Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of Low-Dose Docetaxel 60 mg/m2 in Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Previously Treated With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

DCF intraperitoneal and intravenous dual chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer: A feasibility study

Gastric cancer is the fourth most common type of cancer globally and accounts for the second highest cancer-associated mortality rate in the world. Current treatment strategies for gastric cancer include surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy may increase the IP concentrations of chemotherapy drugs and reduce the systemic toxicity. At present, IP chemotherapy is used to treat patients with advanced gastric cancer, which has a high rate of peritoneal recurrence. The present study evaluated the feasibility of using docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil (DCF) in an IP and intravenous (IV) dual chemotherapy regimen for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. The treatment-associated adverse reactions and preliminary efficacy were reported. The first dose level utilized the full dose of DCF: Docetaxel, day one, 45 mg/m2 (IP) and day eight, 30 mg/m2 (IV); cisplatin (DDP), day one, 75 mg/m2 (IP); and fluorouracil (FU), days one to five, 750 mg/m2 (continuous IV). A total of six patients were treated at this level and two patients withdrew due to serious adverse reactions. Taking into account that the the tolerated doses used in combination regimens for Eastern populations are lower than that of the corresponding doses for Western populations, the dosages of the three drugs were all reduced by 20% in the application of the second dose level: Docetaxel, day one, 30 mg/m2 (IP) and day eight, 30 mg/m2 (IV); DDP, day two, 60 mg/m2 (IP); and FU, days one to five, 600 mg/m2 (continuous IV). A total of 26 patients were treated at this level. The main adverse reaction was bone marrow suppression, with grade III/IV neutropenia, leukopenia and febrile neutropenia accounting for 61.5, 53.8 and 19.2% of reactions, respectively, and grade III/IV anemia and thrombocytopenia accounting for 19.2 and 15.4% of reactions, respectively. Gastrointestinal adverse reactions primarily consisted of abdominal pain, with grade III/IV abdominal pain accounting for 30.8% of reactions. Only 7.7% of the patients withdrew from the treatment. The median time to progression (TTP) was five months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0-9.0 months], and the median overall survival (OS) was nine months (95% CI, 7.4-10.6 months). It was concluded that the DCF regimen with reduced dosage should be applied. IP and IV dual chemotherapy for the treatment of unresectable advanced gastric cancer is tolerated and demonstrated a good initial efficacy. Strategies for mitigating and reducing the adverse gastrointestinal reactions, particularly abdominal pain, may be the focus of future studies.

A phase I clinical trial of dose escalation of lobaplatin in combination with fixed-dose docetaxel for the treatment of human solid tumours that had progressed following chemotherapy

In this study, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lobaplatin (LBP) when it was combined with docetaxel (TXT) for the treatment of solid tumours that had progressed following chemotherapy was determined, and toxicities to this regimen were evaluated. A modified Fibonacci method was used for the dose escalation of LBP. The patients received TXT (at a fixed dose of 60 mg/m²) on day one (d1) and LBP (at an initial tested dose of 30 mg/m²) on day two (d2) of a treatment cycle that was repeated every 21 days. Each dose group consisted of at least three cases. In the absence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), we proceeded to the next dose group, with a dose increment of 5 mg/m² between groups, until DLT occurred. The dose immediately below the dose that produced DLT was regarded as the MTD. The 17 patients examined in this study completed a total of 58 cycles of chemotherapy, and a total of three dose-escalation groups (30 mg/m² LBP, 35 mg/m² LBP, and 40 mg/m² LBP) were established. The main adverse event that was observed was myelosuppression. DLT occurred in four patients, including three patients in the 40 mg/m² LBP group and one patient in the 35 mg/m² LBP group. In total, three out of the four patients in the 40 mg/m² LBP group exhibited DLT. We determined that the treatment administered to the 35 mg/m² LBP group represented the MTD. Thus, our phase I trial revealed that the MTD for the tested LBP combination regimen was 35 mg/m² LBP and 60 mg/m² TXT. This regimen resulted in mild adverse reactions and favourable patient tolerance. Therefore, we recommend the use of these dosages in phase II clinical trials.

Combined use of cyclophosphamide and Chalone 19-peptide in experimental breast cancer

Background

Cyclophosphamide is a potent anticancer drug, but its clinical utility is limited because of its severe side effects, in particular liver damage. Chalone 19-peptide induces apoptosis of tumor cells and inhibits tumor growth. The present study investigated the antitumor effects of a combination of cyclophosphamide and Chalone 19-peptide in experimental breast cancer.

Methods

An animal model of breast cancer was developed, consisting of an MDA-MB-231 cell line implanted in the nude mouse. Eight doses of a combination of cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg or 100 mg/kg and Chalone 19-peptide 6.6 mg/kg were administered, and the mice were euthanized 28 days after the final drug injection. Histopathologic analysis of tumor size, metastasis, and apoptosis of cancer cells was performed. Control mice were injected intraperitoneally with either cyclophosphamide alone or the same volume of solvent.

Results

Tumor sizes in the treatment groups were smaller than in the controls. No metastasis was found in the groups treated with cyclophosphamide and Chalone 19-peptide, but lung metastasis was found in controls. Liver damage in the groups treated with cyclophosphamide was more serious than in the other groups.

Conclusion

Addition of Chalone 19-peptide can improve the ability of cyclophosphamide to inhibit tumor growth and also reduces side effects.

A cross-country review of data collected on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in cancer registries, databases, retrospective and non-randomized prospective studies

INTRODUCTION

An increased number of pharmacotherapies exist to treat advanced NSCLC. This necessitates a review of the available information on routine-care treatment patterns, the outcome of treatment, and resource utilization for patients diagnosed and treated with advanced NSCLC that could inform evidence-based treatment decisions and aid decisions on the most cost-effective treatment alternatives.

METHODS

PubMed and the Health Economic Evaluations Database were searched for retrospective or non-randomized prospective studies between January 2000 and May 2012 that included information on treatment patterns, treatment outcomes including health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), and resource utilization. In addition, registries and databases were identified from retrieved publications and internet searches. Data collected in registries and databases was summarized for eight European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Turkey, the Netherlands, the UK), Australia, and Canada.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 410 studies, whereof 87 studies met the study inclusion criteria. In total, 49 were retrospective chart reviews or database analyses, 30 non-randomized prospective studies, and eight HRQoL studies. Two studies compared treatment patterns and/or treatment outcomes across countries. Altogether, 181 cancer registries in the countries studied were identified. Clinical cancer-specific patient registries were identified in Australia and Germany. Databases or linkage systems that enable retrieval of complete information of patient disease history were found in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Cancer registries and databases were found to collect information on NSCLC patient demographics, NSCLC or lung cancer diagnosis, disease stage, performance status, treatment, treatment outcomes, and resource use. Differences existed between country registries and databases in whether information was collected on each of these data points.

CONCLUSION

The literature review revealed few published NSCLC studies on treatment, treatment outcomes, and resource use in routine clinical practice and on HRQoL. Registries and databases were found to collect some of this information, however not systematically.

Prospective evaluation of the drug-metabolizing enzyme polymorphisms and toxicity profile of docetaxel in Korean patients with operable lymph node-positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Inter-individual variability of pharmacokinetics may account for unpredictable toxicities of docetaxel.

METHODS

From March 2007 to June 2008, female patients with operable lymph node-positive breast cancer receiving docetaxel-containing adjuvant chemotherapy were included in this study. The 4 cycles of planned dose of docetaxel (100 mg/m(2)) was performed as adjuvant chemotherapy, following 4 cycles of adriamycin and cyclophosphamide. We evaluated toxicity profile of docetaxel and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of CYP3A5 gene, ABCB1 gene, ABCC2 gene and SCLO1B3 gene. Toxicities during treatment of docetaxel were evaluated and defined according to the NCI CTCAE version 3.0.

RESULTS

Pharmacogenetic analysis was performed in 218 Korean women who had received the uniformly planned chemotherapy. With regard to ABCB1 3435 C>T, ABCB1 3435 T/T had significantly higher risks of neutropenia (P = 0.015). Meanwhile, allele frequencies for CYP3A5 6986 G and ABCB1 3435 T revealed a trend for neutropenia (P = 0.107 and 0.068). We could not find any other association between genotypes and other toxicities.

DISCUSSION

Although ABCB1 3435 T/T was significantly associated with docetaxel-related neutropenia in our study population, polymorphism of pharmacogenetic genes related to docetaxel metabolism did not appear to be evidently associated with docetaxel-related adverse events.

Phase III study, V-15-32, of gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated Japanese patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

This phase III study (V-15-32) compared gefitinib (250 mg/d) with docetaxel (60 mg/m(2)) in patients (N = 489) with advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed one or two chemotherapy regimens.

METHODS

The primary objective was to compare overall survival to demonstrate noninferiority for gefitinib relative to docetaxel. An unadjusted Cox regression model was used for the primary analysis.

RESULTS

Noninferiority in overall survival was not achieved (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; 95.24% CI, 0.89 to 1.40) according to the predefined criterion (upper CI limit for HR <or= 1.25); however, no significant difference in overall survival (P = .330) was apparent between treatments. Poststudy, 36% of gefitinib-treated patients received subsequent docetaxel, and 53% of docetaxel-treated patients received subsequent gefitinib. Gefitinib significantly improved objective response rate and quality of life versus docetaxel; progression-free survival, disease control rates, and symptom improvement were similar for the two treatments. Grades 3 to 4 adverse events occurred in 40.6% (gefitinib) and 81.6% (docetaxel) of patients. Incidence of interstitial lung disease was 5.7% (gefitinib) and 2.9% (docetaxel). Four deaths occurred due to adverse events in the gefitinib arm (three deaths as a result of interstitial lung disease, judged to be treatment related; one as a result of pneumonia, not treatment related), and none occurred in the docetaxel arm.

CONCLUSION

Noninferiority in overall survival between gefitinib and docetaxel was not demonstrated according to predefined criteria; however, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival. Secondary end points showed similar or superior efficacy for gefitinib compared with docetaxel. Gefitinib remains an effective treatment option for previously treated Japanese patients with NSCLC.

Docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer: impact on quality of life and pharmacoeconomics

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in industrialised countries, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for the majority of cases. A large proportion of patients present with advanced disease and are >65 years of age at the time of diagnosis. Systemic chemotherapy may be offered in an effort to improve survival and quality of life (QOL). Chemotherapy with platinum-based compounds has been shown to modestly improve survival and QOL, and is considered the standard of care as first-line treatment in patients with a good performance status. The last decade has seen the emergence of newer generation chemotherapy agents for the treatment of all cancer types. We review the evidence for the use of docetaxel, an antimicrotubular agent, in patients with advanced NSCLC. In this review, we evaluate not only the effects of docetaxel on survival, but also its impact on QOL and economic issues. Docetaxel is a potent anticancer agent with activity both as a single agent or in combination, and is used both as a first- and second-line treatment in advanced NSCLC. The improvements observed in patients' QOL and the cost effectiveness of docetaxel make it a very reasonable choice in older patients with good performance status and advanced disease who are candidates for chemotherapy.

The safety and efficacy of second-line single docetaxel (75 mg/m²) therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients who were previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

When used in the second-line setting, single-agent chemotherapy has produced response rates of more than 10% or median survival times greater than 4 months. We studied the safety and efficacy of using second-line single docetaxel (75 mg/m²) for advanced NSCLC patients who were previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy in Korea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-three patients with advanced NSCLC received chemotherapy from May 2002 to January 2005. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of these patients. The patients received 75 mg/m² of doxetaxel on day 1 and this was repeated at 3-week intervals.

RESULTS

The median age was 63 years (range: 42~77 years); 16 patients had adenocarcinoma and 8 patients had squamous cell carcinoma. The median number of cycles was 4 (range: 1~7 cycles). Of the 33 patients, 6 patients had partial responses, 13 patients had stable disease and 14 patients had progressive disease. The response rate was 18.2%. The median overall survival was 11 months (range: 7~15 months), and the median progression free survival was 5 months (range: 3~7 months). The median response duration was 5 months (range: 4~9 months). A total of 137 cycles were evaluated for toxicity. We observed grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in 79 cycles (57.6%), grade 3 or 4 leukopenia in 46 cycles (33.6%), and grade 3 febrile neutropenia in 2 cycles (1.5%). The median nadir day was day 9 (range: day 5~19), and the median number of G-CSF injections was 2 (range: 0~6). The most common non-hematologic toxicities were myalgia/arthralgia and neurotoxicity, but any grade 3 or 4 non-hematologic toxicity was not observed. The major toxicity of this therapy was neutropenia. The absolute neutrophil count decreased relatively rapidly, but neutropenic fever or related infection was rare. There were no treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSION

These results revealed a satisfactory response rate (18.2%) with using docetaxel as the second-line chemotherapy for NSCLC. The second-line docetaxel was an active and well-tolerated regimen in patients with advanced NSCLC pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Phase II Randomized Trial of Tri-weekly Versus Days 1 and 8 Weekly Docetaxel as a Second-line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

For orientals, titrating doses of docetaxel (60-66 mg/m(2)) have shown equal effectiveness and fewer side effects as a second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Under such doses, there were no comparative data between classic tri-weekly and Days 1 and 8 weekly schedules.

METHODS

This Phase II randomized prospective study was designed to compare the toxicity profile, efficacy and quality-of-life (QOL) between these two schedules of docetaxel in the treatment of previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC. Fifty patients were randomized to docetaxel arm A (66 mg/m(2) Day 1) and B (33 mg/m(2) Days 1 and 8) given every 3 weeks.

RESULTS

The overall response rates (ORRs) were 12 and 24% in arm A and B, respectively (P = 0.46), and disease control rates were 52 and 48%. The median time-to-progression (TTP) was 11.3 and 12.7 weeks and median survivals were 33.4 and 27.6 weeks, respectively. Both arms have same 1 year (36%) and 2 year survivals (12%). Arm A had significantly higher neutropenia but less compromised QOL. In this study, the response of second-line chemotherapy was significantly better in the group that was response to front-line chemotherapy (P = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

While Days 1 and 8 weekly docetaxel schedules show higher ORR and less hematological toxicity, there is no advantage to tri-week schedule in terms of TTP and survival, but more compromised QOL.