SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • gemcitabine;
  • carboplatin;
  • vinorelbine;
  • nonsmall cell lung cancer

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

BACKGROUND.

Combined gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) and combined gemcitabine and vinorelbine (GV) are active and well tolerated chemotherapeutic regimens for patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors conducted a randomized Phase II study of GC versus GV to compare them in terms of efficacy and toxicity.

METHODS.

One hundred twenty-eight patients with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to receive either carboplatin at an area under the curve of 5 on Day 1 combined with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 (n = 64 patients) or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 combined with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 (n = 64 patients) every 3 weeks.

RESULTS.

Response rates were 20.3% for the GC patients and 21.0% for the GV patients. In the GC arm, the median survival was 432 days, and the a 1-year survival rate was 57.6%; in the GV arm, the median survival was 385 days, and the 1-year survival rate was 53.3% in the GV arm. The median progression-free survival was 165 days in the GC arm and 137 days in the GV arm. Severe hematologic toxicity (Grade 4) was significantly more frequent in the GC arm (45.3% vs. 25.8% in the GV arm; P = .022). Most notably, the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly higher in the GC arm (81.3% vs. 6.5% in the GV arm; P < .001). Conversely, severe nonhematologic toxicity (Grade 3 or 4) was more common in the GV arm (7.8% vs. 19.4% in the GC arm; P = .057).

CONCLUSIONS.

Although the GV and GC regimens had different toxicity profiles, there was no significant difference in survival among patients with NSCLC in the current study. Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

Unfortunately, nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) belongs to a group of relatively chemoresistant neoplastic diseases. Recent meta-analyses have shown that cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens improve survival,1 and they now are considered standard treatment for patients with NSCLC. Most cisplatin-based regimens have substantial toxicities that require close monitoring and supportive care. Thus, active and less toxic chemotherapeutic regimens that include new, active compounds with novel mechanisms of action need to be developed. The recommendations recently presented in the American Society Clinical Oncology guidelines for chemotherapy in patients with Stage IV NSCLC stated that nonplatinum-containing chemotherapeutic regimens may be used as alternatives to platinum-based regimens as first-line treatment.2, 3

Carboplatin, which is an analog of cisplatin, administered either alone or in combination therapy, is associated with less emesis, nephrotoxicity, and neurotoxicity than cisplatin and has been proven to be as effective as cisplatin in NSCLC.4, 5 Several novel chemotherapeutic agents currently are being evaluated for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. The combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) is a promising carboplatin-containing regimen and has been evaluated in several randomized trials. Mazzanti et al. conducted a randomized Phase II study of GC versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) and observed no differences in activity between the 2 regimens, although there was less emesis, neuropathy, and renal toxicity with GC.6 The same results were confirmed in a Phase III study of GC versus GP that was conducted by Zatloukal et al.7 Moreover, GC reportedly prolonged survival significantly compared with single-agent carboplatin in a randomized Phase III study.8

The combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine (GV) is among the representative nonplatinum regimens. GV has demonstrated promising activity and mild toxicity in some Phase II studies. We also conducted a Phase II trial of GV in patients with Stage IIIB and IV NSCLC and observed that toxicity was modest and was managed easily, and overall survival was promising (median survival, 13.9 months).9 Several randomized Phase III trials have shown that this regimen conferred a comparable survival advantage and was less toxic than standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy.10, 11

Thus, we can state reasonably that both GC and GV are attractive alternatives to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. However, we have neither survival data nor toxicity data for GC in Japanese patients with NSCLC. Therefore, we conducted a randomized Phase II trial of GC versus GV in patients with advanced NSCLC to compare the efficacy, feasibility, and toxicity profiles of the 2 regimens. The primary endpoint was the 1-year survival rate, and secondary endpoints were overall survival, the time to progression, and the response rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

Patient Selection

The patients who were enrolled in this trial had histologically or cytologically confirmed Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC. Patients with Stage IIIB disease who were not candidates for thoracic radiation and patients with Stage IV disease were eligible if they had not received previous chemotherapy, had measurable disease, and had a life expectancy ≥3 months. Patients who had received previous radiotherapy were included if they had assessable disease outside of the radiation field. Patients with who had postoperative recurrences also were allowed. Additional entry criteria were age between 20 years and 74 years, a performance status of 0 or 1 on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale, and adequate bone marrow function (leukocyte count ≥3500/μL, neutrophil count ≥2000/μL, hemoglobin concentration ≥10.0 g/dL, platelet count ≥ 100,000/μL), kidney function (creatinine ≤1.2 mg/dL), liver function (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT] levels ≤2.5 times the upper limit of normal; and total bilirubin ≤1.5 mg/dL), and pulmonary function (partial pressure of alveolar oxygen ≥60 torr). Patients were excluded if they had any active concomitant malignancies, symptomatic brain metastases, prior radiotherapy to the sole site of measurable disease, past history of severe allergic reactions to drugs, interstitial pneumonia identified by chest X-ray, cirrhosis, superior vena cava syndrome, or other serious complications, such as uncontrolled angina pectoris, myocardial infarction within 3 months, heart failure, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus or hypertension, and uncontrolled massive pleural effusion or ascites. All patients gave written informed consent, and the Institutional Review Board for Human Experimentation approved the protocol.

Randomization and Treatment Plan

Patients were assigned randomly to receive the GC regimen or the GV regimen and were stratified by disease stage (Stage IIIB vs. Stage IV), prior treatment (yes vs. no), and institution. On the GC regimen, gemcitabine was given at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 in 100 mL of normal saline solution as a 30-minute intravenous infusion on Days 1 and 8. Carboplatin was administered at area under the curve (AUC) of 5 in 500 mL of normal saline solution as a 30-minute intravenous infusion on Day 1 only. We used the Calvert formula12 to determine the dose of carboplatin as follows: dose in mg = target AUC × (creatinine clearance + 25). The glomerular filtration rate was estimated by using the formula described by Gault et al.13

The GV regimen consisted of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 in 100 mL of normal saline solution as a 60-minute intravenous infusion and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 in 20 mL of normal saline solution as a 5-minute intravenous infusion on Days 1 and 8. The scheduled Day-8 treatment was delayed until recovery (no longer than 1 week) if patients had a leukocyte count <2000/μL, platelet count <75,000/μL, interstitial pneumonia Grade ≥1, constipation Grade ≥3, and/or other nonhematologic toxicities Grade ≥2. If these parameters did not improve sufficiently, then the Day-8 gemcitabine and vinorelbine doses were omitted.

Both regimens were repeated every 3 weeks. The subsequent course of chemotherapy was begun if patients had a leukocyte count ≥3000/μL, neutrophil count ≥1500/μL, platelet count ≥100,000/μL, creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL, AST and ALT levels ≤2.5 times the upper limit of normal, and total bilirubin ≤1.5 times the upper limit of normal. A 2-week delay in initiating the subsequent course was allowed. Otherwise, the patient was withdrawn from the study. We planned for patients to receive at least 3 cycles, up to a maximum 6 cycles, of chemotherapy unless there was evidence of disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or patient refusal.

For dose modification in the subsequent cycle in both arms, if, during the previous course, Grade 4 leukopenia, chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever >38°C, thrombocytopenia (< 20,000/μL), nonhemotologic toxicity Grade ≥3, or cancellation of Day-8 treatment had occurred, then the doses of gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and carboplatin were reduced by 200 mg/m2, 5 mg/m2, and AUC 1, respectively. Treatment was discontinued in patients who could not tolerate either gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 4 or gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 20 mg/m2.

It was acceptable to administer a 5-hydroxytriptamine receptor antagonist and/or dexamethasone intravenously before the start of chemotherapy to prevent nausea and emesis. The use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors was not allowed during treatment except in patients who had Grade 4 leukopenia, Grade 4 neutropenia, or febrile neutropenia, according to the investigator's decision. Transfusions of red blood cells and platelets were allowed in patients who had Grade ≥3 anemia and in patients who had platelet counts ≤20,000/μL and/or a tendency for bleeding.

Treatment Evaluation

Before enrollment in the study, all patients provided a complete medical history and underwent physical examination. We obtained a complete blood count, blood chemistry, blood gas analysis, chest X-ray, electrocardiography, computed tomographic (CT) scans of the brain and chest, a CT scan or ultrasound examination of the abdomen, and a bone scintigram. Patients were monitored weekly throughout treatment by physical examination, recording of toxic effects, complete blood cell counts, and blood chemistry. Studies of drug-related toxicities were evaluated according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (version 2.0, revised 1994).

Tumor responses were classified according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.14 In target lesions, a complete response (CR) was defined as the complete disappearance of all target lesions for a minimum of 4 weeks, during which no new lesions appeared. A partial response (PR) was defined as a decrease ≥30% in the sum of the greatest dimensions of target lesions for a minimum of 4 weeks. Progressive disease (PD) was defined as an increase ≥20% in the sum of the greatest dimensions of target lesions or the appearance of ≥1 new lesion(s). Stable disease (SD) was defined as neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for a PR nor a sufficient increase to qualify for PD for a minimum of 6 weeks. Response duration in patients who achieved a CR or PR was measured from the start of treatment to the date of disease progression.

In nontarget lesions, a CR was defined as the disappearance of all nontarget lesions. An incomplete response/SD was defined as the persistence of ≥1 nontarget lesion(s). PD was defined as the appearance of ≥1 new nontarget lesion(s) and/or unequivocal progression of existing nontarget lesions. An extramural review was conducted to validate staging and responses during a regular meeting of the West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group.

Statistical Methods

The main objective of this study was to test whether either of the 2 regimens had promise in terms of increasing survival. Each arm was to be analyzed separately. One or both of the regimens would be considered promising if the true 1-year survival rates were ≥55%, or the regimens would be of no additional interest if the true 1-year survival rates were ≤32%. The study was designed to accrue 57 patients to each arm over 12 months followed by 1 additional year of follow-up to confer a power of 0.80 for a 1-sided .05 level for a 1-year survival rate of 32% versus 55%.

We compared Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival and progression-free survival by using the standard log-rank test. Overall survival was defined as the interval from the date of random treatment assignment to the date of death or last follow-up information for patients who remained alive. Progression-free survival was defined as the interval from the date of random treatment assignment to the date of progression or death, whichever occurred first, or last follow-up information for patients who remained alive and for patients whose disease did not progress.

Patient characteristics except for age, response rates, dose reduction rate in each cycle, and toxicity incidence, were compared by using Pearson chi-square contingency table analysis. Age and the number of treatment cycles were compared by using the Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

Patient Characteristics

From June 2001 to October 2002, 128 patients were assigned to receive GC (n = 64 patients) or GV (n = 64 patients). All enrolled patients were eligible. Baseline patient characteristics according to treatment arm are shown in Table 1. Patients essentially were divided equally between the 2 treatment arms in terms of gender, age, performance status, disease stage, and histologic subtypes. Patients with Stage IIIB disease accounted for 27% of the study population, and patients with adenocarcinoma accounted for 63% of the study population. In the GV arm, 2 patients did not receive trial therapy because of deterioration in their condition. These 2 patients were excluded from the analysis of toxicity, response, and progression-free survival.

Table 1. Baseline Patient Characteristics
CharacteristicNo. of patientsP
GCGV
  1. GC indicates gemcitabine and carboplatin; GV, gemcitabine and vinorelbine; PS, performance status.

Total no. of patients6464 
Gender  .851
 Male/female43/2142/22
Age, y
 Median6062.929
 Range30–7436–74
PS
 0/125/3924/40.855
Smoking history
 Yes/no18/4627/37.095
Histology
 Adenocarcinoma3645.128
 Squamous cell carcinoma2116
 Others73
Disease stage
 Stage IIIB/IV16/4816/481.000
Prior treatment
 Yes/no15/4914/50.832

Treatment Delivery

Median numbers of 3 cycles and 4 cycles were administered in the GC and GV arms, respectively. Three or more cycles were delivered to 76.6% and 72.6% of patients, and 6 cycles were delivered to 7.8% and 32.3% of patients in the GC and GV arms, respectively. Differences between arms in the number of chemotherapy courses administered were not statistically significant (P = .161) (Table 2).

Table 2. Treatment Delivery and Dose Reduction Rate
No. of cyclesGemcitabine and carboplatinGemcitabine and vinorelbine
No. of patients (%)No. of patients who required dose reduction (%)No. of patients (%)No. of patients requiring dose reduction (%)
261 (95.3)30 (49.2)54 (87.1)8 (14.8)
349 (76.6)6 (12.2)47 (75.8)6 (13.3)
429 (45.3)2 (6.7)34 (54.8)2 (5.9)
59 (14.1)2 (22.2)24 (38.7)1 (4.2)
65 (7.8)020 (32.2)0

Chemotherapy was omitted on Day 8 for 6.4% of patients in the GC arm and for 3.8% of patients in the GV arm. Dose reductions in the second cycle were more frequent in the GC arm than in the GV arm (49.2% vs. 14.8%, respectively; P < .001). The dose reduction rates after the second cycle did not differ between the 2 arms (Table 2). Most dose reductions in the GC arm were because of hematologic toxicity, especially thrombocytopenia. Reasons for stopping treatment also differed between the 2 arms; Treatment was stopped before 3 cycles for disease-related causes (progression or death) in 46.7% and 58.8% of patients and because of toxicity or refusal in 40.0% and 29.4% of patients in the GC and GV arms, respectively.

Treatment Response and Survival

In the GC arm, there was 1 CR and 12 PRs for an overall response rate of 20.3%. In addition, 34 patients (53.1%) had SD, and 17 patients (26.6%) had PD. In the GV arm, there were 2 CRs and 11 PRs for an overall response rate of 21.0%. There were 29 patients (46.8%) with SD and 17 patients (27.4%) with PD. The difference in the overall response rate between the 2 arms was not significant (P = .60).

Overall and progression-free survival curves for the 2 treatment arms are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The 1-year survival rate was 57.6% (95% confidence interval, 45.5–69.8%) in the GC arm versus 53.3% (95% confidence interval, 40.8–65.7%) in the GV arm. Respective median survival, 2-year survival rates, and median progression-free survival were 432 days, 38.3%, and 165 days in the GC arm and 385 days, 22.4%, and 137 days in the GV arm. No significant differences were noted between groups in progression-free survival (P = .676) or overall survival (P = .298), although there were trends toward higher 1-year and 2-year survival rates in the GC arm.

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Overall survival is illustrated for the 2 treatment arms. GC indicates gemcitabine and carboplatin; GV, gemcitabine and vinorelbine.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 2. Progression-free survival is illustrated for the 2 treatment arms. GC indicates gemcitabine and carboplatin; GV, gemcitabine and vinorelbine.

Download figure to PowerPoint

After primary chemotherapy, 94 patients (73.4%) received other chemotherapeutic agents with no difference between the 2 arms (47 patients in the GC arm and 47 patients in the GV arm received other chemotherapeutic agents). In the GC arm, 27 patients received a single anticancer agent (docetaxel, 17 patients; vinorelbine, 4 patients; gemcitabine, 3 patients; other agents, 3 patients). Platinum doublets were given to 12 patients (carboplatin and paclitaxel, 3 patients; cisplatin and docetaxel, 3 patients; carboplatin and docetaxel, 2 patients; other doublets, 4 patients). In the GV arm, 21 patients received platinum doublets (carboplatin and paclitaxel, 14 patients; carboplatin and docetaxel, 3 patients; other doublets, 4 patients). A single cytotoxic agent was given to 9 patients (docetaxel, 6 patients; vinorelbine, 1 patient; gemcitabine, 1 patient; other agents, 3 patients). There was a tendency for more patients to receive single-agent chemotherapy, whereas fewer patients received platinum doublets, in the GC arm. The number of patients who received gefitinib treatment apparently did not differ between the 2 arms (31 patients in the GC arm and 27 in the GV arm received gefitinib).

Toxicity

Severe hematologic toxicity (Grade 4) was significantly more frequent in the GC arm (45.3% vs. 25.8% in the GV arm; P = .022). Conversely, severe nonhematologic toxicity (Grade 3 or 4) occurred more often in the GV arm (7.8% vs. 19.4% in the GC arm; P = .057). There were no treatment-related deaths.

Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities are listed in Tables 3 and 4. Hematologic toxicity was prominent. In particular, the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly higher in the GC arm (81.3% vs. 6.5% in the GV arm; P < .001). However, most patients who had thrombocytopenia in the GC arm did not experience bleeding. Two patients had Grade 3 bleeding in the GC arm. Patients in the GC arm required more platelet transfusions (45.3% vs. 0.0% in the GV arm; P < .001). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and anemia also occurred in a significantly higher percentage of patients in the GC arm (neutropenia, 79.7% vs. 62.5% in the GV arm; P < .031; anemia, 50.0% vs. 4.7% in the GV arm; P < .001). The difference in febrile neutropenia incidence was not significant. (P = .264).

Table 3. Hematologic Toxicity: Maximum Toxicity Grade in Any Course*
ToxicityNo. of patients (%)P
GCGV
  • GC indicates gemcitabine and carboplatin; GV, gemcitabine and vinorelbine.

  • *

    Studies of drug-related toxicities were evaluated according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (version 2.0, revised 1994).

Leukopenia
 Grade ≥334 (53.1)26 (41.9).208
 Grade 41 (1.6)1 (1.6).981
Neutropenia
 Grade ≥351 (79.7)40 (64.5).057
 Grade 422 (34.4)16 (25.8).294
Anemia
 Grade ≥332 (50.0)3 (4.8)<.001
 Grade 49 (14.1)0.002
Thrombocytopenia
 Grade ≥352 (81.3)4 (6.5)<.001
 Grade 46 (9.4)0.013
Platelet transfusion
 Yes29 (45.3)0<.001
Febrile neutropenia20  
 Yes5 (7.8)7 (11.3).506
Table 4. Nonhematologic Toxicity: Maximum Toxicity Grade in Any Course*
ToxicityNo. of patients (%)P
GCGV
  • GC indicates gemcitabine and carboplatin; GV, gemcitabine and vinorelbine; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase.

  • *

    Studies of drug-related toxicities were evaluated according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (version 2.0, revised 1994).

  • One patient had Grade 3 fatigue, and 1 patient had Grade 4 fatigue.

  • One patient had Grade 3 pneumonitis, and 1 patient had Grade 5 pneumonitis.

Nausea
 Grade ≥227 (42.2)13 (21.0).010
 Grade 35 (7.8)0
Emesis
 Grade ≥28 (12.5)5 (8.1).413
 Grade 300
Fatigue
 Grade ≥29 (14.1)15 (24.2).147
 Grade 32 (3.1)2 (3.2)
Diarrhea
 Grade ≥202 (3.2).147
 Grade 301 (1.6)
Constipation
 Grade ≥228 (43.8)19 (30.6).128
 Grade 33 (4.7)1 (1.6)
Rash
 Grade ≥211 (17.2)11 (17.7).934
 Grade 32 (3.1)1 (1.6)
Phlebitis
 Grade ≥2018 (29.0)<.001
 Grade 300
Pneumonitis
 Grade ≥203 (4.8).074
 Grade 302 (3.2)
ALT/AST
 Grade ≥216 (25.0)27 (43.5).028
 Grade 35 (7.8)12 (19.4).057
Creatinine
 Grade ≥201 (1.6).307
 Grade 301 (1.6)

Nonhematologic toxicity was mild. Grade ≥2 nausea occurred significantly more often in the GC arm than in the GV arm (21.0% vs. 42.2%; P = .010). Conversely, Grade ≥2 phlebitis (29.0% vs. 0%; P < .001) and hepatic toxicity (elevation of AST or ALT, 43.5% vs. 25.0%; P = .028) were significantly more common in the GV arm than in the GC arm. Other nonhematologic toxicities occurred with similar frequency in the 2 treatment arms.

There was 1 treatment-related death in the GV arm, which was caused by pneumonitis. No treatment-related deaths occurred in the GC arm.

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

This study, the first cooperative group trial to our knowledge of the GC regimen, demonstrated the feasibility of the GC regimen compared with the GV regimen. The GC regimen was identified as a promising regimen for patients with advanced NSCLC. Sederholm et al. of the Swedish Lung Cancer Group demonstrated that GC conferred a significant survival advantage compared with gemcitabine alone.8 Other Phase III trials demonstrated that the GC regimen was tolerated better; conferred a survival advantage over the combination of mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin;15 and resulted in a comparable survival advantage and less nausea and emesis compared with GC.7

Based on a large body of Phase II data, including those from our study,9 and Phase III data, the GV regimen apparently produces less hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity, when it is compared indirectly with more standard combinations. In recent Phase III studies, GV was compared with cisplatin-based regimens. Overall, there was no significant difference in survival, but toxicity was less pronounced.10, 11, 16

GC and GV have comparable efficacy and less toxicity than platinum doublets, as discussed above. However, we do not know which regimen, GC or GV, is more feasible or more effective. Thus, we conducted a randomized study to compare the 2 regimens.

This randomized Phase II study showed that GC and GV are tolerated well and have comparable activity in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, there were marked differences in hematologic toxicity and moderate differences in nonhematologic toxicity. GC resulted in higher incidences of Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Conversely, hepatic toxicity and phlebitis were increased in patients who received GV.

GC was associated with more thrombocytopenia. The difference in the incidence of severe thrombocytopenia between our study and European or American studies may be attributable to blood counts that were obtained more often in Japan (more than once or twice per week) or to ethnic differences. It is unknown whether there are any the ethnic differences between Japanese and European or American patients concerning thrombocytopenia on the GC regimen. However, a report described severe hematologic toxicity with the combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin that may have been caused by an ethnic difference. Gandara et al. performed a comparative analysis of paclitaxel and carboplatin from cooperative group studies in Japan and the United States. Their analysis showed that the incidence of Grade 4 neutropenia (69% vs. 26%) and Grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia (16% vs. 3%) was significantly higher in Japanese patients despite the lower paclitaxel dose.17

Overall efficacy was comparable between the GC and GV arms in the current study. There was a trend toward inferior overall survival in the GV arm, but the differences were small numerically, and the study did not have adequate power to detect survival differences. Survival in the current study was better than that reported in other studies of patients with advanced NSCLC. The median progression-free survival in the GC arm in our study was 165 days and was almost equal to that of GC reported by Rudd et al. (5.3 months)15; however, overall survival in our study was much longer (432 days vs. 10 months, respectively). Moreover, the proportion of patients who received second-line therapies in our study was higher (73% vs. 8%).15 Thus, we believe that better survival in the current study was because a higher proportion of our patients received second-line therapies.

In conclusion, the current results demonstrated that the GC and GV regimens both were active and well tolerated. Although Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was more frequent in the GC arm, the low incidence of bleeding indicated that thrombocytopenia was not major clinical problem. Thus, we believe that both the GC regimen and the GV regimen are reasonable treatment options for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES

This study was conducted under the auspices of the West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Groups. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomized clinical trials. BMJ. 1995; 311: 899909.
  • 2
    Pfister DG, Johnson DH, Azzoli CG, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology treatment of unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer guideline: update 2003. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22: 330353.
  • 3
    D'Addario G, Pintilie M, Leighl NB, et al. Platinum-based versus non-platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of the published literature. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 29262936.
  • 4
    Paccagnella A, Favaretto A, Oniga F, et al. Cisplatin versus carboplatin in combination with mitomycin and vinblastine in advanced non small cell lung cancer. A multicenter, randomized Phase III trial. Lung Cancer. 2004; 43: 8391.
  • 5
    Rosell R, Gatzemeier U, Betticher DC, et al. Phase III randomised trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin with paclitaxel/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a cooperative multinational trial. Ann Oncol. 2002; 13: 15391549.
  • 6
    Mazzanti P, Massacesi C, Rocchi MB, et al. Randomized, multicenter, Phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2003; 41: 8189.
  • 7
    Zatloukal P, Petruzelka L, Zemanova M, et al. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin in Stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung cancer: a Phase III randomized trial. Lung Cancer. 2003; 41: 321331.
  • 8
    Sederholm C, Hillerdal G, Lamberg K, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus single-agent gemcitabine in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 83808388.
  • 9
    Katakami N, Sugiura T, Nogami T, et al. Combination chemotherapy of gemcitabine and vinorelbine for patients in Stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer: a Phase II study of the West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group (WJTOG) 9908. Lung Cancer. 2004; 43: 93100
  • 10
    Gridelli C, Gallo C, Shepherd FA, et al. Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Phase III trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 30253034.
  • 11
    Laack E, Dickgreber N, Muller T, et al. Randomized Phase III study of gemcitabine and vinorelbine versus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: from the German and Swiss Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22: 23482356.
  • 12
    Calvert AH, Newell DR, Gumbrell LA, et al. Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. J Clin Oncol. 1989; 7: 17481756.
  • 13
    Gault MH, Longerich LL, Harnett JD, et al. Predicting glomerular function from adjusted serum creatinine. Nephron. 1992; 62: 249256.
  • 14
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 205216.
  • 15
    Rudd RM, Gower NH, Spiro SG, et al. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in patients with Stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer: a Phase III randomized study of the London Lung Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 142153.
  • 16
    Alberola V, Camps C, Provencio M, et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus a cisplatin-based triplet versus nonplatinum sequential doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Spanish Lung Cancer Group Phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 32073213.
  • 17
    Gandara DR, Ohe Y, Kubota K, et al. Japan-SWOG common arm analysis of paclitaxel/carboplatin in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a model for prospective comparison of cooperative group trials. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2004; 23: 616. Abstract 7007.