Journal List > J Lung Cancer > v.6(1) > 1050668

Park, An, Lee, Joung, Lee, Jung, Yun, Kim, Kim, Kim, Jung, Ryu, and Kim: A Comparison of Gemcitabine in Two Doses for Stage III or IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: a Multi-Institutional Phase II Study

Abstract

Purpose

Since the combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine (CG) had a significant survival advantage for the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), CG combination have been evaluated with different schedules. However, the best schedule is still unclear. We designed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of CG combination chemotherapy in two different doses of gemcitabine (1,000 or 1,250 mg/m2 3-weekly).

Materials and Methods

We randomized patients with stage III or IV NSCLC into either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2. Patients received cisplatin 60 mg/m2 intravenously on day1 of each 3-week cycle. Gemcitabine was administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle.

Results

From April 2002 until July 2004, 125 patients were enrolled from four university hospitals (55 patients in the gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 arm and 70 patients in the gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 arm). Response rates were not significantly different in both arms (56.4% vs. 55.7%). However, grade 3 neutropenia was significantly lower in gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 arm compared to gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 arm (11.0% vs. 15.8%). No differences in non-haematologic toxicities in both arms except anorexia were observed. The median survival was 13.4 months for gemcitabine 1,000 mg group compared with 15.8 months for gemcitabine 1,250 mg group. There were no statistically significant differences in survival between the groups.

Conclusion

For stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer, combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 showed equivalent response rate with lesser neutropenia and anorexia compared to treatment with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2.

References

1. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998; 48:6–29.
crossref
2. Sause W, Kolesar P, Taylor SI, et al. Final results of phase III trial in regionally advanced unresectable nonsmall cell lung cancer: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and Southwest Oncology Group. Chest. 2000; 117:358–364.
3. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a metaanalysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1995; 311:899–909.
4. Abratt RP, Bezwoda WR, Goedhals L, Hacking DJ. Weekly gemcitabine with monthly cisplatin: effective chemotherapy for advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15:744–749.
crossref
5. Shepherd FA, Cormier Y, Burkes R, et al. Phase II trial of gemcitabine and weekly cisplatin for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol. 1997; 24:S8–27. -S8–30.
6. Anton A, Diaz-Fernandez N, Gonzalez Larriba JL, et al. Phase II trial assessing the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer. 1998; 22:139–148.
crossref
7. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346:92–98.
crossref
8. Crino L, Scagliotti G, Marangolo M, et al. Cisplatin-gemcita-bine combination in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15:297–303.
9. Crino L, Scagliotti GV, Ricci S, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17:3522–3530.
10. Sandler AB, Nemunaitis J, Denham C, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18:122–130.
11. Cardenal F, Lopez-Cabrerizo MP, Anton A, et al. Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine-cisplatin versus etoposide-cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17:12–18.
crossref
12. Rinaldi M, Crino L, Scagliotti GV, et al. A three-week schedule of gemcitabine-cisplatin in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer with two different cisplatin dose levels: a phase II randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2000; 11:1295–1300.
crossref
13. Soto Parra H, Cavina R, Latteri F, et al. Three-week versus four-week schedule of cisplatin and gemcitabine: results of a randomized phase II study. Ann Oncol. 2002; 13:1080–1086.
crossref
14. Kim SY, Kim JS, Park HS. Screening of brain metastasis with limited magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). clinical implications of using limited brain MRI during initial staging for nonsmall cell lung cancer patients. J Korean Med Sci. 2005; 20:121–126.
15. Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, et al. CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003; 13:176–181.
crossref
16. Steward WP, Dunlop DJ, Dabouis G, Lacroix H, Talbot D. Phase I/II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: preliminary results. Semin Oncol. 1996; 23:43–47.
17. Ostoros G, Szondy K, Gergely-Farnos E, et al. Efficacy of gemcitabine–cisplatin treatment in stage IIIA (“bulky”N2), IIIB and IV nonsmall cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res. 2005; 25:471–475.

Fig. 1.
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for all patients by treatment group.
jlc-6-1f1.tif
Table 1.
Intracycle Dose Adjustments (Hematologic Toxicities)
AGC*(×109/L)   Platelets (×109/L) % of full-dose gemcitabine
≥1.0 AND ≥100 100
0.75 to 0.99 OR 75 to 99 75
0.5 to 0.74 OR 50 to74 50
<0.5 OR <50 HOLD

* AGC: absolute granulocyte count

Table 2.
Patients Characteristics
  Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2)(n=55) Gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2) (n=70)
No. of patients (%) No. of patients (%)
Age (years)    
  Median 64 65
  Range 40∼76 30∼78
Sex    
  Male 47 (85.5) 58 (82.9)
  Female 8 (14.5) 12 (17.1)
ECOG    
  0 8 (14.5) 15 (21.4)
  1 38 (69.1) 46 (65.7)
  2 9 (16.4) 9 (12.9)
Stage*    
  IIIA 17 (30.9) 11 (15.8)
  IIIB 20 (36.4) 31 (44.2)
  IV 18 (32.7) 28 (40.0)
Histology    
  Adenocarcinoma 20 (36.4) 29 (41.4)
  Squamous cell 32 (58.2) 34 (48.6)
  Large cell 2 (3.6) 1 (1.4)
  Others 1 (2.8) 6 (8.6)

* p value is 0.129 compared 1,000 mg/m2 group with 1,250 mg/m2 group

Table 3.
Comparision of Response between Two Groups
  Gemcitaine (1,000 mg/m2) Gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2) p
No. of patients % No. of patients %
Complete response 1 1.8 2 2.9  
Partial response 30 54.5 37 52.9  
Overall response 31 56.4 39 55.7 0.54
Stable disease 20 36.4 20 28.6  
Progression 4 7.3 11 15.7  
Table 4.
Comparison of Hematologic Toxicities between Two Groups
  Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2)(n*=480) Gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2) (n*=618) p
No. % No. %
Granulocytopenia          
 Total 53 11 98 15.8 0.016
  Grade 3 51 10.6 84 13.5  
  Grade 4 2 0.4 14 2.3  
Thrombocytopenia          
 Total 22 4.6 23 3.7 0.113
  Grade 3 20 4.1 20 3.2  
  Grade 4 2 0.5 3 0.5  
Anemia          
 Total 29 6.0 42 6.8 0.019
  Grade 3 29 6.0 42 6.8 0.119
  Grade 4 0 0.0 0 0.0  

* delivered number of chemotherapy

Table 5.
Comparison of Causes of Death between Two Group
Variable Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) Gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2)
Number of patients
Total deaths 32 53
Cause    
 Pneumonia 5 3
 Lung cancer 24 46
 Septic shock 0 4
 Radiation pneumonitis 3 0
Table 6.
Comparision of Dose-Intensity between Two Groups
  Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2)(n*=480) Gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2) (n*=618) p
No. % No. %
Full doses 444 92.5 531 86.0 0.046
Reduced doses s 31 6.5 76 12.3 0.038
Omitted doses 5 1.0 11 1.7 0.240

* delivered number of chemotherapy

TOOLS
Similar articles