Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 18, Issue 12
(June), 2000: 2354-2362
© 2000 American Society for Clinical Oncology
Randomized Phase III Trial of Docetaxel Versus Vinorelbine or Ifosfamide in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy Regimens
By Frank V. Fossella,
Russell DeVore,
Ronald N. Kerr,
Jeffrey Crawford,
Ronald R. Natale,
Frank Dunphy,
Leonard Kalman,
Vincent Miller,
Jin Soo Lee,
Melvin Moore,
David Gandara,
Daniel Karp,
Everett Vokes,
Mark Kris,
Yong Kim,
Francis Gamza,
Luz Hammershaimb,
and the TAX Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Study Group
From the TAX 320 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Study Group. See Appendix for complete list of affiliations.
Address reprint requests to Frank V. Fossella, MD, Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Box 80 Houston, TX 77030-4009; email ffossell{at}mdanderson.org
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
PURPOSE: To confirm the promising phase II results of docetaxel monotherapy, this phase III trial was conducted of chemotherapy for patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had previously failed platinum-containing chemotherapy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 373 patients were randomized to receive either docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (D100) or 75 mg/m2 (D75) versus a control regimen of vinorelbine or ifosfamide (V/I). The three treatment groups were well-balanced for key patient characteristics.
RESULTS: Overall response rates were 10.8% with D100 and 6.7% with D75, each significantly higher than the 0.8% response with V/I (P = .001 and P = .036, respectively). Patients who received docetaxel had a longer time to progression (P = .046, by log-rank test) and a greater progression-free survival at 26 weeks (P = .005, by  2 test). Although overall survival was not significantly different between the three groups, the 1-year survival was significantly greater with D75 than with the control treatment (32% v 19%; P = .025, by 2 test). Prior exposure to paclitaxel did not decrease the likelihood of response to docetaxel, nor did it impact survival. There was a trend toward greater efficacy in patients whose disease was platinum-resistant rather than platinum-refractory and in patients with performance status of 0 or 1 versus 2. Toxicity was greatest with D100, but the D75 arm was well-tolerated.
CONCLUSION: This first randomized trial in this setting demonstrates that D75 every 3 weeks can offer clinically meaningful benefit to patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease has relapsed or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
LUNG CANCER IS THE leading cause of cancer death worldwide. In the United States alone there are more than 170,000 new cases and almost 160,000 deaths annually. It remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in both sexes, accounting for 32% and 24% of cancer deaths in men and women, respectively.1 Approximately 75% to 80% of lung cancers are of the non–small-cell (NSCLC) histology. The majority have locally advanced stage III (44%) or metastatic stage IV (32%) disease at diagnosis.
A meta-analysis of eight randomized studies that compared cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy with best supportive care for advanced NSCLC has shown a modest impact on survival: median survival improved from 4 to 7 months, and 1-year survival increased from 5% to 15% in patients who received chemotherapy.2,3 More recent trials have used combination therapy with newer agents, including paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine. Survival data with these newer combinations have been encouraging, with median survival times as high as 11 months and 1-year survival rates as high as 44%. Based on this data, most medical oncologists would offer a trial of systemic chemotherapy, usually with a platinum-based combination regimen as initial treatment, to patients with advanced NSCLC who have an acceptable performance status. Once a patient has progressed on or relapsed after initial platinum-based treatment, however, the role of second-line chemotherapy has been less well-defined. Until recently, most patients were treated with supportive care only or were referred to a clinical trial.
In a recent paper that reviewed the results of clinical trials of second-line chemotherapy for NSCLC, the benefit of treatment with a variety of chemotherapeutic agents was noted to be disappointing.4 Most studies showed response rates of less than 10% and median survival times of 4 months or less. The notable exception, however, has been docetaxel, which has consistently demonstrated activity in the second-line setting in phase II trials.5-8 In these four phase II studies, in which docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (D100) every 3 weeks was administered to a total of 166 patients, response rates of 22%, 17%, 15%, and 22% were observed. Median survival time ranged from 5.8 to 11 months, and the estimated 1-year survival rate ranged from 25% to 40%.
Based on this consistent activity and suggested survival benefit, a randomized phase III study was conducted that compared two doses of docetaxel versus a regimen of vinorelbine or ifosfamide. This third arm was selected as a comparator based on the consensus of investigators that both vinorelbine and ifosfamide were frequently used in this setting at the time of trial design. The primary end point of this trial was survival. Secondary end points included response rate, response duration, time to progression, toxicity, and quality of life. The data presented herein will include results regarding response rate, time to progression, survival, and toxicity. The quality-of-life data of this study will be reported separately.
|
PATIENTS AND METHODS
|
|---|
Patient Eligibility
This multicenter, open-label, randomized trial was conducted at 23 centers in the United States between June 1995 and January 1998. Eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that had progressed during or after one or more platinum-based regimens. Before study entry, a minimum of 21 days must have elapsed since any prior chemotherapy. Patients may have had either measurable or assessable lesions. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 was required, as was adequate bone marrow (absolute granulocyte count of  2.0 x 109 cells/L and platelet count of 100 x 109 cells/L), hepatic (total bilirubin level within normal limits, alkaline phosphatase level  five times the upper limit of normal, and serum transaminase 1.5 times the upper limit of normal), and renal (serum creatinine level 2.0 mg/dL or creatinine clearance 60 mL/min) function. No restriction was placed on the number of prior chemotherapy regimens, the amount of prior chemotherapy, or the agents used (which may have included paclitaxel). Patients who had received prior radiation therapy were eligible provided that at least 30 days had elapsed from completion of radiation to study entry. Patients with treated brain metastases were eligible provided that they were neurologically stable.
All patients provided written informed consent. The study was approved by local institutional review boards at each participating center and was conducted in compliance with institutional review board regulations.
Treatment Plan
Patients were stratified according to best response to previous platinum therapy (ie, progressive disease [defined as relapse during or within 3 months of receiving platinum] v all other response categories) and performance status (0 or 1 v 2). Patients were then randomized to one of three treatment arms: docetaxel 100 mg/m2 administered as a 1-hour infusion every 3 weeks; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (D75) as a 1-hour infusion every 3 weeks; or a control arm of either vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 administered as an intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 3-week cycle or ifosfamide 2 mg/m2/d (with standard-dose mesna) on days 1 through 3 of each 3-week cycle (V/I). For patients randomized to V/I, the choice between vinorelbine or ifosfamide was at the investigator’s discretion.
Patients who received docetaxel were given prophylactic dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 hours, for a total of five doses, starting 24 hours before each docetaxel infusion. Patients in the D100 group who experienced grade 4 neutropenia that lasted more than 7 days or that was associated with fever that required parenteral antibiotics were treated with prophylactic filgrastim with each subsequent cycle to avoid dose reductions in this group so that treatment at the 100-mg/m2 dose level could be maintained as long as possible. Hematopoietic growth factors were otherwise not used prophylactically but were permitted therapeutically at the discretion of the treating physician. Prophylactic antiemetics were permitted.
Toxicity evaluations were based on the National Cancer Institute’s common toxicity criteria. Adverse events not included in that toxicity scale (eg, fluid retention, hypersensitivity reaction, onychodystrophy, and asthenia) were graded as mild (grade 1), moderate (grade 2), severe (grade 3), or life-threatening (grade 4).
Appropriate dose modifications were made in each treatment group based on toxicity observed with the prior chemotherapy cycle and on the planned day of treatment. Grade 4 neutropenia associated with fever that required intravenous antibiotics necessitated a 25% dose reduction of subsequent cycles in the D75 and V/I groups. Such patients in the D100 group initially received prophylactic filgrastim rather than a dose reduction (as described above), but with a subsequent 25% dose reduction if neutropenic infection recurred despite prophylactic growth factors. Patients who received vinorelbine had their weekly vinorelbine dose reduced by 50% or omitted if the neutrophil count on day 8 or 15 was grade 2 or grade 3, respectively.
Grade 4 vomiting, despite prophylactic antiemetics, and other grade 3 toxicities generally required a 25% dose reduction. Side effects that mandated removal from the study included grade 3 neurotoxicity, grade 4 hypersensitivity reaction (or a hypersensitivity reaction that recurred despite treatment), and grade 3 aberration in liver function tests that lasted more than 3 weeks.
Baseline evaluation before study entry included history and physical examination, complete blood count, biochemical profile, ECG, chest x-ray, and radiographic imaging of all involved sites of disease by computed tomography scan, bone scan, and/or magnetic resonance imaging (as clinically appropriate). Complete blood count was observed weekly. Before each subsequent cycle of treatment, patients underwent history and physical examination, toxicity assessment, complete blood count, biochemical profile, and chest x-ray.
Quality of life was assessed prospectively using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), a well-validated instrument that consists of both patient-rated and observer-rated items.9-11 The LCSS questionnaire was completed at baseline, immediately before each cycle of treatment, at the end of the treatment period, and at follow-up every 2 months.
Tumor responses were assessed radiographically every two cycles. Designations of complete response, partial response, no change, and progressive disease were based on the standardized response definitions established by the World Health Organization.12 Duration of response and time to progression were calculated as time from randomization to the first objective evidence of tumor progression. Survival was calculated from the date of randomization until death. Patients were treated for a minimum of two cycles (unless this was precluded by unacceptable toxicity or rapid disease progression). Patients with response or stable disease continued treatment for at least six cycles unless there was disease progression or unacceptable side effects. Patients who were responding and stable could receive more than six cycles if they were achieving continued clinical benefit as determined by the treating physician. Patients with disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, treatment delay of more than 3 weeks, or intercurrent conditions that precluded continued treatment were removed from the study. On removal from study, patients were to be observed every 2 months until death to assess adverse events, quality of life, disease status, and survival.
Statistical Analysis
The sample size of this study was based on the assumption that median survival in the group treated with either docetaxel dose would be approximately 7.5 months, compared with 5 months in the group with the V/I control treatment. Given this assumption, a sample size of 360 patients (120 per treatment arm) would allow the detection of the overall survival advantage in either docetaxel arm at an alpha level of 5% (one-sided) and 80% power. Although a one-sided test error was the basis for determination of the sample size, all statistical tests were performed based on a two-sided error of 5%.
The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of survival in the intent-to-treat population between each dose of docetaxel to the control treatment of V/I. The survival time and time to progression were estimated for each treatment using the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method. The overall survival curves estimated by this method were compared between treatment groups by a log-rank test. A descriptive point of the K-M curve, such as median survival or median time to progression (50th percentile in each distribution), is shown with 95% confidence intervals. Other descriptive points such as differences in progression-free survival at 26 weeks and the 1-year survival rates were compared between treatments by a 2 test in a posthoc analysis. Because more than one third of patients continued to receive additional chemotherapy on removal from study and more than 50% of patients in the V/I control group received a taxane (cross-over), another intent-to-treat survival analysis was carried out that censored survival at the time when patients received subsequent chemotherapy on removal from study. In this analysis, the confounding effects of the poststudy chemotherapy on survival were expected to be minimized so that comparisons of docetaxel doses to the control would be robust.
The intent-to-treat population for overall survival included all randomized patients. The intent-to-treat population for time to progression included only those patients with a confirmed diagnosis of NSCLC. The intent-to-treat population for determination of response rate included patients with confirmed NSCLC who actually received at least one infusion of chemotherapy on study.
For the safety analysis, descriptive methods were used without any formal statistical testing. However, for selected adverse events, posthoc statistical testing was performed. The safety population included all patients who received at least one infusion of chemotherapy.
|
RESULTS
|
|---|
Patient Characteristics
A total of 373 patients were enrolled from 23 centers in the United States. One hundred twenty-five patients were treated in each docetaxel arm, and 123 were enrolled onto the control V/I arm (89 received vinorelbine, and 34 received ifosfamide). All randomized patients were included in the survival analyses (N = 373). Three randomized patients (one in each arm) did not have NSCLC and, so, were excluded from the time-to-progression analysis (N = 370). Twelve patients never received treatment after randomization (four patients per arm), and they have been excluded from safety analysis (N = 361). The 12 nontreated patients and the three treated patients without a diagnosis of NSCLC were excluded from the response assessment analysis (N = 358).
The three treatment groups were well-balanced for age, sex, performance status, disease stage, extent of involvement, and histology (Table 1). Most patients had performance status of 0 or 1 despite their extensive prior therapy. Approximately 90% of patients had stage IV disease. The predominant histology (41% to 56%) was adenocarcinoma. Regarding prior chemotherapy, all three groups were well-balanced for the key parameters of best response to prior platinum-containing chemotherapy (progressive disease in approximately one third of patients in each arm), two or more prior chemotherapy regimens (26% to 35%), and prior paclitaxel exposure (31% to 42% of patients).
Treatment Administration
The median number of cycles of chemotherapy administered was three in each docetaxel treatment group, three in the vinorelbine treatment group, and two in the ifosfamide treatment group (Table 2). In patients who received docetaxel (either arm) and ifosfamide, the median relative dose-intensity approached 1 but was only 0.67 in patients who received vinorelbine, usually because of day 15 myelosuppression that required reduction or omission of that dose.
Patients in the D75 group remained on treatment the longest. As listed in Table 2, responding patients in the D75 group received a median of 10 cycles of chemotherapy, versus six cycles in the responders on D100. Similarly, patients with stable disease received a median of six cycles in the D75 group, versus four cycles with D100 and five with V/I.
Efficacy
Objective partial response was assessed in the 358 patients with confirmed NSCLC who received at least one chemotherapy infusion after randomization (Table 3). The partial response rates of 10.8% and 6.7% observed with D100 and D75, respectively, were each significantly greater than the response rate of 0.8% observed in the control arm (P = .001 and P = .036, respectively, by Fisher’s exact test; P = .002 for both docetaxel arms combined). Median response durations (in responding patients) were 7.5 and 9.1 months in the D100 and D75 groups, respectively.
Time-to-progression data are shown in Fig 1 and Table 4. Overall time to progression favored treatment with docetaxel; P = .044 (by log-rank test) for D100 versus V/I, and P = .046 for both docetaxel groups combined versus the control group. Although the median time to progression was equivalent in the three treatment arms, the progression-free survival at 26 weeks was 19% with D100 and 17% with D75, compared with 8% in the V/I group. This difference was significant, with P values (by 2 test) of .013 and .031 for D100 and D75, respectively, compared with the control group, and .005 when both docetaxel doses were combined.
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 1. Time to progression. Abbreviations: DOC, docetaxel; VINO/IFOS, vinorelbine or ifosfamide; PD, progression of disease.
|
|
Survival data (N = 373 randomized patients) are shown in Fig 2 and Table 5. The survival for the initial 6 months and the median survival were similar among the three treatment groups (range, 5.5 to 5.7 months). However, 1-year survival comparisons favored patients treated with D75. The 1-year survival rate (intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized patients) of 32% estimated by the K-M method in the D75 group was significantly greater than the 19% in the control group (P = .025, by 2 test). In this analysis, the 1-year survival estimate for patients treated with D100 was 21% (which was similar to that observed in the V/I group) (Table 5).
These efficacy parameters were further analyzed in subgroups of patients stratified by three patient characteristics: prior paclitaxel exposure, best response to prior platinum-based therapy (progressive disease [platinum-refractory] v other [platinum-resistant]) and performance status (0 or 1 v 2). The likelihood of response to docetaxel was not impacted by prior paclitaxel exposure, because partial response rate was equivalent in patients with and without prior paclitaxel treatment. Furthermore, prior paclitaxel exposure had no bearing on the overall or 1-year survival for each treatment group.
Regarding the stratification factor of best response to prior platinum-based therapy, there was a trend toward a higher partial response rate with docetaxel for patients who were platinum-resistant (10%) versus those who were platinum-refractory (5%). Survival for the D100 and the V/I groups also favored patients whose disease was platinum-resistant, although there was no such relationship for the patients treated with D75.
There was a trend toward better survival in patients with a baseline performance status of 0 or 1 versus 2 for all three treatment groups. However, in both performance status categories the survival advantage of docetaxel over the control treatment remained evident.
In this trial, more than one third of patients continued to receive additional chemotherapy on removal from study. Moreover, of the patients in the control group who did receive subsequent chemotherapy, more than 50% received a taxane. In addition, it was found that aggregated duration of the poststudy chemotherapy (drug exposure) was imbalanced among the groups. Because of the potential impact on survival because of cross-over treatment and the apparent imbalance in exposure to subsequent chemotherapy, survival analysis was also carried out, which censored survival at the time of administration of the additional poststudy chemotherapy (Fig 3 and Table 6). In this survival analysis (which included all randomized patients on an intent-to-treat basis), overall survival was not significantly different between the three treatment arms. Of note, however, is that the overall survival for D100 was similar to that of D75, and the rates of both seemed to be better than that of V/I (P = .13 and 0.12, respectively, by log-rank test). Furthermore, this analysis showed that the 1-year survival rates were significantly greater for both docetaxel doses (32% for D100 and 32% for D75) compared with that of the control group (10%; P < .01, by 2 test) (Table 6).
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 3. Overall survival analysis (intent to treat); censored for subsequent chemotherapy on removal from study (in addition to lost to contact or alive at cutoff date).
|
|
Safety
Safety was assessed for the 361 patients who received at least one infusion of chemotherapy. Hematologic toxicity is summarized in Table 7. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 77% of patients in the D100 group and 54% of patients in the D75 group, each significantly greater than that observed in the V/I group (31%). Grade 4 febrile neutropenia also occurred with significantly greater frequency with either docetaxel dose (12% and 8% for D100 and D75, respectively) compared with the control group (1%). However, the incidence of grade 4 infection was low and did not differ between the three treatment arms. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia was also rare and did not differ between the three treatments. Filgrastim (either prophylactic or therapeutic) was used in 28% of the cycles administered in the D100 group; this was significantly higher than that in the D75 (7% of cycles) and V/I (3% of cycles) groups.
Grade 3 or 4 or severe nonhematologic side effects are summarized in Table 8. These were relatively infrequent and were no more common among patients treated with docetaxel than among controls. The incidence of treatment-related death was similar between D100 and V/I groups (2% each); there were no (0%) treatment-related deaths in the D75 group.
Eleven percent of patients had discontinuation of treatment because of one or more treatment-related adverse events. This occurred in 12.8% of patients in the D100 group (because of neurotoxicity, fluid retention, asthenia, infection, and/or hypersensitivity), 7.2% in the D75 group (because of asthenia, nausea/vomiting, fluid retention, and/or hypersensitivity), and 4.1% in the V/I group (because of neurotoxicity, asthenia, infection, and/or nausea/vomiting). The differences in the rate of treatment discontinuation because of drug-related side effects were not statistically significant.
Quality of Life
The quality-of-life data from this trial will be fully reported in a separate manuscript.
|
DISCUSSION
|
|---|
Modest survival benefits have been noted with the administration of platinum-based chemotherapy versus best supportive care in patients with advanced NSCLC.2,3 Virtually all patients with advanced disease, however, ultimately develop disease progression after first-line therapy, and many such patients who maintain a good performance status are offered the option of second-line treatment. Most trials of second-line chemotherapy for NSCLC have evaluated relatively small numbers of patients in the phase II setting; these are summarized in Table 9.4 Results from these studies have shown disappointing or inconsistent activity of newer agents such as paclitaxel,13-19 vinorelbine,20-22 gemcitabine,23-27 and the camptothecins28,29 in the second-line setting, with the notable exception of docetaxel. In several phase II trials, docetaxel has been the only agent to show consistently favorable response rate and survival results in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC5-8(Table 10). Thus, this phase III trial was initiated to compare two doses of docetaxel with a comparator regimen of vinorelbine or ifosfamide.
This is the first fully reported phase III study that has evaluated the efficacy of chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of NSCLC. Clinical benefit, as determined by objective response, progression-free survival, and 1-year survival, favored the patients who received docetaxel. Although the incidences of grade 4 neutropenia and neutropenic fever were higher in the two docetaxel arms, other treatment-related adverse events were similar across the three arms, as was the incidence of removal from study because of toxicity. The use of filgrastim was relatively high with D100 (28% of cycles). It should be noted, however, that this was more commonly used prophylactically rather than therapeutically, as mandated by the protocol to avoid dose reduction in this group to maintain the 100 mg/m2 dose-intensity. Growth factor use was otherwise infrequent: 7% in the D75 group and 3% in the V/I group.
In an intent-to-treat analysis, overall survival by K-M estimate was not significantly different between the three treatment groups. We did note, however, a significant improvement in 1-year survival for the patients randomized to D75 (32%), compared with 19% 1-year survival in the control group (P = .025). It is notable that the duration of treatment for patients in the D75 group with either responding disease (median of 10 cycles) or stable disease (median of six cycles) was longer than that of patients in the D100 group with similar response designations (medians of six and four cycles, respectively). Thus, patients who received treatment with D100 were removed from the study earlier than those in the lower-dose group; this was, at least in part, because of a lower tolerance of treatment in the D100 group. This earlier treatment discontinuation in the D100 group may account for the better survival noted in the D75 group and indicates that the 75 mg/m2 dosage is the most appropriate dose of docetaxel to use in this setting.
The survival advantage conferred by docetaxel was particularly striking when survival analysis was censored at the time of additional chemotherapy administration. This censored analysis was performed to account for the intended treatment effect on survival without the confounding effect of the poststudy chemotherapy, ie, patients in the control group crossed over to treatment with docetaxel on their disease progression. In this intent-to-treat analysis, overall survival was similar between the two doses of docetaxel and seemed to be better for both doses than for the control. The 1-year survival rate reached statistical significance for both docetaxel doses (32% 1-year survival for either docetaxel group v 10% for the control group; P < .01).
Because of the poor prognosis of patients in this study, it is not unexpected that we observed no clear survival difference in the early months or in median survival between treatments. It is relevant, nonetheless, that there was an improvement in 1-year survival with docetaxel (at 75 mg/m2 in the uncensored analysis and at both dose levels in the censored analysis), because such a plateau in the survival curve at a longer survival end point indicates that a smaller subset of patients is gaining benefit from the treatment.
Additional benefits of docetaxel were also reflected in significantly greater response rates (partial response rates of 10.8% and 6.7% with either docetaxel dose, compared with 0.8% in the V/I group), overall time to progression (which favored D100 and both docetaxel groups combined), and 26-week progression-free survival (19% and 17% in the D100 and D75 groups, respectively, v 8% in the control group).
Furthermore, this trial also demonstrated an objective improvement in quality of life. These data will be detailed in a separate publication. However, a preliminary quality-of-life analysis of this trial reported by Miller et al30 demonstrated a clinical benefit to treatment with docetaxel. Eighty-four percent of patients in the D100 group and 73% of patients in the D75 and V/I groups completed the LCSS quality-of-life questionnaire at baseline and at least once during treatment and were thus assessable for quality-of-life assessment. In an analysis of covariance performed on paired assessments from baseline to last assessment, the descriptors of patient-rated total score, lung cancer symptoms, and observer-rated total score all statistically favored treatment with D100 when compared with the control group (P < .05).
This study included a large number of patients who had received paclitaxel before enrollment: 31% in the D100 group and 42% in the D75 group. It is notable that prior paclitaxel exposure had no bearing on the likelihood of response to docetaxel at either dose level. This suggests that there is no cross-resistance between these two taxanes.
The results of this trial are strongly supported by the preliminary data of another phase III trial reported by Shepherd et al.31 In that multicenter international trial, patients with advanced NSCLC that had progressed on or after at least one prior platinum-containing regimen were randomized to receive docetaxel or best supportive care. The initial docetaxel dose was 100 mg/m2, but this dose was changed midway into the trial to 75 mg/m2 because of toxicity. A total of 204 patients were enrolled onto that trial: 49 received D100, 55 received D75, and 100 received best supportive care. One quarter of the patients had performance status of 2, and approximately 80% had stage IV disease. The partial response rate was 6% with docetaxel, and the median response duration was 6 months. Overall survival favored treatment with D75. In the D75 group, median survival was 9.0 months versus 4.6 months with best supportive care (P = .016), and 1-year survival was 40% with docetaxel versus 16% with best supportive care (P = .016). With the exception of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, which was observed in 66% of patients, no significant differences in side effects were observed between the D75 arm and the best supportive care arm. Quality-of-life analysis also showed statistically significant improvement in the global quality of life and in pain control for D100 compared with best supportive care.32
The favorable response rate, progression-free survival, 1-year survival, and impact on quality of life noted in this trial suggest that docetaxel has clinically meaningful activity in this group of patients with NSCLC that has progressed after first-line platinum-based treatment. Any future randomized trials that evaluate second-line chemotherapy should include docetaxel as the reference control regimen.
The data from this large phase III study support the practice of offering a trial of second-line chemotherapy with docetaxel to patients with NSCLC who maintain a good performance status. Based on the observed response rates, survival, impact on quality of life, and toxicity profile, the optimal dose of docetaxel in this heavily pretreated population is 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks.
|
APPENDIX
|
|---|
The TAX 320 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Study Group included the following: F.V. Fossella and J.S. Lee (University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX); R. DeVore (Vanderbilt University Medical School, Nashville, TN); R. Kerr (Texas Oncology, Dallas, TX); J. Crawford (Duke University, Durham, NC); R. Natale (University of Southern California/Norris Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA); F. Dunphy (St Louis University Health Sciences Center, St Louis, MO); L. Kalman (Oncology-Hematology Group of South Florida, Miami, FL); V. Miller and M. Kris (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY); M. Moore (Cancer Specialists of Georgia, Atlanta, GA); D. Gandara (University of California-Davis Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA); D. Karp (New England Medical Center Hospital, Boston, MA); E. Vokes (University of Chicago, Chicago, IL); R. Comis (Jefferson Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA); M. Levitt (Medical College of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA); M. Kies (Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, IL); H. Kindler (Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY); A. Wozniak (Harper Hospital, Detroit, MI); M. Kolodziej (University of Oklahoma Health Science Center, Oklahoma City, OK); J. Reeves (Leecoast Research Center, Fort Myers, FL); L. Stolbach (St Vincent’s Hospital, Worcester, MA); V. Stark-Vancs (M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Network-Tarrant County, Fort Worth, TX); T. Banerjee (Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, WI); K. Hunt (University of Washington, Seattle, WA); and Y. Kim, F. Gamza, and L. Hammershaimb (Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, Collegeville, PA).
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
Supported by Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, Collegeville, PA.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
1.
Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, et al: Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin 48:6-29, 1998[Abstract]
2.
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group: Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomized clinical trials. Br Med J 311:899-909, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3.
Grilli R, Oxman AD, Julian JA: Chemotherapy for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: How much benefit is enough? J Clin Oncol 11:1866-1872, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4.
Fossella FV, Lee JS, Hong WK: Management strategies for recurrent non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 24:455-462, 1997[Medline]
5.
Fossella FV, Lee JS, Shin DM, et al: Phase II study of docetaxel for advanced or metastatic platinum refractory non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:645-651, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6.
Burris H, Eckardt J, Fields S, et al: Phase II trials of Taxotere with non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 12: 335a, 1993 (abstr 1116)
7.
Gandara DR, Vokes E, Green M, et al: Docetaxel (Taxotere) in platinum-treated non-small cell lung cancer: A confirmation of prolonged survival in a multicenter trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16:454a, 1997 (abstr 1632)
8.
Robinet G, Kleisbauer JP, Thomas P, et al: Phase II study of docetaxel (Taxotere) in first- and second-line NSCLC. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16:480a, 1997 (abstr 1726)
9.
Hopwood P: Evidence for the impact of quality of life. Lung Cancer 18:66, 1997 (suppl 2)
10.
Moinpour D, Feign P, Mech B, et al: Quality of life end points in cancer clinical trials: Review and recommendations. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:485-495, 1989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11.
Hollen P, Gralla R, Kris M, et al: Quality of life assessment in individuals with lung cancer: Testing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). Eur J Cancer 29A: S51–S58, 1993 (suppl 1)
12.
Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al: Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207-214, 1981[Medline]
13.
Hainsworth JD, Thompson DA, Greco FA: Paclitaxel by 1-hour infusion: An active drug in metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:1609-1614, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14.
Murphy WK, Winn RJ, Huber M, et al: Phase II study of Taxol in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have failed platinum containing chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 13:363a, 1994 (abstr 1224)
15.
Socinski MA, Steagall A, Gillenwater H: Second-line chemotherapy with 96-hour infusional paclitaxel in refractory non-small cell lung cancer: Report of a phase II trial. Cancer Invest 17:181-188, 1999[Medline]
16.
Roa V, Conner A, Mitchell RB: Carboplatin and paclitaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in previously treated patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 15:403a, 1996 (abstr 1229)
17.
Stewart DJ, Tomiak E, Goss G, et al: Paclitaxel plus low dose hydroxyurea as second line therapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 14:367a, 1995 (abstr 1126)
18.
Tan V, Herrera C, Einzig AI, et al: Taxol is active as a 3 hour or 24 hour infusion in non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 14:366a, 1995 (abstr 1122)
19.
Ruckdeschel J, Wagner H, Williams C, et al: Second-line chemotherapy for resistant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: The role of Taxol. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 13:357a, 1994 (abstr 1200)
20.
Pronzato P, Landucci M, Vaira F, et al: Failure of vinorelbine to produce responses in pretreated non-small cell lung cancer patients. Anticancer Res 14:1413-1416, 1994[Medline]
21.
Rinaldi M, Della Giulia M, Venturo I, et al: Vinorelbine as single agent in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 13:360a, 1994 (abstr 1212)
22.
Santoro A, Maiorino L, Santoro M: Second-line chemotherapy with vinorelbine in the weekly monochemotherapy for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 11:130, 1994 (suppl 1, abstr 497)
23.
Crino L, Mosconi AM, Scagliotti G, et al: Gemcitabine as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 17:2081-2085, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24.
Rosvold E, Langer CJ, Schilder R, et al: Salvage therapy with gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressing after prior carboplatin-paclitaxel. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:467a, 1998 (abstr 1797)
25.
Guerra JA, Lianes P, Paz-Ares L, et al: Efficacy and toxicity profile of gemcitabine in previously treated patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 18:28, 1997 (suppl 1, abstr 99)
26.
Garfield DH, Dakhil SR, Whittaker TL, et al: Phase II randomized multicenter trial of two dose schedules of gemcitabine as second line therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:484a, 1998 (abstr 1863)
27.
Fukuoka M, Takada M, Yokoyama A, et al: Phase II studies of gemcitabine for non-small cell lung cancer in Japan. Semin Oncol 24:S7-42-S7-46, 1997 (suppl 7)
28.
Nakai H, Fukuoka M, Furuse K, et al: An early phase II study of CPT-11 for primary lung cancer. Jpn J Cancer Chemother 18:607-612, 1991
29.
Niitani H, Fukuoka M, Nagao K: Clinical development of irinotecan (CPT-11) in lung cancers. Lung Cancer 11:30-31, 1994 (suppl 2)
30.
Miller VA, Fossella FV, DeVore R, et al: Docetaxel benefits lung cancer symptoms and quality of life in a randomized phase III trial of non-small cell lung cancer patients previously treated with platinum-based therapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:491a, 1999 (abstr 1895)
31.
Shepherd F, Ramlau R, Mattson K, et al: Randomized study of Taxotere versus best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer patients previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:463a, 1999 (abstr 1784)
32.
Dancey J, Shepherd F, Ramlau R, et al: Quality of life assessment in a randomized study of Taxotere versus best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer patients previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 18:491a, 1999 (abstr 1896)
Submitted August 31, 1999;
accepted February 22, 2000.
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
D. Tassinari, E. Scarpi, S. Sartori, E. Tamburini, C. Santelmo, P. Tombesi, and L. Lazzari-Agli
Second-Line Treatments in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of Literature and Metaanalysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
Chest,
June 1, 2009;
135(6):
1596 - 1609.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Takeda, S. Negoro, T. Tamura, Y. Nishiwaki, S. Kudoh, S. Yokota, K. Matsui, H. Semba, K. Nakagawa, Y. Takada, et al.
Phase III trial of docetaxel plus gemcitabine versus docetaxel in second-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a Japan Clinical Oncology Group trial (JCOG0104)
Ann. Onc.,
May 1, 2009;
20(5):
835 - 841.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. E. Stinchcombe and M. A. Socinski
Current Treatments for Advanced Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Proceedings of the ATS,
April 15, 2009;
6(2):
233 - 241.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Di Maio, P. Chiodini, V. Georgoulias, D. Hatzidaki, K. Takeda, F. M. Wachters, V. Gebbia, E. F. Smit, A. Morabito, C. Gallo, et al.
Meta-Analysis of Single-Agent Chemotherapy Compared With Combination Chemotherapy As Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
April 10, 2009;
27(11):
1836 - 1843.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J-P. Sculier and D. Moro-Sibilot
First- and second-line therapy for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer
Eur. Respir. J.,
April 1, 2009;
33(4):
915 - 930.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. Fidias, S. R. Dakhil, A. P. Lyss, D. M. Loesch, D. M. Waterhouse, J. L. Bromund, R. Chen, M. Hristova-Kazmierski, J. Treat, C. K. Obasaju, 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.,
February 1, 2009;
27(4):
591 - 598.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-M. Sun, K.-W. Lee, J. H. Kim, Y. J. Kim, H. I. Yoon, J.-H. Lee, C.-T. Lee, and J. S. Lee
Efficacy and Toxicity of Pemetrexed as a Third-line Treatment for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 1, 2009;
39(1):
27 - 32.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Berhoune, E. Banu, F. Scotte, P. Prognon, S. Oudard, and B. Bonan
Therapeutic Strategy for Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Ann. Pharmacother.,
November 1, 2008;
42(11):
1640 - 1652.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Riedel, A. Porrello, E. Pontzer, E. J. Chenette, D. S. Hsu, B. Balakumaran, A. Potti, J. Nevins, and P. G. Febbo
A genomic approach to identify molecular pathways associated with chemotherapy resistance
Mol. Cancer Ther.,
October 1, 2008;
7(10):
3141 - 3149.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Maruyama, Y. Nishiwaki, T. Tamura, N. Yamamoto, M. Tsuboi, K. Nakagawa, T. Shinkai, S. Negoro, F. Imamura, K. Eguchi, et al.
Phase III Study, V-15-32, of Gefitinib Versus Docetaxel in Previously Treated Japanese Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 10, 2008;
26(26):
4244 - 4252.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Edelman, M. Suntharalingam, W. Burrows, K. F. Kwong, N. Mitra, Z. Gamliel, M. Riley, L. B. Cooper, N. L. Kennedy, S. Buskirk, et al.
Phase I/II Trial of Hyperfractionated Radiation and Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery in Stage III Lung Cancer
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
September 1, 2008;
86(3):
903 - 910.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. E. Stinchcombe and M. A. Socinski
Gefitinib in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Does It Deserve a Second Chance?
Oncologist,
September 1, 2008;
13(9):
933 - 944.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Rathkopf, M. A. Carducci, M. J. Morris, S. F. Slovin, M. A. Eisenberger, R. Pili, S. R. Denmeade, M. Kelsen, T. Curley, M. Halter, et al.
Phase II Trial of Docetaxel With Rapid Androgen Cycling for Progressive Noncastrate Prostate Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 20, 2008;
26(18):
2959 - 2965.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xian Zhou, Suyu Liu, E. S Kim, R. S Herbst, and J J. Lee
Bayesian adaptive design for targeted therapy development in lung cancer -- a step toward personalized medicine
Clinical Trials,
June 1, 2008;
5(3):
181 - 193.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. H. Cullen, P. Zatloukal, S. Sorenson, S. Novello, J. R. Fischer, A. A. Joy, M. Zereu, P. Peterson, C. M. Visseren-Grul, and N. Iscoe
A randomized phase III trial comparing standard and high-dose pemetrexed as second-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer
Ann. Onc.,
May 1, 2008;
19(5):
939 - 945.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Socinski, S. Novello, J. R. Brahmer, R. Rosell, J. M. Sanchez, C. P. Belani, R. Govindan, J. N. Atkins, H. H. Gillenwater, C. Pallares, et al.
Multicenter, Phase II Trial of Sunitinib in Previously Treated, Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 1, 2008;
26(4):
650 - 656.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. de Marinis and F. Grossi
Clinical Evidence for Second- and Third-Line Treatment Options in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Oncologist,
January 1, 2008;
13(suppl_1):
14 - 20.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. E. Stinchcombe and M. A. Socinski
Considerations for Second-Line Therapy of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Oncologist,
January 1, 2008;
13(suppl_1):
28 - 36.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. O. Park, S.-W. Kim, J. S. Ahn, C. Suh, J. S. Lee, J. S. Jang, E. K. Cho, S. H. Yang, J.-H. Choi, D. S. Heo, et al.
Phase III Trial of Two Versus Four Additional Cycles in Patients Who Are Nonprogressive After Two Cycles of Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
November 20, 2007;
25(33):
5233 - 5239.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Hsu, B. S. Balakumaran, C. R. Acharya, V. Vlahovic, K. S. Walters, K. Garman, C. Anders, R. F. Riedel, J. Lancaster, D. Harpole, et al.
Pharmacogenomic Strategies Provide a Rational Approach to the Treatment of Cisplatin-Resistant Patients With Advanced Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 1, 2007;
25(28):
4350 - 4357.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. V. Heymach, B. E. Johnson, D. Prager, E. Csada, J. Roubec, M. Pesek, I. Spasova, C. P. Belani, I. Bodrogi, S. Gadgeel, et al.
Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study of Vandetanib Plus Docetaxel in Previously Treated Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 20, 2007;
25(27):
4270 - 4277.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Vansteenkiste, P. N. Lara Jr, T. Le Chevalier, J.-L. Breton, P. Bonomi, A. B. Sandler, M. A. Socinski, C. Delbaldo, B. McHenry, D. Lebwohl, et al.
Phase II Clinical Trial of the Epothilone B Analog, Ixabepilone, in Patients With Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer Whose Tumors Have Failed First-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy
J. Clin. Oncol.,
August 10, 2007;
25(23):
3448 - 3455.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. D. Bonomi, L. Buckingham, and J. Coon
Selecting Patients for Treatment with Epidermal Growth Factor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors
Clin. Cancer Res.,
August 1, 2007;
13(15):
4606s - 4612s.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Cobo, D. Isla, B. Massuti, A. Montes, J. M. Sanchez, M. Provencio, N. Vinolas, L. Paz-Ares, G. Lopez-Vivanco, M. A. Munoz, et al.
Customizing Cisplatin Based on Quantitative Excision Repair Cross-Complementing 1 mRNA Expression: A Phase III Trial in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 1, 2007;
25(19):
2747 - 2754.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Gridelli, M. A. Bareschino, C. Schettino, A. Rossi, P. Maione, and F. Ciardiello
Erlotinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment: Current Status and Future Development
Oncologist,
July 1, 2007;
12(7):
840 - 849.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hong, S. H. Park, S. J. Choi, S. H. Lee, K. C. Lee, J.-I. Lee, S. Y. Kyung, C. H. An, S. P. Lee, J. W. Park, et al.
Nail Toxicity after Treatment with Docetaxel: A Prospective Analysis in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 21, 2007;
(2007)
hym042v1.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Sculier, J. Lafitte, J Lecomte, C. Alexopoulos, O Van Cutsem, V Giner, A Efremidis, M. Berchier, T Collon, A. Meert, et al.
A phase III randomised trial comparing sequential chemotherapy using cisplatin-based regimen and paclitaxel to cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
Ann. Onc.,
June 1, 2007;
18(6):
1037 - 1042.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. H. Cohen, J. Gootenberg, P. Keegan, and R. Pazdur
FDA Drug Approval Summary: Bevacizumab (Avastin(R)) Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel as First-Line Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Recurrent Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Oncologist,
June 1, 2007;
12(6):
713 - 718.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Di Maio, F. Perrone, P. Chiodini, C. Gallo, C. Camps, W. Schuette, E. Quoix, C.-M. Tsai, and C. Gridelli
Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Docetaxel Administered Once Every 3 Weeks Compared With Once Every Week Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
April 10, 2007;
25(11):
1377 - 1382.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y Ohe, Y Ohashi, K Kubota, T Tamura, K Nakagawa, S Negoro, Y Nishiwaki, N Saijo, Y Ariyoshi, M Fukuoka, et al.
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. Onc.,
February 1, 2007;
18(2):
317 - 323.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Lee, J.-Y. Han, D. H. Lee, H. Y. Kim, J. H. Chun, H. G. Lee, S. M. Yoon, S. Y. Lee, and J. S. Lee
A Phase II Trial of Docetaxel Plus Capecitabine in Patients with Previously Treated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
December 1, 2006;
36(12):
761 - 767.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. Fanucchi, F. V. Fossella, R. Belt, R. Natale, P. Fidias, D. P. Carbone, R. Govindan, L. E. Raez, F. Robert, M. Ribeiro, et al.
Randomized Phase II Study of Bortezomib Alone and Bortezomib in Combination With Docetaxel in Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
November 1, 2006;
24(31):
5025 - 5033.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Murillo Jr. and J. Koeller
Chemotherapy Given Near the End of Life by Community Oncologists for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Oncologist,
November 1, 2006;
11(10):
1095 - 1099.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Govindan, J. Crowley, L. Schwartzberg, P. Kennedy, C. Williams, B. Ekstrand, A. Sandler, D. Jaunakais, V. Bolejack, and R. Ghalie
Phase II Trial of Bexarotene Capsules in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Failure of Two or More Previous Therapies
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 20, 2006;
24(30):
4848 - 4854.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Nemunaitis, R. O. Dillman, P. O. Schwarzenberger, N. Senzer, C. Cunningham, J. Cutler, A. Tong, P. Kumar, B. Pappen, C. Hamilton, et al.
Phase II Study of Belagenpumatucel-L, a Transforming Growth Factor Beta-2 Antisense Gene-Modified Allogeneic Tumor Cell Vaccine in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 10, 2006;
24(29):
4721 - 4730.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Bepler, I. Kusmartseva, S. Sharma, A. Gautam, A. Cantor, A. Sharma, and G. Simon
RRM1 Modulated In Vitro and In Vivo Efficacy of Gemcitabine and Platinum in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 10, 2006;
24(29):
4731 - 4737.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. J. Weiss, C. Langer, R. Rosell, N. Hanna, F. Shepherd, L. H. Einhorn, B. Nguyen, S. Paul, P. McAndrews, P. A. Bunn Jr, et al.
Elderly Patients Benefit From Second-Line Cytotoxic Chemotherapy: A Subset Analysis of a Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Compared With Docetaxel in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 20, 2006;
24(27):
4405 - 4411.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Ohyanagi, F. Taguchi, T. Horai, K. Kasahara, Y. Takeda, K. Shibata, H. Shirosaki, and M. Nishio
Phase II Study of Combination Chemotherapy with Gemcitabine and Irinotecan in Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated with Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy Regimens
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
September 1, 2006;
36(9):
547 - 551.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bezjak, D. Tu, L. Seymour, G. Clark, A. Trajkovic, M. Zukin, J. Ayoub, S. Lago, R. de Albuquerque Ribeiro, A. Gerogianni, et al.
Symptom Improvement in Lung Cancer Patients Treated With Erlotinib: Quality of Life Analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21
J. Clin. Oncol.,
August 20, 2006;
24(24):
3831 - 3837.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Ramlau, R. Gervais, M. Krzakowski, J. von Pawel, E. Kaukel, R. P. Abratt, B. Dharan, K. M. Grotzinger, G. Ross, G. Dane, et al.
Phase III Study Comparing Oral Topotecan to Intravenous Docetaxel in Patients With Pretreated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 20, 2006;
24(18):
2800 - 2807.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Gandara and A. M. Davies
Oral Second-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Bottom Line
J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 20, 2006;
24(18):
2700 - 2701.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Ramalingam and A. B. Sandler
Salvage therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: factors influencing treatment selection.
Oncologist,
June 1, 2006;
11(6):
655 - 665.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y.-M. Chen, J.-F. Shih, R.-P. Perng, C.-M. Tsai, and J. Whang-Peng
A Randomized Trial of Different Docetaxel Schedules in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Who Failed Previous Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.
Chest,
April 1, 2006;
129(4):
1031 - 1038.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Camps, B. Massuti, A. Jimenez, I. Maestu, R. G. Gomez, D. Isla, J. L. Gonzalez, D. Almenar, A. Blasco, R. Rosell, et al.
Randomized phase III study of 3-weekly versus weekly docetaxel in pretreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Spanish Lung Cancer Group trial
Ann. Onc.,
March 1, 2006;
17(3):
467 - 472.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. C. Y. Tsao, C.-H. Chen, J. W. C. Chang, and C.-H. Lee
Weekly Short Infusion of Taxotere at a 4 Week Cycle in Chinese Patients with Advanced NSCLC Who Have Failed or Relapsed after the Frontline Platinum-based Non-Taxane Chemotherapy--A Phase II Trial
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 1, 2006;
36(2):
80 - 84.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A Frieze and J. S McCune
Current Status of Cetuximab for the Treatment of Patients with Solid Tumors
Ann. Pharmacother.,
February 1, 2006;
40(2):
241 - 250.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. H Nelson and C. R Dolder
Lapatinib: A Novel Dual Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor with Activity in Solid Tumors
Ann. Pharmacother.,
February 1, 2006;
40(2):
261 - 269.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Ikeda, R. Maruyama, T. Okamoto, F. Shoji, H. Wataya, and Y. Ichinose
Phase I Study of Amrubicin Hydrochloride and Cisplatin in Patients Previously Treated for Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 1, 2006;
36(1):
12 - 16.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. H. Rubin, J. Rothermel, F. Tesfaye, T. Chen, M. Hubert, Y.-Y. Ho, C.-H. Hsu, and A. M. Oza
Phase I Dose-Finding Study of Weekly Single-Agent Patupilone in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors
J. Clin. Oncol.,
December 20, 2005;
23(36):
9120 - 9129.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Dubey, P. Hutson, D. Alberti, R. Arzoomanian, K. Binger, J. Volkman, C. Feierabend, G. Wilding, and J. H Schiller
Phase I study of docetaxel and topotecan in patients with advanced malignancies
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice,
December 1, 2005;
11(4):
132 - 138.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.-L. Lai, C.-M. Tsai, C.-H. Chiu, G.-S. Wang, W.-J. Su, Y.-M. Chen, and R.-P. Perng
Phase II Randomized Trial of Tri-weekly Versus Days 1 and 8 Weekly Docetaxel as a Second-line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
December 1, 2005;
35(12):
700 - 706.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Schuette, S. Nagel, T. Blankenburg, C. Lautenschlaeger, K. Hans, E.-W. Schmidt, I. Dittrich, H. Schweisfurth, L. F. von Weikersthal, A. Raghavachar, et al.
Phase III Study of Second-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Weekly Compared With 3-Weekly Docetaxel
J. Clin. Oncol.,
November 20, 2005;
23(33):
8389 - 8395.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. L. Visbal, N. B. Leighl, R. Feld, and F. A. Shepherd
Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
Chest,
October 1, 2005;
128(4):
2933 - 2943.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Kris
How Today's Developments in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Will Change Tomorrow's Standards of Care
Oncologist,
October 1, 2005;
10(suppl_2):
23 - 29.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Csiki, J. D. Morrow, A. Sandler, Y. Shyr, J. Oates, M. K. Williams, T. Dang, D. P. Carbone, and D. H. Johnson
Targeting Cyclooxygenase-2 in Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Trial of Celecoxib and Docetaxel
Clin. Cancer Res.,
September 15, 2005;
11(18):
6634 - 6640.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. A. Shepherd, J. Rodrigues Pereira, T. Ciuleanu, E. H. Tan, V. Hirsh, S. Thongprasert, D. Campos, S. Maoleekoonpiroj, M. Smylie, R. Martins, et al.
Erlotinib in Previously Treated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med.,
July 14, 2005;
353(2):
123 - 132.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. H. Cohen, J. R. Johnson, Y.-C. Wang, R. Sridhara, and R. Pazdur
FDA Drug Approval Summary: Pemetrexed for Injection (Alimta(R)) for the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Oncologist,
June 1, 2005;
10(6):
363 - 368.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. K. Mohamed, S. Ramalingam, Y. Lin, W. Gooding, and C. P. Belani
Skin rash and good performance status predict improved survival with gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Ann. Onc.,
May 1, 2005;
16(5):
780 - 785.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Westeel, E. Quoix, D. Moro-Sibilot, M. Mercier, J.-L. Breton, D. Debieuvre, P. Richard, M.-A. Haller, B. Milleron, D. Herman, et al.
Randomized Study of Maintenance Vinorelbine in Responders With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J Natl Cancer Inst,
April 6, 2005;
97(7):
499 - 506.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Camps, E. Felip, J. M. Sanchez, B. Massuti, A. Artal, L. Paz-Ares, A. Carrato, V. Alberola, A. Blasco, J. Baselga, et al.
Phase II trial of the novel taxane BMS-184476 as second-line in non-small-cell lung cancer
Ann. Onc.,
April 1, 2005;
16(4):
597 - 601.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Dubey and J. H. Schiller
Three Emerging New Drugs for NSCLC: Pemetrexed, Bortezomib, and Cetuximab
Oncologist,
April 1, 2005;
10(4):
282 - 291.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Kindwall-Keller, G. A. Otterson, D. Young, A. Neki, T. Criswell, G. Nuovo, R. Soong, R. Diasio, and M. A. Villalona-Calero
Phase II Evaluation of Docetaxel-Modulated Capecitabine in Previously Treated Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
March 1, 2005;
11(5):
1870 - 1876.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Yamamoto, T. Tamura, H. Murakami, T. Shimoyama, H. Nokihara, Y. Ueda, I. Sekine, H. Kunitoh, Y. Ohe, T. Kodama, et al.
Randomized Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Study of Docetaxel: Dosing Based on Body-Surface Area Compared With Individualized Dosing Based on Cytochrome P450 Activity Estimated Using a Urinary Metabolite of Exogenous Cortisol
J. Clin. Oncol.,
February 20, 2005;
23(6):
1061 - 1069.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Pectasides, M. Pectasides, D. Farmakis, V. Kostopoulou, M. Nikolaou, A. Gaglia, M. Koumpou, N. Mylonakis, N. Xiros, T. Economopoulos, et al.
Comparison of docetaxel and docetaxel-irinotecan combination as second-line chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II trial
Ann. Onc.,
February 1, 2005;
16(2):
294 - 299.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. C. Lilenbaum, J. E. Herndon II, M. A. List, C. Desch, D. M. Watson, A. A. Miller, S. L. Graziano, M. C. Perry, W. Saville, P. Chahinian, et al.
Single-Agent Versus Combination Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (study 9730)
J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 1, 2005;
23(1):
190 - 196.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-Y. Douillard, R. Gervais, G. Dabouis, A. Le Groumellec, M. D'Arlhac, D. Spaeth, B. Coudert, D. Caillaud, A. Monnier, C. Clary, et al.
Sequential two-line strategy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: docetaxel-cisplatin versus vinorelbine-cisplatin followed by cross-over to single-agent docetaxel or vinorelbine at progression: final results of a randomised phase II study
Ann. Onc.,
January 1, 2005;
16(1):
81 - 89.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Gervais, A. Ducolone, J.-L. Breton, D. Braun, B. Lebeau, F. Vaylet, D. Debieuvre, J.-L. Pujol, J. Tredaniel, P. Clouet, et al.
Phase II randomised trial comparing docetaxel given every 3 weeks with weekly schedule as second-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Ann. Onc.,
January 1, 2005;
16(1):
90 - 96.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. T. Shah, M. G. Kris, W. Pao, L. B. Tyson, B. M. Pizzo, M.-H. Heinemann, L. Ben-Porat, D. L. Sachs, R. T. Heelan, and V. A. Miller
Practical Management of Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Gefitinib
J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 1, 2005;
23(1):
165 - 174.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Kakiuchi, Y. Daigo, N. Ishikawa, C. Furukawa, T. Tsunoda, S. Yano, K. Nakagawa, T. Tsuruo, N. Kohno, M. Fukuoka, et al.
Prediction of sensitivity of advanced non-small cell lung cancers to gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839)
Hum. Mol. Genet.,
December 15, 2004;
13(24):
3029 - 3043.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Hainsworth
Practical Aspects of Weekly Docetaxel Administration Schedules
Oncologist,
September 1, 2004;
9(5):
538 - 545.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Perez-Soler, A. Chachoua, L. A. Hammond, E. K. Rowinsky, M. Huberman, D. Karp, J. Rigas, G. M. Clark, P. Santabarbara, and P. Bonomi
Determinants of Tumor Response and Survival With Erlotinib in Patients With Non--Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
August 15, 2004;
22(16):
3238 - 3247.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. E. Raez, P. A. Cassileth, J. J. Schlesselman, K. Sridhar, S. Padmanabhan, E. Z. Fisher, P. A. Baldie, and E. R. Podack
Allogeneic Vaccination With a B7.1 HLA-A Gene-Modified Adenocarcinoma Cell Line in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 15, 2004;
22(14):
2800 - 2807.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Georgoulias, A. Ardavanis, A. Agelidou, M. Agelidou, V. Chandrinos, E. Tsaroucha, M. Toumbis, C. Kouroussis, K. Syrigos, A. Polyzos, et al.
Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin As Front-Line Treatment of Patients With Advanced Non--Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase III Trial
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 1, 2004;
22(13):
2602 - 2609.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Socinski
Cytotoxic Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Review of Standard Treatment Paradigms
Clin. Cancer Res.,
June 15, 2004;
10(12):
4210S - 4214S.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Giaccone
The Role of Gefitinib in Lung Cancer Treatment
Clin. Cancer Res.,
June 15, 2004;
10(12):
4233S - 4237S.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Gligorov and J. P. Lotz
Preclinical Pharmacology of the Taxanes: Implications of the Differences
Oncologist,
June 2, 2004;
9(suppl_2):
3 - 8.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Johnson, L. Fehrenbacher, W. F. Novotny, R. S. Herbst, J. J. Nemunaitis, D. M. Jablons, C. J. Langer, R. F. DeVore III, J. Gaudreault, L. A. Damico, et al.
Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 1, 2004;
22(11):
2184 - 2191.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. H. Park, J. C. Lee, C. H. Kim, B.-Y. Ryoo, and H. T. Kim
Gemcitabine and Vinorelbine as Second-line Therapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer after Treatment with Paclitaxel plus Platinum
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
May 1, 2004;
34(5):
245 - 249.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Hanna, F. A. Shepherd, F. V. Fossella, J. R. Pereira, F. De Marinis, J. von Pawel, U. Gatzemeier, T. C. Y. Tsao, M. Pless, T. Muller, et al.
Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy
J. Clin. Oncol.,
May 1, 2004;
22(9):
1589 - 1597.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. A. Miller, M. G. Kris, N. Shah, J. Patel, C. Azzoli, J. Gomez, L. M. Krug, W. Pao, N. Rizvi, B. Pizzo, et al.
Bronchioloalveolar Pathologic Subtype and Smoking History Predict Sensitivity to Gefitinib in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
March 15, 2004;
22(6):
1103 - 1109.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Spira and D. S. Ettinger
Multidisciplinary Management of Lung Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med.,
January 22, 2004;
350(4):
379 - 392.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. G. Pfister, D. H. Johnson, C. G. Azzoli, W. Sause, T. J. Smith, S. Baker Jr, J. Olak, D. Stover, J. R. Strawn, A. T. Turrisi, et al.
American Society of Clinical Oncology Treatment of Unresectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Guideline: Update 2003
J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 15, 2004;
22(2):
330 - 353.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kubota, K. Watanabe, H. Kunitoh, K. Noda, Y. Ichinose, N. Katakami, T. Sugiura, M. Kawahara, A. Yokoyama, S. Yokota, et al.
Phase III Randomized Trial of Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin Versus Vindesine Plus Cisplatin in Patients With Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Japanese Taxotere Lung Cancer Study Group
J. Clin. Oncol.,
January 15, 2004;
22(2):
254 - 261.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Santoro, R. Cavina, F. Latteri, P. A. Zucali, V. Ginanni, E. Campagnoli, B. Ferrari, E. Morenghi, V. Pedicini, M. Roncalli, et al.
Activity of a specific inhibitor, gefitinib (IressaTM, ZD1839), of epidermal growth factor receptor in refractory non-small-cell lung cancer
Ann. Onc.,
January 1, 2004;
15(1):
33 - 37.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Quoix, B. Lebeau, A. Depierre, A. Ducolone, D. Moro-Sibilot, B. Milleron, J. L. Breton, E. Lemarie, J. L. Pujol, J. M. Brechot, et al.
Randomised, multicentre phase II study assessing two doses of docetaxel (75 or 100 mg/m2) as second-line monotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer
Ann. Onc.,
January 1, 2004;
15(1):
38 - 44.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Herbst and P. A. Bunn Jr.
Targeting the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
December 1, 2003;
9(16):
5813 - 5824.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-Y. Han, D. H. Lee, H. Y. Kim, E.-A Kim, J. J. Lee, S. Y. Ju, E. H. Shin, and J. S. Lee
A Phase II Study of Weekly Irinotecan and Capecitabine in Patients with Previously Treated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
December 1, 2003;
9(16):
5909 - 5914.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Esteban, L. Gonzalez de Sande, Y. Fernandez, N. Corral, J Fra, I. Muniz, J. M. Vieitez, I. Palacio, J. L. Fernandez, E. Estrada, et al.
Prospective randomised phase II study of docetaxel versus paclitaxel administered weekly in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy
Ann. Onc.,
November 1, 2003;
14(11):
1640 - 1647.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Kris, R. B. Natale, R. S. Herbst, T. J. Lynch Jr, D. Prager, C. P. Belani, J. H. Schiller, K. Kelly, H. Spiridonidis, A. Sandler, et al.
Efficacy of Gefitinib, an Inhibitor of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase, in Symptomatic Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Trial
JAMA,
October 22, 2003;
290(16):
2149 - 2158.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.-Y. Song, W. S. Kim, K. Kim, C. W. Jung, Y. H. Im, H. J. Kim, W. K. Kang, H. G. Lee, O J. Kwon, C. H. Rhee, et al.
Vinorelbine, Ifosfamide, and Cisplatin Combination as Salvage Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol.,
October 1, 2003;
33(10):
509 - 513.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Fossella, J. R. Pereira, J. von Pawel, A. Pluzanska, V. Gorbounova, E. Kaukel, K. V. Mattson, R. Ramlau, A. Szczesna, P. Fidias, et al.
Randomized, Multinational, Phase III Study of Docetaxel Plus Platinum Combinations Versus Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The TAX 326 Study Group
J. Clin. Oncol.,
August 15, 2003;
21(16):
3016 - 3024.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. V. Scagliotti and A. T. Turrisi III
Docetaxel-Based Combined-Modality Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Oncologist,
August 1, 2003;
8(4):
361 - 374.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Weber, V. Petersen, B. Schmidt, L. Tyndale-Hines, T. Link, C. Peschel, and M. Schwaiger
Positron Emission Tomography in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Prediction of Response to Chemotherapy by Quantitative Assessment of Glucose Use
J. Clin. Oncol.,
July 15, 2003;
21(14):
2651 - 2657.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Fukuoka, S. Yano, G. Giaccone, T. Tamura, K. Nakagawa, J.-Y. Douillard, Y. Nishiwaki, J. Vansteenkiste, S. Kudoh, D. Rischin, et al.
Multi-Institutional Randomized Phase II Trial of Gefitinib for Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol.,
June 15, 2003;
21(12):
2237 - 2246.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. Krug, C. G. Azzoli, M. G. Kris, V. A. Miller, N. Z. Khokhar, W. Tong, M. S. Ginsberg, E. Venkatraman, L. Tyson, B. Pizzo, et al.
10-Propargyl-10-deazaaminopterin: An Antifolate with Activity in Patients with Previously Treated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res.,
June 1, 2003;
9(6):
2072 - 2078.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
