Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

10 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Vinorelbine and gemcitabine vs vinorelbine and carboplatin as first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. A phase III randomised controlled trial by the Norwegian Lung Cancer Study Group.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but earlier studies have suggested that non-platinum combinations are equally effective and better tolerated. We conducted a national, randomised study to compare a non-platinum with a platinum combination. METHODS: Eligible patients had stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and performance status (PS) 0-2. Patients received up to three cycles of vinorelbine 60 mg m(-2) p.o.+gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) i.v. day 1 and 8 (VG) or vinorelbine 60 mg m(-2) p.o. day 1 and 8+carboplatin area under the curve=5 (Calvert's formula) i.v. day 1 (VC). Patients ≥75 years received 75% of the dose. Endpoints were overall survival, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), toxicity, and the use of radiotherapy. RESULTS: We randomised 444 patients from September 2007 to April 2009. The median age was 65 years, 58% were men and 25% had PS 2. Median survival was VG: 6.3 months; VC: 7.0 months, P=0.802. Vinorelbine plus carboplatin patients had more grade III/IV nausea/vomiting (VG: 4%, VC: 12%, P=0.008) and grade IV neutropenia (VG: 7%, VC: 19%, P<0.001). Infections, HRQoL and the use of radiotherapy did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The two regimens yielded similar overall survival. The VG combination had only a slightly better toxicity profile.

SUBMITTER: Flotten O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3405221 | biostudies-other | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Paclitaxel and carboplatin vs gemcitabine and vinorelbine in patients with adeno- or undifferentiated carcinoma of unknown primary: a randomised prospective phase II trial.

Project description:Platinum/taxane combinations are widely used in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP), yielding response rates of 30% and median overall survival of 9-11 months in selected patients. Yet these combinations have not been subject to a randomised trial to overcome selection bias, a major problem in CUP. We randomised 92 patients to either paclitaxel/carboplatin (arm A) or the non-platinum non-taxane regimen gemcitabine/vinorelbine (arm B). The primary endpoint was rate of practicability as defined: application of >or=2 cycles of therapy (1) with a maximal delay of 1 week (2) and survival of >or=8 months (3). Practicability was shown in 52.4% (95% CI 36-68%) in arm A and in 42.2% (95% CI 28-58%) in arm B, respectively. The median overall survival, 1-year survival -rate and response rate of patients treated in arm A was 11.0 months, 38, and 23.8%, arm B 7.0 months, 29, and 20%. In conclusion, the paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen showed clinically meaningful activity in this randomised trial (Clinical trial registration number 219, 'Deutsches KrebsStudienRegister', German Cancer Society.)

| S-EPMC2634671 | biostudies-other

Randomised phase II trial of gemcitabine plus vinorelbine vs gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with pretreated metastatic breast cancer.

Project description:An increasing proportion of patients are exposed to anthracyclines and/or taxanes in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Re-exposure in the metastatic stage is limited by drug resistance, thus evaluation of non-cross-resistant regimens is mandatory.Anthracycline-pretreated patients were randomly assigned to three gemcitabine-based regimens. Chemotherapy consisted of gemcitabine 1.000?mg?m(-2) plus vinorelbin 25?mg?m(-2) on days 1+8 (GemVin), or plus cisplatin 30?mg?m(-2) on days 1+8 (GemCis), or plus capecitabine 650?mg?m(-2) b.i.d. orally days 1-14 (GemCap), q3w. The primary end point was response rate.A total of 141 patients were recruited on the trial. The overall response rates were 39.0% (GemVin), 47.7% (GemCis) and 34.7% (GemCap). Median progression-free survival was estimated with 5.7, 6.9 and 8.3 months, respectively. Corresponding median survival times were 17.5 (GemVin), 13.0 (GemCis) and 19.4 months (GemCap). Neutropenia ?grade 3 occurred in 16.7% (Gem/Vin), 4.4% (GemCis) and 0% (Gem/Cap), whereas non-haematological toxicities were rarely severe except grade 3 hand-foot syndrome in 2.0% of the GemCap patients (per patient analysis).This randomised phase II trial has revealed comparable results for three gemcitabine-based regimens regarding treatment efficacy and toxicity. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy appears to be a worthwhile treatment option for pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer.

| S-EPMC3068513 | biostudies-literature

The relationship between RRM1 gene polymorphisms and effectiveness of gemcitabine-based first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patient.

Project description:PURPOSE:Chemotherapy with platinum compounds and gemcitabine is frequently used in first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in which tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR or ALK) cannot be administered. Unfortunately, less than half of the patients achieve the benefit from chemotherapy. Gemcitabine is an analog of deoxycytidine (pyrimidine antimetabolite) with antitumor activity. The excess of deoxycytidine synthesized by RRM1 enzyme activity may be a cause of competitive displacement of gemcitabine, which reduces the efficacy of this cytostatic. The aim of this study was to determine the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the RRM1 promoter (-37C>A, -524C>T) and the effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy based on platinum compounds and gemcitabine in NSCLC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS:SNPs were determined by SNaPshot PCR(®) in DNA isolated from peripheral blood of 91 NSCLC patients. RESULTS:The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in carriers of AA (-37C>A) as well as CC (-524C>T) genotype of RRM1 compared to patients with other genotypes (10.5 vs 3.5 months, p = 0.0437; HR = 2.17, 95 % CI 1.02-4.62 and 10.5 vs 3.5 months, p = 0.0343; HR = 2.12, 95 % CI 1.06-4.27). In addition, the CC genotype carriers (-37C>A) showed a significant increase in the risk of shortening overall survival (OS) in comparison to patients with AA or AC genotypes (9.5 vs 18 months, p = 0.0193; HR = 2.13, 95 % CI 1.13-4.03). CONCLUSIONS:Presence of rare AA (-37C>A) and CC (-524C>T) genotypes of the RRM1 may be favorable predictive factors for chemotherapy with platinum compounds and gemcitabine in NSCLC patients.

| S-EPMC4995236 | biostudies-literature

Oral vinorelbine and cisplatin as first-line therapy for advanced squamous NSCLC patients: a prospective randomized international phase II study (NAVoTrial 03).

Project description:ObjectiveThe study investigated the efficacy and safety of oral vinorelbine-cisplatin (OV-CDDP) and gemcitabine-cisplatin (GEM-CDDP) in patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sq-NSCLC).Patients and methodsThis was an open-label, prospective, multicenter, international phase II study that enrolled untreated patients with advanced sq-NSCLC. Patients were randomized to receive 3-week cycles of either 60-80 mg/m2 OV days 1 and 8 in combination with 80 mg/m2 CDDP day 1 (arm A) or 1250 mg/m2 GEM days 1 and 8 in combination with 75 mg/m2 CDDP day 1 (arm B). After four cycles, patients without disease progression continued maintenance dose of OV or GEM until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was disease control rate (DCR). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QoL).ResultsA total of 114 patients with sq-NSCLC were randomized, and 113 were treated (57 in arm A and 56 in arm B). DCR was high in both arms: 73.7% (95%CI: 62.4-100.0) in arm A and 75.0% (95%CI: 63.7-100.0) in arm B. Median PFS and TTF were similar in arm A and B 4.2 and 2.8 months, and 4.3 and 3.1 months, respectively. Even though the difference was not significant, the OS was 10.2 for arm A and 8.4 months for arm B. The safety profiles were consistent with the current knowledge of adverse events. QoL results revealed an improvement in patients under OV treatment.ConclusionThe OV-CDDP combination showed comparable efficacy to GEM-CDDP with acceptable safety profile and enhanced patients' QoL.Trial registrationThe study was registered under EudraCT number 2012-003531-40.

| S-EPMC8287271 | biostudies-literature

Galunisertib plus gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Project description:BackgroundGalunisertib is the first-in-class, first-in-human, oral small-molecule type I transforming growth factor-beta receptor (ALK5) serine/threonine kinase inhibitor to enter clinical development. The effect of galunisertib vs. placebo in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer was determined.MethodsThis was a two-part, multinational study: phase 1b was a non-randomised, open-label, multicentre, and dose-escalation study; phase 2 was a randomised, placebo- and Bayesian-augmented controlled, double-blind study in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma considered candidates for first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine. Patients were randomised 2:1 to galunisertib-gemcitabine (N = 104) or placebo-gemcitabine (N = 52). Gemcitabine dose was 1000 mg/m2 QW. Primary endpoints for phases 1b and 2, respectively, were phase 2 dose and overall survival. Secondary objectives included tolerability and biomarkers.ResultsDose-escalation suggested a 300-mg/day dose. Primary objective was met: median survival times were 8.9 and 7.1 months for galunisertib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79 [95% credible interval: 0.59-1.09] and posterior probability HR < 1 = 0.93). Lower baseline biomarkers macrophage inflammatory protein-1-alpha and interferon-gamma-induced protein 10 were associated with galunisertib benefit.ConclusionsGalunisertib-gemcitabine combination improved overall survival vs. gemcitabine in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, with minimal added toxicity. Future exploration of galunisertib in pancreatic cancer is ongoing in combination with durvalumab.

| S-EPMC6251034 | biostudies-literature

Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients.

Project description:The aim of this study was to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine (GEM) with either paclitaxel (PTX) or vinorelbine (VNR) could be more effective than GEM or PTX alone in elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. A total of 264 NSCLC patients aged >70 years with ECOG performance status (PS)< or =2, or younger with PS=2, were randomly treated with: GEM 1200 mg m(-2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days; PTX 100 mg m(-2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days; GEM 1000 mg m(-2) plus PTX 80 mg m(-2) (GT) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days; GEM 1000 mg m(-2) plus VNR 25 mg m(-2) (GV) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. In all arms, an intra-patients dose escalation was applied over the first three courses, provided that no toxicity of WHO grade > or =2 had previously occurred. At present time, 217 (82%) patients had died. The median (months) and 1-year survival probability were 5.1 and 29% for GEM, 6.4 and 25% for PTX, 9.2 and 44% for GT, and 9.7 and 32% for GV. Multivariate analysis showed that PS< or =1 (hazard ratio (HR)=0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.90), and doublet treatments (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.99) were significantly associated with longer survival. Doublets produced no more toxicity than single agents. GT should be considered a reference regimen for elderly NSCLC patients with PS< or =1.

| S-EPMC2409832 | biostudies-other

nab-Paclitaxel plus carboplatin or gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the tnAcity trial.

Project description:Background:Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has a poor prognosis and aggressive clinical course. tnAcity evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin (nab-P/C), nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P/G), and gemcitabine plus carboplatin (G/C) in patients with mTNBC. Patients and methods:Patients with pathologically confirmed mTNBC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic BC received (1 : 1 : 1) nab-P 125?mg/m2 plus C AUC 2, nab-P 125?mg/m2 plus G 1000?mg/m2, or G 1000?mg/m2 plus C AUC 2, all on days 1, 8 q3w. Phase II primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), percentage of patients initiating cycle 6 with doublet therapy, and safety. Results:In total, 191 patients were enrolled (nab-P/C, n?=?64; nab-P/G, n?=?61; G/C, n?=?66). PFS was significantly longer with nab-P/C versus nab-P/G [median, 8.3 versus 5.5?months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38-0.92]; P?=?0.02] or G/C (median, 8.3 versus 6.0?months; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37-0.90]; P?=?0.02). OS was numerically longer with nab-P/C versus nab-P/G (median, 16.8 versus 12.1?months; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.47-1.13]; P?=?0.16) or G/C (median, 16.8 versus 12.6?months; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.52-1.22]; P?=?0.29). ORR was 73%, 39%, and 44%, respectively. In the nab-P/C, nab-P/G, and G/C groups, 64%, 56%, and 50% of patients initiated cycle 6 with a doublet. Grade ?3 adverse events were mainly hematologic. Conclusions:First-line nab-P/C was active in mTNBC and resulted in a significantly longer PFS and improved risk/benefit profile versus nab-P/G or G/C.

| S-EPMC6096741 | biostudies-literature

A randomized phase II clinical trial of nab-paclitaxel and carboplatin compared with gemcitabine and carboplatin as first-line therapy in locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of lung.

Project description:BackgroundRecent advances have shown that histology and genetic biomarkers are important in patient selection, which have led to significantly better outcomes for lung cancer patients. However, most new treatments only apply to adenocarcinoma or non-squamous, and in squamous carcinoma there is little breakthrough. In a phase III trial nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin showed superior response rate over paclitaxel and carboplatin. In subgroup analysis the squamous histology appeared to be a predictive factor to nab-paclitaxel treatment.Methods/designThis is an open-label, randomized, active controlled phase II trial. A total of 120 untreated advanced squamous lung cancer patients are randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive nab-paclitaxel (135 mg/m2, d1, 8, q3w) plus carboplatin (AUC 5, d1, q3w) or gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2, d1, 8, q3w) and carboplatin (AUC 5, d1, q3w). The primary endpoint is objective response rate and the second endpoints are progression free survival, overall survival, safety and biomarkers associated with nab-paclitaxel. The treatment will continue up to six cycles or intolerable toxicity.DiscussionThis ongoing trial will be the first prospective randomized trial to explore the efficacy of nab-paclitaxel as the first-line treatment specifically in squamous carcinoma of lung.Study numberCTONG1002 TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov reference: NCT01236716.

| S-EPMC4179224 | biostudies-literature

Vinflunine-gemcitabine versus vinflunine-carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in cisplatin-unfit patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: results of an international randomized phase II trial (JASINT1).

Project description:BackgroundThere is no standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in cisplatin-ineligible (cisplatin-unfit) patients. The study assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of two vinflunine-based cytotoxic regimens in this setting.Patients and methodsPatients with aUC a creatinine clearance (CrCl) of <60 but ≥30 ml/min, performance status 0 or 1 and no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomized (1 : 1). They received vinflunine 250 or 280 mg/m(2) (based on baseline CrCl) on day 1, plus either gemcitabine [750 mg/m(2) escalated to 1000 mg/m(2) in cycle 2 if no toxicity grade (G) ≥2 on days 1 and 8 (VG) or plus carboplatin area under the curve 4.5 day 1 (VC) every 21 days]. To detect a 22% improvement in each arm compared with H0 (41%) in the primary end point, disease control rate (DCR = complete response + partial response + stable disease), 31 assessable patients per arm were required (α = 5%, β = 20%).ResultsSixty-nine patients were enrolled (34 VG, 35 VC). Less G3/4 haematological adverse events (AEs) were reported with VG: neutropaenia was seen in 38% (versus 68% with VC) and febrile neutropaenia in 3% (versus 14% with VC) of patients. No major differences were observed for non-haematological AEs. DCR was 77% in both groups; overall response rate (ORR) was 44.1% versus 28.6%, with a median progression-free survival of 5.9 versus 6.1 months and median OS of 14.0 versus 12.8 months with VG and VC, respectively.ConclusionBoth vinflunine-based doublets offer a similar DCR, ORR and OS. The better haematological tolerance favours the VG combination, which warrants further study. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: NCT 01599013.

| S-EPMC4769994 | biostudies-literature

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study.

Project description:The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups.A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy.Gemcitabine- or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

| S-EPMC4302067 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data