Dataset Information

A phase I study of weekly doxorubicin and oral topotecan for patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC): A Fred and Pamela Buffet Cancer Center Clinical Trials Network study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Relapsed/refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has a poor prognosis, with no good options. We evaluated a novel combination of topotecan and doxorubicin, providing sequential topoisomerase I and II inhibition, in this setting.

Materials and methods

Adult patients (>19 years) with relapsed/refractory SCLC, who had received at least one prior chemotherapy regimen were eligible. Patients received escalating doses of oral topotecan on days 1-5 of each three week cycle (maximum - 5 cycles). The dosing cohorts were: 0.85?mg/m², 1.05?mg/m², 1.35?mg/m², 1.65?mg/m² and 2.30?mg/m². All patients received weekly doxorubicin 20?mg/m² intravenously starting day 6 of the first cycle and continued weekly for a maximum of 15 weeks. In the absence of pre-specified dose limiting toxicities (DLT), patients were enrolled serially to escalated dose level cohorts.

Results

Twenty-two patients were enrolled, of which 20 were evaluable. Median age was 61 years; 74% were male and 95% were Caucasian. Hematologic side effects were the most common adverse events. There were no therapy-related Grade 5 toxicities. Incidence of DLT based on cohorts were: DL2: 1/6 (Grade 4 thrombocytopenia), DL3: 1/6 (AST elevation) and DL4: 2/4 (Grade 4 thrombocytopenia). Response rate was 20% (4/20) and disease control rate (SD?+?PR) was 36%. The median progression free and overall survival were 3.6 months and 6 months, respectively.

Conclusions

The combination of topotecan and doxorubicin was safe and effective in relapsed/refractory SCLC. The maximum tolerated dose of oral topotecan was 1.35?mg/m² when given concurrently with weekly doxorubicin.

SUBMITTER: Ernani V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7315624 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A phase I study of weekly doxorubicin and oral topotecan for patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC): A Fred and Pamela Buffet Cancer Center Clinical Trials Network study.

Ernani Vinicius V Jahan Rahat R Smith Lynette M LM Marr Alissa S AS Kimbrough Sarah E SE Kos Mary E ME Tijerina Jolene J Pivovar Shannon S Lakshmanan Imayavaramban I Ketcham Marsha M Rauth Sanchita S Mallya Kavita K Nasser Mohd W MW Jain Maneesh M Kessinger Anne A Batra Surinder K SK Ganti Apar Kishor AK

Cancer treatment and research communications 20191007

<h4>Background</h4>Relapsed/refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has a poor prognosis, with no good options. We evaluated a novel combination of topotecan and doxorubicin, providing sequential topoisomerase I and II inhibition, in this setting.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Adult patients (>19 years) with relapsed/refractory SCLC, who had received at least one prior chemotherapy regimen were eligible. Patients received escalating doses of oral topotecan on days 1-5 of each three week cycle (m ...[more]

PMID: 31675535

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe prognosis of relapsed or refractory pediatric Wilms tumor (WT) is dismal, and new salvage therapies are needed. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of irinotecan and a doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome regimen for relapsed or refractory pediatric WT.Patients and methodsThe present study enrolled relapsed or refractory pediatric WT patients who were treated with the AI regimen (doxorubicin hydrochloride liposomes 40 mg/m2 per day, day 1, and irinotecan 50 mg/m2 per day with 90-min infusion, days 1-5; this regimen was repeated every 3 weeks) at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from July 2018 to September 2020. The response was defined as the best-observed response after at least two cycles according to the Response Evaluation Criteria of Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1), and toxicity was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE 4.03).ResultsA total of 16 patients (male:female, 8:8) with a median age of 4.2 years (0.5-11 years) with relapsed or refractory disease were enrolled in this study, including 14 patients with relapsed disease and two patients with refractory disease. These patients received 1-8 courses (median, 3 courses) of the AI regimen. Fourteen patients were assessable for response: two with complete response (CR), five with partial response (PR), two with stable disease (SD), and five with progressive disease (PD). The objective response rate was 50% (two CR, five PR), and the disease control rate was 64% (two CR, five PR, and two SD). Seven out of 14 patients (50%) were alive at the last follow-up, ranging from 2.6 to 32.4 months. The median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 3.5 months (range 0.5-12 months) and 8 months (range 1-28 months), respectively. Sixteen patients were assessable for toxicity, with the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events being alopecia (62%), leukopenia (40%), abdominal pain (38%), diarrhea (23%), and mucositis (16%), etc. No fatal adverse events have been observed, and modest adverse effects can be administered.ConclusionIrinotecan and doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome regimens have positive efficacy on relapsed or refractory pediatric WT with well-tolerated toxicity. A prospective clinical trial is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundTo undertake a systematic review of the available data for oral and intravenous topotecan in adults with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) for whom re-treatment with the first line regimen is not considered appropriate.MethodsWe searched six databases from 1980 up to March 2009 for relevant trials regardless of language or publication status. Relevant studies included any randomised trial of any chemotherapeutic treatment against any comparator in this licensed indication. Where possible we used opposite quantitative methods. Where meta-analysis was considered unsuitable for some or all of the data, we employed a narrative synthesis method. For indirect comparisons we used the method of Bucher et al., where available data allowed it, otherwise we used narrative descriptions.ResultsSeven unique studies met the inclusion criteria, four of which could be used in our analyses. These included one study comparing oral topotecan plus best supportive care (BSC) to BSC alone, one study comparing intravenous topotecan to cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and vincristine (CAV), and two studies comparing oral topotecan with intravenous topotecan. All four studies appear to be well conducted and with low risk of bias. Oral topotecan plus BSC has advantages over BSC alone in terms of survival (hazard ratio = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87) and quality of life (EQ-5 D difference: 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.25). Intravenous topotecan was at least as effective as CAV in the treatment of patients with recurrent small-cell lung cancer and resulted in improved quality-of-life with respect to several symptoms. CAV was associated with significantly less grade 4 thrombocytopenia compared with IV topotecan (risk ratio = 5.83; 95% CI, 2.35 to 14.42). Survival (hazard ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25) and response (pooled risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.85) data were similar for the oral and IV topotecan groups. Symptom control was also very similar between the trials and between the oral and IV groups. Toxicity data showed a significant difference in favour of oral topotecan for neutropenia (pooled risk ratio = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.89). Indirect evidence showed that oral topotecan was at least as good as or better than CAV on all outcomes (survival, response rates, toxicities, and symptoms) that allowed indirect comparisons, with the only exception being grade four thrombocytopenia which occurred less often on CAV treatment.ConclusionsConcerning topotecan both the oral and intravenous options have similar efficacy, and patient preference may be a decisive factor if the choice would be between the two formulations. The best trial evidence for decision making, because it was tested versus best supportive care, exists for oral topotecan. Indirectly, because we have two head-to-head comparisons of oral versus intravenous topotecan, and one comparison of intravenous topotecan versus CAV in similar patients as in the trial against best supportive care, one might infer that IV topotecan and CAV could also be superior to best supportive care, and that oral topotecan has similar effects to CAV with possibly better symptom control. From the evidence discussed above, it is evident that oral topotecan has similar efficacy to IV topotecan (direct comparison) and CAV (indirect comparison). There is no further evidence base of direct or possible indirect comparisons for other comparators than CAV of either oral or IV topotecan.

Dataset Information

A phase I study of weekly doxorubicin and oral topotecan for patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC): A Fred and Pamela Buffet Cancer Center Clinical Trials Network study.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A phase I study of weekly doxorubicin and oral topotecan for patients with relapsed or refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC): A Fred and Pamela Buffet Cancer Center Clinical Trials Network study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure