Advertisement

Lung Cancer pp 323-347 | Cite as

New antineoplastic agents in lung cancer 1988–1993

  • Stefan C. Grant
  • Mark G. Kris
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 72)

Abstract

Chemotherapy is the standard initial treatment for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and combination chemotherapy can prolong the lives of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [1,2]. Despite these developments, most patients develop metastatic disease, and lung cancer remains the leading cause of death from cancer [3]. Over the past five years, a number of new agents with activity against lung cancer have been identified, offering the potential for improved control of this disease. A number of these drugs have novel mechanisms of action. Additionally, the understanding of the pharmacokinetics of ‘older’ agents has expanded, resulting in the more effective use of the available chemotherapeutic drugs. At the same time, we have also learned that many new agents have insufficient antitumor activity against lung cancer to warrant further development. Agents identified between 1988 and 1993 with potential usefulness in lung cancer patients are presented in table 1 and discussed in detail below.

Keywords

Clin Oncol Small Cell Lung Cancer Vinca Alkaloid Oral Etoposide Small Cell Lung Cancer Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rapp E, Pater JL, Willan A, et al. 1988. Chemotherapy can prolong survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Report of a Canadian multicenter randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 6:633–641.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dillman R, Seagren S, Propert K, et al. 1990. A randomized trial of induction chemotherapy plus high-dose radiation versus radiation alone in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 323:940–945.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boring C, Squires T, Tong T. 1993. Cancer statistics, 1993. CA C ancer J Clin 43(1):7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rigas JR, Kris MG, Tong W, et al. 1991. Phase I trial of chloroquinoxaline sulfonamide (CQS): A unique agent with activity in NSCLC stem cell assay (abstract). Lung Cancer 7(Suppl):108.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carey R, Comis R, Anbar D, et al. 1983. Cancer and leukemia group B phase II non-small cell lung carcinoma trial: axiridinylbenzoquinone (AZQ). Cancer Treat Rep 67(1):95–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chabner BA. 1992. Camptothecins (editorial). J Clin Oncol 10(1):3–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hertzberg RP, Holden KG, Hecht SM, et al. 1987. Characterization of structural features of camptothecin essential for topoisomerase I interaction and for induction of protein-linked DNA breaks in cells (abstract). Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 28:7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maxwell A, Geliert M. 1986. Mechanistic aspects of DNA topoisomerases. Adv Protein Chera 38:69–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kunimoto T, Nitta K, Tanaka T, et al. 1987. Antitumor activity of 7-ethyl-10-[4-(1-piperidion)-1-piperidion [arbonyloxy-camptothecin, anovelwater-soluble derivative of camptothecin, against murine tumors. Cancer Res 47:5944–5947.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matsuzaki T, Yokokura T, Mutai M. 1988. Inhibition of spontaneous and experimental metastasis by a new derivative of camptothecin, CPT-11, in mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 21:308–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Negoro S, Masahiro F, Masuda N, et al. 1991. Phase I study of weekly intravenous infusions of CPT-11, a new derivative of camptothecin, in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 83(16):1164–1168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fukuoka M, Niitani H, Suzuki A, et al. 1992. A Phase II study of CPT-11, a new derivative of camptothecin, for previously untreated non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 10:16–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    WHO Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. 1979. World Health Organization: Geneva.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takada M, Fukuoka M, Kudoh S, et al. 1992. Synergistic effects of CPT-11 and cisplatin or etoposide on human lung cancer cell lines and xenografts in nude mice (abstract). Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 33:226.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Negoro S, Fukuoka M, Niitani H, et al. 1991. Phase II study of CPT-11, new camptothecin derivative, in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 10:241.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fukuoka M, Takada M, Nakagawa K, et al. 1992. CPT-11 dose in combination with cisplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:293.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bissett D, Setanoians A, Cassidy J, et al. 1993. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of taxotere (RP 56976) administered as a 24-hour infusion (abstract). Cancer Res 53:523–527.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bissery M, Guernard D, Gueritte-Voegelin F, et al. 1991. Experimental antitumor activity of taxotere (RP 56976, NSC 628503), a taxol analogue. Cancer Res 51:4845–4852.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jassem J, Karnicka-Miodkowska H, van Pottelsberghe C, et al. 1992. EORTC phase II study of navelbine (NVB) in previously treated patients (PT) with small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:309.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Extra J, Rousseau F, Bruno R, et al. 1993. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of taxotere (RP 56976; NSC 628503) given as a short intravenous infusion (abstract). Cancer Res 53:1037–1042.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pazdur R, Newman RA, Newman BM, et al. 1992. Phase I trial of taxotere: Five-day schedule. J Natl Cancer Society 84(23):1781–1788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vandenberg T, Pritchard KI, Eisenhauer E. 1992. Phase II study of weekly 10-EDAM (Edatrexate) as first line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:51.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burris H, Eckardt J, Fields S, et al. 1993. Phase II trials of taxotere in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 12:335.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cerny T, Wanders J, Kaplan S, et al. 1993. Taxotere is an active drug in non small cell lung (NSCLC) cancer: A phase II trial of the early clinical trials group (ECTG) (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 12:331.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rigas JR, Francis PA, Kris MG, et al. 1993. Phase II trial of taxotere in non-small lung cancer (NSCLC) (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 12:336.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rumberger BG, Barrueco JR, Sirotnak FM. 1990. Differing specificities for 4-aminofolate analogues of folylpolyglutamyl synthetase from tumors and proliferative intestinal epithelium of the mouse with significance for selective antitumor action. Cancer Res 50:4639–4643.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sirotnak FM, DeGraw JI, Moccio DM, et al. 1984. New folate analogues of the 10-deaza-aminopterin series; basis for structural design and biochemical and pharmacologic properties. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 12:18–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Samuels LL, M MD, M SF. 1985. Similar differential for total polyglutamylation and cytotoxicity among various folate analogs in human and murine tumor cells in vitro. Cancer Res 45:1488–1495.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmid FA, Sirotnak FM, Otter GM. 1985. New folate analogs of the 10-deaza-aminopterin series. Markedly increased activity of the 10-ethyl analogue compared to the parent compound and methotrexate against some human tumor xenografts in nude mice. Cancer Treat Rep 69:551–553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Braakhuis BJM, van Dongen GAMS, Bagnay MBS, et al. 1989. Preclinical chemotherapy on human head and neck cancer xenografts grown in athymic nude mice. Chemother Head Neck Cancer Xenogr (November/December):511–515.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brown DH, Braakhuis BJM, Van Dongen GAMS, et al. 1989. Activity of the folate analog 10-ethyl, 10-deaza-aminopterin (10-EdAM) against human head and neck cancer xenografts. Anticancer Res 9:1549–1552.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kris M, Kinahan J, Gralla R, et al. 1988. Phase I trial and clinical pharmacological evaluation of 10-ethyl-10-deazaaminopterin in adult patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Res 48:5573–5579.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shum K, Kris M, Gralla R, et al. 1988. Phase II study of 10-ethyl-10-deaza-aminopterin in patients with stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 6(3):446–450.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee JS, Libshitz HI, Murphy WK, et al. 1990. Phase II study of 10-ethyl-10-deaza-aminopterin (10-EdAM; CGP 30 694) for stage IIIb or IV non-small cell lung cancer. Invest New Drugs 8:299–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Souhami R, Hartley J, Allen R, et al. 1991. 10-EDAM (10-Ethyl-10-Deazaaminopterin) in untreated advanced non small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (abstract). Lung Cancer 7(Suppl): 134.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schmid FA, Sirotnak FM, Otter GM, et al. 1987. Combination chemotherapy with a new folate analog: Activity of 10-ethyl-deaza-aminopterin compared to methotrexate with 5-fluorouracil and alkylating agents against advanced metastatic disease in murine tumor models. Cancer Treat Rep 71:727–732.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sirotnak FM, Schmid FA, I DJ. 1989. Intracavitary therapy of murine ovarian cancer with cis-Diamminedichloroplatinum (II) and 10-ethyl-10-deazaaminopterin incorporating systemic leucovorin protection (abstract). Cancer Res 49:2890–2893.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kris MG, Gralla RJ, Potanovich LM, et al. 1990. Assessment of pretreatment symptoms and improvement after EDAM+mitomycin+vinblastine in patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 9:229.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee JS, Libshitz HI, Murphy WK, et al. 1990. Phase II trial of 10-ethyl-10-deaza-aminopterin (10-edam) with cytoxan (CTX) and cisplatin (CDDP) for stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 9:241.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee JS, Libshitz H, Fossella F, et al. 1992. Brief communication. Improved therapeutic index by leucovorin of edatrexate, cyclophosphamide, and cisplatin regimen for non-small cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:1039–1040.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wiesenfeld M, Su J, Jett J. 1992. Phase II study of edatrexate (10-EDAM) in patients with small cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:311.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Casazza A, DiMarco A, Bertazzoli C. 1978. Antitumor activity, toxicity, and pharmacological properties of 4′-epiadriamycin. In Current Chemotherapy, W Siegenthaler and R Luthy (eds.). American Society of Microbiology; Washington, DC, pp. 1257–1260.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Casazza A. 1979. Experimental evaluation of anthracycline analogues. Cancer Treat Rep 63:835–844.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zbinden G, Brandie E. 1975. Toxicologic screening of daunorubicin (NSC-82151) and their derivatives in rats. Cancer Chemother Rep 59:707–715.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Feld R, Wierzbicki R, Walde PLD, et al. 1992. Phase I–II study of high-dose epirubicin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 10(2):297–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Joss R, Hansen H, Hansen M, et al. 1984. Phase II trial of epirubicin in advanced squamous, adenocarcinoma and large cell carcinoma of the lung. Eur J Cancer Oncol 20:495–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kaiman L, Kris M, Gralla R, et al. 1983. Phase II trial of 4′-epi-doxorubicin in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 67(6):591–592.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Martoni A, Melotti B, Guaraldi M, et al. 1990. Activity of high dose epirubicin (HD EPI) in non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 9:237.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Blackstein M, Eisenhauer EA, Wierzbicki R, et al. 1990. Epirubicin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: A phase II study in previously untreated patients: A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study. J Clin Oncol 8:385–389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Eckhardt S, Kolaric K, Vukas D, et al. 1990. Phase II study of 4′-epi-doxorubicin in patients with untreated, extensive small cell lung cancer. Med Oncol Tumor Pharmacother 7(1):19–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Macchiarini P, Danesi R, Mariotti R, et al. 1990. Phase II study of high-dose epirubicin in untreated patients with small-cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 13(4):302–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Slevin ML, Clark PI, Joel SP, et al. 1989. A randomized trial to evaluate the effect of schedule on the activity of etoposide in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 7:1333–1340.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Waits TM, Johnson DH, Hainsworth JD, et al. 1992. Prolonged administration of oral etoposide in non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 10(2):292–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Estape J, Palombo H, Sanchez-Lloret J, et al. 1992. Chronic oral etoposide in non-small cell lung carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 28A(4/5):835–837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Grant SC, Gralla RJ, Kris MG, et al. 1992. Single agent chemotherapy trials in small-cell lung cancer, 1970–1990. The case for studies in previously treated patients. J Clin Oncol 10(3):484–498.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Itri LM, Gralla RJ. 1982. A review of etoposide in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cancer Treat Rev 9:115–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Saxman S, Loehrer Sr. PJ, Logie K, et al. 1991. Phase II trial of daily oral etoposide in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (abstract). Invest New Drugs 9:253–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Clark P, Cottier B, Joel S, et al. 1990. Prolonged administration of single-agent oral etoposide in patients with untreated small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 9:226.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Johnson DH, Greco FA, Strupp J, et al. 1990. Prolonged administration of oral etoposide in patients with relapsed or refractory small-cell lung cancer: A phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 8(10):1613–1617.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Clark P, Cottier B, Joel S, et al. 1991. Two prolonged schedules of single-agent oral etoposide of differing duration and dose in patients with untreated small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 10:268.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Murphy PB, Hainsworth JD, Greco FA, et al. 1992. A phase II trial of cisplatin and prolonged administration of oral etoposide in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. Cancer 69:370–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fukuda M, Nakano S, Fukuoka M, et al. 1991. Chronic daily administration of oral etoposide and cisplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (abstract). Lung Cancer 7(Suppl):118.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Monnier A, Pujol JL, Cerinna ML, et al. 1991. Fotemustine: French multicenter phase II study in 67 patients with advanced non small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) (abstract). Lung Cancer 7(Suppl): 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Riviere A, Le Cesne A, Benoliel C, et al. 1991. Phase II pilot study of fotemustine-cisplatin combination in 24 patients with advanced non small cell lung carcinoma (abstract). Lung Cancer 7(Suppl): 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hertel L, Boder G, Kroin J, et al. 1990. Evaluation of the antitumor activity of gemcitabine (2′,2′-difluoro-2′-deoxycytidine). Cancer Res 50:4417–4422.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Abbruzzese J, Grunewald R, Weeks E, et al. 1991. A phase I clinical, plasma, and cellular pharmacology study of gemcitabine. J Clin Oncol 90(3):491–498.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lund B, Anderson H, Walling J, et al. 1991. Phase II study of gemcitabine in non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (abstract). Lung Cancer 7(Suppl):121.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lund B, Ryberg M, Anderson H, et al. 1992. A phase II study of gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using a twice weekly schedule (abstract). Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 33:226.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Abratt R, Bezwoda W, Falkson G, et al. 1992. Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine in non-small cell lung cancer-Phase II study results (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:311.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Eisenhauer E, Cormier Y, Gregg R, et al. 1992. Gemcitabine is active in patients (PTS) with previously untreated extensive small cell lung cancer (SCLC) — A phase II study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trial Group (NCIC CTG) (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 11:309.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rowinsky E, McGuire W. 1992. Taxol: Present status and future prospects. Contemp Oncol (March):29–36.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schiff PB, Fant J, Horwitz SB. 1979. Promotion of microtubule assembly in vitro by taxol. Nature 277:665–667.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Schiff PB, Horwitz SB. 1980. Taxol stabilizes microtubules in mouse fibroblast cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77:1561–1565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Parness J, Horwitz SB. 1981. Taxol binds to polymerized microtubules in vitro. J Cell Biol 91:479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Fuchs DA, Johnson RK. 1978. Cytologic evidence that taxol, an antineoplastic agent from Taxus brevifolia, acts as a mitotic spindle poison. Cancer Treat Rep 62:1219.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rowinsky EK, Donehower RC, Jones RJ. 1988. Microtubule changes and cytotoxicity in leukemic cells treated with taxol. Cancer Res 48:4093–4100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kris M, O’Connell J, Gralla R, et al. 1986. Phase I trial of taxol given as a 3-hour infusion every 21 days. Cancer Treat Rep 70(5):605–607.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Brown T, Havlin G, Weiss G, et al. 1991. A phase I trial of taxol given by a 6-hour intravenous infusion. J Clin Oncol 9(7): 1261–1267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Wiernik P, Schwartz E, Einzig A, et al. 1987. Phase I trial of taxol given as a 24-hour infusion every 21 days: Responses observed in metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 5(8): 1232–1239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rowinsky E, Burke P, Karp J, et al. 1989. Phase I and pharmacodynamic study of taxol in refractory acute leukemias. Cancer Res 49:4640–4647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Rowinsky EK, Cazenave LA, Donehower RC. 1990. Taxol: A novel investigational an-timicrotubule agent. J Natl Cancer Inst 82(15):1247–1259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Weiss R, Donehower R, Wiernik P, et al. 1990. Hypersensitivity reactions from taxol. Am J Clin Oncol 8:1263–1268.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Donehower RC, Rowinsky EK, Grochow LB, et al. 1987. Phase I trial of taxol in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 71:1171–1177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Rowinsky E, Gilbert M, McGuire W, et al. 1991. Sequences of taxol and cisplatin: A phase I and pharmacologic study. J Clin Oncol 9(9):1692–1703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Chang AY, Kim K, Glick J, et al. 1993. Phase II study of taxol, merbarone, and piroxantrone in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group results. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):388–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Murphy WK, Fossella FV, Winn RJ, et al. 1993. Phase II study of taxol in patients with untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):384–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Spremulli E, Schulz JJ, Speckhart VJ, et al. 1980. Phase II study of VM-26 in adult malignancies. Cancer Treat Rep 64(1): 147–149.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Samson MK, Baker LH, Talley RW, et al. 1978. VM-26: A clinical study in advanced carcinoma of the lung and ovary. Eur J Cancer 14:1395–1399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Creech RH, Mehta CR, Cohen M, et al. 1981. Results of a phase II protocol for evaluation of new chemotherapeutic regimens in patients with inoperable non-small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rep 65(5–6):431–438.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Giaccone G, Donadio M, Ferrati P, et al. 1987. Teniposide in the treatment on non-small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rep 71(1):83–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bork E, Ersbøll J, Dombernowsky P, et al. 1991. Teniposide and etoposide in previously untreated small-cell lung cancer: A randomized study. J Clin Oncol 9:1627–1631.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Depierre A, Lemaire E, Dabouis G, et al. 1991. A phase II study of navelbine (Vinorelbine) in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 14(2):115–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Besenval M, Delgado M, Demarez JP, et al. 1989. Safety and tolerance of navelbine in phase I–II clinical studies. Semin Oncol 16(2)(Suppl 4):37–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Mathe G, Reizenstein P. 1985. Phase I pharmacologic study of a new vinca alkaloid: Navelbine. Cancer Lett 27:285–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kubotal K, Furusel K, Niitani H: 1991. A late phase II study of navelbine (vinorelbine), a new vinca alkaloid derivative, in non small cell lung cancer (abstract). Lung Cancer 7(Suppl):117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Berthaud P, Le Chevalier T, Ruffle P, et al. 1992. Phase I–II study of vinorelbine (Navelbine.113) plus cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 28A(11):1863–1865.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Jones AL, Davies C, Smith IE. 1991. Phase II study of zeniplatin, an active new agent in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (abstract). Lung Cancer 7(Suppl):125.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan C. Grant
  • Mark G. Kris

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations