• 1. Rowinsky EK. Chapter 13: antimitotic drugs. In: Chabner BA, Longo DL, eds. Cancer chemotherapy and biotherapy: principles and practice. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2011;216266.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Navelbine (vinorelbine tartrate) prescribing information [package insert]. Brentford, Middlesex, England: GlaxoSmithKline, 2002.

  • 3. Zhou XJ, Landi H, Breillout F, et al. Pharmacokinetics of Navelbine after oral administration in the dog and the monkey. Anticancer Drugs 1993; 4:511515.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Poirier VJ, Burgess KE, Adams WM, et al. Toxicity, dosage, and efficacy of vinorelbine (Navelbine) in dogs with spontaneous neoplasia. J Vet Intern Med 2004; 18:536539.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Grant IA, Rodriguez CO, Kent MS, et al. A phase II clinical trial of vinorelbine in dogs with cutaneous mast cell tumors. J Vet Intern Med 2008; 22:388393.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Kaye ME, Thamm DH, Weishaar K, et al. Vinorelbine rescue therapy for dogs with primary urinary bladder carcinoma [published online ahead of print Aug 25, 2013]. Vet Comp Oncol doi:10.1111/vco.12065.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Pierro JA, Mallett CL, Saba CF. Phase I clinical trial of vinorelbine in tumor-bearing cats. J Vet Intern Med 2013; 27:943948.

  • 8. Elit LM, Hirte H. Management of advanced or recurrent cervical cancer: chemotherapy and beyond. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2014; 14:319332.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Sørensen P, Høyer M, Jakobsen A, et al. Phase II study of vinorelbine in the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 81:5862.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Koussis H, Scola A, Bergamo F, et al. Neoadjuvant carboplatin and vinorelbine followed by radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck or esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a phase II study in elderly patients or patients with poor performance status. Anticancer Res 2008; 28:13831388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Kulke MH, Muzikansky A, Clark J, et al. A phase II trial of vinorelbine in patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Invest 2006; 24:346350.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Kelly RJ, Sharon E, Hassan R. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies for unresectable malignant mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2011; 73:256263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Annunziata M, Celentano M, Pocali B, et al. Vinorelbine plus intermediate dose cyclophosphamide is an effective and safe regimen for the mobilization of peripheral stem cells in patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 2006; 85:394399.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Sivam V, Cook L, Hughes G, et al. Gemcitabine and vinorelbine chemotherapy for refractory or relapsing aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Hematol Oncol 2012; 30:214215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Suyanı E, Sucak GT, Akı ŞZ, et al. Gemcitabine and vinorelbine combination is effective in both as a salvage and mobilization regimen in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma prior to ASCT. Ann Hematol 2011; 90:685691.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Kuttesch JF Jr, Krailo MD, Madden T, et al. Phase II evaluation of intravenous vinorelbine (Navelbine) in recurrent or refractory pediatric malignancies: a Children's Oncology Group study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2009; 53:590593.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Nguyen SM, Thamm DH, Vail DM. Response evaluation criteria for solid tumours in dogs (v1.0): a Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group (VCOG) consensus document [published online ahead of print Mar 28, 2013]. Vet Comp Oncol doi:10.1111/vco.12032.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Vail DM, Michels GM, Khanna C, et al. Response evaluation criteria for peripheral nodal lymphoma in dogs (v1.0)—a Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group (VCOG) consensus document. Vet Comp Oncol 2010; 8:2837.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. VCOG. Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group—common terminology criteria for adverse events (VCOG-CT-CAE) following chemotherapy or biological antineoplastic therapy in dogs and cats v1.1 [published online ahead of print Jul 20, 2011]. Vet Comp Oncol doi:10.1111/j.1476-5829.2011.00283.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Ogilvie GK, Weigel RM, Haschek WM, et al. Prognostic factors for tumor remission and survival in dogs after surgery for primary lung tumor: 76 cases (1975–1985). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1989;195:109112.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. McNiel EA, Ogilvie GK, Powers BE, et al. Evaluation of prognostic factors for dogs with primary lung tumors: 67 cases (1985–1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;211:14221427.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Polton GA, Brearley MJ, Powell SM, et al. Impact of primary tumour stage on survival in dogs with solitary lung tumours. J Small Anim Pract 2008; 49:6671.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Fidel J, Schiller I, Hauser B, et al. Histiocytic sarcomas in Flat-Coated Retrievers: a summary of 37 cases (November 1998–March 2005). Vet Comp Oncol 2006; 4:6374.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Skorupski KA, Clifford CA, Paoloni MC, et al. CCNU for the treatment of dogs with histiocytic sarcoma. J Vet Intern Med 2007; 21:121126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Skorupski KA, Rodriguez CO, Krick EL, et al. Long-term survival in dogs with localized histiocytic sarcoma treated with CCNU as an adjuvant to local therapy. Vet Comp Oncol 2009; 7:139144.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Sahora A, Khanna C. A survey of evidence in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine oncology manuscripts from 1999 to 2007. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24:5156.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Clinical effects of vinorelbine administration in the management of various malignant tumor types in dogs: 58 cases (1997–2012)

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
  • | 2 Department of Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
  • | 3 Department of Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
  • | 4 Department of Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the effectiveness of vinorelbine in the management of various malignant tumor types in dogs.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—58 dogs with malignant tumors, including pulmonary carcinoma (n = 31), histiocytic sarcoma (9), mast cell tumor (5), lymphoma (4), melanoma (2), and 7 other tumor types (1 each).

Procedures—Medical records of dogs treated with vinorelbine from December 1997 to December 2012 were reviewed for data regarding signalment, clinical signs, physical examination findings, clinicopathologic test results, diagnostic imaging results, vinorelbine doses and dose frequency, surgery and radiotherapy details when applicable, other chemotherapeutics administered, and outcomes. Descriptive, comparative, and survival statistics were computed for all dogs and for dogs by histologic subgroup of tumors.

Results—Vinorelbine was administered palliatively to 44 (76%) dogs. One (2%) dog had a complete response for 162 days, 5 (11%) dogs had a partial response for a median duration of 91 days, 19 (43%) dogs had stable disease for a median duration of 68 days, and 19 (43%) dogs developed progressive disease after a median duration of 21 days. Clinical benefit was more difficult to assess in the remaining 14 (24%) dogs that received vinorelbine as an adjuvant treatment. Overall median time to tumor progression was 103 days (range, 5 to 1,533 days).

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Vinorelbine appeared to be effective in the treatment of several tumor types in dogs. Follow-up prospective studies of the clinical benefit of the drug in specific clinical scenarios will be necessary to support this conclusion.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the effectiveness of vinorelbine in the management of various malignant tumor types in dogs.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—58 dogs with malignant tumors, including pulmonary carcinoma (n = 31), histiocytic sarcoma (9), mast cell tumor (5), lymphoma (4), melanoma (2), and 7 other tumor types (1 each).

Procedures—Medical records of dogs treated with vinorelbine from December 1997 to December 2012 were reviewed for data regarding signalment, clinical signs, physical examination findings, clinicopathologic test results, diagnostic imaging results, vinorelbine doses and dose frequency, surgery and radiotherapy details when applicable, other chemotherapeutics administered, and outcomes. Descriptive, comparative, and survival statistics were computed for all dogs and for dogs by histologic subgroup of tumors.

Results—Vinorelbine was administered palliatively to 44 (76%) dogs. One (2%) dog had a complete response for 162 days, 5 (11%) dogs had a partial response for a median duration of 91 days, 19 (43%) dogs had stable disease for a median duration of 68 days, and 19 (43%) dogs developed progressive disease after a median duration of 21 days. Clinical benefit was more difficult to assess in the remaining 14 (24%) dogs that received vinorelbine as an adjuvant treatment. Overall median time to tumor progression was 103 days (range, 5 to 1,533 days).

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Vinorelbine appeared to be effective in the treatment of several tumor types in dogs. Follow-up prospective studies of the clinical benefit of the drug in specific clinical scenarios will be necessary to support this conclusion.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Wouda's present address is Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.

Supported in part by the Clinical and Translational Science Award program, through the National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (grant UL1TR000427 awarded to Dr. Stein).

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Address correspondence to Dr. Wouda (rwouda@vet.k-state.edu).