-carboplatin (EC) in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) resulted in trial closure for futility; biomarker analyses using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are described herein. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thymidylate synthase (TS), excision repair cross complementing-1 (ERCC1), glycinamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase (GARFT), and folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS) were investigated using IHC (n=395). SNPs were genotyped for TS, FPGS, γ-glutamyl hydrolase (GGH), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), folate receptor-α FR-α, and solute carrier 19A1 (SLC19A1; n=611). RESULTS: None of the IHC biomarkers (folate pathway or ERCC1) were found to be predictive or prognostic in this setting. rs2838952 (adjacent to SLC19A1) had significant treatment-independent association with overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.590, P=0.01). Nine GGH-associated SNPs interacted with rs3788205 (SLC19A1) for OS on the PC arm. rs12379987 (FPGS) interacted with treatment for OS (interaction P=0.036). CONCLUSION: Potential ERCC1 and folate pathway IHC biomarkers failed to predict outcome in either study arm in ED-SCLC. SNPs in regions including FPGS and SLC19A1 and interacting SNPs in GGH and SLC19A1 were associated with differences in OS; however, none of these SNPs predicted for greater survival with PC over EC.

A phase II double-blind study to investigate efficacy and safety of two doses of the triple angiokinase inhibitor BIBF 1120 in patients with relapsed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of BIBF 1120 in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic relapsed NSCLC in whom first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy failed were randomly allocated to daily 250 mg BIBF 1120 b.i.d. or 150 mg BIBF 1120 b.i.d. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective tumour response (RECIST). Incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) were reported. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients received BIBF 1120. Median PFS was 6.9 weeks, with no significant difference between treatment arms. Median overall survival (OS) was 21.9 weeks. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0-1 patients (n = 56) had a median PFS of 11.6 weeks and a median OS of 37.7 weeks. Tumour stabilisation was achieved in 46% of patients (ECOG 0-1 patients: 59%), with one confirmed partial response (250 mg b.i.d.). Most commonly reported drug-related AEs were nausea (57.5%), diarrhoea (47.9%), vomiting (42.5%), anorexia (28.8%), abdominal pain (13.7%) and reversible alanine transaminase (13.7%) and aspartate aminotransferase elevations (9.6%). BIBF 1120 displayed dose-linear pharmacokinetic characteristics. CONCLUSION: Continuous treatment with BIBF 1120 was well tolerated, with no difference in efficacy between treatment arms. PFS and objective response with single-agent treatment in advanced disease warrants further exploration.

Prognostic and predictive factors in a randomized phase III trial comparing cisplatin-pemetrexed versus cisplatin-gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Baseline patient and disease characteristics are investigated in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an effort to predict response to treatment and optimize patients' outcomes. Histology has recently been identified in multiple NSCLC phase III trials as a predictive factor for survival in patients receiving pemetrexed regimens. METHODS: Cox-adjusted models were used to further analyze a randomized phase III study in 1725 chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of zero or one who received cisplatin plus pemetrexed (CP; C, 75 mg/m(2) and P, 500 mg/m(2)) or cisplatin plus gemcitabine (CG; C, 75 mg/m(2) and G, 1250 mg/m(2)) every 21 days. RESULTS: Histology was confirmed to be predictive of CP efficacy and may also be prognostic. Gender, ethnicity, disease stage, smoking status, and PS were not predictive in either treatment arm but were shown to be prognostic in the nonsquamous population, consistent with the results in the overall NSCLC population. CONCLUSIONS: NSCLC histology significantly predicts efficacy outcomes for patients receiving pemetrexed. Several other factors are prognostic for the overall study population as well as a subset of patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

Overall survival with cisplatin-gemcitabine and bevacizumab or placebo as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised phase III trial (AVAiL).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent, provides clinical benefit when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We report the final overall survival (OS) analysis from the phase III AVAiL trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1043) received cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) for up to six cycles plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (n = 345), bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 347) every 3 weeks until progression. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); OS was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Significant PFS prolongation with bevacizumab compared with placebo was maintained with longer follow-up {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.75 (0.64-0.87), P = 0.0003 and 0.85 (0.73-1.00), P = 0.0456} for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively. Median OS was >13 months in all treatment groups; nevertheless, OS was not significantly increased with bevacizumab [HR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.78-1.11), P = 0.420 and 1.03 (0.86-1.23), P = 0.761] for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively, versus placebo. Most patients ( approximately 62%) received multiple lines of poststudy treatment. Updated safety results are consistent with those previously reported. CONCLUSIONS: Final analysis of AVAiL confirms the efficacy of bevacizumab when combined with cisplatin-gemcitabine. The PFS benefit did not translate into a significant OS benefit, possibly due to high use of efficacious second-line therapies.

Long-term survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab versus docetaxel: Results from the randomised phase III OAK study.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer based on OAK-a randomised, phase III trial that showed significantly improved survival with atezolizumab versus docetaxel regardless of PD-L1 expression. With longer follow-up, we summarised the characteristics of long-term survivors (LTSs). METHODS: In OAK (NCT02008227), patients were randomised 1:1 to receive atezolizumab or docetaxel until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. Overall survival was evaluated after a 26-month minimum follow-up, including in patient subgroups defined by best overall response (BOR). LTSs were defined as patients who lived ≥24 months since randomisation. Non-LTSs died within 24 months, and patients censored before 24 months were excluded from the analysis. The baseline characteristics, including biomarkers, BOR, subsequent non-protocol therapy (NPT) and safety, are reported. RESULTS: Survival benefit with atezolizumab was observed across all patient subgroups defined by BOR. More atezolizumab-treated patients were LTSs versus those treated with docetaxel (28% versus 18%). Most atezolizumab responders were LTSs (77%) versus only 48% of docetaxel responders. However, 21% of atezolizumab-arm LTSs had progressive disease (PD) as BOR, and more atezolizumab-arm LTSs than non-LTSs continued treatment post-PD. Fifty-two percent of docetaxel-arm LTSs received immunotherapy as subsequent NPT. Despite extended treatment duration in atezolizumab-arm LTSs (median, 18 months), atezolizumab was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: After >2 years of follow-up, atezolizumab continued to provide durable survival benefit versus docetaxel, with tolerable safety. Atezolizumab-arm LTSs were enriched for patients with high PD-L1 expression and included PD-L1-negative patients. Long-term survival was not limited to responders.

Randomised phase II study of ASA404 combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

ASA404 (5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid or DMXAA) is a small-molecule tumour-vascular disrupting agent (Tumour-VDA). This randomised phase II study evaluated ASA404 plus standard therapy of carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIb or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with chemotherapy. Patients were randomised to receive

Phase III trial comparing paclitaxel poliglumex vs docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecule drug conjugate linking paclitaxel to polyglutamic acid, reduces systemic exposure to peak concentrations of free paclitaxel. Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had received one prior platinum-based chemotherapy received 175 or 210 mg m(-2) PPX or 75 mg m(-2) docetaxel. The study enrolled 849 previously treated NSCLC patients with advanced disease. Median survival (6.9 months in both arms, hazard ratio=1.09, P=0.257), 1-year survival (PPX=25%, docetaxel=29%, P=0.134), and time to progression (PPX=2 months, docetaxel=2.6 months, P=0.075) were similar between treatment arms. Paclitaxel poliglumex was associated with significantly less grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (P<0.001) and febrile neutropenia (P=0.006). Grade 3 or 4 neuropathy (P<0.001) was more common in the PPX arm. Patients receiving PPX had less alopecia and did not receive routine premedications. More patients discontinued due to adverse events in the PPX arm compared to the docetaxel arm (34 vs 16%, P<0.001). Paclitaxel poliglumex and docetaxel produced similar survival results but had different toxicity profiles. Compared with docetaxel, PPX had less febrile neutropenia and less alopecia, shorter infusion times, and elimination of routine use of medications to prevent hypersensitivity reactions. Paclitaxel poliglumex at a dose of 210 mg m(-2) resulted in increased neurotoxicity compared with docetaxel.

Phase III study of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor prinomastat in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) degrade extracellular proteins and facilitate tumor growth, invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis. This trial was undertaken to determine the effect of prinomastat, an inhibitor of selected MMPs, on the survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), when given in combination with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive prinomastat 15 mg or placebo twice daily orally continuously, in combination with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, every 21 days for up to six cycles. The planned sample size was 420 patients. RESULTS: Study results at an interim analysis and lack of efficacy in another phase III trial prompted early closure of this study. There were 362 patients randomized (181 on prinomastat and 181 on placebo). One hundred thirty-four patients had stage IIIB disease with T4 primary tumor, 193 had stage IV disease, and 34 had recurrent disease (one enrolled patient was ineligible with stage IIIA disease). Overall response rates for the two treatment arms were similar (27% for prinomastat v 26% for placebo; P = .81). There was no difference in overall survival or time to progression; for prinomastat versus placebo patients, the median overall survival times were 11.5 versus 10.8 months (P = .82), 1-year survival rates were 43% v 38% (P = .45), and progression-free survival times were 6.1 v 5.5 months (P = .11), respectively. The toxicities of prinomastat were arthralgia, stiffness, and joint swelling. Treatment interruption was required in 38% of prinomastat patients and 12% of placebo patients. CONCLUSION: Prinomastat does not improve the outcome of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC.

Phase ii comparator study of oral versus intravenous topotecan in patients with chemosensitive small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Topotecan, administered intravenously, is active in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). In this study, the comparability of oral topotecan to IV topotecan was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with SCLC that had relapsed 90 days or more after cessation of initial chemotherapy were randomized to receive either oral topotecan (Hycamtin) 2.3 mg/m(2)/d x 5 (52 patients) or IV topotecan 1.5 mg/m(2)/d x 5 (54 patients), every 21 days. RESULTS: Response rates in this phase II randomized study were 23% (12/52) in the oral topotecan arm and 15% (8/54) in the IV topotecan arm. All radiological responses were confirmed by an independent radiologist. Median survival was 32 weeks (oral) and 25 weeks (IV). Good symptom control, defined as sustained improvement or no deterioration, was evident in both treatment groups. Topotecan was generally well tolerated, with myelosuppression being the major toxicity. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 35.3% of patients on oral topotecan and in 67.3% of patients on IV topotecan, which was statistically significant (P =.001). Fever/infection more than or equal to grade 2 associated with grade 4 neutropenia, together with sepsis, occurred in only 5.1% of courses (oral) and 3.3% of courses (IV). Non-hematological toxicity consisted mainly of vomiting (oral: 36.5% of patients; IV: 31.5% of patients) and nausea (oral: 26.9% of patients; IV: 40.7% of patients). CONCLUSION: This study found oral topotecan to be similar in efficacy to IV topotecan in the treatment of patients with relapsed SCLC, sensitive to first-line chemotherapy, with less grade 4 neutropenia and greater convenience of administration.

Phase III comparative study of high-dose cisplatin versus a combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: New effective chemotherapy is needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Paclitaxel administered as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be a potentially new useful agent for the treatment of NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1995 and April 1996, 414 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to received either a control arm of high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or a combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) every 21 days. RESULTS: Compared with the cisplatin-only arm, there was a 9% improvement (95% confidence interval, 0% to 19%) in overall response rate for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (17% v 26%, respectively; P=.028). Median time to progression was 2.7 and 4.1 months in the control and paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, respectively (P=.026). The study, however, failed to show a significant improvement in median survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (8.6 months in the control arm v 8.1 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, P=.862). There was more hematotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and arthralgia/myalgia on the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, whereas the high-dose cisplatin arm produced more ototoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and nephrotoxicity. Quality of life (QOL) was similar overall between the two arms. CONCLUSION: This large randomized phase III trial failed to show a significant improvement in survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination compared with high-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination did produce a better clinical response, resulting in an increased time to progression while providing a similar QOL.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The Hoosier Oncology Group has previously reported the results of its phase II trial of the combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine. In that study of 27 assessable patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was 33%, with a median survival of 8.4 months. Based on such favorable results, the Hoosier Oncology Group designed this randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin alone in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 28-day cycle) or the combination of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle). RESULTS: From August 1995 to February 1997, 522 assessable chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized. Toxicity was predominantly hematologic and was more pronounced in the combination arm, with grade 4 neutropenia occurring in 35.3% of patients compared with 1.2% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. The incidence of neutropenic fevers was less than 5% in both arms. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 25. 4% of patients on the combination arm compared with 0.8% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. No serious hemorrhagic events related to thrombocytopenia were reported for either arm. The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin demonstrated a significant improvement over single-agent cisplatin with regard to response rate (30.4% compared with 11.1%, respectively; P <.0001), median time to progressive disease (5.6 months compared with 3.7 months, respectively; P =.0013), and overall survival (9.1 months compared with 7.6 months, respectively; P =.004). CONCLUSIONS: For the first-line treatment of NSCLC, the regimen of gemcitabine plus cisplatin is superior to cisplatin alone in terms of response rate, time to disease progression, and overall survival.

Effects of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and dose intensification of V-ICE chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized study of 300 patients.

PURPOSE: To assess whether granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) reduces the toxicity of chemotherapy and alters delivered dose-intensity. To assess the feasibility of dose-intensification of chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and determine whether it has an impact on outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with good- or intermediate-prognosis SCLC entered a prospective multicenter study that involved a 2 x 2 factorial design with randomization to six cycles of chemotherapy with ifosfamide 5 g/m2, carboplatin 300 mg/m2, etoposide 120 mg/m2 intravenously (I.V.) on days 1 and 2 and 240 mg/m2 orally on day 3, and vincristine 0.5 mg/m2 I.V. on day 15 (V-ICE) every 3 weeks (intensified arm) or every 4 weeks (standard arm). A second double-blind randomization to subcutaneous GM-CSF (250 microg/m2/d) or placebo for 14 days between chemotherapy cycles was made. RESULTS: Three hundred patients were entered. Myelosuppression was the main toxicity, with no significant difference in the incidence or grade between treatment groups. The incidence of febrile neutropenia and bacteriologically confirmed sepsis was unaffected by chemotherapy schedule or use of GM-CSF. Twenty-six percent greater dose-intensity was delivered in the intensified arm, with a trend for greater dose-intensity for those who received GM-CSF. Eighty-three percent of patients achieved a response (51% complete response [CR] rate), with no significant difference in response rates between treatment groups. Survival was significantly increased in the intensified compared with the standard arm (P = .0014); median survival rates were 443 versus 351 days and 2-year survival rates were 33% versus 18%, respectively. CONCLUSION: GM-CSF does not reduce the incidence of complications from myelosuppression of aggressive chemotherapy. Dose intensification of V-ICE to a 3-week schedule in SCLC is not associated with increased toxicity, but appears to improve survival significantly. Future studies should aim to deliver chemotherapy in maximal-tolerated dose-intensities.

Tirapazamine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A report of the international CATAPULT I study group. Cisplatin and Tirapazamine in Subjects with Advanced Previously Untreated Non-Small-Cell Lung Tumors.

PURPOSE: A phase III trial, Cisplatin and Tirapazamine in Subjects with Advanced Previously Untreated Non-Small-Cell Lung Tumors (CATAPULT I), was designed to determine the efficacy and safety of tirapazamine plus cisplatin for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated NSCLC were randomized to receive either tirapazamine (390 mg/m(2) infused over 2 hours) followed 1 hour later by cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) over 1 hour) or 75 mg/m(2) of cisplatin alone, every 3 weeks for a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients with NSCLC (17% with stage IIIB disease and pleural effusions; 83% with stage IV disease) were entered onto the study. Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was >/= 60 for all patients (for 10%, KPS = 60; for 90%, KPS = 70 to 100). Sixty patients (14%) had clinically stable brain metastases. The median survival was significantly longer (34.6 v 27. 7 weeks; P =.0078) and the response rate was significantly greater (27.5% v 13.7%; P <.001) for patients who received tirapazamine plus cisplatin (n = 218) than for those who received cisplatin alone (n = 219). The tirapazamine-plus-cisplatin regimen was associated with mild to moderate adverse events, including acute, reversible hearing loss, reversible, intermittent muscle cramping, diarrhea, skin rash, nausea, and vomiting. There were no incremental increases in myelosuppression, peripheral neuropathy, or renal, hepatic, or cardiac toxicity and no deaths related to tirapazamine. CONCLUSION: The CATAPULT I study shows that tirapazamine enhances the activity of cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC and confirms that hypoxia is an exploitable therapeutic target in human malignancies.

Topotecan versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine for the treatment of recurrent small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Topotecan and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) were evaluated in a randomized, multicenter study of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who had relapsed at least 60 days after completion of first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either topotecan (1.5 mg/m2) as a 30-minute infusion daily for 5 days every 21 days (n = 107) or CAV (cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m2, doxorubicin 45 mg/m2, and vincristine 2 mg) infused on day 1 every 21 days (n = 104). Eligibility included the following: bidimensionally measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of less than or equal to 2, and adequate marrow, liver, and renal function. Response was confirmed by blinded independent radiologic review. RESULTS: Response rate was 26 of 107 patients (24.3%) treated with topotecan and 19 of 104 patients (18.3%) treated with CAV (P = .285). Median times to progression were 13.3 weeks (topotecan) and 12.3 weeks (CAV) (P = .552). Median survival was 25.0 weeks for topotecan and 24.7 weeks for CAV (P = .795). The proportion of patients who experienced symptom improvement was greater in the topotecan group than in the CAV group for four of eight symptoms evaluated, including dyspnea, anorexia, hoarseness, and fatigue, as well as interference with daily activity (P< or =.043). Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 37.8% of topotecan courses versus 51.4% of CAV courses (P<.001). Grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3/4 anemia occurred more frequently with topotecan, occurring in 9.8% and 17.7% of topotecan courses versus 1.4% and 7.2% of CAV courses, respectively (P<.001 for both). Nonhematologic toxicities were generally grade 1 to 2 for both regimens. CONCLUSION: Topotecan was at least as effective as CAV in the treatment of patients with recurrent SCLC and resulted in improved control of several symptoms.

Response to topotecan of symptomatic brain metastases of small-cell lung cancer also after whole-brain irradiation. a multicentre phase II study.

The purpose of this multicentre phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of topotecan in pretreated patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed with symptomatic brain metastases. 30 patients with a median age of 62 years were entered into the study. 22 patients received the initially planned dose of 1.5 mg/m(2) topotecan as a 30-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion for 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks. Due to the observed thrombocytopenia, the dose was reduced to 1.25 mg/m(2) in the last 8 patients. All 30 patients were pretreated with chemotherapy: 14 with one and 16 with at least two protocols. 8 patients had prior whole-brain iradiation (WBI): 7 in the prophylactic and 1 in the palliative setting. Concomitant systemic metastases were recorded in 24 patients at the time of brain relapse. Cerebral metastases responded in 33% of patients (10/30; three complete responses (CR) and seven partial responses (PR)). Noteworthy is the fact that response was achieved in 4 of 8 patients pretreated by WBI (3 in prophylactic and 1 in palliative setting). The systemic response rate was 29% (7/24). Median time to progression was 3.1 months (range 0.25-14.2+ months), median survival from the beginning of this study was 3.6 months (range 0.25-14.2+ months). Therapy was generally well tolerated, with myelotoxicity being the most common adverse event. Grade 3 leucocytopenia according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) occurred in 28% (23/83) of the courses and grade 4 in 22% (18/83). Grade 3 thrombocytopenia was observed in 17% of the courses (14/83) and grade 4 in 11% (9/83). 17% of patients (5/30) had a documented grade 3 infection. These results using topotecan are promising in heavily pretreated patients with SCLC brain metastases and merit further evaluation.