Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Cisplatin/etoposide versus ifosfamide/etoposide combination chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter German randomized trial.

View through CrossRef
A total of 144 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) were randomized to receive cisplatin/etoposide (PE) or ifosfamide/etoposide (IE) combination chemotherapy. PE consisted of cisplatin, 80 mg/m2, intravenously (IV) on day 1, and etoposide, 150 mg/m2, IV on days 3 through 5. IE consisted of ifosfamide, 1,500 mg/m2, IV on days 1 through 5, and etoposide, 120 mg/m2, IV on days 3 through 5. Six cycles were administered in 3-week intervals. Nonresponders were switched immediately to CAV, consisting of cyclophosphamide, 600 mg/m2, IV on days 1 and 2, Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), 50 mg/m2, IV on day 1, and vincristine, 2 mg, IV on day 1. Patients obtaining complete remission (CR) received prophylactic cranial irradiation with 30 Gy. After completion of chemotherapy, patients with limited disease received chest irradiation with 45 Gy. No maintenance therapy was given to patients in CR. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Of the 141 patients evaluable, the overall response rate was 65% in PE therapy and 68% in IE therapy. The CR rate was 32% v 20% for all patients, 50% v 24% for limited disease, and 22% v 18% for extensive disease, all in favor of PE therapy. Median survival for all patients was 11.6 months v 9.4 months, for limited disease 14.8 months v 11.0 months, and for extensive disease 8.9 months v 7.5 months, all preferring PE therapy. The 2-year survival rate was higher in PE therapy than in IE therapy for all patients (12% v 9%) and for limited disease (23% v 10%), but not for extensive disease (5% v 9%). Median progression-free survival was 7.5 months v 6.0 months for all patients, 12.2 months v 8.8 months for limited disease, and 5.9 months v 4.4 months for extensive disease, all in favor of PE. Relapse in the area of the primary tumor was found less often after PE than after IE therapy (25% v 38%). Response to second-line CAV was seen in 30% of patients with prior PE and 43% with prior IE therapy, but was usually short lasting, and only one patient achieved CR. Toxicity included three lethal complications. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin lesions occurred more often after PE than after IE therapy. These results suggest that PE is superior to IE chemotherapy in limited-stage, but not in extensive-stage SCLC, and that CAV is cross-resistant to PE, as well as to IE in the majority of patients.
Title: Cisplatin/etoposide versus ifosfamide/etoposide combination chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter German randomized trial.
Description:
A total of 144 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) were randomized to receive cisplatin/etoposide (PE) or ifosfamide/etoposide (IE) combination chemotherapy.
PE consisted of cisplatin, 80 mg/m2, intravenously (IV) on day 1, and etoposide, 150 mg/m2, IV on days 3 through 5.
IE consisted of ifosfamide, 1,500 mg/m2, IV on days 1 through 5, and etoposide, 120 mg/m2, IV on days 3 through 5.
Six cycles were administered in 3-week intervals.
Nonresponders were switched immediately to CAV, consisting of cyclophosphamide, 600 mg/m2, IV on days 1 and 2, Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), 50 mg/m2, IV on day 1, and vincristine, 2 mg, IV on day 1.
Patients obtaining complete remission (CR) received prophylactic cranial irradiation with 30 Gy.
After completion of chemotherapy, patients with limited disease received chest irradiation with 45 Gy.
No maintenance therapy was given to patients in CR.
Minimum follow-up was 2 years.
Of the 141 patients evaluable, the overall response rate was 65% in PE therapy and 68% in IE therapy.
The CR rate was 32% v 20% for all patients, 50% v 24% for limited disease, and 22% v 18% for extensive disease, all in favor of PE therapy.
Median survival for all patients was 11.
6 months v 9.
4 months, for limited disease 14.
8 months v 11.
0 months, and for extensive disease 8.
9 months v 7.
5 months, all preferring PE therapy.
The 2-year survival rate was higher in PE therapy than in IE therapy for all patients (12% v 9%) and for limited disease (23% v 10%), but not for extensive disease (5% v 9%).
Median progression-free survival was 7.
5 months v 6.
0 months for all patients, 12.
2 months v 8.
8 months for limited disease, and 5.
9 months v 4.
4 months for extensive disease, all in favor of PE.
Relapse in the area of the primary tumor was found less often after PE than after IE therapy (25% v 38%).
Response to second-line CAV was seen in 30% of patients with prior PE and 43% with prior IE therapy, but was usually short lasting, and only one patient achieved CR.
Toxicity included three lethal complications.
Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin lesions occurred more often after PE than after IE therapy.
These results suggest that PE is superior to IE chemotherapy in limited-stage, but not in extensive-stage SCLC, and that CAV is cross-resistant to PE, as well as to IE in the majority of patients.

Related Results

Microwave Ablation with or Without Chemotherapy in Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
Microwave Ablation with or Without Chemotherapy in Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
Abstract Introduction  Microwave ablation (MWA) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, whether it i...
Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM)
Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM)
This section provides current contact details and a summary of recent or ongoing clinical trials being coordinated by Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM). Clinical trials...
International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG)
International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG)
This section provides current contact details and a summary of recent or ongoing clinical trials being coordinated by International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). Clinical tria...
Abstract 1761: Dual inhibition of HSP27 and FAO as a novel therapeutic strategy for cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer
Abstract 1761: Dual inhibition of HSP27 and FAO as a novel therapeutic strategy for cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer
Abstract Cisplatin is the most commonly employed chemotherapeutic drug for ovarian cancer treatment. However, most ovarian cancer patients experience recurrent cispl...
Abstract 1490: RAD51C-deficient cancer cells require DNA polymerase zeta to bypass cisplatin-induced lesion
Abstract 1490: RAD51C-deficient cancer cells require DNA polymerase zeta to bypass cisplatin-induced lesion
RAD51C is a RAD51 paralog protein that mediates RAD51 filament formation on single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) in a canonical homologous recombination (HR) pathway. This step is vital for...
Renal Ewing Sarcoma: A Case Report and Literature Review
Renal Ewing Sarcoma: A Case Report and Literature Review
Abstract Introduction Primary renal Ewing sarcoma is an extremely rare and aggressive tumor, representing less than 1% of all renal tumors. This case report contributes valuable in...
Cytoplasmic APE1 promotes lung cancer aggressiveness and cisplatin resistance via the COX-2/Akt/β-catenin pathway 
Cytoplasmic APE1 promotes lung cancer aggressiveness and cisplatin resistance via the COX-2/Akt/β-catenin pathway 
Abstract Background Cisplatin is commonly used in lung cancer therapy, but cisplatin resistance in lung cancer cells remains an unsolved problem. Here, we report that cyto...
Abstract 1108: Evaluation of heme inhibitory therapy in combination with chemotherapy drugs on SCLC progression
Abstract 1108: Evaluation of heme inhibitory therapy in combination with chemotherapy drugs on SCLC progression
Abstract Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US. It is mainly divided in two types: small cell lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer...

Back to Top