Gemcitabine versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer in a phase II randomized study

Reury Perng Perng, Yuh Min Chen, Jacqueline Ming-Liu, Chun Ming Tsai, Wei Chun Lin, Kuang Yao Yang, Jacqueline Whang-Peng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

146 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: A phase II randomized study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine (GEM) versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide (EP) in Chinese patients with inoperable (stage III or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: From March 1995 to February 1996, 53 patients were enrolled onto the study: 27 onto the GEM arm and 26 onto the EP arm. In the GEM arm, gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 was given as a 30-minute intravenous (IV) infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. In the EP arm, cisplatin 80 mg/m2 was given on day 1 and etoposide 80 mg/m2 was given on days 1, 2, and 3 of each 28-day cycle. Results: Twenty-six patients are assessable for treatment response on the GEM arm and 24 on the EP arm. Five patients (19.2%) on the GEM arm and five patients (20.8%) on the EP arm achieved a partial response (PR). No complete responses were attained on either treatment arm. All patients enrolled onto the study were eligible for toxicity assessment. The main toxicities were myelosuppression and vomiting, which included World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (3.7%), thrombocytopenia (7.4%), anemia (7.4%), and nausea/vomiting (3.7%) on the GEM arm, and WHO grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (30.8%), thrombocytopenia (7.7%), anemia (15.4%), and nausea/vomiting (34.6%) on the EP arm. The median survival time was 37 weeks on the GEM arm and 48 weeks on the EP arm. Conclusion: Gemcitabine is a well-tolerated chemotherapeutic agent for NSCLC. The antitumor activity was promising, with a 19.2% single-drug response rate, when compared with EP combination chemotherapy, which had a response rate of 20.8%. The safety profile is better than that of EP treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2097-2102
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume15
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

gemcitabine
Etoposide
Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma
Cisplatin
Vomiting
Leukopenia
Thrombocytopenia
Nausea
Anemia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Gemcitabine versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer in a phase II randomized study. / Perng, Reury Perng; Chen, Yuh Min; Ming-Liu, Jacqueline; Tsai, Chun Ming; Lin, Wei Chun; Yang, Kuang Yao; Whang-Peng, Jacqueline.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 15, No. 5, 01.01.1997, p. 2097-2102.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Perng, Reury Perng ; Chen, Yuh Min ; Ming-Liu, Jacqueline ; Tsai, Chun Ming ; Lin, Wei Chun ; Yang, Kuang Yao ; Whang-Peng, Jacqueline. / Gemcitabine versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer in a phase II randomized study. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1997 ; Vol. 15, No. 5. pp. 2097-2102.
@article{0bbf595447534fc0b066f3aedd9a5dfa,
title = "Gemcitabine versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer in a phase II randomized study",
abstract = "Purpose: A phase II randomized study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine (GEM) versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide (EP) in Chinese patients with inoperable (stage III or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: From March 1995 to February 1996, 53 patients were enrolled onto the study: 27 onto the GEM arm and 26 onto the EP arm. In the GEM arm, gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 was given as a 30-minute intravenous (IV) infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. In the EP arm, cisplatin 80 mg/m2 was given on day 1 and etoposide 80 mg/m2 was given on days 1, 2, and 3 of each 28-day cycle. Results: Twenty-six patients are assessable for treatment response on the GEM arm and 24 on the EP arm. Five patients (19.2{\%}) on the GEM arm and five patients (20.8{\%}) on the EP arm achieved a partial response (PR). No complete responses were attained on either treatment arm. All patients enrolled onto the study were eligible for toxicity assessment. The main toxicities were myelosuppression and vomiting, which included World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (3.7{\%}), thrombocytopenia (7.4{\%}), anemia (7.4{\%}), and nausea/vomiting (3.7{\%}) on the GEM arm, and WHO grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (30.8{\%}), thrombocytopenia (7.7{\%}), anemia (15.4{\%}), and nausea/vomiting (34.6{\%}) on the EP arm. The median survival time was 37 weeks on the GEM arm and 48 weeks on the EP arm. Conclusion: Gemcitabine is a well-tolerated chemotherapeutic agent for NSCLC. The antitumor activity was promising, with a 19.2{\%} single-drug response rate, when compared with EP combination chemotherapy, which had a response rate of 20.8{\%}. The safety profile is better than that of EP treatment.",
author = "Perng, {Reury Perng} and Chen, {Yuh Min} and Jacqueline Ming-Liu and Tsai, {Chun Ming} and Lin, {Wei Chun} and Yang, {Kuang Yao} and Jacqueline Whang-Peng",
year = "1997",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.1997.15.5.2097",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "2097--2102",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gemcitabine versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer in a phase II randomized study

AU - Perng, Reury Perng

AU - Chen, Yuh Min

AU - Ming-Liu, Jacqueline

AU - Tsai, Chun Ming

AU - Lin, Wei Chun

AU - Yang, Kuang Yao

AU - Whang-Peng, Jacqueline

PY - 1997/1/1

Y1 - 1997/1/1

N2 - Purpose: A phase II randomized study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine (GEM) versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide (EP) in Chinese patients with inoperable (stage III or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: From March 1995 to February 1996, 53 patients were enrolled onto the study: 27 onto the GEM arm and 26 onto the EP arm. In the GEM arm, gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 was given as a 30-minute intravenous (IV) infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. In the EP arm, cisplatin 80 mg/m2 was given on day 1 and etoposide 80 mg/m2 was given on days 1, 2, and 3 of each 28-day cycle. Results: Twenty-six patients are assessable for treatment response on the GEM arm and 24 on the EP arm. Five patients (19.2%) on the GEM arm and five patients (20.8%) on the EP arm achieved a partial response (PR). No complete responses were attained on either treatment arm. All patients enrolled onto the study were eligible for toxicity assessment. The main toxicities were myelosuppression and vomiting, which included World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (3.7%), thrombocytopenia (7.4%), anemia (7.4%), and nausea/vomiting (3.7%) on the GEM arm, and WHO grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (30.8%), thrombocytopenia (7.7%), anemia (15.4%), and nausea/vomiting (34.6%) on the EP arm. The median survival time was 37 weeks on the GEM arm and 48 weeks on the EP arm. Conclusion: Gemcitabine is a well-tolerated chemotherapeutic agent for NSCLC. The antitumor activity was promising, with a 19.2% single-drug response rate, when compared with EP combination chemotherapy, which had a response rate of 20.8%. The safety profile is better than that of EP treatment.

AB - Purpose: A phase II randomized study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine (GEM) versus the combination of cisplatin and etoposide (EP) in Chinese patients with inoperable (stage III or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: From March 1995 to February 1996, 53 patients were enrolled onto the study: 27 onto the GEM arm and 26 onto the EP arm. In the GEM arm, gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 was given as a 30-minute intravenous (IV) infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. In the EP arm, cisplatin 80 mg/m2 was given on day 1 and etoposide 80 mg/m2 was given on days 1, 2, and 3 of each 28-day cycle. Results: Twenty-six patients are assessable for treatment response on the GEM arm and 24 on the EP arm. Five patients (19.2%) on the GEM arm and five patients (20.8%) on the EP arm achieved a partial response (PR). No complete responses were attained on either treatment arm. All patients enrolled onto the study were eligible for toxicity assessment. The main toxicities were myelosuppression and vomiting, which included World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (3.7%), thrombocytopenia (7.4%), anemia (7.4%), and nausea/vomiting (3.7%) on the GEM arm, and WHO grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (30.8%), thrombocytopenia (7.7%), anemia (15.4%), and nausea/vomiting (34.6%) on the EP arm. The median survival time was 37 weeks on the GEM arm and 48 weeks on the EP arm. Conclusion: Gemcitabine is a well-tolerated chemotherapeutic agent for NSCLC. The antitumor activity was promising, with a 19.2% single-drug response rate, when compared with EP combination chemotherapy, which had a response rate of 20.8%. The safety profile is better than that of EP treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030900495&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030900495&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.5.2097

DO - 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.5.2097

M3 - Article

C2 - 9164223

AN - SCOPUS:0030900495

VL - 15

SP - 2097

EP - 2102

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 5

ER -