Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Randomized Phase II trial of paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by gemcitabine switch-maintenance therapy versus gemcitabine and carboplatin followed by gemcitabine continuation-maintenance therapy in previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BMC Research Notes volume 6, Article number: 3 (2013) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In recent years, maintenance chemotherapy is increasingly being recognized as a new treatment strategy to improve the outcome of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the optimal maintenance strategy is still controversial. Gemcitabine is a promising candidate for single-agent maintenance therapy because of little toxicity and good tolerability. We have conducted a randomized phase II study to evaluate the validity of single-agent maintenance chemotherapy of gemcitabine and to compare continuation- and switch-maintenance.

Methods

Chemonaïve patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to either arm A or B. Patients received paclitaxel (200 mg/m2, day 1) plus carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min, day 1) every 3 weeks in arm A, or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, days 1 and 8) plus carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL/min, day1) every 3 weeks in arm B. Non-progressive patients following 3 cycles of induction chemotherapy received maintenance gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks. (Trial registration: UMIN000008252)

Results

The study was stopped because of delayed accrual at interim analysis. Of the randomly assigned 50 patients, 49 except for one in arm B were evaluable. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months for arm A vs. 3.5 months for arm B (HR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.45–2.27; p = 0.95) and median overall survival (OS) was 15.0 months for arm A vs. 14.8 months for arm B (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.40–1.51; p = 0.60), showing no difference between the two arms. The response rate, disease control rate, and the transit rate to maintenance phase were 36.0% (9/25), 64.0% (16/25), and 48% (12/25) for arm A vs. 16.7% (4/24), 50.0% (12/24), and 33% (8/24) for arm B, which were also statistically similar between the two arms (p = 0.13, p = 0.32, and p = 0.30, respectively). Both induction regimens were tolerable, except that more patients experienced peripheral neuropathy in arm A. Toxicities during the maintenance phase were also minimal.

Conclusion

Survival and overall response were not significantly different between the two arms. Gemcitabine may be well-tolerable and feasible for maintenance therapy.

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide [1]. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% of all lung cancer cases and most of them are found to have locally advanced or metastatic diseases at the time of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of standard platinum-based regimens in the first-line setting for advanced NSCLC has reached a plateau. Recently, maintenance therapy is increasingly being approved as a new treatment paradigm to improve the outcome for advanced NSCLC. New generation cytotoxic agents such as paclitaxel [2], vinorelbine [3], docetaxel [4], gemcitabine [5, 6], and pemetrexed [7], and molecular-targeted agents such as gefitinib [8], erlotinib [9] and bevacizumab [10, 11], have been evaluated for their efficacy as single-agent maintenance therapy. Among these wide range of agents, gemcitabine (Gemzar®, Eli Lilly & Co., Indianapolis, IN, USA) is a pyrimidine antimetabolite that has demonstrated antitumor activities in diverse tumor types. It is not only one of the standard drugs in the regimens for untreated advanced-stage NSCLC [12–15], but also active against recurrent NSCLC after platinum-based chemotherapy [16–18]. In addition to these antitumor activities, it is also one of the promising candidates for maintenance use because of its low cumulative toxicities [5, 6].

Maintenance chemotherapy can be broadly categorized as switch-maintenance and continuation-maintenance. The former is defined as maintenance treatment with different drugs from those used in the induction regimen, while the latter is with one or two of the drugs used in the induction regimen. In the latest meta-analysis of maintenance chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC [19], the differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two maintenance strategies were not statistically significant. However, no study has compared these two maintenance strategies directly. Therefore, we conducted an investigational randomized phase II study to evaluate the validity of gemcitabine for single-agent maintenance chemotherapy and to compare switch- and continuation-maintenance.

Method

Objectives and study design

This trial was a randomized, open-label, multi-centered, phase II study. The primary objective was to investigate PFS. Secondary objectives were to investigate the objective response rate (RR) and safety. The study protocol was approved by each institutional ethics committee and adhered to the principles outlined in the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (January 1997) and Declaration of Helsinki (1996). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before commencement of the study.

Patient selection

Patients were enrolled when they met all the following entry criteria: (1) histologically or cytologically confirmed NSCLC with chemotherapy-naïve stage IIIB/IV; (2) 20 ≤ age < 75 years; (3) having measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0; (4) an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) grade of 0–1; (5) adequate hematologic (absolute white blood cell count ≥ 4000/μL, neutrophil count ≥ 1500/μL, platelets ≥ 100,000/μL, and hemoglobin ≥ 10.0 g/dL), renal (serum creatinine ≤ 1.2 mg/dL and creatinin clearance calculated by Cockcroft-Gault formula ≥ 60 mL/min), liver (serum total bilirubin ≤ 1.5 mg/dL, aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase ≤ 100 IU/L), and respiratory (SpO2 ≥ 95% under room air) functions; (6) estimated life expectancy of more than 3 months; (7) written informed consent. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases were also eligible. On the other hand, exclusion criteria were; (1) clinically significant complications or unstable medical conditions; (2) recurrence after resection, and curative or palliative thoracic radiotherapy for primary tumor irrespective of irradiation dose; (3) palliative extra-thoracic radiotherapy within 2 weeks; (4) pregnancy, lactation, suspicion of being pregnant; (5) other neoplasm with progression-free time under 5 years.

Treatment plan

Patients were randomly assigned to arm A or B using dynamic allocation by institution, gender, and PS. In arm A, carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min, day 1) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m2, day 1) were administered intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks. In arm B, carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL/min, day 1) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, days 1 and 8) were i.v. administered every 3 weeks. The number of cycles for induction chemotherapy was defined 3 by the following two reasons; (1) no evidence for additional clinical benefit by continuing cisplatin-containing chemotherapy beyond 3 cycles was demonstrated [20], (2) the mean and median number of administered platinum doublet chemotherapy was only 3 in Japanese Four-Arm Cooperative Study (FACS) [13]. After 3 cycles, non-progressive patients underwent maintenance gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The glomerular filtration rate and carboplatin dose were calculated using Cockcroft-Gault and Calvert formula, respectively. Serum creatinine concentrations of the enzyme method were calibrated to those of the noncompensated Jaffé’s method by adding 0.2 mg/dL. Unless all the starting criteria defined in the protocol were met, administration of drugs on days 1 and 8 was postponed. Discontinuation criteria of protocol treatment included; (1) delay of the start of the next course longer than one week, (2) delay of gemcitabine administration on day 8 longer than 2 weeks, (3) necessity of third-time dose reduction, (4) documented disease progression and (5) patient’s refusal to continue the protocol therapy.

Assessments

Required baseline assessments included chest and abdominal computed tomography (CT), cranial CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bone scintigraphy or positron emission tomography (PET) within 4 weeks before enrollment. Overall response was evaluated according to RECIST version 1.0 after the first and third cycles of induction chemotherapy, and then every 2 cycles during maintenance chemotherapy. Toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) version 3.0.

Statistical analyses

The sample size was based on the assumption that the hazard ratio (HR) of arm B to arm A for PFS would be approximately 1.5. To select a better treatment arm, with two-sided alpha of 5% and a power of 90%, at least 94 evaluable patients and 74 non-progressive responders were needed. Given the possibility of deviation from assessment, 100 patients (50 per arm) were necessary. The evaluable population for overall response included all patients, defined as those without major protocol violation, who had received at least one cycle chemotherapy and had at least two response assessment over 6 weeks after the enrollment unless determination of objective progressive disease (PD). Patients who received any protocol therapy without major protocol violation were considered evaluable for PFS, OS and safety. PFS and OS were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method. Differences between the two arms were evaluated by Pearson’s chi-square test and the log-rank test, and the HR was calculated by Cox regression model.

Results

Although enrollment to this study was planned to complete within 2 years, only half the required samples were accrued in the time-period. During the study period, pemetrexed and bevacizumab became commercially available in Japan in May 2009 and November 2009, respectively. Therefore, this study was terminated at that time because of delayed accrual and fear of biased histology in favor of squamous cell carcinoma.

Patient demographics

From December 2007 to November 2009, a total of 50 patients, 25 randomly assigned to each arm, were enrolled from seven medical institutions. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two arms, except more male patients were enrolled in arm A (Table 1). Data on smoking habits and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status were not collected.

Table 1 Patients’ characteristics
Full size table

Treatment

One patient in arm B was excluded from analyses because of a major protocol violation during induction phase. Of the rest 49 evaluable patients, 68% (17/25) in arm A and 50% (12/24) in arm B completed 3 cycles of induction chemotherapy.

Eight patients in arm A dropped out during induction phase because of PD (n = 5), physician’s decision (n = 2), persistent anemia (n = 1), while 13 in arm B did because of PD (n = 3), hematologic AEs (n = 4), persistent ALT elevation (n = 2), physician’s decision (n = 1), and complicated disease (n = 3). Complicated diseases included sudden onset ovarian torsion that required emergent surgery, aspiration pneumonia and pyothorax that required hospitalization and antibiotics therapy. During transition from completion of induction phase to start of maintenance phase, 5 patients in arm A and 3 in arm B dropped out. In arm A, 3 patients resulted in PD, one kept SD but failed to recover anemia, and one achieved PR but suffered from bacterial pneumonia at the end of induction phase. In arm B, 2 patients resulted in PD at the end of induction phase despite having kept SD during induction phase, and one kept SD after induction phase but rapidly progressed until commencement of maintenance phase.

Finally, only 12 patients (48%) in arm A and 8 (33%) in arm B received gemcitabine maintenance therapy (p = 0.25) (Figure 1). In both arms, there was no statistically significant difference in baseline characteristics between discontinued patients during induction phase and those received gemcitabine maintenance therapy (data not shown). The average number of maintenance cycles delivered was 4.66 (range 1 to 11) in arm A and 6.75 (range 1 to 36) in arm B. All the 20 patients discontinued maintenance treatment as of November 2011 because of PD (n = 11), physician’s decision (n = 3), patient’s refusal (n = 2), and treatment-related AEs (n = 4; 2 repeated and/or persistent neutropenia, 1 persistent anemia and 1 bacterial pneumonia).

Figure 1
figure 1

CONSORT flow chart for the study.

Full size image

Efficacy

The follow-up data were collected up to November 8th, 2011. The median follow-up time was 13.6 months (95% CI, 8.6 to 17.1 months). At the time of the data collection, 2 patients in arm A and 5 in arm B were still alive. There was no patient still on maintenance treatment and 2 in arm A and 2 in arm B were lost to follow-up.

PFS and OS

The median PFS and OS were 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.0 to not available) and 15.0 months (95% CI, 9.1 to 22.1 months) in arm A, and 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.9 to not available) and 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 26.3 months) in arm B, respectively. There was no statistical difference between the two arms in terms of both PFS (p = 0.95) and OS (p = 0.60) (Figure 2).

Figure 2
figure 2

Kaplan-Meier curves of PFS(a) and OS(b).

Full size image

Overall response

In the induction therapy, 9 patients in arm A and 4 in arm B achieved partial response (PR), and 7 and 8 kept stable disease (SD), respectively. Consequently, the objective RR (36.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.13) and disease control rate (DCR) (64.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.32) showed no significant differences between the two arms (Table 2). Of 7 SD patients in arm A, one achieved PR after 3 cycles of maintenance therapy. In 11 patients with squamous cell carcinoma, one patient achieved PR, 2 kept SD and 3 progressed in arm A, while one patient kept SD, 2 progressed and 2 were not evaluated in arm B.

Table 2 Efficacy
Full size table

Safety

The incidental rates of grade 3-4 AEs were low. During induction phase, hematologic AEs of grade 4 neutropenia (9 in arm A and 4 in arm B), grade 3 anemia (1 in arm B), and grade 4 thrombocytopenia (2 in arm B) were observed. Severe non-hematologic AEs included grade 3 skin rash (1 in each arm), grade 3 aminotransferase increase (1 in arm A and 3 in arm B), grade 3 febrile neutropenia (1 in arm A), and grade 3 peripheral sensory neuropathy (2 in arm A). Of all AEs, peripheral sensory neuropathy, arthralgia, and myalgia peculiar to paclitaxel were more frequently observed in arm A (p = 0.02, 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). Neutropenia also tended to be more frequent in arm A (p = 0.06) (Table 3). During maintenance phase, hematologic AEs of grade 3-4 neutropenia (3 in arm A and 2 in arm B), and grade 3 thrombocytopenia (1 in arm A) were observed. Non-hematologic AEs of grade 3-4 were not experienced (Table 4).

Table 3 Toxicities during induction chemotherapy
Full size table
Table 4 All toxicities of grade 1-4 and severe toxicities of grade 3-4 during gemcitabine maintenance
Full size table

Post-protocol treatment

After the protocol therapy was discontinued, 21 patients (84%) in arm A and 18 (75%) in arm B received systemic chemotherapy. Among the 20 patients who received maintenance therapy, 10 (83.3%) in arm A and 5 (62.5%) in arm B received post-protocol therapy. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors were most commonly used (12 patients in arm A and 10 in arm B). Pemtrexed and docetaxel tended to be more frequently used in arm A (10 and 15, respectively) than arm B (5 for each). Among 10 patients in arm B who dropped out protocol treatment during induction phase by the reason other than PD, 4 continued to receive gemcitabine plus carboplatin combination therapy as off-protocol treatment. No patient was treated with any maintenance therapy as post-protocol treatment.

Discussion

Our study was launched on the assumption that gemcitabine monotherapy introduced immediately after standard induction platinum-doublet chemotherapy is a promising candidate for maintenance therapy for advanced NSCLC.

There was no significant difference in the transit rate to maintenance phase and treatment response during induction phase between the two arms of our study. Compared with the previous studies, 48% of patients in arm A received maintenance therapy, which was not inferior to the percentage (33.6%, 73/217) of those who transited to weekly paclitaxel continuation-maintenance from 4 cycles of carboplatin plus tri-weekly paclitaxel in a phase III study by Belani et al. [21]. On the other hand, only 33.0% of patients in arm B could receive maintenance therapy, which was lower than 54.8% (309/563) in a phase III study by Fidias et al. that had compared immediate versus delayed docetaxel monotherapy after 4 cycles of induction carboplatin plus gemcitabine [4]. As for treatment response to induction chemotherapy of carboplatin plus tri-weekly paclitaxel, the RR (36.0%) in arm A of our study was superior to that (19.2%) in the study by Belani et al. [21]. On the other hand, in comparison of the RR for carboplatin plus gemcitabine, 16.7% in arm B of our study was lower than 31.1% (168/563) in Fidias’s trial [4], but similar to 20.3% (13/64) in a randomized phase II study of West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group 0104 trial [22]. The most probable reason for these differences between the two arms of our study was that more patients were withdrawn from the protocol study due to AEs in arm B (n = 9) than in arm A (n = 1) and most of them (n = 7) were not assessable for the response evaluation in arm B, despite that there were no statistical differences in AEs between the two arms except that the peripheral sensory neuropathy was more frequent and severer in arm A. Furthermore, the certain cause of more frequent withdrawal in arm B was that discontinuation criteria were much stricter for arm B than arm A, because neither omission nor delay longer than 2 weeks of gemcitabine administration on day 8 was permitted.

The applicability of gemcitabine for maintenance use remains unestablished. There were 2 randomized phase III studies that had compared gemcitabine maintenance with best supportive care (BSC) in a continuation-maintenance setting after achieving objective response or disease stabilization by 4 cycles of initial gemcitabine plus platinum therapy for advanced NSCLC [6, 7]. Both the studies showed that gemcitabine maintenance therapy significantly prolonged the time-to-progression (TTP) or PFS, but failed to improve the OS. In one study by Brodowicz et al., the median TTP from the time of enrollment was 6.6 months for gemcitabine and 5.0 months for BSC arms (p < 0.001), while median OS throughout study was 13.0 months for gemcitabine and 11.0 months for BSC arms (p = 0.195). Compared with this study, our study was inferior in PFS, but similar in OS. We could not compare our study with the other study by Perol et al. because neither PFS nor OS from the enrollment was reported. In addition, the median and average numbers of cycles of delivered gemcitabine in maintenance phase in our study were 4 and over 5.5, respectively, which were larger than median 3 cycles in the study by Brodowicz et al. [5] and similar to median 4 cycles in the study by Perol et al. [6]. Noteworthily, among 20 patients who received maintenance chemotherapy in our study, only 4 patients dropped out because they could not meet the criteria of the next course due to AEs. Thus, gemcitabine is characteristically well-tolerated and little cumulatively toxic, which enabled patients to continue the maintenance treatment for a longer time.

Pemetrexed [7] and bevacizumab [11] have been recently approved for non-squamous NSCLC as a maintenance therapy or a first-line treatment in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy. Maintenance therapy using these two drugs has been shown to bring about a significant survival benefit. In contrast, there are few effective drugs with enough evidences as maintenance therapy for NSCLC patients with squamous histology. Unlike pemetrexed and bevacizumab, gemcitabine has antitumor efficacy against squamous NSCLC. Therefore, a study evaluating gemcitabine as a maintenance therapy specific for squamous histology seems very interesting and promising.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study suggested that gemcitabine may be one of suitable drugs for maintenance therapy because of its well-tolerability and little cumulative toxicity. A study evaluating gemcitabine as a maintenance therapy is expected especially in patients with squamous NSCLC histology, for which few beneficial evidences have been demonstrated.

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E: Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010, 60: 277-300. 10.3322/caac.20073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Belani CP, Barstis J, Perry MC, La Rocca RV, Nattam SR, Rinaldi D, Clark R, Mills GM: Multicenter, randomized trial for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer using weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by maintenance weekly paclitaxel or observation. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21: 2933-2939. 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.563.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Westeel V, Quoix E, Moro-Sibilot D, Mercier M, Breton JL, Debieuvre D, Richard P, Haller MA, Milleron B, Herman D, et al: Randomized study of maintenance vinorelbine in responders with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005, 97: 499-506. 10.1093/jnci/dji096.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fidias PM, Dakhil SR, Lyss AP, Loesch DM, Waterhouse DM, Bromund JL, Chen R, Hristova-Kazmierski M, Treat J, Obasaju CK, et al: Phase III study of immediate compared with delayed docetaxel after front-line therapy with gemcitabine plus carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 591-598.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brodowicz T, Krzakowski M, Zwitter M, Tzekova V, Ramlau R, Ghilezan N, Ciuleanu T, Cucevic B, Gyurkovits K, Ulsperger E, et al: Cisplatin and gemcitabine first-line chemotherapy followed by maintenance gemcitabine or best supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III trial. Lung Cancer. 2006, 52: 155-163. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2006.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Perol M, Chouaid C, Perol D, Barlesi F, Gervais R, Westeel V, Crequit J, Lena H, Vergnenegre A, Zalcman G, et al: Randomized, Phase III Study of Gemcitabine or Erlotinib Maintenance Therapy Versus Observation, With Predefined Second-Line Treatment, After Cisplatin-Gemcitabine Induction Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012, 30: 3516-3524. 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.9782.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ciuleanu T, Brodowicz T, Zielinski C, Kim JH, Krzakowski M, Laack E, Wu YL, Bover I, Begbie S, Tzekova V, et al: Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care for non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2009, 374: 1432-1440. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61497-5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Takeda K, Hida T, Sato T, Ando M, Seto T, Satouchi M, Ichinose Y, Katakami N, Yamamoto N, Kudoh S, et al: Randomized phase III trial of platinum-doublet chemotherapy followed by gefitinib compared with continued platinum-doublet chemotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a west Japan thoracic oncology group trial (WJTOG0203). J Clin Oncol. 2010, 28: 753-760. 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.3445.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cappuzzo F, Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L, Cicenas S, Szczesna A, Juhasz E, Esteban E, Molinier O, Brugger W, Melezinek I, et al: Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2010, 11: 521-529. 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70112-1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P, Ramlau R, Gorbounova V, Hirsh V, Leighl N, Mezger J, Archer V, Moore N, Manegold C: Phase III trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine with either placebo or bevacizumab as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: AVAil. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 1227-1234. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5466.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC, Brahmer J, Schiller JH, Dowlati A, Lilenbaum R, Johnson DH: Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006, 355: 2542-2550. 10.1056/NEJMoa061884.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Le Chevalier T, Scagliotti G, Natale R, Danson S, Rosell R, Stahel R, Thomas P, Rudd RM, Vansteenkiste J, Thatcher N, et al: Efficacy of gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy compared with other platinum containing regimens in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of survival outcomes. Lung Cancer. 2005, 47: 69-80. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.10.014.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ohe Y, Ohashi Y, Kubota K, Tamura T, Nakagawa K, Negoro S, Nishiwaki Y, Saijo N, Ariyoshi Y, Fukuoka M: Randomized phase III study of cisplatin plus irinotecan versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine, and cisplatin plus vinorelbine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Four-Arm Cooperative Study in Japan. Ann Oncol. 2007, 18: 317-323.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Scagliotti GV, De Marinis F, Rinaldi M, Crino L, Gridelli C, Ricci S, Matano E, Boni C, Marangolo M, Failla G, et al: Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002, 20: 4285-4291. 10.1200/JCO.2002.02.068.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, Langer C, Sandler A, Krook J, Zhu J, Johnson DH: Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002, 346: 92-98. 10.1056/NEJMoa011954.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bianco V, Rozzi A, Tonini G, Santini D, Magnolfi E, Vincenzi B, D'Angelillo R, Marchei P: Gemcitabine as single agent chemotherapy in elderly patients with stages III-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase II study. Anticancer Res. 2002, 22: 3053-3056.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Crino L, Mosconi AM, Scagliotti G, Selvaggi G, Novello S, Rinaldi M, Della Giulia M, Gridelli C, Rossi A, Calandri C, et al: Gemcitabine as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 1999, 17: 2081-2085.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gridelli C, Perrone F, Gallo C, Rossi A, Barletta E, Barzelloni ML, Creazzola S, Gatani T, Fiore F, Guida C, Scognamiglio F: Single-agent gemcitabine as second-line treatment in patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase II trial. Anticancer Res. 1999, 19: 4535-4538.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang X, Zang J, Xu J, Bai C, Qin Y, Liu K, Wu C, Wu M, He Q, Zhang S, et al: Maintenance therapy with continuous or switch strategy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2011, 140: 117-126. 10.1378/chest.10-2745.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith IE, O'Brien ME, Talbot DC, Nicolson MC, Mansi JL, Hickish TF, Norton A, Ashley S: Duration of chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized trial of three versus six courses of mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin. J Clin Oncol. 2001, 19: 1336-1343.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Belani CP, Ramalingam S, Perry MC, LaRocca RV, Rinaldi D, Gable PS, Tester WJ: Randomized, phase III study of weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus standard every-3-weeks administration of carboplatin and paclitaxel for patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: 468-473. 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.1912.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yamamoto N, Nakagawa K, Uejima H, Sugiura T, Takada Y, Negoro S, Matsui K, Kashii T, Takada M, Nakanishi Y, et al: Randomized phase II study of carboplatin/gemcitabine versus vinorelbine/gemcitabine in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group (WJTOG) 0104. Cancer. 2006, 107: 599-605. 10.1002/cncr.22024.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Dr. Soichiro Yokota (National Hospital Organazation Toneyama National Hospital) and Dr. Toshiyuki Ikeda (Nishinomiya Municipal Central Hospital) for their patients’ accrual and management.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Osaka Police Hospital, Osaka, Japan

    Seigo Minami, Takayuki Shiroyama, Kohei Okafuji, Takeshi Nakatani, Yoshitaka Ogata, Suguru Yamamoto & Kiyoshi Komuta

  2. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Allergy and Rheumatic Diseases, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan

    Takashi Kijima, Isao Tachibana & Ichiro Kawase

  3. Department of Thoracic Malignancy, Osaka Prefectural Medical Center for Respiratory and Allergic Diseases, Osaka, Japan

    Tomonori Hirashima & Ichiro Kawase

  4. Department of Pulmonary Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan

    Junji Uchida & Fumio Imamura

  5. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kinki Central Hospital for Mutual Aid Association of Public School Teachers, Hyogo, Japan

    Tadashi Osaki

  6. Department of Respiratory Medicine, National Hospital Organization Toneyama National Hospital, Osaka, Japan

    Yoshinobu Namba

  7. Department of Internal Medicine, Nishinomiya Municipal Central Hospital, Hyogo, Japan

    Tomoyuki Otsuka

Authors
  1. Seigo Minami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takashi Kijima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takayuki Shiroyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kohei Okafuji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tomonori Hirashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Junji Uchida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fumio Imamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tadashi Osaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Takeshi Nakatani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yoshitaka Ogata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Suguru Yamamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yoshinobu Namba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Tomoyuki Otsuka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Isao Tachibana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Kiyoshi Komuta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Ichiro Kawase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takashi Kijima.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

TK and KK conceived the study design. All authors contributed to patient recruitment, carried out clinical study procedures. SM and TK analyzed and interpreted the data, and prepared the manuscript. IT, KK and IK critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Minami, S., Kijima, T., Shiroyama, T. et al. Randomized Phase II trial of paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by gemcitabine switch-maintenance therapy versus gemcitabine and carboplatin followed by gemcitabine continuation-maintenance therapy in previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. BMC Res Notes 6, 3 (2013). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/1756-0500-6-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/1756-0500-6-3

Keywords

BMC Research Notes

ISSN: 1756-0500

Contact us