Outcomes Analysis of Patients Receiving Local Ablative Therapy for Oligoprogressive Metastatic NSCLC Under First-Line Immunotherapy.

CONTEXT: Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) treatment relies on first-line immunotherapy as single agent or combined with chemotherapy. Oligoprogression may be observed in this setting. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We performed a European multicentric retrospective study on patients treated with first-line immunotherapy, who presented with oligoprogressive disease, treated with a local ablative treatment. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients were retrospectively included between 2018 and 2022. Twenty-four patients (39%) received immunotherapy as single agent, and 37 (61%) chemo-immunotherapy. First oligoprogression occurred more frequently in pre-existing metastatic sites (47% of patients). Median PFS1 (defined as time to first oligoprogression) was 11.5 months [IC95%: 10.0-12.3]. We observed that 37 patients (61%) progressed after first oligoprogression, and 20 (54%) from them presented second oligoprogression. Median OS for the whole cohort was 72.0 months [IC95%: 19.3-124.8], with positive correlation between OS and PFS1 (R=0.65, P < .0001). After loco-ablative treatment with radiotherapy, disease control rate was 89% with ablative radiotherapy: 88% with conventional radiotherapy, and 89% with stereotactic radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with oligoprogression under/after immunotherapy have better prognosis with a high risk of subsequent oligoprogression.

Diagnostic value of plasma expression of microRNAs complementary to Drosha and Dicer in lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer (LC) is diagnosed mostly in advanced, non-operable stage, with poor prognosis. The analysis of microRNAs may be a useful tool for early and non-invasive detection of cancer. Dicer and Drosha are enzymes with an essential role for microRNA biogenesis. The aim of our study was to analyze the expression of miRNA-27a-3p, miRNA-31, miRNA-182, miRNA-195 with the ability to reciprocal regulation of Dicer and Drosha expression in lung cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The relative expression of microRNAs was detected by qPCR in plasma of 160 LC patients. The U-Mann Whitney test was used to compare the relative expression between particular groups of lung cancer patients and healthy individuals. The diagnostic value of microRNAs examination was analyzed using a receiver operating curve. RESULTS: We demonstrated that the plasma levels of miRNA-27, miRNA-31 and miRNA-182 were significantly higher and miRNA-195 significantly lower in the whole group of LC patients and in patients with early stages of NSCLC, in comparison with healthy donors. ROC analysis showed that four studied microRNAs have a potential diagnostic value for early stages of NSCLC with AUC=0.95 for miRNA-27a (94% sensitivity and 81% specificity, p=0.0001), 0.71 for miRNA-31 (73% sensitivity and 61% specificity, p=0.001) 0.77 for miRNA-182 (70% sensitivity and 79% specificity, p=0.0001) and 0.82 for miRNA-195 (74% sensitivity and 80% specificity, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We have proved that the expression of miRNA-27a-3p, miRNA-31, miRNA-182, and miRNA-195 in patients with LC is different from the expression of these molecules in healthy people. The examination of these microRNAs in plasma could be used in non-invasive lung cancer diagnosis.

Pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of pain in most common locations in cancer patients.

Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients, especially in advanced disease. However, pain also accompanies a significant percentage of patients during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In some patients pain may be the first symptom of the disease. The causes of pain in cancer patients are often multifactorial including direct and indirect cancer effects, anticancer therapy and co-morbidities. Moreover, pain in cancer patients often has mixed pathophysiology including both nociceptive and neuropathic components, especially in patients with bone metastases. In this article, basic knowledge regarding epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical features of pain in cancer patients with a primary tumour localised in lung, gastrointestinal tract (stomach, colon and pancreas), breast in women and prostate in men are presented. Pain is a common symptom in cancer patients and its appropriate assessment and treatment may significantly improve in patients' and families' quality of life.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO).

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. RESULTS: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvß3 and αvß5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ID NUMBER: NCT00842712.

Phase I dose-escalation study of oral vinflunine in combination with erlotinib in pre-treated and unselected EGFR patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Erlotinib, the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and the intra-venous vinflunine vinca alkaloid microtubule inhibitor have been shown to be effective in the setting of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) palliative patients with acceptable toxicities. This phase I study was conducted to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and the safety of an all-oral combination. A potential pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction was also investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC who failed one or two previous chemotherapy regimens were treated with flat doses of oral vinflunine from day 1 to day 5 and from day 8 to day 12 every 3 weeks and erlotinib daily on a continuous basis. The dose levels of vinflunine/erlotinib were 95/100, 115/100, 115/150 and 135/100 mg. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enroled. The recommended dose was 115/150 mg and the MTD 135/100 mg. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 febrile neutropenia (1 patient) and related death (1 patient). Non-haematologic grade 3/4 toxicities included fatigue, condition aggravated, hypokalaemia, tumour pain, acneiform dermatitis, diarrhoea, hyperbilirubinaemia and pulmonary haemorrhage, in one patient each. Of 25 patients evaluable for tumour response, 2 patients had partial response and 20 patients had stable disease. CONCLUSION: The recommended doses for oral vinflunine and erlotinib combination were, respectively, 115 mg/day from day 1 to day 5 and from day 8 to day 12 every 3 weeks and 150 mg/day. There was no mutual impact on pharmacokinetics. The combination was safe but evaluation in phase II is needed to further refine the activity and toxicity that can be expected with prolonged administration of this dose schedule.

Phase I trial of axitinib combined with platinum doublets in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and other solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This phase I dose-finding trial evaluated safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, combined with platinum doublets in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other solid tumours. METHODS: In all, 49 patients received axitinib 5 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with paclitaxel/carboplatin or gemcitabine/cisplatin in 3-week cycles. Following determination of the maximum tolerated dose, a squamous cell NSCLC expansion cohort was enroled and received axitinib 5 mg b.i.d. with paclitaxel/carboplatin. RESULTS: Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities: febrile neutropenia (n=1) in the paclitaxel/carboplatin cohort and fatigue (n=1) in the gemcitabine/cisplatin cohort. Common nonhaematologic treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (36.7%), diarrhoea (34.7%) and fatigue (28.6%). No grade ≥3 haemoptysis occurred among 12 patients with squamous cell NSCLC. The objective response rate was 37.0% for patients receiving axitinib/paclitaxel/carboplatin (n=27) and 23.8% for patients receiving axitinib/gemcitabine/cisplatin (n=21). Pharmacokinetics of axitinib and chemotherapeutic agents were similar when administered alone or in combination. CONCLUSION: Axitinib 5 mg b.i.d. may be combined with standard paclitaxel/carboplatin or gemcitabine/cisplatin regimens without evidence of overt drug-drug interactions. Both combinations demonstrated clinical efficacy and were well tolerated.

Prognostic factors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: data from the phase III FLEX study.

The FLEX study demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the FLEX intention to treat (ITT) population, we investigated the prognostic significance of particular baseline characteristics. Individual patient data from the treatment arms of the ITT population of the FLEX study were combined. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to investigate variables with potential prognostic value. The ITT population comprised 1125 patients. In the univariable analysis, longer median survival times were apparent for females compared with males (12.7 vs 9.3 months); patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 compared with 1 compared with 2 (13.5 vs 10.6 vs 5.9 months); never smokers compared with former smokers compared with current smokers (14.6 vs 11.1 vs 9.0); Asians compared with Caucasians (19.5 vs 9.6 months); patients with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma (12.4 vs 9.3 months) and those with metastases to one site compared with two sites compared with three or more sites (12.4 months vs 9.8 months vs 6.4 months). Age (<65 vs ≥65 years), tumor stage (IIIB with pleural effusion vs IV) and percentage of tumor cells expressing EGFR (<40% vs ≥40%) were not identified as possible prognostic factors in relation to survival time. In multivariable analysis, a stepwise selection procedure identified age (<65 vs ≥65 years), gender, ECOG PS, smoking status, region, tumor histology, and number of organs involved as independent factors of prognostic value. In summary, in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in the FLEX study, and consistent with previous analyses, particular patient and disease characteristics at baseline were shown to be independent factors of prognostic value. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798.

A phase III randomized study of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without PF-3512676 (TLR9 agonist) as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This open-label phase III study assessed the addition of Toll-like receptor 9-activating oligodeoxynucleotide PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive six or fewer 3-week cycles of i.v. gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin alone (75 mg/m2 on day 1, control arm) or combined with s.c. PF-3512676 0.2 mg/kg on days 8 and 15 of each chemotherapy cycle and weekly thereafter until progression or unacceptable toxicity (experimental arm). No crossover was planned. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 839 patients were randomized. Baseline demographics were well balanced. Median OS (11.0 versus 10.7 months; P=0.98) and median progression-free survival (PFS) (both 5.1 months) were similar between groups. Grade≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs), injection-site reactions, and influenza-like symptoms were more frequently reported among patients receiving PF-3512676. At the first-interim analysis, the Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended study discontinuation. Administration of PF-3512676 was halted based on efficacy futility and increased grade≥3 AEs (experimental arm). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy did not improve OS or PFS but did increase toxicity.

Third CECOG consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic options.

Epoetin delta: efficacy in the treatment of anaemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

AIMS: To assess the effect of epoetin delta on anaemia in patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This report includes data from two 12-week studies of epoetin delta: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of three times weekly epoetin delta (150 or 300IU/kg) and an open-label extension collecting further efficacy and safety information, in which patients initially received epoetin delta 150IU/kg. Co-primary end points for the double-blind study were an increase in haemoglobin levels and a reduction in the requirement for red blood cell transfusions compared with placebo. RESULTS: Double-blind study: 313 cancer patients were randomised to epoetin delta or placebo. Epoetin delta was associated with a significantly greater increase in haemoglobin levels from baseline compared with placebo (epoetin delta 150 and 300IU/kg vs placebo: 2.5 and 2.5g/dl vs 0.6g/dl; P<0.0001 for both comparisons), meeting one co-primary end point. However, there were no significant differences between groups in the proportion of patients requiring red blood cell transfusions (epoetin delta 150 and 300IU/kg vs placebo: 26.0 and 21.9% vs 26.9%), the second co-primary end point. Open-label study: 149 patients entered the extension study. During the extension, haemoglobin levels were maintained and a higher proportion of patients who previously received placebo required transfusions than those who had previously received epoetin delta (previous epoetin delta 150 and 300IU/kg: 7.1 and 11.4% vs previous placebo: 15.9%). Adverse events were as expected for this population in both studies. CONCLUSION: Epoetin delta shows potential as a treatment for anaemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Randomized study of vinorelbine--gemcitabine versus vinorelbine--carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The objective of this trial was to compare two vinorelbine-based doublets with carboplatin (CBDCA-VC) or with gemcitabine (VG) in patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 316 patients with advanced NSCLC previously untreated were randomized to either vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) D1,8 with carboplatin AUC 5 D1 (VC) or vinorelbine 25mg/m(2) with gemcitabine (VG) 1000 mg/m(2) both given D1,8 every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was response rate with secondary parameters being survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tolerance and clinical benefit. RESULTS: The median number of cycles was four in each arm with a total of 1268 cycles. The objective response (OR) on intent-to-treat was 20.8% in VC and 28% in VG (p=0.15). Median PFS was 3.9 months in VC and 4.4 months (mo) in VG (p=0.18). Median survival was significantly longer (p=0.01) for VG with 11.5 mo compared to 8.6 mo in VC with 1 year survival at 48.9 and 34.4%, respectively. Tolerance was better in the VG arm as compared to the VC patients. Four toxic deaths were recorded in the VC group. Clinical benefit response rate was 32.4% compared to 40.9% in 111 and 110 evaluable patients in VC and VG, respectively. CONCLUSION: VG compared to VC resulted in a similar overall response rate, favourable median survival and a better toxicity profile. For non-cisplatin-based chemotherapy, VG is a useful alternative.

Zoledronic acid versus placebo in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with lung cancer and other solid tumors: a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial--the Zoledronic Acid Lung Cancer and Other Solid Tumors Study Group.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumors other than breast or prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive zoledronic acid (4 or 8 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for 9 months, with concomitant antineoplastic therapy. The 8-mg dose was reduced to 4 mg (8/4-mg group). The primary efficacy analysis was proportion of patients with at least one skeletal-related event (SRE), defined as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation therapy to bone, and surgery to bone. Secondary analyses (time to first SRE, skeletal morbidity rate, and multiple event analysis) counted hypercalcemia as an SRE. RESULTS: Among 773 patients with bone metastases from lung cancer or other solid tumors, the proportion with an SRE was reduced in both zoledronic acid groups compared with the placebo group (38% for 4 mg and 35% for 8/4 mg zoledronic acid v 44% for the placebo group; P =.127 and P =.023 for 4-mg and 8/4-mg groups, respectively). Additionally, 4 mg zoledronic acid significantly increased time to first event (median, 230 v 163 days for placebo; P =.023), an important end point in this poor-prognosis population, and significantly reduced the risk of developing skeletal events by multiple event analysis (hazard ratio = 0.732; P =.017). Zoledronic acid was well tolerated; the most common adverse events in all treatment groups included bone pain, nausea, anemia, and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Zoledronic acid (4 mg infused over 15 minutes) is the first bisphosphonate to reduce skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors other than breast and prostate cancer.

Carboplatin and paclitaxol (Taxol) as an induction regimen for patients with biopsy-proven stage IIIA N2 non-small cell lung cancer. an EORTC phase II study (EORTC 08958).

The aim of this study was to document the activity and toxicity of paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin when used as induction chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIA N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) prior to definitive local treatment within a large, ongoing comparative study (EORTC 08941). 52 eligible, consenting, chemotherapy-naïve patients with NSCLC, median age of 60 years, stage IIIA N2 disease and the ability to tolerate a pneumonectomy received paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 as a 3-h infusion followed by carboplatin at an area under the concentration curve (AUC) of 6 every 3 weeks for three courses. Most patients received three courses. No grade 3/4 anaemia or thrombocytopenia was documented. Over all of the cycles, 6% (3 patients) experienced grade 3 leucopenia while 63% (32/51 patients) experienced grade 3-4 neutropenia. There was 1 patient (2%) with febrile neutropenia, no early or toxic deaths and no hypersensitivity reactions. Severe non-haematological toxicity was uncommon, with the exception of grade 3 alopecia in 39%, lethargy in 8% and myalgia in 6%. Of the eligible patients (n=52), there was one complete response (CR) and 32 partial responses (PR), resulting in a response rate of 64% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 49%-76%). Of the 15 eligible patients randomised to surgery after induction chemotherapy, 3 patients did not receive surgery and 2 patients (n=12) had no tumour in the mediastinal nodes (17%). Resections were considered complete in 2 of the 12. Median survival for all eligible patients (n=52) was 20.5 months (95% CI 16.1-31.2), with an estimated 1-year survival rate of 68.5% (95% CI 55.2-81.7). In patients with N2 stage IIIA NSCLC, paclitaxel/carboplatin is an active and very well-tolerated induction regimen.

Recovery of dendritic cell counts and function in peripheral blood of cancer patients after chemotherapy.

Dendritic cell (DC) counts and function were assayed in peripheral blood of lymphoma and solid tumor patients before and after chemotherapy. The DC counts declined significantly within the first week from the start of chemotherapy, recovered in the second week, and exceeded the baseline values in the third week. DC recovery was usually similar after the first and after the last cycle of chemotherapy. DC1 and DC2 subsets followed the pattern of reconstitution found for the DC population as a whole. Monocytes and granulocytes recovered 1-2 weeks later than DC. The primary proliferative response to keyhole lympet hemocyanin (KLH), totally DC-dependent, declined within the first week from the start of chemotherapy, and in the majority of patients (including those initially unresponsive) recovered along with DC counts. The recovered responsiveness to KLH, but not to anti-CD3 antibody, disappeared at the end of chemotherapy in lymphoma and some solid tumor patients. Prolonged depletion of CD4+ T cells could contribute to the loss of responsiveness in lymphoma patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy. However, in some solid tumor patients, the reactivity to KLH was absent, despite the reconstitution of both DC and CD4+ T-cell counts. Our data show that numerical reconstitution of DC is not necessarily accompanied by functional recovery. The early recovery of DC should be considered while designing protocols for DC collection for immunotherapy.

New agents within the preoperative chemotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer.

Surgery alone fails to cure the majority of resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Only about half of stage I and II patients remain free of the disease for 5 and more years. The vast majority of stage IIIA patients resected for cure relapse (most of them develop distant spread). A combined modality approach (preoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy) has been shown to increase cure rates in stage IIIA NSCLC from 10-15% to 25-40%. Future improvements, currently under investigation, are expected with the use of chemotherapy prior to surgery in resectable patients with stage IB and II disease. The advent of newer agents, such as paclitaxel, docetaxel, vinorelbine, and gemcitabine have led to the design of potentially more effective preoperative regimens with the ability to advance the cure rate even further. The superiority of new cytotoxic agents incorporated into the preoperative systemic therapy has not been definitely confirmed. This overview presents the current experience with the use of new agents in preoperative chemotherapy for NSCLC.

A multicenter randomized phase II study of oral vs. intravenous vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

PURPOSE: A randomized phase II trial of oral vs. intravenous (i.v.) vinorelbine was designed to determine the efficacy and safety of oral vinorelbine with an intrapatient dose escalation in previously untreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between December 1997 and April 1999, 115 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized (2 to 1) to receive either oral vinorelbine at a dose of 60 mg/m2/week for the first three administrations and then increased to 80 mg/m2/week in the absence of severe neutropenia, or i.v. vinorelbine at 30 mg/m2/week. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients (76 in the oral arm and 38 in the i.v. arm) were treated. Ninety-eight patients (86%) were eligible and assessable. The two treatment arms were well-balanced for demographic and prognostic features. After external panel review, the response rates in evaluable patients were 14%, in the oral arm and 12% in the i.v. arm. The median progression-free survival with oral and i.v. vinorelbine was 3.2 months and 2.1 months, respectively, and the median survival 9.3 and 7.9 months, respectively. The most common hematological toxicity was neutropenia, which was severe (grade 3-4) in 46% of patients and for 7% of administrations in the oral arm, and in 62% of patients and for 25% of administrations in the i.v. arm. Non-hematological toxicities including nausea, vomiting, anorexia, weight loss, diarrhea .and constipation were generally mild to moderate. CONCLUSION: The activity of oral and i.v. vinorelbine in advanced NSCLC appears to be comparable. The safety profiles of both formulations look qualitatively similar. Oral vinorelbine can therefore be considered a good alternative to i.v. administration.

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in 668 postmenopausal women: results of the Tamoxifen or Arimidex Randomized Group Efficacy and Tolerability study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole (Arimidex; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, and Macclesfield, United Kingdom) with that of tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy of anastrozole 1 mg once daily relative to tamoxifen 20 mg once daily in patients with tumors that were hormone receptor-positive or of unknown receptor status who were eligible for endocrine therapy. The primary end points were time to progression (TTP), objective response (OR), and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 668 patients (340 in the anastrozole arm and 328 in the tamoxifen arm) were randomized to treatment and followed-up for a median of 19 months. Median TTP was similar for both treatments (8.2 months in patients who received anastrozole and 8.3 months in patients who received tamoxifen). The tamoxifen:anastrozole hazards ratio was 0.99 (lower one-sided 95% confidence limit, 0.86), demonstrating that anastrozole was at least equivalent to tamoxifen. Anastrozole was also as effective as tamoxifen in terms of OR (32.9% of anastrozole and 32.6% of tamoxifen patients achieved a complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]). Clinical benefit (CR + PR + stabilization of > or = 24 weeks) rates were 56.2% and 55.5% for patients receiving anastrozole and tamoxifen, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated. However, incidences of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding were reported in fewer patients treated with anastrozole than with tamoxifen (4.8% v 7.3% [thromboembolic events] and 1.2% v 2.4% [vaginal bleeding], respectively). CONCLUSION: Anastrozole satisfied the predefined criteria for equivalence to tamoxifen. Together with the lower observed incidence of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding, these findings indicate that anastrozole should be considered as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with ABC.

Randomised study of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

A total of 668 patients (340 anastrozole and 328 tamoxifen) were randomised in a double-blind, double-dummy multicentre study. Anastrozole was given in a dose of 1 mg once daily and compared with tamoxifen 20 mg daily in postmenopausal patients with tumours that were hormone-receptor positive or of unknown receptor status. The efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole was compared with that of tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer. The median time to progression was similar for both treatments (8.2 months in anastrozole patients and 8.3 months in tamoxifen patients). Anastrozole was also as effective as tamoxifen in terms of objective response-rate with 33% in the anastrozole group and 32.6% in the tamoxifen group achieving a complete or partial response. Both treatments were well tolerated. However, incidences of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding were reported in fewer patients treated with anastrozole than with tamoxifen. In conclusion, these findings indicate that anastrozole can be considered as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

A multicenter, randomized, phase III study of docetaxel plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic or non-resectable localized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

This was an open-label randomized Phase III study of 207 patients with either unresectable or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were treated with docetaxel plus best supportive care (BSC) or best supportive care alone. Patients in the chemotherapy arm of the study received docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) as a 1 h intravenous infusion every 21 days until they showed evidence of progressive disease, or estimated maximum benefit obtained or unacceptable side effects. Patients who received docetaxel were pretreated with oral dexamethasone. Patients in the BSC arm should not receive chemotherapy or anticancer therapy except for palliative radiotherapy. Overall survival obtained in the docetaxel arm was significantly longer than in the BSC arm (P=0.026). Two-year survival in the docetaxel arm was 12%, whereas none of the BSC patients survived after 20 months. The response rate was 13.1% (95% CI, 7.5-18.8%). There was a significantly longer time to progression in the docetaxel versus the BSC arm (P<0.001), and statistically significant improvement of clinical symptoms with docetaxel compared to BSC. The quality-of-life descriptors were in favor of docetaxel, and the difference was significant for pain, dyspnea and emotional functioning. The safety profile of docetaxel for this study was similar to that already reported in this patient population.

A multicenter, double-blind comparison of i.v. and oral administration of ondansetron plus dexamethasone for acute cisplatin-induced emesis. Ondansetron Acute Emesis Study Group.

A total of 530 patients were treated in this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of a once daily ondansetron oral regimen with a once daily i.v. dosing regimen over a 24 h period, administered to patients prior to receiving cisplatin (50 mg/m2 or greater) chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of ondansetron plus dexamethasone given either orally (ondansetron 24 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, n=262) or i.v. (ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg, n=268). Complete control of emesis (i.e. no emetic episodes, no rescue and no premature withdrawal) was achieved for 85% of patients (224 of 262) in the oral group and 83% (223 of 268) in the i.v. group. No nausea was reported in 70% of patients in the oral group and 68% in the i.v. group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for any of the assessments of efficacy, which included time to first emetic episode, number of emetic episodes and the worst grade of nausea occurring over the 24 h study period. Once daily ondansetron oral and i.v., in combination with dexamethasone, was well tolerated in this study. In conclusion, once daily oral ondansetron 24 mg plus dexamethasone is equally effective in the control of emesis and nausea induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy as once daily ondansetron 8 mg i.v. plus dexamethasone.