Gemcitabine/Cisplatin Superior to Cisplatin Alone in Advanced NSCLC

Publication
Article
Oncology NEWS InternationalOncology NEWS International Vol 7 No 7
Volume 7
Issue 7

INDIANAPOLIS--Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have higher response rates, longer time to progression, and better overall survival with gemcitabine (Gemzar) plus cisplatin (Platinol) than with cis-platin alone, according to data from a multicenter, randomized, phase III study presented at the annual ASCO meeting.

INDIANAPOLIS--Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have higher response rates, longer time to progression, and better overall survival with gemcitabine (Gemzar) plus cisplatin (Platinol) than with cis-platin alone, according to data from a multicenter, randomized, phase III study presented at the annual ASCO meeting.

Alan B. Sandler, MD, of the Indiana University School of Medicine, reported on behalf of the Hoosier Oncology Group and other research centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe.

The control arm was cisplatin, 100 mg/m² every 4 weeks. The experimental arm used the same dose of cisplatin with gemcitabine, 1 g/m² given on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Patients received a maximum of 6 cycles of therapy, Dr. Sandler said. The principal endpoint was overall survival.

From August 1995 through February 1997, the study accrued 522 patients. Dr. Sandler reported on the interim analysis of the first 309 patients. Overall survival data were presented for all 522 patients.

Eligibility criteria included histologically or cytologically confirmed measurable or evaluable stage IIIa, IIIb, or IV NSCLC. Patients had received no prior chemotherapy. They were stratified by disease stage (III vs IV) and performance status.

The response rate was 32% for the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin vs 10% for cisplatin alone (P < .0001). "There was a trend in favor of a longer median duration of response for the combination (6.9 months vs 4.2 months for cisplatin alone), but it did not reach statistical significance," Dr. Sandler said. Patients on gemcitabine plus cisplatin had a significantly increased median time to progressive disease--5.8 months vs 3.7 for cisplatin alone (P = .0001).

Median Survival

In the final analysis of all 522 eligible patients on study, median survival was 9.1 months on the gemcitabine/cisplatin arm vs 7.6 months for cisplatin alone (P = .012). The probability of 1-year survival was 39% for gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs 28% for cisplatin alone.

"Not surprisingly, there was an increase in hematologic toxicity seen in the combination arm," Dr. Sandler said. About one-third (34%) of patients required packed red blood cell transfusions on the combination arm vs 10% on the cisplatin alone arm.

There was an increase in the need for red blood cell transfusion with increasing cycles of therapy. "It should be noted that the median number of cycles received was 4 on the combination arm vs 2 on the control arm," he said.

On the combination arm, 22% of patients required platelet transfusions vs none on the cisplatin arm. "However, there were no serious hemorrhagic events noted on either arm," Dr. Sandler pointed out. The incidence of neutropenic fever was low and similar between the two arms. There were no toxic deaths in either arm. Nonhematologic toxicity was mild.

"The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin is superior to cisplatin alone in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with respect to response rate, time to progression, and overall survival," Dr. Sandler concluded.

Bone marrow suppression was more pronounced with the combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin than with cisplatin alone, although without serious sequelae, he said. Nonhematologic toxicities occurred at approximately the same frequency in both of the treatment arms.

In her discussion of the study, Frances Shepherd, MD, said that "these results suggest that gemcitabine and cisplatin produce results that are similar to the taxane plus cisplatin or carboplatin combinations."

Recent Videos
Patients with lung cancer who achieve a complete response with neoadjuvant therapy may not experience additional benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy.
Numerous trials have displayed the evolution of EGFR inhibition alone or with chemotherapy/radiation in the EGFR-mutated lung cancer space.
Thinking about how to sequence additional agents following targeted therapy may be a key consideration in the future of lung cancer care.
Endobronchial ultrasound, robotic bronchoscopy, or other expensive procedures may exacerbate financial toxicity for patients seeking lung cancer care.
Patients with mediastinal lymph node involved-lung cancer may benefit from chemoimmunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting.
Advancements in antibody drug conjugates, bispecific therapies, and other targeted agents may hold promise in lung cancer management.
Stressing the importance of prompt AE disclosure before they become severe can ensure that a patient can still undergo resection with curative intent.
Thomas Marron, MD, PhD, presented a session on clinical data that established standards of care for stage II and III lung cancer treatment at CFS 2025.
Decreasing the low-dose bath of proton therapy to the body may limit the impact of radiation on lymphocytes and affect tumor response.
According to Eyub Akdemir, MD, reducing EDIC may be feasible without compromising target coverage to reduce anticipated lymphopenia rates.