Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Felip, E.
Right arrow Articles by Baselga, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Felip, E.
Right arrow Articles by Baselga, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Oncology 14:1549-1554, 2003
© 2003 European Society for Medical Oncology


Original Paper

Sequential dose-dense paclitaxel followed by topotecan in untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a Spanish Lung Cancer Group phase II study

E. Felip1,+, R. Rosell2, M. Domine3, L. Santomé1, P. Garrido4, A. Font2, A. Carrato5, J. Terrasa6, C. Vadell7, J. M. Mañe8 and J. Baselga1

1 Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; 2 Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona; 3 Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid; 4 Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid; 5 Hospital General de Elche, Alicante; 6 Hospital Son Dureta, Palma de Mallorca; 7 Hospital del Mar, Barcelona; 8 Hospital de Cruces, Baracaldo, Spain

Received 5 March 2003; revised 30 April 2003; accepted 4 June 2003

Background:

Poor survival rates in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients prompted us to evaluate a sequential dose-dense schedule of paclitaxel followed by topotecan.

Patients and methods:

Forty-three patients with previously untreated, extensive-stage SCLC received three cycles of paclitaxel 250 mg/m2 over 3 h every 14 days followed by three cycles of topotecan 2.5 mg/m2 for 5 days every 21 days. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given after every cycle. Patients progressing at any time and those not achieving complete response (CR) subsequently received four cycles of standard-dose etoposide–cisplatin.

Results:

A total of 118 cycles of paclitaxel were administered with minimal hematological toxicity. Grade 2/3 peripheral neuropathy was observed in 21% of patients. Response rate to paclitaxel was 48.8%, and 25.6% had stable disease (SD). Thirty-two patients achieving SD or response to paclitaxel subsequently received a total of 90 topotecan cycles. Topotecan-related toxicities included febrile neutropenia in 15.6% of patients with one toxic death, grade 3/4 anemia in 25% of patients and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in 31.3%. Non-hematological toxicities were mild. At completion of sequential paclitaxel–topotecan treatment the overall response rate was 55.8% (22 partial response, two CRs). Median survival for all patients was 10.5 months and median progression-free survival was 8.5 months.

Conclusions:

Sequential treatment with dose-dense paclitaxel followed by topotecan is feasible despite significant hematological toxicity during topotecan treatment. This schedule is an active regimen in extensive-stage SCLC and merits further investigation.

Key words: dose-dense, paclitaxel, sequential treatment, small-cell lung cancer, topotecan


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
The OncologistHome page
F. A. Greco, D. S. Thompson, L. H. Morrissey, J. B. Erland, H. A. Burris III, D. R. Spigel, G. Joseph, S. W. Corso, E. Spremulli, and J. D. Hainsworth
Paclitaxel/Carboplatin/Etoposide Versus Paclitaxel/Topotecan for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network Randomized, Prospective Phase II Trial
Oncologist, October 1, 2005; 10(9): 728 - 733.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.