Dataset Information

Belotecan/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma: a multi-center randomized phase III trial.

ABSTRACT: No novel chemotherapeutic combinations have demonstrated superior efficacy to etoposide/cisplatin (EP), a standard treatment regimen for extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma (ES-SCLC) over the past decade. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of belotecan/cisplatin (BP) and EP regimens in chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-naïve patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC.We conducted a multi-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase III clinical study. A total of 157 patients were recruited at 14 centers with 147 patients meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria and randomized to either BP (n?=?71) or EP (n?=?76) treatment arms. A non-inferior response rate (RR) in the BP arm, analyzed by intent-to-treat analysis according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0 criteria, was used as the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).In the BP arm, one patient had a complete response, 41 had a partial response (PR), and 17 had stable disease (SD). In the EP arm, 35 patients had PR and 28 had SD. The RR in the BP arm was non-inferior to the EP regimen in patients with ES-SCLC (BP: 59.2 %, EP: 46.1 %, difference: 13.1 %, 90 % two-sided confidence interval: -0.3-26.5, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion of -15.0 %). No significant differences in OS or PFS were observed between the treatment arms. Hematologic toxicities, including grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia, were significantly more prevalent in the BP arm than the EP arm.The RR to the BP regimen was non-inferior to the EP regimen in chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-naïve patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC. Hematologic toxicities were significantly more prevalent in the BP group, indicating that BP should be used with care, particularly in patients with a poor performance status. Further studies assessing PFS and OS are required to validate the superiority of the BP regimen.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00826644 . Date of Registration: January 21, 2009.

SUBMITTER: Oh IJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5002146 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Belotecan/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma: a multi-center randomized phase III trial.

Oh In-Jae IJ Kim Kyu-Sik KS Park Cheol-Kyu CK Kim Young-Chul YC Lee Kwan-Ho KH Jeong Jin-Hong JH Kim Sun-Young SY Lee Jeong-Eun JE Shin Kye-Chul KC Jang Tae-Won TW Lee Hyun-Kyung HK Lee Kye-Young KY Lee Sung-Yong SY

BMC cancer 20160826

<h4>Background</h4>No novel chemotherapeutic combinations have demonstrated superior efficacy to etoposide/cisplatin (EP), a standard treatment regimen for extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma (ES-SCLC) over the past decade. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of belotecan/cisplatin (BP) and EP regimens in chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-naïve patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a multi-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase III clin ...[more]

PMID: 27566413

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDue to the high incidence and mortality of lung cancer, and etoposide is the standard first-line chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etoposide capsules at different doses as maintenance therapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) who show a response to etoposide plus platinum.MethodsThe study was divided into two stages: stage I, a single-center, one-arm prospective study, and stage II, a multicenter, controlled non-randomized prospective study (patients were chosen from ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02179528). All patients received six cycles of etoposide plus platinum. Patients who were evaluated as complete remission (CR) or partial remission (PR) entered the maintenance treatment (MT) (etoposide capsule, once a day for 20 days, every 28 days as a cycle, until disease progression). In stage I, the dose of etoposide was 25 mg; in stage II, patients were non-randomized into etoposide capsule (25 mg/50 mg) and observation groups. In this study, the primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety; the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0.ResultsNinety-two patients were enrolled. In stage I, the median PFS was 6.700 months (95% CI: 6.408-6.992). In stage II, the median PFS of the MT group was better than that in the NMT group (8.930 vs. 5.900 months, P=0.002). In the pooled analysis, the overall median PFS of the MT group was better than that of the NMT group (7.870 vs. 5.900 months, P=0.003). However, there was no significant difference in OS between the groups (15.030 vs. 14.330 months, P=0.813). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that maintenance therapy was an independent protective factor for PFS in patients with ES-SCLC.ConclusionsEtoposide capsules as maintenance therapy significantly prolonged the PFS of patients with ES-SCLC who responded to etoposide plus platinum, with acceptable tolerability.

Project description:PURPOSE:Veliparib, a poly (ADP ribose) polymerase inhibitor, potentiated standard chemotherapy against small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in preclinical studies. We evaluated the combination of veliparib with cisplatin and etoposide (CE; CE+V) doublet in untreated, extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with ES-SCLC, stratified by sex and serum lactate dehydrogenase levels, were randomly assigned to receive four 3-week cycles of CE (75 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 and 100 mg/m2 on days 1 through 3) along with veliparib (100 mg orally twice per day on days 1 through 7) or placebo (CE+P). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Using an overall one-sided 0.10-level log-rank test, the study had 88% power to demonstrate a 37.5% reduction in the PFS hazard rate. RESULTS:A total of 128 eligible patients received treatment on protocol. The median age was 66 years, 52% of patients were men, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 for 29% of patients and 1 for 71%. The respective median PFS for the CE+V arm versus the CE+P arm was 6.1 versus 5.5 months (unstratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [one-sided P = .06]; stratified HR, 0.63 [one-sided P = .01]), favoring CE+V. The median overall survival was 10.3 versus 8.9 months (stratified HR, 0.83; 80% CI, 0.64 to 1.07; one-sided P = .17) for the CE+V and CE+P arms, respectively. The overall response rate was 71.9% versus 65.6% (two-sided P = .57) for CE+V and CE+P, respectively. There was a significant treatment-by-strata interaction in PFS: Male patients with high lactate dehydrogenase levels derived significant benefit (PFS HR, 0.34; 80% CI, 0.22 to 0.51) but there was no evidence of benefit among patients in other strata (PFS HR, 0.81; 80% CI, 0.60 to 1.09). The following grade ? 3 hematology toxicities were more frequent in the CE+V arm than the CE+P arm: CD4 lymphopenia (8% v 0%; P = .06) and neutropenia (49% v 32%; P = .08), but treatment delivery was comparable. CONCLUSION:The addition of veliparib to frontline chemotherapy showed signal of efficacy in patients with ES-SCLC and the study met its prespecified end point.

Dataset Information

Belotecan/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma: a multi-center randomized phase III trial.

Publications

Belotecan/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma: a multi-center randomized phase III trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure