BACKGROUND: This randomised study was designed to determine the response rate survival and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine and cisplatin-etoposide in chemo-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 was given as a 30 min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small-cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod PS 0-2; no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases. RESULTS:146 patients were enrolled, 71 patients ongemcitabineand 75 patients oncisplatin-etoposide. Patient characteristics were well matched across both arms. Sixty-six gemcitabine patients and 72 cisplatin-etoposide patients were evaluable. Partial responses were seen in 12 gemcitabine patients (18.2%; 95% CI: 9.8-30) and 11 cisplatin-etoposide patients (15.3%; 95% CI: 7.9-25.7). Early indications show no statistical differences between the two treatments with respect to time to disease progression or survival. Haematological and laboratory toxicity were moderate and manageable. However, hospitalisation because of neutropenic fever was required for 6 (8%) cisplatin-etoposide patients but not for any gemcitabine patients. Non-haematological toxicity was more pronounced with significant differences in nausea and vomiting (grade 3 and 4: 11% gemcitabine vs. 29% cisplatin-etoposide; despite the allowance for 5-HT3 antiemetics during the first cycle of cisplatin-etoposide), and alopecia (grade 3 and 4:3% gemcitabine vs. 62% cisplatin-etoposide). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomised study, single-agent gemcitabine was at least as active but better tolerated than the combination cisplatin-etoposide.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This randomised study was designed to determine the response rate survival and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine and cisplatin-etoposide in chemo-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 was given as a 30 min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small-cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod PS 0-2; no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases. RESULTS: 146 patients were enrolled, 71 patients on gemcitabine and 75 patients on cisplatin-etoposide. Patient characteristics were well matched across both arms. Sixty-six gemcitabinepatients and 72 cisplatin-etoposidepatients were evaluable. Partial responses were seen in 12 gemcitabinepatients (18.2%; 95% CI: 9.8-30) and 11 cisplatin-etoposidepatients (15.3%; 95% CI: 7.9-25.7). Early indications show no statistical differences between the two treatments with respect to time to disease progression or survival. Haematological and laboratory toxicity were moderate and manageable. However, hospitalisation because of neutropenic fever was required for 6 (8%) cisplatin-etoposidepatients but not for any gemcitabinepatients. Non-haematological toxicity was more pronounced with significant differences in nausea and vomiting (grade 3 and 4: 11% gemcitabine vs. 29% cisplatin-etoposide; despite the allowance for 5-HT3 antiemetics during the first cycle of cisplatin-etoposide), and alopecia (grade 3 and 4:3% gemcitabine vs. 62% cisplatin-etoposide). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomised study, single-agent gemcitabine was at least as active but better tolerated than the combination cisplatin-etoposide.
Authors: Emilio Esteban; Joaquín Fra; Marian Sala; Juan Carrasco; Norberto Corral; José María Vieitez; Enrique Estrada; Isabel Palacio; José María Buesa; Angel J Lacave Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Richard J Gralla; Martin J Edelman; Frank C Detterbeck; Thierry M Jahan; David M Loesch; Steven A Limentani; Ramaswamy Govindan; Guangbin Peng; Matthew J Monberg; Coleman K Obasaju; Mark A Socinski Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Maximiliano Van Kooten; Moisés Rosenberg; Mauro Orlando; José Morero; Manuel Vilanova; Oscar Rojas; Héctor Vicente; Claudia Bagnes; Carlos Silva; Reinaldo D Chacón Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.850