Comparison of gemcitabine and carboplatin versus cisplatin and etoposide for patients with poor-prognosis small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The combination of cisplatin and etoposide (PE) has been a standard treatment for patients with poor-prognosis small cell lung cancer (SCLC). This non-inferiority design trial aimed to determine whether the combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) results in similar survival but is less toxic with better quality of life. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with SCLC with extensive disease or limited stage with poor prognostic factors were randomly assigned to six 3-weekly cycles of GC or PE. RESULTS: 241 patients (121 GC, 120 PE) were recruited, of which 216 (90%) had died. There was no difference in overall survival (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.32). Median survival with GC and PE was 8.0 and 8.1 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 5.9 months with GC and 6.3 months with PE. Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppressions were more frequent with GC (anaemia: 14% GC vs 2% PE; leucopenia: 32% GC vs 13% PE; thrombocytopenia: 22% GC vs 4% PE), but these were not associated with increased hospital admissions, infections or fatalities. Grade 2-3 alopecia (68% PE vs 17% GC) and nausea (43% PE vs 26% GC) were more frequent with PE. Patients given GC received more chemotherapy as outpatients (89% GC vs 66% PE of treatment cycles). In QoL questionnaires, more patients receiving PE reported being upset by hair loss (p = 0.004) and impaired cognitive functioning (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: GC is as effective as PE in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival and has a toxicity profile more acceptable to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 39679215.

Assessment of quality of life in the supportive care setting of the big lung trial in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The Big Lung Trial (BLT) was a large, pragmatic trial to evaluate the addition of chemotherapy to primary treatment (ie, surgery, radical radiotherapy, or supportive care) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the supportive care group, there was a small but significant survival benefit in patients treated with chemotherapy compared with supportive care alone (no chemotherapy). A substudy was undertaken to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) implications of the treatment options. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 (QLQ-C30) and LC17, and daily diary cards. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC17 were collected at 0, 6 to 8, 12, 18, and 24 weeks. Diary cards were completed during the first 12 weeks of the study. The primary end point was global QoL at 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients were randomly assigned: 138 to no chemotherapy and 135 to chemotherapy. There was no evidence of a large detrimental effect on QoL of chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in global QoL or physical/emotional functioning, fatigue and dyspnea, and pain were detected at 12 weeks. Higher rates of palliative radiotherapy in the no chemotherapy arm may have lessened differences in QoL. Global QoL, role functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, and constipation were prognostic indicators of survival at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: There were no important adverse effects of chemotherapy on QoL.

Phase II trial of vinorelbine and oxaliplatin as first-line therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

UNLABELLED: The incidence of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is increasing. Treatment options are limited, although recently published data have offered cause for optimism. We reported a response rate of 24% with low toxicity for single agent vinorelbine. Here we report a phase II trial of vinorelbine with oxaliplatin (VO) in patients with untreated MPM. Chemotherapy consisted of vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 of a 21-day-cycle, and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2), day 1. Treatment continued up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free and overall survival. Responses were assessed by modified RECIST criteria. Twenty-six patients were enrolled. There were six partial remissions, 17 patients with stable disease, and three patients with PD. Response rate was 23% (95% confidence interval 9-44%). Median number of cycles delivered was four. Progression-free survival from first treatment was 4.7 months, and overall survival was 8.8 months. One-year-survival was 27%. Toxicity (% of patients with at least one episode of grade 3 or 4 toxicity): neutropenia 18%, phlebitis 12%, malaise 12%, anorexia 12%, nausea and vomiting 12%, constipation 6%. Quality of life assessed by Rotterdam symptom checklist was associated with stabilization or improvement of psychological well-being and lung symptoms in the majority of patients, but deterioration in physical symptoms. CONCLUSION: VO has activity in MPM with most patients responding or having stable disease, although this doublet is associated with significant toxicity.

Gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized study of the London Lung Cancer Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III randomized trial compared two chemotherapy regimens, gemcitabine plus carboplatin and mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin, in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The regimens were compared with regard to effects on survival, response rates, toxicity, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had previously untreated stage IIIB or IV NSCLC suitable for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Randomly assigned patients were to receive four cycles, each at 3-week intervals, of carboplatin area under the curve of 5 on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GCa) or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3g/m(2), and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1 (MIC). RESULTS: Between February 1999 and August 2001, 422 patients (GCa, n = 212; MIC, n = 210) were randomly assigned in the United Kingdom. The majority of patients received the intended four cycles (GCa, 64%; MIC, 61%). There was a significant survival advantage for GCa compared with MIC (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0. 93; P = .008). Median survival was 10 months with GCa and 7.6 months with MIC (difference, 2.4 months; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.0), and 1-year survival was 40% with GCa and 30% with MIC (difference, 10%; 95% CI, 3% to 18%). Overall response rates were similar (42% for GCa v 41% for MIC; P = .84). More thrombocytopenia occurred with GCa (P = .03), but this was not associated with increased hospital admission or fatality. GCa caused less nausea, vomiting, constipation, and alopecia and was associated with fewer admissions for administration and better quality of life. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced NSCLC, GCa chemotherapy was shown to be a better-tolerated treatment that conferred a survival advantage over MIC.

Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life.

BACKGROUND: In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364). RESULTS: 65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival. CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices.

Chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: the surgical setting of the Big Lung Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) meta-analysis suggested a survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy when given in addition to surgery, radical radiotherapy or 'best supportive care'. However, it included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. The aim of the Big Lung Trial was therefore to run a large pragmatic trial to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis. METHODS: In the surgery setting, a total of 381 patients were randomised to chemotherapy (C, 192 patients) or no chemotherapy (NoC, 189 patients). C was three 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin/vindesine, mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin, mitomycin/vinblastine/cisplatin or vinorelbine/cisplatin. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was given before surgery in 3% of patients whilst 97% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Baseline characteristics were: median age 61 years, 69% male, 48% squamous cell, 93% WHO PS 0-1, 27% stage I, 38% stage II, and 34% stage III. Complete resection was achieved in approximately 95% of patients. In the C group, 13% received no chemotherapy, 21% one or two cycles, and 64% all three cycles of their prescribed chemotherapy (60% of the latter with no delays or modification). 30% had grade 3/4 toxicity, mainly haematological, nausea/vomiting and neutropenic fever, and six patients were reported as having a treatment-related death. 198 (52%) of patients have died, but there is currently no evidence of a benefit in overall survival to the C group: HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.77-1.35), P = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: This trial has failed to observe a survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy following complete resection of stage I-III NSCLC. However, the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are consistent with the previously reported meta-analysis and two large recently reported trials, which suggest a small survival benefit with cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Phase II trial of liposomal daunorubicin in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: To assess the response rate, toxicity and survival in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma treated with liposomal daunorubicin. The study design allowed for dose escalation pending toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Liposomal daunorubicin (DaunoXome, Nexstar, USA) 120 mg/m2 was administered every 21 days to a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients had to have histologically-proven malignant pleural mesothelioma. Patients were all chemotherapy-naïve with ECOG performance status 0-2. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were enrolled. There were no objective or symptomatic responses though nine patients (64%) had stable disease on therapy. Myelosuppression was the major toxicity with 9 of 11 patients evaluable for toxicity experiencing grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Other toxicities seen in at least 30% of patients included grade 3 infection and grade 2 nausea and vomiting. The median overall survival by intention-to-treat analysis was 6.1 months from the time of first treatment. The median duration of stable disease from time of first treatment for patients not progressing on therapy was 5.1 months. CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal daunorubicin 120 mg/m2 has no useful clinical activity in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Toxicity was substantial with most patients experiencing at least one episode of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Liposomal daunorubicin cannot be recommended for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

A phase II study of combined intravenous and subcutaneous interleukin-2 in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

A total of 29 previously untreated patients with histologically proven malignant pleural mesothelioma, with an ECOG score of < or = 2 and UICC stage I-II disease, were enrolled between May 1994 and October 1996. On days 1 and 2, 18 x 10(6) IU/day of rIL-2 was administered by continuous intravenous infusion, and 6 x 10(6) IU/day of rIL-2 by subcutaneous injection on days 5--20 inclusive of a 42-day cycle. Further treatment was administered if no radiological disease progression was demonstrated. A total of 29 patients were assessable for toxicity and 25 for response, and 49 cycles of IL-2 were administered with a median of one per patient (range, < 1-4). Toxicity included mild fever, nausea and vomiting, and skin rashes, < grade II. Three patients failed to complete one cycle of treatment because of toxicity and one died of disease before response evaluation. Two patients achieved a partial response (8%, 95% CI 1-26%) surviving 18.1 and 18.7 months from diagnosis. A total of 11 patients (44%, 95% CI 24-65%) with stable disease had a median survival of 13.6 months (range 6.5-33.8). The median survival was 8.6 months (range 3.7-34.5) for the 12 patients with progressive disease (48%, 95% CI 28-69%). This regimen of rIL-2 is well tolerated and shows limited activity in mesothelioma.

Phase II study of vinorelbine in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the response rate and impact on quality of life of vinorelbine given as cycles of 30 mg/m(2) weekly for 6 weeks to patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with histologically proven malignant pleural mesothelioma were enrolled (26 male patients and three female patients; median age, 58 years [range, 29 to 77 years]). Seventeen patients had epithelioid tumors, two had sarcomatoid tumors, and 10 had biphasic tumors. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group staging system was used: one patient had stage Ib disease, 10 had stage II disease, eight had stage III disease, and 10 had stage IV disease. Patients were treated with weekly injections of vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2). A cycle consisted of six weekly injections. The new guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors were used. Responses were measured by spiral computed tomography scan. RESULTS: All twenty-nine patients had measurable disease and were assessed for response. There were seven partial responses (24% [95% confidence interval, 10% to 44%]), 16 patients had stable disease (55%), and six patients had disease progression on therapy (21%). The median number of vinorelbine injections was 12 (range, 2 to 30). Quality-of-life analyses showed a benefit for vinorelbine therapy. CONCLUSION: Vinorelbine shows promise in the palliation of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. The relatively low toxicity of the drug suggests that trials of vinorelbine in combination with other agents should be feasible.

Recruitment of patients with lung cancer into a randomised clinical trial: experience at two centres. On behalf of the Big Lung Trial Steering Committee.

BACKGROUND: The entry of patients into randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in lung cancer is low. A study was undertaken to assess the reasons why patients with non-small cell lung cancer did not enter a trial involving randomisation to receive or not receive three courses of cisplatin based chemotherapy in addition to primary treatment by surgery, radiotherapy, or best supportive care. METHODS: The study was carried out in two large London institutions with a special interest in recruiting patients to lung cancer trials. Patients recently diagnosed as having non-small cell lung cancer were prospectively identified and followed to see whether they entered the RCT and, if not, to identify the main reasons why. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty eight patients newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer were identified between November 1995 and July 1998; 274 (39.8%) were deemed ineligible for the RCT for clinical reasons, most frequently their general condition rendering them unfit for chemotherapy. Another 161 (23.4%) were ineligible for logistical reasons-for example, they were discharged to centres not participating in the RCT or they were not considered for the trial at an appropriate time in their management. Of 253 potentially eligible patients, only 63 (24.9% of those eligible) agreed to enter the RCT and four entered another study. Of those who did not enter, 77 (41.4%) declined without stating a reason, 61 (32.8%) did not want chemotherapy, and only eight (4.3%) expressed a wish to have chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite considerable time and effort, the proportion of patients recruited was small (9.2%). Many seen were ineligible but, of 253 potentially eligible patients, 186 (73.5%) refused to enter the RCT.

Mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: effects on survival and quality of life.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. We describe the two largest reported, randomized, parallel trials designed to determine whether the addition of chemotherapy influences duration and quality of life in localized, unresectable (mitomycin, ifosfamide, cisplatin [MIC]1 trial) and extensive (MIC2 trial) disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ambulatory patients with NSCLC, aged 75 years or younger, with localized disease, were randomized in MIC1 to receive up to four cycles of chemotherapy (CT: mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3 g/m(2), and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2)) every 21 days, followed by radical radiotherapy (CT + RT) or radiotherapy (RT) alone. Extensive-stage patients were randomized in MIC2 to identical chemotherapy plus palliative care (CT + PC) or palliative care (PC) alone. Short-term change in quality of life (QOL) was assessed in a subgroup of patients. Data from the two trials were combined to allow multivariate and stratified survival analyses. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-seven eligible patients were randomized, 446 in MIC1 and 351 in MIC2. MIC CT improved survival in both trials (significantly in MIC2). The median survival time in MIC1 was 11.7 months (CT + RT) versus 9.7 months (RT alone) (P =.14); whereas in MIC2, median survival time was 6.7 months (CT + PC) compared with 4. 8 months (PC alone) (P =.03). QOL, assessed in 134 patients from start of trial to week 6, showed improvement with chemotherapy and deterioration with standard treatment. In the combined analysis of 797 randomized patients, the positive effect of MIC on survival was significant overall (P =.01) and after adjusting for prognostic factors (P =.01). CONCLUSION: MIC chemotherapy prolongs survival in unresectable NSCLC without compromising QOL.

Five-day oral etoposide treatment for advanced small-cell lung cancer: randomized comparison with intravenous chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Oral etoposide is an active single agent in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and is widely prescribed as first-line treatment as an alternative to intravenous combination chemotherapy in patients with extensive disease. PURPOSE: The intention of this study was to determine if the effects of oral etoposide therapy on survival and quality of life are equivalent to those of intravenous chemotherapy. METHODS: In a randomized trial of palliative treatment in advanced SCLC, oral etoposide (100 mg given twice daily for 5 days) was compared with intravenous chemotherapy consisting of alternating cycles of cisplatin and etoposide (PE) and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV). Six cycles of chemotherapy were administered every 21 days in both regimens. Symptom control and quality of life were measured with the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist and a daily diary card. In January 1996, after 155 patients had been randomly assigned from a projected intake of 365 patients, an independent Data Monitoring Committee examined the interim results. Survival was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the logrank test was used to compare treatments. For quality-of-life comparisons, average scores were calculated for each time point. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine any significant overall differences between treatments. For the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, separate analyses were done for each subset (psychological well-being, physical symptoms, lung cancer symptoms, treatment symptoms, activity, and quality of life). Response rates and toxicity scores were compared by using chi2. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Survival was inferior at 1 year in the oral etoposide group compared with intravenous therapy (9.8% for oral versus 19.3% for intravenous; difference = 9.5%; 95% confidence interval of difference = 0.3%-18.7%; P<.05), and there was a trend toward inferior overall survival. Median survival was 4.8 months for oral treatment and 5.9 months for intravenous therapy. Progression-free survival was worse in the oral etoposide arm (median = 3.6 months versus 5.6 months; P<.001), as well as overall response rate (32.9% versus 46.3%; P<.01). With the exception of acute nausea and vomiting associated with intravenous chemotherapy, all aspects of symptom control and quality of life were either the same or worse in the oral etoposide group. Study closure was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: These interim results show that this schedule of oral etoposide is inferior to intravenous chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced SCLC and should not be used as first-line treatment of this disease.

A randomised trial of low-dose/high-frequency chemotherapy as palliative treatment of poor-prognosis small-cell lung cancer: a Cancer research Campaign trial.

We report the results of a randomised trial in extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) of a novel approach to palliative chemotherapy. A widely used 3 weekly regimen was compared with the same drugs given at half the dose but twice the frequency with the same intended overall dose intensity (DI). A total of 167 patients defined as having extensive SCLC with adverse prognostic features were randomised to receive either a 3 weekly regimen of cisplatin 60 mg m-2 i.v. on day 1 and etoposide 120 mg m-2 i.v. on day 1 and 100 mg b.d. orally on days 2 and 3 alternating with cyclophosphamide 600 mg m-2 i.v., doxorubicin 50 mg m-2 i.v. and vincristine 2 mg i.v. all on day 1 for a maximum of six courses (3 weekly); or treatment with the same drugs but with each course consisting of half the 3 weekly dose given every 10 or 11 days for a maximum of 12 courses. In the 10/11 day regimen overall response rate was 58.9% (95% CI, 47.9-69.2%) with 12.8% complete responses (CR). For the 3 weekly treatment the overall response rate was 44.9% (95% CI, 35.0-55.5%) with 10.1% CR. Median survival was similar in the two arms at 6.4 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.3 months) and 5.8 months (95% CI, 4.0-6.6 months) respectively. Survival at 1 year was 9.9% (95% CI, 5.0-18.5%) and 8.9% (95% CI, 4.6-16.6%). The 95% CI for the difference in survival at 1 year is -7.09% to +9.09%. Haematological toxicity and treatment delays owing to infection were more frequent with the 10/11 day regimen but other toxicities were equal in both arms. Other aspects of quality of life were measured in a small representative cohort of patients using a daily diary card (DDC). There was a trend of improved quality of life on the 10/11 day arm, but there was little difference between the two treatments. The trial shows that a low-dose/high-frequency regimen with the same DI as conventionally scheduled chemotherapy gives similar response rates and survival. This and other modifications of the schedule may offer new approaches to palliative treatment of advanced cancer. However, in this trial there was no significant benefit in toxicity or other aspects of quality of life.

Assessment of 'quality of life' using a daily diary card in a randomised trial of chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using a daily diary-card within a multicentre randomised trial of treatment of small-cell lung cancer. The trial compared a weekly dose-intensive regimen with a 3-weekly conventional treatment in good prognosis patients, that is patients with limited disease or extensive disease with a good performance status (ECOG 0or 1) and alkaline phosphatase of less than one and a half times the upper limit of normal. The trial which has been previously reported detected no difference in response or survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Daily diary cards (DDCs) were collected for up to eight months from the first day of chemotherapy in a cohort of 75 patients at one centre. Percentages of scores over a specified level were calculated for each of the eight diary card questions and comparisons were made between treatment arms. RESULTS: During the period of chemotherapy compliance in completing DDCs was 72.5% in the weekly arm and 77.2% in the 3 weekly. Significantly worse scores were reported with weekly chemotherapy during this period for six of the eight parameters, namely: ;nausea, vomiting, happiness, appetite, general well-being and sleep. Recognised problems of QOL data collection, in particular, compliance, attrition and generalisability are highlighted by this study and are discussed in the paper. CONCLUSIONS: The QOL measurements indicate that 3 weekly chemotherapy is the preferred treatment. This study demonstrates that QOL measurements may be helpful in choosing between treatment alternatives where no difference in outcome is observed.