Dataset Information

Randomized Phase III Trial of Irinotecan Plus Cisplatin versus Etoposide Plus Cisplatin in Chemotherapy-Naive Korean Patients with Extensive-Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This randomized phase III study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of irinote-can plus cisplatin (IP) over etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) in Korean patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).

Materials and methods

Patients were randomly assigned to receive IP, composed of irinotecan 65 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8+cisplatin 70 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks, or EP, composed of etoposide 100 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 2, 3+cisplatin 70 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles, until disease progression, or until unacceptable toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

Results

A total of 362 patients were randomized to IP (n=173) and EP (n=189) arms. There were no significant differences between IP and EP arms for the median overall survival (10.9 months vs. 10.3 months, p=0.120) and the median progression-free survival (6.5 months vs. 5.8 months, p=0.115). However, there was a significant difference in response rate (62.4% vs. 48.2%, p=0.006). The pre-planned subgroup analyses showed that IP was associated with longer overall survival in male (11.3 months vs. 10.1 months, p=0.036), < 65 years old (12.7 months vs. 11.3 months, p=0.024), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 (12.4 months vs. 10.9 months, p=0.040) patient groups. The severity of treatment-related adverse events such as grade 3/4 anemia, nausea and diarrhea was more frequent in patients treated with IP.

Conclusion

The IP chemotherapy did not significantly improve the survival compared with EP chemotherapy in Korean patients with extensive-disease SCLC.

SUBMITTER: Kim DW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6334001 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized Phase III Trial of Irinotecan Plus Cisplatin versus Etoposide Plus Cisplatin in Chemotherapy-Naïve Korean Patients with Extensive-Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Kim Dong-Wan DW Kim Hoon-Gu HG Kim Joo-Hang JH Park Keunchil K Kim Hoon-Kyo HK Jang Joung Soon JS Kim Bong-Seog BS Kang Jin-Hyoung JH Lee Kyung Hee KH Kim Sang-We SW Ryoo Hun Mo HM Kim Jin-Soo JS Lee Ki Hyeong KH Kwon Jung Hye JH Choi Jin-Hyuk JH Shin Sang Won SW Hahn Seokyung S Heo Dae Seog DS

Cancer research and treatment 20180312 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>This randomized phase III study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of irinote-can plus cisplatin (IP) over etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) in Korean patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Patients were randomly assigned to receive IP, composed of irinotecan 65 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8+cisplatin 70 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks, or EP, composed of etoposide 100 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 2, ...[more]

PMID: 29529858

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNo 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsThe 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00826644 . Date of Registration: January 21, 2009.

Project description:IntroductionThe real-world data evaluating treatment outcomes of atezolizumab plus carboplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (atezolizumab) for extensive-stage SCLC (ESCLC) are lacking. Our objective was to evaluate real-world outcomes of ESCLC treated with atezolizumab.MethodsA retrospective analysis of provincial patients with ESCLC who started first-line (1L) systemic treatment was conducted. We primarily evaluated the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes in association with atezolizumab compared with platinum-etoposide chemotherapy (chemotherapy) while adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical factors. Adverse events (AEs) during 1L were evaluated.ResultsA total of 67 patients were identified. Of the 34 patients who received atezolizumab, 24% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status greater than or equal to 2, approximately 50% were more than or equal to 65 years, 21% received cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy before atezolizumab, and 12% had thoracic radiation (tRT).Within the atezolizumab versus chemotherapy group, the median PFS equals to 6.0 versus 4.3 months (p = 0.03) whereas OS = 12.8 versus 7.1 months (p = 0.01). Relative to chemotherapy, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for PFS was 0.53 (0.28-1.02) and OS was 0.42 (0.20-0.88) with atezolizumab. tRT compared with no tRT receipt correlated with reduced death risk (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.33 [0.13-0.88]).AE-related treatment withdrawal with atezolizumab was 32% and 15% with chemotherapy (p = 0.02). Within the tRT subgroup, 25% versus 20% in atezolizumab versus chemotherapy group, respectively, discontinued 1L owing to AE.ConclusionsThis is the first real-world study revealing comparable survival with that in the IMpower133 trial. Treatment discontinuation from AEs was higher with atezolizumab among Canadian patients with ESCLC. Our data suggest safe use of tRT and chemoimmunotherapy, but its efficacy for ESCLC warrants further study.

Project description:BackgroundSouthwest Oncology Group 0124 was a large North American phase 3 trial that failed to confirm a survival benefit for cisplatin/irinotecan over cisplatin/etoposide in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). These results were contrary to Japan Clinical Oncology Group 9511, a phase 3 trial exclusively in Japanese patients. Because 0124 and 9511 used identical treatment regimens and similar eligibility criteria, patient-level data were pooled from both trials, and a common arm analysis was performed to explore potential reasons for the divergent results.MethodsPatients with documented extensive stage SCLC and adequate end-organ function were randomized to intravenously receive either cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) Day 1 + irinotecan 60 mg/m(2) Days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) Day 1 + etoposide 100 mg/m(2) Days 1-3 every 3 weeks. Demographic and outcome data were compared among 805 patients enrolled in 9511 and 0124 receiving identical treatment using a logistic model adjusted for age, sex, and performance status (PS).ResultsOf 671 patients in 0124, 651 eligible patients were included, as were all 154 patients from 9511. Significant differences in sex and PS distribution as well as toxicity were seen between trials. There were also significant differences in response rates (87% vs 60%, P<.001) and median overall survival (12.8 vs 9.8 months, P<.001) when the cisplatin/irinotecan arms from both trials were compared.ConclusionsSignificant differences in patient demographics, toxicity, and efficacy were identified in the 9511 and 0124 populations. These results, relevant in the current era of clinical trials globalization, warrant: 1) consideration of differential patient characteristics and outcomes among populations receiving identical therapy; 2) utilization of the common arm model in prospective trials; and 3) inclusion of pharmacogenomic correlates in cancer trials where ethnic/racial differences in drug disposition are expected.