Randomized study of vinorelbine--gemcitabine versus vinorelbine--carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Quantitative comparison of the efficacies and safety profiles of three first-line non-platinum chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to quantify the efficacies and safety profiles of the three first-line non-platinum chemotherapy regimens recommended in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Materials and Methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched comprehensively, and clinical trials involving patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with one of three first-line non-platinum regimens (gemcitabine combined with vinorelbine, gemcitabine combined with docetaxel, or gemcitabine alone) were included in the analysis. A parametric proportional hazard survival model was established to analyze the time course of overall survival (OS). The objective response rate (ORR) and incidence rates of grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were summarized using a single-arm meta-analysis with a random-effects model.

Results: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Age and performance status (PS) scores were significant predictors of OS. For each 10-years increase in age, mortality risk increased by 18.5%, and the mortality risk increased by 4% for every 10% increase in the proportion of patients with a PS score of 2. After correcting for the above factors, we found that the three first-line non-platinum chemotherapy regimens did not differ based on OS or toxicity.

Conclusion: There was no significant difference in OS or toxicity among the three first-line non-platinum chemotherapy regimens. Age and PS scores were significant predictors of OS, and their heterogeneity across different studies should be considered in cross-study comparisons and sample size estimations when designing clinical trials.

Correlations between objective response rate and survival-based endpoints in first-line advanced non-small cell lung Cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The study objective was to estimate the relationship between objective response and survival-based endpoints by drug class, in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line aNSCLC therapies reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or objective response rate (ORR). Trial-level and arm-level linear regression models were fit, accounting for inclusion of immunotherapy (IO)-based or chemotherapy-only RCT arms. Weighted least squares-based R² were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the main trial-level analysis of OS vs. ORR, the surrogate threshold effect was estimated. Exploratory analyses involved further stratification by: IO monotherapy vs. chemotherapy, dual-IO therapy vs. chemotherapy, and IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy.

RESULTS

From 17,040 records, 57 RCTs were included. In the main analysis, trial-level associations between OS and ORR were statistically significant in both the IO-based and chemotherapy-only strata, with R² estimates of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.26-0.81) and 0.34 (0.05-0.63), respectively. OS gains associated with a given ORR benefit were statistically significantly larger within IO vs. chemotherapy comparisons compared to chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy comparisons (p < 0.001). Exploratory analysis suggested a trend by IO type: for a given change in ORR, 'pure' IO (IO monotherapy and dual-IO) vs. chemotherapy RCTs tended to have a larger OS benefit than IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy RCTs. For ORR vs. PFS, trial-level correlations were strong in the IO-based vs. chemotherapy (R² = 0.84; 0.72-0.95), and chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy strata (R² = 0.69; 0.49-0.88). For OS vs. PFS, correlations were moderate in both strata (R² = 0.49; 0.20-0.78 and R² = 0.49; 0.23-0.76).

CONCLUSION

The larger OS benefit per unit of ORR benefit in IO-based RCTs compared to chemotherapy-only RCTs provides an important addition to the established knowledge regarding the durability and depth of response in IO-based treatments.

The efficacy and toxicity of metronomic oral vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of metronomic oral vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with stage IIIB/IV and advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Wanfang, and CNKI databases were searched for relevant studies. The overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3 adverse events; grade 3/4 AEs) were calculated using the methods of merging ratios and means. Merged ratios and means and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to descriptively analyze the efficacy and toxicity of metronomic oral vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with stage IIIB/IV and advanced NSCLC.

RESULTS

The ORR and DCR achieved with metronomic oral vinorelbine monotherapy were 12% (95% CI 5-20) and 48% (95% CI 38-59), respectively. Median PFS and OS were 3.46 months (95% CI 2.49-4.43) and 8.22 months (95% CI 7.21-9.24), respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 AEs was 16% (95% CI 10-22). The more common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia 9% (95% CI 2-20) and leukopenia 8% (95% CI 1-19).

CONCLUSION

Metronomic oral vinorelbine monotherapy has a certain effect on patients with stage IIIB/IV and advanced NSCLC, especially for untreated elderly patients. It offers the advantages of convenience, lower cost and acceptable incidence of severe adverse events.

Metachronous rectal metastasis from pulmonary adenocarcinoma after 11 years of chemo-, immuno-, and radiotherapy for recurrent lesions: a case report

Background

Rectal metastasis from pulmonary adenocarcinoma is rare, and it has been regarded as an end-stage phenomenon. Recently, however, advances in lung cancer treatment have improved the chance of long-term survival of patients with unresectable distant metastases. We describe the occurrence and management of metastatic spread of a pulmonary carcinoma to the rectum.

Case presentation

The patient was a 79-year-old woman who had undergone thoracoscopic left lobectomy for pulmonary adenocarcinoma and then, over the next 11 years, various drugs (carboplatin + paclitaxel (as adjuvant therapy), gefitinib, gemcitabine + vinorelbine, S1 (an oral 5-fluorouracil-based drug), carboplatin + pemetrexed + bevacizumab, erlotinib, nivolumab, afatinib, and carboplatin+ S1) were administered, especially for hilar and mediastinal lymph node recurrences. During the eleventh postoperative year, left and right iliac bone metastases were detected, and radiation therapy was undertaken for local control of these lesions. When ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography was performed for evaluation of the disease, tracer accumulation in the upper rectum was seen. Colonoscopic examination of the rectum revealed an intramural mass with central ulceration, and the mass was diagnosed histologically as an adenocarcinoma. The bone metastases appeared to be controlled, and the patient’s performance status was good, but she had suffered constipation for about a year and desired treatment. Thus, laparoscopic low anterior resection was performed. Histopathologic analysis revealed a moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma existing mainly between the submucosa and serosa, and immunohistochemical analysis showed the tumor to be positive for cytokeratin (CK) 7, negative for CK20, positive for thyroid transcription factor-1, and negative for special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2 and caudal type homeobox 2, confirming the diagnosis of rectal metastasis from the primary pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The patient recovered well without any change in her functional status. Systemic chemotherapy was resumed, and she continues to do well, now 6 months after surgery.

Conclusions

Surgery may be a good option for the management of an isolated rectal metastasis from pulmonary cancer in patients whose functional status is good.

First-Line Therapies for Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma Without a Driver Mutation

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. The majority of these cancers are non-small-cell lung cancer, of which adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic subtype. Most patients are diagnosed at advanced stages when systemic treatment is needed. Whereas prognosis has improved for patients with targetable driver mutations, the majority of patients do not possess tumors with such molecular mutations. Platinum-based chemotherapy has traditionally been the mainstay of treatment, although in recent years immunotherapy has emerged as a treatment option and can result in robust and durable treatment responses in a subset of patients. Recent clinical trials on novel immunotherapy combinations and immunochemotherapy combinations may broaden the number of patients that may benefit from checkpoint inhibitors and elicit responses in those who otherwise may not have experienced a response to monotherapy with an immunotherapy drug. This review will outline the currently available therapies for the first-line treatment of metastatic adenocarcinoma that do not possess a driver mutation and provide a recommended approach and algorithm by which to select the best first-line therapy.

Chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the elderly population

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are over 70 years of age at diagnosis. Despite this fact, these patients are underrepresented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As a consequence, the most appropriate regimens for these patients are controversial, and the role of single-agent or combination therapy is unclear. In this setting, a critical systematic review of RCTs in this group of patients is warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens for previously untreated elderly patients with advanced (stage IIIB and IV) NSCLC. To also assess the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy on quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 31 October 2014), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to 31 October 2014). In addition, we handsearched the proceedings of major conferences, reference lists from relevant resources, and the ClinicalTrial.gov database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs that compared non-platinum single-agent therapy versus non-platinum combination therapy, or non-platinum therapy versus platinum combination therapy in patients over 70 years of age with advanced NSCLC. We allowed inclusion of RCTs specifically designed for the elderly population and those designed for elderly subgroup analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results, and a third review author resolved disagreements. We analyzed the following endpoints: overall survival (OS), one-year survival rate (1yOS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), major adverse events, and quality of life (QoL).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 trials in the review: non-platinum single-agent therapy versus non-platinum combination therapy (seven trials) and non-platinum combination therapy versus platinum combination therapy (44 trials). Non-platinum single-agent versus non-platinum combination therapy Low-quality evidence suggests that these treatments have similar effects on overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.17; participants = 1062; five RCTs), 1yOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 992; four RCTs), and PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; participants = 942; four RCTs). Non-platinum combination therapy may better improve ORR compared with non-platinum single-agent therapy (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.26; participants = 1014; five RCTs; low-quality evidence).Differences in effects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: anemia: RR 1.10, 95% 0.53 to 2.31; participants = 983; four RCTs; very low-quality evidence; neutropenia: RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.65; participants = 983; four RCTs; low-quality evidence; and thrombocytopenia: RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.89; participants = 914; three RCTs; very low-quality evidence. Only two RCTs assessed quality of life; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data. Non-platinum therapy versus platinum combination therapy Platinum combination therapy probably improves OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; participants = 1705; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), 1yOS (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; participants = 813; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), and ORR (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.85; participants = 1432; 11 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence) compared with non-platinum therapies. Platinum combination therapy may also improve PFS, although our confidence in this finding is limited because the quality of evidence was low (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; participants = 1273; nine RCTs).Effects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: anemia: RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.76; participants = 1437; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.59, 95% CI 2.22 to 5.82; participants = 1260; nine RCTs; low-quality evidence; fatigue: RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.38; participants = 1150; seven RCTs; emesis: RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.29; participants = 1193; eight RCTs; and peripheral neuropathy: RR 7.02, 95% CI 2.42 to 20.41; participants = 776; five RCTs; low-quality evidence. Only five RCTs assessed QoL; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people over the age of 70 with advanced NSCLC who do not have significant co-morbidities, increased survival with platinum combination therapy needs to be balanced against higher risk of major adverse events when compared with non-platinum therapy. For people who are not suitable candidates for platinum treatment, we have found low-quality evidence suggesting that non-platinum combination and single-agent therapy regimens have similar effects on survival. We are uncertain as to the comparability of their adverse event profiles. Additional evidence on quality of life gathered from additional studies is needed to help inform decision making.

Gemcitabine and Vinorelbine (GemVin) Regimen

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases. Questions or suggestions for topics should be addressed to Dominic A. Solimando, Jr, President, Oncology Pharmacy Services, Inc., 4201 Wilson Blvd #110-545, Arlington, VA 22203, e-mail: OncRxSvc@comcast.net; or J. Aubrey Waddell, Professor, University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy; Oncology Pharmacist, Pharmacy Department, Blount Memorial Hospital, 907 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, TN 37804, e-mail: waddfour@charter.net.

Risk of venous and arterial thromboembolic events in cancer patients treated with gemcitabine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Gemcitabine has been associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thromboembolic events (ATEs and VTEs), although the overall risk remains unclear. As indications for its use in oncology are expanding, a comprehensive characterization of these complications becomes imperative.

METHODS

Pubmed was searched for articles published from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2012. Eligible studies included prospective randomized controlled phase II and III trials evaluating gemcitabine based vs. non-gemcitabine based chemotherapy in patients with solid tumours. Data on VTEs and ATEs were extracted. Overall incidence rates, odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated employing fixed or random effects models depending on the heterogeneity of included trials.

RESULTS

A total of 4845 patients from 19 trials were included. Among patients treated with gemcitabine based chemotherapy, the overall incidence of VTEs (13 studies comprising 3823 patients) and ATEs (eight studies consisting of 2431 patients) was 2.1% (95% CI 1.2%, 3.8%) and 2.2% (95% CI 1.4%, 3.2%). The associated ORs of VTEs and ATEs were 1.56 (95% CI 0.86, 2.83, P = 0.15) and 1.82 (95% CI 0.89, 3.75, P = 0.10) compared with non-gemcitabine based therapy. A tendency to increase the risk of ATE and VTEs was also detected in any prespecified subgroup.

CONCLUSION

The use of gemcitabine does not significantly increase the risk of VTEs and ATEs in patients with solid tumours when compared with non-gemcitabine based chemotherapy.

The effect of chemotherapy on symptom control and quality of life in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Differences in survival outcomes with various treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer are very modest. Despite this, end points looking at the patients' subjective benefit, such as symptom control, quality of life or clinical benefit, have only been sparsely implemented into clinical trials as primary points of interest. This review focuses on available evidence regarding these patients' subjective end points in recent clinical trials. Compared with best supportive care, chemotherapy offers symptom control, not only in patients with objective response to chemotherapy, but also in a proportion of patients with disease stabilization. However, interpretation of quality-of-life objectives is more difficult, owing to several methodological problems, but improvement in various domains of quality of life is also reported. Different treatment options, such as older platinum-based schedules, modern platinum-based doublets, single-agent treatment with a new drug or nonplatinum-based doublets, are comprehensively reviewed. Future randomized studies should take up the challenge of looking at the patients' benefit as a primary end point.

Gemcitabine and vinorelbine as second-line or beyond treatment in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma pretreated with platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive neoplasm that responds poorly to chemotherapy. Although treatment with pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin serves as first-line chemotherapy for MPM, the optimal second-line and beyond therapy has not yet been fully examined.

METHODS

Between March 2008 and October 2011, 17 consecutive Japanese patients pretreated with at least one regimen of platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy received gemcitabine and vinorelbine. Responses, survival time, and toxicity were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Response [partial response (PR) + complete response (CR)] and disease control [stable disease (SD) + PR + CR] rates were 18 and 82 %, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) after combination chemotherapy was 6.0 months, whereas the median overall survival (OS) was 11.2 months. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and anemia were observed in 41 and 29 % of patients, respectively, and one patient experienced febrile neutropenia. Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicities included constipation (6 %) and phlebitis (6 %).

CONCLUSION

Combination chemotherapy using gemcitabine with vinorelbine was shown to have moderate activity in Japanese MPM patients pretreated with platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy. A further multicenter phase II trial is warranted to confirm the efficacy and safety of this combination treatment.

Gefitinib frequently induces liver damage in patients with lung adenocarcinoma previously treated by chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Gefitinib is known as one of the agents for treating patients with both advanced lung cancer and an epidermal growth-factor receptor mutation. In the epidermal growth-factor receptor-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer population, gefitinib therapy has been associated with increased response rate, longer progression-free survival, and better quality of life compared to other anticancer drugs. However, gefitinib has to be discontinued for patients in whom adverse events occur, even if it is still effective. Here, we retrospectively assessed the clinical course of patients receiving gefitinib therapy, with a particular focus on liver damage.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Of 24 Asian patients treated with 250 mg gefitinib daily at Kanagawa National Hospital, Japan, between January 2008 and June 2012, grade 3 liver damage (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) occurred in nine and were eligible for our assessment. The regimen was subsequently changed to alternate-day administration. The relationships between liver damage and each clinical factor were retrospectively examined using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Of the nine patients with liver damage, seven had previous exposure to another anticancer drug. There was a significant relationship between the incidence of liver damage and previous chemotherapy (P = 0.009). The objective response rates of patients treated with daily gefitinib 250 mg and alternate-day gefitinib following liver damage were 66.7% and 46.7%, respectively; these were not significantly different (P = 0.597).

CONCLUSION

Gefitinib for advanced adenocarcinoma patients who have previously undergone chemotherapy should be used cautiously and liver function monitored closely, because it frequently induces significant liver damage. The alternate-day administration of gefitinib may be a suitable option for patients in whom daily gefitinib therapy induces liver damage.

Non-platinum doublets were as effective as platinum-based doublets for chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the era of third-generation agents

PURPOSE

The aim was to compare the efficacy between doublets of third-generation agents (non-platinum) and doublets of platinum plus a third-generation agent (platinum-based) for chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We conducted a literature-based meta-analysis to compare the efficacy between doublets of third-generation agents and doublets of platinum plus a third-generation agent for chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC. The primary end point was overall survival, and the secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate. Subgroup analyses were also conducted by different non-platinum doublet regimens or different platinum-based doublets. A descriptive review for toxicity was performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized controlled trials were identified ultimately. Results demonstrated that the efficacy of non-platinum doublets was comparable with platinum-based doublets according to the overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 0.98-1.08, p = 0.29). Subgroup analyses by different non-platinum doublets also showed the efficacy of all the third-generation doublets, such as vinorelbine plus gemcitabine, vinorelbine plus paclitaxel, gemcitabine plus paclitaxel, and gemcitabine plus docetaxel, was comparable with platinum-based doublets (HR = 1.00, 95 % CI = 0.78-1.27, p = 0.98; HR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80-1.18, p = 0.79; HR = 1.05, 95 % CI = 0.99-1.12, p = 0.11; HR = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.92-1.10, p = 0.87; respectively). Subgroup analyses by different platinum-based doublets indicated that the efficacy of the third-generation doublets were equal to both cisplatin-based doublets and carboplatin-based doublets (HR = 1.08, 95 % CI = 1.00-1.17, p = 0.05; HR = 1.00, 95 % CI = 0.94-1.05, p = 0.94; respectively). The secondary end points indicated that platinum-based doublets might have an advantage in PFS but not in response rate (HR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 1.01-1.12, p = 0.03; RR = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.90-1.08, p = 0.81; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-platinum doublets were as effective as platinum-based doublets with different toxicity profile for chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC in the era of third-generation agents.

Vinorelbine and gemcitabine vs vinorelbine and carboplatin as first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. A phase III randomised controlled trial by the Norwegian Lung Cancer Study Group

Background:

Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but earlier studies have suggested that non-platinum combinations are equally effective and better tolerated. We conducted a national, randomised study to compare a non-platinum with a platinum combination.

Methods:

Eligible patients had stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and performance status (PS) 0–2. Patients received up to three cycles of vinorelbine 60 mg m⁻² p.o.+gemcitabine 1000 mg m⁻² i.v. day 1 and 8 (VG) or vinorelbine 60 mg m⁻² p.o. day 1 and 8+carboplatin area under the curve=5 (Calvert's formula) i.v. day 1 (VC). Patients ⩾75 years received 75% of the dose. Endpoints were overall survival, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), toxicity, and the use of radiotherapy.

Results:

We randomised 444 patients from September 2007 to April 2009. The median age was 65 years, 58% were men and 25% had PS 2. Median survival was VG: 6.3 months; VC: 7.0 months, P=0.802. Vinorelbine plus carboplatin patients had more grade III/IV nausea/vomiting (VG: 4%, VC: 12%, P=0.008) and grade IV neutropenia (VG: 7%, VC: 19%, P<0.001). Infections, HRQoL and the use of radiotherapy did not differ significantly between the treatment groups.

Conclusion:

The two regimens yielded similar overall survival. The VG combination had only a slightly better toxicity profile.

[American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline update on chemotherapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer]

本文旨在为Ⅳ期非小细胞肺癌患者的治疗提供更新版推荐。本文资料检索源自2002年以来公布的相关随机试验文献。此指南范围限于化疗与生物治疗。更新委员会对这些文献进行了总结并提供了推荐更新。162篇文献符合标准被纳入参考。本推荐基于可改善总生存期的治疗方法。仅改善无进展生存期的治疗方法推动了对毒性及生存质量的监测。对于体力状态评分为0分或1分患者的一线治疗，可推荐以铂类为基础的细胞毒性药物的两药联用。对铂类治疗有禁忌的患者，可采用非铂类细胞毒性两药联合。对于体力状态评分为2分的患者，单一细胞毒性药物即可。对于疾病进展或经过4个周期的治疗仍对治疗无反应的患者，应停止一线细胞毒性化疗。即使在6个周期后患者对治疗仍有反应，亦应停止两药细胞毒性化疗。对于伴有明确的表皮生长因子受体（epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFR）突变的患者，可推荐一线采用吉非替尼治疗；对于EGFR突变为阴性或不明确的患者，细胞毒性化疗更佳。除具有特定临床特征的患者外，可推荐贝伐单抗与卡铂-紫杉醇联用。对于通过免疫组化证实EGFR阳性的肿瘤患者，可推荐西妥昔单抗与顺铂-长春瑞滨联用。多西紫杉醇、厄洛替尼、吉非替尼或培美曲塞被推荐作为二线治疗。对于未曾接受过厄洛替尼或吉非替尼治疗的患者，可推荐厄洛替尼作为三线治疗。现有数据不足以推荐常规三线采用细胞毒性药物。已有的证据也不足以推荐常规应用分子标记物选择化疗。

First-line systemic chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) frequently presents at an incurable stage, and a majority of patients will be considered for palliative chemotherapy at some point in their disease. This article reviews the growing evidence for first-line treatment in NSCLC.

METHODS

Studies of first-line chemotherapy regimens including new agents (docetaxel, gemcitabine, irinotecan, paclitaxel, pemetrexed, and vinorelbine) and targeted agents (bevacizumab, erlotinib, and gefitinib) were identified through Medline, Embase, the Cochrane databases, and web sites of guideline organizations.

RESULTS

Two evidence-based guidelines, 10 systematic reviews, and forty-six randomized trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomized studies suggest that platinum-based doublets (platinum plus new agent) are the standard of care for first-line systemic therapy. No one new agent is clearly superior for use in combination with a platinum agent. The survival advantage of platinum-based doublets over nonplatinum combinations or older combinations is modest. The addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel has shown improved survival, although multiple exclusion criteria limit the applicability of these data to a subset of patients. In patients at least 70 years of age or with Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status 2, a new single agent is an alternative. Treatment beyond four to six cycles impedes quality of life without prolonging life. Emerging data suggest that the choice of chemotherapy agent may be influenced by histologic subtype.

CONCLUSION

In NSCLC, a combination of a platinum agent plus a new agent continues to be the standard of care. As differences between regimens are small, toxicity and patient preference should help guide regimen choice.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline update on chemotherapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to provide updated recommendations for the treatment of patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. A literature search identified relevant randomized trials published since 2002. The scope of the guideline was narrowed to chemotherapy and biologic therapy. An Update Committee reviewed the literature and made updated recommendations. One hundred sixty-two publications met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations were based on treatment strategies that improve overall survival. Treatments that improve only progression-free survival prompted scrutiny of toxicity and quality of life. For first-line therapy in patients with performance status of 0 or 1, a platinum-based two-drug combination of cytotoxic drugs is recommended. Nonplatinum cytotoxic doublets are acceptable for patients with contraindications to platinum therapy. For patients with performance status of 2, a single cytotoxic drug is sufficient. Stop first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy at disease progression or after four cycles in patients who are not responding to treatment. Stop two-drug cytotoxic chemotherapy at six cycles even in patients who are responding to therapy. The first-line use of gefitinib may be recommended for patients with known epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation; for negative or unknown EGFR mutation status, cytotoxic chemotherapy is preferred. Bevacizumab is recommended with carboplatin-paclitaxel, except for patients with certain clinical characteristics. Cetuximab is recommended with cisplatin-vinorelbine for patients with EGFR-positive tumors by immunohistochemistry. Docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed is recommended as second-line therapy. Erlotinib is recommended as third-line therapy for patients who have not received prior erlotinib or gefitinib. Data are insufficient to recommend the routine third-line use of cytotoxic drugs. Data are insufficient to recommend routine use of molecular markers to select chemotherapy.

Quality-of-life assessment in phase III clinical trials of gemcitabine in non-small-cell lung cancer

Health-related quality-of-life (QOL) endpoints in clinical trials provide decision makers with a more comprehensive picture of a specific treatment than activity-related endpoints alone. Such endpoints are increasingly being reported in cancer clinical trials. We reviewed phase III clinical trials that involved gemcitabine in the treatment of unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer. A systematic literature search was undertaken and 16 phase III clinical trials were found in which gemcitabine therapy was included in a treatment arm and QOL was an endpoint. Twelve of the 16 trials compared a gemcitabine-based treatment with a non-gemcitabine-based treatment. Not all data were reported in the trials, and the findings are mixed. However, a review of these 12 trials generally shows that gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy treatments had either no different or more favourable QOL outcomes than non-gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy treatments. Ten of the 16 trials that were reviewed had a primary endpoint or objective that was not QOL. Of these ten trials, only four concluded that one treatment arm could be therapeutically favoured over another in terms of the non-QOL primary endpoint. Two of the trials reported no difference in QOL and two reported that QOL favoured the arm that was therapeutically favoured. Many more trials will need to be conducted in order to conclude that gemcitabine-containing arms are associated with a more desirable QOL than non-gemcitabine-containing arms and that QOL necessarily favours the therapeutically favoured arm in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Phase II study of oral vinorelbine in combination with carboplatin followed by consolidation therapy with oral vinorelbine as single-agent in unresectable localized or metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of oral vinorelbine given weekly in combination with carboplatin (CBDCA) AUC 5 once every 3 weeks for four cycles in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), followed by consolidation therapy with single-agent oral vinorelbine in non-progressive patients.

METHODS

Chemonaive advanced NSCLC patients received four cycles of combination therapy with CBDCA AUC 5 day 1 and oral vinorelbine, 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 (cycle 1), dose increased to 80 mg/m2 (cycles 2-4) in absence of grades 3-4 neutropenia (NCI-CTCv2). Consolidation therapy with oral vinorelbine was continued (cycle 5) at same dosage; if dose was decreased during combination therapy, it was given at 60 mg/m2, then increased at 80 mg/m2 (cycle 6) in absence of grades 3-4 neutropenia until PD, toxicity or patient's refusal.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients were registered and 56 patients were treated (ITT population), median age was 61 years (37-71). Objective response evaluated by RECIST was 17.9% (95% confidence interval, CI [8.9-30.4]) and disease control (CR, PR, NC) 73.2% (95% CI [59.7-84.2]), median progression-free survival 4.3 months (95% CI [3.1-5.1]) with median overall survival 9.7 months (95% CI [7.7-11.9]) and 1-year survival 37.1% (95% CI [24.4, 49.9]). Grades 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 67.9% of patients during combination and 20% during consolidation; febrile neutropenia occurred in 4 patients (7.1%) during combination therapy. Non-hematological toxicities occurred primarily during combination (grade 3 nausea and grade 3 vomiting in 7.1% of patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of oral vinorelbine given weekly in 3-week cycles in combination with carboplatin followed by consolidation therapy with oral vinorelbine as a single-agent was able to achieve efficacy results in line with other doublets including carboplatin in terms of response as well as survival. This regimen reported a good profile of tolerability in the treatment of advanced NSCLC, allowing that this combination can be easily proposed for the palliative care of NSCLC patients where the advantages of carboplatin over cisplatin are still appreciated.

Systematic review of symptom control and quality of life in studies on chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: how CONSORTed are the data?

BACKGROUND

The effect of chemotherapy on survival of patients with advanced NSCLC is modest, therefore patient reported outcomes (PRO's) are of high interest in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards On Reporting Trials) is a quality checklist of 22 items for the conduct and reporting of RCTs. The aim of this report was to analyse to what extent the different RCTs with information on PRO's adhere to the CONSORT statement.

METHODS

Systematic review of RCTs using PRO's either as primary or secondary endpoint. Compliance with the (revised) CONSORT statement was checked by 2 independent reviewers by making for each study the simple sum of the 22 CONSORT items, or a weighted score with a maximum rating of 31 points.

RESULTS

The median weighted CONSORT score of the different RCTs was 25, with a remarkable difference from 12 till 30. There was no significant change over time, nor difference between academic and commercial studies, but a significant correlation between CONSORT agreement and journal type (P<0.0001). Adherence to CONSORT was similar for studies comparing chemotherapy with best supportive care alone, comparing different first-line chemotherapies with PRO either as primary or secondary endpoint, or studies looking at second-line chemotherapy. Benefit in PRO's was reported in all of these settings.

CONCLUSION

The overall adherence of peer-reviewed RCTs to CONSORT is reasonable, with nonetheless major differences between journals, and with no clear sign of change over time. Apart from modest survival differences, benefits in PRO endpoints are present in all categories of studies we analysed.

Cisplatin plus weekly vinorelbine versus cisplatin plus vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized phase III trial of the G.O.I.M. (Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale)

PURPOSE

A phase III randomized trial was carried out to compare two schedules of the vinorelbine (VNR)-cisplatin (CDDP) regimen in patients with locally advanced unresectable poor prognosis stage IIIB or metastatic stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and analysis of toxicity, while secondary endpoints included response rates, time-to-progression (TTP) and quality of life (QoL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized to receive: (a) VNR 25mg/m(2) on day 1, 8 and 15 plus CDDP 100mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks or (b) VNR 30 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 8 plus CDDP 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks. All patients were chemotherapy-naïve and had an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-1.

RESULTS

Overall 278 patients were enrolled into the trial. Overall response rate was 34% (95% CL 26-42%) in the weekly VNR/CDDP arm, and 32% (95% CL 24-40%) in patients treated with day 1-8 VNR/CDDP without any statistically significant difference. Median TTP was 4.5 and 4.6 months respectively for weekly VNR/CDDP arm and the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP one. This difference was not statistically significant (log-rank test, p=0.818). Median OS was 9.45 and 10 months respectively for weekly VNR/CDDP arm and the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP one without statistically a significant difference (log-rank test, p=0.259). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 31 and 36%, and 10 and 11% respectively. The incidence of severe neutropenia (34% versus 68%; p=0.0001) and of febrile neutropenia (5% versus 12%; p=0.026), as well as the rate of therapy omissions (10% versus 24%; p=0.0037) were higher in the weekly VNR/CDDP arm than in the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP one. The weekly VNR/CDDP regimen was associated with a lower received dose intensity in a statistically significant fashion (9% versus 22%; p=0.0001) and with a lower non-statistically significant quality of life score as compared to the day 1-8 VNR/CDDP schedule.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of day 1-8 VNR plus CDDP every 3 weeks is less toxic and better tolerated than the regimen of weekly VNR plus CDDP every 4 weeks. The two schedules are equivalent in terms of overall response rate, median time-to-progression and overall survival. The combination of VNR on day 1-8 plus CDDP every 3 weeks may be considered as a reference regimen for the treatment of patients with advanced disease and those who deserve a postoperative therapy, and for future studies.

10-year update on chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

A 1995 meta analysis of chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell carcinoma indicated clinical benefit from cisplatin based chemotherapy. Subsequent studies have aimed to increase the efficacy or decrease the toxicity of chemotherapy.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Illustrative studies and meta analyses of different aspects of chemotherapy which have taken place over the last decade, are reviewed.

RESULTS

The use of novel (third generation) chemotherapy agents has resulted in a further increase in patient survival. Gemcitabine was shown to be associated with an increase in progression free survival when compared to other third generation agents as well as a strong tendency to increased overall survival. An increase in survival was also shown with doublet chemotherapy regimes as compared to the use of single agents only. The use of triplet agent chemotherapy results in no further increased survival, but increased toxicity. Cisplatin is associated with increased survival over carboplatin based chemotherapy regimens when third generation agents are used, but increased nausea and vomiting. Non-platin third generation combinations give equivalent survival to platin-based regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

First line chemotherapy given to patients with advanced NSCLC should be two-drug combination regimen. Non-platin containing regimens may be used as an alternative to platinum based regimens in the first line.

Efficacy and side effects of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based doublet chemotherapeutic regimens versus non-platinum-based doublet chemotherapeutic regimens as first line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Evidence suggests that platinum-based regimens confer a better survival in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). However, evidence is lacking regarding the specific effects of cisplatin or carboplatin when compared to non-platinum-based doublets.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of all randomized trials comparing non-platinum-based with platinum-based doublet regimens given as first-line treatment for NSCLC. Relative risks were calculated for all outcomes ascertained. Sensitivity analysis, using methodological quality of the trials and different measures of effect, was undertaken.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials, comprising 4920 patients were included. The use of platinum-based doublet regimens was associated with a slightly higher survival at 1 year (RR=1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16, p=0.03), better partial response (RR=1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.21, p=0.02), with a higher risk of anemia, nausea, and neurotoxicity. Cisplatin-based doublet regimens improved survival at 1 year (RR=1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27, p=0.001), complete response (RR=2.29, 95% CI 1.08-4.88, p=0.03), partial response (RR=1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.32, p=0.002) with an increased risk of anemia, neutropenia, neurotoxicity and nausea. Conversely, carboplatin-based doublet regimens did not increase survival rate at 1 year (RR=0.95, 95% CI 0.85-1.07, p=0.43). There was a statistically significant difference between the effect of cisplatin compared to carboplatin (p=0.05). Carboplatin-based doublet regimen included a higher risk of anemia and thrombocytopenia, but no increased nausea and/or vomiting, contrarily to cisplatin. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to the exclusion of lesser quality trials and the choice of the measure of effect.

CONCLUSION

We provide additional evidence that cisplatin, but not carboplatin-based doublet regimens are associated with a slightly better survival compared to non-platinum-based doublet regimens. Side effects of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based regimens differ between each other and when compared to non-platinum doublets. Although this analysis has limitations, it may provide valuable information to clinicians when choosing the appropriate regimen for patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

A phase II trial of carboplatin/vinorelbine with pegfilgrastim support for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

The impact of chemotherapy dose delivery has not been well studied in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Overlapping hematologic toxicities commonly limit planned dose intensity of combination chemotherapy regimens. A phase II study investigating carboplatin and vinorelbine, supported by pegfilgrastim, in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC was performed.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were treated with carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 6 mg/ml per minute intravenously on day 1 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for four planned cycles. Pegfilgrastim was administered on day 9 of each cycle as a 6-mg subcutaneous injection. The primary endpoint was incidence of cycle 1 febrile neutropenia. Secondary endpoints included incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities, delivered dose intensity, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (21 men, 9 women) with a median age of 61 years (range, 43-79) were enrolled. Of 120 planned patient cycles, 101 (84%) were completed. There was one episode of cycle 1 febrile neutropenia. Overall response rate was 27%. Median dose delivered for vinorelbine was 17.2 mg/m2 per week, representing a delivered dose intensity of 86%. Median survival was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval: 6.1-18.0) with a 3-year survival rate of 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

This regimen of carboplatin and vinorelbine with pegfilgrastim support was associated with a low rate of febrile neutropenia and good maintenance of planned dose intensity. Although response and survival are similar to other chemotherapy regimens in advanced NSCLC, studies optimizing chemotherapy delivery in this setting may help inform treatment approaches in patients with earlier stage disease.

Vinorelbine/carboplatin vs gemcitabine/carboplatin in advanced NSCLC shows similar efficacy, but different impact of toxicity

This randomised phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was conducted to compare vinorelbine/carboplatin (VC) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) regarding efficacy, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity. Chemonaive patients with NSCLC stage IIIB/IV and WHO performance status 0–2 were eligible. No upper age limit was defined. Patients received vinorelbine 25 mg m⁻² or gemcitabine 1000 mg m⁻² on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin AUC4 on day 1 and three courses with 3-week cycles. HRQOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, before chemotherapy and every 8 weeks until 49 weeks. During 14 months, 432 patients were included (VC, n=218; GC, n=214). Median survival was 7.3 vs 6.4 months, 1-year survival 28 vs 30% and 2-year survival 7 vs 7% in the VC and GC arm, respectively (P=0.89). HRQOL, represented by global QOL, nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea and pain, showed no significant differences. More grade 3–4 anaemia (P<0.01), thrombocytopenia (P<0.01) and transfusions of blood (P<0.01) or platelets (P<0.01) were observed in the GC arm. There was more grade 3–4 leucopoenia (P<0.01) in the VC arm, but the rate of neutropenic infections was the same (P=0.87). In conclusion, overall survival and HRQOL are similar, while grade 3–4 toxicity requiring interventions are less frequent when VC is compared to GC in advanced NSCLC.

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition and non-small cell lung cancer

The majority of non-small cell (NSC) lung cancers express epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Many studies have evaluated the clinical effect from targeted therapy achieved by blocking EGFR in patients with NSC lung cancer. Treatment of biologically unselected patients with NSC lung cancer with two reversible quinazole EGFR inhibitors, gefitinib and erlotinib, gave negative results in all controlled trials but one. Ten percent to 20% of patients with NSC lung cancers have somatic mutations in EGFR, and these patients have a significantly higher response rate (73%) to treatment with EGFR inhibitors than patients with wild-type EGFR (10%). Patients with Asian background, women, non-smokers, and patients with adenocarcinoma had higher response rates than other patients, and the differences may be due to an association between the clinical characteristics and EGFR mutations. Further studies are needed to fully evaluate the effect of EGFR inhibitor-treatment for subgroups of patients with NSC lung cancer with favorable biological and clinical characteristics.

Gemcitabine and vinorelbine followed by weekly docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II trial of sequential chemotherapy

Objective. We conducted this phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the sequential nonplatinum combination chemotherapy consisting of gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR) followed by weekly docetaxel (DOC) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

stage IV NSCLC, Performance status =/< 2, adequate renal, hepatic and bone marrow function. Treatment consisted on: VNR 25 mg/m(2) plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2), on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle, followed by docetaxel 36 mg/m(2) weekly until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results. 21 stage IV patients were enrolled. All patients are evaluable for treatment response and toxicity profile. The mean age of the patients was 63 years (range: 51 to 72) with 18 (86%) males and 3 (14%) females. Histology types were: adenocarcinoma in 8 patients (38%), large cell carcinoma in 1 patients (5%) and squamous cell carcinoma in 12 patients (57%). The majority of the patients had and ECOG PS of 1. Eight patients (38%) did not complete six cycles of gemcitabine-navelbine. The median number of cycles of gemcitabine-navelbine was 4 (range 2-6) Of the 13 patients (61%) who completed six cycles of gemcitabine-navelbine, all of them went on to receive weekly docetaxel and received at least 3 cycles, with a median number of 8 cycles (range 3- 16). The overall response rate was 33%. Respect survival, the minimum follow-up was 6 months (range, 6-25 months). The median survival time (MST) was 7.9 months, and the 1-year survival was 30%, and the median progression-free survival was 4.7 months. Toxicity was mild, well tolerated and mostly hematologic. In the GEM/VNR cycle, grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred in 14%, two patients with febrile neutropenia. Grade 3 anaemia in 1 patients (5%) and grade 3 thrombocytopenia in 1 patient (5%). Nonhematologic toxicity was also mild: 1 patient with Grade 3 skin toxicity with docetaxel, 1 patient with grade 3 infection, 2 patients with grade 3 astenia and 1 patient with a mild allergic reaction postchemotherapy treatment with docetaxel. Conclusion. The sequential triplet nonplatinum chemotherapy consisted of GEM/VNR followed by weekly DOC is active and can be administered safely in advanced NSCLC. Our results are similar with other sequential regimens and did not represent a significant improvement in the treatment of this disease.