PURPOSE: This was a randomized phase III study to test the schedule dependency of etoposide given as a conventional 3-day intravenous (IV) regimen versus a prolonged 21-day oral regimen for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Both regimens contained IV cisplatin. The objectives were to compare survival (primary end point) and to establish response rates, failure-free survival, and toxicity (secondary end points). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated measurable or assessable disease and normal organ function were eligible. Randomization was stratified according to performance status 0 versus 1 or 2. Treatment consisted of etoposide 130 mg/m2/d IV for 3 days and cisplatin 25 mg/m2/d IV for 3 days every 21 days for eight courses (schedule 1) versus etoposide 50 mg/m2/d orally for 21 days and cisplatin 33 mg/m2/d IV for 3 days every 28 days for six courses (schedule 2). In 1990, bioavailability of oral etoposide was assumed to be 50%, and the study was designed to deliver the same total doses of etoposide and cisplatin on both regimens over 24 weeks without the use of growth factors. RESULTS:Between December 1990 and October 1993, 306 eligible patients were entered. Of these, 69% were male and 66% were > or = 60 years of age; 21% had a performance status of 0, 47% a performance status of 1, and 32% a performance status of 2; 156 were randomized to receive schedule 1 and 150 to receive schedule 2. Overall median survival estimates were 9.5 and 9.9 months (difference not significant) for schedule 1 and schedule 2, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival, 8 to 11 months, was the same for both schedules, with 126 and 117 deaths on schedule 1 and 2, respectively. Both schedules also resulted in the same median failure-free survival estimate of 7 months (95% CI, 6 to 8 months on either schedule). Complete and partial responses were observed in 15% and 42% of patients on schedule 1 and 14% and 47% on schedule 2, respectively. The overall maximal hematologic toxicities grade 3 and 4 for leukocytes, neutrophils, platelets, and hemoglobin were, respectively, as follows: schedule 1, 62%, 85%, 32%, and 32%; schedule 2, 83%, 83%, 52%, and 53%. Lethal toxicity due to neutropenia and infection occurred in 4% of patients on schedule 1 and 10% on schedule 2 (difference not statistically significant). CONCLUSION: The two schedules of etoposide in combination with cisplatin did not result in differences in treatment outcome with respect to tumor response and survival. However, a significantly greater rate of severe or life-threatening hematologic toxicity was noted on the 21-day oral etoposide treatment schedule.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This was a randomized phase III study to test the schedule dependency of etoposide given as a conventional 3-day intravenous (IV) regimen versus a prolonged 21-day oral regimen for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Both regimens contained IV cisplatin. The objectives were to compare survival (primary end point) and to establish response rates, failure-free survival, and toxicity (secondary end points). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated measurable or assessable disease and normal organ function were eligible. Randomization was stratified according to performance status 0 versus 1 or 2. Treatment consisted of etoposide 130 mg/m2/d IV for 3 days and cisplatin 25 mg/m2/d IV for 3 days every 21 days for eight courses (schedule 1) versus etoposide 50 mg/m2/d orally for 21 days and cisplatin 33 mg/m2/d IV for 3 days every 28 days for six courses (schedule 2). In 1990, bioavailability of oral etoposide was assumed to be 50%, and the study was designed to deliver the same total doses of etoposide and cisplatin on both regimens over 24 weeks without the use of growth factors. RESULTS: Between December 1990 and October 1993, 306 eligible patients were entered. Of these, 69% were male and 66% were > or = 60 years of age; 21% had a performance status of 0, 47% a performance status of 1, and 32% a performance status of 2; 156 were randomized to receive schedule 1 and 150 to receive schedule 2. Overall median survival estimates were 9.5 and 9.9 months (difference not significant) for schedule 1 and schedule 2, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival, 8 to 11 months, was the same for both schedules, with 126 and 117 deaths on schedule 1 and 2, respectively. Both schedules also resulted in the same median failure-free survival estimate of 7 months (95% CI, 6 to 8 months on either schedule). Complete and partial responses were observed in 15% and 42% of patients on schedule 1 and 14% and 47% on schedule 2, respectively. The overall maximal hematologic toxicities grade 3 and 4 for leukocytes, neutrophils, platelets, and hemoglobin were, respectively, as follows: schedule 1, 62%, 85%, 32%, and 32%; schedule 2, 83%, 83%, 52%, and 53%. Lethal toxicity due to neutropenia and infection occurred in 4% of patients on schedule 1 and 10% on schedule 2 (difference not statistically significant). CONCLUSION: The two schedules of etoposide in combination with cisplatin did not result in differences in treatment outcome with respect to tumor response and survival. However, a significantly greater rate of severe or life-threatening hematologic toxicity was noted on the 21-day oral etoposide treatment schedule.
Authors: Neal E Ready; Arkadiusz Z Dudek; Herbert H Pang; Lydia D Hodgson; Stephen L Graziano; Mark R Green; Everett E Vokes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nathan R Foster; Lindsay A Renfro; Steven E Schild; Mary W Redman; Xiaofei F Wang; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Keyue Ding; Penelope A Bradbury; Suresh S Ramalingam; David R Gandara; Taro Shibata; Nagahiro Saijo; Everett E Vokes; Alex A Adjei; Sumithra J Mandrekar Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Qiang Zhang; Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn; Susan Halabi; Sumithra Mandrekar; James J Dignam Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Charles M Rudin; Ravi Salgia; Xiaofei Wang; Lydia D Hodgson; Gregory A Masters; Mark Green; Everett E Vokes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elizabeth B Lamont; Mary Beth Landrum; Nancy L Keating; Laura Archer; Lan Lan; Gary M Strauss; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Harvey B Niell; L Herbert Maurer; Michael P Kosty; Antonius A Miller; Gerald H Clamon; Anthony D Elias; Edward F McClay; Everett E Vokes; Barbara J McNeil Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M J Naughton; J E Herndon; S A Shumaker; A A Miller; A B Kornblith; D Chao; J Holland Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.147