Literature DB >> 1845847

A randomized trial to compare intravenous and oral etoposide in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of small cell lung cancer.

D H Johnson1, J C Ruckdeschel, J H Keller, G H Lyman, G J Kallas, J Macdonald, R C DeConti, J Lee, Q S Ringenberg, W P Patterson.   

Abstract

In a randomized multi-center study, 83 patients with small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to treatment with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1 and etoposide 120 mg/m2 IV days 1, 2, and 3 or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 IV day 1 and etoposide 120 mg/m2 IV day 1 and 240 mg/m2 orally days 2 and 3. Both regimens were repeated every 4 weeks. Prior to randomization, patients were stratified by extent of disease, performance status, and gender. A total of 41 patients were randomly assigned to the parenteral treatment only regimen, and 42 patients received cisplatin and IV/oral etoposide therapy. Both treatment arms were comparable regarding patient characteristics. Limited disease (LD) patients constituted 52% and 49% of the patient population for the oral and IV etoposide regimens, respectively. The overall complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) rate was 50% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35% to 65%) for the oral etoposide regimen and 59% (95% CI 44% to 74%) for the IV etoposide regimen (P = 0.438). For both regimens, 55% of the LD patients achieved either CR or PR. Time to progression and survival were comparable for both treatment arms. Hematologic toxicity was comparable in both treatment arms, with 80% of patients experiencing grade 3 or 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. Moderate to severe anemia and weight loss were more predominant with the IV than with the oral regimen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1845847     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19910101)67:1+<245::aid-cncr2820671306>3.0.co;2-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  5 in total

1.  Potential cost savings of oral versus intravenous etoposide in the treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  S Pashko; D H Johnson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Etoposide sensitizes CT26 colorectal adenocarcinoma to radiation therapy in BALB/c mice.

Authors:  Chia-Yuan Liu; Hui-Fen Liao; Tsang-En Wang; Shee-Chan Lin; Shou-Chuan Shih; Wen-Hsuing Chang; Yuh-Cheng Yang; Ching-Chung Lin; Yu-Jen Chen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Current role of oral etoposide in the management of small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  P I Clark
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 4.  Oral Chemotherapy for Treatment of Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Sushma Jonna; Joshua E Reuss; Chul Kim; Stephen V Liu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Oral treatment with etoposide in small cell lung cancer - dilemmas and solutions.

Authors:  Renata Rezonja; Lea Knez; Tanja Cufer; Ales Mrhar
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 2.991

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.