Search

Background: The objective of this trial was to evaluate the activity and safety of one of the newer platinum-based doublets as a neoadjuvant regimen in patients with unresectable Stage IIIA-bulky N2 and Stage IIIB nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC)., Methods: From June 1996 to April 2000, 129 consecutive patients with locally advanced NSCLC were treated with gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1 and 8 and cisplatin, 70 mg/m(2) on Day 2 (GC) of a 21-day treatment cycle, for 4 cycles, as part of a combined-modality approach., Results: After induction chemotherapy, 80 patients (62%; 95% confidence interval, 53.6-70.4%) achieved a partial response, 43 patients (33%) had stable disease, and 6 patients (5%) had disease progression during chemotherapy. Forty patients (31%), were considered resectable and underwent thoracotomy. Complete resectability was obtained in 38 patients (29%), with 2% of patients achieving a pathologic complete response. After surgery, 9 patients with Mountain Classification Stage IIIA NSCLC and 9 patients with Stage IIIB NSCLC received definitive adjuvant radiotherapy. Forty-six of 52 patients with Stage IIIB disease and 24 of 37 patients with Stage IIIA disease who were not considered suitable for surgery received definitive radiotherapy. The median time to disease progression was 11.4 months, the median survival was 19.4 months (range, 1.2-55.2 + months), and the 1-year survival rate was 74%. The lungs (33%) and the brain (21%) were the main sites of recurrence. Major toxicity was comprised of Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia, which occurred in 34 patients (27%)., Conclusions: GC administered according to a 3-week schedule was a highly active and safe regimen in patients with primary, unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC., (Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11460)

Purpose: Tumors with p53 overexpression have been associated with enhanced resistance to cisplatin-based chemotherapy in a few and small studies involving non-small cell lung cancer. The relationships and interactions between p53, Rb and bcl-2 immunostaining, clinical parameters and response to cisplatin-based chemotherapy were evaluated in the present study., Experimental Design: Histological specimens obtained by bronchial or fine-needle biopsy from patients who underwent cisplatin-based chemotherapy between 1992 and 1999 were evaluated by immunostaining., Results: There were 102 patients, 88 men. Median age was 63 years; 47 had stage III and 55 stage IV disease. Forty-six tumor samples (45%) had positive immunostaining for p53, 61 (59%) had negative immunostaining for Rb and 8 (8%) had positive immunostaining for bcl-2. The response rate of the group with p53 positive immunostaining was 26% versus 57% of the p53 negative group (P=0.004). In multivariate analyses p53 positive immunostaining was identified as an independent predictive factor for resistance to cisplatin-based chemotherapy (P=0.006)., Conclusions: Our study confirmed an association of p53 immunostaining and response rate of patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Background: The conventional treatment of brain metastases not amenable to surgery is most often radiotherapy. Until now, pharmacologic issues related to the blood brain barrier (BBB) prevented a wide evaluation of chemotherapy. The authors previously reported that the combination of cisplatin (P) and etoposide (E) had strikingly high activity in patients with brain metastases from breast carcinoma. The purpose of this study was to assess, in a larger prospective study, the front-line activity of that combination against brain metastases from breast carcinoma (BC), nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), and malignant melanoma (MM) in patients previously untreated with radiotherapy., Methods: From December 1986 to July 1993, 116 patients received P 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 and E 100 mg/m2 on Days 1, 3, and 5 or on Days 4, 6, and 8 every 3 weeks. An insignificant change in the E schedule using the same dose on a random basis assured the prospective enrollment and the registration of all cases. Six patients were not eligible and three patients were excluded from the analysis because they were lost to follow-up shortly after the date of registration. One-hundred seven patients were considered for analysis. The distribution according to the primary tumor site was BC in 56 patients (52%), NSCLC in 43 (40%), and MM in 8 (8%). The first evaluation of response was performed after two cycles. In cases of no disease progression, chemotherapy was continued to a maximum of six cycles., Results: Among the 56 patients with BC, 7 achieved complete response (CR) (13%), 14 achieved partial response (PR), 12 had no change (NC), 15 had progressive disease (PD), and 8 had insufficient treatment or response was not assessed. The CR plus rate was 38%. Among the 43 patients with NSCLC, 3 achieved CR (7%), 10 achieved PR, 15 had SD, 7 had PD, and 8 had insufficient treatment or response was not assessed. The CR plus PR rate was 30%. None of the eight patients with MM achieved an objective response. The median survival was 31 weeks for patients with BC (range, 0-287), 32 for patients with NSCLC (0-392+), and 17 for patients with MM (2-48)., Conclusions: The combination of P and E is effective for patients with brain metastases from BC and NSCLC. In this study, the response rate was of the same order as that reported for disseminated disease without central nervous system involvement. The survival figures compare favorably with some others reported in the literature for patients given radiotherapy. A randomized study is warranted to compare this chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone for patients with brain metastases from BC or NSCLC not amenable to surgery or radiosurgery.

From 1984 to 1988, thirty-nine untreated patients with epithelial ovarian cancer received Cisplatin 50 mg/m2, Doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and Cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 (CAP), at 3 weekly intervals. All patients had FIGO stage III or IV tumors except 2 patients with stage IIb and IIc, respectively. After initial surgery 23 patients had residual disease > 2 cm in diameter. Twenty-five patients (64%) were evaluable for response to chemotherapy. Objective responses were observed in 13 out of 25 patients (52%, 95% confidence intervals (CI), 32.42% to 71.58%), 6 patients had a cCR (24%) and 7 had a cPR (28%). Seventeen out of the 39 patients (44%) had a second-look laparotomy. A pCR was achieved in 5 out of 17 patients (29%); a pPR was obtained in 8 patients (47%). Median duration of survival was 41,5 months (range 2-107+); median duration of time to failure was 21 months (range 2-107+). Median disease-free survival was 86 months (range 3,5-107+). Eleven patients (28%) are alive and 9 patients (23%) are free of recurrence at median follow-up of 86 months. Only 4 of 11 long-term survivors had a pCR. In univariate analysis, histology, clinical response to chemotherapy, and the presence of ascites at the time of diagnosis, achieved a significant correlation with survival and time to failure (TTF); in addition, TTF was significantly affected by pathological response to induction chemotherapy. The only important predictors of disease-free survival (DFS) were tumor grade and stage of disease. In multivariate analysis, the presence of ascites was the only significant prognostic factor with respect to survival and TTF. Our study confirms the effectiveness of CAP in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer and the relatively poor long term prognosis.

Background: In a randomized Phase II study, the authors evaluated the activity and toxicity of the new cisplatin, doxorubicin, and mitomycin C (PAM) combination, that includes cisplatin (P) instead of 5-fluorouracil as in the 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin C (FAM) combination, in patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. FAM was utilized as a control treatment arm., Methods: Fifty eligible patients were assigned to the FAM (5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenous (i.v.) on Days 1, 8, 29, 36; doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 i.v. on Days 1 and 29; mitomycin C 10 mg/m2 i.v. on Day 1; every 8 weeks) and 52 to the PAM combination (cisplatin 60 mg/m2 i.v. on Days 1 and 29; doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 i.v. on Days 1 and 29; mitomycin C 10 mg/m2 i.v. on Day 1; every 8 weeks). All eligible patients were included in the evaluation of response, toxicity and survival., Results: The PAM combination complete response (CR) rate was 8%, and the CR plus partial response (PR) rate was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] from 10% to 32%). The median time to progression, duration of response, and duration of survival were 15, 26, and 29 weeks, respectively. The FAM combination CR rate was 2% and the CR plus PR rate was 26% (95% CI from 14% to 38%). The median time to progression, duration of response, and duration of survival were 17, 27, and 23 weeks, respectively. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were mild with both regimens., Conclusions: This study shows that this new combination, that does not include 5-fluorouracil, is active in patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. Since treatment with 5-fluorouracil alone is still considered the standard according to some authors, the PAM combination may be included among the sequential clinical options before or after treatment with 5-fluorouracil alone.

To prevent delayed emesis induced by cisplatin (mean dose 90 mg/m2), 120 consecutive patients were randomized to receive, in a 7-day crossover design, oral metoclopramide (20 mg q.i.d.), dexamethasone (1 mg q.i.d.) or placebo (two tablets q.i.d.) starting 24 hours after the end of chemotherapy. Complete protection from nausea, but not from vomiting. was significantly increased by both dexamethasone and metoclopramide with respect to placebo. Important prognostic factors favoring the appearance of delayed emesis were incomplete protection from vomiting during the first 24 hours after cisplatin, female gender, and highest cisplatin doses. Tolerability of both drugs was good. Larger and randomized controlled trials are necessary to identify better preventive treatment of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin.

Ondansetron (OND) is a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that give complete protection from emesis/nausea in approximately 50% of cisplatin (CDDP)-treated patients. To evaluate if dexamethasone (DEX) added to OND increases antiemetic efficacy, we carried out a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity of OND with OND plus DEX. One hundred two chemotherapy-naive patients (44 women and 58 men) scheduled to receive CDDP chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2 entered the study. Eighty-nine patients completed both cycles with the following results: complete protection from emesis/nausea was obtained in 57/59 patients (64.0%/66.3%) with OND and in 81/79 (91.0%/88.8%) with OND plus DEX (P = .0005/P = .0021). At the end of the study, 53% of the patients expressed a treatment preference, and of these, 74% chose OND plus DEX compared with 26% who preferred OND alone, a statistically significant difference (P less than .003). Side effects were very mild and not significantly different between the two treatments. We conclude that OND plus DEX is more efficacious than OND in protecting patients from CDDP-induced emesis and nausea.

In a double-blind crossover antiemetic study in cisplatin-treated cancer patients, metoclopramide 4 mg/kg as a single intravenous dose (regimen A) was compared with 3 mg/kg in two doses (regimen B). In both regimens, metoclopramide was combined with dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. 65 consecutive, chemotherapy-naïve inpatients (45 males and 20 females) treated with high doses (at least 50 mg/m2) of cisplatin entered the study and 54 completed both treatments. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea, mean number of emetic episodes, mean maximum intensity of nausea and mean duration of emesis or nausea were similar with the two antiemetic regimens. 23 patients (43%) did not express a treatment preference, while 16 (30%) preferred regimen B and 15 (28%) preferred regimen A. Side-effects were similar with the two metoclopramide schedules. A combined antiemetic regimen of a single high dose of metoclopramide (4 mg/kg) can preserve efficacy and tolerability and thus should be preferred.

Ondansetron as a single agent has been shown to be superior to metoclopramide in the control of acute nausea and vomiting induced by high-dose cisplatin, complete or major control (0-2 emetic episodes) being achieved in 65-75% of patients. In an attempt to further improve efficacy in this group of patients, a randomised, double-blind, crossover study was carried out comparing ondansetron with ondansetron plus dexamethasone. Ondansetron was given as three intravenous doses (0.15 mg/kg) 2-hourly and dexamethasone as a single intravenous dose of 20 mg prior to cisplatin (median 70 mg/m2, range 50-120 mg/m2). Complete control of emesis was achieved in 91% of patients receiving the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone and in 64% of patients receiving ondansetron alone (P less than 0.001). Nausea was absent in 89% of patients receiving the combination and in 66% of patients receiving ondansetron alone (P less than 0.0025). Both treatments were well tolerated. The addition of a single dose of dexamethasone to ondansetron significantly improves the control of emesis and nausea compared to ondansetron monotherapy in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin.

Sixty five chemotherapy naive patients receiving cisplatin (50-120 mg/m2) containing chemotherapy participated in an evaluation of ondansetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, in the prophylaxis of acute and delayed nausea and emesis. Ondansetron was given as three 0.15 mg/kg doses intravenously (0.5 h before, 3.5 h and 7.5 h after cisplatin) for acute emesis followed by 8 mg orally 8-hourly for five days at 24 h post-cisplatin for delayed emesis. For acute emesis (first 24 h, n = 63), complete control was achieved in 34 patients (54%) and major control (1-2 episodes) in 16 patients (25%). Complete protection from acute nausea was achieved in 48 patients (76%). For delayed emesis (days 2-6, n = 55), 33 patients (60%) were completely protected or reported one to two episodes during the entire 5-day observation period; 63% reported only mild or no nausea. Ondansetron was well tolerated with no significant drug-related adverse events. These results are consistent with serotonin being a significant transmitter of cisplatin-induced emesis.

In a pilot study we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of a four-drug antiemetic combination (metoclopramide, dexamethasone, diphenhydramine and lorazepam) in cancer patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2. Fifty male patients entered the study. Complete protection from vomiting and nausea was obtained in 41 patients (82%) (95% confidence limits 71 and 93%). Toxicity was slight except for moderate sedation in 10% of patients necessitating their hospitalization. Only one extrapyramidal reaction (akathisia) was observed. When these results were compared to our previous experience in male patients treated with a combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine without lorazepam, used at the same doses and schedule, no clear benefit and higher toxicity was observed.

A total of 26 women who submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy received as antiemetic treatment a combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. Acupuncture according to traditional Chinese medicine was also carried out. The results were compared with those obtained in a similar group of women with cancer, who were treated in the same setting with the same antiemetic combination but without additional acupuncture. Acupuncture was shown to increase complete protection from nausea and to decrease the intensity and duration of nausea and vomiting. However, the difficulties of performing acupuncture routinely in daily practice are a hindrance to its wider use.

We designed a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity and toxicity of high-dose intravenous alizapride (3.5 mg/kg) versus high-dose intravenous metoclopramide (1 mg/kg) both combined with intravenous methylprednisolone in 40 untreated cancer patients submitted to cisplatin chemotherapy alone. The mean number of vomiting episodes (3.6 vs. 1.0), length of vomiting (209.8 vs. 80.9 min), and rate of complete prevention of vomiting (25% vs. 68.4%) at first cycle were in favor of metoclopramide, with a statistically significant difference. This difference was not statistically significant in the second cycle after crossover. Toxicity of both treatments was mild and diarrhea was more frequent in the alizapride-treated patients. Preference expressed by the patients was also in favor of metoclopramide. We conclude that alizapride offers less antiemetic protection than metoclopramide in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. Further use of alizapride in such patients is not recommended.

Despite treatment, emesis remains a major problem with cisplatin (CDDP) chemotherapy. Reasons for variability in antiemetic response among patients and in subsequent cycles are largely unknown and toxicity is sometimes severe. We have, therefore, carried out a multicenter, double-blind randomized trial comparing a combination of high-dose metoclopramide (MTC) (1 mg/kg x 4) and methylprednisolone (P) (treatment A) with a shorter but higher single-dose schedule of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2) combined with dexamethasone (DEX) and diphenhydramine (DIP) to prevent extrapyramidal reactions (treatment B). Three hundred sixty-seven consecutive patients treated with various chemotherapy combinations containing CDDP were studied. Complete protection from vomiting/nausea was, at first cycle, 72.5%/79.5% with treatment B and 55.8%/65.1% with treatment A, a statistically significant difference (P less than .002/P less than .005). In subsequent cycles, protection from emesis significantly decreased with no difference between the two treatments. Multifactorial analysis shows that women, younger patients, outpatients, and patients who experienced emesis in previous cycles were at higher risk of suffering nausea and/or vomiting. Both regimens were well tolerated, but patients treated with treatment B had significantly less extrapyramidal reactions (1.7%/6.1%, P = .053). Treatment B is preferred due to its greater efficacy and lower incidence of extrapyramidal reactions. Trials on antiemetic therapy should take into account the important variables able to influence the efficacy of treatment. There is still a need for improving prevention of emesis in CDDP-treated patients.

A dose-finding multicenter study was undertaken to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of domperidone, an antidopaminergic drug, which has been proposed as a suitable alternative to high-dose metoclopramide in the control of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Forty-five patients were treated with different increasing high doses of domperidone (30, 60, 120 or 150 mg) administered by i.v. infusion over 20 min every 2 hr for a total of four doses for each patient, starting 30 min before chemotherapy. The number of episodes of emesis, the duration of nausea and vomiting and side-effects were recorded. Results do not suggest any specific difference in protective effect between the regimens tested. Moreover, occurrence of serious side-effects indicated that the safety of high-dose domperidone is doubtful.

High-dose metoclopramide has been proposed as an effective antiemetic agent in patients treated with cisplatin. Its optimal dosage schedule, however, has not yet been completely defined. We report the results of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial where the efficacy and safety of two fixed high-dose regimens of metoclopramide (60 and 120 mg, respectively) have been tested in 112 patients receiving cisplatin treatment. No statistically significant difference has been found between the two groups. In patients treated with cisplatin at doses greater than 100 mg/m2, the higher dose regimen seems more efficacious, but this result should be confirmed in a larger group of patients. Treatment was generally well-tolerated. However, a consistent percentage of patients (about 60%) still present with vomiting, and this makes further investigation necessary.

We designed a multicenter, double-blind randomized study to determine the safety and antiemetic effectiveness of intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone (P) combined with high-dose IV metoclopramide (MTC) v MTC alone in 200 untreated cancer patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy. One hundred eighty-five patients were evaluable for treatment efficacy. MTC plus P was significantly superior to MTC alone in reducing the number and length of vomiting episodes (P = .001 and P = .0008, respectively) and the maximal intensity of nausea (P = .0124 with a score system; P = .0155 with a linear analogue scale) and length of nausea (P = .0056). The subgroup with a major incidence of nausea and vomiting was women, especially young women, outpatients, and those treated with higher doses of cisplatin. Side effects were low and equally distributed between the two treatment groups. We conclude that MTC plus P has greater antiemetic activity than MTC alone in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy.

Survival in patients with locally advanced (stage III Mo) and metastatic (Ml) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is short. Phase II studies have reported objective responses ranging from 20% to 60% using cisplatin-based chemotherapeutic regimens, yet few have shown improvement in median survival. In our phase II pilot studies with cisplatin (CDDP) and etoposide (VP-16), we observed a 26% response rate; with CDDP, VP-16, and mitomycin-C, a 38% response rate was obtained in advanced NSCLC patients. A total of 156 consecutive patients with locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC were randomized to one of three treatment arms to determine whether the chemotherapy protocols had any effect on response rate and median survival in a large, randomized study. Arm 1 consisted of CDDP (120 mg/m2 x 3 weeks); arm 2, of CDDP (120 mg/m2) and VP-16 (100 mg/m2 given i.v. on days 1-3), repeated every 3 weeks; and arm 3, of CDDP (120 mg/m2) and VP-16 (100 mg/m2 on days 1-3) given every 3 weeks, plus mitomycin C (10 mg/m2 on days 1, 21, and 42, then every 6 weeks, for a maximal dose of 100 mg). After 71 patients had been enrolled in the study, we stopped accrual in the CDDP arm due to a lack of response [1 complete response (CR) in 24 patients; 4%] and continued enrollment in the two combination-chemotherapy arms. In the CDDP/VP-16 arm a 30% response rate [1 CR, 18 partial responses (PRs)] was obtained, and in the CDDP/VP-16 mitomycin C arm a 26% response rate (4 CRs, 11 PRs) was seen among a total of 150 evaluable patients. Responses were observed in 31% of patients with favorable performance status (PS) (ECOG 0-1) vs 14% in patients with a poor PS (ECOG 2-3). Of patients with locally advanced disease (III Mo), 17 (33%) obtained an objective response, compared with 20 patients (20%) with metastatic disease. Median survival was 18 weeks in the CDDP arm, 35 weeks in the CDDP/VP-16 arm, and 37 weeks in the CDDP/VP-16/mitomycin C arm. The median survival in the multimodal chemotherapy arms was significantly greater than that obtained with CDDP alone. Toxicity was predominantly myelosuppression in the mitomycin C-containing arm (27%, wtto grade 3-4). Our study shows that combination chemotherapy using CDDP/VP-16 is active and safe in the treatment of advanced NSCLC patients with a good performance status. The addition of mitomycin C did not improve the therapeutic response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The serotonin-receptor (5-HT3) antagonists combined with dexamethasone are considered the antiemetic therapy of choice in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. As there are now several compounds on the market, the dilemma of preference is particularly relevant. In preclinical studies some differences among the three marketed drugs (ondansetron, granisetron and tropisetron) have emerged. In particular, tropisetron and granisetron have a greater potency and duration of action and seem to have a greater selectivity toward the 5-HT3 receptor with respect to ondansetron. Furthermore, while with tropisetron and granisetron there is a linear dose/response relationship, this does not seem to be the case for ondansetron. These preclinical differences, however, do not seem to correlate with the clinical antiemetic activity of these compounds. In fact, although the number of comparative studies is small, with all of them presenting several shortcomings (small number of patients, not blinded studies, no association with steroids, sponsored trials), it seems that the antiemetic activity and tolerability of ondansetron, granisetron and tropisetron is very similar. If these data are confirmed, the least expensive of the 5-HT3 antagonists should be the drug of choice. We feel, however, that the answer to this rather difficult question of choice will come from very large, independent, methodologically correct studies designed to show small but clinically significant differences (i.e., less than 10% in complete protection from emesis). These trials, which require about 1000-1500 patients, are ongoing and the one carried out as a multicenter study by the Italian Group for Antiemetic Research is close to conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting can today be controlled with available antiemetics in a high percentage of patients but emesis remains a problem for some patients, with certain drugs and with repeated cycles of chemotherapy. The fundamental steps of clinical research in antiemetics towards the improvement of the control of nausea and vomiting with new drugs or combinations are presented. Special emphasis is given to cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting because of the frequency and relevance of this phenomenon. The use of high-dose metoclopramide, its combination with steroids, and later the addition of lorazepam or diphenhydramine represented the evolving standard of the 1980s, with the level of complete protection from vomiting improving from 30%-40% to 60%-70% with the three-drug combination. The introduction of new agents such as the 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists has recently offered new possibilities because of their activity and lack of toxicity. In particular, the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone is today the most efficacious and least toxic antiemetic treatment for prevention of emesis in patients treated with a single high dose or low repeated doses of cisplatin. A comparison of different 5-HT3 antagonists, always in combination with steroids, is now considered necessary. For patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy the use of steroids can still be considered the standard treatment. In this setting, the role of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, alone or in combination with steroids, has to be better defined through large, well-planned clinical trials, which should have a cost-effectiveness analysis as one of their goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]