BACKGROUND: This trial was designed to prove superiority of irinotecan over etoposide combined with carboplatin in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg x min/ml either in combination with irinotecan 50 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 (IP) or etoposide 140 mg/m2 on days 1-3 (EP). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS:Of 226 patients, 216 were eligible. Median PFS was 6.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0-7.0] in the IP arm and 6.0 months (95% CI 5.2-6.8) in EP arm (P = 0.07). Median survival was 10.0 months (95% CI 8.4-11.6) and 9.0 months (95% CI 7.6-10.4) in the IP and EP arm (P = 0.06), respectively. Hazard ratios for disease progression and OS were 1.29 (95% CI 0.96-1.73, P = 0.095) and 1.34 (95% CI 0.97-1.85, P = 0.072), respectively. No difference in response rates was observed. Grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity favored the IP arm, whereas diarrhea was significantly more frequent in the IP arm. CONCLUSION: This trial failed to show superiority of irinotecan over etoposide in combination with carboplatin.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This trial was designed to prove superiority of irinotecan over etoposide combined with carboplatin in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg x min/ml either in combination with irinotecan 50 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 (IP) or etoposide 140 mg/m2 on days 1-3 (EP). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 226 patients, 216 were eligible. Median PFS was 6.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0-7.0] in the IP arm and 6.0 months (95% CI 5.2-6.8) in EP arm (P = 0.07). Median survival was 10.0 months (95% CI 8.4-11.6) and 9.0 months (95% CI 7.6-10.4) in the IP and EP arm (P = 0.06), respectively. Hazard ratios for disease progression and OS were 1.29 (95% CI 0.96-1.73, P = 0.095) and 1.34 (95% CI 0.97-1.85, P = 0.072), respectively. No difference in response rates was observed. Grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity favored the IP arm, whereas diarrhea was significantly more frequent in the IP arm. CONCLUSION: This trial failed to show superiority of irinotecan over etoposide in combination with carboplatin.
Authors: Patricia Moretto; Lori Wood; Urban Emmenegger; Normand Blais; Som Dave Mukherjee; Eric Winquist; Eric Charles Belanger; Robert Macrae; Alexander Balogh; Ilias Cagiannos; Wassim Kassouf; Peter Black; Piotr Czaykowski; Joel Gingerich; Scott North; Scott Ernst; Suzanne Richter; Srikala Sridhar; M Neil Reaume; Denis Soulieres; Andrea Eisen; Christina M Canil Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Jarushka Naidoo; Maria L Santos-Zabala; Tunc Iyriboz; Kaitlin M Woo; Camelia S Sima; John J Fiore; Mark G Kris; Gregory J Riely; Piro Lito; Afsheen Iqbal; Stephen Veach; Stephanie Smith-Marrone; Inderpal S Sarkaria; Lee M Krug; Charles M Rudin; William D Travis; Natasha Rekhtman; Maria C Pietanza Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Taofeek K Owonikoko; Joseph Aisner; Xin Victoria Wang; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Eric H Rubin; Suresh S Ramalingam; Murugesan Gounder; Paul Gregory Rausch; Rita S Axelrod; Joan H Schiller Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Ryan J O Nichol; Abedawn I Khalaf; Kartheek Sooda; Omar Hussain; Hollie B S Griffiths; Roger Phillips; Farideh A Javid; Colin J Suckling; Simon J Allison; Fraser J Scott Journal: Medchemcomm Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 3.597