Phase II study of paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin as second-line treatment in relapsed small-cell lung cancer

A phase I-II study of docetaxel-ifosfamide-cisplatin (DIP) combination chemotherapy regimen in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

In an attempt to develop more effective chemotherapy regimens in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we evaluated docetaxel-ifosfamide-cisplatin (DIP) based on our previous experience with paclitaxel-ifosfamide-cisplatin. Patients with advanced NSCLC (stages III-IV), WHO-PS< or =2, no prior chemotherapy and unimpaired hematopoietic and organ function were eligible. Chemotherapy was administered in successive dose levels (DLs) and included docetaxel (80-100 mg/m2 day 1), ifosfamide (4-5 g/m2) and cisplatin (80-100 mg/m2), both divided over days 1 and 2 every 21 days. G-CSF (lenograstin) was administered from days 4-13. Fifty-five patients were accrued (phase I: 15; phase II: 40) and all are evaluable for response and toxicity: median age = 58 (40-72); PS = 1 (0-2); gender = 48 males, 7 females; stages IIIA = 8, IIIB = 19, IV = 28; and histologies were adenocarcinoma (29), squamous (20), large cell (6). Metastatic sites at diagnosis included lymph nodes (33), bone (8), liver (6), brain (6), lung nodules (9), adrenals (7) and soft tissue (1). The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was reached at DL4 (Docetaxel: 100 mg/m2-Ifosfamide: 5 g/m2-Cisplatin: 100 mg/m2) consisting of 2 cases of febrile neutropenia (FN), and DL3 (Docetaxel: 100 mg/m2-Ifosfamide: 5 g/m2-Cisplatin: 80 mg/m2) was considered as the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended for further phase II testing. Among evaluable patients in phase II, 31/46 (67%; CI = 54-81%) responded; 4 were complete responses, 27 partial responses, 12 with stable disease and 3 with progressive disease. The median response duration was 7 months (2-21+), median time to progression (TTP) 8 months (1-23+) and median overall survival (OS) 13 months (2-23+). The 1-year survival was 57%. Grade (Gr) 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia 39/46 with 27 developing Gr4 (< or =7 days) and 20% FN managed successfully with broad-spectrum antibiotics, thrombocytopenia Gr3 3/46-Gr4 1/46, no Gr3 neuropathy, Gr1-2 CNS toxicity in 12, no renal toxicity, 15 Gr2 myalgias, 17 Gr2 diarrhea and 10 Gr3 vomiting. In the present phase I-II study, DIP appears highly active and tolerable in advanced NSCLC in the outpatient setting. Randomized comparisons to current standard 2-drug regimens will be warranted.

Chemotherapy as treatment of primary and recurrent small cell lung cancer

Chemotherapy is the treatment of choice in metastatic stage of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Radiation therapy, surgery and other forms of therapy are only included in special treatment situations, particularly for different local problems. A wide range of chemotherapeutic agents have proven to be effective in SCLC, including carboplatin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, epirubicin, etoposide, ifosfamide, teniposide and vincristine. However, treatment results could not be improved over the last 10 years and the median survival of patients with metastatic disease is limited to 7-10 months. New agents like docetaxel, gemcitabine, irinotecan, paclitaxel, topotecan and vinorelbine have shown promising results in phase-II investigations. Yet, no evidence is provided from randomized trials to employ these drugs in first line treatment. Clearly, polychemotherapy is superior to single agent treatment. Compared to the combination of cisplatin and etoposide, no other combination has clearly shown improved results in large phase-III randomised trials, yet. The combination of cisplatin and irinotecan has also shown promising results in a single randomised trial with the need to be confirmed in larger settings. Neither extending the initial treatment beyond the median number of six cycles, nor maintenance treatment have-so far-resulted in any increase in survival results for patients with metastasised SCLC. Nor has dose-intensification, which causes significantly higher toxicities in patients, shown a clear impact on the overall survival of these patients. Brain metastases represent a high frequent complication associated with SCLC. In these cases, the combination of chemotherapy and whole brain radiation therapy is advocated. Second-line treatment should always be considered in patients with relapse or failure to first-line therapy. In addition to a rechallenging with the prior drug combination or selecting a different potentially non-cross resistant one, monotherapy with topotecan proved to be effective as well. In summary, up to now, no standard chemotherapy combination exists for metastatic SCLC. The individual therapy strategy can only be selected by considering the clinically relevant conditions of the patient.

Second-line chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of second-line chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have relapsed or failed to respond to first-line treatment was unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of any second-line chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Bibliographic databases were searched. Handsearching and contact with experts was also performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials in which any second-line chemotherapy was compared with BSC in patients with NSCLC who had previously failed to any previous chemotherapy regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted by 2 independent reviewers and revised by all authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study was included. It randomised 204 patients to receive either doxetaxel or BSC. Following an unacceptably high toxic death rate the dose of doxetaxel was reduced from 100 mg/m(2) to 75 mg/m(2). Doxetaxel gave an extra 2.4 months of survival - an average of 7.0 months vs 4.6 months on BSC. At 1 year after diagnosis 29% of doxetaxel treated patients were alive compared with 19% of the BSC group.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Definitive recommendations cannot be made since evidence is only available from one randomised controlled trial which, though of reasonable quality, had a number of limitations. There is currently no evidence to support second-line treatment of patients with poor performance status. Larger, well-designed controlled trials are needed to further evaluate whether the benefits of second-line chemotherapy to patients with NSCLC outweigh its risks and costs.