Benefits of polychemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell bronchogenic carcinoma

Phase II Study of the Activity and Tolerability of a Combined Regimen of High-Dose Epirubicin and Cisplatin in Stage IIIb and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

AIM

To explore the feasibility and activity of a combined regimen of high-dose epirubicin and cisplatin as an alternative to current treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHOD

Forty-four patients with stage IIIb or IV NSCLC, median Karnofsky index 90, were enrolled. Epirubicin (60 mg/m2) was administered on days 1 and 2 and cisplatin (100 mg/m2) on day 1. Treatment was repeated every 21 days for a maximum of six cycles. A hematopoietic growth factor (G-CSF) was used only for patients reaching codified nadir count values.

RESULTS

A total of 130 cycles were administered with a mean of 2.9 cycles per patient. Of 41 assessable patients one showed a complete response and 15 had partial responses (overall response rate, 39%). Grade 3 or 4 leukopenia and grade 3 hemoglobin toxicity were seen in 40% and 14%, respectively, of the administered cycles. The most common nonhematologic toxic events were nausea and vomiting, mucositis, anorexia, and asthenia.

CONCLUSIONS

This epirubicin-cisplatin regimen seemed effective and was generally well tolerated, and therefore suitable for use in an outpatient setting.

Chemotherapy remains an essential element of personalized care for persons with lung cancers

Molecularly targeted and immunotherapies have improved the care of patients with lung cancers. These successes have rallied calls to replace or avoid chemotherapy. Yet, even in this era of precision medicine and exciting advances, cytotoxic chemotherapies remain an essential component of lung cancer treatment. In the setting of locoregional disease, chemotherapy is the only systemic therapy thus far proven to enhance curability when combined with surgery or radiation. In the metastatic setting, chemotherapy can improve the length and quality of life in many patients. Chemotherapy remains the mainstay of care for individuals whose cancers with oncogenic drivers have acquired resistance to targeted agents. Chemotherapy also has the potential to modulate the immune system to enhance the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this context, chemotherapy should be framed as a critical component of the armamentarium available for optimizing cancer care rather than an unfortunate anachronism. We examine the role of chemotherapy with precision medicine in the current care of patients with lung cancers, as well as opportunities for future integration in combinations with targeted agents, angiogenesis inhibitors, immunotherapies, and antibody drug conjugates.

Chemotherapy for Advanced-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Use of platinum-based chemotherapy doublets is the standard of care for patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer, being associated with improved survival compared with best supportive care in fit patients with good performance status. Randomized studies showed that the addition of monoclonal antibodies against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor or epidermal growth factor receptor may increase the survival compared to chemotherapy alone. Patients with either advanced age or poor performance status can also benefit from chemotherapy. Docetaxel with or without ramucirumab, pemetrexed, and erlotinib are approved for previously treated patients. New treatment approaches are needed to improve the outcomes in this patient population.

Survival of patients with non-small cell lung cancer without treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is considered a terminal illness with a five-year survival rate of about 16%. Informed decision-making related to the management of a disease requires accurate prognosis of the disease with or without treatment. Despite the significance of disease prognosis in clinical decision-making, systematic assessment of prognosis in patients with lung cancer without treatment has not been performed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the natural history of patients with confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer without active treatment, to provide evidence-based recommendations for practitioners on management decisions related to the disease. Specifically, we estimated overall survival when no anticancer therapy is provided.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by search of electronic databases and abstract proceedings, review of bibliographies of included articles, and contacting experts in the field. All prospective or retrospective studies assessing prognosis of lung cancer patients without treatment were eligible for inclusion. Data on mortality was extracted from all included studies. Pooled proportion of mortality was calculated as a back-transform of the weighted mean of the transformed proportions using the random-effects model. To perform meta-analysis of median survival, published methods were used to pool the estimates as mean and standard error under the random-effects model. Methodological quality of the studies was examined.

RESULTS

Seven cohort studies (4,418 patients) and 15 randomized controlled trials (1,031 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. All studies assessed mortality without treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The pooled proportion of mortality without treatment in cohort studies was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99) and 0.96 in randomized controlled trials (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.98) over median study periods of eight and three years, respectively. When data from cohort and randomized controlled trials were combined, the pooled proportion of mortality was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96 to 0.98). Test of interaction showed a statistically non-significant difference between subgroups of cohort and randomized controlled trials. The pooled mean survival for patients without anticancer treatment in cohort studies was 11.94 months (95% CI: 10.07 to 13.8) and 5.03 months (95% CI: 4.17 to 5.89) in RCTs. For the combined data (cohort studies and RCTs), the pooled mean survival was 7.15 months (95% CI: 5.87 to 8.42), with a statistically significant difference between the two designs. Overall, the studies were of moderate methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

Systematic evaluation of evidence on prognosis of NSCLC without treatment shows that mortality is very high. Untreated lung cancer patients live on average for 7.15 months. Although limited by study design, these findings provide the basis for future trials to determine optimal expected improvement in mortality with innovative treatments.

Comparison of vinorelbine-Cisplatin with gemcitabine-Cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

The objective of this trial was to compare cisplatin-plus-vinorelbine regimen with cisplatin-plus-gemcitabine regimen in patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC received either vinoelbine 30 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8) plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (day 1) every 21 days (VC arm) or gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8) plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (day 1) every 21 days (GC arm).

RESULTS

One hundred thirtyfour patients (67 VC and 67 GC) were included to the study. Overall response rates for the VC arm (31.2%) were not significantly different from that of the GC arm (34.3%). There were no differences in overall survival and one-year survival rates. Median survival and one-year survival rates for the VC and GC groups were 10.6 and 11.5 months, 45% and 46.8%, respectively. Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was significantly higher on the GC arm (VC 1.4% v GC 8.9%, p < 0.05), as was febrile neutropenia on the VC arm (VC 8.9% v GC 1.4%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

VC and GC demonstrated similar efficacy but there were differences in toxicity profiles.

[Historic landmarks in the study of lung cancer]

This study reviews the milestones which have been reached in the study of lung cancer, from its first early descriptions up until the end of the twentieth century. The study accompanies the birth of this new clinical entity, underlining the difficulties inherent in its diagnosis, its ever-growing increase and traces the growth of its aetiological factors, placing particular emphasis on smoking. In tandem with this, the study delves into the clinical aspects, along with new discoveries in imaging techniques and endoscopic and bioscopic techniques. It also looks at the histopathological classifications of bronchopulmonary tumours and the various staging systems which have been used over the course of time as well as the importance of mapping the disease and the different treatment weapons which have successively become available in the fight against it. The study also takes a look at the scales used in evaluating patients' physiological condition, the criteria used in evaluating response to oncostatic treatment and the role some international and national scientific societies and medical associations have played in adding to the increasing medical knowledge of lung cancer. The study clearly shows to whom we are indebted for each advance. This is a fascinating sweep of history - as is the story of all medical progress - and one we feel is important to understand, in order for us to see more clearly where we are now.

Are Chemotherapy Response Rates Related to Treatment-Induced Survival Prolongations in Patients With Advanced Cancer?

Purpose

Patients with incurable cancer are faced with difficult decisions regarding whether to take chemotherapy in an attempt to preserve the quality and/or prolong the quantity of their lives. The average prolongation in survival with chemotherapy compared with best supportive care has not been well described.

Methods

We performed a literature search using PUBMED combined with expert inquiry to identify trials comparing cytotoxic chemotherapy with best supportive care. Twenty-five randomized, controlled clinical trials comparing cytotoxic chemotherapy with best supportive care were identified. Sixteen trials (64%) were in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data were extracted and analyzed.

Results

Sufficient data for statistical modeling were available for NSCLC trials. The mean sample size of the NSCLC trials was 175 patients. Response rates in the treatment arms for NSCLC ranged from 7% to 42%. A relationship between response rate and survival was observed for NSCLC. The estimated relationship for NSCLC suggested that each 3.3% increase in response rate correlated, on average, with a 1-week increase in median survival, and each 2% increase in response rate correlated, on average, with a 1% increase in 1-year survival. The mean increase in 1-year survival for trials of agents with at least a 20% response rate in NSCLC was 16%. Formulas are provided to help estimate how a given response rate may effect median and 1-year survival relative to best supportive care alone for NSCLC.

Conclusion

We found a relationship between response rate and both median and 1-year survival in NSCLC. This information may help oncologists estimate how an NSCLC chemotherapy regimen with a given response rate can, on average, impact survival relative to supportive care alone.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin: a safe and active regimen in poor prognosis advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Most patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cannot tolerate a cisplatin-based chemotherapy because of old age, general conditions, and/or multiorgan metastatic sites. Oxaliplatin is active in NSCLC, offers advantage in terms of toxicity, and shows synergism with gemcitabine. The aims of this phase II study were to evaluate the response rate and toxicity of the gemcitabine-oxaliplatin combination in patients with advanced NSCLC and poor prognosis.

METHODS

Patients were given a gemcitabine infusion (1000 mg/m(2) over 30 min on days 1 and 8) followed by oxaliplatin (65 mg/m(2) over 120 min on days 1 and 8) every 21 days for six cycles.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients with poor-prognosis advanced NSCLC received 136 cycles. There were 25 males and seven females, and the median age was 65 years (range 29-76). Fifty-six percent of patients had adenocarcinoma, and 31% had squamous cell carcinoma. Sixty-six percent of patients had stage IV disease, and 34% had stage IIIB disease. Eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status was 2-3 in 50%, 1 in 44%, and 0 in 6% of patients. Eight patients (25%) had been previously treated with cisplatin or carboplatin. All patients were symptomatic. Of the 32 patients who received study drug, five (16%) achieved partial response, six (19%) had minor response, three (9%) had stable disease, and 15 (47%) progressed. The median overall survival was 27 weeks. Thirty-one patients were evaluable for toxicity: seven patients (23%) had grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia with no bleeding; four patients (13%) had grade 3-4 neutropenia with no febrile neutropenia, and three patients (10%) had grade 3 anemia. Two patients (6%) had grade 3, and six patients (19%) had grade 1-2 neurotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

The combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin seems to be well tolerated and active in patients with poor prognosis advanced NSCLC and deserves further evaluation in phase II clinical trials.

Chemotherapy in NSCLC: historical review

The use of chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC has been under investigation for several years. It has evolved from administration in the palliative care setting to integration into combined-modality curative therapy settings in patients with locoregionally-advanced disease. Following the largest meta-analysis in 1995 it was suggested that platinum-based chemotherapy was effective in treating patients with advanced disease. The absolute improvement in survival was 10% at 1 year and an increased median survival of 1.5 months. Since this analysis, platinum-based chemotherapy is considered the gold standard of treatment in this disease.

Therapy for stage IIIB and stage IV non-small cell lung cancer

The treatment options for unresectable stage III NSCLC include definitive RT, chemotherapy, combined chemoradiotherapy, or supportive care. Compared with radiation alone or chemotherapy alone, the combination of chemotherapy and standard RT confers a modest survival benefit at the cost of increased toxicity for patients with an excellent performance status. For metastatic disease, combination chemotherapy--in particular, platinum-based regimens--improves symptom control and survival. Newer chemotherapeutic agents with higher response rates and favorable toxicity profiles are improving outcome even for the elderly and debilitated patients and those refractory to first-line chemotherapy. Evolving understanding of the molecular events in tumorigenesis is uncovering a host of promising targets for mechanism-based therapy. Many of these novel target modulators likely will require combination with conventional chemotherapy for optimal results.

Outcomes among African-American/non-African-American patients with advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma: report from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B

BACKGROUND

Among patients diagnosed with advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), African-Americans have lower survival rates than non-African-Americans. Whether this difference is due to innate characteristics of the disease in the two ethnicities or to disparities in health care is not known. We investigated whether the disparity in survival would persist when patients were treated with similar systemic therapies (i.e., in phase II and phase III Cancer and Leukemia Group B [CALGB] trials).

METHODS

We assessed 504 consecutive patients (458 non-African-American and 46 African-American) receiving systemic chemotherapy in CALGB studies for advanced NSCLC during the period from 1989 through 1998. Clinical and demographic characteristics, treatment received, and survival data were obtained from the CALGB database. Cox's proportional hazards model was used to assess the effect of race/ethnicity on survival after adjustment for other known prognostic factors. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

The unadjusted 1-year survival rate was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 13% to 38%) for African-American patients and 30% (95% CI = 26% to 35%) for non-African-American patients, a statistically significant difference (8%; 95% CI on the difference = 5% to 12%; P =.03). Multivariable adjustment for the effect of treatment arm, histology, and metastatic site at presentation did not alter the worse outcome for African-American patients. However, the effect of race/ethnicity disappeared after adjustment for performance status and weight loss. African-American patients were more likely than non-African-Americans to present with a poor performance status (83% versus 60%) and substantial weight loss (41% versus 27%) and to be unmarried (59% versus 28%), disabled (31% versus 15%), unemployed (17% versus 7%), and Medicaid recipients (30% versus 8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship that we observed between poor performance, weight loss, and socioeconomic status suggests that social circumstances lead to African-Americans presenting with poorer prognostic features.

Do all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer benefit from cisplatin-based combination therapy?

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based chemotherapy has been shown to be effective in improving survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The objective of this study was to identify patients more likely to benefit from chemotherapy in order to avoid the indiscriminate treatment of all patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multivariate analysis of survival was performed using the database of the European randomized phase III trial that compared vinorelbine (navelbine) (NVB), vinorelbine-cisplatin (NVB-P) and vindesine-cisplatin (VDS-P) in 612 patients with inoperable NSCLC (stage III or IV). Interactions between treatment and the prognostic factors singled out by the Cox procedure were specifically tested.

RESULTS

The performance status (PS) was the only significant interaction among the selected prognostic factors and treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that the advantage obtained with NVB-P predominantly concerned PS 0-1 patients, whose median survival lasted 43 weeks (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 39-50 weeks) with a one-year survival rate of 38% (95% CI: 31%-46%) versus 36 weeks (95%, CI: 30-40 weeks) and 34% (95% CI: 27%-42%) for NVB alone, and 33 weeks (95% CI: 30-39 weeks) and 29% (95% CI: 22%-36%) for VDS-P. In sharp contrast, survival in PS 2 patients was similar (median 18 weeks) (NVB-P 95% CI: 11-34 weeks; NVB 95% CI: 11-35 weeks; VDS-P 95% CI: 14-32 weeks) whatever the treatment.

CONCLUSION

PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC might not benefit from cisplatin combination therapy.

Long term analysis of survival in the European randomized trial comparing vinorelbine/cisplatin to vindesine/cisplatin and vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

In the period 1989-1991, 612 patients with inoperable stage IIIA/B and IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized in a phase III trial comparing three chemotherapy regimens. Survival data at five and six years of follow-up confirm the overall benefit of treatment with a combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin compared to vindesine plus cisplatin or vinorelbine alone. Of the 612 patients randomized at the start of the study, 17 have survived beyond five years. Of these patients, eight had entered the trial with metastatic disease. Multivariate analysis to detect prognostic factors suggested a possible interaction between the effect of having cisplatin in the chemotherapy received and baseline performance status. Subgroup analysis subsequently confirmed that the survival benefit of the vinorelbine plus chemotherapy regimen is evident only in patients with initial World Health Organization performance status (PS) of 0-1. Among these patients, the one-year survival rate is 38% for the vinorelbine/cisplatin arm, 29% for vindesine/cisplatin and 34% for vinorelbine alone. The corresponding figures for median survival are 43, 33 and 36 weeks. Among inoperable NSCLC patients with a PS of 2, who appear from this trial not to have benefited from the presence of cisplatin in their chemotherapy, use of single agent vinorelbine is an appropriate treatment option.

Duration of chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized trial of three versus six courses of mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin

PURPOSE

So far there are no published data on optimal duration of chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); six or more courses are usually recommended. We have carried out a multicenter randomized trial comparing three versus six courses of chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with stage IIIb or IV NSCLC were randomized at start of treatment to receive either three or six courses of mitomycin 8 mg/m(2) (courses 1, 2, 4, and 6), vinblastine 6 mg/m(2), and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) (MVP) every 21 days. Treatment was stopped early in both arms for progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Key end points were overall survival, duration of symptom relief, and quality-of-life assessment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 with lung cancer-specific module QLQ-LC13.

RESULTS

Three hundred eight patients were randomized. Seventy-two percent of the 155 patients randomized to three courses completed treatment. In the 153 patients randomized to six courses, 73% completed three courses and 31% six courses. Median survival was 6 versus 7 months, respectively, and 1-year survival 22% versus 25% (P =.2). Median duration of symptom relief was 4.5 months (both arms), and 8% versus 18% had continuing symptom relief (P =.4). Quality-of-life parameters were the same or improved for patients randomized to only three courses, including significantly decreased fatigue (P =.03) and a trend toward decreased nausea and vomiting (P =.06).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show no evidence for additional clinical benefit by continuing MVP chemotherapy beyond three courses. This challenges current orthodoxy of six courses or more. Further trials addressing duration of chemotherapy are now warranted, particularly with newer chemotherapy schedules.

Chemotherapy versus best supportive care in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer, non metastatic to the brain

Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer is a fatal disease, with a median survival of 14 months. Systemic chemotherapy is the most common approach. However the impact in overall survival and quality of life still a controversy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine differences in overall survival and quality of life among patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer non-metastatic to the brain treated with best supportive care versus systemic chemotherapy.

PATIENTS

From February 1990 through December 1995, 78 eligible patients were admitted with the diagnosis of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Patients were divided in 2 groups: Group A (n=31 - treated with best supportive care ), and Group B (n=47 - treated with systemic chemotherapy).

RESULTS

The median survival time was 23 weeks (range 5 - 153 weeks) in Group A and 55 weeks (range 7.4 - 213 weeks) in Group B (p=0.0018). In both groups, the incidence of admission for IV antibiotics and need of blood transfusions were similar. Patients receiving systemic chemotherapy were also stratified into those receiving mytomycin, vinblastin, and cisplatinum, n=25 and those receiving other combination regimens (platinum derivatives associated with other drugs, n=22). Patients receiving mytomycin, vinblastin, and cisplatinum, n=25 had a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia and had their cycles delayed for longer periods of time than the other group. These patients also had a shorter median survival time (51 versus 66 weeks, p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

In patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer, non-metastatic to the brain, chemotherapy significantly increases survival compared with best supportive care.

Second-line chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of second-line chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have relapsed or failed to respond to first-line treatment was unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of any second-line chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Bibliographic databases were searched. Handsearching and contact with experts was also performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials in which any second-line chemotherapy was compared with BSC in patients with NSCLC who had previously failed to any previous chemotherapy regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted by 2 independent reviewers and revised by all authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study was included. It randomised 204 patients to receive either doxetaxel or BSC. Following an unacceptably high toxic death rate the dose of doxetaxel was reduced from 100 mg/m(2) to 75 mg/m(2). Doxetaxel gave an extra 2.4 months of survival - an average of 7.0 months vs 4.6 months on BSC. At 1 year after diagnosis 29% of doxetaxel treated patients were alive compared with 19% of the BSC group.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Definitive recommendations cannot be made since evidence is only available from one randomised controlled trial which, though of reasonable quality, had a number of limitations. There is currently no evidence to support second-line treatment of patients with poor performance status. Larger, well-designed controlled trials are needed to further evaluate whether the benefits of second-line chemotherapy to patients with NSCLC outweigh its risks and costs.

Paclitaxel, cisplatin, and gemcitabine combination chemotherapy within a multidisciplinary therapeutic approach in metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy combinations improve quality of life and survival in advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The emergence of new active drugs might translate into more effective regimens for the treatment of this disease.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility, response rate, and toxicity of a paclitaxel, cisplatin, and gemcitabine combination to treat metastatic NSCLC. Thirty-five consecutive chemotherapy-naive patients with Stage IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were treated with a combination of paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2) given intravenously in 3 hours) on Day 1, cisplatin (120 mg/m(2) given intravenously in 6 hours) on Day 1, and gemcitabine (800 mg/m(2) given intravenously in 30 minutes) on Days 1 and 8, every 4 weeks. Although responding patients were scheduled to receive consolidation radiotherapy and 24 patients received preplanned second-line chemotherapy after disease progression, the response and toxicity rates reported refer only to the chemotherapy regimen given.

RESULTS

All the patients were examined for toxicity; 34 were examinable for response. An objective response was observed in 73.5% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 55.6-87.1%), including 4 complete responses (11.7%). According to intention-to-treat, the overall response rate was 71.4% (95% CI, 53. 7-85.4%). After 154 courses of therapy, the median dose intensity was 131 mg/m(2) for paclitaxel (97.3%), 117 mg/m(2) for cisplatin (97.3%), and 1378 mg/m(2) for gemcitabine (86.2%). World Health Organization Grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 39.9% and 11.4% of patients, respectively. There was one treatment-related death. Nonhematologic toxicities were mild. After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median progression free survival rate was 7 months, and the median survival time was 16 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of paclitaxel, cisplatin, and gemcitabine is well tolerated and shows high activity in metastatic NSCLC. This treatment merits further comparison with other cisplatin-based regimens.

Decision framework for chemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Best supportive care has long been considered to be the standard therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). There is now evidence from randomized trials that a number of chemotherapy regimens can palliate cancer-related symptoms and modestly improve survival. We show how cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to make choices between different (ambulatory) chemotherapy regimens.

METHODS

Clinical algorithms describing the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of metastatic NSCLC were incorporated into Statistics Canada's Population Health Model. Using consistent methodology, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of several chemotherapeutic interventions: a combination of vindesine (VDS) plus cisplatin, etoposide (VP-16) plus cisplatin, vinblastine (VLB) plus cisplatin, vinorelbine (Navelbine; NVB) plus cisplatin, paclitaxel (Taxol) plus cisplatin, and gemcitabine (GEM) and NVB alone. We calculated the total chemotherapy costs in 1995 Canadian dollars, the cost per case, the average life-years saved, and the cost per life-year saved. Using the Population Health Model, we then constructed an advanced decision framework that rank-ordered the various treatment regimens so as to optimize benefit below various cost-effectiveness thresholds.

RESULTS

One regimen (VLB plus cisplatin) appears to result in better survival and lower health care expenditures than best supportive care. By use of cost-effectiveness thresholds of $25,000 and $50,000 per life-year gained, NVB plus cisplatin is the preferred regimen. When quality of life is considered, however, GEM is preferred to NVB plus cisplatin at a threshold value of $50,000. At thresholds of $75 000 and $100,000, paclitaxel plus cisplatin at a dose of 135 mg/m(2) is the preferred regimen. At thresholds of $50,000 and above, best supportive care is the least preferred regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

This decision framework allows the comparison of different treatment regimens based on various cost-effectiveness thresholds. Our analysis also supports the use of chemotherapy regimens and the abandonment of best supportive care as the standard of care for patients with advanced NSCLC. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1321-9].

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine alone in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether the addition of gemcitabine (G) to vinorelbine (V) improves survival and quality of life (QoL) among elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with NSCLC aged >/= 70 years with advanced disease were randomly allocated to receive V 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks or G 1,200 mg/m(2) + V 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. The estimated sample size was 120 patients per arm, but an interim analysis of survival was planned based on the first 60 patients per arm.

RESULTS

In May 1999, the survival data were analyzed of 120 eligible patients (V group = 60; G + V group = 60) who had been randomized from June 1997 to February 1999. Forty-nine patients had stage IIIB disease, and 71 had stage IV. At a median potential follow-up of 14 months (range, 3 to 22 months), 93 patients had died (G + V group = 41; V group = 52). In the G + V group, median survival time was 29 weeks and projected 1-year survival was 30%; these values were 18 weeks and 13% in the V group. According to multivariate Cox analysis, the risk of death in the G + V arm compared with the V arm was 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0. 29 to 0.79; P <.01). Combination therapy was also associated with a clear delay in symptom and QoL deterioration. The overall response rates were 22% and 15% in the G + V and V groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients with NSCLC, G + V treatment is associated with significantly better survival than is V alone.

Evidence-based medicine in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

Treatment decisions for non-small-cell lung cancer require accurate initial staging of patients. Typically surgical resection is recommended for early stage disease, while chemotherapy in conjunction with radiotherapy and possibly surgical resection is recommended for selected patients with locally advanced disease. Chemotherapy clearly has been demonstrated to improve survival and quality of life in metastatic disease. Surgical, chemotherapeutic, and radiotherapy treatment options as well as the role of multi-modality therapy will be discussed focusing on the evidence for various stages of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer was not clear. A systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis was therefore undertaken to evaluate the available evidence from all relevant randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy on survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. To investigate whether or not pre-defined patient sub-groups benefit more or less from chemotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches were supplemented by information from trial registers and by hand searching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with relevant trialists and organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials comparing primary treatments of surgery, surgery + radiotherapy, radical radiotherapy or supportive care versus the same primary treatment, plus chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion provided that they randomised non-small cell lung cancer patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual patients from all available randomised trials was carried out. Data from all patients randomised in all eligible trials were sought directly from those responsible. Updated information on survival, and date of last follow up were obtained, as were details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage and performance status. To avoid potential bias, information was requested for all randomised patients including those who had been excluded from the investigators' original analyses. All analyses were done on intention to treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin-based regimens, subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage and performance status were also done.

MAIN RESULTS

Data from 52 trials and 9387 patients were included. The results for modern regimens containing cisplatin favoured chemotherapy in all comparisons and reached conventional levels of significance when used with radical radiotherapy and with supportive care. Trials comparing surgery with surgery plus chemotherapy gave a hazard ratio of 0.87 (13% reduction in the risk of death, equivalent to an absolute benefit of 5% at 5 years). Trials comparing radical radiotherapy with radical radiotherapy plus chemotherapy gave a hazard ratio 0.87 (13% reduction in the risk of death equivalent to an absolute benefit of 4% at 2 years), and trials comparing supportive care with supportive care plus chemotherapy gave a hazard ratio of 0.73 (27% reduction in the risk of death equivalent to a 10% improvement in survival at one year). The essential drugs needed to achieve these effects were not identified. No difference in the size of effect was seen in any subgroup of patients. In all but the radical radiotherapy setting, older trials using long term alkylating agents tended to show a detrimental effect of chemotherapy. This effect reached conventional significance in the adjuvant surgical comparison.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

At the outset of this meta-analysis there was considerable pessimism about the role of chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. These results offer hope of progress and suggest that chemotherapy may have a role in treating this disease.

Second-line chemotherapy with 96-hour infusional paclitaxel in refractory non-small cell lung cancer: report of a phase II trial

Advanced metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has progressed on initial cisplatin-based chemotherapy has a poor prognosis. Although paclitaxel is an active agent in the first-line therapy of NSCLC, 24-hr infusion of paclitaxel in patients with NSCLC failing first-line cisplatin-based regimens has shown minimal activity. Prolonged infusions of paclitaxel have shown activity in breast cancer patients who have failed short infusions of paclitaxel. In this study, 13 patients with refractory NSCLC who progressed on or after initial chemotherapy were treated with 96-hr paclitaxel (140 mg/m2 over 96 hr every 3 weeks) infusions as outpatients using a CADD infusion pump via a central catheter. Nine patients received only one or two cycles of treatment because of disease progression and had a median survival of 3 months (range, 1-5 months). Four patients had stabilization of disease for two to six cycles of treatment and had a median survival of 8 months (range, 8-12+ months). Grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity occurred in < 10% of cycles, and no treatment-related hospitalizations occurred. Quality of life (QOL) assessments using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire were performed at baseline and with each treatment cycle. In conclusion, although no objective responses were seen, disease stabilization occurred in 31% of patients. Overall toxicity was tolerable with no major negative impact on QOL in those patients receiving two or more cycles of treatment.

Phase I trial, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic correlations, of combination paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the maximum-tolerated dose of paclitaxel with carboplatin with and without filgrastim support in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to investigate the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel and carboplatin and correlate these with the pharmacodynamic effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-six chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic NSCLC were entered into this phase I dose-escalation and pharmacokinetic study. Paclitaxel was initially administered as a 24-hour infusion at a fixed dose of 135 mg/m2, and the carboplatin dose was escalated in cohorts of three patients, using Calvert's formula [dose(mg) = area under the concentration time curve (glomerular filtration rate + 25)], to target areas under the concentration time curve (AUCs) of 5, 7, 9, and 11 mg/mL x minute. A measured 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance was substituted for the glomerular filtration rate. Once the maximum-tolerated AUC (MTAUC) of carboplatin was reached, the paclitaxel dose was escalated to 175, 200, and 225 mg/m2. When the paclitaxel dose escalation began, the AUC of carboplatin was reduced to one level below the MTAUC.

RESULTS

Myelosuppression was the major dose-limiting toxicity. Thrombocytopenia was observed at a carboplatin AUC of 11 mg/mL x minute after course 2 and thereafter. End-of-infusion plasma paclitaxel concentrations and median duration of time above 0.05 microM were similar in course 1 versus course 2 at the 135 and 175 mg/m2 dose levels. The neutropenia experienced by patients was consistent with that observed in patients who had received paclitaxel alone. Measured carboplatin AUCs were approximately 12% (20% v 3% with course 1 v course 2, respectively) below the desired target, with a standard deviation of 34% at all dose levels. A sigmoid-maximum effect model describing the relationship between relative thrombocytopenia and measured free platinum exposure indicated that patients who received the combination of carboplatin with paclitaxel experienced less severe thrombocytopenia than would be expected from carboplatin alone. Of the 36 patients entered onto the study, one experienced a complete response and 17 had partial responses, for an overall response rate of 50%. The recommended doses of paclitaxel (24-hour infusion) and carboplatin for future phase II studies of this combination are (1) paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 with a carboplatin dose targeted to achieve an AUC of 7 mg/mL x minute without filgrastim support; (2) paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 with a carboplatin dose targeted to achieve an AUC of 9 mg/mL x minute with filgrastim support; and (3) paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 with a carboplatin dose targeted to achieve an AUC of 7 mg/mL x minute with filgrastim support.

CONCLUSION

The regimen of paclitaxel and carboplatin is well-tolerated and has promising activity in the treatment of NSCLC. There is no pharmacokinetic interaction between paclitaxel and carboplatin, but there is a pharmacodynamic, platelet-sparing effect on this dose-limiting toxicity of carboplatin.

Clinical studies in non-small cell lung cancer: the CALGB experience

Since 1984, the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) has focused its clinical research in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on investigations of new agents and combinations. Currently, efforts are aimed at identifying non-cisplatin-based combinations with an increased therapeutic index. In stage III disease multimodality therapies have been pursued. Dillman et al. reported a study comparing standard radiotherapy versus induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. The chemotherapy-treated patients were found to benefit with a 4-month increase in median survival time compared with patients receiving radiotherapy alone (13.8 vs. 9.7 months) and an increased 3-year survival rate of 23% versus 11%. This was the first randomized cooperative group study demonstrating a survival advantage resulting from the use of induction chemotherapy in locoregionally advanced NSCLC. In a subsequent study, the administration of additional "posterior" chemotherapy was not found to be feasible because of early disease progression and toxicity, while the administration of induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy was feasible; therefore, the latter approach was studied further in a randomized phase III setting. This study compared a standard of two cycles of cisplatin and vinblastine followed by radiotherapy with an experimental arm of cisplatin and vinblastine followed by radiotherapy and concomitant carboplatin. Accrual to this study has been completed and results are expected in the near future. In resectable stage III disease, studies have focused on the optimal sequencing of multimodality therapy. A randomized study comparing standard regional therapy with radiotherapy and surgery versus a previously piloted approach combining chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy was closed prematurely due to poor accrual. The next generation of studies in stage III NSCLC will focus on the integration of new chemotherapy agents into the treatment armamentarium for NSCLC. A randomized phase II study investigating paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin in the induction setting and as concomitant chemoradiotherapy has recently been activated.

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer chemotherapy: a randomized trial of two active regimens (MVP and PE)

The treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC remains a controversial issue and cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is by far the most common treatment. Two of these cisplatin-based standard combinations, MVP and PE, were compared in this study in order to evaluate their response rates and survival times. Eighty-five previously untreated NSCLC patients were randomly selected to receive either MVP or PE and 72 of these patients were eligible for evaluation for response rate and survival. Response rates for MVP were: CR 11%, PR 35%, SD 19% and PD 35% and for PE: CR 0%, PR 26%, SD 22% and PD 52%. The median survival time was 9.7 months for MVP and 6.9 months for PE. Both schedules were well tolerated. The administration of MVP in advanced NSCLC resulted in superior response rates and survival times over those produced by PE.

Efficacy of platinum-based regimens in non-small cell lung cancer. A negative report from the Cuneo Lung Cancer Study Group

Combination chemotherapy with cytotoxic agents is the regular treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), good performance status, and no major clinical contraindications. Since the early 1980s, platinum-based chemotherapy is the cornerstone of this treatment, while combinations containing long-acting alkylating agents have been nearly abandoned, and represent a sort of historical treatment. Nevertheless, the real survival benefits of cisplatin are uncertain and still debated. To attempt an answer, the Cuneo Lung Cancer Study Group (CuLCaSG) carried out a clinical trial comparing a platinum (MVP) versus a non-platinum-based combination chemotherapy (MACC). The study comprised 156 patients with advanced NSCLC randomly assigned to the two treatment arms. MACC and MVP chemotherapies were given as originally described and continued until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity, or refusal by the patient. For a medium of four cycles of MVP and three cycles of MACC, the median dose intensity (DI) reached was, respectively, 95% and 100% of the intended (P = 0.0132). In all, 27 objective responses (1 complete and 16 partial responses in patients allocated to MVP versus 10 partial responses of the MACC group) were observed. Median progression-free and global survivals were, respectively, 21 and 34 weeks for MVP and 20 and 31 weeks for MACC (non-significant differences). The treatment plan was found non-significant also multivariate analysis of survival. Toxicity was rather similar in the two arms, except for more severe neurological toxicity, anemia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, and vomiting in patients on MVP. Alopecia was more common after MACC. Subjective tolerance to treatment, and perception of physical and psychological well-being were rated similarly by patients of both groups. In conclusion, MVP was moderately more active than MACC, and showed a foreseeable and reversible toxicity, of a low-medium grade. However, this CuLCaSG study failed to substantiate any survival benefit from the use of platinum in combination with other cytotoxic agents.

Chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is the most lethal cancer in both men and women. Given that chemotherapy for advanced disease is marginally beneficial and noncurative, its use must be governed judiciously, with each decision being evaluated individually for each patient. Chemotherapy for lung cancer has progressed over the past decade, and with the advent of new agents, its future looks promising.

Vinorelbine is well tolerated and active in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. A two-stage phase II study

More than 30% of lung cancers arise in patients aged 70 years or more; however, because elderly patients are not considered to tolerate chemotherapy, they are generally excluded from clinical trials and are not considered eligible for aggressive cisplatin-based chemotherapy in clinical practice. The aims of the present study were to test tolerability and activity of weekly vinorelbine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients aged 70 years or more, and to define whether minimum conditions existed for a randomised comparison with best supportive care. The study was designed as a multicentre two-stage phase II trial according to Simon's optimal design: 8 or more responses out of 43 treated patients were expected at the end of the trial. Patients aged 70 years or more were eligible if they had a cytological or histological diagnosis of NSCLC at stage IIIb-IV and a performance status less than or equal to two according to the ECOG scale. Vinorelbine was given intravenously (i.v.) at a dose of 30 mg/m2 every week for 12 doses. As planned, 43 patients entered the study; median age was 73 years (range 70-80); 11 patients were older than 75 years. Median dose-intensity (mg/m2/week) of vinorelbine was 21.2 (range 7.5-30) and was not affected by age of patients. Toxicity was generally mild, mainly haematological and never life-threatening. ECOG performance status improved in 26% of patients; cough and pain improved in more than 40% of patients symptomatic at entry, while dyspnoea improved in 28%; approximately half the patients had a stabilisation of their symptoms. 10 patients (23-95% exact confidence interval (CI): 12-39%) obtained a partial response. Median time to progression was 11 weeks (95% CI 8-30) and median survival 36 weeks (95% CI 28-53). One-year estimated progression-free and overall survival rates are 16% and 36%, respectively. In conclusion, vinorelbine was well tolerated and active in the treatment of elderly NSCLC patients. A phase III trial (ELVIS-Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study) comparing best supportive care versus best supportive care plus vinorelbine is now ongoing.

[Radiotherapy in locoregional treatment of inoperable non-small cell lung cancer: results from a series of 381 patients]

PURPOSE

The prognosis of inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poor and thoracic radiation therapy is usually the main step of the therapeutic approach. The results of a retrospective analysis of a series of 381 patients treated from 1977 to 1990 for an inoperable NSCLC are reported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three hundred and twenty two men and 59 women were included into the study. Their mean age was 66 years. A squamous cell carcinoma was observed in 276 cases (72%). A superior vena cava syndrome or a Pancoast's syndrome were present in 21 and 26 patients, respectively. Fifty-two per cent of the patients had a WHO performance status > or = 2. According to the TNM classification, the tumor distribution was as follows: 11 T1, 153 T2, 175 T3, and 42 T4. The mediastinum was involved in 174 patients. All patients were treated by external radiation therapy with a total dose of 60-65 Gy. Classical fractionation of the irradiation dose was done in 217 patients and hypofractionation was used for 164 patients.

RESULTS

After treatment, improvement of the superior vena and Pancoast's syndromes was observed in 90% of the patients. Radiological complete response was obtained in 177 patients (47%). The 5-year overall survival rate was 6.2%. No significant differences in survival according to the initial tumor size, the mediastinum status or the fractionation scheme were noted. The 5-year survival rate was 13% in patients with a tumor that completely responded to irradiation. Death was mainly due to local failure (231 patients, 69%) and metastatic disease (107 patients, 32%). The radiotherapy tolerance was acceptable.

CONCLUSION

Although irradiation provides good palliation and a 10%-survival rate at 3 years, the results relating to radiation therapy were disappointing.

Phase I study of paclitaxel on a 3-hour schedule followed by carboplatin in untreated patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer

This study sought to determine the principal toxicities and feasibility of administering paclitaxel as a 3-hour infusion followed by carboplatin without and with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), and to recommend doses for subsequent clinical trials. Twenty-three patients were treated with paclitaxel at doses ranging from 175 to 225 mg/m2 followed by carboplatin targeting area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 7 or 9 mg/mL.min every 3 weeks. AUCs were targeted using the Calvert formula with estimated creatinine clearance as a surrogate for the glomerular filtration rate. A high rate of intolerable, mutually exclusive toxicities, consisting primarily of thrombocytopenia, as well as neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis, precluded escalation of carboplatin above a targeted AUC of 7 mg/mL.min with paclitaxel 225 mg/m2, which approaches the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of paclitaxel given as a single agent on a 3-hour schedule. Moderate to severe peripheral neurotoxicity occurred in several patients after multiple courses. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the principal toxicities and the ability to administer clinically-relevant doses of both agents in combination without G-CSF, further dose escalation using G-CSF was not performed. Nine of 23 (39%) total patients and 43% of 21 assessable patients had partial responses (PR). The recommended doses for subsequent clinical trials are paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 as a 3-hour infusion followed by carboplatin at a targeted AUC of 7 mg/mL.min. The ability to administer clinically-relevant single agent doses of paclitaxel and carboplatin in combination, as well as the significant antitumor activity noted in this phase I trial, indicate that further evaluations of this regimen in both advanced and early stage NSCLC are warranted.

Improving quality of life in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: research experience with gemcitabine

Alongside objective response rate, quality of life of patients is important in the treatment of cancer, particularly in the palliative setting. Quality of life is difficult to define precisely and is correspondingly difficult to assess. However, a number of methods have been devised and self-report questionnaires are now widely used. Patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a poor prognosis with few patients surviving longer than 8 or 9 months. Curative treatment is often not possible and few patients receive active treatment. Although some patients will accept toxic treatments in return for increased survival, it is generally hoped that any treatment, curative or palliative, will not adversely affect patients' quality of life. In three studies in which gemcitabine was used as a single agent in metastatic NSCLC, objective response rates of 20% were obtained. Gemcitabine was well tolerated. Symptoms improved in the studies where disease-related symptoms were assessed. The degree of improvement compared well with historical data on the relief offered by standard radiotherapy and combination chemotherapy. These findings have led to the initiation of a randomised trial to compare the relief offered by gemcitabine plus best supportive care with best supportive care, using quality of life assessments as a primary endpoint.

Ifosfamide and vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma

We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of the novel combination of ifosfamide (IFX) and vinorelbine (VNB) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Between March 1993 and November 1994, 44 patients (17 stage IIIB; 27 stage IV) received a regimen consisting of IFX, 2 g/m2 in a 1-h infusion, days 1-3; mesna, 400 mg/m2 in an i.v. bolus at hours 0 and 4 and 800 mg orally at hour 8, days 1-3; and VNB, 35 mg/ m2 in a 20-min infusion, days 1 and 15. During the first course only, a half dose of VNB (17.5 mg/m2) was administered on days 8 and 22. Courses were repeated every 28 days. Forty patients were fully evaluable for response, and 44 were assessable for toxicity. Objective regression was recorded in 13 of 40 patients (33%). No patient achieved a complete response. Thirteen patients presented a partial response (33%); 17 (42%) had no change; and progressive disease was observed in 10 (25%). The median duration of response was 10 months, and the median time to treatment failure for the whole group was 4 months. Median survival was 11 months. The dose-limiting toxic effect was myelosuppression. Leukopenia occurred in 25 patients (57%) and was grade 3 or 4 in 8 patients (18%). Twelve patients (27%) developed peripheral neurotoxicity, while five had mild IFX-induced CNS toxicity. Phlebitis was observed in 15 of 30 patients (50%) who did not have central implantable venous systems. The IFX-VNB combination exhibited an activity against NSCLC that was among the highest reported for non-cisplatin-containing regimens, with a toxicity profile that was easily managed.

Therapeutic options for regionally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

The optimal treatment for regionally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, Stage IIIa/IIIb) remains unknown. Proposed approaches include surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and combinations of these. No treatment modality, however, has ever shown other than modest or minimal beneficial effects. When differences between new and old treatments appear trivial, as in the management of the locally advanced NSCLC, controlled studies are necessary to select the best approach. This review is based on a systematic overview of data from randomized trials comparing different treatment modalities. The following six points emerged from the cited literature. (1) It is sufficiently proved that chemotherapy alone prolongs survival in patients with both locally advanced and metastatic disease. (2) Although it is probably true that radiation therapy is better than no active treatment, this idea is supported by very limited evidence. (3) Although it is probably also true that radiotherapy alone is not worse than chemotherapy alone, this is another insufficiently proved issue. (4) The possible superiority of chemo-radiotherapy to chemotherapy alone or to supportive care is also poorly documented. (5) There is abundant evidence that chemo-radiotherapy is better than radiotherapy alone (however, this information may be unhelpful if point 2, or 3 remains unclarified). (6) Although neoadjuvant treatments have improved resectability and may ensure overall better results, the surgical cure, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy, is another unproved option. Based on the above six points, it was concluded that new randomized studies are urgently needed to confirm the possible superiority of chemo-radiotherapy to chemotherapy. Only after such a validation, will the many ongoing trials, designed to prove the possible superiority of local surgical control to the more traditional approaches based on thoracic irradiation, have a practical sense.

Aggressive vs nonaggressive therapy for metastatic NSCLC

Clinicians tend to underestimate potential modest benefits of chemotherapy. They are often reluctant to refer patients for chemotherapy, perhaps because they expect the side effects to outweigh any perceived benefits. However, patients are much more ready to accept chemotherapy, even when the likely benefits are small. Quality of life, change in performance status, and relief of tumor-related symptoms are important additional parameters of treatment assessment. Taking account of these other factors will help clinicians balance quality and quantity of life in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

Chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC. Will meta-analysis provide the answer?

Meta-analyses of published data show a modest but significant survival or response rate benefit for chemotherapy plus supportive care over best supportive care alone in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these findings may be biased in favor of positive results because they are literature based. A meta-analysis of individual patient data from 11 published and unpublished randomized studies shows a significant benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy over supportive care, a small (not significant) benefit for vinca alkaloids and etoposide, and no benefit for alkylating agents. The benefit is independent of age, sex, stage, histologic type, or performance status. Single large trials would avoid the pitfalls of meta-analyses, but these have so far proved difficult to organize. Physicians need to be convinced that even a small increase in median survival in NSCLC as a result of chemotherapy may represent a considerable increase in life expectancy for individual patients.

Efficacy and toxicity of mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIP) in patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer

Seventy-two patients with advanced stage IIIB (42%) or stage IV (58%) non-small cell lung cancer (median age 57 years, Karnofsky PS 60-100) were treated with mitomycin C (6 mg/m2, day 1), ifosfamide (1500 mg/m2, days 1-3), and cisplatin (30 mg/m2, days 1-3) every 4 weeks. The objective response rate was 37% in the overall population; 50% in stage IIIB patients and 29% in stage IV patients. Twenty four patients achieved partial response (33%) and three patients achieved complete response. Despite this relatively high objective response rate, the overall median survival time was 32 weeks. The median survival was significantly better in stage IIIB patients (55 weeks) than in stage IV patients (25 weeks) (P = 0.003). MIP regimen was permanently suspended in 14 patients because of toxic events. Seventeen patients developed grade III or IV febrile neutropenia and two patients died from sepsis. Two patients experienced acute mitomycin peumonitis. Despite increased doses of cisplatin and ifosfamide, compared with the original description for MIC chemotherapy, with probably higher toxicity, no apparent increased response rate or median survival was observed in this study. The MIP regimen could be tested in a randomized trial in comparison with other administration plans in a comparable population.

Evaluation of the optimal duration of chemotherapy in phase II trials for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

PURPOSE

To determine the optimal duration of chemotherapy in phase II trials for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The time from start of treatment until achievement of response according to WHO criteria was determined retrospectively in 8 phase II trials.

RESULTS

Response to chemotherapy consisting of 4 complete and 39 partial remissions was registered in 43 of 333 patients. The median time from treatment start to response was 54 days. On day 84 on-study, 35 of the responding patients (81%) had achieved the response. Forty-three responses (98%) had occurred by day 168 and only one patient (2%) accomplished a response after 168 days of treatment. The responses had a median duration of 151 days (range 28-1559 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate that patients with NSCLC included in phase II trials who have not yet achieved a response to chemotherapy after 168 days on study have a low likelihood (2%) of a subsequent response. Hence, treatment cessation at this point should be considered for non-responding patients. Continuation of treatment from day 84 to day 168 resulted in response in only 7 patients out of the total of 43 responses noted (16%). Thus, the toxic effects of the chemotherapy in addition to the inconvenience of hospital visits renders it questionable whether it is worthwhile to continue treatment in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer beyond day 84 in the absence of response.

Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy on survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from all available randomised trials, both published and unpublished.

SUBJECTS

9387 patients (7151 deaths) from 52 randomised clinical trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Survival.

RESULTS

The results for modern regimens containing cisplatin favoured chemotherapy in all comparisons and reached conventional levels of significance when used with radical radiotherapy and with supportive care. Trials comparing surgery with surgery plus chemotherapy gave a hazard ratio of 0.87 (13% reduction in the risk of death, equivalent to an absolute benefit of 5% at five years). Trials comparing radical radiotherapy with radical radiotherapy plus chemotherapy gave a hazard ratio of 0.87 (13% reduction in the risk of death; absolute benefit of 4% at two years), and trials comparing supportive care with supportive care plus chemotherapy 0.73 (27% reduction in the risk of death; 10% improvement in survival at one year). The essential drugs needed to achieve these effects were not identified. No difference in the size of effect was seen in any subgroup of patients. In all but the radical radiotherapy setting, older trials using long term alkylating agents tended to show a detrimental effect of chemotherapy. This effect reached conventional significance in the adjuvant surgical comparison.

CONCLUSION

At the outset of this meta-analysis there was considerable pessimism about the role of chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. These results offer hope of progress and suggest that chemotherapy may have a role in treating this disease.

Single-agent chemotherapy versus combination chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a quality and meta-analysis study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To estimate the quality of the studies and to compare single-agent with combination chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

DESIGN

Identification of published randomized trials and extraction of essential results directly from the published reports.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Survival probability at 1 year, as estimated from the published survival curves, has been considered as the end-point of interest. Quality scoring of the studies has also been performed. Arithmetical calculation, concerning the estimation of quantities necessary for the meta-analysis of the literature, has been addressed. The estimated pooled Odds Ratio of death was 0.8, with 95% confidence interval of 0.6-1.0, thus favoring combination chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our meta-analysis favor combination chemotherapy. They must, however, be considered in the light of their clinical relevance and of the balance between quality of life, toxicity and costs of chemotherapy.

A pilot study of mitomycin, cisplatin and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (MCF) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

A pilot study of continuous infusional 5-fluorouracil 200 mg m-2 per 24 h by ambulatory pump and Hickman line for the entire treatment cycle with mitomycin C 8 mg m-2 i.v. on day 1 and cisplatin 75 mg m-2 i.v. on day 1, both repeated every 28 days, was carried out in 31 previously untreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Of 31 patients assessable for response, one attained a complete remission and eight a partial remission, an overall response rate of 29%. Haematological toxicity was minimal, with only 3% of patients developing WHO grade III/IV neutropenia and 13% grade III/IV thrombocytopenia. Significant side-effects included moderate to severe emesis (41%), mucositis (34%), diarrhoea (31%) and palmar-plantar syndrome (14%). Seven patients (23%) had Hickman line complications requiring line removal. Continuous infusional chemotherapy with this regimen is active in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, but its complexity and associated treatment toxicity offer little advantage over equally active but simpler and less toxic cisplatin-based regimens.

New chemotherapy agents in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: an update including data from the Seventh World Conference on Lung Cancer

Over the past two decades, modest gains have been made in chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer with the addition of cisplatin-based regimens to the therapeutic armamentarium. Over the last decade, several new agents with significant activity have reached the level of Phase II and III testing. This list of new drugs includes: navelbine, the taxanes--taxol and taxotere, gemcitabine, edatrexate and the camptothecins--irinotecan and topotecan. During this period, oral etoposide and epirubicin were re-investigated and biological agents such as the retinoids, interferons and interleukins were also explored as alternatives to traditional chemotherapy. As these new drug investigations proceeded, basic scientists made important discoveries which are now beginning to be applied to therapy. The future promises to combine these active new drugs with therapies directed against targets unique to non-small cell lung cancer cells.

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of systemic chemotherapy versus supportive treatment in non-resectable non-small cell lung cancer

We have conducted a meta-analysis of all published and unpublished 'polychemotherapy' versus 'best supportive care' clinical trials in patients with non-resectable non-small cell lung cancer to assess the usefulness of polychemotherapy in this cancer. Seven studies with more than 700 patients were selected for our meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed a reduction in mortality during the first months under polychemotherapy. Although quite small, this increase in survival, coupled with a certain improved 'quality of life' suggests that polychemotherapy should be recommended for patients with non-resectable non-small cell lung cancer.