INTRODUCTION: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients unresponsive or relapsing within 90 days after frontline chemotherapy have poor prognosis and are treated with regimens different from the first-line regimen. Potential differences in the efficacy of second-line therapy for refractory and sensitive SCLC have not been well studied. METHODS: Studies that enrolled sensitive and refractory (relapse < 90 days or > 90 days) SCLC patients for second-line therapy were identified using electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library), and meeting abstracts databases. A systematic analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta Analysis (version 2.2.048) software to calculate the odds ratio of response and 95% confidence interval. Median overall survival time for sensitive and resistant SCLC patients was compared by two-sided Student's t test. We tested for significant heterogeneity by Cochran's chi-square test and I-square index. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies published between 1984 and 2011 were eligible for this analysis with a total of 1692 patients enrolled; 912 with sensitive and 780 with refractory SCLC. The overall response rate was 17.9% with a higher response rate of 27.7% (range, 0%-77%) for sensitive SCLC versus 14.8% (range, 0%-70%) for refractory patients; p=0.0001. Pooled overall odds ratio of response was 2.235 (95% confidence interval: 1.518-3.291; p=0.001) favoring patients with sensitive disease. Median overall survival time was 6.7 months with a weighted survival of 7.7 and 5.4 months for sensitive and refractory SCLC, respectively (p = 0.0035). CONCLUSIONS: Refractory SCLC patients derive modest clinical benefit from second-line chemotherapy. However, response and survival outcomes are superior with chemosensitive disease.
INTRODUCTION:Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients unresponsive or relapsing within 90 days after frontline chemotherapy have poor prognosis and are treated with regimens different from the first-line regimen. Potential differences in the efficacy of second-line therapy for refractory and sensitive SCLC have not been well studied. METHODS: Studies that enrolled sensitive and refractory (relapse < 90 days or > 90 days) SCLCpatients for second-line therapy were identified using electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library), and meeting abstracts databases. A systematic analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta Analysis (version 2.2.048) software to calculate the odds ratio of response and 95% confidence interval. Median overall survival time for sensitive and resistant SCLCpatients was compared by two-sided Student's t test. We tested for significant heterogeneity by Cochran's chi-square test and I-square index. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies published between 1984 and 2011 were eligible for this analysis with a total of 1692 patients enrolled; 912 with sensitive and 780 with refractory SCLC. The overall response rate was 17.9% with a higher response rate of 27.7% (range, 0%-77%) for sensitive SCLC versus 14.8% (range, 0%-70%) for refractory patients; p=0.0001. Pooled overall odds ratio of response was 2.235 (95% confidence interval: 1.518-3.291; p=0.001) favoring patients with sensitive disease. Median overall survival time was 6.7 months with a weighted survival of 7.7 and 5.4 months for sensitive and refractory SCLC, respectively (p = 0.0035). CONCLUSIONS: Refractory SCLCpatients derive modest clinical benefit from second-line chemotherapy. However, response and survival outcomes are superior with chemosensitive disease.
Authors: John R Eckardt; Dimitri L Bentsion; Oleg N Lipatov; Igor S Polyakov; Frederick R Mackintosh; David A Karlin; Gizelle S Baker; Hazel B Breitz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bjørn H Grønberg; Roy M Bremnes; Ulf Aasebø; Paal Brunsvig; Oystein Fløtten; Tore Amundsen; Christian von Plessen; Mari Wang; Stein Sundstrøm Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Taofeek K Owonikoko; Camille C Ragin; Chandra P Belani; Ana B Oton; William E Gooding; Emanuela Taioli; Suresh S Ramalingam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Primo N Lara; Ronald Natale; John Crowley; Heinz Josef Lenz; Mary W Redman; Jane E Carleton; James Jett; Corey J Langer; J Philip Kuebler; Shaker R Dakhil; Kari Chansky; David R Gandara Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea Ardizzoni; Luca Boni; Marcello Tiseo; Frank V Fossella; Joan H Schiller; Marianne Paesmans; Davorin Radosavljevic; Adriano Paccagnella; Petr Zatloukal; Paola Mazzanti; Donald Bisset; Rafael Rosell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-06-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeremy Lewin; Carleen Cullinane; Tim Akhurst; Kelly Waldeck; D Neil Watkins; Aparna Rao; Peter Eu; Linda Mileshkin; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-08-16 Impact factor: 9.236
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