• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.14
• /
• pp.5963-5966
• /
• 2015

Background: This analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of gemcitabine and nedaplatin in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of a combination of gemcitabine and nedaplatin with attention to response and safety for patients with non-small cell lung cancer were identified using a predefined search strategy. Pooled response rates for gemcitabine and nedaplatin were calculated. Results: In gemcitabine and nedaplatin based regimens, 4 clinical studies including 112 patients with non-small cell lung cancer were considered eligible for inclusion. The pooled analysis suggested that the pooled reponse rate was 40.2% (45/112). Main side effects included grade 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. Grade 3-4 nonhematological toxicity included nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and hepatic dysfunction. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion: This evidence based analysis suggests that the combination of gemcitabine and nedaplatin is associated with good response rate and accepted toxicity for treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.8
• /
• pp.3159-3162
• /
• 2015

Purpose: This systematic analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nedaplatin based salvage chemotherapy for treatment of patients with advanced cervical cancer. Methods: Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of nedaplatin based regimens on response and safety for patients with cervical cancer were identified using a predefined search strategy. Pooled response rates (RRs) were calculated. Results: For nedaplatin based regimens, 5 clinical studies including 264 patients with advanced cervical cancer were considered eligible for inclusion. The analysis showed that, in all patients, pooled RR was 74.6% (197/264). Major adverse effects were leukopenia, thrombocytopenia and nausea/vomiting. No treatment related death occurred with nedaplatin based treatment. Conclusion: This systematic analysis suggests that nedaplatin based regimens are associated with good activity with acceptable tolerability in treating patients with advanced cervical cancer.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.13 no.9
• /
• pp.4531-4536
• /
• 2012

Objective: To study synergistic effects of nedaplatin and cisplatin on three human carcinoma cell lines (esophageal carcinoma cell line Eca-109, ovarian carcinoma Skov-3 and cervical carcinoma Hela). Methods: Inhibition effects were evaluated by MTT assay and cell apoptosis was detected by flow cytometry. In addition, changes of Ki-67, Bax and Bcl-2 at mRNA and protein levels were quantified by RT-PCR and Western blotting. Results: Growth inhibition in each cell lines was dose-dependent after exposure to nedaplatin or cisplatin alone. The interaction of the two drugs was synergistic at higher concentrations according to the median-effect principle. The inhibition rates with nedaplatin, cisplatin and combined treatment were $41.9{\pm}4.1%$, $47.4{\pm}2.9%$, $52.5{\pm}0.9%$(Eca-109), $39.0{\pm}1.26%$, $45.0{\pm}1.45%$, $56.2{\pm}1.44%$ (Skov-3) and $44.8{\pm}2.11%$, $46.9{\pm}0.99%$, $56.6{\pm}1.83%$ (Hela) respectively, with increase in apoptosis. Compared with the nedaplatin or cisplatin alone treatment group, the combinative treatment group's Ki-67 and bcl-2 mRNA (protein) expression was decreased while that of Bax mRNA (protein) was increased. Conclusion: Compared to the effects of nedaplatin or cisplatin alone at high concentrations, combination of nedaplatin and cisplatin at low concentrations proved to be much more effective for inhibition of proliferation and the induction of apoptosis in the Eca-109, Skov-3 and Hela cell lines.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.13 no.8
• /
• pp.4153-4156
• /
• 2012

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy and toxicity of a combination of gemcitabine with nedaplatin (GN) or cisplatin (GC) for patients with unresectable or recurrent esophagus squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: Gemcitabine was administered at 1 g/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8; and nedaplatin or cisplatin were administered at 80 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1. We analyzed the response rate, overall survival time, progression-free survival time, and toxicity in 21 patients treated with GN and 27 patients treated with GC. Results: In patients treated with gemcitabine plus nedaplatin, the ORR was 47.6%, the median progression-free survival time was 4.1 months, and the median survival time was 9.3 months. In patients treated with gemcitabine plus cisplatin, the ORR was 48.2%, the median progression-free survival time was 3.9 months, and the median survival time was 9.1 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in ORR, PFS and OS between the two groups. In both, the most commonly observed toxicities were thrombocytopenia and fatigue. Nausea and vomiting was more frequent in the GC group than in the GN group. Conclusion: Gemcitabine based chemotherapy was effective and tolerable for patients with unresectable or recurrent esophagus squamous cell carcinoma refractory to first line chemotherapy.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.17
• /
• pp.7303-7307
• /
• 2014

Objective: To explore the clinical efficacy of gemcitabine concomitant with nedaplatin and drug resistance in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and associated molecular predicators. Materials and Methods: A total of 68 patients diagnosed with NSCLC by histology served as the study objects and were randomly divided into an observation group treated with gemcitabine concomitant with nedaplatin and a control group with cisplatin concomitant with gemcitabine, 34 cases for each group. Short-term and long-term efficacies, adverse responses as well as the expression of nucleotide excision repair cross complementing 1 (ERCC1), ribonucleotide reductase subunit M1 (RRM1) and lung resistance-related protein (LRP) in NSCLC tissues in both groups were assessed. Results: The short-term objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 35.3% (12/34) and 76.5% (26/34) in the observation group and 38.2% (13/34) and 85.3% (29/34) in the control group, respectively, the differences not being statistically significant. The time to progression (TTP) in both groups were 1~12 months, while the median TTP was 135 d and 144 d, respectively. Though the survival was slightly higher in the control group, there were no significant differences in TTP and survival time. The rates of decreased hemoglobin, vomiting and nausea as well as renal toxicity were evidently lower in the observation group, while other adverse responses demonstrated no significant difference. The positive expression rates of ERCC1, RRM1 and LRP were 47.1% (16/34), 61.8% (21/34) and 64.7% (22/34) in the observation group, respectively. Compared with negative ERCC1 expression, ORR had decreasing trend and the overall survival time (OS) decreased significantly in patients with positive ERCC1 expression, which were markedly decreased by the positive expressions of RRM1 and LRP. Conclusions: Gemcitabine concomitant with nedaplatin has significant effects in the treatment of NSCLC, with an adverse response rate obviously lower than for cisplatin concomitant with gemcitabine, suggesting that wider use in the clinic is warranted. Additionally, the positive expressions of ERCC1, RRM1 and LRP may increase patient drug resistance, so they can be applied as the chemotherapeutic predicators to guide individualized therapy of NSCLC patients.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.731-736
• /
• 2014

Objective: To observe the short-term efficacy, long-term survival time and adverse responses with nedaplatin (NDP) or cisplatin (DDP) concomitant with other chemotherapy in treating non-small cell lung cancer. Materials and Methods: A retrospective, randomized, control study was conducted, in which 619 NSCLC patients in phases III and IV who were initially treated and re-treated were randomly divided into an NDP group (n=294) and a DDP group (n=325), the latter being regarded as controls. Chemotherapeutic protocols (CP/DP/GP/NP/TP) containing NDP or DDP were given to both groups. Patients in both groups were further divided to evaluate the clinical efficacies according to initial and re-treatment stage, pathological pattern, type of combined chemotherapeutic protocols, tumor stage and surgery. Results: The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) in the NDP group were 48.6% and 95.2%, significantly higher than in the DDP group at 35.1% and 89.2%, respectively (P<0.01). In NSCLC patients with initial treatment, squamous carcinoma and phase III, there were significant differences in ORR and DCR between the groups (P<0.05), while ORR was significant in patients with adenocarcinoma, GP/TP and in phase IIIa (P<0.05). There was also a significant difference in DCR in patients in phase IIIb (P<0.05). According to the statistical analysis of survival time of all patients and of those in clinical phase III, the NDP group survived significantly longer than the DDP group (P<0.01). The rates of decreased hemoglobin and increased creatinine, nausea and vomiting in the NDP group were evidently lower than in DDP group (P<0.05). Conclusion: NDP concomitant with other chemotherapy is effective for treating NSCLC, with higher clinical efficacy than DDP concomitant with chemotherapy, with advantages in prolonging survival time and reducing toxic and adverse responses.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.6
• /
• pp.2483-2487
• /
• 2015

This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a combination of gemcitabine and nedaplatin therapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma previously treated with two lines of chemotherapy. Between February 2009 and August 2013, 30 patients were treated with gemcitabine and paclitaxel as a second-line chemotherapy. All had received a first-line chemotherapy consisting of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin. Ten patients who had measurable histologically proven advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the urinary bladder and upper urinary tract received gemcitabine $1,000mg/m^2$ on days 1, 8 and 15 and nedaplatin $70mg/m^2$ on day 2 as a third-line chemotherapy. Tumors were assessed by imaging every two cycles. The median number of treatment cycles was 3.5. One patient had partial response and three had stable disease. The disease-control rate was 40%, the median overall survival was 8.8 months and the median progression-free survival was 5.0 months. The median overall survival times for the first-line and second-line therapies were 29.1 and 13.9 months, respectively. Among disease-controlled patients (n=4), median overall survival was 14.2 months. Myelosuppression was the most common toxicity. There were no therapy-related deaths. Gemcitabine and nedaplatin chemotherapy is a favorable third-line chemotherapeutic option for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Given the safety and benefit profile seen in this study, further prospective trials are warranted given the implications of our results with regard to strategic chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.5
• /
• pp.1993-1995
• /
• 2015

Purpose: This analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of irinotecan based regimens as second-line chemotherapy in treating patients with small cell lung cancer. Methods: Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of irinotecan based regimens as second-line chemotherapy for patients with small cell lung cancer were identified using a predefined search strategy. Pooled response rates (RRs) of treatment were calculated. Results: In irinotecan based regimens as second-line chemotherapy, 4 clinical studies which including 155 patients with small cell lung cancer were considered eligible for inclusion. In all chemotherapy consisted of irinotecan with or without nedaplatin. Pooled analysis suggested that, in all patients, the pooled RR was 27.1% (42/155) in irinotecan based regimens. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and myelosuppression were the main side effects. No grade III or IV renal or liver toxicity was observed. No treatment related death occurred with the irinotecan based treatments. Conclusion: This systemic analysis suggests that irinotecan based regimens as second-line chemotherapy are associated with mild response rate and acceptable toxicity for patients with small cell lung cancer.