Phase I study of amrubicin and vinorelbine in non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.
ABSTRACT Combination chemotherapy comprising amrubicin and vinorelbine as a second-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been fully evaluated. To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD), the present phase I study examined patients with advanced NSCLC.
The subjects were nine patients with histologically confirmed advanced NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, prior platinum-based first-line chemotherapy, and measurable or evaluable lesions. Treatment consisted of five dose levels, with amrubicin 35-45 mg/m2 administered as a 5-min intravenous infusion on days 1-3 and vinorelbine 15-25 mg/m2 given as a 1-h intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks.
All patients had received carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was seen in two of six patients (febrile neutropenia and deep vein thrombosis ) at level 1, allowing us to conduct level 2. At level 2, all three patients experienced DLT (leucopenia > or =4 days in one patient; febrile neutropenia in three patients; and infection in two patients), and this level was determined as the MTD. Subsequently, level 1 (amrubicin 35 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 15 mg/m2) was defined as the RD. Responses in the nine patients included a partial response in one patient and stable disease in four patients.
As second-line therapy, the RD of the combination of amrubicin and vinorelbine is 35 mg/m2 and 15 mg/m2, respectively. Further study should proceed to clarify the efficacy of this regimen.
- SourceAvailable from: Alexandros Ardavanis[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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.British Journal of Cancer 09/2004; 91(3):482-8. · 5.08 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 03/2000; 92(3):205-16. · 14.34 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This placebo-controlled phase III study investigated the effect on survival of gefitinib as second-line or third-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy regimen were randomly assigned in a ratio of two to one either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. The primary endpoint was survival in the overall population of patients and those with adenocarcinoma. The primary analysis of the population for survival was by intention to treat. This study has been submitted for registration with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 1839IL/709. 1129 patients were assigned gefitinib and 563 placebo. At median follow-up of 7.2 months, median survival did not differ significantly between the groups in the overall population (5.6 months for gefitinib and 5.1 months for placebo; hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.02], p=0.087) or among the 812 patients with adenocarcinoma (6.3 months vs 5.4 months; 0.84 [0.68-1.03], p=0.089). Preplanned subgroup analyses showed significantly longer survival in the gefitinib group than the placebo group for never-smokers (n=375; 0.67 [0.49-0.92], p=0.012; median survival 8.9 vs 6.1 months) and patients of Asian origin (n=342; 0.66 [0.48-0.91], p=0.01; median survival 9.5 vs 5.5 months). Gefitinib was well tolerated, as in previous studies. Treatment with gefitinib was not associated with significant improvement in survival in either coprimary population. There was pronounced heterogeneity in survival outcomes between groups of patients, with some evidence of benefit among never-smokers and patients of Asian origin.The Lancet 01/2005; 366(9496):1527-37. · 39.06 Impact Factor