The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Lung Cancer Working Party conducted a randomized trial comparing cisplatin (CDDP; 120 mg/m2, day 1) and carboplatin (CBDCA; 325 mg/m2, day 1) in combination with etoposide (VP16; 100 mg/m2, days 1, 2, and 3) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two hundred twenty-eight patients were eligible for survival and 202 assessable for response. We obtained 27 of 100 objective responses (ORs; 27%) in the CDDP arm and 16 of 102 (16%) in the CBDCA arm (P = .07). There was no significant difference in survival. Toxicity, consisting mainly of myelosuppression and renal function impairment, was significantly increased in the patients receiving the CDDP treatment. We conclude that CDDP plus VP16 was more active but also more toxic than CBDCA plus VP16 in advanced NSCLC.

No abstract

We conducted a randomized trial comparing a high (120 mg/m2 day 1) v a standard (60 mg/m2 day 1) dose of cisplatin in combination with etoposide (120 mg/m2 days 3, 5, and 7) in advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Two hundred forty-one patients were evaluable for survival and 207 for response. We obtained a 25% objective response rate in the standard-dose arm and 29% in the high-dose arm; this difference was not statistically significant. There was no significant improvement in the overall survival or survival of responders with the high-dose regimen. However, toxicity (mainly myelosuppression) was significantly increased in the patients receiving the higher dose of cisplatin. An analysis of prognostic factors showed that disease progression, loss of body weight, performance status, and prior therapy were predictive parameters of survival.

We conducted a randomized study comparing the survival after treatment with cisplatin (120 mg/m2) or cisplatin plus etoposide (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, and 3) in 162 evaluable patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). No statistically significant difference in survival was detected; the median survival was 26 and 22 weeks, respectively, for patients receiving cisplatin and for those receiving cisplatin plus etoposide. The objective response rate was 19% for cisplatin and 26% for the combination; the corresponding response rates were 17% and 43% in patients with limited disease. No significant differences were detected between the two study arms as far as toxicity was concerned, except for alopecia and granulocytopenia, which occurred more frequently in patients treated with cisplatin plus etoposide.

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is the only tumor marker of proven, although limited, value for the management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors have prospectively assessed the potential value of a new tumor marker, squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC Ag), in a large series of patients with advanced lung cancer (LC). Squamous cell carcinoma antigen and CEA levels were measured in 382 healthy persons (N1 group), 90 patients with benign pulmonary diseases, and 291 patients with LC (129 with SCLC and 162 with NSCLC, including 96 with squamous LC). Carcinoembryonic antigen levels were higher in smokers than in nonsmokers, but smoking habits did not influence the serum concentrations of SCC Ag. Elevated values (above the 95th percentiles of N1, i.e., 7.5 ng/ml for CEA and 3.0 ng/ml for SCC Ag) were observed in 11.1% of patients with benign pulmonary diseases for both markers. Carcinoembryonic antigen was more sensitive than SCC Ag, even for squamous LC (56% versus 35% of elevated values, P less than 0.01). The specificity toward squamous LC was better, however, for SCC Ag, for which levels were elevated in only 8.5% of SCLC and in 18% of other forms of NSCLC, compared with 49% and 55%, respectively, for CEA. Moreover, measurement of SCC Ag and CEA levels did not give redundant information: thus, in squamous LC and SCC Ag level was elevated in 32% of the patients with a normal CEA level, increasing from 57% to 71% the proportion of patients with at least one elevated marker. Lastly, elevation of CEA or SCC Ag levels was an adverse prognostic factor in squamous LC (P = 0.05 for CEA; P = 0.07 for SCC Ag). In conclusion, SCC Ag appears to be worthwhile of further investigation in squamous LC. The authors found that this new marker provided additional information on CEA and that it was more specific for squamous LC than CEA.