Irinotecan plus gemcitabine vs irinotecan for the second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer pretreated with docetaxel and cisplatin: a multicentre, randomised, phase II study.

To compare irinotecan (CPT-11)+gemcitabine vs CPT-11 alone as second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressing after docetaxel-cisplatinum-based therapy. A total of 147 evaluable, pretreated patients, with NSCLC, received either gemcitabine (1000 mg m(-2), days 1 and 8)+CPT-11 (300 mg m(-2), day 8) (Group A, n=76) or CPT-11 (300 mg m(-2), day 1) (Group B, n=71), every 3 weeks. All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. The objective response rate was 18.4% (95% CI: 9.71-27.14%) and 4.2% (95% CI: 0-8.90%) (P=0.009) for groups A and B, respectively. No significant differences between the two groups in terms of the median duration of response, time to tumour progression, overall survival and 1-year survival were observed. The CPT-11/gemcitabine regimen significantly improved the patients' quality of life ('general mood today' (P=0.014), 'coughing' (P=0.003) and 'intensity of symptoms' (P=0.034)) compared with CPT-11. More cycles had to be delayed (P=0.001) and required prophylactic growth factor support (P=0.001) in Group A than B. Three (3.9%) patients in Group A and eight (11.3%) in Group B developed febrile neutropenia (P=0.09); one patient died of sepsis in each group. Three additional (Group A, n=1; Group B, n=2) treatment-related deaths were observed. Grade 3-4 haematologic toxicity was comparable in the two groups except anaemia (P=0.03 in favour of CPT-11). Other nonhaematologic toxicities were mild and similar in the two groups. CPT-11+gemcitabine resulted in a higher response rate and better control of disease-related symptoms than CPT-11 alone, but without any improvement in the overall survival.

Comparison of docetaxel/cisplatin to docetaxel/gemcitabine as first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: early results of a randomized trial.

The study compares docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) and docetaxel plus gemcitabine (DG) regimens for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients were randomized to receive either the DC or the DG combination. They were stratified according to age, performance status (PS) and stage of disease. Three hundred seventeen patients entered the study. Of them, 162 received the DC regimen and 155 the DG regimen. There were no differences in the patients' characteristics between the two study arms. Preliminary analysis included 132 evaluable patients in the DC arm and 114 in the DG arm. Three complete responses (CR) (2.3%) and 39 partial responses (PR) (30%) were documented in the DC arm (response rate (RR) 32.3%; 95% CI 23.87-39.76%), whereas 1 CR (0.9%) and 38 PR (33%) were documented in the DG arm (RR: 33.9%; 95% CI 25.5-42.92%). No differences in the RR, response duration, time to tumor progression, overall survival and 1-year survival were observed between the two groups. Regarding toxicity, there were no significant differences in grade 3-4 anaemia and thrombocytopenia between the two arms. However, grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 40 patients (33%) treated with the DC regimen and in 31 patients (22%) treated with the DG regimen (P=0.01). Twenty-four (16%) patients in the DC arm and 20 (14%) in the DG arm developed febrile neutropenia. There was one death due to sepsis in each arm. Non-haematological toxicity was mild and equal in the two arms, with the exception of grade 3-4 nausea and diarrhoea, which were more frequent in the DC arm. In conclusion, preliminary results showed that the DG regimen was as effective as the DC regimen. The toxicity profile of the DG combination was relatively milder. Hence, cisplatin cannot be considered longer as a mandatory component of chemotherapy against NSCLC.

A dose escalation study of topotecan in combination with epirubicin in pretreated patients with small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To define the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) of topotecan in combination with epirubicin in pretreated patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven SCLC patients with performance status (WHO) of 0-2 and adequate renal, hepatic, and bone marrow function who had failed EP-containing front-line chemotherapy entered the study. Patients received escalated doses of topotecan (starting dose 0.5 mg/m(2)) for 5 days and epirubicin (starting dose 40 mg/m(2)) on day 8, every 28 days. RESULTS: All patients were assessable for toxicity and 20 for response. The MTD was topotecan 0.90 mg/m(2) and epirubicin 40 mg/m(2) with neutropenia being the most common dose-limiting event. Seventy-three courses were administered. Grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 22 (30%) courses, grade 3-4 anemia in 7 (10%), and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia in 11 (15%). Seven courses were complicated with fever and one patient died of neutropenic sepsis. Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity was mild and infrequent with only grade 2-3 asthenia occurring in 16 (22%) courses. Among 20 patients who were evaluable for response, 16 (80%) were refractory to prior treatment. One patient with refractory disease (5%) achieved a complete response of 14 weeks duration and four experienced stabilization of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of topotecan 0.90 mg/m(2) on days 1-5, with epirubicin 40 mg/m(2) on day 8, administered every 28 days is a feasible outpatient regimen which merits further evaluation in patients with chemosensitive disease.

Platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel in combination with cisplatin or gemcitabine are active chemotherapy reigimes against non-small-cell lung cancer. We compared the efficacy and safety of a combination of cisplatin and docetaxel (group 1) with that of gemcitabine and docetaxel (group 2) in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV lung cancer who had not had prior chemotherapy were allocated either to group 1 and treated with docetaxel (100 mg/m(2), day 1) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2), day 2) or to group 2 and treated with gemcitabine (1100 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8) and docetaxel (100 mg/m(2), day 8). All patients received recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (150 mg/m(2)). All patients received recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (150 mg/m(2)) had appropriate standard premedication. Response and toxicity were assessed using WHO criteria. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 441 patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel/cisplatin (group 1, n=219) or gemcitabine/docetaxel (group 2, n=222). 14 patients in group 1 and 21 patients in group 2 were not evaluable. Objective response rates were similar in the two groups: group 1, 32.4% (95% CI 26.2-38.6%; 1.4% complete response and 31% partial response); group 2, 30.2% (24.5-36.2%; 0.9% complete response and 29.3% partial response). The two groups did not differ in median duration of response, time to tumour progression, overall survival, or 1 year or 2 year survival rates. INTERPRETATION: Both drug combinations had comparable activity in patients with advanced cancer who had not previously had chemotherapy; however, gemcitabine and docetaxel had the most favourable toxicity profile.

The role of transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of peripheral lung masses or nodules.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) in the diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions. We attempted to perform TBNA in 37 patients referred to our hospital for diagnostic evaluation of radiographically evident peripheral masses (23 cases) or nodules (14 cases). None of them had bronchoscopic evidence of endobronchial lesion. The aspirations were performed under fluoroscopic guidance, through a fibreoptic bronchoscope, employing a 21-gauge, 1.3 cm aspirating needle. They were preceded by bronchial brushing and followed by transbronchial biopsy (TBB) of the peripheral lesion. In two cases, the apical nodules were not accessible by any of these procedures. Bronchial washings were also collected immediately after each procedure (brush, TBNA and TBB). TBNA was diagnostic in 23 of 37 patients (62%) rendering the TBNA yield considerably higher than washing (24%), brushing (27%) or TBB (38%). The addition of TBNA to the combination of TBB, brushing and washing, significantly increased the yield of fibreoptic bronchoscopy in our series from 46% to 70%. No significant complications, such as pneumothorax or major bleeding, occurred either with TBNA or TBB. In conclusion, our findings suggest that transbronchial needle aspiration is a safe procedure, that can improve the diagnostic yield of bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of peripheral lung masses or nodules.

Randomized comparison of etoposide-cisplatin vs. etoposide-carboplatin and irradiation in small-cell lung cancer. A Hellenic Co-operative Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of etoposide and cisplatin (EP) with etoposide and carboplatin (EC) in combination with irradiation in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: Previously untreated patients (pts) with SCLC and measurable or evaluable disease were randomized to receive either cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on days 1-2 or carboplatin 300 mg/m2 on day 1, both combined with etoposide 300 mg/m2 on days 1-3 every 21 days for 6 treatment cycles. The vast majority of responding limited disease (LD) pts and complete responders (CR) with extensive disease (ED), also received thoracic irradiation (TI) and prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) concurrently with the third cycle. RESULTS: Of the 147 patients registered, 143 were eligible; median performance status (PS, WHO) was 1, and tumour stage was LD in 41 pts of each treatment group. The mean delay between cycles was 8 days in the EP group and 9 in the EC group increasing in both arms with the number of treatment courses. The drug dose administered per unit time as a proportion of the protocol dose was 74% and 80% for the two groups respectively. Leukopenia, neutropenic infections, nausea, vomiting, neurotoxicity and hyperergic reactions were more frequent and/or severe in the EP group. The CR rates were 57% and 58% for EP and EC respectively. Median survival for all pts was 12.5 and 11.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both treatments proved to be effective, with no differences in response and survival between the two treatment arms. The EC regimen was associated with significantly less toxicity.