Phase II study of docetaxel/vinorelbine in patients with non-small-cell-lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy

Phase II study of vinorelbine and docetaxel in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer as frontline and second-line therapy

OBJECTIVES

Combination chemotherapy with third-generation, nonplatinum agents (ie, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, taxanes, or camptothecins) represents a well-tolerated frontline treatment option for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and might play a role as salvage therapy as well. The aim of this phase 2 study was to investigate the use of docetaxel and vinorelbine in the frontline and second-line setting in patients with incurable non-small-cell lung cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy-eight patients (42 untreated, 36 previously treated) were administered vinorelbine (20 mg/m) on days 1 and 8 and docetaxel (75 mg/m for untreated patients; 60 mg/m for previously treated patients for cycle 1, increased to 75 mg/m for the subsequent cycles in the absence of grade 3 fever/neutropenia) on day 8, repeated every 21 days, with routine filgrastim support.

RESULTS

The most common grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicities were diarrhea, dyspnea, fatigue, and nausea/vomiting (5% each). Grade 3 to 4 granulocytopenia occurred in 55% of the patients, however only 5% experienced febrile neutropenia. Response rates were 13% in the chemotherapy-naive cohort and 9% in previously treated patients. Median time to progression was 2.9 and 3.0 months and median overall survival was 15.0 and 6.2 months, for the frontline and second-line patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with historical controls, in the first-line setting, the combination of docetaxel and vinorelbine did not demonstrate increased efficacy advantages over platinum- or other nonplatinum-based doublets. In the second-line setting, single agent chemotherapy is as effective as, and less toxic than the docetaxel-vinorelbine combination, and the former remains the cytotoxic treatment of choice.

Phase II study of celecoxib and docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with progression after platinum-based therapy

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of celecoxib and docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer after failure of platinum-based therapy.

METHODS

Patients with relapsed non-small cell lung cancer received celecoxib 400 mg orally twice daily beginning 7 days before the first cycle of docetaxel and the celecoxib was continued with no interruption. Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on a 21-day cycle. The primary end point of the study was the 6-month survival rate.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were enrolled and twenty patients were treated (median age 60, M:F 16:8). Most patients had a baseline performance status of 1. The objective response rate was 10% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-25%) and the 6-month survival rate was 59% (95% CI 37-80%). Median survival time was 6.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-15.2 months) and the 1- and 2-year survival rates were 36% (95% CI, 15-57%) and 1% (95% CI, 0-10%), respectively. The most frequent grade > or =3 adverse events were neutropenia (58%) and neutropenic fever (21%) which resulted in early closure of the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of celecoxib to docetaxel did not seem to improve the response rate and survival compared with docetaxel alone. The combination demonstrated considerable neutropenia and complications from febrile neutropenia that suggests celecoxib may enhance the marrow toxicity of docetaxel.

Biweekly administration of docetaxel and vinorelbine as second-line chemotherapy for patients with stage IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II study of the Galician Lung Cancer Group (GGCP 013-02)

The current report aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of a biweekly administration of docetaxel and vinorelbine to patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, who had previously been treated for this disease. In a prospective, multicenter, open-label, phase II trial, patients received 40 mg/m of docetaxel and 20 mg/m of vinorelbine on days 1 and 15, every 28 days. Treatment continued for up to a maximum of six cycles, unless disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred, or consent was withdrawn. Fifty patients were enrolled in the study and they received 174 cycles of chemotherapy, with a median of three cycles per patient. All patients were evaluated for efficacy and toxicity in an intention-to-treat analysis. The overall response rate was 10% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1-19], including one complete response (2%) and four partial responses (8%). Previous chemotherapy of 80% of the responders included paclitaxel. Median time to disease progression was 2.7 months (95% CI: 2.2-4.3) and median overall survival was 6.5 months (95% CI: 2.5-9.2). The survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 18% (95% CI: 7-29) and 4% (95% CI: 0-10), respectively. The most frequent severe toxicities were neutropenia (20% of patients) and leukopenia (8% of patients). Other toxicities appeared in 4% or fewer of the patients. Biweekly administration of docetaxel and vinorelbine is feasible as a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer patients, but its level of activity and toxicity does not suggest any advantage compared with the results obtained with single-agent docetaxel in the same setting.

Second- and third-line treatments in non-small cell lung cancer

Slow but steady progress has been made in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. For first-line therapy, multiple chemotherapy combination therapies can extend survival and improve quality of life. And recently, for the first time ever, a noncytotoxic agent, the antivascular endothelial growth factor antibody bevacizumab, has been shown to improve survival when added to chemotherapy. Striking improvements have also been made in second-line treatment. In August 2004, only one agent was US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in this setting, docetaxel, but by the beginning of 2005, two more were available, pemetrexed and erlotinib. All three of these drugs can significantly benefit patients, with 1-year survival in excess of 30%. Choosing between the three agents can be challenging, and this review focuses on the toxicity differences and predictors of response that can help guide this decision. Docetaxel and pemetrexed, both traditional intravenous cytotoxins, are excellent options for patients who have shown some response to first-line chemotherapy, but at this time, no other means exist to determine likelihood of response. When choosing between the two, pemetrexed causes significantly less neutropenia than does docetaxel, at least on the standard every-3-week regimen. With erlotinib, an oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, there are factors that can predict for response, including little or no smoking history, and adenocarcinoma histology. Therefore, patients who fit these characteristics are good candidates for second-line erlotinib. However, the relationship between response to erlotinib and improved survival remains unclear, and several laboratory analyses that may help further, such as evaluation of EGFR gene copy number, are still under development. Although erlotinib is the only FDA-approved option currently available for third-line therapy, many patients with good performance status may benefit from third-line therapy and beyond. In addition to the approved second-line options, other single-agent chemotherapies to consider for treatment beyond second-line are gemcitabine, irinotecan, and oral topotecan. Many new drugs, including bevacizumab, ZD6474 (AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE), sorafenib, cetuximab, paclitaxel poliglumex, epothilones, and others, alone or in combination with traditional agents, are currently undergoing investigation and hold great promise.