Paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide versus paclitaxel/topotecan for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network randomized, prospective phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the combination of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, http://www.bms.com) and topotecan (Hycamtin; Glaxo SmithKline, Philadelphia, http://www.gsk.com) with paclitaxel, carboplatin (Paraplatin; Bristol-Myers Squibb), and etoposide (Etopophos, VePesid; Bristol-Myers Squibb) in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase II trial, 120 patients were randomly allocated to receive either topotecan (1.5 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1, 2, and 3) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1) every 21 days orpaclitaxe l (200 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1), carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 6 i.v. day 1), and etoposide (50 mg/100 mg alternating daily by mouth days 1-10) every 21 days, each regimen for a maximum of eight cycles. The primary end points were objective response rate and time to progression. RESULTS: The paclitaxel-carboplatin-etoposide combination produced a significantly higher overall response rate (78% versus 48%), longer median time to progression (7.6 months versus 5.5 months), and greater number of patients free from progression at 1 year (14% versus 8%) compared with paclitaxel plus topotecan. There was no difference in overall survival. Toxicities were similar in the two treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The paclitaxel-carboplatin-etoposide combination produced a superior overall response rate and time to progression in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer compared with paclitaxel plus topotecan. The platinum compounds continue to be a necessary component of the initial therapy for these patients.

Carcinoma of unknown primary site: sequential treatment with paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide and gemcitabine/irinotecan: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the sequential administration of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Princeton, NJ), carboplatin (Paraplatin; Bristol-Myers Squibb), and oral etoposide (VePesid; Bristol-Myers Squibb) followed by gemcitabine (Gemzar; Eli Lilly; Indianapolis, IN) and irinotecan (Campostar; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; New York, NY) in the first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients were treated with sequential combination chemotherapy for a maximum of six cycles. All patients had relatively poor prognostic features. Fifty-nine patients had well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, 73 patients had poorly differentiated carcinoma, and 121 patients had performance status scores of 0 or 1. RESULTS: Thirty-three (30%) of 111 assessable patients (95% confidence interval 27%-33%) had objective responses to treatment (26 partial responses, seven complete responses). The combination of gemcitabine and irinotecan was associated with significantly less toxicity than the triple-drug regimen and improved the responses in several patients (10%). The response rates were similar in the two major histologic tumor types, but were lower for patients with liver-dominant tumors (13%) and higher for patients with lymph-node-dominant tumors (50%). The median progression-free survival time, median survival time, and actuarial survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 5.7 months, 9.1 months, 35%, and 16%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel/carboplatin/oral etoposide and gemcitabine/irinotecan is an active treatment for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site, but overall toxicities are greater than those seen with other combinations of new drugs and survival appears similar to that observed in 264 other patients treated in our four previous phase II trials. A better understanding of the biology of these heterogeneous tumors will likely lead to improved therapy for these patients.

Combination treatment with weekly docetaxel and gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in elderly patients and patients with poor performance status: results of a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network phase II trial.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of the combination of weekly docetaxel and gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are either elderly or have poor performance status (PS). Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received no previous chemotherapy and were = 70 years of age were eligible for this clinical trial. Patients < 70 years of age were also eligible if they had poor PS or were considered poor candidates for standard platinum-based combination chemotherapy regimens. All patients received chemotherapy with gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 and docetaxel 30 mg/m2, both drugs administered by 30-minute intravenous infusions on days 1, 8, and 15. Treatment courses were repeated every 28 days. Patients were reevaluated after completion of 2 treatment courses; responding patients continued treatment until disease progression or for a maximum of 6 courses. Between August 1999 and June 2000, 64 patients (73% with stage IV disease) were treated at 17 participating sites in the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network. Eighteen of 64 patients enrolled (28%) had objective response to treatment; an additional 25 patients (39%) had stable disease. Median survival was 7 months, with 1- and 2-year survival rates of 30% and 17%, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated by most patients. Grade 3/4 leukopenia occurred in 7 patients (11%), but no patient required hospitalization for neutropenia/fever. One patient developed fatal bilateral pneumonitis, which was possibly treatment-related. The combination of weekly docetaxel/gemcitabine is active and relatively well tolerated in most patients with advanced age or poor PS with advanced NSCLC. A randomized comparison of this regimen versus single-agent weekly docetaxel is in progress.

Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and vinorelbine in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer: a phase II trial of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer. Between March 1998 and February 1999, 30 patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer who had received treatment with one previous combination chemotherapy regimen entered this multicenter, community-based clinical trial. All patients had received previous platinum/etoposide combination chemotherapy; in addition, 12 patients had received paclitaxel as part of their first-line therapy. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 20 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Patients were reevaluated for response after two cycles of therapy; those with objective response or stable disease continued treatment for six courses or until disease progression. Three of 28 evaluable patients (10%) had partial responses to treatment. None of the 17 patients with refractory disease responded, while 3 of 12 patients (25%) with relapsed disease had partial responses. Median survival was 5 months. Treatment was generally well tolerated; myelosuppression was the major toxicity, but only two patients developed febrile neutropenia, and there were no treatment-related deaths. Non-hematologic toxicity was uncommon; alopecia did not occur with this regimen. The activity of gemcitabine and vinorelbine in patients with previously treated small cell lung cancer is modest and is limited to patients with relapsed (versus refractory) disease. In patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer, this regimen provides an additional treatment option, with decreased toxicity when compared to other second-line options. However, novel treatment approaches are necessary before substantial improvements in treating this patient population will be realized.

Prospective randomized study of four novel chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: a minnie pearl cancer research network trial.

BACKGROUND: The authors compared the toxicity, response rate, and progression free survival of four chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced (Stage IIIB and IV) nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 267 patients entered this randomized Phase II trial on one of four arms: paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine (Arm A); paclitaxel, carboplatin, and vinorelbine (Arm B); paclitaxel and gemcitabine (Arm C); and gemcitabine and vinorelbine (Arm D). Patient characteristics were similar in all treatment arms. At the time of tumor progression, patients were removed from study and were treated at the discretion of their physician. RESULTS: Patients received a median of four courses of chemotherapy in all arms, and there was no difference in the dose delivered. There were no statistical differences in response rates (range, 32-45%), median progression free survival (range, 4.9-6.6 months), or progression free survival at 1 year (range, 8-19%). Actuarial survival in all four arms was not different, with a median survival ranging from 8.7 months to 10.7 months and a 1-year survival rate of 38-44%. Each arm was compared with a historic control with a median survival of 8 months. Arm D (gemcitabine and vinorelbine) approached significance at the 0.05 level. CONCLUSIONS: Two-drug combinations containing the newer drugs without a platinum drug were less toxic than three-drug, platinum-based regimens. There were no significant differences in objective response rates or progression free survival when the four regimens were compared. The two-drug combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine was the least toxic and, thus, may be superior. A Phase III trial comparing combined gemcitabine and vinorelbine with combined paclitaxel, carboplatin, and gemcitabine is ongoing.

Gemcitabine, carboplatin, and paclitaxel for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the novel chemotherapy combination that includes gemcitabine, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in the treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty patients were treated with the following regimen, administered every 21 days for a planned four courses: gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8, carboplatin at an estimated area under the concentration-time curve of 5 mg min/mL i.v. on day 1, and paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1. After four courses, stable and responding patients were given weekly paclitaxel 70 mg/m(2) i.v. for 6 weeks for three 8-week courses. All patients had relatively poor prognostic features. Sixty-three patients had well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, 56 patients had poorly differentiated carcinoma, and 104 patients had performance status of 0 or 1. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (25%) of 113 assessable patients (95% confidence interval, 22% to 30%) had major objective responses to treatment. Response rates were similar in the two major histologic types. Response rate did not seem to be improved by continued therapy with weekly paclitaxel. The median progression-free survival time was 6 months. Median survival for the entire group was 9 months, and the actuarial survival at 1 and 2 years was 42% and 23%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine, carboplatin, and paclitaxel followed by weekly paclitaxel is an active and tolerable treatment for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. The survival seen in this poor-prognosis group of patients in this multicenter community-based trial is notable and similar to other taxane-based regimens for these patients. Study of additional combinations or sequences of newer drugs, as well as the exploration of targeted biologic agents for patients with an identified target in their tumors, is warranted.