• A phase III trial of docetaxel/carboplatin versus mitomycin C/ifosfamide/cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin C/vinblastine/cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised multicentre trial of the British Thoracic Oncology Group (BTOG1).

      Booton, Richard; Lorigan, Paul C; Anderson, Heather; Baka, Sofia; Ashcroft, Linda; Nicolson, Marianne; O'Brien, M; Dunlop, D; O'Byrne, Kenneth J; Laurence, V; et al. (2006-07)
      BACKGROUND: Phase III studies suggest that non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with cisplatin-docetaxel may have higher response rates and better survival compared with other platinum-based regimens. We report the final results of a randomised phase III study of docetaxel and carboplatin versus MIC or MVP in patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy proven stage III-IV NSCLC not suitable for curative surgery or radiotherapy were randomised to receive four cycles of either DCb (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), carboplatin AUC 6), or MIC/MVP (mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3 g/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), vinblastine 6 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2), respectively), 3 weekly. The primary end point was survival, secondary end points included response rates, toxicity and quality of life. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 17.4 months. Overall response rate was 32% for both arms (partial response = 31%, complete response = 1%); 32% of MIC/MVP and 26% of DCb patients had stable disease. One-year survival was 39% and 35% for DCb and MIC/MVP, respectively. Two-year survival was 13% with both arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia (74% versus 43%, P < 0.005), infection (18% versus 9%, P = 0.01) and mucositis (5% versus 1%, P = 0.02) were more common with DCb than MIC/MVP. The MIC/MVP arm had significant worsening in overall EORTC score and global health status whereas the DCb arm showed no significant change. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of DCb had similar efficacy to MIC/MVP but quality of life was better maintained.
    • Phase III trial of gemcitabine and carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma.

      Danson, Sarah; Middleton, Mark R; O'Byrne, Kenneth J; Clemons, Mark; Ranson, Malcolm R; Hasan, Jurjees; Anderson, Heather; Burt, Paul A; Faivre-Finn, Corinne; Stout, Ronald; et al. (2003-08-01)
      BACKGROUND: The authors compared gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The primary objective was survival. Secondary objectives were time to disease progression, response rates, evaluation of toxicity, disease-related symptoms, World Health Organization performance status (PS), and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Three hundred seventy-two chemotherapy-naïve patients with International Staging System Stage III/IV NSCLC who were ineligible for curative radiotherapy or surgery were randomized to receive either 4 cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8, and 15) plus carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve, 5; given on Day 1) every 4 weeks (the GC arm) or MIC/MVP every 3 weeks (the MIC/MVP arm). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in median survival (248 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 236 days in the GC arm) or time to progression (225 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 218 days in the GC arm) between the 2 treatment arms. The 2-year survival rate was 11.8% in the MIC/MVP arm and 6.9% in the GC arm. The 1-year survival rate was 32.5% in the MIC/MVP arm and 33.2% in the GC arm. In the MIC/MVP arm, 33% of patients responded (4 complete responses [CRs] and 57 partial responses [PRs]) whereas in the GC arm, 30% of patients responded (3 CRs and 54 PRs). Nonhematologic toxicity was comparable for patients with Grade 3-4 symptoms, except there was more alopecia among patients in the MIC/MVP arm. GC appeared to produce more hematologic toxicity and necessitated more transfusions. There was no difference in performance status, disease-related symptoms, or QoL between patients in the two treatment arms. Fewer inpatient stays for complications were required with GC. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study failed to demonstrate any difference in efficacy between the newer regimen of GC and the older regimens of MIC and MVP. Cancer 2003;98:542-53.
    • Randomized phase II study of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine compared with cisplatin/vinorelbine alone as first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

      Rosell, Rafael; Robinet, G; Szczesna, A; Ramlau, R; Constenla, M; Mennecier, B C; Pfeifer, W; O'Byrne, Kenneth J; Welte, T; Kolb, R; et al. (2008-02)
      BACKGROUND: The Lung Cancer Cetuximab Study is an open-label, randomized phase II pilot study of cisplatin and vinorelbine combined with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted monoclonal antibody cetuximab versus cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in patients with advanced EGFR-expressing, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). End points of the study are activity, safety and pharmacokinetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following randomization, for a maximum of eight cycles, patients received three-weekly cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m(2), day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) alone or following cetuximab treatment (initial dose 400 mg/m(2), followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter). RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were randomly allocated to the study (43 per arm). Confirmed response rates were 28% in the cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (A) and 35% in the cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (B). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months in arm A and 5.0 months in arm B, with PFS rates at 12 months of 0% and 15%, respectively. Median survival was 7.3 months in arm A and 8.3 months in arm B. The 24-month survival rates were 0% and 16%, respectively. The cetuximab combination was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, the combination of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and the potential to improve activity over cisplatin/vinorelbine alone.
    • Treatment of advanced breast cancer with sterically stabilized liposomal doxorubicin: results of a multicenter phase II trial.

      Ranson, Malcolm R; Carmichael, J; O'Byrne, Kenneth J; Stewart, S; Smith, D; Howell, Anthony; Christie Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom. (1997-10)
      PURPOSE: A multicenter phase II study to determine the activity and toxicity of Caelyx (Doxil; Sequus Pharmaceuticals Inc, Menlo Park, CA) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-one patients with stage IV breast cancer were treated with Caelyx at doses of 45 to 60 mg/m2 every 3 to 4 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. Twenty-eight patients had received prior chemotherapy with a nonanthracycline regimen. Fifty-two patients had disease at multiple sites. Hepatic and pulmonary disease were the predominant metastatic site in 50 patients. Response was assessable in 64 cases. RESULTS: Sixteen patients achieved a partial response and a complete response (overall response rate, 31%; (95% confidence interval, 20% to 43%). Twenty patients (31%) had stable disease on treatment. Neutropenia > or = grade 3 occurred in 10% of cycles (27% of patients) and mucositis > or = grade 3 in 10% of cycles (32% of patients). Significant alopecia was rare and routine prophylactic antiemetics were not required. At doses of 60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, seven of 13 patients had > or = grade 3 skin toxicity; overall, this toxicity complicated 25% of treatment cycles. The incidence of > or = grade 3 skin toxicity was greatly reduced at doses of 45 mg/m2 every 4 weeks, occurring in five of 32 patients and affecting only 5% of 126 treatment cycles. CONCLUSION: Caelyx is an active agent in advanced breast cancer with a safety profile that differs markedly from nonliposomal doxorubicin. A regimen of 45 mg/m2 every 4 weeks was well tolerated in this cohort of women with advanced poor-prognosis breast cancer. The mild myelosuppression seen with this regimen would favor its use in combination chemotherapy.