Feasibility study of adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and split-dose cisplatin for completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer

Two doses of fosaprepitant included prophylactic treatment for the three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists included prophylactic treatment was recommended for patients who receive one-day cisplatin chemotherapy. It is unclear whether the prolonged administration of fosaprepitant is effective for three-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We aim to explore the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of two doses of fosaprepitant included regimen in the patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy.

METHODS

This randomized, parallel-group, open-labelled study was conducted in nine hospitals between February 2021 and February 2023. Patients diagnosed as lung cancer and chemotherapy naive were screened. Eligible participants were scheduled to be treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen which including three days of cisplatin. Then they were randomly divided into the experimental group (two doses of fosaprepitant, Group 2DF) and the control group (one dose of fosaprepitant, Group C). The primary endpoints included the safety and the average none CINV days (NCDs). This study was registered on the website of chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR2100042665.

RESULTS

Overall, 204 participants were randomly assigned, and 198 patients were analyzed. No statistical difference in adverse events was found between the two groups. All treatment-related adverse effects for fosaprepitant observed were of grade 1-2. The average NCDs of Group 2DF was significantly more than Group C (18.21 ± 3.40 days vs 16.14 ± 5.20 days, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the better life function score was achieved in Group 2DF according to FLIE questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

The administration of two-dose fosaprepitant was safe and more effective than one dose in protecting patients from CINV induced by three-day cisplatin included chemotherapy.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study)

Background

Evidence supports prophylactic use of olanzapine for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, most studies to date have focused on patients with single-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Currently, administration of antiemetic therapies for nausea and vomiting induced by multiday chemotherapy regimens remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine combined with triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving multiday chemotherapy.

Methods

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 22 hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years old, were diagnosed with malignant solid tumors, and they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. All the study participants were scheduled to be treated with chemotherapy regimens containing 3-day cisplatin (3-day total dose ≥75 mg/m2). Randomization was computer generated and stratified by gender and chemotherapy treatment history. Allocation was done via an interactive web response system. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5 mg olanzapine or placebo orally before bedtime for 5 days combined with intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) 1 h before the administration of cisplatin on day 1, ondansetron hydrochloride intravenously, and dexamethasone orally 30 min before cisplatin from days 1 to 3. Dexamethasone was also administered at the same time on days 4 and 5. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) within the overall phase (days 1-8) after starting chemotherapy. Baseline plasma concentrations of P-substance and 5-HT were measured for exploratory analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04536558.

Findings

Between December 2020 and September 2021, 349 patients with malignant solid tumors were enrolled in the study, with 175 participants randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 174 participants assigned to receive placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall phase was significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (69% vs. 58%, P = 0.031). A complete response benefit was observed in the olanzapine group versus the placebo group in almost all the subgroups. Four factors were considered significantly associated with complete response in multivariable analysis: treatment group, gender, baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT, and prior radiotherapy. All the reported adverse events associated with olanzapine administration were grades 1 and 2.

Interpretation

Olanzapine (5 mg) combined with fosaprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone was better than triple antiemetic therapy alone for patients receiving multiday chemotherapy regimens. Based on these results, the four-drug combination should be recommended as the best antiemetic regimen given to patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy and baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT may be used to identify individuals who are prone to CINV. However, all these findings need to be further validated in future studies.

Funding

Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided research grant and study drugs for this investigator-initiated study.

Comparison of cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity between single-dose and split-dose administration to rats

To prevent cisplatin (CDDP)-induced nephrotoxicity, co-treatment with massive hydration is essential for its clinical use. However, some patients are ineligible for this treatment. For such patients, a split dose of CDDP has been suggested as an alternative strategy. This study aimed to evaluate the nephrotoxicity of a split dose of CDDP by direct comparison with the conventional single dose of CDDP in rats. Rats were allocated to single- or split-dose groups. In the single-dose group, rats received the total dose of CDDP (from 0 to 7.5 mg/kg) with a single injection, whereas the same total dose of CDDP was split equally across five doses in the corresponding split-dose group. Blood samples were taken until day 21 after the first CDDP injection to monitor the plasma creatinine (Cr) concentration as an index of nephrotoxicity. CDDP-induced nephrotoxicities from day 1-10 and from day 15-21 were defined as acute kidney injury (AKI) and subchronic kidney injury (sCKI), respectively. The toxicity of CDDP-induced AKI in the split-dose group was found to be significantly lower than that in the single-dose group at any given total dose level. At a total dose of 7.5 mg/kg, a decrease of approximately 90% in AKI was found in the split-dose group, while the extent of attenuation of CDDP-induced sCKI in this group was approximately 30%. Our results provide evidence that a split-dose regimen could be an alternative strategy for CDDP-ineligible patients; however, the optimal regimen needs to be determined in future studies.

A randomized phase II trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine in patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer: Hokkaido Lung Cancer Clinical Study Group Trial (HOT0703)

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of platinum plus gemcitabine (P/G) combinations as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapies for non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS

Patients with postoperative stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to receive either cisplatin plus gemcitabine (GP arm) or carboplatin plus gemcitabine (GC arm) every 3 weeks for four cycles. The primary endpoint was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were safety, feasibility, overall survival (OS), and biomarker analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were randomized (stage IB, 22%; II, 36%; IIIA, 42%; histology: 74% adenocarcinoma). Of the 51 patients in each arm, 37 (73%) completed 4 cycles. During follow-up (median 5.8 years; range 0.1-9.7 years), estimated DFS and OS rates at 2 years were 59.6% and 86.3% with GP and 68.0% and 86.3% with GC, respectively. No significant difference in DFS was noted between arms (P = 0.163), although 3-, 4-, and 5-year DFS rates were higher with GC. Hematological toxic effects were comparable and non-hematological toxic effects were infrequent. DFS was significantly higher in the excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1)-low group than in the ERCC1-high group for the GP arm (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Both P/G combination regimens were feasible and well-tolerated, and thus may represent valid options for postoperative adjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Although no significant differences in DFS were evident between regimens, the present data favor the adoption of GC for further evaluation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN-CTR ( https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ ) identifier: UMIN000000913.

Cisplatin given at three divided doses for three consecutive days in metastatic breast cancer: an alternative schedule for one full dose with comparable efficacy but less CINV and hypomagnesaemia

PURPOSE

Cisplatin, an effective medication for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), is recommended to be applied at the dose of 75 mg/m² on day 1 every 3 weeks. However, the 75 mg/m² schedule is often associated with a variety of side effects (such as vomiting and kidney toxicity), and time-consuming hydration treatment is usually needed. Divided dose (25 mg/m² on day 1-3) without hydration is an alternative. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between these two dosage regimens.

METHODS

Patients with MBC treated with cisplatin-based regimens in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center between December 2008 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity profiles were analyzed.

RESULTS

227 patients receiving a 1-day schedule and 256 patients receiving a 3-day schedule were included. Median PFS was 6.68 (5.66-7.70) months for patients in the 1-day schedule group and 6.70 (5.89-7.52) months for patients in the 3-day schedule group. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.942; 95% CI 0.759 to 1.170; P = 0.589). The ORRs were comparable between the two groups. ORRs were 44.9% in 1-day schedule group and 44.5% in 3-day schedule group, respectively (P = 0.929). Compared with patients in the 3-day schedule group, patients in the 1-day schedule group experienced higher rates of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) (139 [61.2%] vs. 132 [51.6%], P = 0.033). The risk of hypomagnesaemia was also significantly higher (43.2% vs. 28.3%, P = 0.016) among patients receiving 1-day schedule (without magnesium supplementation). No other differences in adverse events were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cisplatin given at three divided doses with no hydration in MBC is a less toxic (less CINV and hypomagnesaemia) schedule with comparable efficacy. Thus, it may be a good alternative for one full-dose (75 mg/m²) schedule.

Gemcitabine combined with cisplatin as adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective analysis

Background

This study was conducted to evaluate the value of gemcitabine combined with cisplatin as adjuvant chemotherapy for radical resection of non‐small cell lung cancer.

Methods

Data of 100 patients who had undergone radical resection of non‐small cell lung cancer and were treated with cisplatin/gemcitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy between June 2007 and December 2010 at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences were reviewed.

Results

The median age was 59 years (range 36–73); 82% of the patients were male. Forty‐two percent had adenocarcinoma and 55% had squamous cell carcinoma. Most patients had pathologic IIB (29%) and IIIA (44%) stage disease. Eighty‐five percent of patients completed four cycles of chemotherapy, with 76% completing the planned full dose. The main reason for a reduced gemcitabine dose in 13 patients was grade 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. The median dose and dose intensity were 8377.1 mg/m² and 708 mg/(m²/week) for gemcitabine and 293.38 mg/m² and 25.24 mg/(m²/week) for cisplatin, respectively. During follow‐up the median disease‐free survival was 33.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.938–51.676). Patients with squamous cell carcinoma (hazard ratio [HR] 0.404, 95% CI 0.241–0.676; P = 0.001) and pathologic stage I (HR 4.379, 95% CI 1.721–11.142; P = 0.002) achieved better disease‐free survival. The survival rates at one, two, and five years were 94%, 77%, and 55%, while the survival rates without recurrence were 64%, 53%, and 39%, respectively.

Conclusion

As an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, gemcitabine with cisplatin is well tolerated. Patients with squamous cell carcinomas or pathologic stage I achieve better results.

Clinical observation of docetaxel or gemcitabine combined with cisplatin in the chemotherapy after surgery for stage II-III non-small cell lung cancer

Objective:

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel combined with cisplatin (DP) and gemcitabine combined with cisplatin (GP) in postoperative chemotherapy after surgery of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods:

A total of 92 patients diagnosed with NSCLC after surgery were enrolled, and they were treated with DP (DP group) and GP (GP group). The efficacy and toxicity of the medications were then compared.

Results:

Approximately 92.4% (85 out of 92) of the patients received chemotherapy for more than three weeks. In DP and GP groups, the incidence rates of grade III-IV thrombocytopenia were 24.4% and 6.38%, respectively, whereas the incidence rates of alopecia were 88.9% and 25.5%, respectively. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Disease-free survival rates in DP group in one and two years were 76.5% and 50.47%, respectively, whereas in GP group were 77.8% and 49.52%, respectively. No significant difference was observed between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

These results showed similar disease-free survival rates of DP and GP therapies in one and two years after surgery for NSCLC. However, DP group exhibited higher incidence of grade III-IV thrombocytopenia and alopecia than GP group. Therefore, we should select a specific treatment for each patient according to individual differences.

Clinical observation of docetaxel or gemcitabine combined with cisplatin in the chemotherapy after surgery for stage II-III non-small cell lung cancer

Aim of the study

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel combined with cisplatin (DP) and gemcitabine combined with cisplatin (GP) in postoperative chemotherapy after surgery of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Material and methods

A total of 92 patients diagnosed with NSCLC after surgery were enrolled, and they were treated with DP (DP group) and GP (GP group). The efficacy and toxicity of the medications were then compared.

Results

Approximately 92.4% (85 out of 92) of the patients received chemotherapy for more than three weeks. In the DP and GP groups, the incidence rates of grade III–IV thrombocytopenia were 24.4% and 6.38%, respectively, whereas the incidence rates of alopecia were 88.9% and 25.5%, respectively. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Disease-free survival rates in DP group in one and two years were 76.5% and 50.47%, respectively, whereas in the GP group they were 77.8% and 49.52%, respectively. No significant difference was observed between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

These results showed similar disease-free survival rates of DP and GP therapies in one and two years after surgery for NSCLC. However, the DP group exhibited higher incidence rates of grade III–IV thrombocytopenia and alopecia than the GP group. Therefore, we should select a specific treatment for each patient according to individual differences.

Cisplatin and gemcitabine as the first line therapy in metastatic triple negative breast cancer

No standard first-line treatment exists for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). In this single-arm, phase II study (NCT00601159), we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of cisplatin and gemcitabine (GP) as the first-line therapy in mTNBC. Eligible women were those who had measurable disease with no prior chemotherapy for mTNBC. All patients received 21-day-cycle of cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or up to 8 cycles. BRCA1/2 mutation status and immunohistochemical basal markers were included in the correlative studies. Sixty-four patients with the median age of 49 years were enrolled. Thirty patients (46.9%) had ≤1 year from diagnosis to recurrence. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.2 months (95%CI, 5.6-8.9 months) and overall survival (OS) was 19.1 months (95%CI, 12.4-25.8 months) with median follow-up 42 months. Patients received treatment for a median of six cycles. The overall response rate was 62.5%. The most common grades 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (42.2%), thrombocytopenia (29.7%), anemia (18.8%) and nausea/vomiting (15.6%).No specific BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were identified. The efficacy of responses and basal-like subtype were independent favorable factors for PFS and OS, respectively. We conclude that the combination of GP has significant activity and a favorable safety profile as the first-line chemotherapy in mTNBC patients, in particular patients with basal-like subtype. The promising role of this combination as the front-line treatment for mTNBC continued to be evaluated in our ongoing phase III trial (CBCSG006).