A phase III trial of docetaxel/carboplatin versus mitomycin C/ifosfamide/ cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin C/vinblastine/cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer : a randomised multicentre trial of the British Thoracic Oncology Group (BTOG1)

Background: Phase III studies suggest that non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with cisplatin-docetaxel may have higher response rates and better survival compared with other platinum-based regimens. We report the final results of a randomised phase III study of docetaxel and carboplatin versus MIC or MVP in patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients and methods: Patients with biopsy proven stage III-IV NSCLC not suitable for curative surgery or radiotherapy were randomised to receive four cycles of either DCb (docetaxel 75 mg/m 2, carboplatin AUC 6), or MIC/MVP (mitomycin 6 mg/m 2, ifosfamide 3 g/m 2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 or mitomycin 6 mg/ m 2, vinblastine 6 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m 2, respectively), 3 weekly. The primary end point was survival, secondary end points included response rates, toxicity and quality of life. Results: The median follow-up was 17.4 months. Overall response rate was 32% for both arms (partial response = 31%, complete response = 1%); 32% of MIC/MVP and 26% of DCb patients had stable disease. One-year survival was 39% and 35% for DCb and MIC/MVP, respectively. Two-year survival was 13% with both arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia (74% versus 43%, P < 0.005), infection (18% versus 9%, P = 0.01) and mucositis (5% versus 1%, P = 0.02) were more common with DCb than MIC/MVP. The MIC/MVP arm had significant worsening in overall EORTC score and global health status whereas the DCb arm showed no significant change. Conclusions: The combination of DCb had similar efficacy to MIC/MVP but quality of life was better maintained. © 2006 European Society for Medical Oncology.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine and carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND. The authors compared gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The primary objective was survival. Secondary objectives were time to disease progression, response rates, evaluation of toxicity, disease-related symptoms, World Health Organization performance status (PS), and quality of life (QoL). METHODS. Three hundred seventy-two chemotherapy-naïve patients with International Staging System Stage III/IV NSCLC who were ineligible for curative radiotherapy or surgery were randomized to receive either 4 cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15) plus carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve, 5; given on Day 1) every 4 weeks (the GC arm) or MIC/MVP every 3 weeks (the MIC/MVP arm). RESULTS. There was no significant difference in median survival (248 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 236 days in the GC arm) or time to progression (225 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 218 days in the GC arm) between the 2 treatment arms. The 2-year survival rate was 11.8% in the MIC/MVP arm and 6.9% in the GC arm. The 1-year survival rate was 32.5% in the MIC/MVP arm and 33.2% in the GC arm. In the MIC/MVP arm, 33% of patients responded (4 complete responses [CRs] and 57 partial responses [PRs]) whereas in the GC arm, 30% of patients responded (3 CRs and 54 PRs). Nonhematologic toxicity was comparable for patients with Grade 3-4 symptoms, except there was more alopecia among patients in the MIC/MVP arm. GC appeared to produce more hematologic toxicity and necessitated more transfusions. There was no difference in performance status, disease-related symptoms, of QoL between patients in the two treatment arms. Fewer inpatient stays for complications were required with GC. CONCLUSIONS. The results of the current study failed to demonstrate any difference in efficacy between the newer regimen of GC and the older regimens of MIC and MVP. © 2003 American Cancer Society.

The role of chemotherapy in the treatment of adult soft tissue sarcomas

Adult soft tissue sarcomas are relatively rare tumours which are curable with radical surgery. Approximately 50% of patients will develop inoperable disease or metastases for which chemotherapy may be inappropriate. Only two cytotoxic agents - doxorubicin and ifosfamide - have activity in > 20% of patients. For both these agents there is evidence of a dose-response relationship. There is currently no good evidence that combination chemotherapy confers a clinical benefit compared with single agents. Outside a clinical trial, standard first-line therapy should be with single agent doxorubicin at a dose intensity ≥ 70 mg2 every 3 weeks. Approximately 25% of patients may be expected to respond to this regimen. There is the suggestion that responses may occur to ifosfamide in patients who progress on doxorubicin. The role of chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting remains uncertain. Several trials have suggested a modest relapse-free and overall survival benefit for the use of post-operative chemotherapy and a recent overview of 14 randomised trials confirms a small though significant benefit. These benefits have to be weighed against the toxicity of chemotherapy. The importance of treating all patients with soft tissue sarcomas in clinical trials is stressed. There is an urgent need to define new active agents to treat this disease.

Combination therapy with gefitinib and rofecoxib in patients with platinum-pretreated relapsed non-small-cell lung cancer

Purpose: In non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) play major roles in tumorigenesis. This phase I/II study evaluated combined therapy with the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) gefitinib and the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib in platinum-pretreated, relapsed, metastatic NSCLC (n = 45). Patients and Methods: Gefitinib 250 mg/d was combined with rofecoxib (dose escalated from 12.5 to 25 to 50 mg/d through three cohorts, each n = 6). Because the rofecoxib maximum-tolerated dose was not reached, the 50 mg/d cohort was expanded for efficacy evaluation (n = 33). Results: Among the 42 assessable patients, there was one complete response (CR) and two partial responses (PRs) and 12 patients with stable disease (SD); disease control rate was 35.7% (95% CI, 21.6% to 52.0%). Median time to tumor progression was 55 days (95% CI, 47 to 70 days), and median survival was 144 days (95% CI, 103 to 190 days). In a pilot study, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) proteomics analysis of baseline serum samples could distinguish patients with an objective response from those with SD or progressive disease (PD), and those with disease control (CR, PR, and SD) from those with PD. The regimen was generally well tolerated, with predictable toxicities including skin rash and diarrhea. Conclusion: Gefitinib combined with rofecoxib provided disease control equivalent to that expected with single-agent gefitinib and was generally well tolerated. Baseline serum proteomics may help identify those patients most likely to benefit from EGFR TKIs. © 2007 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.