After a favorable experience with gemcitabine at a low dose in a prolonged infusion in combination with cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, here, we present the results from a phase II trial for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven malignant pleural mesothelioma, were chemo-naive, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, had normal hematopoietic liver and renal function, and gave informed consent. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 250 mg/m in a 6-h infusion on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin at 75 mg/m on day 2 of a 3-week cycle for four cycles, followed by two additional cycles without cisplatin. Seventy-eight patients (58 men, 20 women; age 33-82 years, median 58) were recruited into the trial. The histologic types were as follows: epitheloid 56 (71.8%); four sarcomatoid (5.1%); mixed 15 (19.2%); and mesothelioma, three not otherwise specified (3.8%). Grades 3-4 toxicity included two (2.6%) patients with anemia, 18 (23.1%) with neutropenia, and one with nausea/vomiting. Reversible thrombocytosis with platelets over 1000-10/l was recorded in 10 (12.8%) patients and grade 2 alopecia in 60 (76.9%). Four (5.1%) patients showed a complete response and 35 (44.9%) showed a partial response with a response rate of 39/78 (50%). Minimal response or stable disease was seen in 35 (44.9%), whereas only four (5.1%) patients progressed during treatment. Most patients reported symptomatic improvement with a higher or a stable quality of life score in 70 (89.7%) cases. The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months (confidence interval 6.9-9.0). The median overall survival was 17.0 months (confidence interval 14.7-19.2). One-year, two-year, and three-year survival rates were 67.3, 32.7, and 19.8%, respectively. Epitheloid histological type was the only statistically significant favorable prognostic factor for progression-free survival and overall survival. Because of the acceptable toxicity, remarkable activity, and reasonable cost, this treatment should be further explored.

We present experience from a phase II randomized clinical trial, comparing standard gemcitabine as monotherapy with low-dose gemcitabine in long infusion in a doublet with cisplatin at reduced dose for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and who are unfit for standard platin-based chemotherapy. Eligible patients had microscopically confirmed NSCLC in stage IIIB (wet) or IV, were chemo-naive, and were in poor performance status or presented with significant comorbidity. Standard treatment with gemcitabine, 1250 mg/m in 20-30 min on days 1 and 8 as monotherapy (arm A) was compared with low-dose gemcitabine in long infusion (200 mg/m in 6 h on day 1) and cisplatin at 60 mg/m on day 2 (arm B). Both treatment schedules were repeated every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or to a maximum of six cycles. A total of 112 patients (83 male, 29 female, median age 66 years) were randomized between arm A (57 patients) and B (55 patients). The two groups were balanced for prognostic factors. Fifty-three patients in arm A and 52 in arm B received at least one application of chemotherapy and were evaluable for toxicity and response. The median number of cycles was four and five for arms A and B, respectively. Except for grade 3 anemia (one patient in arm A and two in arm B), no other major toxicity was seen. Regarding response to treatment, arm B was superior: 1 complete response and 13 partial remissions (response rate 26.9%) as compared with five partial remissions (response rate 9.4%) in arm A (P<0.01). The median time to progression was 3.8 and 5.6 months, and the median survival was 4.3 and 6.8 months for arms A and B, respectively (P<0.05). Treatment with low-dose gemcitabine in long infusion and cisplatin at reduced dose has very low toxicity, is effective, was found to be superior to monotherapy with gemcitabine in standard doses, and is suitable for patients with NSCLC who cannot tolerate a standard platin-based doublet.

Malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC) is a serious event that has a major impact on patient's life quality. It occurs in 5-14% of all cancer patients and is the second most common neurological complication of cancer after brain metastasis. 1 The consequences of MSCC can be devastating, leaving the patient with pain, paralysis and incontinence. Most of the affected patients have an advanced cancer with limited survival. Even though it is estimated that up to one third will survive at least a year after MSCC, it is considered a medical emergency that requires immediate diagnostics and treatment. 2 EpidemiologySpine is the most common site of osseous metastases. It is involved in up to 40% of all cancer patients. 3 More or less every type of cancer can cause MSCC, the most common are breast cancer causing 29% of Radiol Oncol 2008; 42(1): 23-31. doi:10.2478/v10019-007-0035-4 Malignant spinal cord compression

Among attempts to delay development of resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), intercalated therapy has not been properly evaluated. In a phase II trial, 38 patients with EGFR mutated NSCLC in advanced stage were treated with 4 to 6 3-weekly cycles of intercalated schedule with gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2, days 1 and 4), cisplatin (75 mg/m2, day 2) and erlotinib (150 mg, days 5 – 15), followed by continuous erlotinib as maintenance. In addition to standard radiologic evaluation according to RECIST, PET/CT was done prior to treatment and at 6 months, using PERCIST as a method for assessment of response. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). In general, tolerance to treatment was good, even among 8 patients with performance status 2–3 and 13 patients with brain metastases; grade 4 toxicity included 2 cases of neutropenia and 4 thrombo-embolic events. Complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were seen in 15 (39.5%) and 17 (44.7%) cases, respectively. All cases of CR were confirmed also by PET/CT. Median PFS was 23.4 months and median overall survival (OS) was 38.3  months. After a median follow-up of 35 months, 8 patients are still in CR and on maintenance erlotinib. In conclusion, intercalated treatment for treatment-naive patients with EGFR activating mutations leads to excellent response rate and prolonged PFS and survival. Comparison of the intercalated schedule to monotherapy with TKIs in a randomized trial is warranted.

BackgroundPharmaco-dynamic separation of cytotoxic and targeted drugs might avoid their mutual antagonistic effect in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methods.Eligible patients were treatment-naive with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC. In addition, inclusion was limited to never-smokers or light smokers or, after 2010, to patients with activating epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Treatment started with 3-weekly cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin on days 1, 2 and 4 and erlotinib on days 5 to 15. After 4 to 6 cycles, patients continued with erlotinib maintenance.ResultsFifty-three patients were recruited into the trial: 24 prior to 2010 (of whom 9 were later found to be positive for EGFR mutations), and 29 EGFR mutation-positive patients recruited later. Unfavourable prognostic factors included stage IV disease (51 patients - 96%), performance status 2–3 (11 patients - 21%) and brain metastases (15 patients -28%). Grade 4 toxicity included 2 cases of neutropenia and 4 thrombo-embolic events. The 15 EGFR negative patients had 33% objective response rate, median progression-free survival (PFS) 6.0 months and median survival 7.6 months. Among 38 EGFR positive patients, complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) were seen in 16 (42.1%) and 17 (44.7%) cases, respectively. PET-CT scanning was performed in 30 patients and confirmed CR and PR in 16 (53.3%) and 9 (30.0%) cases, respectively. Median PFS for EGFR mutated patients was 21.2 months and median survival was 32.5 months.ConclusionsWhile patients with EGFR negative tumors do not benefit from addition of erlotinib, the intercalated schedule appears most promising for those with EGFR activating mutations.