Annals of Oncology Advance Access originally published online on January 19, 2006
Annals of Oncology 2006 17(4):663-667; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdj137
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2006 European Society for Medical Oncology
A randomized phase II trial of irinotecan plus carboplatin versus etoposide plus carboplatin treatment in patients with extended disease small-cell lung cancer
Department of 1 Hematology, Oncology and Transfusion Medicine; 2 Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Epedimiology and 3 Cardiology and Pneumology, Charité, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin; 4 Department of Hematology and Oncology, St. Marien Hospital, Amberg; 5 Department of Pneumology, University of Mainz; 6 Department of Hematology and Oncology, Westpfalz-Clinic, Kaiserslautern, Germany
* Correspondence to: Alexander Schmittel M.D., Charité, Campus Benjamin-Franklin, Dept. of Hematology, Oncology and Transfusion Medicine, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200 Berlin, Germany. Tel: +49-30-8445-3090; Fax: +49-30-8445-4468; E-mail: alexander.schmittel{at}charite.de
Background: Superiority of irinotecan/cisplatin over etoposide/cisplatin was suggested in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This trial investigated irinotecan/carboplatin (IP) versus etoposide/carboplatin (EP).
Patients and methods: The interim analysis at the phase II/phase III transition point of the multicenter trial is reported. Extensive disease SCLC patients were randomized to receive carboplatin AUC 5 mg • min/ml either in combination with 50 mg/m2 of irinotecan on days 1, 8 and 15 (IP) or with etoposide 140 mg/m2 days 1–3 (EP). The primary end point was response rate and the secondary end points were toxicity and progression-free survival.
Results: Seventy patients were randomized. Significant differences in grade 3 and 4 thrombopenia (17% IP versus 48% EP, P = 0.01) and neutropenia (26% IP versus 51% PE, P < 0.01) were found. Grade 3 and 4 diarrhea was more frequent with IP (18%) than with EP (6%) (P = 0.133). Response rates were 67% and 59% (P = 0.24) in the IP versus EP arm, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9 months (95% CI 7.1–10.9) in the IP arm and 6 months (95% CI 4.1–7.9) in the EP arm (P = 0.03).
Conclusions: IP is active, less toxic and appears to improve PFS. Based on the phase II results the trial has been extended to phase III to assess the impact on overall survival.
Key words: irinotecan, etoposide, carboplatin, SCLC, extensive disease, phase II
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. Chen, M. Huynh, L. Fehrenbacher, H. West, P. N. Lara Jr, L. L. Yavorkovsky, M. Russin, D. Goldstein, D. Gandara, and D. Lau Phase II Trial of Irinotecan and Carboplatin for Extensive or Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., March 20, 2009; 27(9): 1401 - 1404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Hermes, B. Bergman, R. Bremnes, L. Ek, S. Fluge, C. Sederholm, S. Sundstrom, L. Thaning, J. Vilsvik, U. Aasebo, et al. Irinotecan Plus Carboplatin Versus Oral Etoposide Plus Carboplatin in Extensive Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial J. Clin. Oncol., September 10, 2008; 26(26): 4261 - 4267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|