BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase II randomized study to assess the efficacy, with response as the primary endpoint, and the toxicity of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized to GP (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) day 2) or GC (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin AUC=5 day 2). Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized to GP and 58 to GC. A total of 533 cycles were delivered (264 GP, 269 GC), with a median of four cycles/patient. The objective response rate was 41.9% (95% C.I., 29.6-54.2%) for GP and 31.0% (95% C.I., 18.2-42.8%) for GC (P=0.29). No significant differences between arms were observed in median survival (10.4 months GP, 10.8 months GC) and median time to progression (5.4 months GP, 5.1 months GC). Both regimens were very well tolerated with no statistical differences between arms in grade 3/4 toxicities. When all toxicity grades were combined, emesis, neuropathy and renal toxicity occurred more frequently on the GP arm (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS:GC arm did not provide a significant difference in response rate compared with GP arm, with better overall tolerability. Carboplatin could be a valid alternative to cisplatin in the palliative setting.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase II randomized study to assess the efficacy, with response as the primary endpoint, and the toxicity of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS:Patients were randomized to GP (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) day 2) or GC (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin AUC=5 day 2). Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized to GP and 58 to GC. A total of 533 cycles were delivered (264 GP, 269 GC), with a median of four cycles/patient. The objective response rate was 41.9% (95% C.I., 29.6-54.2%) for GP and 31.0% (95% C.I., 18.2-42.8%) for GC (P=0.29). No significant differences between arms were observed in median survival (10.4 months GP, 10.8 months GC) and median time to progression (5.4 months GP, 5.1 months GC). Both regimens were very well tolerated with no statistical differences between arms in grade 3/4 toxicities. When all toxicity grades were combined, emesis, neuropathy and renal toxicity occurred more frequently on the GP arm (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS:GC arm did not provide a significant difference in response rate compared with GP arm, with better overall tolerability. Carboplatin could be a valid alternative to cisplatin in the palliative setting.
Authors: Vitor F Vasconcellos; Guilherme N Marta; Edina Mk da Silva; Aecio Ft Gois; Tiago B de Castria; Rachel Riera Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-01-13
Authors: C C Zhou; C X Bai; Z Z Guan; G L Jiang; Y K Shi; M Z Wang; Y L Wu; Y P Zhang; Y Z Zhu Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Jeffrey A Jones; Elenir B C Avritscher; Catherine D Cooksley; Marisol Michelet; B Nebiyou Bekele; Linda S Elting Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-04-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Se Hoon Park; Seong Hwan Jeong; Sun Young Kyung; Young-Hee Lim; Chang Hyeok An; Sang Pyo Lee; Jeong Woong Park; Soo Mee Bang; Eun Kyung Cho; Dong Bok Shin; Jae Hoon Lee Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2005 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Angela M Davies; Kari Chansky; Primo N Lara; Paul H Gumerlock; John Crowley; Kathy S Albain; Stanley J Vogel; David R Gandara Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: E Boven; M Westerman; C J van Groeningen; M Verschraagen; R Ruijter; I Zegers; W J F van der Vijgh; G Giaccone Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-05-09 Impact factor: 7.640