Cisplatin and etoposide as second-line chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer

Platinum-doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment for relapsed patients with small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Optimal second-line chemotherapy for patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer remains debatable. In addition to topotecan or amrubicin monotherapy, re-challenge with first-line platinum-doublets have been commonly used. In this study, we investigated whether platinum-doublets are suitable as second-line treatment for relapsed small-cell lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies that enrolled relapsed small-cell lung cancer and compared platinum-doublets with non-platinum-based regimens for second-line treatment were identified using PubMed and EMBASE. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the relative risk of objective response rate and disease control rate of the second-line chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses were conducted to focus on comparison with standard second-line regimens and sensitive relapse. Progression-free and overall survival, and adverse events were systematically reviewed.

RESULTS

Ten studies published between 2011 and 2020 were included in our analysis with a total of 1222 patients: 438 treated with platinum-doublets and 784 with non-platinum-based regimens. The objective response rates for second-line platinum-doublet and non-platinum regimens were 47.3 % [95 % CI: 40.5-54.0] and 31.5 % [95 % CI: 22.2-40.8], respectively.　Patients treated with platinum-doublets had a significantly higher objective response rate than patients with non-platinum-based regimens (RR [95 % CI]: 1.527 [1.100-2.121], p = 0.011), as well as disease control rate (RR [95 % CI]: 1.152 [1.052-1.262], p = 0.002). In a subgroup analysis comparing platinum-doublets with topotecan or amrubicin, patients treated with platinum-doublets had significantly higher objective response rate and disease control rate (RR [95 % CI]: 1.663 [1.055-2.619], p = 0.028 and 1.170 [1.021-1.340], p = 0.023 respectively). Progression-free and overall survival appeared consistent with the tumor responses. Adverse events associated with platinum-doublets appeared acceptable compared with the monotherapies.

CONCLUSION

Platinum-doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment for patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer can be considered as a reasonable option in comparison with non-platinum regimens.

Salvage Chemotherapy with Ccnu and Methotrexate for Small Cell Lung Cancer Resistant to Cav/Pe Alternating Chemotherapy

CCNU and methotrexate were employed as salvage treatment in 34 small cell lung cancer patients resistant to CAV/PE alternating Induction chemotherapy. In the 33 evaluable patients we observed an objective response rate of 21.2 % and 3 % complete response; median survival was 4 months with 2 patients alive 18 months from starting salvage chemotherapy. The treatment was well tolerated. CCNU and methotrexate has shown to be a moderately active and tolerable salvage treatment for small cell lung cancer after CAV/PE alternating first-line chemotherapy.

Relapsed small cell lung cancer: treatment options and latest developments

According to recent analyses, there was a modest yet significant improvement in median survival time and 5-year survival rate of limited stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in North America, Europe, Japan and other countries over the last 30 years. The median survival time of limited stage SCLC is 15-20 months and 5-year survival rate is 15% or less. In terms of extensive stage SCLC, a median survival time of 9.4-12.8 months and 2-year survival of 5.2-19.5% are still disappointing. Despite being highly sensitive to first-line chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments, most patients with SCLC experience relapse within 2 years and die from systemic metastasis. While several clinical trials of cytotoxic chemotherapies and molecular targeting agents have been investigated in the treatment of relapsed SCLC, none showed a significant clinical activity to be able to exceed topotecan as second-line chemotherapy. There are problematic issues to address for relapsed SCLC, such as standardizing the treatment for third-line chemotherapy. Topotecan alone was the first approved therapy for second-line treatment for relapsed SCLC. Amrubicin is a promising drug and a variety of trials evaluating its efficacy have been carried out. Amrubicin has shown superiority to topotecan in a Japanese population, but was not superior in a study of western patients. There are some controversial issues for relapsed SCLC, such as treatment for older patients, third-line chemotherapy and efficacy of molecular targeting therapy. This article reviews current standard treatment, recent clinical trials and other topics on relapsed SCLC.

Chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer: a comprehensive review

Combination chemotherapy is the current strategy of choice for treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Platinum containing combination regimens are superior to non-platinum regimens in limited stage-SCLC and possibly also in extensive stage-SCLC as first and second-line treatments. The addition of ifosfamide to platinum containing regimens may improve the outcome but at the price of increased toxicity. Suboptimal doses of chemotherapy result in inferior survival. Early intensified, accelerated and high-dose chemotherapy gave conflicting results and is not considered a standard option outside of clinical trials. A number of newer agents have provided promising results when used in combination regimens, for example, gemcitabine, irinotecan and topotecan. However, more studies are required to appropriately evaluate them. There is a definitive role for radiotherapy in LD-SCLC. However, timing and schedule are subject to further research. Novel approaches are currently being investigated in the hope of improving outcome.

Combination of topotecan and cisplatin in relapsed patients with small cell lung cancer: a phase II study of the hellenic cooperative oncology group (HeCOG)

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of a 3-day schedule of cisplatin and topotecan in patients with recurrent small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).

METHODS

Thirty-four relapsed patients were treated with cisplatin 20 mg/m2 and topotecan 0.9 mg/m2, both given on days 1-3 every 3 weeks, in a phase II study.

RESULTS

Complete response (CR) was achieved in two patients (6%), partial response (PR) in 4 (12%), stable disease in 6 (18%) and progressive disease in 14 (41%). Eight patients (23%) were non-evaluable for response. Among 21 sensitive patients, 2 (9.5%) achieved CR and 3 (14%) PR. Among 13 refractory patients, none achieved CR and only 1 (8%) PR. Median survival was 6.5 months for all patients, 7.8 for sensitive and 6.2 for refractory. Median time to progression (TTP) was 4.4 months for all patients, 5.9 for sensitive and 3.2 for refractory. Grade 3-4 toxicities included anemia (15%), thrombocytopenia (15%), neutropenia (42%), nausea/vomiting (3%), and alopecia (6%). No toxic death occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This 3-day schedule was well tolerated, produced modest response rates but good survival and TTP both in sensitive and refractory patients with relapsed SCLC.

The role of topotecan in treating small cell lung cancer: second-line treatment

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is highly chemosensitive but up to 70% of patients with limited disease and more than 90% of patients with extensive disease will relapse after first-line treatment. There are several standard chemotherapy regimens used for second-line treatment yet the prognosis for patients requiring this treatment remains poor. The topoisomerase-I inhibitor, topotecan, has achieved response rates of up to 22% in previously treated patients with SCLC and survival almost double that achieved with other single agents. Compared with cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine (CAV), single-agent topotecan achieved a higher response rate, longer survival and statistically significant improvements in dyspnea, hoarseness, fatigue, anorexia and interference with daily activities. Brain metastases are common in SCLC. Topotecan crosses the blood-brain barrier and shows promise for the management of brain metastases.

Cisplatin and etoposide versus cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and vincristine in small cell lung cancer: a randomised study

From September 1986 until December 1991, 139 patients with histologically-proven small cell lung cancer, age < 75 years, performance status > 40, absence of brain metastases and no previous treatment, were randomised to receive either CEV cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2 intravenous (i.v.), epirubicin 70 mg/m2 i.v., vincristine 1.2 mg/m2 i.v., every 3 weeks or PE (cisplatin 20 mg/m2 i.v. and etoposide 75 mg/m2 i.v. for 5 consecutive days, every 3 weeks) for six cycles. After three cycles, responding patients received radiotherapy to the chest (45 Gy/15 sessions) and to the brain (30 Gy/10 sessions--only in patients with limited disease achieving complete remission). 3 patients were ineligible. Patient characteristics included (CEV/PE) total number 66/70, median age 60/61 years, median performance status 80/80, extended disease 33/48 cases (P = 0.04). In evaluable patients, 42/62 (67.7%) responded to CEV while 42/58 (72.4%) responded to PE (P = non-significant); respective complete response rates were 16.1 and 29.3% (P = non-significant) and respective complete response rates in patients with extended disease were 9.4 and 28.9% (P = 0.03). Median survival was 10.5 months, without significant differences in the two treatment arms, even after adjustment for stage. PE was less well tolerated than CEV. Although PE is more active than CEV in certain subsets of patients, its apparent inability to improve survival in this and in other studies questions its routine use in small cell lung cancer.

Extensive small-cell lung cancer. A randomized comparison of two chemotherapy programs with early crossover in instances of failure. Association pour le Traitement des Tumeurs Intra-Thoraciques (ATTIT)

Two chemotherapy regimens for patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer were prospectively compared in a randomized multicentric trial with crossover. Every four weeks, 60 consecutive previously untreated patients received either DPE (doxorubicin, cisplatin and etoposide), or CIV (carboplatin, ifosfamide and vincristine) with crossover as soon as progression or end of response were observed. Pretreatment characteristics were similar in the two groups. Fifty-seven patients were evaluated for response. The response rate was higher with the DPE regimen both in first-line (for DPE: response rate 62% (18/29), including 17% (5/29) of complete response (CR), and for CIV: response rate 29% (8/28) with no CR, p < 0.02) and in second-line after crossover (for DPE: response rate 45% (9/20) including 5% (1/20) of CR, and for CIV response rate 0%, p < 0.02). Major toxicities were equally frequent in both groups. No significant difference was found between median survival times (9.7 months for the DPE group and 10.4 months for the CIV group). We conclude that: 1) DPE is a more active regimen than CIV, both in first- and second-line; 2) no alternating scheme may be considered with these two combinations. Of particular note is the similar median survival times in the two groups, contrasting with the different activities of the two regimens.

Second-line chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer

The literature on second-line chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) for the period 1979-1989 is reviewed. The reports consisted mainly of Phase II type studies and comprised a total of 987 patients with relatively few patients per study. The information was frequently incomplete with regard to duration of response on first-line chemotherapy, length of any drug-free interval and duration of response on second-line chemotherapy. The overall second-line response rate was 30%, but only 5% were complete responses (CR). The response rates obtained by the combination of cisplatinum (P) and VP-16 (E) or reinduction therapy were 45% and 64% (medians), respectively. These rates were superior to regimens consisting of supposedly non-cross-resistant agents. With P and E not given in combination, the response rates were less than 20%.

Streamlining outpatient cisplatin therapy to meet the challenges of today

Increasing numbers of patients are receiving full courses of cisplatin therapy in such outpatient settings as clinics, offices, day hospitals, or home. Outpatient cisplatin therapy is administered safely and effectively in the ambulatory environment. Outpatient therapy is about one third the cost of inpatient therapy and offers the patient significant benefits in terms of work, illness perception, tolerance of side effects, and family strain. As more patients receive cisplatin on an outpatient basis, it is imperative that new strategies be developed to help streamline care to accommodate the growing number of outpatients. This article reviews methods used in a variety of settings to provide quality care to larger numbers of patients. A critical factor to consider when developing new care methods is how to maintain the fine balance between efficient, effective, economical, and quality care. Keeping that balance may necessitate a lot of trials and false starts. Developing a comfortable environment for cisplatin infusion is a matter of creativity. It is not necessary to spend large sums of money to create an acceptable setting. Flow sheets, standardized teaching protocols, patient information guides, patient diaries, and standardized hydration, anti-emetic, and therapy protocols are just a few of the approaches that have been used to streamline care. Becoming involved in oncology nurse groups, networks, or continuing education programs are excellent avenues to meeting people who are all working on methods to streamline and provide quality care. The three elements of a successful outpatient program for the administration of cisplatin include having a comfortable setting, a well-organized, experienced staff, and appropriate patient selection.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)