A randomised trial of cisplatin and vindesine versus supportive care only in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Randomized trial of paclitaxel plus supportive care versus supportive care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. [Is chemotherapy with cisplatin useful in non small cell bronchial cancer at staging IV? Results of a randomized study]. Quality of life and survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving supportive care plus chemotherapy with carboplatin and etoposide or supportive care only. A multicentre randomised phase III trial. Joint Lung Cancer Study Group. Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life. A randomized trial of alternating chemotherapy versus best supportive care in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: effects on survival and quality of life. Gemcitabine plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer--a randomized trial with quality of life as the primary outcome. UK NSCLC Gemcitabine Group. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Symptomatic treatment versus combination chemotherapy for patients with extensive non-small cell lung cancer. Supportive care versus supportive care and combination chemotherapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Does chemotherapy make a difference? Chemotherapy can prolong survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer--report of a Canadian multicenter randomized trial. Cisplatin-cyclophosphamide-mitomycin combination chemotherapy with supportive care versus supportive care alone for treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.
The value of chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains contentious. Because of this two separate but very similar trials were set up in Australia and Southampton (UK). Two hundred and one patients with stage IIIb or IV NSCLC were randomly assigned to cisplatin 120 mg m-2 on days 1 and 29 and vindesine 3 mg m-2 weekly x 6 or to no chemotherapy. Both groups were eligible to receive radiotherapy or other palliative treatment as required. Of 188 evaluable patients, 97 received chemotherapy and 91 were in the control arm. Response was assessed between days 42 and 49. Responders continued chemotherapy at the same doses though cisplatin being given 6 weekly x 4 and the vindesine 2 weekly x 12. The overall response rate to chemotherapy was 28%; there were no significant differences according to major prognostic criteria. Although the overall survival of the chemotherapy group (median 27 weeks) was longer than that of the no chemotherapy group (median 17 weeks) this was not statistically significant (log rank P = 0.33). For patients without dissemination (IIIb), median survival was 45 weeks in the chemotherapy arm and 26 weeks in the non-chemotherapy (log rank P = 0.075). Toxicity was universal and frequently severe: of 17 patients discontinuing chemotherapy after one cycle, 13 did so because of unacceptable toxicity. This chemotherapy cannot be recommended as routine treatment. Further phase III studies of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC should continue to use a no chemotherapy control and should also attempt to measure quality of life, an issue not addressed effectively in this or other recent trials. In phase II trials, paclitaxel has been shown to have antitumor activity in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the survival and quality-of-life (QOL) benefits of paclitaxel used as a single agent compared with supportive care alone have not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial.
                A total of 157 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received no prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either best supportive care alone (78 patients) or paclitaxel plus supportive care (79 patients). Paclitaxel was administered as a 3-hour intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. Supportive care included palliative radiotherapy and supportive therapy with corticosteroids, antibiotics, analgesics, antiemetics, transfusions, and other symptomatic therapy as required. The primary end point of the study was survival. Time to disease progression, response rate, adverse events, and QOL were secondary end points.
                Pretreatment characteristics were evenly distributed between the two arms. Survival was statistically significantly better in the paclitaxel plus supportive care arm than in the supportive care alone arm (two-sided P =.037) (median survival = 6.8 months versus 4.8 months). Cox multivariate analysis showed paclitaxel plus supportive care to be statistically significantly associated with improved survival (two-sided P =.048). QOL was similar for both treatment arms, except for the functional activity score of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, where QOL data statistically significantly favored the paclitaxel plus supportive care arm (two-sided P =.043).
                The addition of paclitaxel to best supportive care significantly improved survival and time to disease progression compared with best supportive care in patients with advanced NSCLC and may improve some aspects of QOL. The benefit of chemotherapy for patients with disseminated non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial. The introduction of cisplatinum in the combination chemotherapy for NSCLC gave rise to higher response rates. To study the question of the usefulness of cisplatinum-based chemotherapy in disseminated NSCLC we conducted a prospective randomized trial comparing best supportive care to vindesine + cisplatin. Between December 1985 and March 1988, 49 patients with stage IV NSCLC were enrolled. Of the 46 eligible patients 24 were in the chemotherapy group and 22 in the best supportive care group. The treatment groups were not significantly different in terms of age, performance status, histology. Toxicity on the chemotherapy arm grade 3 or more was observed in 17.5% for neutropenia, in 8.75% for vomiting. There was one death related to treatment. The overall response rate in the chemotherapy group was 41.7%. Patients of the chemotherapy group had a median survival time of 199 days and the patients of the best supportive care group had a median survival time of 73 days. The difference in survival is highly significant (p less than 0.001). The aim of the present trial was to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy on the quality of life and survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (stage IIIB or IV). In a controlled multicentre trial, patients were randomised to receive supportive care only or supportive care plus chemotherapy. Chemotherapy consisted of intravenous (i.v.) carboplatin 300 mg/m2 on day 1 and etoposide 120 mg/m2 orally on days 1-5 every 4 weeks for a maximum of eight courses. Quality of life was measured at randomisation and prior to each treatment course and at corresponding 4-week intervals in the control arm, using the EORTC QLQ-C30 + LC13 questionnaire. 48 patients were randomised (supportive care 26, chemotherapy 22), being eligible for comparative analyses. Another 102 patients, 97 of which received chemotherapy, were subsequently included in the study on an individual treatment preference basis. Data from these patients were used for confirmative purposes. Patients in the chemotherapy group reported better overall physical functioning and symptom control compared with the supportive care group. Group differences were smaller within the psychosocial domain, although trends were seen in favour of the chemotherapy group. No significant differences were seen in favour of the supportive care group, except for hair loss. Median survival times were 29 weeks in the chemotherapy group versus 11 weeks in the supportive care group, and 1-year survival rates were 28% versus 8%. Quality of life and survival outcomes were similar in the randomised and non-randomised patients receiving chemotherapy. No treatment-related deaths occurred. In conclusion, treatment with carboplatin and etoposide can improve both the quality of life and the survival of patients with advanced NSCLC. In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens.
                The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364).
                65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival.
                The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices. From April 1985 to September 1988, 128 patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial evaluating chemotherapy (arm A) versus best supportive care (arm B). Chemotherapy consisted of cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1, epirubicin 50 mg/m2 IV day 1, and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 IV day 1 (CE'P regimen) alternating every 4 weeks with methotrexate 30 mg/m2 IV day 1, etoposide 200 mg/m2 IV day 1, and lomustine (CCNU) 70 mg/m2 orally day 1 (MEC' regimen) until progression. Of the 123 patients (62 treated and 61 controls) eligible for survival, 115 were fully evaluable for response (58 treated and 57 controls). Response rates were 21% partial response, 53% stable disease, and 26% progressive disease in arm A, and 47% stable disease and 53% progressive disease in arm B. Median survival was 34.3 weeks (range, 4.3 to 218.6+ weeks) in arm A versus 21.1 weeks (range, 4.3 to 188.6 weeks) in arm B; the difference was not significant at P = .153 (Mantel-Cox). Subgroups of patients retrospectively analyzed by age, performance status, stage M0/M1, and weight loss or not showed no significant difference in survival. Poor-risk patients (at least two of the following: poor performance status, stage M1, weight loss) of arm A survived significantly longer than poor-risk patients of arm B (23.6 weeks v 12.4 weeks, Mantel-Cox P = .008); a significant difference in survival was also observed between nonsquamous cell patients of arm A and those of arm B (median survival, 38.6 weeks v 16.7 weeks; Mantel-Cox P = .041). Toxicity on the chemotherapy arm was hematologic (World Health Organization [WHO] grade greater than 3) in 12% of CE'P and in 13% of MEC' courses and gastroenteric (WHO grade greater than 3) in 24% of CE'P courses and in 8% of MEC' courses. Our alternating treatment was not significantly superior to supportive care. It is likely that certain subgroups of the NSCLC category may have an advantage with chemotherapy. Chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. We describe the two largest reported, randomized, parallel trials designed to determine whether the addition of chemotherapy influences duration and quality of life in localized, unresectable (mitomycin, ifosfamide, cisplatin [MIC]1 trial) and extensive (MIC2 trial) disease.
                Ambulatory patients with NSCLC, aged 75 years or younger, with localized disease, were randomized in MIC1 to receive up to four cycles of chemotherapy (CT: mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3 g/m(2), and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2)) every 21 days, followed by radical radiotherapy (CT + RT) or radiotherapy (RT) alone. Extensive-stage patients were randomized in MIC2 to identical chemotherapy plus palliative care (CT + PC) or palliative care (PC) alone. Short-term change in quality of life (QOL) was assessed in a subgroup of patients. Data from the two trials were combined to allow multivariate and stratified survival analyses.
                Seven hundred ninety-seven eligible patients were randomized, 446 in MIC1 and 351 in MIC2. MIC CT improved survival in both trials (significantly in MIC2). The median survival time in MIC1 was 11.7 months (CT + RT) versus 9.7 months (RT alone) (P =.14); whereas in MIC2, median survival time was 6.7 months (CT + PC) compared with 4. 8 months (PC alone) (P =.03). QOL, assessed in 134 patients from start of trial to week 6, showed improvement with chemotherapy and deterioration with standard treatment. In the combined analysis of 797 randomized patients, the positive effect of MIC on survival was significant overall (P =.01) and after adjusting for prognostic factors (P =.01).
                MIC chemotherapy prolongs survival in unresectable NSCLC without compromising QOL. Three hundred patients with symptomatic, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC not requiring immediate radiotherapy were enrolled into this randomized multicentre trial comparing gemcitabine + BSC vs BSC alone. Patients allocated gemcitabine received 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, for a maximum of six cycles. The main aim of this trial was to compare patient assessment of a predefined subset of commonly reported symptoms (SS14) from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 scales. The primary end-points were defined as (1) the percentage change in mean SS14 score between baseline and 2 months and (2) the proportion of patients with a marked (> or = 25%) improvement in SS14 score between baseline and 2 months sustained for > or =4 weeks. The secondary objectives were to compare treatments with respect to overall survival, and multidimensional QL parameters. The treatment groups were balanced with regard to age, gender, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and disease stage (40% had metastatic disease). The percentage change in mean SS14 score from baseline to 2 months was a 10% decrease (i.e. improvement) for gemcitabine plus BSC and a 1% increase (i.e. deterioration) for BSC alone (P = 0.113, two-sample t-test). A sustained (> or = 4 weeks) improvement (> or =25%) on SS14 was recorded in a significantly higher proportion of gemcitabine + BSC patients (22%) than in BSC alone patients (9%) (P = 0.0014, Pearson's chi-squared test). The QLQ-C30 and L13 subscales showed greater improvement in the gemcitabine plus BSC arm (in 11 domains) than in the BSC arm (one symptom item). There was greater deterioration in the BSC alone arm (six domains/items) than in the gemcitabine + BSC arm (three QL domains). Tumour response occurred in 19% (95% CI 13-27) of gemcitabine patients. There was no difference in overall survival: median 5.7 months (95% CI 4.6-7.6) for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 5.9 months (95% CI 5.0-7.9) (log-rank, P = 0.84) for BSC patients, and 1 -year survival was 25% for gemcitabine + BSC and 22% for BSC. Overall, 74 (49%) gemcitabine + BSC patients and 119 (79%) BSC patients received palliative radiotherapy. The median time to radiotherapy was 29 weeks for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 3.8 weeks for BSC. Patients treated with gemcitabine + BSC reported better QL and reduced disease-related symptoms compared with those receiving BSC alone. These improvements in patient-assessed QL were significant in magnitude and were sustained. In a randomized clinical trial, 87 patients with inoperable, extensive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized to receive either combination chemotherapy (cisplatin at 70 mg/m2 intravenously [i.v.] on day 1 and etoposide at 100 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1 and 200 mg/m2 orally on days 2 and 3) or symptomatic treatment. No statistically significant differences in survival time were found between the two treatment techniques. A major problem in the interpretation of the results was the use of semicurative radiation therapy (3000 to 4200 cGy) to the primary tumor and mediastinum, which was given with symptomatic intent. Three long-term survivors were seen in the latter group. Current chemotherapy treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer has demonstrated some objective responses, but is still largely palliative. This report reviews the results of a randomized trial in patients with advanced metastatic non-small cell lung cancer which compared treatment with supportive care (treatment with palliative radiation, psychosocial support, analgesics, nutritional support) to supportive care plus combination chemotherapy with cisplatin and vinblastine. Although the patients receiving combination chemotherapy had a slightly longer median survival (20.43 weeks versus 13.57 weeks), it was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). In addition, the patients receiving chemotherapy experienced serious toxicity, and showed no significant benefit in terms of quality of life as measured by Karnofsky performance status score. The authors conclude that contemporary combination chemotherapy provides only modest survival benefit to patients with advanced metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and should not be considered standard therapy. Future investigations of chemotherapy in patients with unresectable non-small cell lung cancer should continue to utilize control arms which provide high-quality supportive care. The survival benefit of combination chemotherapy to patients with advanced non-small-cell carcinoma of the lung (NSCLC) is controversial. To study this question, the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) Clinical Trials Group conducted a prospective randomized trial comparing best supportive care (BSC) to two chemotherapy regimens, vindesine and cisplatin (VP), and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (CAP). Between February 1983 and January 1986, 23 centers across Canada entered 251 patients on study. Eighteen centers participated in the three-arm schema (150 patients); centers choosing not to participate in a study with a no-chemotherapy arm followed a two-arm schema comparing VP with CAP (101 additional patients). Altogether, 233 patients were eligible. Patients had measurable or evaluable disease, with either distant metastases (82.5%) or bulky limited disease considered inoperable or unsuitable for radical radiotherapy. The treatment groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, performance status, histology, disease extent, and weight loss. The overall response rates (complete response [CR] plus partial response [PR]) on the chemotherapy arms were CAP, 15.3%, and VP, 25.3% (P = .06). Patients on the three-arm portion of the trial had a median survival of 32.6 weeks when treated with VP, 24.7 weeks with CAP, and 17 weeks with BSC. The significance of the differences in survival, adjusted for prognostic factors, is as follows: chemotherapy v BSC, P = .02; VP v BSC, P = .01; and CAP v BSC, P = .05. Toxicity on the chemotherapy arms was significant, with leukopenia of severe or greater degree occurring in 37.8% (CAP) and 40.0% (VP), severe vomiting in 12.2% (CAP) and 23.3% (VP), and severe neurotoxicity in 15.6% (VP). Patients with TNM stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer have short survival times. Previous controlled studies comparing chemotherapy and supportive care for the treatment of this type of cancer have not given consistent results, have included patients with different disease stages, and have rarely reported drug dose intensity.
                The present trial was designed to assess the safety and the effect on survival of supportive care alone versus chemotherapy with cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and mitomycin combined with appropriate supportive care in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.
                Patients (n = 102) with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to one of two treatment regimens. The combined modality group (52 patients) received supportive care along with cisplatin (75 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (400 mg/m2), and mitomycin (10 mg/m2) given intravenously at 3-week intervals. The supportive care group (50 patients) received supportive care alone. Randomization was stratified on the basis of histology (squamous versus nonsquamous cell carcinoma), performance status (Karnofsky), and weight loss (during the 6 months preceding randomization). The two groups were well matched for age and sex. Survival analysis was performed after the last patient died.
                The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 3.5 per patient. Mean weekly delivered doses of drugs were as follows: cisplatin, 22.1 mg/m2; cyclophosphamide, 118 mg/m2; and mitomycin, 2.9 mg/m2. Toxic effects due to chemotherapy were generally mild, but peripheral neuropathy and hematologic and renal toxic effects were observed. In the supportive care group, mean survival was 6.1 months (median, 4.0 months); six patients lived at least 12 months and two lived at least 18 months. In the combined modality group, mean survival was 11.3 months (median, 8.5 months); 20 patients lived at least 12 months, 13 lived at least 18 months, and five lived at least 24 months. Difference in survival was statistically significant (P < .0001). Survival was directly related to initial performance status in both groups (P < .01) and was significantly (P < .01) longer for patients with squamous cell carcinoma than for those with nonsquamous cell carcinoma.
                The combination of supportive care and cisplatin-cyclophosphamide-mitomycin therapy offers a survival advantage over supportive care alone in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
                Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, generally considered to be unresponsive or marginally responsive to chemotherapy, can be treated with chemotherapy, with an expectation of prolonging patient survival. Although the results of the present study are encouraging, clinical research should continue to be directed toward developing more effective treatments for this disease.
All trials were of good methodological quality with no risk of bias. This meta-analysis of chemotherapy in the supportive care setting demonstrates that chemotherapy improves overall survival in all patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients who are fit enough and wish to receive it should be offered chemotherapy.