- First Online:
- 231 Downloads
Gemcitabine [2′- deoxy- 2′,2′- difluorocytidine monohydrochloride (β isomer); dFdC] is a novel deoxycytidine analogue which was originally investigated for its antiviral effects but has since been developed as an anticancer therapy.
Gemcitabine monotherapy produced an objective tumour response in 18 to 26% of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and appears to have similar efficacy to cisplatin plus etoposide. Objective response rates ranging from 26 to 54% were recorded when gemcitabine was combined with cisplatin, and 1- year survival duration after such treatment ranged from 35 to 61 %. Improvements in a range of NSCLC disease symptoms and/or in general performance status occurred in many patients who received gemcitabine, with or without cisplatin, in 3 clinical trials.
Gemcitabine appears to be cost effective compared with best supportive care for NSCLC. In addition, direct costs associated with administration of gemcitabine monotherapy may be lower than those for some other NSCLC chemotherapy options, according to retrospective cost-minimisation analyses. The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin was associated with a lower cost per tumour response than cisplatin plus etoposide or cisplatin plus vinorelbine, according to a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis.
In a single comparative study in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, gemcitabine was more effective than fluorouracil with respect to survival duration and general clinical status. It also showed modest antitumour and palliative efficacy in patients refractory to fluorouracil.
Gemcitabine appears to be well tolerated, although further comparisons with other chemotherapy regimens are required. The available data indicate that gemcitabine monotherapy is better tolerated than cisplatin plus etoposide in patients with NSCLC. Data from noncomparative studies suggest that the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin has an acceptable tolerabilty profile. In a single trial in patients with pancreatic cancer, fluorouracil was better tolerated than gemcitabine; however, gemcitabine was generally well tolerated overall in this study.
Thus, gemcitabine (with or without cisplatin) may prove attractive to patients with advanced NSCLC, given their limited life expectancy and the toxicity associated with many other chemotherapy regimens. More detailed characterisation of its risk-benefit profile compared with those of current and developing regimens for NSCLC should be possible once results from several ongoing studies are available. Gemcitabine is a valuable new chemotherapy option for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, a disease considered incurable at present. Its apparent survival and aalliative benefits over fluorouracil require confirmation, but are encouraging, as the need to improve both the duration and quality of survival in these patients is well recognised.
Gemcitabine [2′-deoxy-2′,2′-difluorocytidine monohydrochloride (β isomer); dFdC] is a novel analogue of deoxycytidine which inhibits DNA synthesis. After cellular uptake, gemcitabine is phosphorylated to gemcitabine di- and triphosphate, the active metabolites. Gemcitabine triphosphate competitively inhibits DNA chain elongation, leading to DNA fragmentation and cell death. Its effects in this respect are enhanced by a number of unique self-potentiating pharmacological activities of gemcitabine di- and triphosphate. These effects maintain high intracellular concentrations of gemcitabine metabolites and reduce levels of deoxycytidine triphosphate (with which gemcitabine triphosphate competes for incorporation into DNA).
Gemcitabine has shown cytotoxic effects against a range of cancer cell lines invitroand had antitumour activity in a broad spectrum of animal models, including xenografts from patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic cancer. Its effects invivowere schedule-rather than dose-dependent. At the maximum tolerated dose in murine models, gemcitabine inhibited the growth of human NSCLC xenografts by 45 to 76% compared with untreated control animals. It also inhibited growth of 3 of 4 human pancreatic cancer xenografts in mice by 69 to 73% at the maximum tolerated dose.
Peak plasma concentrations of gemcitabine are reached 15 to 30 minutes after the start of a 30-minute intravenous infusion and typically range from 10 to 40 mg/L. Steady-state gemcitabine concentrations showed a linear relationship to dose over the dose range 53 to 1000 mg/m in one study in patients with a range of malignancies. Intracellular concentrations of gemcitabine triphosphate in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from these patients peaked within 30 minutes of starting the infusion and increased in proportion to dose up to gemcitabine 350 mg/m2. Increasing the dose beyond this level had no significant effect on the area under the intracellular concentration-time curve for gemcitabine triphosphate, indicating intracellular saturation.
Plasma binding of gemcitabine is minimal and the drug is not extensively distributed to tissues after short infusions. Gemcitabine is rapidly metabolised intracellularly, with a median elimination half-life of 8 minutes reported in one study in patients with cancer. Less than 10% of a radiolabelled gemcitabine dose is excreted unchanged in urine (significant amounts of the inactive metabolite 2′-deoxy-2′,2′-difluorouridine are detected in urine). Urinary excretion accounted for 30 to 96% (median 77%) of the administered dose in one small study.
Monotherapy with gemcitabine produced objective responses in 18 to 26% of patients with advanced NSCLC. Median response duration ranged from 3.3 to 12.7 months and overall median survival duration was 6.2 to 12.3 months. 22% of patients had an objective response in the largest trial of gemcitabine monotherapy (n=151); overall median survival duration was 9.4 months. Objective response rates for gemcitabine monotherapy and cisplatin plus etoposide were similar in 2 comparative trials (18 vs15% and 19 vs21%), as was median survival duration (6.6 vs7.6 months and 9.3 vs12 months). Gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin produced better results than gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with NSCLC: objective response rates ranged from 26 to 54% and overall median survival duration ranged from 10.4 to 15.4 months in 3 trials. Furthermore, estimated 1-year survival after treatment with gemcitabine plus cisplatin ranged from 35 to 61% in several studies. Improvements in pain were experienced by 31 to 52% of patients with NSCLC who received gemcitabine ± cisplatin in 3 non-comparative studies. Primary disease symptoms (cough, dyspnoea, haemoptysis and pleural effusion) improved in 42 to 89% of patients in one study and in 22 to 68% of patients in another; haemoptysis improved in about two-thirds of patients in both trials.
Gemcitabine was considered highly cost effective in comparison with best supportive care for NSCLC, according to a retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis. It provided 1 additional life-year saved at a cost of $Can3193 (1993 Canadian dollars). Sensitivity analysis indicated that gemcitabine was still cost effective when the acquisition cost was increased by 80% and the assumed survival advantage over best supportive care was reduced by half. The cost per tumour response of gemcitabine plus cisplatin was 39, 35 or 8% lower than that of etoposide plus cisplatin, vinorelbine plus cisplatin or mitomycin plus ifosfamide plus cisplatin, respectively, according to another retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis (detailed statistical analysis not provided).
Results from a number of retrospective cost-minimisation analyses (which excluded primary drug costs) suggest that direct costs associated with administration of gemcitabine are lower than those for other NSCLC chemotherapy options. This was primarily because of the reduced cost of managing adverse events during gemcitabine therapy and the ability to administer the drug on an outpatient basis.
Gemcitabine was significantly more effective than fluorouracil with respect to both survival and palliative efficacy in a single comparative study in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients receiving gemcitabine had a 1.6-, 4.8- or 9-fold higher chance of surviving to 6, 9 or 12 months, respectively, than fluorouracil recipients (median survival difference between gemcitabine and fluorouracil recipients was 1.5 months). Furthermore, 5 times as many patients were considered to have derived clinical benefit from gemcitabine as from fluorouracil, based on assessment of pain, analgesic use, performance status and body weight.
Myelosuppression, transient elevation of hepatic enzymes and nausea and vomiting were the most common WHO grade 3 or 4 adverse events in 979 patients who received gemcitabine monotherapy at a starting dose of 800 to 1250 mg/m during clinical trials. However, fewer than 1% of patients withdrew from treatment for each of these reasons. Myelosuppression was the primary dose-limiting toxicity, with grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurring in 25% of patients. Nausea and vomiting was common (69% at any grade) but occurred predominantly at grade 1 or 2. Transient elevations in hepatic enzymes occurred in about two-thirds of gemcitabine recipients, but were not associated with dose or treatment duration. Overall, about 10% of gemcitabine recipients stopped receiving treatment because of adverse effects (no single effect predominated).
The combination of gemcitabine with cisplatin was considered well tolerated in several small noncomparative trials in patients with NSCLC; grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and nausea and vomiting both occurred in ≈50% of patients in the largest available study (n=55); however, toxicity was considered to be easily managed overall.
Data from 2 comparative studies in patients with NSCLC indicate that gemcitabine monotherapy is better tolerated than cisplatin plus etoposide, although statistical analysis was not provided for either study.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse effects were more common in patients receiving gemcitabine than in those receiving fluorouracil in a randomised study in 126 patients with pancreatic cancer. Treatment withdrawal as a result of adverse effects was about 3 times more common among gemcitabine recipients (14.3%) than among patients receiving fluorouracil (4.8%). However, gemcitabine was generally well tolerated: the most common grade 3 event was neutropenia (19% of patients) and the incidence of individual grade 4 adverse effects was ≤7%. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was noted in 26% of patients receiving gemcitabine, compared with 5% of those treated with fluorouracil (p<001), but there was no significant difference between groups for grade 4 neutropenia (6.9 vs3.3%).
Dosage and Administration
The recommended dose for gemcitabine is 1000 mg/m2 as a 30-minute intravenous infusion administered once weekly (dose can be escalated to 1250 or 1500 mg/m2 in the absence of significant toxicity). Patients with NSCLC should be treated using a repeated 4-week cycle (3 weeks on, 1 week off), whereas those with pancreatic cancer receive the drug on an initial 8-week cycle (7 weeks on, 1 week off) followed by the 4-week cycle thereafter. Patients receiving gemcitabine should be monitored regularly for myelosuppression and periodically for renal and hepatic dysfunction.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 7.Gandhi V, Huang R Xu Y-Z, et al. Metabolism and action of 2′,2′-difluorodeoxycytidine: self-potentiation of cytotoxicity. Adv Exp Med Biol 1991; 309: 125–30. Harkness RA, et al., editors. Purine and pyrimidine metabolism in man VII, Part A. New York: Plenum Press, 1991Google Scholar
- 14.Ruiz van Haperen VWT, Veerman G, Noordhuis P, et al. Concentration and time dependent growth inhibition and metabolism in vitro by 2′,2′-difluoro-deoxycytidine (gemcitabine). Adv Exp Med Biol 1991; 309: 57–60. Harkness RA, et al., editors. Purine and pyrimidine metabolism in man VII, Part A. New York: Plenum Press, 1991Google Scholar
- 23.Von Hoff DD, San Antonio Drug Development Team. Activity of gemcitabine in a human tumor cloning assay as a basis for clinical trials with gemcitabine. Invest New Drugs 1996; 14(3): 265–70Google Scholar
- 24.Peters GJ, Smitskamp-Wilms E, Veerman G, et al. Three-dimensional cell cultures as a model system to evaluate the biological activity of gemcitabine (2′,2′-difluoro-2′deoxycytidine). Nucleosides Nucleotides 1995; 14(3-5): 661–4Google Scholar
- 26.Nakamura H, Yamaji Y, Fujita T, et al. Synergistic growth inhibition of gemcitabine/cisplatin, and gemcitabine/etoposide on a human lung cancer cell line, RERF-LC-OK [abstract]. 86th Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 1995 Mar; 36: 407Google Scholar
- 27.van Moorsel CJA, Veerman G, Bergman AM, et al. Combination chemotherapy studies with gemcitabine. Semin Oncol 1997 Apr; 24(2) Suppl. 7: S17–23Google Scholar
- 41.Kristjansen PEG, Quistorff B, Vindel0v LL, et al. 19F-NMR-spectroscopic pharmacokinetic analysis and in vivo activity of difluorodeoxycytidine (dFdC) in two small cell lung cancer (SCLC) xenografts. Preliminary results [abstract no. W3: 9]. Ann Oncol 1990; 1 Suppl.: 88Google Scholar
- 42.Eli Lilly and Company. Summary of product characteristics: gemcitabine. UK prescribing information. Eli Lilly, 1997Google Scholar
- 45.Eli Lilly and Company. Gemzar® (gemcitabine HCl) for injection. US prescribing information. Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis)Google Scholar
- 47.van Moorsel CJA, Veerman G, Ruiz van Haperen VWT, et al. Differential effects of gemcitabine on nucleotide pools in 19 solid tumor cell lines. Adv Exp Biol Med. Griesmacher A, Chiba P, Muller MM, editors. Purine and pyrimidine metabolism in man IX. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation. In pressGoogle Scholar
- 51.Begbie SD, Hui R, Levi JA, et al. Initial experience with gemcitabine for non-small cell lung cancer in Australia [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995 Mar; 14: 378Google Scholar
- 52.Crino L, Mosconi AM, Scagliotti G, et al. Salvage therapy with gemcitabine (GEM) in pretreated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract no. *1603]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 446aGoogle Scholar
- 54.Fukuoka M, Negoro S, Kudo S, et al. A late phase II study of gemcitabine (LY188011) against non-small cell lung cancer [in Japanese]. Jpn J Cancer Chemother 1996; 23(13): 1825–32Google Scholar
- 57.Malayeri R, Ulsperger E, Baumgartner G, et al. Gemcitabine in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer [abstract no. 460P]. Ann Oncol 1996; 7 Suppl. 5Google Scholar
- 58.Yokoyama A, Nakai Y, Yoneda S, et al. A late phase II study of gemcitabine (LY 188011) against non-small cell lung cancer [in Japanese]. Jpn J Cancer Chemother 1996; 23(12): 1681–8Google Scholar
- 59.Manegold C, Stahel R, Ricci S, et al. Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine (GEM) monotherapy versus cisplatin plus etoposide (C/E) in patients (pts) with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract no. * 1651]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 460AGoogle Scholar
- 62.Anton A, Artal A, Carrato A, et al. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin in advanced NSCLC: final phase II results [abstract no. 1656]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 461aGoogle Scholar
- 64.Gonzalez-Baron M, Ordonez A, Gracia M, et al. Gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results from a phase II study [abstract no. 1687]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 469aGoogle Scholar
- 65.Sandler AB, Ansari R, McClean J, et al. A Hoosier Oncology Group phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995 Mar; 14: 357Google Scholar
- 66.Shepherd FA, Cormier Y, Burkes R, et al. Phase II trial of gemcitabine and weekly cisplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Semin Oncol 1997 Jun; 24(3) Suppl. 8: S27–30Google Scholar
- 67.Steward WP, Dunlop DJ, Cameron C, et al. Phase I/II study of cisplatin in combination with gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995 Mar; 14:351Google Scholar
- 68.Cardenal F, Rosell R, Anton A, et al. Gemcitabine + cisplatin versus etoposide + cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients: preliminary randomized phase III results [abstract no. *1648]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 458aGoogle Scholar
- 69.Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis), 1997. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
- 70.Gatzemeier U, Manegold C, Eberhard W, et al. A phase II trial of gemcitabine and ifosfamide in non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 1997; 24(3) Suppl. 8: S8-36–S8-38Google Scholar
- 71.Cornelia P, Panza N, Frasci G, et al. Gemcitabine (GEM)-cisplatin (CDDP)-vinorelbine (VNR) combination in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase II randomized study [abstract no. *1615]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncologists; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 449aGoogle Scholar
- 75.Ragnarson Tenvall G, Fernberg J-O, Grupper M, et al. Chemotherapy treatment in stage IIIB and IV NSCLC — a health economic evaluation of gemcitabine Vs standard treatment [abstract no. 467P]. Ann Oncol 1995; 7 Suppl. 5Google Scholar
- 79.Will BP, Evans WK, Berthelot J-M, et al. A Canadian economic analysis of chemotherapeutic agents versus best supportive care in the treatment of advanced lung cancer [abstract]. Thirteenth Annual Meeting, International Society Technology Assessment Health Care; 1997 May 25–28; Barcelona, 77Google Scholar
- 80.Gralla RJ, Grusenmeyer PA, Brooks BJ. Evaluating the costs and cost-effectiveness of new regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract no. *1501]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 420aGoogle Scholar
- 84.Storniolo AM, Enas NH, Brown CA, et al. Treatment investigational new drug program for Gemzar (gemcitabine HC1) in patients with pancreas cancer (PaCa) [abstract no. 1088]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 306aGoogle Scholar
- 86.Niyikiza C, Anderson JS, Tarassoff PG, et al. Prognostic factors in a randomized trial of gemcitabine (GEM) versus 5-FU as first-line therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer and in pancreatic cancer patients failing 5-FU who receive gemcitabine (GEM) as a palliative therapy [abstract no. 1624]. Thirty-Second Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1996 May 18–21; Philadelphia, Vol. 15, 506Google Scholar
- 91.Eli Lilly and Company. Gemzar labelling outside the United States. Eli Lilly and Company, 1997. Data on fileGoogle Scholar
- 92.American Cancer Society. Lung cancer. In: Cancer Facts and Figures — 1997 [online]. American Cancer Society; 1997. Available from: URL: http://www.cancer.org/971ung.html [Accessed 1997 Mar 24]
- 95.Abang AM. Chemotherapy versus best supportive care for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Am J Health System Pharm 1996 Dec 15; 53: 2980–4Google Scholar
- 97.Raby B, Pater J, Mackillop W. A survey of Canadian physician’s beliefs about the use of radiation and chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer [abstract no. * 1079]. 30th Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1994 May 14–17; Vol. 13,327Google Scholar
- 98.Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1995; 311: 899–909Google Scholar
- 101.Hansen HH, Sorensen JB. Efficacy of single-agent gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a review. Semin Oncol 1997 Apr; 24 (2 Suppl. 7): S38–41Google Scholar
- 103.Steward WP, Dunlop DJ. New drugs in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 1995; 6 Suppl. 1: S49–54Google Scholar
- 106.Riggs CE, Bennett JP. Clinical pharmacology of individual antineoplastic agents. In: Moosa AR, Schimpff SC, Robson MC, editors. Comprehensive textbook of oncology. 2nd ed. v. 1. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1991: 537–64Google Scholar
- 107.The Pharmaceutical Press, editor. Martindale: the extra pharmacopeia. 30th ed. London: The Pharmaceutical Press, 1993Google Scholar
- 108.Natale RB. Overview of current and future chemotherapeutic agents in non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 1997 Apr; 24(2) Suppl. 7: S7-29–S7-37Google Scholar
- 111.American Cancer Society. Pancreas Cancer. In: Cancer Facts & Figures — 1997 [online]. American Cancer Society; 1997. Available from: URL: http://www.cancer.org/97pancre.html [Accessed 1997 Mar 24]
- 113.National Cancer Institute. Pancreatic cancer for phsicians. In: Clinical cancer information for physicians, WWW CancerNet [online]. National Cancer Institute, Feb 1997. Available from: URL: http://www.arc.com/cgi-bin/Cancernet.sh?eng/physician=Pancreatic_cancer_for_Physicians [Accessed 1997 Feb 26]
- 114.Schultz RM. Future directions for the treatment of human pancreatic carcinoma. Expert Opin Invest Drug 1995 Dec; 4: 1273–9Google Scholar
- 118.Faggiuolo R, Raucci CA, Roncari A, et al. Phase I study of gemcitabine and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil in advanced pancreatic cancer [abstract no. 1023]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 288aGoogle Scholar
- 119.Hidalgo M, Paz-Ares L, Hitt R, et al. Phase I-II study of gemcitabine combined with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil as first-line chemotherapy in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer [abstract no. 1030]. Thirty-Third Annual Meeting, American Society of Clinical Oncology; 1997 May 17–20; Denver, Vol. 16, 290aGoogle Scholar