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.

Gemcitabine reactivates epigenetically silenced genes and functions as a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor

Gemcitabine is indicated in combination with cisplatin as first-line therapy for solid tumours including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), bladder cancer and mesothelioma. Gemcitabine is an analogue of pyrimidine cytosine and functions as an anti-metabolite. Structurally, however, gemcitabine has similarities to 5-aza-2-deoxycytidine (decitabine/Dacogen®), a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor (DNMTi). NSCLC, mesothelioma and prostate cancer cell lines were treated with decitabine and gemcitabine. Reactivation of epigenetically silenced genes was examined by RT-PCR/qPCR. DNA methyltransferase activity in nuclear extracts and recombinant proteins was measured using a DNA methyltransferase assay, and alterations in DNA methylation status were examined using methylation-specific PCR (MS-PCR) and pyrosequencing. We observe a reactivation of several epigenetically silenced genes including GSTP1, IGFBP3 and RASSF1A. Gemcitabine functionally inhibited DNA methyltransferase activity in both nuclear extracts and recombinant proteins. Gemcitabine dramatically destabilised DNMT1 protein. However, DNA CpG methylation was for the most part unaffected by gemcitabine. In conclusion, gemcitabine both inhibits and destabilises DNA methyltransferases and reactivates epigenetically silenced genes having activity equivalent to decitabine at concentrations significantly lower than those achieved in the treatment of patients with solid tumours. This property may contribute to the anticancer activity of gemcitabine.

Cisplatin and gemcitabine in the management of metastatic penile cancer

Penile cancer is rare and receives little public attention. There are few treatment options for advanced disease. The most active regimen to date is a combination of bleomycin, methotrexate, and cisplatin. However the treatment-related mortality is 11% and hence this combination has not been adapted as a standard of care. We report two cases of advanced penile cancer where a sustained palliative response was observed with combination chemotherapy using cisplatin and gemcitabine. Our experience demonstrates that this is a well tolerated regimen active in this setting. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Gemcitabine and paclitaxel associated pneumonitis in non-small cell lung cancer : report of a phase I/II dose-escalating study

The aim of this phase I/II dose escalating study was to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of gemcitabine and paclitaxel given in combination in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 12 patients with stage IIIB and IV NSCLC received paclitaxel administered intravenously over 1 h followed by gemcitabine given over 30 min on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days. Pneumonitis was the principal side-effect observed with 4 patients affected. Of these, 1 experienced grade 3 toxicity after one cycle of treatment and the others had grade 2 toxicity. All 4 cases responded to prednisolone. No other significant toxicities were observed. Of the 8 evaluable patients, 3 had a partial response and 2 had minor responses. The study was discontinued due to this dose-limiting toxicity. The combination of paclitaxel and gemcitabine shows promising antitumour activity in NSCLC, however, this treatment schedule may predispose to pneumonitis. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.

An EORTC-IDBBC phase I study of gemcitabine and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil in patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracyclines or pre-treated with both anthracyclines and taxanes.

The aim of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and potential activity of combined gemcitabine and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients that are resistant to anthracyclines or have been pretreated with both anthracyclines and taxanes. 15 patients with MBC were studied at three European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer centres. 13 patients had received both anthracylines and taxanes. Gemcitabine was given intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8, and 5-FU as a continuous i.v. infusion on days 1 through to 14, both drugs given in a 21-day schedule at four different dose levels. Both were given at doses commonly used for the single agents for the last dose level (dose level 4). One of 6 patients at level 4 (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m2 and 5-FU 250 mg/m2/day) had a DLT, a grade 3 stomatitis and skin toxicity. One DLT, a grade 3 transaminase rise and thrombosis, occurred in a patient at level 2 (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and 5-FU 200 mg/m2/day). Thus, the MTD was not reached. One partial response and four disease stabilisations were observed. Only 1 patient withdrew from the treatment due to toxicity. The MTD was not reached in the phase I study. The combination of gemcitabine and 5-FU is well tolerated at doses up to 1200 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 8 and 250 mg/m2/day given on days 1 through to 14, respectively, every 21 days. The clinical benefit rate (responses plus no change of at least 6 months) was 33% with one partial response, suggesting that MBC patients with prior anthracycline and taxane therapy may derive significant benefit from this combination with minimal toxicity.

Re-challenge chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus carboplatin in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

Despite recent improvements to current therapies and the emergence of novel agents to manage advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the patients' overall survival remains poor. Re-challenging with first-line chemotherapy upon relapse is common in the management of small cell lung cancer but is not well reported for advanced NSCLC. NSCLC relapse has been attributed to acquired drug resistance, but the repopulation of sensitive clones may also play a role, in which case re-challenge may be appropriate. Here, we report the results of re-challenge with gemcitabine plus carboplatin in 22 patients from a single institution who had previously received gemcitabine plus platinum in the first-line setting and had either partial response or a progression-free interval of longer than 6 months. In this retrospective study, the charts of patients who underwent second-line chemotherapy for NSCLC in our cancer center between January 2005 and April 2010 were reviewed. All the patients who received a combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin for re-challenge were included in the study. These patients were offered second-line treatment on confirmation of clear radiological disease progression. The overall response rate was 15% and disease control rate was 75%. The median survival time was 10.4 months, with 46% of patients alive at 1 year. These results suggest that re-challenge chemotherapy should be considered in selected patients with radiological partial response or a progression-free survival of longer than 6 months to the initial therapy.

Toxicogenomic activity of gemcitabine in two TP53-mutated bladder cancer cell lines: special focus on cell cycle-related genes

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in TP53 subtypes of bladder carcinoma cell lines treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

MRE11A and SKP2 genes are associated with the increased cytotoxicity induced by the synergistic effects of cisplatin and gemcitabine in bladder cancer cells

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

No Relationship between the Amount of DNA Damage and the Level of hMLH1 and RASSF1A Gene Expression in Bladder Cancer Cells Treated with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine

Tumor response to antineoplastic drugs is not always predictable. This is also true for bladder carcinoma, a highly recurrent neoplasia. Currently, the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine is well accepted as a standard protocol for treating bladder carcinoma. However, in some cases, this treatment protocol causes harmful side effects. Therefore, we investigated the roles of the genes TP53, RASSF1A (a tumor suppressor gene) and hMLH1 (a gene involved in the mismatch repair pathway) in cell susceptibility to cisplatin/gemcitabine treatment. Two bladder transitional carcinoma cell (TCC) lines, RT4 (wild-type TP53) and 5637 (mutated TP53), were used in this study. First, we evaluated whether the genotoxic potential of cisplatin/gemcitabine was dependent on TP53 status. Then, we evaluated whether the two antineoplastic drugs modulated RASSF1A and hMLH1 expression in the two cell lines. Increased DNA damage was observed in both cell lines after treatment with cisplatin or gemcitabine and with the two drugs simultaneously, as depicted by the comet assay. A lack of RASSF1A expression and hypermethylation of its promoter were observed before and after treatment in both cell lines. On the other hand, hMLH1 downregulation, unrelated to methylation status, was observed in RT4 cells after treatment with cisplatin or with cisplatin and gemcitabine simultaneously (wild-type TP53); in 5637 cells, hMLH1 was upregulated only after treatment with gemcitabine. In conclusion, the three treatment protocols were genotoxic, independent of TP53 status. However, cisplatin was the most effective, causing the highest level of DNA damage in both wild-type and mutated TP53 cells. Gemcitabine was the least genotoxic agent in both cell lines. Furthermore, no relationship was observed between the amount of DNA damage and the level of hMLH1 and RASSF1A expression. Therefore, other alternative pathways might be involved in cisplatin and gemcitabine genotoxicity in these two bladder cancer cell lines.

Safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination in pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients

Metastatic breast cancers (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines (A) and taxanes (T) have a complicated management. Gemcitabine (G)-cisplatin (C) combinations have been used as synergistic salvage therapy in MBC and are considered as another option for patients with important symptoms and aggressive visceral disease. We analyzed the safety and efficacy of GC in AT-pretreated MBC, as well as overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP). Forty-nine subjects received IV G 750 mg/m(2) and C 30 mg/m(2), both d1 and d8 every 3 weeks. Response evaluation was performed every second cycle and in the end of treatment. GC protocol was the first-line palliative chemotherapy in half of the cases, and median number of cycles/patient were 4(2-12). Lung (75.5%) was the most frequent site of metastasis. Most of the patients related clinical improvement with chemotherapy with minimal/mild tolerable collateral effects in 85.7% of cases. Following 34 months, mean OS/TTP was 13.12/6.6 months. Objective-responded patients (40.3%) were statistically associated with the improvement in symptoms after CT (P < 0.01), and OS was directly correlated with chemotherapy response (P < 0.01). HER-2 overexpression was a prognostic factor with reduced OS (P = 0.01). GC protocol was effective and tolerable in objective-responded patients.

Morphological alterations and gene and protein expression profiling of bladder tumor cells after treatment with gemcitabine.

Chemical agents used in cancer therapy are associated with cell cycle arrest, activation or deactivation of mechanisms associated to DNA repair and apoptosis. However, due to the complexity of biological systems, the molecular mechanisms responsible for these activities are not fully understood. Thus, studies about gene and protein expression have shown promising results for understanding the mechanisms related to cellular responses and regression of cancer after chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the gene and protein expression profiling in bladder transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) with different TP53 status after gemcitabine (1.56 μM) treatment. The RT4 (grade 1, TP53 wild type), 5637 (grade 2, TP53 mutated) and T24 (grade 3, TP53 mutated) cell lines were used. PCR arrays and mass spectrometry were used to analyze gene and protein expression, respectively. Morphological alterations were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The results of PCR array showed that gemcitabine activity was mainly related to CDKN1A, GADD45A and SERTDA1 overexpression, and BAX overexpression only in the wild type TP53 cells. Mass spectrometry demonstrated that gemcitabine modulated the protein expression, especially those from genes related to apoptosis, transport of vesicles and stress response. Analyses using SEM and TEM showed changes in cell morphology independently on the cell line studied. The observed decreased number of microvillus suggests low contact among the cells and between cell and extracellular matrix; irregular forms might indicate actin cytoskeleton deregulation; and the reduction in the amount of organelles and core size might indicate reduced cellular metabolism. In conclusion, independently on TP53 status or grade of bladder tumor, gemcitabine modulated genes related to the cell cycle and apoptosis, that reflected in morphological changes indicative of future cell death.