A randomized study of cisplatin versus cisplatin plus vindesine for non-small cell lung carcinoma

Integrated budget impact model to estimate the impact of introducing selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment option for patients with RET-altered solid tumors in the US

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the potential budget impact on US third party payers (commercial or Medicare) associated with addition of selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment for patients with Rearranged during Transfection (RET)-altered solid tumors.

METHODS

An integrated budget impact model (iBIM) with 3-year (Y) time horizon was developed for 19 RET-altered tumors. It is referred to as an integrated model because it is a single model that integrated results across multiple tumor types (as opposed to tumor-specific models developed traditionally). The model estimated eligible patient populations and included tumor-specific comparator treatments for each tumor type. Estimated annual total costs (2022USD, $) included costs of drug, administration, supportive care, and toxicity. For a one-million-member plan, the number of patients with RET-altered tumors eligible for treatment, incremental total costs, and incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) costs associated with introduction of selpercatinib treatment were estimated. Uncertainty associated with model parameters was assessed using various sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Commercial perspective estimated 11.68 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 7.59 (Y1), 8.17 (Y2), and 8.76 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated (based on forecasted market share). The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (commercial) were estimated to be: $873,099 and $0.073 (Y1), $2,160,525 and $0.180 (Y2), and $2,561,281 and $0.213 (Y3), respectively. The Medicare perspective estimated 55.82 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 36.29 (Y1), 39.08 (Y2), and 41.87 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated. The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (Medicare) were estimated to be: $4,447,832 and $0.371 (Y1), $11,076,422 and $0.923 (Y2), and $12,637,458 and $1.053 (Y3), respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses across both perspectives identified drug costs, selpercatinib market share, incidence of RET, and treatment duration as significant drivers of incremental costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-year incremental PMPM cost estimates suggest a modest impact on payer-budgets associated with introduction of tumor-agnostic selpercatinib treatment.

A Phase II Trial of Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Stage IV Squamous Cell Lung Cancers

PURPOSE

Gemcitabine and albumin-bound paclitaxel (ABP) exhibit synergistic antitumor efficacy, with ABP serving to increase the intratumoral gemcitabine concentration. Both drugs are active in squamous cell lung cancers (SQCLC) and are conventional partners for carboplatin. We hypothesized that combining gemcitabine and ABP would enhance the antitumor activity in patients with advanced SQCLCs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a Simon two-stage, open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase II study that enrolled patients between August 1, 2015 and June 1, 2018. We enrolled 37 patients with chemotherapy-naïve, PD-L1 low/unknown advanced stage IV SQCLC. Patients were administered weekly intravenous gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) plus ABP (100 mg/m²) in a 3-week on, 1-week off schedule during stage I and a 2-week on, 1-week off schedule in stage II. The primary endpoint was best objective response rate (ORR). Next-generation sequencing by MSK-IMPACT was used to calculate tumor mutation burden and genome doubling and assess somatic variants for correlations with efficacy.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were evaluable for response assessment. The study satisfied its primary endpoint, with confirmed partial responses in 18 of 32 patients and a complete response in 1 patient [ORR 59%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 42%-74%]. Median progression-free survival (PFS), a secondary endpoint, was 7.5 (95% CI, 6.7-10.5) months. There were no unexpected toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine plus ABP was a safe, tolerable, and effective first-line therapy for patients with chemotherapy-naïve SQCLCs, with an ORR and median PFS substantially higher than carboplatin doublet regimens and efficacy comparable with carboplatin plus taxane plus pembrolizumab.

WITHDRAWN: Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer in patients with advanced disease

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials have demonstrated that adding a drug to a single-agent or to a two-agent regimen increased the tumor response rate in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although its impact on survival remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical benefit of adding a drug to a single-agent or two-agent chemotherapy regimen in terms of tumor response rate, survival, and toxicity in patients with advanced NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

There were no language restrictions. Searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE were performed using the search terms non-small cell lung carcinoma/drug therapy, adenocarcinoma, large-cell carcinoma, squamous-cell carcinoma, lung, neoplasms, clinical trial phase III, and randomized trial. Manual searches were also performed to find conference proceedings published between January 1982 and June 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Data from all randomized controlled trials performed between 1980 and 2006 (published between January 1980 and June 2006) comparing a doublet regimen with a single-agent regimen or comparing a triplet regimen with a doublet regimen in patients with advanced NSCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed the publications and extracted the data. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the objective tumor response rate, one-year survival rate, and toxicity rate were calculated using the fixed-effect model. Pooled median ratios (MRs) for median survival also were calculated using the fixed-effect model. ORs and MRs lower than unity (< 1.0) indicate a benefit of a doublet regimen compared with a single-agent regimen (or a triplet regimen compared with a doublet regimen).

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five trials (13601 patients) were eligible. In the trials comparing a doublet regimen with a single-agent regimen, a significant increase was observed in tumor response (OR 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.47, P < 0.001) and one-year survival (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91, P < 0.001) in favor of the doublet regimen. The median survival ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.89, P < 0.001). An increase also was observed in the tumor response rate (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75, P < 0.001) in favor of the triplet regimen, but not for one-year survival (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21, P = 0.88). The median survival ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, P = 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adding a second drug improved tumor response and survival rate. Adding a third drug had a weaker effect on tumor response and no effect on survival.

Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer in patients with advanced disease

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials have demonstrated that adding a drug to a single-agent or to a two-agent regimen increased the tumor response rate in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although its impact on survival remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical benefit of adding a drug to a single-agent or two-agent chemotherapy regimen in terms of tumor response rate, survival, and toxicity in patients with advanced NSCLC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

There were no language restrictions. Searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE were performed using the search terms non-small cell lung carcinoma/drug therapy, adenocarcinoma, large-cell carcinoma, squamous-cell carcinoma, lung, neoplasms, clinical trial phase III, and randomized trial. Manual searches were also performed to find conference proceedings published between January 1982 and June 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Data from all randomized controlled trials performed between 1980 and 2006 (published between January 1980 and June 2006) comparing a doublet regimen with a single-agent regimen or comparing a triplet regimen with a doublet regimen in patients with advanced NSCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent investigators reviewed the publications and extracted the data. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for the objective tumor response rate, one-year survival rate, and toxicity rate were calculated using the fixed-effect model. Pooled median ratios (MRs) for median survival also were calculated using the fixed-effect model. ORs and MRs lower than unity (< 1.0) indicate a benefit of a doublet regimen compared with a single-agent regimen (or a triplet regimen compared with a doublet regimen).

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five trials (13601 patients) were eligible. In the trials comparing a doublet regimen with a single-agent regimen, a significant increase was observed in tumor response (OR 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.47, P < 0.001) and one-year survival (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91, P < 0.001) in favor of the doublet regimen. The median survival ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.89, P < 0.001). An increase also was observed in the tumor response rate (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75, P < 0.001) in favor of the triplet regimen, but not for one-year survival (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21, P = 0.88). The median survival ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, P = 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adding a second drug improved tumor response and survival rate. Adding a third drug had a weaker effect on tumor response and no effect on survival.

Mechanisms of resistance to cisplatin and carboplatin

While cisplatin and carboplatin are active versus most common cancers, epithelial malignancies are incurable when metastatic. Even if an initial response occurs, acquired resistance due to mutations and epigenetic events limits efficacy. Resistance may be due to excess of a resistance factor, to saturation of factors required for tumor cell killing, or to mutation or alteration of a factor required for tumor cell killing. Platinum resistance could arise from decreased tumor blood flow, extracellular conditions, reduced platinum uptake, increased efflux, intracellular detoxification by glutathione, etc., decreased binding (e.g., due to high intracellular pH), DNA repair, decreased mismatch repair, defective apoptosis, antiapoptotic factors, effects of several signaling pathways, or presence of quiescent non-cycling cells. In lung cancer, flattening of dose-response curves at higher doses suggests that efficacy is limited by exhaustion of something required for cell killing, and several clinical observations suggest epigenetic events may play a major role in resistance.

Pretreatment clinical prognostic factors in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy

PURPOSE

We investigated the influence of potential pre-treatment clinical prognostic factors in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS AND PATIENTS

A total of 285 patients were enrolled in two consecutive prospective randomised studies which compared (study 1) carboplatin and prolonged oral etoposide (group 1; n=58) with the same etoposide alone (group 2; n=59), and (study 2) carboplatin and prolonged oral etoposide (group 1; n=84) with the same carboplatin and high-dose intravenous etoposide (group 2; n=84).

RESULTS

The median survival time for all 285 patients was 7 months, while 1- and 2-year survival rates were 29% and 8%, respectively. Age did not impact on outcome ( P=0.21), while female patients did significantly better than male patients ( P<0.0001). Patients with KPS 80-100 did significantly better than those with KPS 50-70 ( P<0.0001), as did patients with less pronounced weight loss ( P<0.0001) and those with only one metastatic site when compared to those having at least two metastatic sites ( P<0.0001). When evaluated regarding the metastatic site, only subcutaneous metastatic site did not influence survival. This was confirmed within univariate analyses, but when multivariate analyses were done gender, KPS, weight loss, number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases and presence of brain metastases independently influenced survival, while age and other metastatic locations did not.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis, gender, KPS, weight loss, number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases and presence of brain metastases independently influenced survival in patients with stage IV NSCLC treated with CHT.

Platinum drugs in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

The use of chemotherapy is considered standard therapy in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer that cannot be treated with radiotherapy and in those with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and good performance status. This approach is also accepted in patients with earlier stage disease, when combined with radiotherapy in those with non-resectable locally advanced disease, or in the preoperative setting. Randomised clinical studies and meta-analyses of the literature have confirmed the beneficial survival effect of platinum-based chemotherapy. Cisplatin and carboplatin have been successfully used with other drugs in a wide variety of well-established two-drug combinations while three-drug combinations are still under investigation. Cisplatin and carboplatin use is limited by toxicity and inherent resistance. These considerations have prompted research into new platinum agents, such as the trinuclear platinum agent BBR3464, the platinum complex ZD0473 and oxaliplatin. These compounds could be developed in combination with agents such as paclitaxel, gemcitabine or vinorelbine in patients with advanced and/or refractory solid tumours.

A phase III randomized trial comparing vindesine and cisplatin with or without ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: long-term follow-up results and analysis of prognostic factors

In order to evaluate the activity and toxicity of a three-drug combination of vindesine, ifosfamide and cisplatin (VIP) for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we conducted a randomized trial comparing VIP with a two-drug combination of cisplatin and vindesine (VP). Between September 1987 and March 1992, a total of 132 patients with stage III or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to either VIP or VP. The VIP regimen consisted of vindesine (VDS 3 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8), ifosfamide (IFX 1300 mg/m(2) on days 1-5), and cisplatin (CDDP 20 mg/m(2) on days 1-5). The VP regimen consisted of VDS and CDDP with the same dose and schedule as the VIP regimen. Both regimens were repeated every 4 weeks. Objective response rates were 49.3% (95% confidence interval: 95%CI, 43.1-55.4%) in the VIP arm and 44.6% (95%CI, 38.4-50.2%) in the VP arm; the difference was not significant (P=0.5390). Median response duration, median survival time, and two-year survival rates were 26.5 weeks, 49.6 weeks, and 14.9% in the VIP arm and 28.7 weeks, 37.1 weeks, and 12.3% in the VP arm, respectively. There were also no significant differences between these two treatment arms. In comparison with the VP regimen, however, a survival advantage of the VIP regimen could be confirmed when the data were evaluated with Cox's multivariate analysis (P=0.0131). In both arms, the principal toxicity was myelosuppression, which was significantly more frequent in the VIP arm, although generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested the survival advantage of the VIP regimen over the VP regimen for treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.

Clinical-benefit response in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicentre prospective randomised phase III study of single agent gemcitabine versus cisplatin-vindesine

BACKGROUND

The modest improvement in median survival of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by cisplatin-based chemotherapy has led to the current opinion that clinical benefit for the patient is at least as important an end-point as objective response rate (ORR) or survival. Clinical benefit response was the primary end-point of this prospective randomised trial in symptomatic, advanced stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, comparing single agent gemcitabine (GEM) to cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received either GEM (1000 mg/m2, days 1, 8 and 15) or cisplatin (100 mg/M2, day 1) plus Vindesine (3 mg/m2, days 1 and 15) (PV), both every four weeks. Clinical benefit was measured by a simple metric based on changes in a visual analogue symptom score list, the Karnofsky performance status and the weight.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-nine patients were randomised (84 GEM, 85 PV). Prognostic factors and baseline symptoms were well balanced between the two arms. Most of the the objective responders and about half of the patients with disease stabilisation experienced clinical benefit. Compared to PV, a significantly larger number of GEM-treated patients experienced a clinical benefit (48.1 vs. 28.9%, P = 0.03) that lasted significantly longer (median duration 16 vs. 10 weeks, P = 0.01). No important differences in ORR, time-to-progression or median survival were observed. Grade 3 + 4 toxicity was significantly higher in the PV-group for leukopenia (P = 0.0003), neutropenia (P < 0.0001), nausea/vomiting (P = 0.0006), alopecia (P < 0.0001), and neurotoxicity (P = 0.04). Some severe pulmonary toxicity to GEM was noted.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of GEM with cisplatin-based therapy in symptomatic, advanced NSCLC demonstrates that GEM produces significantly a stronger and longer-lasting clinical benefit, probably due to its equal effectiveness in terms of ORR, time-to-progression or survival, combined with significantly less severe therapy-related toxicity.

Phase III randomized trial comparing moderate-dose cisplatin to combined cisplatin and carboplatin in addition to mitomycin and ifosfamide in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer

A phase III randomized trial was conducted in patients with metastatic NSCLC, to determine if, in association with mitomycin (6 mg m(-2)) and ifosfamide (3 g m(-2)), the combination of moderate dosages of cisplatin (60 mg m(-2)) and carboplatin (200 mg m(-2)) - CarboMIP regimen - improved survival in comparison with cisplatin (50 mg m(-2)) alone - MIP regimen. A total of 305 patients with no prior chemotherapy were randomized, including 297 patients assessable for survival (147 in the MIP arm and 150 in the CarboMIP arm) and 268 patients assessable for response to chemotherapy. All but eight (with malignant pleural effusion) had stage IV disease. There was a 27% (95% CI, 19-34) objective response (OR) rate to MIP (25% of the eligible patients) and a 33% (95% CI, 24-41) OR rate to CarboMIP (29% of the eligible patients). This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.34). Duration of response was not significantly different between both arms. There was also no difference (P = 0.67) in survival: median survival times were 28 weeks (95% Cl, 24-32) for MIP and 32 weeks (95% Cl, 26-35) for CarboMIP, with respectively 1-year survival rates of 24% and 23% and 2-year survival rates of 5% and 2%. The main toxicities consisted in emesis, alopecia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia, that were, except alopecia, significantly more severe in the CarboMIP arm. Our trial failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in response or survival when patients with metastatic NSCLC were treated, in addition to ifosfamide and mitomycin, by combination of moderate dosages of cisplatin and carboplatin instead of moderate dosage of cisplatin alone. The results support the use of a moderate dose (50 mg m(-2)) of cisplatin in combination with ifosfamide and mitomycin for the chemotherapy of this disease.

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

PURPOSE

New effective chemotherapy is needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Paclitaxel administered as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be a potentially new useful agent for the treatment of NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 1995 and April 1996, 414 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to received either a control arm of high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or a combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) every 21 days.

RESULTS

Compared with the cisplatin-only arm, there was a 9% improvement (95% confidence interval, 0% to 19%) in overall response rate for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (17% v 26%, respectively; P=.028). Median time to progression was 2.7 and 4.1 months in the control and paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, respectively (P=.026). The study, however, failed to show a significant improvement in median survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (8.6 months in the control arm v 8.1 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, P=.862). There was more hematotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and arthralgia/myalgia on the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, whereas the high-dose cisplatin arm produced more ototoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and nephrotoxicity. Quality of life (QOL) was similar overall between the two arms.

CONCLUSION

This large randomized phase III trial failed to show a significant improvement in survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination compared with high-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination did produce a better clinical response, resulting in an increased time to progression while providing a similar QOL.

Clinical benefit from palliative chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer extends to the elderly and those with poor prognostic factors

The intention of this study was to identify the pretreatment characteristics predicting for the survival, objective response and symptom relief in patients with non-resectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) managed in the Lung Unit at the Royal Marsden Hospital. This analysis included 290 patients with advanced NSCLC generally treated with a cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen in one of a series of trials. Thirty-seven pretreatment variables, response and survival data were collected prospectively and analysed using univariate and multivariate methods. By multivariate analysis performance status, disease extent and pattern of metastases along with certain biochemical features were influential independent variables for survival, objective and symptom response. Older age was positively associated with objective response (P = 0.04). When the independent factors for symptom response were used to group patients into prognostic categories, 30-48% of patients with an adverse set of factors had symptom relief. Similarly using the relative risk of death to subgroup the patient population, 54% of patients at high risk of death (greater than 8.0), with a median survival of 2.5 months, had symptom relief. The data are consistent with other studies in identifying the pretreatment factors predicting for survival and objective response. Additionally, older age is positively associated with objective response and the majority of patients with the worst prognosis have symptom relief from treatment with chemotherapy.

Single agent versus combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: a meta-analysis of response, toxicity, and survival

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of single agent versus combination chemotherapy on response rate, toxicity, and survival of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).

METHODS

The authors reviewed randomized clinical trials published in the medical literature and the reference lists of relevant articles. Objective response rate, survival at 6 and 12 months, and the incidence of treatment-related death were compared among all patients receiving single agent chemotherapy and those receiving combination chemotherapy. A subgroup analysis for all outcomes was conducted for 10 trials published between 1989 and 1996 that used a platinum analogue or vinorelbine as the single agent arm.

RESULTS

The authors identified 38 potentially eligible trials, 25 of which (with a total of 5156 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, combination chemotherapy produced a nearly 2-fold increase in response rate compared with single agent chemotherapy (response rate [RR], 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-2.42). However, combination chemotherapy also increased toxicity significantly, including a 3.6-fold increase in the risk of treatment-related death (RR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.8-6.7). Survival at 6 months (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19) and 12 months (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.45) was modestly superior with combination chemotherapy when all trials are included. However, when a platinum analogue or vinorelbine are used as single agents, this difference was no longer statistically significant at 6 months (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.92-1.15) or at 12 months (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy increased objective response and toxicity rates compared with single-agent chemotherapy. Survival was prolonged only modestly with combination chemotherapy but not significantly so when more active single agents were used.

Single-agent gemcitabine versus cisplatin-etoposide: early results of a randomised phase II study in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

This randomised study was designed to determine the response rate survival and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine and cisplatin-etoposide in chemo-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 was given as a 30 min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small-cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod PS 0-2; no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases.

RESULTS

146 patients were enrolled, 71 patients on gemcitabine and 75 patients on cisplatin-etoposide. Patient characteristics were well matched across both arms. Sixty-six gemcitabine patients and 72 cisplatin-etoposide patients were evaluable. Partial responses were seen in 12 gemcitabine patients (18.2%; 95% CI: 9.8-30) and 11 cisplatin-etoposide patients (15.3%; 95% CI: 7.9-25.7). Early indications show no statistical differences between the two treatments with respect to time to disease progression or survival. Haematological and laboratory toxicity were moderate and manageable. However, hospitalisation because of neutropenic fever was required for 6 (8%) cisplatin-etoposide patients but not for any gemcitabine patients. Non-haematological toxicity was more pronounced with significant differences in nausea and vomiting (grade 3 and 4: 11% gemcitabine vs. 29% cisplatin-etoposide; despite the allowance for 5-HT3 antiemetics during the first cycle of cisplatin-etoposide), and alopecia (grade 3 and 4:3% gemcitabine vs. 62% cisplatin-etoposide).

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomised study, single-agent gemcitabine was at least as active but better tolerated than the combination cisplatin-etoposide.

Gender influence on weight-loss pattern and survival of nonsmall cell lung carcinoma patients

BACKGROUND

Gender has recently emerged as a discriminating factor in nonsmall lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patient outcome. Since the potential for interaction among established prognostic factors and gender in this common disease has not been explored, the authors evaluated the role of gender and weight-loss pattern in predicting clinical outcome in a balanced population of men and women presenting with NSCLC.

METHODS

From a tumor registry population of 368 NSCLC patients, a gender-balanced sample of 152 cases was randomly selected for review, using prospective inclusion criteria. Study parameters were age, race, tobacco and alcohol history, gender, weight-loss pattern, histology, TNM stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and therapy. Influences of study variables on Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were subsequently determined using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Overall median survival after diagnosis was significantly shorter for men with NSCLC than for women with the disease (40 vs. 78 weeks, P = 0.001). Men lost significantly more weight over their disease course than women (12.2 vs. 5.4 pounds, P = 0.006) and experienced an eightfold faster rate of initial weight loss (0.25 vs. 0.03 pounds per week, P = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the strongest independent predictors of NSCLC patient survival were stage of disease, initial weight-loss rate, and gender (all P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that weight loss may play a role in mediating gender-related differences in NSCLC patient survival and provide an impetus for further studies of gender influence on cancer outcome.

Determinants of myelosuppression in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

Data on 16 potential risk factors for myelosuppression were assessed in 134 patients who received either vindesine and cisplatin (VP) or mitomycin C, vindesine and cisplatin (MVP) for inoperable stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer in a randomized trial. Determinant factors for myelosuppression were evaluated by using univariate analysis and the logistic regression model. Recursive partitioning and amalgamation (RPA) was also used to define patient subgroups frequently suffering from severe bone marrow toxicity. Overall, 33 (25%) of 134 patients experienced at least one episode of grade 4 leukopenia. In univariate analysis, age, body surface area, serum creatinine, and pretreatment hemoglobin concentration were associated with severe leukopenia. A multivariate analysis using the logistic regression method showed that only raised creatinine level was an independent predictor for grade 4 leukopenia (P = 0.049). The RPA model generated three distinct subgroups based on age, body surface area and regimen. The three subgroups were distinguished by the frequency of severe (grade 4) leukopenia (50%, 25%, and 2.4%, respectively) (P < 0.001). Grade 4 leukopenia occurred more frequently in patients in class 3 (age > or = 65 years and treatment with MVP). The RPA model was useful in identifying the risk factors for myelosuppression induced by cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and in defining patient subgroups with elevated risk of toxicity.

A randomized study of high-dose split course radiotherapy preceded by high-dose chemotherapy versus high-dose radiotherapy only in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. An EORTC Lung Cancer Cooperative Group trial

BACKGROUND

The treatment results of radiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer are very poor. Several phase II studies showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy was feasible in this patient group and suggested that treatment outcome might improve. A randomized phase II study was performed addressing the response rate and morbidity of high-dose split course radiotherapy (RT) versus the same radiotherapy preceded by high-dose chemotherapy (CT) in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy eligible patients were randomized in this study. CT consisted of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 days 1 and 22, and vindesine 3 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 22 and 29. Radiotherapy started on day 43 in the combined arm and immediately in the RT-only arm. The primary tumour and the regional nodes were treated by 30 Gy/10 fractions/2 weeks and after the split by a second course of 25 Gy/10 fractions/2 weeks. In the combined arm a third CT cycle was planned during the split between RT courses.

RESULTS

In the CT + RT arm 34 patients were evaluable for response and toxicity and 30 patients in the RT only arm. After completion of treatment 7 patients had a complete response (2 in the CT plus RT arm, 5 in the RT alone arm) and 26 patients a partial response (13 in the CT plus RT arm, 13 in the RT alone arm) for an overall response rate of 52% (95% CI 39%-65%). Acute toxicity was worse in the combined treatment arm with grade 4 leucocytopenia in 8 patients and thrombocytopenia grade 4 in one patient. Three patients had reversible renal toxicity grade 2. There was one toxic death in the RT plus CT arm. There was no enhancement of acute or late radiation pulmonary or oesophageal toxicity. Time to progressive disease (median 30 vs. 35 weeks) and overall survival time (median 12 months) were equal in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

High-dose radiotherapy preceded by high-dose chemotherapy was more toxic than radiotherapy alone and did not result in this study in any benefit in terms of response rate, time to progressive disease and overall survival.

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.

Therapy of non-small cell lung cancer

A few regimens can give clinical responses and more prolonged survival to the patients with NSCLC who respond. In addition, there is often a suppression of morbid symptoms in those patients. This is the situation that can be obtained in about 30% of the treated patients and, in addition, the treatment corresponds, from the psychological point of view, to what the patient expects. The toxicity of chemotherapy and the resulting morbidity and mortality can, to a large extent, be controlled by a close clinical follow-up and the use of various techniques of supportive care. Such a surveillance of patients probably explains why administration of planned therapy can be less expensive than palliative care.

Vinorelbine versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to assess the possible benefit of the combination vinorelbine (NVB)-cisplatin (DDP) in comparison with NVB alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), not treated previously. It also involved confirmation of the efficacy of vinorelbine as monotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this phase III trial, 231 eligible patients were stratified by centre and randomized to receive either NVB alone, 30 mg/m2/week or the combination of NVB 30 mg/m2/week and DDP 80 mg/m2/3 weeks. Patients were to be treated for a minimum of 6 weeks, with the first response assessment performed 9 weeks after the beginning of treatment.

RESULTS

The two groups differed in terms of objective response rates (16% and 43%, respectively, p = 0.0001) and median time to progression (10 weeks and 20 weeks, p = 0.0001). However, the difference was not significant for median survival time (32 weeks, 33 weeks, p = 0.48). The addition of DDP resulted in an increase in toxicity, in particular renal, hematologic, neurologic and emetic. This toxicity led to treatment discontinuation in 8% and 21% of patients, respectively. Respectively 3% and 13% of patients stopped treatment early during objective response (toxicity or refusal).

CONCLUSIONS

The NVB-DDP combination increased objective response rates and time to progression in comparison with NVB alone, but did not influence the survival of patients. The activity of NVB in the treatment of advanced NSCLC was confirmed.

Is there a role for vindesine in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer?

Vindesine is a semisynthetic derivative of vinblastine which has been evaluated in clinical studies since the late 1970's. The literature on vindesine in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer has been reviewed and all aspects of vindesine treatment in this disease has been covered. It is concluded that vindesine as a single agent yields a response rate of 18% based on the treatment of 295 patients included in phase II trials (95% confidence limits 13%-22%). No difference was observed among the three major histologic types of non-small cell lung cancer. In phase III trials, the response rate and confidence limits are at a similar level. Combination chemotherapy including vindesine plus cisplatin ranks among the most active treatments in non-small cell lung cancer and is as active as etoposide plus cisplatin, both with respect to response rate and survival. It has not been documented that the addition of one or two other drugs to the combination of vindesine yields an increase in survival. When best supportive care was compared with a combination of vindesine plus cisplatin, the group with chemotherapy was attributed a survival advantage in all three studies published, and the difference was statistically significant in two of these three studies. Thus, vindesine has a well documented activity in non-small cell lung cancer and ranks among the most active single agents in this disease. Vindesine is also part of several active combination chemotherapies among which the combination of vindesine plus cisplatin is particularly interesting, because it has been repeatedly shown to prolong survival as compared to supportive care. Especially this latter point leads to the conclusion that there is a role for vindesine in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. However, the concept of chemotherapy in this disease remains investigational even though the advances seen in recent years clearly merit further studies.