Biweekly Carboplatin Plus Gemcitabine as First-Line Treatment of Elderly Patients With Advanced Squamous Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: A Multicenter Phase I-II Trial by the Hellenic Oncology Research Group.

BACKGROUND: The present study was a phase I/II study to determine the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) and dose-limiting toxicities of the biweekly carboplatin/gemcitabine combination and evaluate its safety and efficacy in patients aged ≥ 70 years with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 70 years with advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC received escalated doses of carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 2-2.5 intravenously) and gemcitabine (800-1100 mg/m2 intravenously) every 2 weeks (phase I). In the phase II, the drugs were administered at their previously defined MTDs (carboplatin, AUC 2.5; gemcitabine, 1100 mg/m2). The primary endpoint was the overall response rate. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients were enrolled (phase I, n = 15). The median age was 76 years (range, 70-84 years); 52 patients had stage IV disease, and 61 and 8 patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 and 2, respectively. The MTDs could not be reached at the predefined last dose levels. The dose-limiting toxicities were grade 5 renal toxicity and grade 3 thrombocytopenia. In the phase II study, the overall response rate was 35.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.0%-48.8%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median progression-free survival was 6.7 months (95% CI, 4.2-8.8 months), and the median overall survival was 13.3 months (95% CI, 7.1-19.6 months). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was observed in 7 patients (12.3%), grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia in 4 patients (7.1%), and grade 2 or 3 fatigue in 10 patients (17.5%). One toxic death occurred in the phase I of the study. CONCLUSION: The biweekly regimen of gemcitabine and carboplatin showed satisfactory efficacy and a favorable toxicity profile in elderly patients with advanced or metastatic squamous cell NSCLC.

Docetaxel vs. vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer: a hellenic oncology research group randomized phase III study.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: This study compared front-line treatment with docetaxel or vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with inoperable stage IIIB and stage IV NSCLC who were > 65 years of age with performance status (PS) of 0-2 were enrolled. Patients were assigned to receive either docetaxel 38 mg/m(2) or vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) by intravenous (I.V.) infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: One hundred thirty elderly patients were enrolled in the study (docetaxel n = 66 and vinorelbine n = 64 patients). The objective response rate was 12.1% and 14.1% in patients treated with docetaxel and vinorelbine, respectively (2P = .799). The median time to tumor progression (TTP) was 2.33 and 1.9 months (2P = .298) and the median overall survival (OS) was 6.07 and 3.87 months (2P = .090) in the docetaxel and vinorelbine arms, respectively. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 4.5% and 29.7% of patients in the docetaxel arm and vinorelbine arm, respectively (2P < .001). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 1.5% and 1.6% of patients in the docetaxel arm and the vinorelbine arm, respectively (2P = .950) and the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was more frequent in patients treated with vinorelbine (37.1% vs. 22.5%; 2P < .001). There were no deaths from toxicity. Nonhematologic toxicity was mild. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel has an efficacy comparable to that of vinorelbine as first-line treatment in elderly patients with NSCLC and has an acceptable toxicity profile. The trial was closed prematurely because of low accrual, thus limiting the strength of the conclusions derived.

Second-line paclitaxel/carboplatin versus vinorelbine/carboplatin in patients who have advanced non-small-cell lung cancer pretreated with non-platinum-based chemotherapy: a multicenter randomized phase II study.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the activity and toxicity of the paclitaxel/carboplatin (PC) doublet versus vinorelbine/carboplatin (VC) doublet as second-line treatment in patients who have advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND TREATMENT: Patients pretreated with front-line docetaxel and gemcitabine were randomized to receive either PC (n = 75), which consisted of paclitaxel at a dose of 140 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC3), or VC (n = 78), which consisted of vinorelbine at a dose of 45 mg/m(2) orally and carboplatin AUC3; both drugs were administered on days 1 and 15. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 18.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.85%-27.49%; one complete and 13 partial responses) in the PC arm and 7.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.78%-13.61%; one complete and five partial responses) in the VC arm (P = .056). Median time to tumor progression was 3.5 months (range, 0.3 - 23.73 months) and 3.07 months (range, 0.37-18.5) in the PC and VC arm, respectively (P = .287). Median overall survival was 7.83 months (range, 0.3-45.03 months) and 7.60 months (range, 0.5-30.27 months) for PC and VC arms, respectively (P value = .633). Chemotherapy was well-tolerated and grade III/IV toxicities were relatively infrequent. No toxic deaths were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Platinum-based doublets with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC pretreated with front-line docetaxel/gemcitabine show comparable efficacy when used in the second-line setting.

A multicenter phase I trial of metronomic oral vinorelbine plus cisplatin in patients with NSCLC.

The purpose of the present study was to determine the maximum-tolerated doses (MTDs) and the dose-limiting toxicities of a metronomic administration of oral vinorelbine and cisplatin in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC. Twenty-six patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were enrolled. Escalating doses of vinorelbine (40-70 mg p.o./trice per week) and cisplatin (70-85 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion) were administered on day 1 every 3 weeks. ΜΤDs were reached at 60 mg thrice/week p.o. for vinorelbine and 85 mg/m(2) for cisplatin. Grade 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and grade 4 diarrhea were the dose-limiting events during the first cycle of chemotherapy. The most common grade III-IV hematologic toxicity was neutropenia occurring in seven (27%) patients, while non-hematological toxicities were relatively infrequent and mostly of grade I or II. Objective responses were observed in 20.8% of patients with measurable disease. The regimen of metronomic administration and cisplatin is feasible and active in patients with NSCLC.

Non-platinum-based first-line followed by platinum-based second-line chemotherapy or the reverse sequence in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis by the lung cancer group of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group.

BACKGROUND: Non-platinum-containing regimens have been proposed as alternatives to platinum-based doublets in the first-line treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, conflicting results about their equivalence have been reported. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients enrolled in randomized controlled first-line trials conducted by the Hellenic Oncology Research Group from February 1997 to September 2006. The outcome of patients treated with first-line non-platinum-based chemotherapy who received platinum-based chemotherapy upon progression (cohort A) or platinum-based first-line chemotherapy followed by non-platinum-containing second-line chemotherapy (cohort B) was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty-seven patients were identified in cohort A, and 123 in cohort B. Median follow-up time was 12.5 and 15.7 months for cohorts A and B. A significantly higher response rate and time to tumor progression (TTP) was recorded for patients treated with platinum-based compared to those receiving non-platinum-based first-line chemotherapy (45.5 vs. 21.3%, p < 0.0001 and 5.8 vs. 3.1 months, p= 0.002, respectively). Platinum-based regimens administered as second-line treatment resulted in a 13.1% response rate. TTP for second-line chemotherapy did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. Median overall survival was 13.3 and 15.7 months for cohorts A and B (p = 0.538). CONCLUSION: Both sequences resulted in similar efficacy in terms of overall survival. Encouraging median survival was achieved for selected patients with NSCLC who received both first- and second-line chemotherapy.

A multicenter randomized phase II study of the irinotecan/gemcitabine doublet versus irinotecan monotherapy in previously treated patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety profile of irinotecan (I) versus the combination of irinotecan/gemcitabine (IG) as second-line treatment of patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). TREATMENT: Patients with SCLC who have received at least one chemotherapy regimen were randomized to receive either the IG regimen (gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) intravenous (i.v.) on days 1 and 8 and irinotecan 300mg/m(2) i.v. on day 8) or I monotherapy (300mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1) both every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled in the IG and 31 in the I arm. Due to slow accrual an early closure of the study was decided. Response rate was significantly higher in the IG than in I arm (23.7% vs. 0%; p=0.004). The median time to progression (TTP) was 3.9 months (range: 0.5-14.5 months; 95% CI: 1.4-6.6) and 1.7 months (range: 0.5-9.9 months; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3) (p=0.010) for the IG and I arms, respectively. There was no difference in terms of median overall survival between the two arms (6.8 months and 4.6 months for the IG and I arm, respectively). The most frequent toxicities were grade III/IV neutropenia and grade III/IV diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Although the IG regimen seems to be more active than the I monotherapy, the premature closure of the study prevents the drawing of definitive conclusions.

Pooled analysis of elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with front line docetaxel/gemcitabine regimen: the Hellenic Oncology Research Group experience.

INTRODUCTION: Thirty to 40% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are older than 70 years and rarely are enrolled in clinical trials. Moreover, in clinical practice, > 75% of patients older than 65 years with metastatic NSCLC never receive any kind of chemotherapy. PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the impact of age on efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with the docetaxel-gemcitabine combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pooled data from six clinical trials of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group were analyzed. According to their age, patients were divided into two groups: those with age < 70 years and those with > or = 70 years. RESULTS: A total of 858 patients were included in this analysis. Six hundred sixty-six (77.6%) patients were younger than 70 years, whereas 192 (22.4%) patients where > or = 70-year-old. Overall response rate was 30.3% and 30.2% for patients < 70 years and > or = 70 years, respectively (p = 0.974). The median time to tumor progression was 4.1 and 4.5 months for patients < 70 years and > or = 70 years, respectively (p = 0.948). Median overall survival was 9.9 and 9.2 months for patients < 70 and > or = 70, respectively (p = 0.117). The multivariate analysis revealed performance status (PS) (p = 0.0001) and stage (p = 0.0001) as independent factors with significant impact on the hazard of death. Chemotherapy was well tolerated, but the incidence of grade III/IV mucositis was significantly higher in elderly patients (0.2% versus 1.5% for patients < 70 versus > or = 70 years, respectively; p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The docetaxel/gemcitabine regimen has a comparable efficacy and tolerance in young (< 70 years) and elderly (> or = 70 years) patients.

Docetaxel versus docetaxel plus gemcitabine as front-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized, multicenter phase III trial.

To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non-small cell lung (NSCLC) treated with either docetaxel plus gemcitabine or single-agent docetaxel. Chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DG [n=157; gemcitabine 1100mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8], docetaxel 75mg/m(2) on day 8 or D [n=155; docetaxel 100mg/m(2) on day 1] every 3 weeks. A total of 312 patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. A predefined interim intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly longer median OS (p=0.037) in favor of the DG regimen (9.4 months versus 8.3 months for DG and D regimens, respectively), resulting in the premature termination of the study. The DG regimen was also associated with a significantly higher response rate compared to D (26.8% versus 11.6%, p<0.001). TTP were 3.5 and 2.3 months for the DG and D regimen, respectively (p=0.054). Although there were two treatment-related deaths in the DG arm, the toxicity profiles of the two regimens were comparable. The DG regimen was associated with a significantly better quality of life. The efficacy of the docetaxel plus gemcitabine combination is superior to single-agent docetaxel in chemonaive patients with advanced NSCLC.

Docetaxel versus docetaxel plus cisplatin as front-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, multicenter phase III trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) or docetaxel (D) alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DC (n = 167; docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 2, and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) 150 microg/m(2)/d on days 3 to 9) or D (n = 152; 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 without rhG-CSF) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The overall response rates were 36.5% for DC (three complete responses and 58 partial responses) and 21.7% for D (one complete response and 32 partial responses; P =.004). The median OS was 10.5 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) and 8.0 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) for DC and D, respectively (P =.200). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 44% and 19% for DC and 43% and 15% for D, respectively. Median times to tumor progression were 4.0 and 2.5 months for DC and D, respectively (P =.580). Grade 2/3 anemia was significantly higher with DC than with D (33% v 16%; P =.0001). Fifteen (9%) DC and 12 (8%) D patients developed febrile neutropenia. Grade 3/4 nausea/vomiting (P =.0001), diarrhea (P =.007), neurotoxicity (P =.017), and nephroroxicity (P =.006) were significantly more common with DC than with D. There were five treatment-related deaths in the DC group and one in the D (P =.098). CONCLUSION: DC regimen resulted in a higher response rate but without improvement in median time to tumor progression or OS compared with D. D could be a reasonable front-line chemotherapy for patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin.