Maintenance daily oral etoposide versus no further therapy following induction chemotherapy with etoposide plus ifosfamide plus cisplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a Hoosier Oncology Group randomized study

Systemic Therapy for Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO-Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing clinicians on the management of patients with small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel of medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2022. Outcomes of interest included response rates, overall survival, disease-free survival or recurrence-free survival, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 95 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations were developed to address systemic therapy options, timing of therapy, treatment in patients who are older or with poor performance status, role of biomarkers, and use of myeloid-supporting agents in patients with small-cell lung cancer.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Efficacy and Safety of Anlotinib in the Treatment of Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Real-World Observation Study

Aims

This study aimed to observe the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in the real world, as first-line maintenance therapy, second-line, and above.

Methods

Clinical data of 109 patients with SCLC treated with anlotinib and hospitalized at The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from June 2018 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Analysis of short-term efficacy and survival was performed, with p<0.05 being considered statistically significant.

Results

The median progression-free survival (mPFS) of anlotinib monotherapy used as first-line maintenance treatment of SCLC was 6.3 months (11.7 months in the limited phase and 5.8 months in the extensive phase) and median overall survival (mOS) was 16.7 months (not reached in limited phase, 12.6 months in extensive phase). In second-line treatment, anlotinib with chemotherapy prolonged PFS and OS as compared to anlotinib monotherapy (p<0.05). In third-line and above treatment, there was no improvement in mPFS with the chemotherapy combination regimen compared to anlotinib monotherapy (3.6 months vs. 3.8 months, p=0.398), with a trend toward impaired mOS (8.5 months vs. not achieved, p=0.060). Univariate analyses and multivariate analyses revealed that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and liver metastases were independent prognostic factors affecting PFS and OS. No new anlotinib-related adverse reactions were identified.

Conclusion

Anlotinib was effective for first-line maintenance and second-line treatment, and the chemotherapy combination regimen was superior to monotherapy when applied as second-line treatment. However, this trend was not observed in third-line and above therapy.

Treatment beyond four cycles of first line Platinum and Etoposide chemotherapy in real-life patients with stage IV Small Cell Lung Cancer: a retrospective study of the Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer network

Background

Dose intensity and dose density of first line Platinum and Etoposide (PE) do not influence Overall Survival (OS) of Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) patients. The effect of treatment length, however, remains unclear. Current guidelines recommend treating beyond 4 cycles -up to 6-, in patients that respond to and tolerate systemic treatment. This has led to variable practice both in clinical practice and clinical research. Here we aimed at quantifying the possible clinical benefit of the extended regimen in our real-life patients treated with PE doublet.

Methods

Of all patients with SCLC treated in our network with non-concurrent first line PE chemotherapy between 2008 and 2015, we identified and described patients that received 4 cycles (4c) or more (> 4c), and analysed patients with stage IV disease.

Results

Two hundred forty-one patients with stage IV had 4c and 69 had > 4c. The latter were more likely to have sequential thoracic radiotherapy, which suggested a lower metastatic burden. Nevertheless, there were no statistically significant differences when comparing clinical outcomes. The median Duration of Response (DoR; time from last chemotherapy cycle to progression) was 5 months in both groups (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.93–1.61). Median Progression Free Survival (PFS; time from diagnosis to radiological progression) was 8 months (4c) versus 9 months (> 4c) (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.66–1.13) and median OS was 11 versus 12 months (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66–1.14).

Conclusion

Our results highlight a lack of clinical benefit by extending first line PE treatment in stage IV disease, and support limiting treatment to 4 cycles until superiority of a longer regimen is identified in a randomised study.

Initial management of small-cell lung cancer (limited- and extensive-stage) and the role of thoracic radiotherapy and first-line chemotherapy: a systematic review

Background

Patients with limited-stage (ls) or extensive-stage (es) small-cell lung cancer (sclc) are commonly given platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment. Standard chemotherapy for patients with ls sclc includes a platinum agent such as cisplatin combined with the non-platinum agent etoposide. The objective of the present systematic review was to investigate the efficacy of adding radiotherapy to chemotherapy in patients with es sclc and to determine the appropriate timing, dose, and schedule of chemotherapy or radiation for patients with sclc.

Methods

The medline and embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (rcts) comparing treatment with radiotherapy plus chemotherapy against treatment with chemotherapy alone in patients with es sclc. Identified rcts were also included if they compared various timings, doses, and schedules of treatment for patients with es sclc or ls sclc.

Results

Sixty-four rcts were included. In patients with ls sclc, overall survival was greatest with platinum-etoposide compared with other chemotherapy regimens. In patients with es sclc, overall survival was greatest with chemotherapy containing platinum-irinotecan than with chemotherapy containing platinum-etoposide (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.74 to 0.95; p = 0.006). The addition of radiation to chemotherapy for patients with es sclc showed mixed results. There was no conclusive evidence that the timing, dose, or schedule of thoracic radiation affected treatment outcomes in sclc.

Conclusions

In patients with ls sclc, cisplatin-etoposide plus radiotherapy should remain the standard therapy. In patients with es sclc, the evidence is insufficient to recommend the addition of radiotherapy to chemotherapy as standard practice to improve overall survival. However, on a case-by-case basis, radiotherapy might be added to reduce local recurrence. The most commonly used chemotherapy is platinum-etoposide; however, platinum-irinotecan can be considered.

Treatment for small cell lung cancer, where are we now?-a review

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents between 13% and 15% of all diagnosed lung cancers worldwide. It is an aggressive neoplasia, with a 5-year mortality of 90% or more. It has historically been classified as limited disease (LD) and extensive disease (ED) in most study protocols. The cornerstone of treatment for any stage of SCLC is etoposide-platinum based chemotherapy; in limited stage (LS), concomitant radiotherapy to thorax and mediastinum. Prophylactic radiotherapy to the central nervous system (CNS) [prophylactic cerebral irradiation (PCI)] has diminished the incidence of brain metastasis as the site for relapse in LD and ED patients, therefore it should be offered to patients with complete response to induction first-line treatment. Regarding second-line treatment, results are more modest and topotecan is accepted as treatment for this scenario offering a modest benefit.

Small Cell Lung Cancer

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive cancer of neuroendocrine origin, which is strongly associated with cigarette smoking. Patients typically present with a short duration of symptoms and frequently (60-65 %) with metastatic disease. SCLC is a heterogeneous disease including extremely chemosensitive and chemoresistant clones. For this reason, a high percentage of patients respond to first-line chemotherapy but rapidly succumb to the disease. SCLC is generally divided into two stages, limited and extensive. Standard treatment of limited stage disease includes combination chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide for four cycles, thoracic radiation initiated early with the first cycle of chemotherapy, and consideration of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in the subset of patients with good response. Surgery may play a role in TNM stages I and II. In extensive disease, platinum agents and etoposide, used in combination, are again the first-line standard of care in the USA. However, thoracic radiation therapy is used predominately in patients where local control is important and PCI is of uncertain benefit. Despite these treatments, prognosis remains poor and novel therapies are needed to improve survival in this disease.

[Research Progression of Maintenance Therapy in Small Cell Lung Cancer]

Lung cancer is one of the common malignant tumors in the world, the incidence of small cell lung cancer is about 15% among them. Small cell lung cancer is highly sensitive to first-line chemotherapy, but most of the patients relapse after the first-line therapy quickly. Despitemany clinical researchof chemotherapy, biological agents and molecular targeting agents since the 1980s, there still remains a substantial lack of consensus regarding the appropriate therapeutic management on maintenance therapy of small cell lung cancer. The review focuses on maintenance therapy of small cell lung cancer.

Chemotherapy of lung cancer: A global perspective of the role of ifosfamide

The oxazaphosphorine cytostatic ifosfamide (IFO) has been successfully integrated in the treatment of various hematological and solid tumors. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence for its use in lung cancer starting from basic data of preclinical studies followed by a global summary of the phase III and seminal phase II clinical studies. Global in double respect: first covering both the small cell as well as the non-small cell indications, and, second tracing those studies performed in Europe and the United States as well as those from Asian countries.

Chemotherapy versus best supportive care for extensive small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Combination chemotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for extensive stage small celI lung cancer (SCLC) over the last 30 years, even though it only gives a short prolongation in median survival time. The main goal for these patients should be palliation with the aim of improving their quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy versus placebo or best supportive care (BSC) in prolonging survival in patients with extensive SCLC at diagnosis and the effectiveness of second-line chemotherapy at relapse or progression after first-line chemotherapy compared with BSC or placebo in prolonging survival in patients with extensive SCLC; as well as to evaluate the adverse events of treatment and the quality of life of patients.

SEARCH METHODS

This is the second update of the review. MEDLINE (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (1974 to October 2013), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 3) were searched. Experts in the field were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Phase III randomised controlled trials in which any chemotherapy treatment was compared with  placebo or BSC in patients with extensive SCLC, as first-line or second-line therapy at relapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Additional information was obtained from one study author.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies of unclear risk of bias were included for first-line chemotherapy. A total of 88 men under 70 years with good performance status were randomised to receive either supportive care, placebo infusion or ifosfamide. Ifosfamide gave an extra mean survival of 78.5 days compared with supportive care or placebo infusion. Partial tumour response was greater with the active treatment. Toxicity was only seen in the chemotherapy group and quality of life was only assessed at the beginning of treatment. The quality of the evidence for overall survival and adverse effects was very low.Three studies of moderate risk of bias were included for second-line chemotherapy at relapse (one identified in the last search). A total of 932 men and women under 75 years and any performance status were randomised to receive either methotrexate-doxorubicin, topotecan, or picoplatin versus symptomatic treatment or BSC. The methotrexate-doxorubicin treatment gave a median survival of 63 days longer than in the symptomatic-treatment group for patients allocated to receive four cycles of first-line chemotherapy, and 21 days longer for patients allocated to receive eight cycles of first-line chemotherapy.Treatment with topotecan gave a median survival of 84 days longer than in the BSC group (log-rank P = 0.01). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival was 0.61 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.87). Treatment with picoplatin gave a median survival time of six days longer than BSC (HR 0.817, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.03, P = 0.0895). A meta-analysis of topotecan and picoplatin gave a HR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.96, P = 0.03; low-quality evidence).Partial or complete response in the methotrexate-doxorubicin group was 22.3%. Five patients (7%, 95% CI 2.33 to 15.67) showed a partial response with topotecan. No data were provided about tumour response in the picoplatin study. Toxicity was worst in the chemotherapy group (moderate-quality evidence). Quality of life was better in the topotecan group and was not measured in the methotrexate-doxorubicin and picoplatin studies (low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two small RCTs from the 1970s suggest that first-line chemotherapeutic treatment (based on ifosfamide) may provide a small survival benefit (less than three months) in comparison with supportive care or placebo infusion in patients with advanced SCLC. However platinum-based combination chemotherapy regimens have been shown to increase complete response rates when compared to non-platinum chemotherapy regimens with no significant difference in survival, and so these are currently the standard first-line treatment for patients with SCLC.Second-line chemotherapy at relapse or progression may prolong survival for some weeks in relation to BSC. Nevertheless, the impact of first-line chemotherapy on quality of life, older patients, women and patients with poor prognosis is unknown and the benefits of second-line chemotherapy are also unclear for older people. Globally, the evidence on which these conclusions are based is very scarce and of uncertain or low quality, which calls for well-designed, controlled trials to further evaluate the trade-offs between benefits and risks of different chemotherapeutic schedules in patients with advanced SCLC.

Duration of chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Maintenance chemotherapy is widely provided to patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, the benefits of maintenance chemotherapy compared with observation are a subject of debate.

METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

To identify relevant literature, we systematically searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Eligible trials included patients with SCLC who either received maintenance chemotherapy (administered according to a continuous or switch strategy) or underwent observation. The primary outcome was 1-year mortality, and secondary outcomes were 2-year mortality, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Of the 665 studies found in our search, we identified 14 relevant trials, which together reported data on 1806 patients with SCLC. When compared with observation, maintenance chemotherapy had no effect on 1-year mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-1.19; P = 0.414), 2-year mortality (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.57-1.19; P = 0.302), OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.71-1.06; P = 0.172), or PFS (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.62-1.22; P = 0.432). However, subgroup analyses indicated that maintenance chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer PFS than observation in patients with extensive SCLC (HR, 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58-0.89; P = 0.003). Additionally, patients who were managed using the continuous strategy of maintenance chemotherapy appeared to be at a disadvantage in terms of PFS compared with patients who only underwent observation (HR, 1.27; 95% CI: 1.04-1.54; P = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Maintenance chemotherapy failed to improve survival outcomes in patients with SCLC. However, a significant advantage in terms of PFS was observed for maintenance chemotherapy in patients with extensive disease. Additionally, our results suggest that the continuous strategy is inferior to observation; its clinical value needs to be investigated in additional trials.

Phase II study of oral etoposide maintenance for patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer who have responded to the induction on an EP regimen

BACKGROUND

Maintenance therapy for extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) is still under debate. Many new agents fail during the maintenance course. As an active agent for SCLC, oral etoposide is worth being re-evaluated.

METHODS

This phase II study was performed to evaluate the toxicity/efficacy of the maintenance of patients with oral etoposide with ES-SCLC responding (complete remission [CR] + partial remission [PR]) to the induction of four cycles of etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) chemotherapy. Maintenance therapy with oral etoposide (50 mg/m² , day 1-14, repeated every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurs) was administered. The primary endpoints were grade 3 and 4 toxicities and progression free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients with ES-SCLC received standard EP regimens as induction therapy; 31 responding patients were administered oral etoposide as the maintenance treatment. The most common hematological and non-hematological toxicity of the maintenance course was neutropenia and fatigue, respectively. Median PFS was nine months (95% confidence interval (CI): 8.33∼9.67 months), median overall survival (OS) was 14 months (95% CI: 11.58∼16.42 months). Significantly better PFS and OS were seen in patients responding to the induction EP chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral etoposide maintenance is safe and effective for patients with ES-SCLC who responded to the induction of EP chemotherapy. Significant survival benefit was revealed in patients completely responding to an EP regimen. Further randomized control study is warranted.

Chemotherapy for brain metastases from small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for approximately 20% of all cases of lung cancer. It tends to disseminate early in the course of its natural history and to grow quickly. Approximately 10% to 18% of patients present with brain metastases (BM) at the time of initial diagnosis, and an additional 40% to 50% will develop BM some time during the course of their disease.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of systemic chemotherapy for the treatment of BM from SCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Lung Cancer Review Group Specialised Register (July 2011), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to July 2011), EMBASE (2005 to July 2011), LILACS (1982 to July 2011) and the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systemic chemotherapy (single agent or combination chemotherapy) with another chemotherapy regimen, palliative care, whole brain radiotherapy or any combination of these interventions for the treatment of BM as the only site of progression.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were carried out independently by two review authors. As the included studies evaluated three different treatment modalities meta-analysis was not possible.

MAIN RESULTS

Three RCTs, involving 192 participants, met inclusion criteria for this review. No significant differences for overall survival (OS) were reported in any of the trials: in the first trial, 33 patients received whole brain radiation therapy and no significant difference was found between patients treated with topotecan and those not treated with topotecan. In a second trial, in which 120 patients were randomized to receive teniposide with or without brain radiation therapy, the authors reported that the median progression-free survival (brain-specific progression-free survival (PFS)) was 3.5 months in the combined modality arm and 3.2 in the teniposide alone arm. In a third trial, comparing sequential and concomitant chemoradiotherapy (teniposide plus cisplatin) in 39 participants, the survival difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. While the first trial reported no significant difference in PFS, the second RCT found a significant difference favoring combined therapy group. The second trial also found that patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (teniposide plus whole brain radiotherapy) had a higher complete response rate than those receiving only the topoisomerase inhibitor.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the paucity of robust studies assessing the clinical effects of treatments, available evidence is insufficient to judge the effectiveness and safety of chemotherapy for the treatment of BM from SCLC. Published studies are insufficient to address the objectives of this review. According to the available evidence included in this review, chemotherapy does not improve specific brain PFS and OS in patients with SCLC. The combined treatment of teniposide and brain radiation therapy contributed to outcome in terms of increased complete remission and shorter time to progression (though not OS).

Chemotherapy versus best supportive care for extensive small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Combination chemotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for extensive stage small celI lung cancer (SCLC) over the last 30 years even though it only gives a short prolongation in median survival time. The main goal for these patients should be palliation with the aim of improving their quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of chemotherapy in extensive SCLC compared with best supportive care (BSC) or placebo treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE (1966 to July 2008), EMBASE (1974 to week 31, 2008), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2008). Experts in the field were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which any chemotherapy treatment was compared with placebo or BSC in patients with extensive SCLC, as first or second therapy at relapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Additional information was obtained from one study author.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies were included for first-line chemotherapy. A total of 65 patients were randomised to receive either placebo or ifosfamide. Ifosfamide gave an extra mean survival of 78.5 days compared with placebo. Partial tumour response was greater with the active treatment. Toxicity was only seen in the chemotherapy group.Two studies were included for second-line chemotherapy at relapse. A total of 531 patients were randomised to receive either methotrexate-doxorubicin or symptomatic treatment, or to receive oral topotecan versus BSC. The methotrexate-doxorubicin treatment gave a median survival of 63 days longer than in the symptomatic treatment group, and 21 days longer for patients allocated to receive four or eight cycles of first-line chemotherapy, respectively.Treatment with topotecan gave a median survival of 84 days longer than in the BSC group (log-rank P = 0.01). The adjusted hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87). Partial or complete response in the methotrexate-doxorubicin group was 22.3%. Five patients (7%, 95% CI, 2.33 to 15.67) showed a partial response with topotecan. Toxicity was worst in the chemotherapy group. Quality of life was better in the topotecan group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapeutic treatment prolongs survival in comparison with placebo in patients with advanced SCLC. Nevertheless, the impact of first-line chemotherapy on quality of life and in patients with poor prognosis is unknown. Well-designed, controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the risks and benefits of different chemotherapeutic schedules in patients with advanced SCLC.

Phase II trial of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9430

BACKGROUND

Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 9430 was a randomized phase II trial which investigated the safety and activity of four novel doublets in untreated extensive stage small cell lung cancer. The results of the paclitaxel and cisplatin arm have not been reported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received paclitaxel 230 mg/m followed by cisplatin 75 mg/m on day 1 every 21 days. All patients received granulocyte colony stimulating factor 5 microg/kg/d beginning on day 3 of each cycle.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics of the 34 patients assigned to this treatment arm were: median age 61.5 years (range 41-82), male (76%), performance status 0 (41%), 1 (32%), and 2 (26%). An objective response was observed in 23 patients (68%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 49-83%); 2 complete responses (6%) and 21 partial responses (62%). Median progression-free survival time was 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.8-7.1 month), and median overall survival time was 7.7 months (95% CI: 7.2-12.6 months). The 1-year survival rate observed was 29% (95% CI: 15-45%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was observed in 5 (15%) and 4 (12%) patients, respectively. Two patients developed febrile neutropenia including one patient who died of neutropenic sepsis. Grade 3/4 nonhematologic observed were: sensory neuropathy in eight patients (24%); and hyperglycemia, malaise and nausea were all observed in four patients (12%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer and Leukemia Group B will not pursue further investigation of paclitaxel and cisplatin due to the modest activity and the toxicity observed on this trial.

Randomized phase II study of maintenance irinotecan therapy versus observation following induction chemotherapy with irinotecan and cisplatin in extensive disease small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

To determine whether irinotecan maintenance therapy in extensive disease-small cell lung cancer can improve survival of patients who responded to irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) induction therapy.

METHODS

A total of 120 chemo-naive patients with adequate organ functions and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were enrolled from March 2003 through April 2006. After IP induction therapy, with either schedule A (I: 60 mg/m intravenously (IV) on days 1, 8, and 15; P: 30 mg/m IV on days 1 and 8, every 4 weeks for six cycles) or schedule B (I: 60 mg/m and P: 30 mg/m IV on days 1, and 8, every 3 weeks for eight cycles), responding patients were randomized to either maintenance with irinotecan 100 mg/m IV on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks up to six cycles, or observation.

RESULTS

Overall, 100 (83%) of 120 patients achieved objective tumor responses (12 complete responses, 88 partial responses) after IP induction therapy. Of those patients who remained in remission upon completion of planned cycles of induction therapy, 45 were randomized to maintenance (n = 21) or observation (n = 24). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients were 7.2 and 14.0 months, respectively. For the maintenance arm, median PFS and OS were 12.0 and 17.6 months, respectively. For the observation arm, median PFS and OS were 9.9 and 20.5 months, respectively, which was not significantly different from the maintenance arm.

CONCLUSIONS

IP chemotherapy is very useful for the treatment of small cell lung cancer. However, maintenance irinotecan therapy did not seem to further affect the clinical outcome of patients who had responded to IP induction therapy.

Phase II trial of weekly dose-dense paclitaxel in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: cancer and leukemia group B study 39901

INTRODUCTION

Paclitaxel is an active agent in extensive-stage (ES) small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Nevertheless, the optimal schedule is uncertain. A dose-dense schedule was previously evaluated in a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study of patients with non-SCLC, resulting in a 42% response rate and median survival of 12.3 months. Because of these promising results, this dose and schedule of paclitaxel was evaluated in patients with ES-SCLC.

METHODS

Patients were eligible for this phase II trial (Cancer and Leukemia Group B 39901) if they had documented ES-SCLC, no prior chemotherapy, and performance status of 0 to 2. Paclitaxel was administered as an intravenous infusion at 150 mg/m2 over 3 hours weekly for 6 consecutive weeks every 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients with median age of 65 were enrolled. Of them 25 were men and 33 with a performance status 0 to 1. A median of two 8-week cycles were delivered. The percent of patients with grade 3/4 toxicity included neutropenia 22%, anemia 9%, febrile neutropenia 6%, fatigue 20%, sensory neuropathy 26%, motor neuropathy 11%, and dyspnea 17%. There were two treatment-related deaths, both from pneumonitis. The overall response rate was 33% (3% complete response and 30% partial response). Median progression-free and overall survivals were 3.7 and 9.2 months, respectively. One-year progression-free and overall survivals were 17% and 36%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with ES-SCLC, dose-dense weekly paclitaxel was associated with fairly mild hematologic toxicity. Nevertheless, nonhematologic toxicities, including neuropathy, fatigue, and dyspnea required frequent dose delays and reductions. The overall response rate is disappointing and much lower than that seen with standard platinum-based combinations. Paclitaxel in this dose and schedule should not be used as front-line therapy for patients with ES-SCLC.

Phase II trial of thalidomide as maintenance therapy for extensive stage small cell lung cancer after response to chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a highly aggressive malignancy for which little therapeutic progress has been made over the past 20 years. SCLC is a highly angiogenic tumor and targeting angiogenesis is being investigated. The putative mechanism of action of thalidomide is through inhibition of new blood vessel formation. This trial was designed to evaluate thalidomide in ES-SCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who had received first-line chemotherapy without disease progression were eligible. Patients received thalidomide 200 mg daily as maintenance therapy starting 3-6 weeks after completion of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled. Toxicity was minimal with grade 1 neuropathy in 27% of patients and only one case of grade 3 neuropathy. Median survival from time of initiation of induction chemotherapy was 12.8 months (95% CI: 10.1-15.8 months) and 1-year survival of 51.7% (95% CI: 32.5-67.9%). Median duration on thalidomide was 79 days.

CONCLUSION

Thalidomide 200mg daily is well tolerated when given as maintenance therapy for ES-SCLC after induction chemotherapy. Further evaluation of anti-angiogenic agents in SCLC is warranted.

Small cell lung cancer: treatment review

Lung cancer was relatively uncommon at the turn of the 20th century, and has increased in prevalence at alarming rates, particularly because of the augmented trend in smoking, so that it is now the most common cause of cancer death in the world. As almost a quarter of these cancers are of small cell in origin, it seems only appropriate that small cell lung cancer receives ample attention, rather than seemingly to have been overlooked over the last 10-15 years. Despite its generally late presentation and high risk of dissemination, it is exceptionally sensitive to chemo-radiotherapy. This review looks at the diverse options of treatment that have been used over the last few years and tries to highlight the best available. As more than 50% of patients diagnosed with lung cancer are over 70 years of age and various studies have shown that older people respond just as well as their younger counterparts, with similar results in response rates, toxicity and outcomes, it is imperative that the older generation are not disregarded in terms of age being a contraindication to therapy.

Does maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy have a role in the management of small cell lung cancer (SCLC)?

BACKGROUND

The role of maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy was assessed in the management of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) via a metaanalytic approach.

METHODS

The Medline and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant randomized clinical trials that compared maintenance chemotherapy with follow-up. Quality of trials was assessed by European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) score. Odds ratios and rate differences were used as the effect size. Mantel-Haenszel tests with fixed and random effect models were conducted for 1- and 2-year overall survival (OAS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Fourteen relevant randomized clinical trials to date, encompassing 2550 patients, with trial sizes ranging from 36 to 610, were identified. Both 1- and 2-year mortality were reduced with maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy. With the fixed model, odds ratios for 1- and 2-year OAS were 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56-0.79), P < 0.001, and also 0.67 (95% CI = 0.53-0.86), P < 0.001. Likewise, 1- and 2-year PFS were better with maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy, with odds ratios of 0.49 (95% CI = 0.37-0.63), P < 0.001, and 0.64 (95% CI = 0.45-0.92), P < 0.015. The random model gave similar results. In accordance, maintenance chemotherapy improved 1- and 2-year OAS by 9% (from 30-39%) and 4% (from 10-14%), respectively. Similarly, 1- and 2-year PFS were also improved.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy improves survival in SCLC. New randomized clinical trials are needed to further refine the place of this approach in the management of SCLC.

Chemotherapy strategies in the treatment of small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is the most prevalent, yet most preventable malignancy worldwide. Given the tendency of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) to early relapse and its subsequent resistance to treatment, there is an urgent need to optimize standard treatment strategies and develop new treatments. Over the last decade, several strategies have been adopted and advances in the molecular biology of lung cancer have identified a number of targets for future therapy. In this article, we review chemotherapy strategies that have been evaluated in the management of patients with SCLC.

A multicenter, randomized, Phase II study of cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine as first-line treatment in patients with poor-prognosis small cell lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of combined cisplatin, etoposide, and gemcitabine (PEG) and combined cisplatin plus gemcitabine (PG) in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage and poor-prognosis limited-stage small-cell lung carcinoma.

METHODS

One hundred forty patients (70 patients in two arms) were randomized to receive either cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on Day 1, etoposide 50 mg/m2 on Days 1-3, and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 or cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on Day 1 plus gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8. Both regimens were recycled every 21 days.

RESULTS

In total, 626 cycles were delivered (303 cycles of PEG and 323 cycles of PG), with a median of 4 cycles per patient in both arms. The objective response rate was 63% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 49-71%) for PEG and 57% (95%CI, 43-67%) for PG, with the suggestion of a higher complete response rate in the PEG arm (18.6% and 4.3%, respectively). A similar time to disease progression (6 months in the PEG arm and 7 months in the PG arm) and a similar median survival (9.5 months in the PEG arm and 10 months in the PG arm) were observed in both arms. The PEG regimen was associated with more severe hematologic toxicity in terms of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and a higher rate of treatment delays and dose reductions, whereas nonhematologic toxicities did not differ between the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of this Phase II randomized trial, the PEG regimen produced a higher complete response rate but more toxicity compared with the PG regimen in patients with extensive-stage or poor-prognosis, limited-stage small cell lung carcinoma.

First-line chemotherapy in metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC)

The overall treatment results in metastatic small-cell lung cancer have not been changed in the last decades. The prognosis of the disease is still poor with median survival times of less than one year and nearly no chance of cure. This article intends to summarize the current status of treatment in m-SCLC and especially focuses on the aspects of choice of drugs and efforts of treatment intensification either by dose escalation or shortening of treatment intervals. Furthermore the currently available data about the activity of newer drugs, including taxanes and topoisomerase I inhibitors are reported. These cytostatic agents widen the therapeutic options in the treatment of SCLC and will hopefully improve the outcome of the patients in the next years.

Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) continues to be a difficult management issue. While response rates to therapy are relatively high, durable responses are rare, and long-term survival rates are dismal. Although many attempts have been made to develop new therapies, cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy remains the mainstay in the management of these patients. In this review we highlight recent developments in the treatment and management of this malignancy, and discuss future prospects in treatment.

Phase II trial of paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and carboplatin in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) remains a therapeutic challenge to the medical oncologists. We evaluated the triplet combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) over 1 h), ifosfamide (2.5 gm/m(2) over 1 h) and carboplatin (AUC=6 over 0.5 h) (PIC) all given on day 1 of a 21 day schedule. Thirty-five patients were entered with a median age of 59 years (range 40-79). The ECOG PS was 0-1 in 86%. A median of 6 cycles were delivered (range 1-6). The principal toxicity was neutropenia with 66% of patients experiencing grade 4 neutropenia. Only 9% of patients experienced febrile neutropenia. One treatment-related death (3%) due to neutropenic sepsis occurred. Non-hematologic toxicity was minimal. The overall response rate was 71% (15% complete response, 56% partial responses). Quality of life appeared to be stable across time. The median survival time was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 6.7-13.2 months) with a 1- and 2-year survival rates of 43% (95% CI, 26-59%) and 16% (95% CI, 2-30%). PIC has activity in ES-SCLC and is associated with a response rate and survival profile similar to other combinations in this disease setting. This regimen has a tolerable toxicity profile and a favorable and convenient administration schedule.

Chemotherapy versus best supportive care for extensive small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Combination chemotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for extensive stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) over the last 25 years even though it only gives a short prolongation in median survival time. The main goal for these patients, if their survival prognosis is limited, should be adequate palliation with the aim of improving their quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of chemotherapy in extensive SCLC compared with best supportive care (BSC) or placebo treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Medline (1966-Jan 2003), Embase (1974-Jan 2003), Cancerlit (1993-Jan 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 4, 2002) were searched. In addition experts in the field were contacted to identify further studies not found by electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which any chemotherapy treatment was compared with a placebo group or best supportive care in patients with extensive stage SCLC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken independently by two reviewers and disagreements were resolved by a third author. Additional information on the included studies was obtained from the author of the original studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two studies (the first published in 1977 and the second in 1982) met the inclusion criteria of the review. A total of 65 patients with extensive disease (33 in the first study and 32 in the second) were randomised to received either placebo treatment or ifosfamide. In the second study a third arm of comparison included ifosfamide plus CCNU. Ifosfamide gave an extra 78.5 days survival (mean survival time) compared with the placebo group. Partial tumour response was greater with the active treatment. Toxicity was only seen in the chemotherapy group. Pooled analysis was not possible because only mean survival time was reported in both studies for patients with extensive disease.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapeutic treatment prolongs survival in comparison with placebo in patients with advanced SCLC. Nevertheless the impact of chemotherapy on quality of life and in patients with poor prognosis is unknown. Well-designed, controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the risks and benefits of different chemotherapeutic schedules in patients with advanced small cell lung cancer.

Small-Cell Lung Cancer: State of the Art

Thirty years ago, there was a pervasive atmosphere of pessimism concerning the management of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Surgery or radiation therapy alone resulted in few cures since these techniques utilize a local therapy for a disseminated disease. Chemotherapy remains the backbone of treatment for all patients with SCLC, regardless of stage. For patients with limited-stage disease (LD), the addition of thoracic radiation to chemotherapy is standard. The optimal timing, dose, and schedule of radiation remains undefined. The majority of studies demonstrate equivalent or superior survival for early radiation when compared to delayed radiation. Approximately 50% of patients with LD will achieve a complete remission with chemoradiation and will be candidates for prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). While phase III trials have failed to demonstrate a statistically significant survival for PCI, brain relapse is clearly reduced, and a metaanalysis reports a small long-term survival advantage favoring patients receiving PCI. Unfortunately, unlike LD SCLC, advances in extensive-stage disease have been elusive, despite the testing of numerous strategies. Four courses of cisplatin (or carboplatin) plus etoposide remain standard first-line therapy. Promising results have been seen with irinotecan/cisplatin, but confirmatory trials are still needed. A plateau has been reached with chemotherapy regimens, and novel strategies are greatly needed to improve survival for patients with SCLC.