Vinorelbine (Navelbine) in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: studies with single-agent therapy and in combination with cisplatin

Catalysts of Healing: A Symphony of Synthesis and Clinical Artistry in Small-Molecule Agents for Breast Cancer Alleviation

Breast cancer, characterized by its molecular intricacy, has witnessed a surge in targeted therapeutics owing to the rise of small-molecule drugs. These entities, derived from cutting-edge synthetic routes, often encompassing multistage reactions and chiral synthesis, target a spectrum of oncogenic pathways. Their mechanisms of action range from modulating hormone receptor signaling and inhibiting kinase activity, to impeding DNA damage repair mechanisms. Clinical applications of these drugs have resulted in enhanced patient survival rates, reduction in disease recurrence, and improved overall therapeutic indices. Notably, certain molecules have showcased efficacy in drug-resistant breast cancer phenotypes, highlighting their potential in addressing treatment challenges. The evolution and approval of small-molecule drugs have ushered in a new era for breast cancer therapeutics. Their tailored synthetic pathways and defined mechanisms of action have augmented the precision and efficacy of treatment regimens, paving the way for improved patient outcomes in the face of this pervasive malignancy. The present review embarks on a detailed exploration of small-molecule drugs that have secured regulatory approval for breast cancer treatment, emphasizing their clinical applications, synthetic pathways, and distinct mechanisms of action.

Antibody-drug conjugates: an evolving approach for melanoma treatment

Melanoma continues to be an aggressive and deadly form of skin cancer while therapeutic options are continuously developing in an effort to provide long-term solutions for patients. Immunotherapeutic strategies incorporating antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have seen varied levels of success across tumor types and represent a promising approach for melanoma. This review will explore the successes of FDA-approved ADCs to date compared to the ongoing efforts of melanoma-targeting ADCs. The challenges and opportunities for future therapeutic development are also examined to distinguish how ADCs may better impact individuals with malignancies such as melanoma.

The NAME trial: a direct comparison of classical oral Navelbine versus Metronomic Navelbine in metastatic breast cancer

Chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is in general given in cycles of maximum tolerated doses to potentially maximize the therapeutic outcome. However, when compared with targeted therapies for MBC, conventional and dose intensified chemotherapy has caused only modest survival benefits during the recent decades, often compromising the quality of life considerably. Navelbine is an antineoplastic agent that has shown efficacy in the treatment of a variety of cancer types, including breast cancer. Early clinical trials involving both breast cancer and lung cancer patients suggest that metronomic dosing of Navelbine might be at least as effective as classical administration (once weekly, etc.). The NAME trial compares these two strategies of Navelbine administration in MBC patients.

Antibody drug conjugates: Progress, pitfalls, and promises

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) represent a promising and an efficient strategy for targeted cancer therapy. Comprised of a monoclonal antibody, a cytotoxic drug, and a linker, ADCs offer tumor selectively, reduced toxicity, and improved stability in systemic circulation. Recent approvals of two ADCs have led to a resurgence in ADC research, with more than 60 ADCs under various stages of clinical development. The therapeutic success of future ADCs is dependent on adherence to key requirements of their design and careful selection of the target antigen on cancer cells. Here we review the main components in the design of antibody drug conjugates, improvements made, and lessons learned over two decades of research, as well as the future of third generation ADCs.

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.

Short Schedule of Cisplatin and Vinorelbine: A Dose-Finding Study in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

A dose-finding study of a new cisplatin/vinorelbine schedule was done to increase activity of the combination, and improve compliance of non-small-cell lung cancer PATIENTS.

METHODS

Beginning with cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) on days 1, 2 and vinorelbine 20 mg/m(2) on days 1, 3, increasing dose levels up to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) were tested in a series of 6-patient cohorts. If 3 of 6 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity in the first 3 cycles, the previous dose was considered the recommended dose (RD). Once the MTD was reached, granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor was prophylactically added to the treatment of a new patient cohort to improve the therapeutic ratio.

RESULTS

We enrolled 35 stage IIIA/B or IV patients between August 2001 and February 2002. The RD was cisplatin 45 mg/m(2) and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2), with relative dose intensities (RDIs) of 95 and 97%, respectively, and an actual received dose intensity (ARDI) of 28.62 and 16.07 mg/m(2)/week, respectively. Overall grade 3-4 toxicities were: neutropenia (71%), febrile neutropenia (25%), anemia (8%), and constipation (17%). The overall response rate was 64.3% (CI: 44.1-81.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

ARDI and RDI of our modified cisplatin/vinorelbine regimen were not inferior to those of conventional weekly schedules; its acceptable toxicity profile and manageability may justify its use in clinical practice.

Oral Vinorelbine and Cisplatin with Concomitant Radiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy has improved survival in inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase I trial was performed in order to establish a dose recommendation for oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin and simultaneous radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Previously untreated patients with stage IIIB NSCLC received concurrent chemoradiotherapy with 66 Gy and 2 cycles of cisplatin and oral vinorelbine which was administered at 3 different levels (40, 50 and 60 mg/m2). This was to be followed by 2 cycles of cisplatin/ vinorelbine oral consolidation chemotherapy. The study goal was to determine the maximal recommended dose of oral vinorelbine during concurrent treatment.

RESULTS

11 stage IIIB patients were entered into the study. The median radiotherapy dose was 66 Gy. Grade 3-4 toxicity included neutropenia, esophagitis, gastritis and febrile neutropenia. The dose-limiting toxicity for concurrent chemoradiotherapy was esophagitis. 9 patients received consolidation chemotherapy, with neutropenia and anemia/thrombocytopenia grade 3 being the only toxicities. The overall response was 73%.

CONCLUSION

Oral vinorelbine 50 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15 over 4 weeks) in combination with cisplatin 20 mg/m2 (days 1-4) is the recommended dose in combination with radiotherapy (66 Gy) and will be used for concurrent chemoradiotherapy in a forthcoming phase III trial testing the efficacy of consolidation chemotherapy in patients not progressing after chemoradiotherapy.

Tirapazamine with Cisplatin and Vinorelbine in Patients with Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase I/II Study

This phase I/II study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirapazamine in combination with cisplatin and vinorelbine for patients with advanced-stage IIIB/IV chemonaive non-small-cell lung cancer. Seventy patients with a Karnofsky performance status of > or = 60% were included. In the phase I part of the study, 21 patients were treated on day 1 with tirapazamine (escalating doses of 260, 330, or 390 mg/m(2)), cisplatin (75 or 100 mg/m(2)), and vinorelbine (25 or 30 mg/m(2)) for a maximum of 6 cycles every 4 weeks. Vinorelbine was repeated every week. In the phase II part of the study, 49 patients were treated on day 1 with tirapazamine 390 mg/m(2), cisplatin 100 mg/m(2), and vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Muscle cramps, vomiting, nausea, tinnitus, neutropenia, and diarrhea were the most frequently reported adverse events in the phase I part of the study. Most of these events were grade 1 or 2. In the phase II part of the study, response rate was 47%, and median survival was 50 weeks. The most frequently reported adverse event was neutropenia. Asthenia, fever, anemia, vomiting, weight decrease, nausea, and muscle cramps were also noted. For patients treated at the maximum dose, dose reductions occurred 14% of tirapazamine cycles and in 4% of cisplatin cycles. The median number of cycles was 3. This regimen has a manageable toxicity profile. Response rate and median survival suggest that this combination might be more active than the cisplatin/vinorelbine combination. This triplet is currently being evaluated in a phase III study.