Prognostic Factor Analysis in Patients With Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Third-Line Chemotherapy

Feasibility and safety of platinum-doublet therapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer in the third-line setting: A multi-institutional retrospective study

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a highly malignant tumor, and no standard third-line therapy has been established. The present study retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of platinum-based regimens in patients with third-line SCLC who received third-line chemotherapy. The association of regimen type with overall survival (OS) or time to treatment failure (TTF) was evaluated using the Cox hazard proportional method, including well-known covariates affecting the prognosis of SCLC. TTF and OS analyses were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method. The data cutoff date was June 30, 2020. As a result, from January 2015 to August 2019, 111 patients were diagnosed with SCLC, and 37 received third-line chemotherapy. Subsequently, 15 patients received a platinum-doublet regimen, and 22 patients received a single-agent regimen. Only the type of regimen was significantly associated with TTF in univariate analysis (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.95; P=0.03). There were no significant factors associated with OS. The median TTF of patients receiving a platinum-doublet regimen and those receiving a single-agent regimen were 3.9 and 2.3 months, respectively (P=0.03). The overall response rates of the platinum-doublet and single-agent regimens were 20.0 and 4.5%, respectively. Similarly, the disease control rates were 73.3 and 36.4% for platinum-doublet and single-agent regimens, respectively. There was a tendency for adverse events (AEs) with any grade to occur more often in platinum-based regimens compared with in single-agent regimens. Severe AEs of grade 3 or higher were observed more often in the platinum-based regimen, especially in myelosuppression. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of platinum-doublet regimens in patients with SCLC in a third-line setting (Registration no. 2020-048. Date of registration, June 5, 2020).

Rovalpituzumab tesirine resistance: analysis of a corresponding small cell lung cancer and circulating tumor cell line pair

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is frequently found disseminated at first presentation and holds a poor prognosis due to emerging resistance to first-line platinum-based and second-line topotecan chemotherapy. The present investigation tested the antitumor activity of rovalpituzumab tesirine (ROVA-T), a cytotoxic anti-DLL3 drug conjugate, against two SCLC and a corresponding SCLC CTC cell line established from a ROVA-T-resistant patient to characterize the mechanism of recurrence. Two cell lines were established from an SCLC patient progressing under ROVA-T therapy and characterized with respect to chemosensitivity against this drug as well as against currently applied chemotherapeutics and for their delta-like 3 (DLL3) expression. The chemosensitivity assays demonstrate that most SCLC lines show IC50 values exceeding the ROVA-T in-vivo concentrations and that slow-growing cells and lines showing spheroidal growth or proliferation as corresponding circulating tumor cells (CTCs) exhibit higher resistance. Chemosensitivity of the cell lines is not correlated with DLL3 protein expression possibly due to toxicity of the free payload in tissue culture. The clinical trials and experimental results demonstrate that refractoriness to ROVA-T is linked to a low initial tumor expression of DLL3, loss of DLL3 expression, higher chemoresistance to ROVA-T and the putative formation of resistant spheroids by the SCLC cells.

Irinotecan monotherapy as third- or further-line treatment for patients with small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a very aggressive cancer and recurrence is inevitable. Treatment of recurrent disease is important for improving the prognosis of patients with SCLC.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study to investigate the efficacy and safety of irinotecan monotherapy as third- or further-line treatment in patients with SCLC.

RESULTS

Data of 15 patients who had received irinotecan monotherapy as third- or further-line treatment between 2004 and 2019 were analyzed. The median progression-free survival duration (95% confidence interval) from the initiation of treatment with irinotecan was 2.7 (1.4-3.8) months, and the median overall survival duration (95% confidence interval) from the initiation of irinotecan treatment was 10.0 (3.9-12.9) months. Partial response, stable disease or non-complete response/non-progressive disease, and progressive disease were observed in 1, 6, and 8 patients, respectively. Adverse events ⩾ grade 3 in severity were observed in 2/2 (100%) patients who were homozygous for UGT1A1 mutation, 2/3 (66.7%) patients who were heterozygous for UGT1A1 mutation, 4/6 (66.7%) patients who had wild-type UGT1A1, and 2/4 (50.0%) patients in whom the UGT1A1 mutation status was unknown.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that irinotecan monotherapy can be a useful alternative treatment option in the third-line setting for patients with SCLC.

Anlotinib vs placebo as third- or further-line treatment for patients with small cell lung cancer: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib as a third-line and subsequent treatment for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

METHODS

We conducted this Phase 2 trial at 11 institutions in China. Patients with pathologically confirmed SCLC who failed at least two lines of chemotherapy were enrolled. Subjects were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either anlotinib 12 mg orally once daily for 14 days every 3 weeks or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Between March 30, 2017 and June 8, 2018, a total of 82 and 38 patients were randomly assigned to receive anlotinib and placebo. The median PFS was significantly longer in the anlotinib group compared with the placebo group (4.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.8-4.2] vs 0.7 months [95% CI, 0.7-0.8]; hazard ratio (HR) 0.19 [95% CI, 0.12-0.32], p < 0.0001). Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with anlotinib than placebo (7.3 months [95% CI, 6.1-10.3] vs 4.9 months [95% CI, 2.7-6.0]; HR 0.53 [95% CI, 0.34-0.81], p = 0.0029).

CONCLUSIONS

Anlotinib as a third-line or subsequent treatment for Chinese patients with SCLC showed improved PFS and OS than placebo with favourable safety profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03059797.

Prognostic factor analysis of patients with small cell lung cancer: Real-world data from 988 patients

Background

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is characterized by aggressive spread and poor prognosis, but has limited treatment options. Results of prognostic factors from randomized trials on treatment arrangement are conflicting and large‐scale real‐world analysis is lacking.

Methods

Patients diagnosed SCLC between 2008 and 2018 in Peking University Cancer Hospital were included in this study. Kaplan–Meier methods were adopted, and univariate analysis and multivariate Cox regression models were constructed to analyze prognostic factors.

Results

Among 1045 patients who presented to our center, 988 eligible patients were identified. Median overall survival (OS) was 16.0 months for the whole group, 24.0 months and 11.0 months for limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS‐SCLC) and extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC), separately. Limited‐stage, good performance status (PS) (ECOG 0–1), response to primary systemic treatment, and patients who received initiative irradiation and three or more lines of chemotherapy were predicted to have better OS in the whole group. Only response to first‐line systemic therapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) were independent prognostic factors of survival in LS‐SCLC; while good PS (ECOG 0–1), without liver, bone, or subcutaneous metastases, response to first‐line therapy, initial local irradiation, and three or more lines of systemic therapy predicted a favorable prognosis in ES‐SCLC.

Conclusions

The present study retrieved from large real–world data suggested that response to primary systemic therapy and aggressive radiotherapy are independent prognostic factors for SCLC. PCI and initiative irradiation for original or metastatic sites improved the OS in LS‐SCLC and ES‐SCLC, respectively.

Paclitaxel for treatment of advanced small cell lung cancer (SCLC): a retrospective study of 185 patients

Background

Etoposide-/platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but responses are short-lived and subsequent options limited. Here, we present our experience with paclitaxel in advanced treatment lines.

Methods

We retrospectively studied the clinical course of all paclitaxel-treated SCLC patients between 2005 and 2015 in our institution. Prognostic and predictive factors were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

Results

A total of 185 patients [119 men, median age 65 years, median ECOG performance status (PS) 1] were identified. One hundred and sixty-eight patients had extensive disease (ED) at the time of paclitaxel therapy. Paclitaxel was mainly given as third- or fourth-line therapy (93%). The response rate (RR) was 17% and disease control rate (DCR) 28%. Patients reached a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 1.6 (95% CI: 1.4-1.8) months and median overall survival (OS) of 3.3 (95% CI: 2.8-3.9) months. Main toxicities were fatigue (25%) and polyneuropathy (17%). Dose reduction of ≥25% was associated with shorter PFS [1.9 (95% CI: 1.5-2.3) vs. 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3-1.5) months; P=0.004]. Further independent predictive factors for PFS were gender, age, and hepatic/brain metastases (P<0.05). Tumor response to paclitaxel, PS, number and location of metastases, dose reduction, and smoking history were significant factors for OS in univariable analyses (P<0.05), while PS, dose reduction, status of cerebral/hepatic metastases, tumor response, and smoking history were retained as independent prognostic factors in multivariable testing. Notably, ECOG PS 2 patients had toxicity rates similar to ECOG PS 0-1 patients (63% vs. 62%), as well as a comparable DCR (29% vs. 28%), which was associated with prolonged survival (4.5 vs. 3.2 months for refractory cases, P=0.034).

Conclusions

Paclitaxel has clinically relevant activity in heavily pretreated SCLC. While patients with good PS and no cerebral/hepatic metastases derive the greatest benefit, ECOG PS 2 per se should not be used as a criterion to exclude patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Tianfoshen Oral Liquid in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients as an Adjuvant Therapy

Ethnopharmacological Relevance

As an important Chinese herb injection, Tianfoshen (TFS) oral liquid is widely used in Chinese non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Aim of the Study

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Tianfoshen (TFS) oral liquid plus chemotherapy in Chinese NSCLC patients with Qi and Yin deficiency syndrome, an observational study was conducted in Beijing Friendship Hospital between August 2012 and July 2016. Patients, enrolled in this study, were diagnosed with NSCLC and were treated with Cisplatin in combination with Paclitaxel/Navelbine/Gemcitabine/Docetaxel as a first-line treatment, or Pemetrexed for recurrent patients. The primary endpoint was the improvement of traditional Chinese medicine syndrome and objective response rate in patients. The secondary endpoint was the occurrence of drug-related adverse events.

Results

A total of 108 patients were included in this study and underwent the safety and efficacy assessments. Compared to the baseline, the total scores of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome after 3 or 8/9 weeks of TFS treatment were statistically significant (P<0.0001), and the clinical efficiency rate was 36.11% and 50.93%, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) of TFS group were slightly higher than those of without-TFS group, although the comparison was not statistically significant. The incidence of common adverse events related to TFS was 7.41% whereas the incidence of serious adverse events was 0.93%.

Conclusions

As an adjuvant therapy of chemotherapy, TFS showed an acceptable tolerability profile in the clinical practice of Chinese NSCLC patients with Qi and Yin deficiency syndrome, but it seems to have no effect on the ORR and DCR.

The effect of post-progression survival on overall survival among patients with sensitive relapse of small cell lung cancer

Recent studies have suggested that, among patients with advanced lung cancer, subsequent treatment after failure of first-line or second-line chemotherapy has a greater effect on overall survival (OS) than tumor shrinkage or progression-free survival (PFS). However, no studies have examined this issue among patients with sensitive relapse of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We retrospectively evaluate 77 patients with sensitive relapse of SCLC who received second-line chemotherapy after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy between January 1999 and November 2013. The analyses included patient characteristics, treatment parameters, tumor shrinkage, PFS, post-progression survival (PPS), and OS. Spearman rank correlation analysis and linear regression analysis revealed that PPS was strongly correlated with OS (r = 0.91, p < 0.01, R² = 0.96), PFS was moderately correlated with OS (r = 0.58, p < 0.01, R² = 0.28), and tumor shrinkage was weakly correlated with OS (r = 0.34, p < 0.01, R² = 0.12). A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model with a stepwise regression procedure revealed that PPS was significantly associated with age at the start of second-line chemotherapy, best response to second-line and third-line chemotherapy, and the number of regimens after progression beyond second-line chemotherapy (p < 0.05). These findings suggest that PPS has a stronger effect than PFS on OS among patients with sensitive relapse of SCLC. Thus, response to second-line chemotherapy and subsequent treatment for disease progression after second-line chemotherapy may be important factors that influence OS.