Phase I study of ifosfamide plus high-dose epirubicin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Anthracyclines in non-small cell lung cancer

The literature concerning the use of anthracyclines in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is reviewed here. Overall, the activity of doxorubicin (DOXO) is unsatisfactory, whereas, the analogous epidoxorubicin (EPI) yields a 30% response rate (RR) when administered at intermediate-high doses. All active drugs, including EPI, should be considered to design the most active combination. Mainly, in the setting, in which an objective response is very important, for instance the neo-adjuvant pre-operatory setting.

Phase II study of tamoxifen, ifosfamide, epirubicin and cisplatin combination chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer failing previous chemotherapy

We conducted a phase II study of tamoxifen, ifosfamide, epirubicin, and cisplatin (TIEP) chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous chemotherapy, in order to assess the response and toxicity of TIEP. Between November 1997 and May 1999, 25 patients were treated. Twelve of the 25 patients (48%) had been previously treated with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. TIEP doses were tamoxifen 60 mg oral twice daily on days 1-3; ifosfamide 2.4 g/m(2) intravenous infusion (IV) 60 min with mesna on day 2; epirubicin 40 mg/m(2) IV bolus on day 2; and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) IV 60 min on day 2 every 4 weeks for up to six cycles. Seventy one cycles were given to 25 patients, with a median of three cycles (range one to six cycles). All patients were evaluable for toxicity profile and response rate. As expected, the major toxicity was myelosuppression. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 15 patients (60%) during treatment, as well as in 31% of the total courses. Febrile neutropenia occurred in two patients. No toxic death occurred in this study. Grade 3 thrombocytopenia occurred in five patients with five cycles. Toxicities other than myelosuppression were few and mild in severity. After two cycles of treatment, five of 25 patients (20%) had a partial response (95% confidence interval 4.3-35.7%). Among 12 patients previously treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, three patients (25%) achieved a partial response. The median time to disease progression was 4.9 months and median survival was 7.7 months. The response rate and median survival were better than in our previous study of salvage chemotherapy with ifosfamide, 5-FU, and leucovorin; and with ifosfamide, epirubicin, 5-FU, and leucovorin. In conclusion, TIEP appears to be an active combination regimen with an acceptable toxicity profile in Chinese patients with NSCLC who have failed previous chemotherapy.

A phase II trial of tamoxifen, ifosfamide, epirubicin, and cisplatin combination chemotherapy for inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer

A phase II trial of tamoxifen, ifosfamide, epirubicin, and cisplatin (TIEP) chemotherapy was conducted in patients with chemonaive inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to assess response and toxicity. From October 1997 to August 1998, 19 patients were treated. The treatment schema included tamoxifen 60 mg twice daily by mouth on days 1 to 3, ifosfamide 3 g/m2 intravenous infusion (IV) 60 minutes with mesna on day 2, epirubicin 50 mg/m2 IV bolus on day 2, and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 IV 60 minutes on day 2 every 4 weeks for up to six cycles. All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. The major toxicity was myelosuppression; grade 3 or 4 leukopenia or neutropenia occurred in 14 of 19 (73.7%) patients during treatment, and 6 patients (31.6%) experienced fever in association with the neutropenia; no toxic deaths occurred. Grade 3 anemia occurred in six patients (31.6%) during the treatment. Grade 3 or 4 nausea/vomiting occurred in only one patient. Toxicities other than neutropenia and anemia were minimal. After two cycles of treatment, 9 of 19 patients attained a partial response (47.4%, 95% confidence interval 24.9%-69.9%) in this study. The median time to disease progression was 6 months and median survival time was 12 months. We conclude that TIEP is an active combination regimen with an acceptable toxicity profile in Chinese patients with inoperable NSCLC.

Cisplatin and vinorelbine followed by ifosfamide plus epirubicin vs the opposite sequence in advanced unresectable stage III and metastatic stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized study of the Southern Italy Oncology Group (GOIM)

A multicentric, prospective phase III study was carried out with the aim of testing the so-called 'worst drug rule' hypothesis, which suggests the use of an effective but 'less active' regimen that first eradicates tumoral cells resistant to a second effective and 'more active' regimen. With respect to this hypothesis, we considered the cisplatin plus vinorelbine regimen (CCDP/VNR) as the more active regimen compared with the non-cisplatin-containing regimen of ifosfamide plus high-dose epirubicin (IFO/EPI). Thus, a randomized study was carried out to compare the sequencial strategy of three cycles of CDDP/VNR followed by three cycles of IFO/EPI with the opposite sequence in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. A total of 100 consecutive previously untreated patients with stage III-IV non-small-cell lung cancer were centrally randomized in two arms according to stage of disease and the performance status. Patients allocated to arm A received CDDP (100 mg m-2 on day 1) plus VNR (25 mg m-2 i.v. on days 1 and 8) every 21 days for three cycles (step 1) followed, after restaging, by three cycles of IFO (2.5 g m-2 with mesna on day 1) plus high-dose EPI (100 mg m-2 on day 1) every 21 days (step 2). Patients in arm B received the opposite sequence. Type and rates of objective response were evaluated after step 1 and step 2 in agreement with WHO criteria and an intent-to-treat analysis. Patients were also analysed for toxicity patterns, time to progression and survival. After the first three cycles (step 1), overall response rate (ORR), calculated according to an intent-to-treat analysis, was 47% and 21% for arm A and arm B respectively (P = 0.0112). ORR for stage III patients was 55% and 14% for arm A and B respectively (P = 0.0097). In stage IV patients ORR was higher in arm A than in arm B (42% vs 28%) but not statistically significant (P = 0.4). Clinical responses to the shift of chemotherapy (step 2) showed that no patient pretreated with CDDP/VNR and subsequently treated with IFO/EPI showed further response, whereas in the inverse sequence arm CDDP/VNR was able to induce 26% partial response (PR) rate in patients pretreated with IFO/EPI. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.037). The overall median time to progression (TTP) of arm A and arm B did not significantly differ (6 vs 4 months; P = 0.665). However, median TTP of stage III patients was, respectively, 7 months for arm A and only 3 months for arm B. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.049). Median overall survival (OS) was 9 and 7 months respectively for arm A and arm B. Despite this trend the difference was not significant (P = 0.328). Median OS of stage III patients showed a statistically significant advantage for arm A over arm B (13 vs 7 months, P = 0.03). In addition, no statistically significant difference in OS was recorded for stage IV patients (both arms 7 months, P = 0.526). Our data do not confirm Day's 'worst drug rule' hypothesis, at least in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with the above-mentioned regimens. The combination of CDDP and VNR seems more active, at least in terms of response rate, than the IFO/EPI, which performed poorly.