Search

Purpose: A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of acute or delayed emesis induced by chemotherapy containing anthracyclines plus cyclophosphamide in patients with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to verify whether dexamethasone is superior to aprepitant in preventing delayed emesis in patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis., Patients and Methods: A randomized double-blind study comparing aprepitant versus dexamethasone was completed in chemotherapy-naive patients with breast cancer treated with anthracyclines plus cyclophosphamide. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg, dexamethasone 8 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On days 2 and 3, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice per day or aprepitant 80 mg once per day. Primary end point was rate of complete response (ie, no vomiting or rescue treatment) from days 2 to 5 after chemotherapy., Results: Of 580 enrolled patients, 551 were evaluable: 273 received dexamethasone, and 278 received aprepitant. Day 1 complete response rates were similar: 87.6% for dexamethasone and 84.9% for aprepitant (P < .39). From days 2 to 5, complete response rates were the same with both antiemetic prophylaxes (79.5%; P < 1.00), as were results of secondary end points (ie, complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < .24). Incidences of insomnia (2.9% v 0.4%; P < .02) and heartburn (8.1% v 3.6%; P < .03) were significantly greater with dexamethasone on days 2 to 5., Conclusion: In patients with breast cancer treated with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, dexamethasone was not superior to aprepitant but instead had similar efficacy and toxicity in preventing delayed emesis.

Purpose: To study the prognostic value for overall survival of baseline assessment of functional status, comorbidity, and quality of life (QoL) in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Data from 566 patients enrolled onto the phase III randomized Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) study were analyzed. Functional status was measured as activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). The presence of comorbidity was assessed with a checklist of 33 items; items 29 and 30 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) were used to estimate QoL. ADL was dichotomized as none versus one or more dependency. For IADL and QoL, three categories were defined using first and third quartiles as cut points. Comorbidity was summarized using the Charlson scale. Analysis was performed by Cox model, and stratified by treatment arm., Results: Better values of baseline QoL (P = .0003) and IADL (P = .04) were significantly associated with better prognosis, whereas ADL (P = .44) and Charlson score (P = .66) had no prognostic value. Performance status 2 (P = .006) and a higher number of metastatic sites (P = .02) also predicted shorter overall survival., Conclusions: Pretreatment global QoL and IADL scores, but not ADL and comorbidity, have significant prognostic value for survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who were treated with chemotherapy. Using these scores in clinical practice might improve prognostic prediction for treatment planning.

Purpose: To evaluate whether two commonly used newer platinum-based regimens offer any advantage over vinorelbine-cisplatin (reference regimen) in response rate for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 2 every 21 days (GC arm), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) (3-hour infusion) then carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve of 6 mg/mL x min), both on day 1 every 21 days (PCb arm), or vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk for 12 weeks then every other week plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) day 1 every 28 days (VC arm)., Results: Six hundred twelve patients were randomized to treatment (205 GC, 204 PCb, and 203 VC). Overall response rates for the GC (30%) and PCb (32%) arms were not significantly different from that of the VC arm (30%). There were no differences in overall survival, time to disease progression, or time to treatment failure. Median survival for the GC, PCb, and VC groups was 9.8, 9.9, and 9.5 months, respectively. Neutropenia was significantly higher on the VC arm (GC 17% or PCb 35% v VC 43% of cycles, P <.001), as was thrombocytopenia on the GC arm (GC 16% v VC 0.1% of cycles, P <.001). Alopecia and peripheral neurotoxicity were most common on the PCb arm, as was nausea/vomiting on the VC arm (P <.05)., Conclusion: Efficacy end points were not significantly different between experimental and reference arms, although toxicities showed differences. These findings suggest that chemotherapy in NSCLC has reached a therapeutic plateau.

Purpose: To compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB (limited to T4 for pleural effusion and N3 for supraclavicular lymph nodes) or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The end points were the evaluation of quality of life (QoL), response rates, survival, and toxicity., Patients and Methods: Three hundred seven patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days, or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3,000 mg/m(2), and mesna on day 1 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days. The whole-blood cell count was repeated on day 1 in both arms and weekly in the GC arm before each gemcitabine administration., Results: No major differences in changes in QoL were observed between the two treatment arms. The objective response rate was 38% in the GC arm compared with 26% in the MIC arm (P =.029). The median survival time was 8.6 months in the GC arm and 9.6 months in the MIC arm (P =.877, log-rank test). Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly worse in the GC arm (64% v 28%, P <.001), whereas grade 3 and 4 alopecia was reported more commonly in the MIC arm (39% v 12%, P <. 001)., Conclusion: We report an increased response rate without changes in QoL and a similar overall survival, time to progression, and time to treatment failure for the GC when compared with the MIC regimen in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Purpose: To investigate the activity and toxicity of gemcitabine as a single agent in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after recurrence or failure of previous treatment with a platinum-containing regimen., Patients and Methods: From November 1995 to October 1997, 83 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) once a week for 3 weeks every 28 days. Responses were assessed every two treatment courses. The median age of the patients was 63 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 to 1 in 62 patients and 2 in 21 patients. The predominant histology was squamous (39 patients); 49 patients had stage IV disease and 34 patients had stage III disease (33 stage IIIB and one stage IIIA)., Results: Sixteen patients (19%) achieved a partial response to treatment; the median duration of response was 29 weeks (range, 6 to 50 weeks). Treatment was well tolerated: grade 2 to 3 (World Health Organization standardized response criteria) leukopenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 23% and 20% of patients, respectively. Mild asthenia was observed in 16% of patients, and peripheral edema in 5% of patients. Nausea and vomiting were present in 16% of patients., Conclusion: In this experience, gemcitabine showed significant activity without relevant toxicity, mainly in patients who were previously responsive to chemotherapy. This suggests a possible role for gemcitabine as a second-line treatment in patients who had a previous response or achieved stable disease with a platinum-containing regimen.

Purpose: The nucleoside analog, gemcitabine, has shown activity as a single agent in the treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Its combination with cisplatin in preclinical models suggested synergy between the two drugs. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and toxicity of the cisplatin-gemcitabine combination in advanced NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Forty-eight consecutive previously untreated NSCLC patients entered the trial from January to June 1994. The median age was 60 years (range, 37 to 70) and performance status (PS) was 0 or 1; 22 patients had unresectable stage III disease (21 stage IIIB and one stage IIIA) and 26 had stage IV disease. Gemcitabine 1 g/m2 was administered weekly (days 1, 8, and 15) followed by a 1-week rest and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 2 of each 28-day cycle. Survival and response were determined in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle in all enrolled patients., Results: Of 48 assessable patients, one (stage IV) had a complete response (CR) and 25 achieved a partial response (PR). The overall response rate was 54% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40% to 68%). Thrombocytopenia was the main side effect, with 52% of patients experiencing grade III to IV toxicity, which was usually short-lived and responsible for the omission of gemcitabine administration on day 15 in 50% of chemotherapy courses. The median survival time was 61.5 weeks (95% CI, 40 to 71)., Conclusion: The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin induced a high response rate in both stage IIIB and IV NSCLC, with modest side effects. The regimen deserves further careful evaluation in a phase III prospective randomized trial.

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.

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.

From February 1983 to January 1985, 497 patients with advanced breast cancer were randomly allocated to receive either epirubicin or doxorubicin in the following combination chemotherapy regimen: fluorouracil (5-FU) 500 mg/m2 intravenous (IV) on days 1 and 8; epirubicin or doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 IV on day 1; cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 IV on day 1 (FEC or FAC). Cycles were repeated every 21 days until progression or to cumulative doses of 700 mg/m2 for epirubicin and 550 mg/m2 for doxorubicin. Dose reductions were applied according to the standard criteria. Activity was evaluated in 443 patients (222 in the FEC arm and 221 in the FAC arm). The two experimental groups were comparable in age, performance status, menopausal status, histology, previous treatments, and site of the disease. The overall response rate (complete response and partial response [CR + PR]) was not significantly different: 53.6% for FEC and 56.5% for FAC. The median time to progression was 273 days for FEC and 314 days for FAC; the median survival time was 591 and 613 days, respectively. Leukopenia, anemia, nausea, and vomiting were significantly lower in patients treated with FEC. As for cardiotoxicity, four cases of congestive heart failure (CHF) were recorded among patients treated with FAC while only one was observed in the FEC group. These results indicate that epirubicin in a combination chemotherapy regimen is as active as doxorubicin and is significantly less toxic.

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.