A multicenter randomized phase II study of oral vs. intravenous vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

PURPOSE: A randomized phase II trial of oral vs. intravenous (i.v.) vinorelbine was designed to determine the efficacy and safety of oral vinorelbine with an intrapatient dose escalation in previously untreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between December 1997 and April 1999, 115 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized (2 to 1) to receive either oral vinorelbine at a dose of 60 mg/m2/week for the first three administrations and then increased to 80 mg/m2/week in the absence of severe neutropenia, or i.v. vinorelbine at 30 mg/m2/week.
RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients (76 in the oral arm and 38 in the i.v. arm) were treated. Ninety-eight patients (86%) were eligible and assessable. The two treatment arms were well-balanced for demographic and prognostic features. After external panel review, the response rates in evaluable patients were 14%, in the oral arm and 12% in the i.v. arm. The median progression-free survival with oral and i.v. vinorelbine was 3.2 months and 2.1 months, respectively, and the median survival 9.3 and 7.9 months, respectively. The most common hematological toxicity was neutropenia, which was severe (grade 3-4) in 46% of patients and for 7% of administrations in the oral arm, and in 62% of patients and for 25% of administrations in the i.v. arm. Non-hematological toxicities including nausea, vomiting, anorexia, weight loss, diarrhea .and constipation were generally mild to moderate.
CONCLUSION: The activity of oral and i.v. vinorelbine in advanced NSCLC appears to be comparable. The safety profiles of both formulations look qualitatively similar. Oral vinorelbine can therefore be considered a good alternative to i.v. administration.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes