Combination Use in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: In the Gemzar plus cisplatin versus cisplatin study, dose adjustments occurred with 35% of Gemzar injections and 17% of cisplatin injections on the combination arm, versus 6% on the cisplatin–only arm. Dose adjustments were required in greater than 90% of patients on the combination, versus 16% on cisplatin. Study discontinuations for possibly drug–related adverse events occurred in 15% of patients on the combination arm and 8% of patients on the cisplatin arm. With a median of 4 cycles of Gemzar plus cisplatin treatment, 94 of 262 patients (36%) experienced a total of 149 hospitalizations due to possibly treatment–related adverse events. With a median of 2 cycles of cisplatin treatment, 61 of 260 patients (23%) experienced 78 hospitalizations due to possibly treatment–related adverse events.
In the Gemzar plus cisplatin versus etoposide plus cisplatin study, dose adjustments occurred with 20% of Gemzar injections and 16% of cisplatin injections in the Gemzar plus cisplatin arm compared with 20% of etoposide injections and 15% of cisplatin injections in the etoposide plus cisplatin arm. With a median of 5 cycles of Gemzar plus cisplatin treatment, 15 of 69 patients (22%) experienced 15 hospitalizations due to possibly treatment–related adverse events. With a median of 4 cycles of etoposide plus cisplatin treatment, 18 of 66 patients (27%) experienced 22 hospitalizations due to possibly treatment–related adverse events. In patients who completed more than one cycle, dose adjustments were reported in 81% of the Gemzar plus cisplatin patients, compared with 68% on the etoposide plus cisplatin arm. Study discontinuations for possibly drug–related adverse events occurred in 14% of patients on the Gemzar plus cisplatin arm and in 8% of patients on the etoposide plus cisplatin arm. The incidence of myelosuppression was increased in frequency with Gemzar plus cisplatin treatment (~90%) compared to that with the Gemzar monotherapy (~60%). With combination therapy Gemzar dosage adjustments for hematologic toxicity were required more often while cisplatin dose adjustments were less frequently required.
Table 9 presents the safety data from the Gemzar plus cisplatin versus cisplatin study in non–small cell lung cancer. The NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) were used. The two–drug combination was more myelosuppressive with 4 (1.5%) possibly treatment–related deaths, including 3 resulting from myelosuppression with infection and one case of renal failure associated with pancytopenia and infection. No deaths due to treatment were reported on the cisplatin arm. Nine cases of febrile neutropenia were reported on the combination therapy arm compared to 2 on the cisplatin arm. More patients required RBC and platelet transfusions on the Gemzar plus cisplatin arm.
Myelosuppression occurred more frequently on the combination arm, and in 4 possibly treatment–related deaths myelosuppression was observed. Sepsis was reported in 4% of patients on the Gemzar plus cisplatin arm compared to 1% on the cisplatin arm. Platelet transfusions were required in 21% of patients on the combination arm and <1% of patients on the cisplatin arm. Hemorrhagic events occurred in 14% of patients on the combination arm and 4% on the cisplatin arm. However, severe hemorrhagic events were rare. Red blood cell transfusions were required in 39% of the patients on the Gemzar |
