Therapeutic Intensification and Induction Chemotherapy for High-Risk Locally Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: The treatment of HNSCC has rapidly evolved over the past 30 years and multidisciplinary management is required, especially for locally advanced disease (LAHNSCC). Concomitant chemoradiation (cCRT) is the standard of care and cetuximab/RT (CET/RT) is an alternative treatment option, especially for patients unfit for concurrent cisplatin. Several intensification strategies have been explored to improve the outcome of the concomitant treatment. The combination of cisplatin plus cetuximab concurrent to RT failed to improve overall survival (OS) in two phase III trials. Induction chemotherapy (IC) has a proven role in organ preservation; however, its ability in prolonging OS has not been clearly demonstrated. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), specifically anti PD-1 inhibitors, have been recently approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent/metastatic platinum-refractory disease. Recent clinical trials are exploring the role of immunotherapy at earlier stages of the disease in combination with concomitant treatments. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence regarding treatment intensification strategies for LAHNSCC (except nasopharyngeal carcinomas) with particular emphasis on the role of induction chemotherapy.

Taxane-cisplatin-fluorouracil as induction chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancers: an individual patient data meta-analysis of the meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer group.

PURPOSE Cisplatin plus fluorouracil (PF) induction chemotherapy has been compared with taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel), cisplatin, and fluorouracil (Tax-PF) in randomized trials in locoregionally advanced head and neck cancers (LAHNCs). The aim of this meta-analysis was to study the efficacy and toxicity of Tax-PF and PF and identify differences in outcomes in subsets of patients. METHODS Five randomized trials representing 1,772 patients were identified. Updated individual patient data (IPD) were retrieved for all trials. The log-rank test, stratified by trial, was used for comparison. Interaction or trend tests were used to study the interaction between covariates and treatment. Results Median follow-up was 4.9 years. The hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89; P < .001; absolute benefit at 5 years: 7.4%) in favor of Tax-PF. Heterogeneity was significant (P = .08, I(2) = 51%) and related to one trial. There was no more heterogeneity after exclusion of this trial (P = .99, I(2) = 0%), and HR of death was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.83) in favor of Tax-PF. There was no interaction between treatment effect and the following patient covariates: age, sex, performance status, tumor stage, or site. Tax-PF was associated with significant reductions of progression, locoregional failure, and distant failure compared with PF, with HRs of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.87; P < .001), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.94; P = .007), and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.89; P = .009) respectively. CONCLUSION This IPD meta-analysis shows the superiority of Tax-PF over PF as induction chemotherapy. Its precise role in the management of LAHNC remains to be determined.

The role of chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

The role of chemotherapy in multimodality treatment for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, although firmly established, presents several unresolved issues. Concomitant platinum-based chemoradiation (CRT) is a standard treatment for unresectable, resectable but nonsurgically treated, and postoperative high-risk patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. However, no clear conclusion can be drawn regarding the optimal platinum compound or combinations to use, the type of schedule, and number of cycles (ie, platinum total dose) to be delivered. Cetuximab administered concomitantly with radiotherapy has not been directly compared with CRT but offers a potential different approach using a noncytotoxic systemic agent. In the organ preservation setting, CRT, although yielding a superior 5-year larynx preservation rate, showed similar outcomes to induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by radiation in terms of 5-year laryngectomy-free survival and overall survival, with a higher incidence of grade 3-4 mucositis. The role of IC in nonorgan preservation programs has not yet been established. Phase III trials comparing concomitant CRT versus IC followed by CRT are ongoing with results anticipated in the near future.

Induction chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: the future?

There is increasing interest in the use of induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. A modest but significant improvement in survival has been observed with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) induction before radiotherapy over that seen with radiotherapy alone. The addition of docetaxel to the PF regimen (TPF) appears to provide further survival benefits. The phase II part of a phase II/III trial compared three cycles of TPF induction chemotherapy before concomitant PF chemoradiotherapy with PF chemoradiotherapy alone in 101 patients with locally advanced stage III-IV head and neck cancer. The incidences of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities during concurrent chemoradiotherapy were not higher in the TPF plus chemoradiotherapy group, and the feasibility of chemoradiotherapy was not compromised. Radiologically evaluated complete response rates at 6-8 weeks from the end of chemoradiotherapy (the primary endpoint) were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11%-36%) with chemoradiotherapy alone and 50% (95% CI, 35%-65%; p = .004) with TPF plus chemoradiotherapy. A median overall survival time of 33.3 months and a 1-year survival rate of 78% were observed with chemoradiotherapy alone, whereas the median survival time was 39.6 months in the TPF plus chemoradiotherapy group, with a 1-year survival rate of 86%. To conclude, increasing evidence suggests that TPF induction chemotherapy improves clinical response and does not compromise subsequent chemoradiotherapy. The results of the ongoing phase III part of the phase II/III study should provide further information about the efficacy and safety of this approach for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Cisplatin- versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Because the efficacy of carboplatin and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been proven to be equivalent, an individual patient data meta-analysis comparing the two treatments was performed. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing carboplatin to cisplatin in first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC were identified and their electronic databases obtained. A general variance-based method was used to estimate the summary hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (ORs), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mortality, objective response, and toxicity. Cochran's chi-square test (Q test) was used to test for heterogeneity among trials, and the I2 index, which expresses the proportion of variability of the results due to heterogeneity, was calculated. A random-effects model that takes into account interstudy variation was also applied. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Nine trials that included a total of 2968 patients were analyzed; overall median follow-up was 1021 days. The objective response rate was higher for patients treated with cisplatin than for patients treated with carboplatin (30% versus 24%, respectively; OR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.16 to 1.61; P<.001). Carboplatin treatment was associated with a non-statistically significant increase in the hazard of mortality relative to treatment with cisplatin (HR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.15; P = .100). In patients with nonsquamous tumors and those treated with third-generation chemotherapy, carboplatin-based chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significant increase in mortality (HR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.23 and HR = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.21, respectively). Cisplatin-based chemotherapy was associated with more severe nausea and vomiting and nephrotoxicity; severe thrombocytopenia was more frequent during carboplatin-based chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our individual patient data meta-analysis suggests that cisplatin-based chemotherapy is slightly superior to carboplatin-based chemotherapy in terms of response rate and, in certain subgroups, in prolonging survival without being associated with an increase in severe toxic effects. Therefore, cisplatin-based third-generation regimens should remain the standard reference for the treatment of selected patients with advanced-stage NSCLC and of those with earlier-stage disease.

Tolerability of intensified intravenous interferon alfa-2b versus the ECOG 1684 schedule as adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma: a randomized phase III Italian Melanoma Inter-group trial (IMI - Mel.A.) [ISRCTN75125874].

BACKGROUND: High-dose interferon alfa-2b (IFNalfa-2b), according to the ECOG 1684 schedule, is the only approved adjuvant treatment for stage III melanoma patients by the FDA and EMEA. However, the risk/benefit profile has been questioned limiting its world-wide use. In the late nineties, the Italian Melanoma Inter-group started a spontaneous randomized clinical trial (RCT) to verify if a more intense, but shorter than the ECOG 1684 regimen, could improve survival without increasing the toxicity profile. The safety analysis in the first 169 patients who completed the treatment is here described. METHODS: Stage III melanoma patients were randomized to receive IFNalfa-2b 20 MU/m2/d intravenously (IV) 5 days/week x 4 weeks, repeated for three times on weeks 9 to 12, 17 to 20, 25 to 28 (Dose-Dense/Dose-Intense, DD/DI, arm), or IFNalfa-2b 20 MU/m2/d IV 5 days/week x 4 weeks followed by 10 MU/m2 subcutaneously (SC) three times per week x 48 weeks (High Dose Interferon, HDI, arm). Toxicity was recorded and graded, according to the WHO criteria, as the worst grade that occurred during each cycle. RESULTS: The most common toxicities in both arms were flu-like and gastrointestinal symptoms, leukopenia, liver and neuro-psychiatric morbidities; with regard to severe toxicity, only leukopenia was statistically more frequent in DD/DI arm than in HDI arm (24% vs 9%) (p = 0.0074), yet, this did not cause an increase in the infection risk. Discontinuation of treatment, due to toxicity, was observed in 13 and 17% of the patients in the DD/DI and HDI arm, respectively. The median actual dose intensity delivered in the DD/DI arm (36.4 MU/m2/week) was statistically higher than that delivered in the HDI arm (30.7 MU/m2/week) (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Four cycles of intravenous high-dose IFNalfa-2b can be safely delivered with an increase in the median dose intensity. Efficacy results from this trial are eagerly awaited.

Adding gemcitabine to paclitaxel/carboplatin combination increases survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a phase II-III study.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel/carboplatin (PC) is one of the reference combinations in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). No triplet novel agent combination has until now shown superiority over a two-drug combination for advanced NSCLC. We therefore conducted a clinical trial to test if paclitaxel/carboplatin/gemcitabine (PCG) increases overall survival (OS) and response rate (RR) over PC. METHODS: Stage IIIB patients not suitable for radical radiation treatment and stage IV chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned to PC arm (paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 6 day 1/q21 days) or the PCG arm (paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 6 day 1, and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 every 21 days). RESULTS: A total of 324 patients were randomly assigned to the two arms. The RR for PC arm and PCG arm were 20.2% and 43.6% [corrected] (P < .0001). The median time to the progression was 5.1 months in the PC group and 7.6 months in the PCG group (P = .012; hazard ratio [HR] 1.34; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.72). Median OS was 8.3 months and 10.8 months (P = .032; HR 1.309; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.67) in favor of the PCG arm. One-year survival was 34% (PC arm) and 45% (PCG arm; P = .032). Only hematologic toxicity (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia) was significantly increased in the PCG arm and the experimental arm required more platelet and red blood cell transfusions, and more granulocyte colony-stimulating factor usage. No toxic/early deaths were observed. CONCLUSION: The PCG regimen offers a significant survival advantage over PC in advanced NSCLC, making PCG a treatment option for advanced NSCLC patients.

Platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in elderly patients with small-cell lung cancer: results of a randomized multicenter phase II study assessing attenuated-dose or full-dose with lenograstim prophylaxis--a Forza Operativa Nazionale Italiana Carcinoma Polmonare and Gruppo Studio Tumori Polmonari Veneto (FONICAP-GSTPV) study.

PURPOSE: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is increasingly diagnosed in elderly patients, who are at higher risk of treatment-related morbidity and mortality. We conducted a randomized two-stage phase II study to assess the therapeutic index of two different platinum/etoposide regimens, attenuated-dose (AD) and full-dose (FD) plus prophylactic lenograstim. PATIENTS AND METHODS: SCLC patients older than 70 years were randomized to receive four courses of cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2, and etoposide 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 2, and 3 every 3 weeks (AD); or cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2, and etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 2, and 3 every 3 weeks, plus lenograstim 5 mg/kg days 5 through 12, every 3 weeks (FD). A combined primary end point named therapeutic success (TS), which took into account activity, toxicity, and compliance, was used. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled. Seventy-five percent and 72% of the patients in the AD and FD arms, respectively, completed the treatment as per protocol. Response rate was 39% and 69% in the AD and FD arms, respectively, and 1-year survival probability was 18% and 39%, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated in both groups, with no grade 3 to 4 myelotoxicity in the AD arm, and 12% myelotoxicity in the FD arm. Overall, the observed TSs were 10 (36%) of 28 patients and 42 (63%) of 67 patients for AD and FD treatments, respectively. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with SCLC a full-dose cisplatin/etoposide regimen combined with prophylactic lenograstim is active and feasible, while attenuated doses of the same regimen are associated with a poor therapeutic outcome.

Randomized phase III trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in head and neck cancer: 10-year follow-up.

In 1986, we initiated a multicenter, randomized trial to compare induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil followed by locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy or radiotherapy alone) with locoregional treatment alone in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Here we report the long-term results of the trial. A total of 237 patients with nonmetastatic stage III or IV head and neck carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by locoregional treatment (group A) or locoregional treatment alone (group B). Among all patients, overall survival at 5 and 10 years was 23% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.3% to 30.9%) and 19% (95% CI = 11.6% to 26.4%), respectively, for those in group A and 16% (95% CI = 9.6% to 23.4%) and 9% (95% CI = 3.5% to 14.7%), respectively, for those in group B (P = .13). Among operable patients, we observed no difference between group A and group B in overall survival at 5 and 10 years (group A, 31% [95% CI = 14.9% to 47.3%] and 22.7% [95% CI = 7.1% to 38.3%], respectively; group B, 43.3% [95% CI = 25.6% to 61.0%] and 14.2% [95% CI = 0.1% to 28.3%], respectively; P = .73). Among inoperable patients, overall survival at 5 and 10 years was 21% (95% CI = 12.3% to 30.1%) and 16% (95% CI = 7.7% to 23.9%), respectively, for group A and 8% (95% CI = 1.5% to 12.3%) and 6% (95% CI = 0.1% to 9.1%), respectively, for group B (log-rank P = .04). Four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a promising approach for treating patients with inoperable advanced head and neck cancer but not for treating patients with operable disease.

Neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil before concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck versus concomitant chemoradiotherapy: a phase II feasibility study.

PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CHT-RT) compared with the same CHT-RT regimen alone in locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We treated 24 patients (20 men and 4 women) who had Stage III-IVM0 squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, nasopharynx, or hypopharynx. The median patient age was 59 years (range, 41-73 years). The stage distribution was as follows: Stage II, 1 patient; Stage III, 6 patients; and Stage IV, 17; 18 patients had a performance status of 0 and 6 had a performance status of 1. None had undergone previous CHT or RT. Group 1 underwent three cycles of CHT (carboplatin area under the curve 1.5 on Days 1-4 and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion for 96 h) starting on Days 1, 22, and 43 during RT (one daily fraction, 66-70 Gy within 33-35 fractions). Group 2 underwent three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), cisplatin 80 mg/m(2), 5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion for 96 h) followed by the same CHT-RT regimen. RESULTS: After the first 16 patients, 8 in Group 1 and 8 in Group 2, the concomitant CHT-RT schedule was modified. The limiting toxicity observed during concomitant CHT-RT was similar in Groups 1 and 2, independent of neoadjuvant TPF administration. An excess of G3-G4 mucositis and other relevant toxicity that did not allowing completion of CHT-RT without interruption occurred in 44% of the patients. A reduction of at least one cycle of concurrent CHT was required in 31% of patients. On the basis of these data, the next 8 patients (Group 3) received three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF followed by two cycles only of CHT (cisplatin 20 mg/m(2) on Days 1-4 and 5-fluorouracil 800 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion for 96 h) (PF) during Weeks 1 and 6 of the planned 7 weeks of RT. In Group 3, 25% of the patients developed World Health Organization G3-G4 mucositis. No World Health Organization hematologic G3-G4 toxicity was seen. RT interruption was required for 2 patients (25%). In 1 patient (12%), one cycle of CHT was omitted. During neoadjuvant TPF (Groups 2 and 3), the principal toxicities were G3-G4 neutropenia (37.5%) and G2 mucositis (44%). At the end of therapy, the CR rate was 62.5% for CHT-RT alone (Group 1) and 80% for neoadjuvant TPF followed by CHT-RT (Groups 2 and 3). CONCLUSION: Three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF followed by two cycles of PF during RT are feasible without limiting toxicity. Three cycles of TPF were well tolerated and did not compromise subsequent concomitant CHT-RT. A randomized multicenter Phase III study has been started with the aim of comparing two cycles of PF during RT as standard treatment vs. the experimental arm with three cycles of neoadjuvant TPF followed by two cycles of PF during RT.

Adjusting for patient selection suggests the addition of docetaxel to 5-fluorouracil-cisplatin induction therapy may offer survival benefit in squamous cell cancer of the head and neck.

When induction chemotherapy is used in locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN), patients often receive cisplatin-5-fluorouracil (PF) followed by radical loco-regional therapy. Phase II studies of docetaxel-cisplatin-5-fluorouracil (TPF) induction therapy, with or without leucovorin (L), have achieved high survival rates versus those reported in phase III PF trials. However, the distribution of prognostic factors may vary between phase II and phase III study populations, making the extrapolation of phase II TPF/L results to phase III PF populations difficult. This study used a patient selection standardization method and Cox model to adjust for potential selection bias. Thus, the survival benefit from adding docetaxel into PF induction regimens in SCCHN could be more accurately assessed. The TPF/L dataset comprised 195 patients from six phase II trials. The PF dataset of 585 patients was derived from five large randomized trials included in the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (MACH-NC) database. TPF/L and PF datasets differed significantly concerning the distribution of several prognostic factors. Adjusting for these differences, the relative risk of death in the PF versus TPF/L datasets was 1.85 (95% confidence interval 1.37-2.49), corresponding to a 20% 2-year survival benefit (p < 0.0001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed that this improved 2-year survival rate of TPF/L over PF was robust, irrespective of the distribution of studied prognostic factors between treatment datasets. We conclude that this improved survival might be due either to docetaxel's pharmacologic effect or to uncontrolled prognostic factors.

Cisplatin versus carboplatin in combination with mitomycin and vinblastine in advanced non small cell lung cancer. A multicenter, randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: In advanced not selected NSCLC chemotherapy achieved an advantage of approximately 1-2 months on median survival versus best supportive care. Chemotherapy seems to improve symptoms control, even if randomised studies with quality of life as first endpoint are lacking and often chemotherapy toxicity compromises the frail cost/benefit ratio. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact on QoL, substituting cisplatin, a pivot drug in NSCLC therapy, with carboplatin, an analogue with an improved toxicity profile. The combination of cisplatin with Mitomycin and Vinblastine was one of the most frequently used in the palliative setting at the time of design of our study. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive MVP regimen (Mitomycin-C 8 mg/m2 d1, Vinblastine 4 mg/m2 d 1-8, Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 d1) or MVC regimen (Mitomycin-C 8 mg/m2 d1, Vinblastine 4 mg/m2 d 1-8, Carboplatin 300 mg/m2 d1) every 3 weeks. The QoL was evaluated by the Spitzer QL-Index and by the EORTC QLQ-C30+LC 13 questionnaires before chemotherapy, after one cycle, after three cycles, and then every 6 weeks in the first 6 months and every 3 months thenafter. RESULTS: From September 1994 to July 1997, 153 consecutive patients were randomized to MVP (75 patients) or MVC arm (78 patients). Despite difficulties in carrying out and analysing QoL items in such patients, the global QoL evaluated by the Spitzer's questionnaire suggested an advantage for MVC regimen (P=0.05) and a significant difference was observed in global health subdomain (P=0.04). The disease-related symptoms improved with time, and the benefits lasted for the entire treatment period. When evaluated with the EORTC questionnaire there was significantly less nausea and vomiting (P=0.0001), appetite loss (P=0.01), insomnia (P=0.03), constipation (P=0.01) and peripheral neuropathy (P=0.01) in favour of MVC, and a trend for less hair loss (P=0.05). The advantage lasted for all the duration of chemotherapy. No differences were observed in global quality of life subdomain (P=0.40) between the two regimen. QoL was the first endpoint and the statistical power was inadequate to assess other parameters. However, we reported a response rate of 43.1 and 38.6%, respectively, in MVP and MVC arm (P=0.59) and a median survival of 10.2 and 7.2 months, respectively, for cisplatin and carboplatin arm (P=0.39). CONCLUSIONS: The carboplatin containing regimen (MVC) has a significant better toxicity profile than the cisplatin containing (MVP) regimen as proven both by the EORTC questionnaires and by the WHO toxicity data reported by physicians. No significant differences in terms of response rate, time to progression and overall survival were observed between the two regimen. The two chemotherapy regimen showed a similar effectiveness in symptom palliation when evaluated with C30 addendum of EORTC QOL questionnaire. With the Spitzer's questionnaires a trend towards an improved quality of life index was observed during treatment with the carboplatin combination in comparison to the cisplatin combination. This difference, however, was not observed when the global quality of life was evaluated with the EORTC patients compiled questionnaires. A carboplatin containing regimen with better toxicity profile and a similar potentiality for symptoms control offers an option in comparison to similar cisplatin containing combinations in the palliative treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Gemcitabine combined with carboplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: a multicentric phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is increasing rapidly worldwide. Currently, pemetrexed plus cisplatin chemotherapy showed a survival advantage versus cisplatin alone. No impact on patient survival of surgery, radiotherapy, or their combination has been demonstrated. METHODS: Eight centers in northeastern Italy participated in a Phase II multicenter study. Chemotherapy was comprised of carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 5 on Day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8, and 15. This cycle was repeated every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Between July 1996 and September 2000, 50 patients were treated. Of the sample, 68% were males, 88% had a Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1, 56% had Stage I-II disease, 68% had epithelioid histology, and 62% had no previous treatments. The delivered dose intensity of gemcitabine was 617 mg/m(2) per week, which was 82% of the planned dose (750 mg/m(2) per week). For carboplatin, the delivered dose intensity was 80 mg/m(2) per week. Overall, 44% of 15th day doses were omitted or reduced. Twenty-six percent of the patients had partial responses (95% confidence interval: 15-40%) and 24% had disease progression. None of the patients had complete responses. The median response duration was 55 weeks (range, 13-113 weeks). Patients had good clinical benefit. For example, 46% had improved dyspnea, 40% improved in weight, and 26% experienced pain reduction. Patients developed Grade 3-4 leukopenia during 18 cycles (11%) of chemotherapy. Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently, i.e., there were 24 episodes (15%) among 17 patients. Grade 3 anemia developed among patients during eight cycles (5%). None of the patients developed Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity. The median survival of this sample of patients was 66 weeks with 53%, 30%, and 20% of patients alive at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. The median progression-free survival period was 40 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The gemcitabine/carboplatin combination is a valid option in the treatment of MPM due to its acceptable toxicity profile, the good response rate, and the clinical benefit to patients. Minor adjustments in schedule (3-week cycles instead of 4-week cycles) would permit a more optimal treatment administration.