INTRODUCTION: This phase III study compared efficacy and safety of topotecan-cisplatin (TP) versus topotecan-etoposide (TE) versus cisplatin-etoposide (PE) in chemo-naïve extensive disease small-cell lung cancer patients. METHODS:Seven hundred and ninety-five previously untreated patients were randomly assigned to TP (topotecan 1mg/m IV, d1-5; cisplatin 75 mg/m IV, d5; n = 358), PE (cisplatin 75 mg/m IV, d1; etoposide 100 mg/m IV, d1-3; n = 345) or TE (topotecan 1mg/m IV, d1-5; etoposide 80 mg/m IV, d3-5; n = 92). Primary endpoint was superiority of TP compared with PE, with the possibility to switch to a noninferiority test. RESULTS: The TE arm was closed after recommendations by the Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board. Median survival was similar and met the predefined endpoint of noninferiority of TP to PE (44.9 versus 40.9 weeks; p = 0.40). One-year survival rate showed 39.7% for TP versus 36.1% for PE (p = 0.29). Median time to progression was significantly longer with TP (27.4 versus 24.3 weeks, p = 0.01). Overall response rates were significantly higher for TP (55.5% versus 45.5%, p = 0.01).Hematologic toxicity was slightly higher for TP regarding G 3/4 neutropenia (35.7/35.8%), G 3/4 thrombocytopenia (18.7/4.8%), G 3/4 anemia (11.6/6.7%), febrile neutropenia (2.0/2.7%), sepsis (1.7/1.2%), and toxicity-related deaths (5.2/2.7%). CONCLUSION: TP is noninferior to PE in overall survival and superior in time to progression and overall response rates. Because of slightly worse toxicity profile TP is not a first-line standard treatment for patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: This phase III study compared efficacy and safety of topotecan-cisplatin (TP) versus topotecan-etoposide (TE) versus cisplatin-etoposide (PE) in chemo-naïve extensive disease small-cell lung cancerpatients. METHODS: Seven hundred and ninety-five previously untreated patients were randomly assigned to TP (topotecan 1mg/m IV, d1-5; cisplatin 75 mg/m IV, d5; n = 358), PE (cisplatin 75 mg/m IV, d1; etoposide 100 mg/m IV, d1-3; n = 345) or TE (topotecan 1mg/m IV, d1-5; etoposide 80 mg/m IV, d3-5; n = 92). Primary endpoint was superiority of TP compared with PE, with the possibility to switch to a noninferiority test. RESULTS: The TE arm was closed after recommendations by the Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board. Median survival was similar and met the predefined endpoint of noninferiority of TP to PE (44.9 versus 40.9 weeks; p = 0.40). One-year survival rate showed 39.7% for TP versus 36.1% for PE (p = 0.29). Median time to progression was significantly longer with TP (27.4 versus 24.3 weeks, p = 0.01). Overall response rates were significantly higher for TP (55.5% versus 45.5%, p = 0.01).Hematologic toxicity was slightly higher for TP regarding G 3/4 neutropenia (35.7/35.8%), G 3/4 thrombocytopenia (18.7/4.8%), G 3/4 anemia (11.6/6.7%), febrile neutropenia (2.0/2.7%), sepsis (1.7/1.2%), and toxicity-related deaths (5.2/2.7%). CONCLUSION:TP is noninferior to PE in overall survival and superior in time to progression and overall response rates. Because of slightly worse toxicity profile TP is not a first-line standard treatment for patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer.
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