Gemcitabine (Gemzar), docetaxel (Taxotere), paclitaxel
(Taxol), and vinorelbine (Navelbine) are among the most active agents for the
treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Each has been shown to
produce objective responses in approximately 20% of previously untreated
patients with advanced or metastatic disease and to improve survival when
compared with best supportive care. When combined with a platinum compound,
these agents have, to date, produced the best survival outcomes in non-small-cell
lung cancer and represent the new standard of care for good performance status
in patients with advanced or metastatic disease.
These new agents generally appear to be more active than
platinum compounds. Gemcitabine, in particular, appears to be at the head of the
class with respect to activity and patient tolerance. More than 500 patients
were treated in six phase II clinical trials with gemcitabine 1.0-1.2 g/m2 on
days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Reported objective response rates are in the
range of 21% to 26%.[1-6] Fewer than 7% of these patients suffered any grade 4
Three randomized clinical trials have shown that single-agent
gemcitabine can produce response rates and survival outcomes equivalent to the
combination regimens of cisplatin (Platinol)/etoposide[7,8] or
cisplatin/vindesine (Eldisine). However, gemcitabine has considerably less
toxicity and greater benefit with respect to improved quality of life and
performance of daily activities. Therefore, investigators have hypothesized that
gemcitabine could be combined with one of the other new agents to create novel
nonplatinum doublet combinations with efficacy and/or toxicity profiles superior
to that of standard platinum-containing combinations. This article summarizes
the efforts to date that explore gemcitabine combined with docetaxel,
paclitaxel, or vinorelbine.
Gemcitabine with docetaxel was the first combination examined.
In the initial two studies, docetaxel was added on day 1 or 15 to a standard day
1, 8, and 15 schedule of gemcitabine. Treatment was recycled every 28 days.
Pawinski et al reported the results of 30 courses of
treatment in 11 patients (10 of whom had received prior chemotherapy) with a
variety of tumor types. On the 28-day schedule, gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 was
administered on days 1, 8, and 15 with docetaxel 85 mg/m2 on day 1. Grade 3/4
neutropenia occurred in 18 of the 30 courses (60%), including febrile
neutropenia in 2 of the 11 patients. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 5 of
the 30 courses (17%), and grade 3 dermatitis or increased liver function tests
(LFTs) occurred in one patient each. Six of the 11 patients required attenuation
of the docetaxel dose. The authors concluded that it was not feasible to carry
this dose and schedule forward to expanded phase II or phase III trials.
Similarly, Spiridonidis et al explored escalating doses of
docetaxel on day 1 or day 15 of a day 1, 8, and 15 schedule of gemcitabine 800
mg/m2 every 28 days in 40 patients (39 with prior chemotherapy) with a variety
of tumor types. Dose-limiting toxicity consisted primarily of grade 4
neutropenia in 40% of patients, febrile neutropenia in 7.5%, grade 3/4
thrombocytopenia in 22.5%, grade 3 asthenia in 17.5%, grade 3 flu-like symptoms
in 10%, and grade 3 fluid retention in 7.5%. The maximum tolerated dose for
docetaxel was higher when it was given on day 1 compared to day 15: 100 mg/m2 vs
75 mg/m2, respectively. Furthermore, successful delivery of the planned dose of
docetaxel was 98% vs 74% for the two schedules, respectively.
Objective responses were reported in four of seven patients with
previously treated breast cancer and in 9 of 21 patients with previously treated
NSCLC (43% response rate, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 22% to 66%), including
objective regressions in brain metastases in four patients. Similar to the
Pawinski study, dose-limiting myelotoxicity most often occurred on or near day
15 of this schedule, frequently requiring dose attenuations or omissions in the
planned day 15 dose of gemcitabine.
Because of the frequent need to reduce or omit day 15 treatment
in these 28-day schedules, investigators began to explore 21-day schedules in
which gemcitabine could be given on days 1 and 8 with docetaxel on day 1 or 8 (Table
Greek Lung Cancer
Cooperative Group Study
Georgoulias et al reported the results of a Greek Lung
Cancer Cooperative Group study that explored this new schedule in 52 patients
with previously untreated NSCLC. Gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 was administered on days
1 and 8 combined with docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on day 8. Granulocyte
colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF [Neupogen]) was added to the regimen at 150
µg/m2 on days 9 to 15. Data from 251 courses of treatment indicated that
toxicity was relatively mild with grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, or
anemia in 20%, 8%, and 10% of patients, respectively, and febrile neutropenia in
8%. Grade 2 or 3 asthenia was reported in 17% and 2% of patients, respectively;
fluid retention was ≤ grade 2 in 19% of patients.
Gemcitabine and docetaxel dose intensities were maintained at
600 mg/m2/wk and 33 mg/m2/wk, respectively (100% of planned dose intensity), and
only 14 of 251 treatment courses were delayed secondary to toxicity. Objective
responses were observed in 19 patients (36.5% response rate, 95% CI: 21.5% to
46.4%). The median response duration was 5.0 months, time to tumor progression
7.0 months, and survival 8.5 months; 1-year survival was 42%.
Similar Results From Two Studies
Two additional studies exploring this 21-day schedule soon
followed. Rubio et al reported the results of a study by Argentinian
investigators using gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 combined with
docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 in 18 NSCLC patients. Hematologic toxicity was
moderate with grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurring in 39% and 0%
of courses, respectively. Objective responses were observed in 31% of patients.
Similar results were reported by Rebattu et al with
gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 combined with docetaxel 85
mg/m2 on day
8 in 36 NSCLC patients. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in
50% and 5%, respectively, of courses. Objective responses were documented in 30%
of evaluable patients.
Higher Dose Intensity
The rationale of changing from a day 1, 8, and 15 every-4-week
schedule to a day 1 and 8 every-3-week schedule in gemcitabine-based studies
recently received support from a randomized trial by Soto Parra et al. In
this study, patients received cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 2 of either schedule
with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2.
The relative dose intensity (calculated as mg/m2/wk) of
gemcitabine was higher with the 3-week schedule than with the 4-week schedule589
mg/m2/wk compared to 564 mg/m2/wk, respectively. The lower dose intensity of the
4-week schedule resulted from forced reductions or omissions of gemcitabine
dosing on day 8 or 15 of the schedule in 17% and 80% of courses, respectively.
In spite of the higher dose intensity of the 3-week schedule, grade 3/4
neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and nonhematologic toxicity was significantly
lower than with the 4-week schedule. Furthermore, the response rate was higher
with the 3-week compared with the 4-week schedule (55% vs 40%, respectively),
although the difference was not statistically significant.
The Greek Lung Cancer Study Group was the first to compare a
new gemcitabine/docetaxel combination to a platinum-based combination,
cisplatin/docetaxel (Table 2). A total of 347 patients with advanced or
metastatic NSCLC were randomized and treated on the every-3-week schedule. The
first group (180 patients) received cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 2 combined with
docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on day 1; the second group (167 patients) received
gemcitabine 1,100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 combined with docetaxel 100
mg/m2 on day
8. To decrease the severity of granulocytopenia expected with these moderately
intensive treatments, G-CSF was administered on days 3 to 9 of the
platinum-based regimen and on days 9 to 15 of the gemcitabine-based regimen.
A comparison of the toxicities of the cisplatin/docetaxel vs
gemcitabine/docetaxel regimens revealed a higher rate of grade 3/4 neutropenia
with the former (34% vs 20%, respectively, P = .03) but a higher incidence of
febrile neutropenia with the latter (29% vs 17%, respectively, P = .004). There
were no significant differences between the two regimens with respect to grade
3/4 thrombocytopenia (2% vs 4%, respectively), anemia (6% vs 4%, respectively),
or fatigue (30% vs 33%, respectively).
Furthermore, analysis of therapeutic end points revealed no
statistically significant differences in response rates (31% vs 34%), median
time to progression (8 months each), median survival (12 months vs 11 months),
or 1-year survival (46% vs 41%). Although firm conclusions cannot be reached
from this randomized phase II trial, it is the first trial to demonstrate that a
nonplatinum-based regimen (gemcitabine/docetaxel) may be equivalent to a
platinum-based regimen with respect to efficacy.
1. Abratt RP, Bezwoda WR, Falkson G, et al: Efficacy and safety
profile of gemcitabine in non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II study. J Clin
Oncol 12:1535-1540, 1994.
2. Anderson H, Lund B, Bach F, et al: Single-agent activity of
weekly gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II study. J
Clin Oncol 12:1821-1826, 1994.
3. Gatzemeier U, Shepherd FA, LeChevalier T, et al: Activity of
gemcitabine in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicentre,
extended phase II study. Eur J Cancer 32A:243-248, 1996.
4. Fukuoka M, Takada M, Yokoyama A, et al: Phase II studies of
gemcitabine for non-small-cell lung cancer in Japan. Seminars in Oncol
24(suppl 7):42-46, 1997.
5. Yokoyama A, Nakai Y, Yoneda S, et al: Activity of gemcitabine
in the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicenter
phase II study. Anti-Cancer Drugs 8:574-581, 1997.
6. Anderson H, Hopwood P, Stephens RJ, et al: Gemcitabine plus
best supportive care vs best supportive care in inoperable non-small-cell lung
cancer: A randomized trial with quality of life as the primary outcome. UK NSCLC
Gemcitabine Group. Br J Cancer 83:447-453, 2000.
7. Manegold C, Bergman B, Chemaissani A, et al: Single-agent
gemcitabine vs cisplatin/etoposide: Early results of a randomized phase II study
in locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol
8. Perng RP, Chen YM, Ming-Liu J, et al: Gemcitabine vs the
combination of cisplatin and etoposide in patients with inoperable non-small-cell
lung cancer in a phase II randomized study. J Clin Oncol 15:2097-2102, 1997.
9. Vansteenkiste J, Vandebroek J, Nackaerts K, et al:
Gemcitabine monotherapy vs cisplatin-based chemotherapy in symptomatic advanced
NSCLC: A prospective randomized comparison of symptom control. Lung Cancer
29(suppl 1):48, 2000.
10. Pawinski A, Louwerens M, Tonelli D, et al: A phase I study
of taxotere and Gemzar in patients with advanced solid tumors (abstract 957).
Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:249a,1998.
11. Spiridonidis CH, Laufman LR, Jones JJ, et al: Weekly
gemcitabine combined with monthly docetaxel in patients with advanced
malignanciesA phase I trial (abstract 795). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:206a,
12. Spiridonidis CH, Laufman LR, Carman L, et al: Second-line
chemotherapy with weekly gemcitabine and monthly docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell
lung cancer: A phase II study (abstract 1968). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:503a,
13. Georgoulias V, Androulakis N, Kouroussis Ch, et al:
Second-line treatment with paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with non-small-cell
lung cancer who failed cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
14. Rubio G, Blajman C, Capo A, et al: Docetaxel and gemcitabine
in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. A phase II study. Preliminary
feasibility report (abstract 2012). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:522a, 1999.
15. Rebattu P, Quantin X, Morere J, et al: A phase II study of
docetaxel (D) and gemcitabine combination in patients with non-small-cell lung
cancer (abstract 2124). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:539a, 2000.
16. Soto Parra HJ, Cavina R, Antonelli G, et al: Superiority of
3-week vs 4-week schedule of cisplatin and gemcitabine: Results of a randomized
phase II study (abstract 2152). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:546a, 2000.
17. Georgoulias V, Papadakis E, Alexopoulos A, et al: Docetaxel
plus cisplatin vs docetaxel plus gemcitabine chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell
lung cancer: A preliminary analysis of a multicenter randomized phase II trial
(abstract 1778). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:461a, 1999.
18. Eckardt JR, Schmidt AM, Needles BM, et al: A phase I study
of the combination of docetaxel and gemcitabine (abstract 920). Proc Am Soc Clin
Oncol 17:240a, 1998.
19. Giaccone G, Smit E, Laan D, et al: Phase I/II study of
paclitaxel and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (abstract
1869). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:486a, 1998.
20. Androulakis N, Kouroussis C, Kakolyris S, et al: Salvage
treatment with paclitaxel and gemcitabine for patients with non-small-cell
lung cancer after cisplatin- or docetaxel-based chemotherapy: A multicenter
phase II study. Ann Oncol 9:1127-1130, 1998.
21. Giaccone G, Smit EF, van Meerbeeck JP, et al: A phase I-II
study of gemcitabine and paclitaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Ann Oncol 11:109-112, 2000.
22. Monnier A, Douillard JY, Lerouge D, et al: Results of a
phase II study with Taxol and Gemzar in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer
(abstract 2021). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:516a, 2000.
23. Auerbach M, Chaudry M, Richards P, et al: Phase II study of
gemcitabine and paclitaxel in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (abstract
2052). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:522a, 2000.
24. Kosmidis PA, Bacoyiannis C, Mylonakis N, et al: A randomized
phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin vs paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in
advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. A preliminary analysis (abstract 1908).
Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:488a, 2000.
25. Loffler TM, Winnfried F, Lipke J, et al: Schedule- and
dose-intensified paclitaxel as weekly 1-hour infusion in pretreated solid
tumors: Results of a phase I/II trial. Semin Oncol 23
(suppl 16):32-34, 1996.
26. Akerley W: Phase I/II trial of weekly paclitaxel in patients
with advanced lung cancer. Semin Oncol 23(suppl 16):55-58, 1996.
27. Peacock NW, Burris HA, Hainsworth JD, et al: Weekly
docetaxel in patients with advanced refractory malignancies: A phase I trial
(abstract 727). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:189a, 1998.
28. Belani CP: Weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin in non-small-cell
lung cancer. Lung Cancer 29(suppl 2):128, 2000.
29. Rizvi NA, Spiridonidis CH, Davis TH, et al: Docetaxel and
gemcitabine combinations in non-small-cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 26
(suppl 16):27-31, 1999.
30. Einhorn LH, Raghavan D, Kindler H, et al. A phase I trial of
gemcitabine plus paclitaxel combination therapy in patients with refractory
solid tumors (abstract 796). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:207a, 1998.
31. Bhatia S, Ng E, Ansari R, et al: A phase II study of
paclitaxel (P) and gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung
cancerA Hoosier Oncology Group study (abstract 2091). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
32. DePas TM, Danesi R, Sessa C, et al: Phase I study of
gemcitabine and paclitaxel in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small-cell
lung cancer (abstract 2094). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:532a, 2000.
33. Pirker P, Krajnik G, Mohn-Staudner A, et al:
Vinorelbine/gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Final results
of an AASLC trial (abstract 2080). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:529a, 2000.
34. Chen YM, Whang-Peng J, Perng RP, et al: A multi-center phase
II study of gemcitabine and vinorelbine in patients with advanced stage IIIB-IV
non-small-cell lung cancer (abstract 1856). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:481a,
35. Krajnik G, Wein W, Greil R, et al: Vinorelbine/gemcitabine
in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase I trial. Eur J Cancer
36. Isokangas OP, Knuuttila A, Halme M, et al: Phase II study of
vinorelbine and gemcitabine for inoperable stage IIIB-IV non-small-cell lung
cancer. Ann Oncol 10:1059-1063, 1999.
37. Barr F, Mirsky H, Clinthorne D, et al: A phase III study of
gemcitabine and vinorelbine salvage chemotherapy for taxanes resistant non-small-cell
lung cancer (abstract 1914). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:496a, 1999.
38. Herrero CC, Martinez EN, Jaime AB: Second-line treatment
with gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer cisplatin
failures: A pilot study. Lung Cancer 27:47-53, 2000.
39. Hirsch V, Ayoub J, Cormier Y, et al: Phase II multicenter
trial with gemcitabine and vinorelbine in patients with advanced (stage IIIB +
IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (abstract 1961). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
40. Gridelli C, Cigolari S, Bilancia D, et al: Phase II study of
gemcitabine and gemcitabine + vinorelbine in advanced NSCLC elderly patients
within the phase III MILES (Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly
Study) randomized trial (abstract 2092). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:532a, 2000.
41. Esteban E, Llano JLG, Vietez JM, et al: Phase I/II study of
gemcitabine plus vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer (abstract 1855).
Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:482a, 1998.
42. Lorusso V, Mancarella S, Carpagnano F, et al: Gemcitabine
plus vinorelbine in patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small-cell lung cancer. A
phase II study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:470a, 1998.
43. Herbst RS, Lilenbaum R: Gemcitabine and vinorelbine
combinations in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Semin
Oncol 26(suppl 16):67-70, 1999.
44. Beretta GD, Michetti G, Belometti MO, et al: Gemcitabine
plus vinorelbine in elderly or unfit patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.
Br J Cancer 83:573-576, 2000.
45. Gridelli C, Frontini L, Perrone F, et al: Gemcitabine plus
vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II study of three
different doses. Br J Cancer 83:707-714, 2000.
46. Lilenbaum R, Schwartz MA, Cano R, et al: Gemcitabine and
navelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (abstract 1901). Proc Am Soc
Clin Oncol 17:494a, 1998.