Randomized phase III trial comparing cisplatin-etoposide to carboplatin-paclitaxel in advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the regimen of carboplatin plus paclitaxel (investigational arm) versus the reference regimen of cisplatin plus etoposide for the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 369 patients were enrolled, 179 on arm A (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and etoposide 100 mg/m2) and 190 on arm B (carboplatin AUC=6 mg/ml min and paclitaxel 225 mg/m2), with cycles repeated every 3 weeks. The arms were well balanced with respect to age, performance status, weight loss, stage of disease and disease measurability. However, significantly more women were randomized to arm A than to arm B (P=0.039). RESULTS: The objective response rate (ORR) was 15% on arm A compared with 23% on arm B (P=0.061). Median survival time, time to progression and 1-year survival rates for arms A and B were 274 days and 233 days (P=0.086), 111 days and 121 days (P=0.877), and 37% and 32%, respectively. The most prevalent toxicities were neutropenia and leukopenia and they occurred at a higher rate in arm A than in arm B. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant survival advantage for carboplatin-paclitaxel compared with cisplatin-etoposide. However, there was an overall benefit in quality of life with the carboplatin-paclitaxel regimen.

Phase II randomized trial of vinorelbine and gemcitabine versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare quality of life and overall toxicity in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with vinorelbine-gemcitabine (VG) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (Taxol) (CP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 165 previously untreated patients were randomized to the two regimens. Quality of life was assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). Overall toxicity and secondary efficacy end points were evaluated by standard WHO criteria. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall quality of life between the two treatments. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, peripheral neuropathy, and alopecia, were more common in the CP arm, whereas constipation was more frequent in the VG arm. Response rates were 14.6% in the VG arm and 16.9% in the CP arm. Median survival times were 7.8 and 8.6 months, and 1 year survival rates were 38.4% and 31.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with VG experienced lower toxicity, but overall quality of life was similar in both arms. Efficacy seemed comparable between VG and CP. Our study shows that VG is a viable alternative to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Phase II trial of weekly docetaxel in second-line therapy for nonsmall cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a Phase II study to evaluate the activity and toxicity of weekly docetaxel in second-line therapy for nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with documented recurrent or refractory NSCLC, previously treated with no more than one chemotherapy regimen, were eligible if they had a performance status (PS) of 0-2, measurable or evaluable disease, and adequate organ function. Patients were treated with docetaxel 36 mg/m(2)/week for 6 consecutive weeks, administered intravenously with dexamethasone premedication. Cycles were repeated every 8 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled. One patient was ineligible because of uncontrolled brain metastases. Hematologic toxicity was minimal. Nonhematologic toxicities were modest except for diarrhea and cumulative fatigue. There were no treatment-related deaths. The overall response rate was 10% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-29%). The median survival time (MST) was 8.0 months. and the 1-year survival rate was 31% (95% CI, 17- 58%). Patients with PS 0-1 had a MST of 11.9 months with 1-year survival of 42%. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly docetaxel is very well tolerated as second-line therapy for NSCLC. The activity of this regimen appears to be comparable to the standard 3-week schedule. This regimen offers new opportunities for combination regimens, both as first- and second-line therapy for NSCLC.

Extranodal lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma (immunocytoma) presenting as small intestinal obstruction.

A 57-year-old woman presented with intermittent symptoms of intestinal obstruction. Workup provided nondiagnostic radiologic studies. An exploratory laparotomy revealed a segmental dilatation in the proximal ileum, which showed diffuse thickening of the intestinal wall. Microscopic examination of the affected area disclosed a diffuse transmural infiltrate composed of small lymphocytes, mature plasma cells, and lymphoplasmacytoid cells in different stages of maturation associated with extracellular periodic acid-Schiff-positive material. In addition, serum protein electrophoresis showed a monoclonal immunoglobulin M kappa paraprotein. Postoperative workup did not demonstrate evidence of systemic involvement. The morphologic features and immunohistochemical and molecular analyses were consistent with lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma (immunocytoma). We report an unusual case of primary extranodal immunocytoma involving the small intestine and discuss its clinicopathologic features.

Options in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a review and report on a phase II study of vinorelbine plus gemcitabine.

Although platinum-containing regimens prolong survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), toxicity remains substantial. There is a clear need for a nonplatinum-based regimen which is active, well tolerated, and suitable for outpatient administration. Vinorelbine and gemcitabine have different mechanisms of action and are both active in NSCLC. A phase II trial was undertaken to evaluate activity and tolerability when the two drugs were administered as a first-line combination regimen in 32 patients with stage IIIB/IV disease. Gemcitabine was administered at a dose of 1,000-1,250 mg/m2 together with vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. The overall response rate was 25%, median survival 8.3 months and one-year survival rate 38% (48% in patients of performance status 0-1). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in 38% of 148 treatment cycles, however, thrombocytopenia was infrequent and there was no grade 3/4 anemia. Nonhematological toxicity was minimal. The response and survival rates experienced were comparable with standard platinum-based combinations. Ongoing randomized trials will further define the role of the vinorelbine/gemcitabine combination in advanced NSCLC.

Gemcitabine and vinorelbine in advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a Phase II study to evaluate the activity of the combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were eligible if they had Stage IIIB (malignant pleural effusion) or Stage IV NSCLC, no prior chemotherapy, and Cancer and Leukemia Group B performance status (PS) 0-2. Patients with brain metastases were eligible if they were neurologically stable after brain irradiation. Thirty-three patients from participating institutions were enrolled. One patient was ineligible due to untreated brain metastases. Patients were treated with gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes (1000 mg/m(2) for the first 6 patients) and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) over 6 minutes, both administered intravenously on Days 1 and 8 every 21 days. Treatment was planned for a total of six cycles or more if the patient had persistent benefit. Growth factors were not allowed. RESULTS: Among all 32 eligible patients, there were 8 partial responses, for an overall response rate of 25% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5-43. 4%). The median survival time was 8.3 months and the 1-year survival rate was 38% (95% CI, 24-59%). Patients with PS 0-1 had a median survival of 11.7 months and a 1-year survival rate of 48%. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was observed in 13% and 25% of the 148 treatment cycles, respectively. One patient died of neutropenic sepsis. Only 2 episodes of Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia were observed. Nonhematologic toxicity was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine and vinorelbine is an active and well-tolerated regimen in patients with advanced NSCLC, with response and survival rates at least comparable to those achieved with standard platinum-based regimens. This combination may be particularly suitable for the elderly or for patients who cannot tolerate more toxic platinum-based regimens.

Vinorelbine and gemcitabine combinations in advanced non small-cell lung cancer.

Several new chemotherapeutic agents were developed and tested in advanced non small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the past decade. Vinorelbine and gemcitabine showed consistent single-agent activity in phase II and III trials and have been shown to be superior to older combinations when combined with cisplatin. However, toxicity associated with these regimens remains substantial, and nonplatinum alternatives are currently being explored. Based on the individual activity of vinorelbine and gemcitabine, their distinct mechanisms of action, and their mild, nonoverlapping toxicities, several trials evaluated their use in combination in patients with advanced NSCLC. Therapy has been administered in a convenient outpatient setting over a period of 1 hour. Different weekly schedules have been tested, but in general, toxicity is mild and the regimen is well tolerated, even in elderly patients or those with a poor performance status. Efficacy seems to be at least comparable to traditional platinum-based regimens, with respect to overall response rate and survival. In summary, vinorelbine/gemcitabine is an active and well-tolerated regimen and represents an option for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. Randomized studies comparing this combination to reference platinum- or taxane-based regimens are needed to further evaluate the role of this combination in advanced NSCLC.

Gemcitabine and vinorelbine combinations in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

Combinations of vinorelbine with other nonplatinum agents show promising results in phase I and phase II trials in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In two phase II studies the efficacy and safety of vinorelbine/gemcitabine in patients with advanced NSCLC were assessed. In the first study, 32 chemotherapy-naive patients were treated with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 21 days The overall response rate was 25% (all partial responses) and median survival time was 8.3 months, with a 1-year survival rate of 38%; patients with performance status 0-1 had median survival of 11.7 months and a 1-year survival rate of 48%. In the second study, previously untreated and treated patients received gemcitabine/vinorelbine on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Because myelosuppression was observed in the first eight patients treated sequentially with 1,000 mg/m2 gemcitabine and 30 mg/m2 vinorelbine, the doses were subsequently reduced to 900 and 25 mg/m2, respectively. Of the 23 evaluable treatment-naive patients, in this preliminary analysis (presented at the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting) 43% had partial responses, 31% had stable disease, and 22% experienced disease progression; estimated median survival was 11 months. Of 29 evaluable previously treated patients, 14% had partial responses, 28% had stable disease, and 41% experienced disease progression; estimated median survival was 9.2 months. Vinorelbine/gemcitabine is an active and well-tolerated regimen for patients with advanced NSCLC, with response and survival rates at least comparable to those with standard platinum-based regimens. Future directions for vinorelbine in the treatment of NSCLC include combinations with other agents and with radiation therapy in the treatment of locally advanced disease.

Single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis and the Cancer and Leukemia Group B randomized trial.

Several randomized trials have compared single-agent chemotherapy with combination chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. In general, response rates were higher with combination regimens, but their impact on survival is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of 25 trials involving a total of 5,156 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer randomized to a single-agent arm versus a combination arm. The results showed that combination chemotherapy produced a nearly twofold increase in response rate and a modestly improved 1-year survival rate compared with single-agent chemotherapy. However, toxicity was significantly increased, with a 3.6-fold increase in treatment-related mortality. In a subset analysis of trials using either a platinum analog or vinorelbine as single agents and as a component of the combination regimen, the difference was no longer statistically significant, suggesting that more active single agents provide similar survival with less toxicity than combination regimens. Based on these results, the Cancer and Leukemia Group B initiated a large randomized trial comparing paclitaxel with paclitaxel + carboplatin in stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer patients. The trial will be able to detect a 30% difference in survival. An extensive quality of life analysis and a resource utilization comparison will allow estimation of the incremental cost per quality of life-year gained. This trial will be the first in the United States to prospectively collect and analyze such data in a multidisciplinary approach.

Safe pulmonary resection after chemotherapy and high-dose thoracic radiation.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary resection after high-dose thoracic irradiation is reported to be associated with a high morbidity and mortality, and has been considered to be prohibitive. METHODS: We report safe pulmonary resection in 19 consecutive patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy that included greater than 59 Gy thoracic radiation. The mean thoracic radiation dose was 61.8 Gy (range 59.5-66.5) and mean age was 52 years (range 36-72 years). Cell type was adenocarcinoma (6), squamous (7), and other non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (6). Sixteen of 19 patients received concurrent chemotherapy. Median time from end of treatment to surgical resection was 89 days (range 22-258 days). Surgical resection included 13 lobectomies and six pneumonectomies (four right, two left). RESULTS: A complete pathologic response was seen in 8 of 19 (42%) patients. Three patients required intraoperative transfusion of blood. Mean intensive care unit stay was 2.0 days (range 1-8 days), and mean length of stay (LOS) was 8.0 days (range 3-18 days). There were four postoperative complications; one bronchopulmonary fistula, one subarachnoid-pleural fistula, and 2 patients with prolonged atelectasis. There was no incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or operative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary resection, including pneumonectomy, after chemotherapy and high-dose thoracic radiation may be performed safely with a low rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

The efficacy and cost effectiveness of new antiemetic guidelines.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To develop antiemetic guidelines to improve efficacy, optimize nursing and pharmacy time, increase compliance, and enhance cost savings. DESIGN: Prospective, descriptive survey. SETTING: Outpatient oncology clinic in a large metropolitan city in the mid-Atlantic United States. SAMPLE: 90 patients were evaluated for the study; 52 patients met the eligibility criteria. METHODS: A standard antiemetic form was developed containing the emetogenic classification of the chemotherapeutic drugs and the recommended antiemetic regimen. A patient diary and visual analog scale measured patient satisfaction with the regimen-measured outcomes. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Episodes of nausea and vomiting, classification of chemotherapeutic drugs, and patient satisfaction. FINDINGS: Seventy-nine percent of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy demonstrated complete protection from nausea and vomiting during the first 24 hours post-therapy. All the patients receiving moderately and mildly emetogenic regimens achieved complete protection. Patients who received cisplatin-containing regimens and were on the delayed regimen of antiemetics demonstrated complete protection on days two through seven. The mean overall score for patient satisfaction with the regimen was 89 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale. CONCLUSIONS: The new oral antiemetic regimen compared favorably with published data, was well-tolerated, and resulted in lower pharmacy and nursing costs, with a cost saving potential of $20,000 per year. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nurses must be able to implement state-of-the-art knowledge of chemotherapy, antiemetics, and nonpharmacologic interventions to effectively manage the care of patients receiving chemotherapy. This must be performed to achieve cost effectiveness as well as useful clinical outcomes.

Phase I and pharmacologic study of continuous infusion topotecan in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced cancer: a Cancer and LeukemiaGroup B study.

PURPOSE: Preclinical and clinical data suggest that topotecan may be more effective, and perhaps less toxic, when administered as a continuous intravenous infusion (CIVI). A previous Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) trial of topotecan, given on a daily bolus schedule in combination with cisplatin, produced more hematologic toxicity than expected with either drug alone. Therefore, we designed this phase I trial to define the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the recommended phase II doses of cisplatin in combination with topotecan administered as a CIVI. Population pharmacodynamic models for the combination also were investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors and a maximum of one prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease were eligible if they had a performance status of 0 to 1 and adequate renal, hepatic, and bone marrow function. Prior treatment with camptothecins or platinum compounds and prior pelvic irradiation were not allowed. The initial schedule consisted of a fixed dose of topotecan 0.4 mg/m2/d administered as a CIVI for 21 days and escalating doses of cisplatin administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day schedule, until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was achieved. After severe hematologic toxicity was observed in the first two patients, the topotecan infusion was shortened to 14 days, and the total dose of cisplatin was administered on day 1 in all subsequent patients. After the MTD was defined, that cohort was expanded to include a total of 12 assessable patients. Hematopoietic growth factors were not allowed. For the pharmacologic studies, total topotecan plasma concentrations were measured by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) during infusion on days 3, 8, and 11 on the first cycle, and the median steady-state concentration (Tss) was determined. Platinum plasma concentrations on day 3 were measured by atomic absorption spectrometry. RESULTS: Of the 32 patients enrolled, 28 were assessable for toxicity and 24 for response. The primary toxicity was hematologic, with both neutropenia and thrombocytopenia being dose-limiting. The MTD of cisplatin was 75 mg/m2 on day 1 in combination with topotecan 0.4 mg/m2/d for 14 days. At this dose level, three of a total of 12 assessable patients had DLT. The pharmacodynamic relationship between Tss and the absolute neutrophil count at the nadir (ANCn) was described by the following equation: log10 (ANCn)=4.23 - 0.47 x Tss - 0.01 x cisplatin dose (P < .0001; R2=0.64). The substitution of platinum concentration for cisplatin dose in this model did not result in a significant improvement. Three patients had a partial response: one with duodenal carcinoma; a second with small-cell lung cancer; and a third with melanoma. CONCLUSION: Cisplatin can be given safely in combination with CIVI topotecan. However, toxicity was still substantial. Based on the current results and our previous trial of this combination, we conclude that, when combined with cisplatin, CIVI topotecan does not seem to be advantageous compared with the more traditional daily bolus schedule.

Phase I study of paclitaxel and etoposide for metastatic or recurrent malignancies.

The authors define the dose-limiting toxicities and the recommended phase II doses of paclitaxel combined with etoposide, without and with filgrastim support. Patients with advanced solid tumors were eligible if they had a performance status of 0 to 2 and normal renal, hepatic, and bone marrow function. Patients with cardiac arrhythmias or congestive heart failure requiring medical therapy were excluded. Prior radiation was allowed only if it involved less than 30% of the marrow-containing skeleton. The dose of etoposide was fixed at 100 mg/m2/d for 3 days beginning on day 1. Paclitaxel was administered over 3 hours on day 4. The dose of paclitaxel was escalated until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), without and with filgrastim 5 microg/kg (or 300 microg total dose) subcutaneously beginning on day 5, was reached. Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days. Of 39 patients entered, 37 were evaluable for toxicity and 30 for response. The principal toxicity was neutropenia. Without filgrastim, the MTD of paclitaxel was 150 mg/m2. With filgrastim, the dose of paclitaxel was escalated to 250 mg/m2 in combination with etoposide 100 mg/m2. One episode of pulmonary toxicity was observed. Five patients responded: two with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), two with refractory small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), and one with refractory germ-cell tumor (GCT). We conclude that paclitaxel and etoposide can be given in combination at clinically relevant doses with filgrastim support. In this phase I trial, a dose of paclitaxel of 200 mg/m2 on day 4 and etoposide at 100 mg/m2/d on days 1-3, with filgrastim 5 microg/kg beginning on day 5, was found to be well tolerated, and can be recommended for future studies. Without filgrastim, a paclitaxel dose of 150 mg/m2 with the same dose of etoposide can also be recommended.

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.

Recent advances in chemotherapy for lung cancer.

Chemotherapy has produced only modest survival benefits in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Several new chemotherapeutic agents developed in the past few years have shown promising activity in non-small cell lung cancer. It is likely that these agents, used alone or in combination, will further improve the outcome for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Chemotherapy has made a much stronger impact in small cell lung cancer, but the majority of patients still die from disease. The new chemotherapeutic agents may also contribute to improved survival of patients with small cell lung cancer, especially when used in combination with thoracic radiotherapy in those who present with limited disease.

Current trends in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (Review).

Several advances have been made in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the last few years. Combined modality therapies utilizing chemotherapy have improved survival of patients with locally advanced disease (stage III) when compared to either radiation or surgery alone. New chemotherapeutic agents, used alone or in combination, have also made a strong impact in patients with metastatic disease (stage IV). Ongoing randomized trials will certainly define new treatment standards and hopefully improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Phase I study of paclitaxel and topotecan in patients with advanced tumors: a cancer and leukemia group B study.

PURPOSE: To define the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the recommended phase II doses of paclitaxel combined with topotecan, without and with filgrastim support. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors and a maximum of one prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease were eligible if they had a performance status of 0 to 1 and normal renal, hepatic, and bone marrow function. Prior treatment with taxanes or comptothecin analogs, and prior pelvic irradiation were not allowed. Patients with a history of cardiac disease or on medications known to affect cardiac conduction were excluded. The dose of topotecan was fixed at 1.0 mg/m2/d for 5 days. The dose of paclitaxel was escalated until the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), without and with filgrastim 5 micrograms/kg subcutaneously (SC) on days 6 to 14, was reached. Paclitaxel was administered over 3 hours on day 1 before topotecan. Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days. RESULTS: Of 46 patients entered, 45 were assessable for toxicity and 34 for response. The principal toxicity was neutropenia. Without filgrastim, the MTD of paclitaxel was 80 mg/m2 on day 1 in combination with topotecan 1.0 mg/m2/d for 5 days. With filgrastim, the dose of paclitaxel was escalated to 230 mg/m2 in combination with the same dose of topotecan. At this dose level, one patient had hematologic DLT and a second patient developed neuromuscular DLT. Three patients had a partial response (PR): one with head and neck cancer, a second with non-small-cell lung cancer, and the third with colon cancer. CONCLUSION: We conclude that paclitaxel can be given at clinically relevant doses in combination with topotecan and filgrastim. The recommended dose for phase II studies is paclitaxel 230 mg/m2 on day 1 and topotecan 1.0 mg/m2/day for 5 days with filgrastim 5 micrograms/kg on days 6 to 14.

A phase I trial of paclitaxel and etoposide for metastatic or recurrent malignancies.

Etoposide and paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) each exhibit substantial activity against a variety of solid tumors. Etoposide promotes accumulation of cells in late S phase and in G2. Paclitaxel causes cell arrest in G2 and M. In this phase I trial, an empiric combination of a fixed dose of etoposide daily for 3 days followed by a 3-hour intravenous infusion of escalating doses of paclitaxel on day 4 is being tested. Cycles are repeated every 3 weeks. Dose level I, etoposide 100 mg/m2 intravenously days 1 to 3 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously day 4, was well tolerated. Dose level 2, with paclitaxel at 120 mg/m2, is near completion and appears tolerable as well. Further escalation of the paclitaxel dose is anticipated. Once the maximum tolerated dose of this combination is defined, growth factor will be added and further escalation of the paclitaxel dose will be attempted.