Activity of gemcitabine in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a multicentre, extended phase II study

Deciphering disulfidptosis: Uncovering a lncRNA-based signature for prognostic assessment, personalized immunotherapy, and therapeutic agent selection in lung adenocarcinoma patients

BACKGROUND

Disulfidptosis, a recently identified type of regulated cell death, plays critical roles in various biological processes of cancer; however, whether they can impact the prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) remains to be fully elucidated. We aimed to adopt this concept to develop and validate a lncRNA signature for LUAD prognostic prediction.

METHODS

For this study, the TCGA-LUAD dataset was used as the training cohort, and multiple datasets from the GEO database were pooled as the validation cohort. Disulfidptosis regulated genes were obtained from published studies, and various statistical methods, including Kaplan-Meier (KM), Cox, and LASSO, were used to train our gene signature DISULncSig. We utilized KM analysis, COX analysis, receiver operating characteristic analysis, time-dependent AUC analysis, principal component analysis, nomogram predictor analysis, and functional assays in our validation process. We also compared DISULncSig with previous studies. We performed analyses to evaluate DISULncSig's immunotherapeutic ability, focusing on eight immune algorithms, TMB, and TIDE. Additionally, we investigated potential drugs that could be effective in treating patients with high-risk scores. Additionally qRT-PCR examined the expression patterns of DISULncSig lncRNAs, and the ability of DISULncSig in pan-cancer was also assessed.

RESULTS

DISULncSig containing twelve lncRNAs was trained and showed strong predictive ability in the validation cohort. Compared with previous similar studies, DISULncSig had more prognostic ability advantages. DISULncSig was closely related to the immune status of LUAD, and its tight relationship with checkpoints KIR2DL3, IL10, IL2, CD40LG, SELP, BTLA, and CD28 may be the key to its potential immunotherapeutic ability. For the high DISULncSig score population, we found ten drug candidates, among which epothilone-b may have the most potential. The pan-cancer analysis found that DISULncSig was a risk factor in multiple cancers. Additionally, we discovered that some of the DISULncSig lncRNAs could play crucial roles in specific cancer types.

CONCLUSION

The current study established a powerful prognostic DISULncSig signature for LUAD that was also valid for most pan-cancers. This signature could serve as a potential target for immunotherapy and might help the more efficient application of drugs to specific populations.

Crosstalk between copper homeostasis and cuproptosis reveals a lncRNA signature to prognosis prediction, immunotherapy personalization, and agent selection for patients with lung adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Copper homeostasis and cuproptosis play critical roles in various biological processes of cancer; however, whether they can impact the prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) remain to be fully elucidated. We aimed to adopt these concepts to create and validate a lncRNA signature for LUAD prognostic prediction.

METHODS

For this study, the TCGA-LUAD dataset was used as the training cohort, and multiple datasets from the GEO database were pooled as the validation cohort. Copper homeostasis and cuproptosis regulated genes were obtained from published studies, and various statistical methods, including Kaplan-Meier (KM), Cox, and LASSO, were used to train our gene signature CoCuLncSig. We utilized KM analysis, COX analysis, receiver operating characteristic analysis, time-dependent AUC analysis, principal component analysis, and nomogram predictor analysis in our validation process. We also compared CoCuLncSig with previous studies. We performed analyses using R software to evaluate CoCuLncSig's immunotherapeutic ability, focusing on eight immune algorithms, TMB, and TIDE. Additionally, we investigated potential drugs that could be effective in treating patients with high-risk scores. Additionally qRT-PCR examined the expression patterns of CoCuLncSig lncRNAs, and the ability of CoCuLncSig in pan-cancer was also assessed.

RESULTS

CoCuLncSig containing eight lncRNAs was trained and showed strong predictive ability in the validation cohort. Compared with previous similar studies, CoCuLncSig had more prognostic ability advantages. CoCuLncSig was closely related to the immune status of LUAD, and its tight relationship with checkpoints IL10, IL2, CD40LG, SELP, BTLA, and CD28 may be the key to its potential immunotherapeutic ability. For the high CoCuLncSig score population, we found 16 drug candidates, among which epothilone-b and gemcitabine may have the most potential. The pan-cancer analysis found that CoCuLncSig was a risk factor in multiple cancers. Additionally, we discovered that some of the CoCuLncSig lncRNAs could play crucial roles in specific cancer types.

CONCLUSION

The current study established a powerful prognostic CoCuLncSig signature for LUAD that was also valid for most pan-cancers. This signature could serve as a potential target for immunotherapy and might help the more efficient application of drugs to specific populations.

Phase III study of adjuvant gemcitabine compared with adjuvant uracil-tegafur in patients with completely resected pathological stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (WJTOG0101)

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant oral uracil-tegafur (UFT) has led to significantly longer postoperative survival among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gemcitabine (GEM) monotherapy is also reportedly effective for NSCLC and has minor adverse events (AEs). This study compared the efficacy of GEM- versus UFT-based adjuvant regimens in patients with completely resected pathological stage (p-stage) IB-IIIA NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with completely resected p-stage IB-IIIA NSCLC were randomly assigned to GEM or UFT. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), and AEs.

RESULTS

We assigned 305 patients to the GEM group and 303 to the UFT group. Baseline factors were balanced between the arms. Of the 608 patients, 293 (48.1%) had p-stage IB disease, 195 (32.0%) had p-stage II disease and 121 (19.9%) had p-stage IIIA disease. AEs were generally mild in both groups, and only one death occurred, in the GEM group. After a median follow-up of 6.8 years, the two groups did not significantly differ in survival: 5 year OS rates were GEM: 70.0%, UFT: 68.8% (hazard ratio 0.948; 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.23; P = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Although GEM-based adjuvant therapy for patients with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC was associated with acceptable toxicity, it did not provide longer OS than did UFT.

The recent advancement of low-dimensional nanostructured materials for drug delivery and drug sensing application: A brief review

In this review article, we have presented a detailed analysis of the recent advancement of quantum mechanical calculations in the applications of the low-dimensional nanomaterials (LDNs) into biomedical fields like biosensors and drug delivery systems development. Biosensors play an essential role for many communities, e.g. law enforcing agencies to sense illicit drugs, medical communities to remove overdosed medications from the human and animal body etc. Besides, drug delivery systems are theoretically being proposed for many years and experimentally found to deliver the drug to the targeted sites by reducing the harmful side effects significantly. In current COVID-19 pandemic, biosensors can play significant roles, e.g. to remove experimental drugs during the human trials if they show any unwanted adverse effect etc. where the drug delivery systems can be potentially applied to reduce the side effects. But before proceeding to these noble and expensive translational research works, advanced theoretical calculations can provide the possible outcomes with considerable accuracy. Hence in this review article, we have analyzed how theoretical calculations can be used to investigate LDNs as potential biosensor devices or drug delivery systems. We have also made a very brief discussion on the properties of biosensors or drug delivery systems which should be investigated for the biomedical applications and how to calculate them theoretically. Finally, we have made a detailed analysis of a large number of recently published research works where theoretical calculations were used to propose different LDNs for bio-sensing and drug delivery applications.

Docetaxel Followed by Gemcitabine in the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase I Study

Aims and Background

Based on the results of a preclinical study, a phase I trial was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of administering docetaxel followed by gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Study design

Sixteen patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stages III B-IV) were treated on the 1st day with docetaxel and on the 8th day with gemcitabine. Treatment was repeated every three weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Five groups received docetaxel/gemcitabine (mg/m2): 50/800, 60/800, 60/900, 60/1,000, 70/1,000. All patients and 57 cycles were assessed for toxicity.

Results

The most important side effects were grade IV neutropenia in 4 patients (2 at the 60/1000 level and 2 at the 70/1000 level) and grade III leukopenia and neutropenia without fever in 4 and 6 patients, respectively. Maximum tolerated dose was not reached.

Conclusions

The sequence docetaxel → gemcitabine appears well tolerated and easy to administer. For this reason, a phase II study is ongoing to fully assess its antitumor activity.

A phase II study of biweekly gemcitabine and carboplatin in completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

We conducted a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biweekly gemcitabine and carboplatin combination treatment in patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Patients with completely resected stage IB to IIIA NSCLC were treated with four cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m², days 1 and 15) plus carboplatin [area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) 5 mg/mL/min, day 1] every 4 weeks as adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were enrolled in this study. The median number of treatment cycles was four. The completion rate of chemotherapy was 79.1%. Major grade 3/4 hematological adverse events included leukocytopenia (27.9%) and neutropenia (53.5%), whereas non-hematological toxicities were generally mild. Ten patients (23.3%) required chemotherapy treatment schedule delay, and one patient required one dose level reduction because of drug fever. Median disease-free survival was 78.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 39.5-not reached (NA)] and median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 83.7-NA).

CONCLUSIONS

Biweekly administration of gemcitabine and carboplatin is effective and well tolerated for patients with completely resected NSCLC as an adjuvant chemotherapy.

Phase II clinical trial with gemcitabine and paclitaxel sequential monotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (SLCG 01-04)

BACKGROUND

In advanced-stage (IIIB or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), combination chemotherapy has demonstrated response rates of 20% and a 1-year survival rate of 30%. We conducted a multicentre, open-label, nonrandomised phase II trial to determine the efficacy and tolerability of sequential monotherapy with gemcitabine followed by paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2002 and July 2004, the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG) conducted a study in which 34 patients with advanced (stage IIIB or IV) NSCLC received 1200 mg/m(2) of i.v. gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for a total of 3 cycles followed by 100 mg/m(2) of weekly i.v. paclitaxel for a maximum of 8 weeks. If objective response or stable disease was achieved, 70 mg/m(2) of weekly i.v. paclitaxel was maintained until disease progression was evident or toxic effects were intolerable. Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) analysis was performed. Baseline levels of serum VEGF, EGFR, telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) and K-ras mutations were analysed. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate.

RESULTS

The median age of the 34 patients who were enrolled was 67 years (range 46-77), but later 8 patients were excluded; 78.8% were men, 81.8% had performance status 1 and also 81.8% had metastatic disease at diagnosis. The objective response rate was 28% (95% CI, 14.2-47.8); the median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 2.1-12.3) and the median time to progression (TTP) was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.5-5.3). Grade 3 or 4 drug-related haematological toxicities were observed in 6 patients. Patients with lower baseline serum VEGF levels had significantly longer survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential therapy with gemcitabine followed by paclitaxel was well tolerated with a low proportion of grade 3 or 4 adverse events, the absence of unexpected toxicity and with an improvement in quality of life. Unfortunately, the response rate did not meet the minimally required rate of 20% and the study was prematurely closed. VEGF was identified as a poor prognostic factor for TTP and survival.

A phase II first-line study of gemcitabine, carboplatin, and bevacizumab in advanced stage nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab improves responses and progression-free survival when added to first-line paclitaxel/carboplatin or cisplatin/gemcitabine for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. This study was designed to evaluate toxicities and efficacy of gemcitabine/carboplatin/bevacizumab.

METHODS

Patients with untreated advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer, with no evidence of brain metastases and not on anticoagulation were eligible. Patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1 and 8; carboplatin area under the curve 5 day 1; and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg day 1 every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Bevacizumab was then continued every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

From July 2006 to December 2008, 48 patients were enrolled: 23 (48%) men, 25 (52%) women, and 19 (40%) never smokers. One patient never received therapy and is not included in the analysis. Median cycle number was 8 (1-42) with 37 patients (78.7%) completing ≥4 cycles of three drugs. Dose reductions occurred in 34 (72.3%) patients. Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (47%/15%), thrombocytopenia (11%/15%), anemia (6%/0%), dyspnea (6%/2%), bacterial pneumonia (4%/0%), and hypertension (4%/2%). No neutropenic fevers occurred. One patient died of hemoptysis. Grade 3 bleeding occurred in three other patients. There were seven (14.9%) partial responses. Median time to first event (progression/death/toxicity requiring discontinuation) was 6.4 months (95% confidence interval: 4.8-7.9 months). The median overall survival (OS) was 12.8 months (95% confidence interval: 10.0-16.5). The OS is 57% at 1 year and 10% at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Although perhaps skewed by a high proportion of nonsmokers and women, treatment with gemcitabine/carboplatin/bevacizumab has an acceptable toxicity profile with promising median OS despite a low response rate.

Phase I study of the combination of nedaplatin and gemcitabine in previously untreated advanced squamous cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

The objectives of this phase I trial were to evaluate the toxicity of the nedaplatin/gemcitabine regimen, determine the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) of these agents, and observe the anti-tumor effects of this regimen on advanced squamous cell lung cancer.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated advanced squamous cell lung cancer were eligible if they had a performance status of 0 or 1 with adequate organ function. The doses of gemcitabine (days 1 and 8) and nedaplatin (day 8) studied were 800/70, 1,000/80, 1,000/90, and 1,000/100 (mg/m(2)), repeated every 3 weeks.

RESULTS

Toxicity and response could be assessed in all 13 patients enrolled. The patients included 12 men and one woman with a median age of 69 years (range 57-81 years). Three patients had stage IIIB disease and 10 patients had stage IV disease. The MTDs were reached at 1,000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine and 80 mg/m(2) nedaplatin. The most frequent toxic effects were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia; grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 23% of patients, and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was seen in 46% of patients. Non-hematologic toxicities were mild. Grade 3 fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and appetite loss occurred in two patients. The overall response rate was 62%.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend doses of 800 mg/m(2) gemcitabine and 70 mg/m(2) nedaplatin for phase II study. This combination chemotherapeutic regimen is active and well tolerated.

[A meta analysis of gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy compared with single-agent chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Whether gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy is superior to gemcitabine or platinum single-agent chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still in dispute, and the aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine combining platinum chemotherapy for patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

We searched relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from VIP, CBM, CNKI, the Cochrane library, PUBMED and EMBASE. We traced the related references and experts in this field and communicated with other authors to obtain the information that has not been found. We made quality assessment of qualified RCTs assessed by the exclusion and inclusion criteria and used RevMan 5.0 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration to perform meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were eligible and included 984 patients. Meta analysis results suggested that: compared with gecitabine single-agent chemotherapy, the combination had a statistically significant benefit in increasing the response rate (OR = 3.29, 95% CI: 1.79-6.05, P = 0.000 1) and 2-year survival rate (OR = 3.22, 95% CI: 1.45-7.12, P = 0.004) while increased the risk of the incidence of adverse reactions, especially the grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (RR = 8.16, 95% CI: 1.71-39.07, P = 0.009); compared with cisplatin single-agent chemotherapy, the combination had a statistically significant benefit in increasing the response rate (OR = 3.51, 95% CI: 2.20-5.60, P < 0.01) and 1-year survival rate (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.16-2.41, P = 0.006) while increased the risk of the incidence of adverse reactions, especially the grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (OR = 28.55, 95% CI: 14.06-57.04, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Compared with single-agent chemotherapy, the combining can significantly improve the efficiency and survival rate while increase the toxicity rare. The results still need to be proved by high quality RCTs.

A randomized, phase III multicenter trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Paclitaxel-carboplatin is used as the standard regimen for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was designed to compare gemcitabine + carboplatin or gemcitabine + paclitaxel to the standard regimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1135 chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1 (GC), gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 (GP), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1 (PC). Stratification was based on disease stage, baseline weight loss, and presence or absence of brain metastases. Cycles were repeated every 21 days for up to six cycles or disease progression.

RESULTS

Median survival (months) with GC was 7.9 compared with 8.5 for GP and 8.7 for PC. Response rates (RRs) were as follows: GC, 25.3%; GP, 32.1%; and PC, 29.8%. The GC arm was associated with a greater incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic events but a lower rate of neurotoxicity and alopecia when compared with GP and PC.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-platinum and non-paclitaxel gemcitabine-containing doublets demonstrate similar overall survival and RR compared with the standard PC regimen. However, the treatment arms had distinct toxicity profiles.

Impact of preoperative chemotherapy on pulmonary function tests in resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Several chemotherapy agents, including gemcitabine and paclitaxel, have been reported to cause interstitial pneumonitis. The incidence of pulmonary toxicity from the combination of gemcitabine and paclitaxel is reported to be approximately 5%. In this report, pulmonary function test (PFT) results were analyzed from two similar randomized phase 2 trials that tested platinum and nonplatinum regimens preoperatively in patients with stage I or II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

The regimens included gemcitabine plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, or cisplatin. PFT and dyspnea scores were obtained at baseline and postchemotherapy, and were compared to one of several secondary end points, including ability to undergo surgical resection.

RESULTS

Baseline PFT scores varied with smoking status. Mean levels of diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco) adjusted for hemoglobin declined 8% from pre- to postinduction (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.0001). Changes in FVC, FEV(1), and total lung capacity were not statistically significant after chemotherapy. Although 27% of patients in the study had some reduction in PFT results, only 2 of the 85 eligible patients did not undergo surgery due to PFT reduction following chemotherapy. One patient in the study experienced a clinically significant respiratory toxicity (grade 3 dyspnea). Pulmonary toxicity was only statistically associated with male gender.

CONCLUSION

In the preoperative setting, gemcitabine-based chemotherapy was well tolerated. The most commonly affected PFT parameter postchemotherapy was the Dlco. Although 15% of patients had a significant reduction in the Dlco postchemotherapy, it did not correlate with clinical symptoms or affect the ability to undergo surgical resection.

RTOG 0017: a phase I trial of concurrent gemcitabine/carboplatin or gemcitabine/paclitaxel and radiation therapy ("ping-pong trial") followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with favorable prognosis inoperable stage IIIA/B non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

The optimal dose of gemcitabine that can be used with concurrent radiation therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer has not been well defined. This trial addresses this question in an alternating sequence "ping-pong" design trial to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for gemcitabine/carboplatin (Sequence A) or gemcitabine/paclitaxel (Sequence B) and thoracic radiation therapy followed by adjuvant gemcitabine/carboplatin chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-five patients with histologically confirmed Stage IIIA/B non-small cell lung cancer were entered into two separate sequences, each with multiple cohorts. A dose level was considered acceptable if, of the first six eligible patients on each cohort, fewer than three experienced dose limiting toxicities.

RESULTS

Sequence B of this 2 sequence "ping-pong" trial closed early due to toxicity in cohort 2 (gemcitabine 300 mg/m/wk and paclitaxel 30 mg/m/wk). On Sequence A, the MTD was the cohort 5 dose: gemcitabine 450 mg/m/wk and carboplatin 2 area under curve (AUC) concurrently with thoracic radiation. Cohort 7 (gemcitabine 600 mg/m/wk and carboplatin 2 AUC) showed 4 dose limiting toxicities: 2 grade 3 esophagitis; one grade 3 febrile neutropenia; and one grade 4 neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

Concurrent gemcitabine/paclitaxel chemoradiation regimen followed by adjuvant gemcitabine/carboplatin produced excessive toxicity at the lowest tested dose combination and was not suitable for further study in this trial. Meanwhile, the MTD of concurrent gemcitabine/carboplatin chemoradiation was determined to be gemcitabine 450 mg/m and carboplatin AUC-2. This combination was found to be tolerable. Although not a primary end point, survival results are summarized as well.

Assessing quality of life following neoadjuvant therapy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results from a prospective analysis using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS)

BACKGROUND

The assessment of the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on quality of life (QL) has rarely been prospectively planned and evaluated, although validated QL instruments are available-such as the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) used in this study. The modest but significant survival gains reported with neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches need to be viewed in terms of the added risks and toxicities associated with two or three modalities of treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The objective was to compare patient-determined QL ratings from baseline (prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy) with those in subsequent months of follow-up. All patients had clinical stage I or II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and participated in one of two similar randomized protocols. Patients received preoperative chemotherapy (three cycles) of gemcitabine plus carboplatin or paclitaxel in one trial or gemcitabine plus carboplatin or cisplatin in the second. Patients completed the LCSS at baseline, every 3 weeks preoperatively, and every 3 months postoperatively up to 12 months.

RESULTS

Full QL data are available for 43 patients with at least one postsurgical evaluation and for 23 patients with evaluation at 1-year postsurgery. In patients with at least one postsurgical evaluation, 84% had an ECOG performance status of 0, 93% had a complete resection, and 67% (95% CI = 52, 81) of patients experienced improved or stable symptoms. A subgroup of patients (14 of 43) reported worsening of QL (33%). These patients experienced a mean worsening of 66% in individual symptom parameters, with an average of seven of nine LCSS symptom parameters declining.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients reported improved or stable QL. Prospectively planned QL assessment is feasible with neoadjuvant trials and adds useful information not otherwise attainable.

Review of the pemetrexed and gemcitabine combination in patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer

Pemetrexed is a new multitargeted antifolate that can be easily administered as a 10-min infusion every 3 weeks. The use of folic acid, vitamin B(12), and corticoid prophylaxis has significantly reduced pemetrexed-induced toxicity. Single-agent pemetrexed has shown antitumor activity in a wide range of solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Association with vinorelbine, cisplatin, carboplatin, and oxaliplatin have been tried, but the pemetrexed and gemcitabine combination, an easy to administer cisplatin-free doublet, has been documented in many phase 2 trials in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. In vitro cytotoxic assays and phase I studies have defined several schedules of administration for pemetrexed and gemcitabine. The recommended dose is pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 or 8, and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 8, but it is unknown if pemetrexed should precede or follow gemcitabine and at what time interval. Published studies have failed to show significant differences in overall survival times despites response rates oscillating between 15% and 41%. The main toxicities are neutropenia, fatigue, skin rashes and elevated transaminases and seem to occur with similar rates in the many phase 2 trials. Hopes for the future are in tailored chemotherapy, since molecular markers of sensitivity are available for gemcitabine and pemetrexed, allowing to determinate in the future which patients will be most likely to benefit from the gemcitabine-pemetrexed doublet.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin as neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: A phase II study

The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin is one of the most active chemotherapy regimens against non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine combined with cisplatin in a 3-week cycle regimen for patients with operable, early stage NSCLC. Gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle for 3 cycles, followed by cisplatin at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 was administered to patients with previously untreated, operable, early stage (IB-IIIA) NSCLC. A total of 47 patients (46 male, mean age 56.0+/-8.0 years) who met the eligibility criteria were enrolled. The pathological complete response rate was 5.3% of operated patients and 4.3% of total patients. At visit 4, 57.1% of the patients had partial response, 38.1%, stable disease and 4.8%, progressive disease. The main toxicities - leukopenia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia - were usually clinically asymptomatic and did not require hospitalization. Non-hematological toxicities were minimal and manageable. Disease free and 12-month overall survival rates were over 70% and 80%, respectively. This study demonstrates that the administration of gemcitabine and cisplatin combination for 3 cycles is effective and tolerable for patients with operable, early stage NSCLC. Low toxicity profile and promising survival outcome suggest that this regimen has an encouraging activity in this subset of patients.

Pulmonary toxicity in patients treated with gemcitabine plus vinorelbine or docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: outcome data on a randomized phase II study

Studies with the gemcitabine/vinorelbine (GV) or the gemcitabine/docetaxel (GD) combinations have shown similar efficacy and less toxicity compared to platinum-based chemotherapies, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The present trial was designed to test the efficacy and safety of both, GV and GD, combinations. Chemotherapy-naïve patients (n=39)<or=75 years of age, KPS>or=60% and adequate hematological, renal and hepatic function were randomly assigned to receive G 1,000 mg/m2+either V 25 mg/m2 or D 35 mg/m2 (all of which were administered i.v.) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. Baseline characteristics were comparable in GV (n=20) and GD (n=19) groups. Results indicated objective response of 7 (35%) vs 6 (31%) patients and median time-to-treatment failure of 120 versus 90 days in the GV and GD arms, respectively. The most common non-hematological toxicities were (GV vs GD): grade 2-4 pulmonary toxicity in 1 (5%) vs 7 (37%); grade 2-3 diarrhea 0 versus 4 (21%) and edema 1 (5%) vs 3 (16%); grade 3-4 hematological toxicities occurred in 3 (15%) vs 1 (5%) patients. Our results indicate that the combination of gemcitabine/docetaxel does not have a favorable safety profile with this schedule of administration, particularly in terms of pulmonary toxicity.

Gemcitabine plus docetaxel as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a lung cancer Galician group phase II study

BACKGROUND

Numerous phase II and III clinical trials have demonstrated a higher activity of combined gemcitabine plus docetaxel schedules against non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) than that of both agents in monotherapy.

METHODS

This phase II study evaluated a 3-week based schedule of docetaxel 85 mg/m(2) (1-h i.v. infusion, d8) combined with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) (30-min i.v. infusion; d1,8) as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients with non-resectable, stage IIIB/IV, and bidimensionally measurable disease were enrolled. A total of 182 chemotherapy cycles (median 6, range 1-6) was administered to 40 patients during the study; one patient did not receive chemotherapy due to a protocol deviation. Two patients were not evaluable for treatment efficacy. The overall response rate found was 44% (95% CI, 29-59%): three patients (7%) had a complete response and 15 patients (37%) had a partial response (median duration of response = 4.0 months). With a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the median time to disease progression was 4.4 months and the median overall survival was 7.3 months. The combined gemcitabine plus docetaxel chemotherapy was well tolerated except for pulmonary toxicity. The main grade 3-4 hematological toxicity was neutropenia (28% of patients, 9% of cycles). Two cases of febrile neutropenia were reported. The main grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity was pulmonary toxicity (23% of patients, 6% of cycles).

CONCLUSION

Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 in combination with docetaxel 85 mg/m(2) on day 8 given in 3-week cycles is an active and well-tolerated first-line chemotherapeutic regimen for advanced NSCLC.

Randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine plus weekly versus three-weekly paclitaxel in previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Gemcitabine and paclitaxel (Taxol) each provides an efficacious non-platinum option for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the optimal dosage and schedule of the two agents used in combination are not well defined.

METHODS

Previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine-paclitaxel on a traditional three-weekly schedule (Arm A) or a novel weekly schedule (Arm B) as follows-Arm A (three-weekly): gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 infused>30 min on days 1 and 8 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 infused>3 h on day 1 of a 21-day cycle or Arm B (weekly): gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 infused>30 min and paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 infused>1 h, both administered on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle.

RESULTS

One hundred patients received at least one dose of treatment. The weekly schedule, Arm B, was more efficacious and less hematologically toxic than Arm A. Confirmed complete and partial response rates were 28.2% and 26.8%, respectively. Median survival was 10.3 months on Arm B and 7.9 months on Arm A (log-rank P=0.10); 1- and 2-year survival rates also favor Arm B: 42.0% versus 34.0% and 18.0% versus 6.0%. Progression-free survival was 5.8 versus 4.8 months, again favoring Arm B (log-rank P=0.06). There was a two-fold lower frequency of grade 3/4 hematologic events with Arm B as follows: neutropenia (16% versus 30%), thrombocytopenia (4% versus 8%), and anemia (2% versus 6%). One patient (2%) in each treatment group developed febrile neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

In this trial, both schedules were efficacious and tolerable, although the weekly schedule resulted in improved survival and lower hematologic toxicity compared with a three-weekly schedule. The weekly schedule of gemcitabine-paclitaxel indicates an improved therapeutic index.

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium: results of a randomized phase 2 trial

OBJECTIVES

This phase 2 randomized study compared the toxicity and assessed the efficacy of gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP) and gemcitabine-carboplatin (GC) in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium (TCC), with the main objective to demonstrate a reduction in toxicity of at least 25% in the GC arm.

METHODS

A total of 110 chemonaive patients (55 per arm) with locally advanced or metastatic TCC received gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 2 (GP) every 3 wk or gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin AUC 5 on day 2 (GC) every 3 wk for a maximum of six cycles.

RESULTS

No differences between arms were noted in the overall toxicity profiles and any parameter of toxicity. The most frequent grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia in 34.6% of patients for GP and 45.4% for GC. The most frequent grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was nausea and vomiting (GP: 9.1%; GC: 3.6%). Grade 1-2 nephrotoxicity occurred in 14 GP-treated patients (26.0%) and 9 GC-treated patients (16.3%). Per an intent-to-treat analysis, overall response, evaluated on 80 patients, was 49.1% for GP (CR: 14.5%; PR: 34.5%) and 40.0% for GC (CR: 1.8%; PR: 38.2%). Median time to progression was 8.3 mo for GP and 7.7 mo for GC. Median survival was 12.8 mo and 9.8 mo for GP and GC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

GC has a comparably acceptable toxicity profile compared with that of GP and seems active in patients with TCC.

Randomized phase II trial of docetaxel/irinotecan and gemcitabine/irinotecan with or without celecoxib in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Trials combining irinotecan/docetaxel and irinotecan/gemcitabine in second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have yielded promising results. Preliminary data suggested that the selective cyclooxygenase -2 inhibitor celecoxib (CBX) might enhance efficacy of chemotherapeutic regimens. This multicenter, phase II, randomized trial investigated efficacy and safety of irinotecan and docetaxel and irinotecan and gemcitabine, with or without CBX, in second-line treatment of NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients 18 years or older were randomly assigned to receive irinotecan 60 mg/m2 and docetaxel 35 mg/m2, or irinotecan 100 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2, with or without CBX 400 mg twice daily, for four cycles. Primary efficacy end points were median and 1-year survival probabilities. Patient-reported symptoms were assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptoms Scale (LCSS).

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients were assessable for efficacy and safety. Median survival time was 6.31 months for patients treated with CBX and 8.99 months for those treated with chemotherapy alone. One-year survival rates were 24% and 36% respectively. The overall toxicity rates and LCSS scores were similar between patients treated or not treated with CBX. Four deaths were considered possibly treatment related.

CONCLUSION

Survival results for the second-line regimens in this study were similar to results reported for single-agent therapy in this setting. CBX did not appear to enhance efficacy or improve patient-reported symptoms. The addition of high-dose CBX to second-line chemotherapy in NSCLC cannot be recommended.

Gemcitabine/Carboplatin in a Modified 21-Day Administration Schedule for Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Gemcitabine/carboplatin is active for advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Although it has a better toxicity profile than gemcitabine/cisplatin, severe thrombocytopenia can be a problem. We conducted a phase II study of gemcitabine/carboplatin on a 21-day schedule with administration of carboplatin delayed until day 8, intending to decrease the severity of thrombocytopenia and evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of this schedule.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-one patients with stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin at an area under the curve of 5 mg capital ZE, Cyrillic minute/mL on day 8, every 21 days.

RESULTS

The response rate was 22.6%, including 1 complete response. The median time to progression was 161 days, and the median survival was 454 days. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 3.0, was observed in 2 patients (6.5%) in the first 2 cycles. Nonhematologic toxicity included rash, depression, fever, nausea/vomiting and increased hepatic transaminase. The median courses of delivery were 3, and 13 patients (42%) received the first 3 courses without treatment delay. Dose intensity for each drug was 638 mg/m(2) per week for gemcitabine and 1.56 mg capital ZE, Cyrillic minute/mL per week for carboplatin area under the curve, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that gemcitabine/carboplatin with a day-8 administration of carboplatin in a 21-day schedule reduces the severity of thrombocytopenia without having a detrimental effect on efficacy.

Pemetrexed, a novel antifolate therapeutic alternative for cancer chemotherapy

Pemetrexed is a newly approved antifolate agent for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a PubMed/MEDLINE database search to identify relevant literature from January 1966-April 2005. Bibliographies from identified references were searched as well, as were abstracts from the 2004 and 2005 proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. We discuss the pharmacology of pemetrexed, describing its mechanism of action and comparing it with methotrexate. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pemetrexed are described to provide a better understanding of the properties of this drug. Therapeutic uses are assessed, beginning with the approved indications of MPM and NSCLC. However, pemetrexed has been studied in numerous phase II trials for other types of solid malignancies, and completed trials are reviewed. Data on adverse effects and drug interactions are also provided. Finally, dosing and administration are reviewed, including appropriate premedication. Premedication, including administration of steroids and vitamin supplements, has been shown to decrease the frequency and severity of pemetrexed toxicities. Pemetrexed should be used as a standard of care for unresectable MPM and recurrent metastatic NSCLC.

Gemcitabine (GEM) and vindesine (VDS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase II study in elderly or poor performance status patients

The aim of the study was to assess the activity and tolerability of the combination of gemcitabine (GEM) and vindesine (VDS) in elderly or poor performance patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Forty four patients (36 males and 8 females with a median age of 70 years and a median Karnofsky performance score of 60) were recruited between January 1998 and June 2001; 9 (20.5%) were stage IIIB patients and 35 (79.5%) were stage IV patients; 20 (45.5%) had squamous carcinoma and 24 (54.5%) non-squamous carcinoma. The patients received GEM 1000 mg/m(2) and VDS 3mg/m(2) (max 5mg) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, and were all evaluable for response and toxicity: 17 (38.6%) were partial responders, 17 (38.6%) experienced stable disease, and 10 (22.3%) progressive disease. Grade 3-4 anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in, respectively, 6.8, 9.1 and 2.3% of the patients, and grade 2-3 fatigue, paresthesias and skin toxicity in, respectively, 11.4, 20.4 and 2.3%. After a median follow-up of 54 months, 43/44 patients died; median survival was 12 months, and a clinical benefit was observed in 54.5% of cases. GEM plus VDS is an active and well-tolerated schedule.

Administration of pemetrexed immediately following gemcitabine as front-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Pemetrexed and gemcitabine have demonstrated independent anti-tumor activity in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The combination of these two therapies may produce synergistic anti-tumor effects. Previous studies of this combination have included a 90-min separation between the two drugs. More recent preclinical studies have suggested that this delay in administration might be unnecessary. This phase II study was designed to determine the objective tumor response rate and toxicity when pemetrexed was administered immediately after gemcitabine on day 1.

METHODS

Chemonaïve patients stage IIIB with pleural effusion or stage IV NSCLC were enrolled. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 (30-min intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (10-min i.v. infusion, immediately following gemcitabine, on day 1) every 21 days. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis.

RESULTS

The 53 enrolled patients completed a total of 199 cycles (median=4.0, mean=3.8). Best tumor response consisted of 1 complete response (2.0%), 15 partial responses (30.6%), 17 with stable disease (34.7%), and 16 with progressive disease (32.7%). Median time to disease progression was 3.3 months and median survival was 10.3 months. Grades 3/4 hematologic toxicities (% patients) consisted of: neutropenia (43.4), anemia (9.4), febrile neutropenia (7.5%) and thrombocytopenia (1.9). The most common grades 3 or 4 non-hematologic events were: dyspnea (15.1), fatigue (11.3), and pyrexia (9.4). One patient (1.9%) experienced grade 2 alopecia.

CONCLUSION

This schedule of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine is tolerable and offered the advantage of not requiring a 90-min delay between the two drugs. Response rate, survival, time to disease progression, and toxicity were acceptable and similar to other NSCLC regimens.

Dose-finding study of fixed dose gemcitabine and escalating doses of ifosfamide given on days 1 and 8 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

This is a dose-finding study of fixed dose gemcitabine and escalating doses of ifosfamide, in chemo naïve patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The purpose of the study was to determine the optimal dosage and the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of a specified schedule of gemcitabine and ifosfamide. Patients received gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 and ifosfamide between 1.6 and 2.2 g/m2, intravenously, on days 1 and 8, repeated every 3 weeks for a maximum of four cycles.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients entered the study. Three patients were entered at the first dose level of ifosfamide (1.6 g/m2) and none experienced any dose limiting (DLT) toxicity. In dose level 2 (1.8 g/m2), two patients had grade IV haematological toxicities, but they reached 21 days without any other dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Three further patients entered at this level but they were withdrawn due to disease progression. The sixth patient entered without any DLT. Three patients entered dose level 3 (2.0 g/m2), without any grade IV toxicity. The first patient entered into dose level 4 (2.2 g/m2), had progressive disease within 21 days and was withdrawn and another three were entered and had no DLT during the first 21 days. Four (33%) of the patients had stable disease and 67% had progressive disease.

CONCLUSION

The MTD of the ifosfamide gemcitabine combination was not reached in the present study, as no DLT was observed. This combination at the dose levels of this protocol has little or no activity in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Phase II study of a gemcitabine and cisplatin combination regimen in taxane resistant metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the safety and efficacy of gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with taxane resistant metastatic breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-three taxane resistant metastatic breast cancer patients were treated with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 IV infusion over 30 min on days 1 and 8, and with cisplatin 75 mg/m2 by IV infusion over 1 h on day 1 in 21 day cycles.

RESULTS

Of the 30 evaluable patients, there were 9 (30%) partial responses and no complete response, an overall objective response rate of 30%. Median time to progression and median survival duration for all study subjects were 7 (95% CI 5.1-8.9 months) and 15 months (95% CI 10.5-19.5 months), respectively. Toxicities included grade 3 and 4 leucopenia in 10 (30%), thrombocytopenia in 6 (18%), anemia in 2 (6%) and oral mucositis in 2 (6%). No grade 3 or 4 peripheral neuropathy, renal dysfunction, hepatic dysfunction, or nausea/vomiting was observed, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

The described gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination was found to be an active and tolerable salvage regimen in patients with taxane resistant metastatic breast cancer.

A randomized phase II trial evaluating standard (50mg/min) versus low (10mg/min) infusion duration of gemcitabine as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients who are not eligible for platinum-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Gemcitabine is one of the most active drugs against non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Preclinical data suggested that gemcitabine efficacy could be improved by increasing the dose or by increasing the infusion duration. This study has been designed in order to explore two different approaches of gemcitabine dose intensification in patients with advanced NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 121 chemonaive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC not suitable for a platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly allocated to chemotherapy with gemcitabine 1500 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks by standard 30 min intravenous infusion (arm A), or gemcitabine 10 mg/m2/min for 150 min on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks by intravenous infusion at fixed dose rate (arm B).

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen patients were fully analyzed. No difference in response rate (16.1% versus 9.9%, p=0.28), median time to disease progression (4 months versus 4.5 months, p=0.34) median survival (9.8 months in both arms), and 1-year survival (42.6% versus 39.0% p=0.98) was detected in arms A and B, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Main hematological toxicities were grade 3-4 neutropenia observed in 17.9% of patients in group A and in 49.2% of individuals in group B (p=0.0002). The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 3.3% in arm A and 0% in arm B (p=0.17). Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more frequently observed in arm B patients (9.9% versus 1.8%, p=0.057). Non-hematological toxicity was similar in both arms, and consisted in grade 1-2 gastrointestinal toxicity observed in 48.2% of patients in arm A and 41.0% in arm B.

CONCLUSION

Intensification of standard doses or prolonged infusion schedule did not result in efficacy improvement. Gemcitabine infusion duration does not warrant further investigation in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin in metastatic breast cancer

Our objectives were to assess the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line therapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients with stage IV MBC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were treated with gemcitabine 1200 mg/m on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin 75 mg/m on day 1 every 21 days. Up to 6 cycles were given. A total of 46 patients with a median age of 49 years (range 24-77) and Karnofsky performance status of 80 or above were enrolled. In total, 238 cycles were administered. Of the 42 patients evaluable for response, seven (17%) achieved a complete response and 27 (64%) a partial response, for an overall response rate of 81% [95% confidence interval (CI) 69-93%]. Median time to progression was 14.9 months (95% CI 0-30.2 months). Median duration of response was 24.2 months (95% CI 11.2-37.3 months). The median survival was 27.9 months (95% CI 23.1-32.7 months), and the 1- and 2-year survival probabilities were 71.4 and 61.4%, respectively. All patients were evaluable for toxicity, and grade 3/4 WHO toxicities included neutropenia (41.3%), anemia (8.7%), thrombocytopenia (8.7%), alopecia (26.1%) and nausea/vomiting (32.6%). We conclude that gemcitabine plus cisplatin is a highly effective and safe first-line treatment for patients with MBC. The time to progression of 14.9 months compares favorably with other standard treatments (anthracyclines, taxanes). A randomized study is required to further investigate the role of this combination as first-line treatment for MBC.

Cisplatin plus gemcitabine on days 1 and 4 every 21 days for solid tumors: Result of a dose-intensity study

BACKGROUND

Three and 4-week cisplatin-gemcitabine schedules have shown similar dose-intensity (DI) and activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The 3-week schedule is generally preferred because it enables better treatment compliance. To improve DI and compliance further, we delivered gemcitabine plus cisplatin over 4 days every 21 days.

METHODS

Patients with any stage NSCLC or epithelial neoplasms and an ECOG PS < or = 2 were given gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 4 plus cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 2 of a 21-day cycle. Minimax design was used and a received DI for gemcitabine of > or = 580 mg/m(2)/wk was considered successful.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients (34 NSCLC, 5 epithelial neoplasias) were enrolled. SWOG grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in 17.9% and 12.8% of patients, respectively. Nonhematological toxicity was minimal. Twenty-eight (18%) of 158 cycles required dose modifications and/or delays. Twenty-five patients received a gemcitabine dose intensity of > or = 580 mg/m(2)/wk. The received DIs were 601.8 mg/m(2)/wk for gemcitabine and 21.0 for cisplatin, with a relative DIs of 90.3% and 90.1%, respectively. The response rate of 27 evaluable patients with NSCLC was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.3 to 62.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The shorter schedule of gemcitabine on days 1 and 4 plus cisplatin on day 2 produces an effective DI and a toxicity profile comparable to that of weekly regimens.

Role of gemcitabine in cancer therapy

Gemcitabine, a pyrimidine nucleoside antimetabolite, is one of the most promising new cytotoxic agents. The drug has shown activity in a variety of solid tumors, and has been approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer, pancreatic, bladder, and breast cancer. Recent data showed that gemcitabine is also active against ovarian cancer. Gemcitabine has a good toxicity profile, with myelosuppression being the most common side effect, while non-hematological events are relatively uncommon. The low toxicity profile makes the drug a valid option for unfit and elderly patients. Due to the synergistic activity with other chemotherapeutic compounds, mainly cisplatinum, several trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine in combination with other cytotoxic agents. Current clinical trials are evaluating the role of gemcitabine in combination with new targeted therapies.

Development of gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer: the Italian contribution

Gemcitabine, a pyrimidine nucleoside antimetabolite, is one of the most promising new cytotoxic agents. The drug has shown activity in a variety of solid tumors, but appears to be most active in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. In this disease, several Italian investigators have evaluated gemcitabine in phase II and III clinical trials. Due to preclinical synergism with cisplatin, the Italian Lung Cancer Project played an important role to assess the efficacy and activity of the gemcitabine-cisplatin combination along with the best doses and schedule to adopt, thus leading to gemcitabine approval for first line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Several Italian studies have also investigated gemcitabine non-platinum based combinations, gemcitabine in third generation platinum-based triplets and gemcitabine as second line therapy, but all these studies led to conflicting and inconclusive results. The low toxicity profile makes the drug a valid option for unfit and elderly patients. The Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study was a phase III randomized trial conducted in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer that showed that single agent gemcitabine is at least as effective as either single agent vinorelbine or the combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine. In the neoadjuvant treatment of stage III disease, a number of phase II studies with third generation platinum-based doublets or triplets have been conducted by Italian investigators with encouraging results. Current clinical trials are addressing the role of gemcitabine in combination with new targeted therapies. Future studies should be designed in order to identify subgroups of patients who are more likely to benefit from gemcitabine chemotherapy.

Long-duration, weekly treatment with gemcitabine plus vinorelbine for non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter phase II study

In this phase II study, gemcitabine and vinorelbine were combined at suboptimal doses for weekly administration in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary objectives were to determine objective response rate (ORR) and time to progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were safety and overall survival. Chemonaive patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC received vinorelbine (25 mg/m2) immediately followed by gemcitabine (800 mg/m2) once each week (on day 1) for 6 months without rest. From May 1998 to May 1999, 40 patients were enrolled (85% males; 70% stage IV) with a median age of 65.5. A total of 478 doses were administered, with a median of 9 per patient (range 2-72). The ORR was 27.5% (95% CI, 15.1-44.1%). The median TTP was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.4 months). At a median follow-up of 6.5 months, the median survival was 11.6 months, and survival rates at 1 and 2 year(s) were 47.5% and 15.8%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia, in 70% of patients, with febrile neutropenia in 28%. The most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicity was transaminase elevation, in 22.5% of patients, which was transient and reversible. The other most prominent toxicities were, unexpectedly, pulmonary and cardiac toxicities. Based on these results, weekly, long-term administration of gemcitabine-vinorelbine appears to be an active regimen in NSCLC that warrants further investigation.

Gemcitabine and carboplatin: is this the best combination for non-small cell lung cancer?

Approximately 30-40% of non-small cell lung cancer patients will present with metastatic disease, and its associated poor prognosis. Chemotherapy has an established palliative role within late-stage disease, but is also being used increasingly in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Platinum-based chemotherapy has been shown to produce definite improvements in efficacy and quality of life in non-small cell lung cancer patients, and is now the standard of care. Carboplatin has similar biochemical properties to those of cisplatin. However, carboplatin has much less renal, otologic, neurologic and upper gastrointestinal toxicities than cisplatin, and treatment can be conveniently delivered in an out-patient setting. Furthermore, platinum combinations with third-generation cytotoxics have shown additional gains in survival rates. Gemcitabine and carboplatin is a well-tolerated regime. Recent meta- and cost analyses have discovered that gemcitabine-based regimes may have an advantage over other third-generation agent platinum combinations. This article reviews the evidence demonstrating that gemcitabine-carboplatin is effective, convenient and cost effective.

Phase II Trial of Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Sequentially Administered in Asian Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess toxicity and response in the sequential administration of gemcitabine followed by cisplatin in unresectable or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Materials and Methods: Twenty-three patients were enrolled in this study. Gemcitabine was given at 1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, for four 21-day cycles, followed by cisplatin 40 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15, for three further 28-day cycles. Results: There were 4 patients with partial responses, 5 patients with stable disease and 10 patients with progressive disease, giving a response rate of 21%. The median time to disease progression was 3.3 months. The median overall survival was 14.6 months. Toxicities graded 3 or 4 included anaemia (13.0%), neutropaenia (13.0%), supraventricular tachycardia (4.3%), and nausea and vomiting (4.3%). Conclusion: Although these results show similar efficacy to single-agent treatment regimens, the low toxicity profile and promising survival outcome with this regimen are important points for consideration. Key words: Anaemia, Neutropaenia, Supraventricular tachycardia

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

PURPOSE

This phase III study compared overall survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when treated with single-agent gemcitabine versus gemcitabine/carboplatin. Secondary objectives were to compare response, time to progression, toxicity, and quality of life.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients received either gemcitabine alone (1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; gemcitabine arm) or with carboplatin (area under the curve 5 on day 1; GC arm) every 21 days.

RESULTS

Demographics and disease characteristics of 334 randomly assigned patients were comparable on both arms. An intent-to-treat analysis showed significantly better overall survival (log-rank P = .0205) and 2-year survival (15% v 5%; P = .009) favoring the GC arm. Per Cox multivariate analysis, only two covariates, treatment arm (GC v G) and baseline performance status (0 or 1 v 2), independently influenced survival. Per-protocol analyses showed significantly longer median time to progression (5.7 v 3.9 months; P = .0001) and significantly higher objective response rate (29.6 v 11.3%; P < .0001) in the GC arm. Grade 3 to 4 leucopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly more pronounced in the GC arm (P for both variables < .001) but importantly without associated increases in fever, infection, bleeding, or hospitalizations. There was no discernible difference in global quality-of-life patterns between treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

In advanced NSCLC, gemcitabine/carboplatin therapy resulted in significant survival benefit compared with single-agent gemcitabine without undue increase in toxicity.

Pharmacokinetic Study of Intravesical Gemcitabine in Carcinoma in situ of the Bladder Refractory to Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Gemcitabine, a chemotherapeutic agent, has been shown to be active against transitional cell cancer of the bladder. The aim of the study was to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of gemcitabine, administered intravesically in patients with carcinoma in situ(CIS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Nine patients with CIS refractory to intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy were enrolled. Gemcitabine was given in 50 ml 0.9% NaCl by catheterization and held in the bladder for 1 h, once weekly for 6 consecutive weeks. The pharmacokinetics for gemcitabine metabolites were performed in plasma and serum. Dose levels were: 1,000, 1,250, and 1,500 mg. Clinical evaluation was repeated 4 weeks after therapy and thereafter every 6 months.

RESULTS

Grade-1 neutropenia was observed only in 1 patient. Grade-1 urinary frequency and hematuria were observed in 1 and 3 patients, respectively. No grade 2-4 toxicity or clinically relevant myelosuppression were observed. Gemcitabine was detectable in serum, but with an irrelevant pharmacological effect, in only 1 patient treated with 1,500 mg of gemcitabine. With regard to activity, after 6 instillations of this drug, 4 complete responses were observed.

CONCLUSION

Intravesical gemcitabine is well tolerated and safe. No systemic absorption with a clinical or pharmacological effect was detected and only slightly irritative bladder symptoms were observed. These results warrant further investigation in phase-II trials.

ERCC1, hRad51, and BRCA1 protein expression in relation to tumour response and survival of stage III/IV NSCLC patients treated with chemotherapy

Aim of this explorative study was to determine the prognostic value of protein expression of the DNA damage repair enzymes ERCC1, hRad51, and BRCA1 for tumour response and survival of non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Patients with either a short or long overall survival were selected from a randomized phase III trial comparing cisplatin-gemcitabine and epirubicin-gemcitabine. Tumour biopsies were assessed for differences in immunohistochemical staining using antibodies against ERCC1, hRad51, and BRCA1. A total of 33 patients were included. A positive nuclear staining for ERCC1, hRad51, and BRCA1 was observed in 44, 12, and 90% of biopsies, respectively. In large cell carcinoma nuclear hRad51 staining was absent. In five biopsies stained for hRad51 an unexpected membrane-like staining was observed; these biopsies showed no nuclear staining. DNA damage repair protein expressions were not significantly different in responders versus non-responders, or in patients with a short or long overall survival. In conclusion, immunohistochemical staining of ERCC1, hRad51, and BRCA1, in tumour biopsies from non-small-cell lung cancer patients was not predictive for tumour response and survival after chemotherapy.

Phase II study of gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

This phase II study evaluated the response rate and tolerability of gemcitabine–oxaliplatin chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC received gemcitabine 1000 mg m⁻² on days 1 and 8, followed by oxaliplatin 130 mg m⁻² on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days for up to six cycles. From February 2002 to May 2004, 60 patients were enrolled into the study in seven Italian institutions. We observed one complete response (1.7%) and 14 partial responses (23.3%), for an overall response rate of 25.0% (95% confidence interval, 14.7–37.9%). The median duration of response was 5.9 months (range 1.5–17.1 months). With a median follow-up of 6.7 months, median time to progressive disease and overall survival were 2.7 (range 1.9–3.4 months) and 7.3 months (range 7.2–8.6 months), respectively. The main grade 3–4 haematological toxicities were transient neutropenia in 11.7% and thrombocytopenia in 8.3% of the patients. Nausea/vomiting was the main grade 3–4 nonhaematological toxicity, occurring in 10.0% of the patients. Two (3.3%) patients developed grade 3 neurotoxicity. Our results show that gemcitabine–oxaliplatin chemotherapy is active and well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC, deserving further study, especially for patients not eligible to receive cisplatin.

A prospective, multicentre clinical trial comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus etoposide in patients with locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

Cisplatin-gemcitabine (PG) and cisplatin-etoposide (PE) combinations are active regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The present study aimed to compare PG with PE in the treatment of patients with stage IIIB and IV NSCLC.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a prospective, multicentre trial. A total of 166 patients were enrolled into the study and received either gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) on days 1, 8 and 15 plus cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) on day 2 every 4 weeks, or etoposide (100 mg/m(2)) on days 1, 2 and 3 plus cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) on day 1 every 3 weeks.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was superior in the PG group (54.8%vs 39.0%, P=0.045). There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups, with respective median and 1-year survival of 38 weeks and 33.3% for the PG group, and 34 weeks and 23.2% for the PE group. There was also no statistical difference for time to progression between the two groups. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were seen more frequently in the PG group (grade 3 neutropenia, 33.3%vs 15.9%, P=0.012; grade 3 thrombocytopenia, 27.4%vs 3.7%, P<0.001 and grade 4 thrombocytopenia, 10.7%vs 1.2%, P=0.018).

CONCLUSION

PG is an active chemotherapy regimen and has a better response rate than PE in advanced NSCLC, although there was no difference in time to progression and overall survival. A higher incidence of haematological toxicity was seen with PG than with PE.