Docetaxel vs. vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer: a hellenic oncology research group randomized phase III study.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: This study compared front-line treatment with docetaxel or vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with inoperable stage IIIB and stage IV NSCLC who were > 65 years of age with performance status (PS) of 0-2 were enrolled. Patients were assigned to receive either docetaxel 38 mg/m(2) or vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) by intravenous (I.V.) infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: One hundred thirty elderly patients were enrolled in the study (docetaxel n = 66 and vinorelbine n = 64 patients). The objective response rate was 12.1% and 14.1% in patients treated with docetaxel and vinorelbine, respectively (2P = .799). The median time to tumor progression (TTP) was 2.33 and 1.9 months (2P = .298) and the median overall survival (OS) was 6.07 and 3.87 months (2P = .090) in the docetaxel and vinorelbine arms, respectively. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 4.5% and 29.7% of patients in the docetaxel arm and vinorelbine arm, respectively (2P < .001). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 1.5% and 1.6% of patients in the docetaxel arm and the vinorelbine arm, respectively (2P = .950) and the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was more frequent in patients treated with vinorelbine (37.1% vs. 22.5%; 2P < .001). There were no deaths from toxicity. Nonhematologic toxicity was mild. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel has an efficacy comparable to that of vinorelbine as first-line treatment in elderly patients with NSCLC and has an acceptable toxicity profile. The trial was closed prematurely because of low accrual, thus limiting the strength of the conclusions derived.

A randomized phase III study of the docetaxel/carboplatin combination versus docetaxel single-agent as second line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To compare the activity and toxicity of docetaxel/carboplatin (DC) doublet vs single agent docetaxel (D) as second-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients pre-treated with front-line platinum-free regimens, were randomized to receive either docetaxel/carboplatin (DC), (docetaxel 50 mg/m2; carboplatin AUC4; both drugs administered on days 1 and 15) or docetaxel single-agent (D), (docetaxel 50 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15). RESULTS: Response rate was similar between the two arms (DC vs D: 10.4% vs 7.7%; p = 0.764). After a median follow-up time of 28.0 months for DC arm and 34.5 months for D arm, progression free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in the DC arm (DC vs D:3.33 months vs 2.60 months; p-value = 0.012), while no significant difference was observed in terms of overall survival (OS) (DC vs D: 10.3 months vs 7.70 months; p-value = 0.550). Chemotherapy was well-tolerated and grade III/IV toxicities were relatively infrequent. No toxic deaths were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study has not achieved its primary objective of significant OS prolongation with docetaxel/carboplatin combination over single-agent docetaxel in patients who had not received front-line docetaxel; however, the docetaxel/carboplatin combination was associated with a significant clinical benefit in terms of PFS.

Phase III study comparing sequential versus alternate administration of cisplatin-etoposide and topotecan as first-line treatment in small cell lung cancer.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerance of sequential versus alternate front-line administration of cisplatin-etoposide (PE) and topotecan (T) in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either 4 cycles PE (cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1 and etoposide100 mg/m(2)/d i.v. days 1-3 every 21 days) followed by 4 cycles T (1.5 mg/m(2)/d i.v. days 1-5 every 21 days) (arm A, 183 patients) or the same regimens using an alternate sequence (arm B, 181 patients). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in terms of compliance with treatment, overall response rates (51.4% vs. 55.2%; p=0.458), median response duration (4.3 vs. 5.2 months; p=0.780), median time to tumour progression (5.7 vs. 6.4 months; p=0.494), median overall survival (10.9 vs. 9.8 months; p=0.186) and 1-year survival (43.8% vs. 36.5%) between the two arms. The incidence of severe grade 3-4 haematological and grade 2-4 non-haematological (asthenia, mucositis, diarrhoea and neurotoxicity) toxicity was comparable between the two arms. CONCLUSION: The comparison of sequential versus alternate administration of cisplatin-etoposide and topotecan as front-line treatment of patients with extensive stage SCLC revealed no clinically meaningful differences in terms of efficacy and tolerance.

Non-platinum-based first-line followed by platinum-based second-line chemotherapy or the reverse sequence in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis by the lung cancer group of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group.

BACKGROUND: Non-platinum-containing regimens have been proposed as alternatives to platinum-based doublets in the first-line treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, conflicting results about their equivalence have been reported. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients enrolled in randomized controlled first-line trials conducted by the Hellenic Oncology Research Group from February 1997 to September 2006. The outcome of patients treated with first-line non-platinum-based chemotherapy who received platinum-based chemotherapy upon progression (cohort A) or platinum-based first-line chemotherapy followed by non-platinum-containing second-line chemotherapy (cohort B) was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty-seven patients were identified in cohort A, and 123 in cohort B. Median follow-up time was 12.5 and 15.7 months for cohorts A and B. A significantly higher response rate and time to tumor progression (TTP) was recorded for patients treated with platinum-based compared to those receiving non-platinum-based first-line chemotherapy (45.5 vs. 21.3%, p < 0.0001 and 5.8 vs. 3.1 months, p= 0.002, respectively). Platinum-based regimens administered as second-line treatment resulted in a 13.1% response rate. TTP for second-line chemotherapy did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. Median overall survival was 13.3 and 15.7 months for cohorts A and B (p = 0.538). CONCLUSION: Both sequences resulted in similar efficacy in terms of overall survival. Encouraging median survival was achieved for selected patients with NSCLC who received both first- and second-line chemotherapy.

A multicenter randomized phase II study of the irinotecan/gemcitabine doublet versus irinotecan monotherapy in previously treated patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety profile of irinotecan (I) versus the combination of irinotecan/gemcitabine (IG) as second-line treatment of patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). TREATMENT: Patients with SCLC who have received at least one chemotherapy regimen were randomized to receive either the IG regimen (gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) intravenous (i.v.) on days 1 and 8 and irinotecan 300mg/m(2) i.v. on day 8) or I monotherapy (300mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1) both every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled in the IG and 31 in the I arm. Due to slow accrual an early closure of the study was decided. Response rate was significantly higher in the IG than in I arm (23.7% vs. 0%; p=0.004). The median time to progression (TTP) was 3.9 months (range: 0.5-14.5 months; 95% CI: 1.4-6.6) and 1.7 months (range: 0.5-9.9 months; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3) (p=0.010) for the IG and I arms, respectively. There was no difference in terms of median overall survival between the two arms (6.8 months and 4.6 months for the IG and I arm, respectively). The most frequent toxicities were grade III/IV neutropenia and grade III/IV diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Although the IG regimen seems to be more active than the I monotherapy, the premature closure of the study prevents the drawing of definitive conclusions.

Pooled analysis of elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with front line docetaxel/gemcitabine regimen: the Hellenic Oncology Research Group experience.

INTRODUCTION: Thirty to 40% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are older than 70 years and rarely are enrolled in clinical trials. Moreover, in clinical practice, > 75% of patients older than 65 years with metastatic NSCLC never receive any kind of chemotherapy. PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the impact of age on efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with the docetaxel-gemcitabine combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pooled data from six clinical trials of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group were analyzed. According to their age, patients were divided into two groups: those with age < 70 years and those with > or = 70 years. RESULTS: A total of 858 patients were included in this analysis. Six hundred sixty-six (77.6%) patients were younger than 70 years, whereas 192 (22.4%) patients where > or = 70-year-old. Overall response rate was 30.3% and 30.2% for patients < 70 years and > or = 70 years, respectively (p = 0.974). The median time to tumor progression was 4.1 and 4.5 months for patients < 70 years and > or = 70 years, respectively (p = 0.948). Median overall survival was 9.9 and 9.2 months for patients < 70 and > or = 70, respectively (p = 0.117). The multivariate analysis revealed performance status (PS) (p = 0.0001) and stage (p = 0.0001) as independent factors with significant impact on the hazard of death. Chemotherapy was well tolerated, but the incidence of grade III/IV mucositis was significantly higher in elderly patients (0.2% versus 1.5% for patients < 70 versus > or = 70 years, respectively; p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The docetaxel/gemcitabine regimen has a comparable efficacy and tolerance in young (< 70 years) and elderly (> or = 70 years) patients.

Docetaxel versus docetaxel plus gemcitabine as front-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized, multicenter phase III trial.

To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non-small cell lung (NSCLC) treated with either docetaxel plus gemcitabine or single-agent docetaxel. Chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DG [n=157; gemcitabine 1100mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8], docetaxel 75mg/m(2) on day 8 or D [n=155; docetaxel 100mg/m(2) on day 1] every 3 weeks. A total of 312 patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. A predefined interim intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly longer median OS (p=0.037) in favor of the DG regimen (9.4 months versus 8.3 months for DG and D regimens, respectively), resulting in the premature termination of the study. The DG regimen was also associated with a significantly higher response rate compared to D (26.8% versus 11.6%, p<0.001). TTP were 3.5 and 2.3 months for the DG and D regimen, respectively (p=0.054). Although there were two treatment-related deaths in the DG arm, the toxicity profiles of the two regimens were comparable. The DG regimen was associated with a significantly better quality of life. The efficacy of the docetaxel plus gemcitabine combination is superior to single-agent docetaxel in chemonaive patients with advanced NSCLC.

A multicenter phase II study of sequential vinorelbine and cisplatin followed by docetaxel and gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the activity and toxicity of the sequential administration of vinorelbine/cisplatin (VC regimen) followed by the docetaxel/gemcitabine (DG regimen) combination in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND TREATMENT: Fifty-nine previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC received three cycles of cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (day 1), and vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; VC regimen), followed by six cycles of docetaxel (65 mg/m(2), day 1) and gemcitabine (1,500 mg/m(2), day 1), (DG regimen) every 2 weeks. RESULTS: One (1.7%) complete and 26 (44.1%) partial responses were achieved for an overall response rate of 45.8% (95% CI 33.05-58.48%); 12 (20.3%) patients had stable disease and 20 (33.9%) progressive disease. The median time to progression was 5.3 months, the median survival time 12.5 months and the 1-year survival rate 51%. The main toxicity was grade III/IV neutropenia occurring in 25.5% of patients; all other hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities were relatively infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: The sequential administration of VC and DG regimens was well tolerated and active against advanced NSCLC and merits to be further evaluated against a single doublet.

Sequential versus alternating administration of cisplatin/etoposide and topotecan as first-line treatment in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: preliminary results of a Phase III Trial of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group.

BACKGROUND: This trial was designed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of sequential versus alternating administration of cisplatin/etoposide and topotecan in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred eighty-four chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized between the sequential therapy arm (n=142; 4 cycles of cisplatin 75 mg/m2 intravenously [I.V.] on day 1 with etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day I.V. on days 1-3 followed by 4 cycles of topotecan 1.5 mg/m2 per day I.V. on days 1-5) and the alternating arm (n=142; same doses of cisplatin/etoposide on cycles 1, 3, 5, and 7 and topotecan on cycles 2, 4, 6, and 8). Treatment cycles for both regimens were administered every 3 weeks. RESULTS: At this preliminary analysis, no statistically significant difference in the overall response rate, duration of response, time to disease progression, or median survival was observed between the 2 arms. A total of 756 cycles of the sequential therapy and 830 cycles of the alternating therapy were administered, with a median numbers of 6 and 7 cycles per patient, respectively. Topotecan was administered in 85 patients on the sequential arm and 132 patients on the alternating arm. Dose reductions for toxicity were similar in both arms. Grade 3/4 toxicities in the sequential and alternating arms, respectively, included neutropenia (51% and 52%; P=NS), anemia (12% and 11%; P=NS), febrile neutropenia (7% and 9%; P=NS), thrombocytopenia (19% and 20%; P=NS), and asthenia (8% and 2%; P=0.02). There were 4 toxicity-related deaths in the sequential arm versus 3 in the alternating arm. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary conclusion is that the sequential and alternating regimens resulted in comparable activity and tolerability in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage SCLC.

Front-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with irinotecan and docetaxel: a multicentre phase II study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of the irinotecan plus docetaxel combination in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with irinotecan 200mg/m2 followed by docetaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (150 microg/m2) support from day 2 to 9. Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: A partial response was achieved in 9 (23%; 95% confidence interval 9.85-36.3%) patients; stable and progressive disease were observed in 10 (25.6%) and 20 (51.4%) patients, respectively. The median duration of response was 7.1 months and the median time to tumor progression 3 months. The median survival time was 10.8 months and the 1-year survival 42.2%. Four (10.3%) patients developed grade 4 neutropenia and all but one were complicated with fever; there was no treatment-related death. Nine (23.1%) patients developed grade 3 or 4 diarrhea while grade 2 or 3 fatigue occurred in nine (23.1%), and grade 3 mucositis in two (2.6%). CONCLUSION: The combination of irinotecan/docetaxel is a relatively active non-platinum-based chemotherapy regimen with manageable toxicity, which could be given in an outpatient basis; this regimen merits to be further studied in order to improve its tolerance and evaluate its clinical relevance in patients who can not tolerate platinum-based doublets.

Combination of vinorelbine plus gemcitabine in previously treated patients with small cell lung cancer: a multicentre phase II study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the gemcitabine plus vinorelbine combination in pretreated patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five pretreated patients (median age 59 years, PS: 0--1 in 97% and 2 in 3%) were treated with gemcitabine (1100 mg/m(2)) and vinorelbine (25mg/m(2)) on d1 and d8 every 3 weeks. Seven (20%) patients were treated with two prior regimens and 20 (57%) were refractory to front-line chemotherapy. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis two (6%) partial responses (PR) were observed with a duration of 5.6 and 11.1 months. Stable disease (SD) was documented in 8 (23%) patients and progressive disease (PD) in 25 (71%). The overall median survival was 4.5 and the 6 months survival rate was 42.6%. Grades 3--4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in 25 and 14% of the patients, respectively. Non-hematological toxicity consisted of grade 2 neurotoxicity occurring in 14% of the patients and grades 2--3 fatigue in 17%. Febrile neutropenia was observed in three (8.6%) patients and one of them died from sepsis. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine cannot be considered as an effective salvage treatment in pretreated patients with SCLC.

Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE To compare the activity and tolerability of docetaxel/gemcitabine (DG) and vinorelbine/cisplatin (VC) combinations in chemotherapy-naive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DG (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) [days 1 and 8] plus docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) [day 8]) or VC (vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) [days 1 and 8] plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) [day 8]) and prophylactic recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (150 microg/m(2) subcutaneously [day 9 through 15]) every 3 weeks. Results A total of 413 randomly assigned patients were analyzed for response and toxicity (DG, n = 197; VC, n = 192). Median survival was 9.0 and 9.7 months (P = .965) for DG and VC arms, respectively; the corresponding 1-year survival rates were 34.3% and 40.8%, respectively. Overall response rate was 30% (95% CI, 23.9% to 36.3%) and 39.2% (95% CI, 32.5% to 45.9%; P = .053) for DG and VC, respectively. Toxicity was as follows (DG v VC): grade 2 to 4 anemia, 34% v 55% (P = .0001); grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, 16% v 37% (P = .0001); febrile neutropenia, 6% v 11% (P = .009); and grade 3 to 4 nausea and vomiting, 1% v 15% (P = .003). Nephrotoxicity occurred in 8% and ototoxicity in 2% of VC-treated patients. There were five and six treatment-related deaths in the DG and VC arms, respectively. Quality of life was improved in DG but not in VC patients. CONCLUSION Although the two regimens produced comparable overall survival, the DG regimen had a better toxicity profile. Therefore, DG could be used in the first-line setting of advanced NSCLC, especially for patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin.

Docetaxel versus docetaxel plus cisplatin as front-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, multicenter phase III trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) or docetaxel (D) alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either DC (n = 167; docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 2, and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) 150 microg/m(2)/d on days 3 to 9) or D (n = 152; 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 without rhG-CSF) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The overall response rates were 36.5% for DC (three complete responses and 58 partial responses) and 21.7% for D (one complete response and 32 partial responses; P =.004). The median OS was 10.5 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) and 8.0 months (range, 0.5 to 41 months) for DC and D, respectively (P =.200). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 44% and 19% for DC and 43% and 15% for D, respectively. Median times to tumor progression were 4.0 and 2.5 months for DC and D, respectively (P =.580). Grade 2/3 anemia was significantly higher with DC than with D (33% v 16%; P =.0001). Fifteen (9%) DC and 12 (8%) D patients developed febrile neutropenia. Grade 3/4 nausea/vomiting (P =.0001), diarrhea (P =.007), neurotoxicity (P =.017), and nephroroxicity (P =.006) were significantly more common with DC than with D. There were five treatment-related deaths in the DC group and one in the D (P =.098). CONCLUSION: DC regimen resulted in a higher response rate but without improvement in median time to tumor progression or OS compared with D. D could be a reasonable front-line chemotherapy for patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin.