Advertisement

American Journal of Cancer

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 223–244 | Cite as

Role of Non-Taxane-Containing Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

  • Michael Bergqvist
  • Svene Sörenson
  • Daniel Brattström
  • Tony Mok
  • Roger Henriksson
Review Article

Abstract

Treatment for advanced-stage NSCLC generally includes the use of systemic chemotherapy as well as biologic therapies (targeted therapy) at later stages of the disease. However, in general, NSCLC is moderately sensitive to the currently available cytotoxic drugs, so the intention of chemotherapeutic treatment in the advanced setting is mainly palliative. Several treatment regimens are available, but in the first-line setting, treatment traditions differ both within countries and between various parts of the world. The role of taxane-platinum chemotherapeutic combinations (mainly used in North America) has been questioned in the palliative setting since these combinations are known to cause neutropenia, skin and nail problems, as well as neurological toxicity.

This review aims to summarize the current knowledge about the role of non-taxane therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC, with a focus on gemcitabine, vinorelbine, etoposide, pemetrexed, irinotecan, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-inhibiting agents, angiogenesis inhibitors, and small molecules. The compilation of literature in the present review indicates that the use of non-taxane treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC has an anti-tumor effect that is not different from that which can be seen with various taxane combinations. Furthermore, the combination of cisplatin with gemcitabine or vinorelbine seems to be a most compelling regimen in the first-line setting because of its modest toxicity (when administered by experienced staff), favorable clinical response, and relatively low drug cost. It is also clear that the novel therapies (EGFR inhibitors and inhibitors of angiogenesis) that have been approved so far will be of great clinical value; however, their use will be restricted to small, well defined, subpopulations of patients. The great challenge now is to define the populations benefiting from these novel therapies.

Keywords

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Paclitaxel Bevacizumab Docetaxel Gemcitabine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review.

M. Bergqvist, S. Sörenson, D. Brattström, and T. Mok declare no potential conflicts of interest concerning the present article.

R. Henriksson collaborates with AstraZeneca Oncology on a part-time basis as a medical advisor.

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 74–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parker D, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, et al. Cancer incidence in five continents. Vol. 143. Cancer IAfRo (editor). Lyon: IARC scientific publications, 1997Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2002; 52: 23–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jablons DM, Cheng SJ, Carolyn Clary-Macy RN, et al. 1st International Lung Cancer Conference in Beijing, October 27–30, 2002. Lung Cancer 2003; 41: 237–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 1999; 49: 33–64, 1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chu Q, Vincent M, Logan D, et al. Taxanes as first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and practice guideline. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 355–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hotta K, Matsuo K, Ueoka H, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing cisplatin to carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 3852–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burkes RL, Shepherd FA. Gemcitabine in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 1995; 6Suppl. 3: S57–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abbruzzese JL, Grunewald R, Weeks EA, et al. A phase I clinical, plasma, and cellular pharmacology study of gemcitabine. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 491–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pollera CF, Ceribelli A, Crecco M, et al. Weekly gemcitabine in advanced or metastatic solid tumors: a clinical phase I study. Invest New Drugs 1994; 12: 111–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gwyther SJ, Aapro MS, Hatty SR, et al. Results of an independent oncology review board of pivotal clinical trials of gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Drugs 1999; 10: 693–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson H, Hopwood P, Stephens RJ, et al. 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. Br J Cancer 2000; 83: 447–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gridelli C, Perrone F, Gallo C, et al. Chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) phase III randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 362–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sederholm C, Hillerdal G, Lamberg K, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus single-agent gemcitabine in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8380–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vansteenkiste JF, Vandebroek JE, Nackaerts KL, et al. Clinical-benefit response in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre prospective randomized phase III study of single agent gemcitabine versus cisplatin-vindesine. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 1221–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alberola V, Camps C, Provencio M, et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus a cisplatin-based triplet versus nonplatinum sequential doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Spanish Lung Cancer Group phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3207–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cardenal F, Lopez-Cabrerizo MP, Anton A, et al. Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine-cisplatin versus etoposide-cisplatin in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 12–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cornelia P, Frasci G, Panza N, et al. Randomized trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine with either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: interim analysis of a phase III trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1451–7Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crino L, Scagliotti GV, Ricci S, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 3522–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gebbia V, Galetta D, Caruso M, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine and cisplatin versus ifosfamide+gemcitabine followed by vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine and cisplatin followed by ifosfamide and gemcitabine in stage IIIB-IV non small cell lung carcinoma: a prospective randomized phase III trial of the Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale. Lung Cancer 2003; 39: 179–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martoni A, Marino A, Sperandi F, et al. Multicentre randomized phase III study comparing the same dose and schedule of cisplatin plus the same schedule of vinorelbine or gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 81–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sandler AB, Nemunaitis J, Denham C, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 122–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scagliotti GV, De Marinis F, Rinaldi M, et al. Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 4285–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 92–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smit EF, vanMeerbeeck JP, Lianes P, et al. Three-arm randomized study of two cisplatin-based regimens and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group: EORTC 08975. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3909–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wachters FM, VanPutten JW, Kramer H, et al. First-line gemcitabine with cisplatin or epirubicin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial. Br J Cancer 2003; 89: 1192–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zatloukal P, Petruzelka L, Zemanova M, et al. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs gemcitabine plus carboplatin in stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial. Lung Cancer 2003; 41: 321–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Danson S, Middleton MR, O’Byrne KJ, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine and carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer 2003; 98: 542–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grigorescu AC, Draghici IN, Nitipir C, et al. Gemcitabine (GEM) and carboplatin (CBDCA) versus cisplatin (CDDP) and vinblastine (VLB) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages III and IV: a phase III randomized trial. Lung Cancer 2002; 37: 9–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rudd RM, Gower NH, Spiro SG, et al. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized study of the London Lung Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 142–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frasci G, Lorusso V, Panza N, et al. Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine yields better survival outcome than vinorelbine alone in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) phase III trial. Lung Cancer 2001; 34 Suppl. 4: S65–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Georgoulias V, Ardavanis A, Tsiafaki X, et al. Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2937–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gridelli C, Gallo C, Shepherd FA, et al. Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3025–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kosmidis P, Mylonakis N, Nicolaides C, et al. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus gemcitabine plus paclitaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 3578–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Laack E, Dickgreber N, Muller T, et al. Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine and vinorelbine versus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: from the German and Swiss Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2348–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pujol JL, Breton JL, Gervais R, et al. Gemcitabine-docetaxel versus cisplatin-vinorelbine in advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III study addressing the case for cisplatin. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 602–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sculier JP, Lafitte JJ, Lecomte J, et al. A three-arm phase III randomized trial comparing combinations of platinum derivatives, ifosfamide and/or gemcitabine in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2002; 13: 874–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Le Chevalier T, Scagliotti G, Natale R, et al. Efficacy of gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy compared with other platinum containing regimens in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of survival outcomes. Lung Cancer 2005; 47: 69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosell R, Crino L, Danenberg K, et al. Targeted therapy in combination with gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 2003Aug; 30(4 Suppl. 10): 19–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Carrato A, Rosell R, Camps C, et al. Modified weekly regimen with vinorelbine as a single agent in unresectable non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 1997; 17: 261–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Furuse K, Kubota K, Kawahara M, et al. A phase II study of vinorelbine, a new derivative of vinca alkaloid, for previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Japan Vinorelbine Lung Cancer Study Group. Lung Cancer 1994; 11: 385–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gridelli C, Perrone F, Gallo C, et al. Vinorelbine is well tolerated and active in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a two-stage phase II study. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33: 392–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Veronesi A, Crivellari D, Magri MD, et al. Vinorelbine treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with special emphasis on elderly patients. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A: 1809–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gridelli C. The ELVIS trial: a phase III study of single-agent vinorelbine as first-line treatment in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study. Oncologist 2001; 6 Suppl. 1: 4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Crawford J, O’Rourke M, Schiller JH, et al. Randomized trial of vinorelbine compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2774–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Marty M, Fumoleau P, Adenis A, et al. Oral vinorelbine pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability study in patients with solid tumors. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 1643–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gebbia V, Puozzo C. Oral versus intravenous vinorelbine: clinical safety profile. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2005; 4: 915–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jassem J, Ramlau R, Karnicka-Mlodkowska H, et al. A multicenter randomized phase II study of oral vs intravenous vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 1375–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kanard A, Jatoi A, Castillo R, et al. Oral vinorelbine for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in elderly patients: a phase II trial of efficacy and toxicity. Lung Cancer 2004; 43: 345–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gridelli C, Manegold C, Mali P, et al. Oral vinorelbine given as monotherapy to advanced, elderly NSCLC patients: a multicentre phase II trial. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40: 2424–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lena MD, Ramlau R, Hansen O, et al. Phase II trial of oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin followed by consolidation therapy with oral vinorelbine in advanced NSCLC. Lung Cancer 2005; 48: 129–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Depierre A, Chastang C, Quoix E, et al. Vinorelbine versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 1994; 5: 37–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Le Chevalier T, Brisgand D, Douillard JY, et al. Randomized study of vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vindesine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a European multicenter trial including 612 patients. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 360–7Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wozniak AJ, Crowley JJ, Balcerzak SP, et al. Randomized trial comparing cisplatin with cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2459–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Le Chevalier T, Brisgand D, Soria JC, et al. Long term analysis of survival in the European randomized trial comparing vinorelbine/cisplatin to vindesine/cisplatin and vinorelbine alone in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Oncologist 2001; 6 Suppl. 1: 8–11Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Colucci G, Gebbia V, Galetta D, et al. Cisplatin and vinorelbine followed by ifosfamide plus epirubicin vs the opposite sequence in advanced unresectable stage III and metastatic stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized study of the Southern Italy Oncology Group (GOIM). Br J Cancer 1997; 76: 1509–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fossella F, Pereira JR, vonPawel J, 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 2003; 21: 3016–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gebbia V, Galetta D, Riccardi F, et al. Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin plus vindesine and mitomycin C in stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung carcinoma: a prospective randomized study. Lung Cancer 2002; 37: 179–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kelly K, Crowley J, Bunn Jr PA, et al. Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 3210–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Martoni A, Guaraldi M, Piana E, et al. Multicenter randomized clinical trial on high-dose epirubicin plus cis-platinum versus vinorelbine plus cis-platinum in advanced non small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 1998; 22: 31–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Souquet PJ, Tan EH, Rodrigues Pereira J, et al. GLOB-1: a prospective randomized clinical phase III trial comparing vinorelbine-cisplatin with vinorelbine-ifos-famide-cisplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2002; 13: 1853–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cornelia P. Phase III trial of cisplatin/gemcitabine with or without vinorelbine or paclitaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 2001; 28: 7–10Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pérol M, Guerin JC, ThomasP, et al. Multicenter randomized trial comparing cisplatin-mitomycin-vinorelbine versus cisplatin-mitomycin-vindesine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Groupe Francais de Pneumo-Cancerologie. Lung Cancer 1996; 14: 119–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tan EH, Szczesna A, Krzakowski M, et al. Randomized study of vinorelbine: gemcitabine versus vinorelbine: carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2005; 49: 233–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Helbekkmo N, Sundstroem SH, Aaseboe U, et al. A randomized comparison of carboplatin/vinorelbine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract no. 7033]. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2006; 24: 7033Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cornelia P, Frasci G, Carnicelli P, et al. Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 489–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Frasci G, Lorusso V, Panza N, et al. Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine alone in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2529–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stathopoulos GP, Veslemes M, Georgatou N, et al. Front-line paclitaxel-vi-norelbine versus paclitaxel-carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial. Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1048–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fossella FV, DeVore R, Kerr RN, et al. 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. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2354–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    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. BMJ 1995; 311: 899–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Loike JD. VP16-213 and podophyllotoxin: a study on the relationship between chemical structure and biological activity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1982; 7: 103–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Rosso R, Salvati F, Ardizzoni A, et al. Etoposide versus etoposide plus high-dose cisplatin in the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: results of a prospective randomized FONICAP trial. Italian Lung Cancer Task Force. Cancer 1990; 66: 130–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Burchenal J, Lokys L, Turkevich J, et al. Rationale of combination chemotherapy. New York: Academic Press, 1980Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Roth BJ, Johnson DH, Einhorn LH, et al. Randomized study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus etoposide and cisplatin versus alternation of these two regimens in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Southeastern Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 282–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Fukuoka M, Furuse K, Saijo N, et al. Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus cisplatin and etoposide versus alternation of these regimens in small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1991; 83: 855–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Longeval E, Klastersky J. Combination chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide in bronchogenic squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma: a study by the EORTC lung cancer working party (Belgium). Cancer 1982; 50: 2751–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Perng RP, Chen YM, Ming-Liu J, et al. Gemcitabine versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer in a phase II randomized study. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2097–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bonomi P, Kim K, Fairclough D, et al. Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 623–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Belani CP, Lee JS, Socinski MA, et al. Randomized phase III trial comparing cisplatin-etoposide to carboplatin-paclitaxel in advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1069–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mok TS, Zee B, Chan AT, et al. A phase II study of gemcitabine plus oral etoposide in the treatment of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer 2000; 89: 543–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mok TS, Lam KC, Lee C, et al. Phase II randomized study comparing the toxicity profile of gemcitabine plus cisplatin with gemcitabine plus oral etoposide in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Oncology 2005; 68: 485–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Felip E, Massuti B, Camps C, et al. Superiority of sequential versus concurrent administration of paclitaxel with etoposide in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: comparison of two phase II trials. Clin Cancer Res 1998; 4: 2723–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ando M, Eguchi K, Shinkai T, et al. Phase I study of sequentially administered topoisomerase I inhibitor (irinotecan) and topoisomerase II inhibitor (etoposide) for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 1997; 76: 1494–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Negoro S, Masuda N, Takada Y, et al. Randomized phase III trial of irinotecan combined with cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2003; 88: 335–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Postmus P, Green MR. Overview of MTA in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 1999; 26: 31–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    McDonald A, Vasey PA, Adams L, et al. A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of LY231514, the multitargeted antifolate. Clin Cancer Res 1998; 4: 605–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Rinaldi D, Burris H, Dorr F, et al. Initial phase I evaluation of the novel thymidylate synthase inhibitor LY231514, using the modified continual reassessment method for dose escalation. J Clin Oncol 1995; 17: 2842–50Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Arnold A, et al. Phase II study of pemetrexed disodium, a multitargeted antifolate, and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: a study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Cancer 2001; 92: 595–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zinner RG, Fossella FV, Gladish GW, et al. Phase II study of pemetrexed in combination with carboplatin in the first-line treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 2005; 104: 2449–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Scagliotti GV, Kortsik C, Dark GG, et al. Pemetrexed combined with oxaliplatin or carboplatin as first-line treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 690–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Clarke SJ, Boyer MJ, Millward M, et al. A phase I/II study of pemetrexed and vinorelbine in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2005; 49: 401–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    LeChevalier T. Gemcitabine and pemetrexed (Alimta) in thoracic cancers: present and future perspectives: introduction and current controversies. Semin Oncol 2002; 29: 43–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Hanna N, Shepherd FA, Fossella FV, 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 2004; 22: 1589–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nat Med 2004; 10: 789–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Cerny T, Barnes DM, Hasleton P, et al. Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGF-R) in human lung tumors. Br J Cancer 1986; 54: 265–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Rusch V, Klimstra D, Venkatraman E, et al. Overexpression of the epidermal growth factor receptor and its ligand transforming growth factor alpha is frequent in resectable non-small cell lung cancer but does not predict tumor progression. Clin Cancer Res 1997; 3: 515–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Slichenmyer WJ, Fry DW. Anticancer therapy targeting the erbB family of receptor tyrosine kinases. Semin Oncol 2001; 28: 67–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Volm M, Rittgen W, Drings P. Prognostic value of ERBB-1, VEGF, cyclin A, FOS, JUN and MYC in patients with squamous cell lung carcinomas. Br J Cancer 1998; 77: 663–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Rosell R, Daniel C, Ramlau R, et al. Randomized phase II study of cetuximab in combination with cisplatin (C) and vinorelbine (V) vs. CV alone in the first line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-expressing advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2004; 22: 7012Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Pao W, Miller V, Zakowski M, et al. EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from “never smokers” and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004; 101: 13306–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Hirsch FR, Varella-Garcia M, McCoy J, et al. Increased epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization associates with increased sensitivity to gefitinib in patients with bronchi-oloalveolar carcinoma subtypes: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 6838–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Giaccone G, Herbst RS, Manegold C, et al. Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial: INTACT 1. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 777–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Janne PA, Engelman JA, Johnson BE. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for treatment and tumor biology. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 3227–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Silvestri GA, Rivera MP. Targeted therapy for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the epidermal growth factor receptor antagonists. Chest 2005; 128: 3975–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Herbst RS, Giaccone G, Schiller JH, et al. Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial: INTACT 2. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 785–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Herbst RS, Prager D, Hermann R, et al. TRIBUTE: a phase III trial of erlotinib hydrochloride (OSI-774) combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 5892–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Gatzemeier U, Pluzanska A, Szczesna A, et al. Results of a phase III trial of erlotinib (OSI-774) combined with cisplatin and gemcitabine (GC) chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract no. 7010]. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(14 Suppl.): 617Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 123–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Giaccone G. Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 3235–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC, et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 2004; 304: 1497–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Johnson DH, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny WF, 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 2004; 2: 2184–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sandier A, Gray R, Brahmer J, et al. Randomized phase II/III trial of paclitaxel (P) plus carboplatin (C) with or without bevacizumab (NSC#704865) in patients with advanced non squamous non small cell lung cancer [abstract]. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial-E4599. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2005; 23: LBA4Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Herbst RS, Johnson DH, Mininberg E, et al. Phase I/II trial evaluating the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody bevacizumab in combination with the HER-1/epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib for patients with recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2544–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Jain RK, Duda DG, Clark JW, et al. Lessons from phase III clinical trials on anti-VEGF therapy for cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2006; 3: 24–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Pfister DG, Johnson DH, Azzoli CG, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology treatment of unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer guideline: update 2003. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 330–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Bergqvist
    • 1
  • Svene Sörenson
    • 2
  • Daniel Brattström
    • 3
  • Tony Mok
    • 4
  • Roger Henriksson
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Oncology, Entrance 78Uppsala University HospitalUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Pulmonary MedicineLinköping University HospitalLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.Department of OncologyRadiumhemmet Karolinska University HospitalSolnaSweden
  4. 4.Department of Clinical OncologySchool of Public Health, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong KongHong Kong
  5. 5.Department of Oncology Umeå University HospitalUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations