Long-term follow-up of a randomised trial of combined chemoradiotherapy induction treatment, with and without maintenance chemotherapy in patients with small cell carcinoma of the lung

Population Survival Kinetics Derived from Clinical Trials of Potentially Curable Lung Cancers

Using digitized data from progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival Kaplan-Meier curves, one can assess population survival kinetics through exponential decay nonlinear regression analyses. To demonstrate their utility, we analyzed PFS curves from published curative-intent trials of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant osimertinib in resected EGFR-mutant NSCLC (ADAURA trial), chemoradiotherapy for inoperable NSCLC, and limited small cell lung cancer (SCLC). These analyses permit assessment of log-linear curve shape and estimation of the proportion of patients cured, PFS half-lives for subpopulations destined to eventually relapse, and probability of eventual relapse in patients remaining progression-free at different time points. The proportion of patients potentially cured was 41% for adjuvant controls, 58% with adjuvant chemotherapy, 17% for ADAURA controls, not assessable with adjuvant osimertinib, 15% with chemoradiotherapy, and 12% for SCLC. Median PFS half-life for relapsing subpopulations was 11.9 months for adjuvant controls, 17.4 months with adjuvant chemotherapy, 24.4 months for ADAURA controls, not assessable with osimertinib, 9.3 months with chemoradiotherapy, and 10.7 months for SCLC. For those remaining relapse-free at 2 and 5 years, the cure probability was 74%/96% for adjuvant controls, 77%/93% with adjuvant chemotherapy, 51%/94% with chemoradiation, and 39%/87% with limited SCLC. Relatively easy population kinetic analyses add useful information.

A systematic review of survival following anti-cancer treatment for small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival following treatment recommended by the European Society of Medical Oncology for SCLC in order to determine a benchmark for novel therapies to be compared with.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting overall survival following chemotherapy for SCLC were included. We calculated survival at 30 and 90-days along with 1-year, 2-year and median.

RESULTS

We identified 160 for inclusion. There were minimal 30-day deaths. Survival was 99 % (95 %CI 98.0-99.0 %, I²33.9 %, n = 77) and 90 % (95 %CI 89.0-92.0 %, I²79.5 %, n = 73) at 90 days for limited (LD-SCLC) and extensive stage (ED-SCLC) respectively. The median survival for LD-SCLC was 18.1 months (95 %CI 17.0-19.1 %, I²77.3 %, n = 110) and early thoracic radiotherapy (thoracic radiotherapy 18.4 months (95 %CI 17.3-19.5, I²78.4 %, n = 100)) vs no radiotherapy 11.7 months (95 %CI 9.1-14.3, n = 10), prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI 19.7 months vs No PCI 13.0 months (95 %CI 18.5-21.0, I²75.7 %, n = 78 and 95 %CI 10.5-16.6, I²81.1 %, n = 15 respectively)) and better performance status (PS0-1 22.5 months vs PS0-4 15.3 months (95 %CI 18.7-26.1, I²72.4 %, n = 11 and 95 %CI 11.5-19.1 I²77.9 %, n = 13)) augmented this. For ED-SCLC the median survival was 9.6 months (95 %CI 8.9-10.3 %, I²95.2 %, n = 103) and this improved when irinotecan + cisplatin was used, however studies that used this combination were mostly conducted in Asian populations where survival was better. Survival was not improved with the addition of thoracic radiotherapy or PCI. Survival for both stages of cancer was better in modern studies and Asian cohorts. It was poorer for studies administering carboplatin + etoposide but this regimen was used in studies that had fewer patient selection criteria.

CONCLUSION

Early thoracic radiotherapy and PCI should be offered to people with LD-SCLC in accordance with guideline recommendations. The benefit of the aforementioned therapies to treat ED-SCLC and the use of chemotherapy in people with poor PS is less clear.

Higher thoracic radiation dose is beneficial in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

The effectiveness of thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients is increasingly reported, but there is no definite consensus on its application. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with better outcomes of TRT among patients with ES-SCLC, focusing on whether a higher TRT dose could improve treatment outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of 85 patients with ES-SCLC who received TRT between January 2008 and June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Eligibility criteria were a biological effective dose with α/β = 10 (BED) higher than 30 Gy10 and completion of planned radiotherapy.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 5.3 months, 68 patients (80.0%) experienced disease progression. In univariate analysis, a BED >50 Gy10 was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival (OS; 40.8% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.006), progression-free survival (PFS; 15.9% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.004), and intrathoracic PFS (IT-PFS; 39.3% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.004) at 1 year. In multivariate analysis, a BED >50 Gy10 remained a significant prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.502; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.287-0.876; p = 0.015), PFS (HR = 0.453; 95% CI, 0.265-0.773; p = 0.004), and IT-PFS (HR = 0.331; 95% CI, 0.171-0.641; p = 0.001). Response to the last chemotherapy was also associated with better OS in both univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

A TRT dose of BED >50 Gy10 may be beneficial for patients with ES-SCLC. Further studies are needed to select patients who will most benefit from high-dose TRT.

Role of thoracic consolidation radiation in extensive stage small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) carries a poor prognosis, and the thoracic progression is common. Consolidation radiation to thoracic disease (cRT) could improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We conducted an electronic search of PubMed and Embase with no language, year or publication status restrictions and evaluated randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the role of cRT in ES-SCLC. Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic review and Cochrane methodology for meta-analysis were followed. Effect estimates (hazard ratios [HRs] and confidence intervals [CIs]) and risk ratios were extracted, with a fixed/random-effects model created to estimate treatment effects. I2 statistics and heterogeneity statistics were performed. Comprehensive and systematic search identified 1107 records, after removal of duplicate records screened 922 records, assessed 31 full-text articles for eligibility and 3 RCTs with a total of 690 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed cRT significant improved PFS (p < 0.0001) with HR 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61-0.83, I2-0%). In addition, cRT significantly (p < 0.001) reduced the risk of thoracic progression as the first site of progression with a relative risk of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.44-0.61, I2-0%). OS analysis showed no significant (p = 0.36) benefit with HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.66-1.18, I2-52%) with cRT. Pooled meta-analysis of 3 randomised controlled studies shows consolidation thoracic radiotherapy (RT) offers significant improvement in PFS and reduction in thoracic failures. Further research on subclassification of ES-SCLC (limited vs extensive metastasis), optimise strategy for RT integration (sequential vs concurrent) and optimal RT dose is needed to identify the subset of ES-SCLC likely to have significant OS benefit.

Radiotherapy improves the survival of patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: a propensity score matched analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database

Background

The survival advantage of radiotherapy for patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) has not been adequately evaluated.

Methods

We analyzed stage IV SCLC patients enrolled from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry through January 2010 and December 2012. Propensity score analysis with 1:1 matching was performed to ensure well-balanced characteristics of all comparison groups. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazardous model were used to evaluate the overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and corresponding 95% CI.

Results

Overall, for all metastatic ED-SCLC, receiving radiotherapy was associated with both improved OS and CSS. Radiotherapy for thoracic lesion and any metastatic sites could significantly improve the OS and CSS, except for brain metastasis. For M1a-SCLC patient, radiotherapy, most likely to the primary site, significantly improved the survival (P<0.001). Furthermore, for those ED-SCLC patients with ≥ 2 metastatic sites, that is, polymetastatic ED-SCLC patients, radiation also significantly improved the median OS from 6.0 to 8.0 months (P=0.015) and the median CSS from 7.0 to 8.0 months (P=0.020).

Conclusion

The large SEER results support that radiotherapy in addition to chemotherapy might improve the survival of patients with metastatic ED-SCLC.

Radiation therapy in small cell lung cancer: a national Italian survey

INTRODUCTION

Radiation therapy plays an important role in the management of SCLC both in curative and palliative setting, however, conflicting data from clinical trials incite debate over the appropriate use of radiation therapy regarding prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) and/or thoracic consolidative in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). This survey is conducted to evaluate the current pattern of care among Italian radiation oncologists.

METHODS

In June 2016, all Italian radiation oncologists were invited to a web-based survey. The survey contained 34 questions regarding the role of RT in SCLC. Questions pertaining the role of RT in the clinical management of both limited-stage (LS) and ES-SCLC were included.

RESULTS

We received 48 responses from Italian radiation oncologists. More than half of respondents had been practicing for more than 10 years after completing residency training and 55% are subspecialists in lung cancer. Preferred management of LS-SCLC favored primary concurrent chemoradiotherapy (89%), even if the 36.9% usually delivered RT during or after the cycle 3 of chemotherapy, due to organizational issues. The most common dose and fractionation schedule in this setting was 60 Gy in 30 once-daily fractions. Furthermore, almost all respondents recommended PCI in patients with LS-SCLC. For ES-SCLC scenario, chemotherapy was defined the standard treatment by all respondents. PCI was recommended in ES-SCLC patients with thoracic complete remission (63% of respondents), with thoracic partial response (45%) and with thoracic stable disease (17%) after first-line chemotherapy. Lastly, the thoracic consolidative RT was recommended by 51% of respondents in patients with ES-SCLC in good response after first-line chemotherapy and a great variability was shown in clinical target volume definition, doses and fractionation schedules.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis showed a high adherence to current guidelines among the respondents in regard to chemoradiation approach in LS-SCLC patients and to PCI indications and doses. The great variability in radiation therapy doses and volumes in the thoracic consolidative radiotherapy in ES-SCLC is concerning. Future clinical trials are needed to standardize these treatment approaches to improve treatment outcomes among patients with ES-SCLC.

Consolidative thoracic radiotherapy for extensive stage small cell lung cancer

Extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) represents approximately half of all diagnosed small cell lung cancer worldwide. It is notorious for a high risk of local recurrence although it’s sensitive to chemotherapy. Nearly 90% of intrathoracic failures happen in the first year after diagnosis. The cornerstone of treatment for ES-SCLC is etoposide-platinum based chemotherapy. Consolidative radiotherapy to thorax has diminished the incidence of local relapse, therefore it should be offered to patients with excellent response to induction first-line chemotherapy. This review centers on the clinical evidence for the use of thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) and current modalities of TRT delivery, then tries to determine a feasible way to conduct TRT in a selective group of cases.

Radiation Therapy in Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the major cancer killer in the Western world, with the small cell lung cancer (SCLC) representing around 15–20% of all lung cancers. Extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC) is found in approximately two-thirds of all cases, composed of both metastatic (M1) and non-metastatic (but presumably with tumor burden too large for locoregional-only approach) variant. Standard treatment options involve chemotherapy (CHT) over the past several decades. Radiation therapy (RT) had mostly been used in palliation of locoregional and/or metastatic disease. In contrast to its established role in treating metastatic disease, thoracic RT (TRT) had never been established as important part of the treatment aspects in this setting. In the past two decades, thoracic oncologists have witnessed wide introduction of modern RT and CHT aspects in ED SCLC, which led to more frequent use of RT and rise in the number of clinical studies. Since the pivotal study of Jeremic et al., who were the first to show importance of TRT in ED SCLC, a number of single-institutional studies have reconfirmed this observation, while recent prospective randomized trials (CREST and RTOG 0937) brought more substance to this issue. Similarly, the issue of prophylactic cranial irradiation was investigated in EORTC and the Japanese study, respectively, bringing somewhat conflicting results and calling for additional research in this setting. Future studies in ED SCLC could incorporate questions of RT dose and fractionation as well as the number of CHT cycles and type of combined Rt-CHT (sequential vs concurrent).

Optimal duration of a first-line palliative chemotherapy in disseminated colorectal cancer - a review of the literature from a developing country perspective

We still do not know whether the presently used protocol of the first-line palliative treatment of disseminated colorectal cancer (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI protocol) allows maximization of therapeutic response and minimization of side effects. No-one has verified whether continuation of the first-line chemotherapy despite the lack of progression is reflected by improved prognosis or significant risk of toxicity. This issue is of vital importance in the case of developing countries where targeted therapies are not available due to financial shortages. We have identified three potential strategies of the palliative therapy of disseminated colorectal cancer: 1) discontinuation of chemotherapy after a fixed number of cycles with its restart on progression (stop-and-go strategy), 2) intermittent protocol of chemotherapy, and 3) continuation of chemotherapy with discontinuation of the most toxic agent. None of the studies proved the superiority of the most commonly used standard, i.e. 12 cycles of the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI regimen. Although longer duration of this treatment may be associated with higher response rates and longer progression-free survival, these improvements frequently prove insignificant on statistical analysis.

Chemotherapy versus best supportive care for extensive small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Combination chemotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for extensive stage small celI lung cancer (SCLC) over the last 30 years, even though it only gives a short prolongation in median survival time. The main goal for these patients should be palliation with the aim of improving their quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy versus placebo or best supportive care (BSC) in prolonging survival in patients with extensive SCLC at diagnosis and the effectiveness of second-line chemotherapy at relapse or progression after first-line chemotherapy compared with BSC or placebo in prolonging survival in patients with extensive SCLC; as well as to evaluate the adverse events of treatment and the quality of life of patients.

SEARCH METHODS

This is the second update of the review. MEDLINE (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (1974 to October 2013), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 3) were searched. Experts in the field were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Phase III randomised controlled trials in which any chemotherapy treatment was compared with  placebo or BSC in patients with extensive SCLC, as first-line or second-line therapy at relapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Additional information was obtained from one study author.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies of unclear risk of bias were included for first-line chemotherapy. A total of 88 men under 70 years with good performance status were randomised to receive either supportive care, placebo infusion or ifosfamide. Ifosfamide gave an extra mean survival of 78.5 days compared with supportive care or placebo infusion. Partial tumour response was greater with the active treatment. Toxicity was only seen in the chemotherapy group and quality of life was only assessed at the beginning of treatment. The quality of the evidence for overall survival and adverse effects was very low.Three studies of moderate risk of bias were included for second-line chemotherapy at relapse (one identified in the last search). A total of 932 men and women under 75 years and any performance status were randomised to receive either methotrexate-doxorubicin, topotecan, or picoplatin versus symptomatic treatment or BSC. The methotrexate-doxorubicin treatment gave a median survival of 63 days longer than in the symptomatic-treatment group for patients allocated to receive four cycles of first-line chemotherapy, and 21 days longer for patients allocated to receive eight cycles of first-line chemotherapy.Treatment with topotecan gave a median survival of 84 days longer than in the BSC group (log-rank P = 0.01). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival was 0.61 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.87). Treatment with picoplatin gave a median survival time of six days longer than BSC (HR 0.817, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.03, P = 0.0895). A meta-analysis of topotecan and picoplatin gave a HR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.96, P = 0.03; low-quality evidence).Partial or complete response in the methotrexate-doxorubicin group was 22.3%. Five patients (7%, 95% CI 2.33 to 15.67) showed a partial response with topotecan. No data were provided about tumour response in the picoplatin study. Toxicity was worst in the chemotherapy group (moderate-quality evidence). Quality of life was better in the topotecan group and was not measured in the methotrexate-doxorubicin and picoplatin studies (low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two small RCTs from the 1970s suggest that first-line chemotherapeutic treatment (based on ifosfamide) may provide a small survival benefit (less than three months) in comparison with supportive care or placebo infusion in patients with advanced SCLC. However platinum-based combination chemotherapy regimens have been shown to increase complete response rates when compared to non-platinum chemotherapy regimens with no significant difference in survival, and so these are currently the standard first-line treatment for patients with SCLC.Second-line chemotherapy at relapse or progression may prolong survival for some weeks in relation to BSC. Nevertheless, the impact of first-line chemotherapy on quality of life, older patients, women and patients with poor prognosis is unknown and the benefits of second-line chemotherapy are also unclear for older people. Globally, the evidence on which these conclusions are based is very scarce and of uncertain or low quality, which calls for well-designed, controlled trials to further evaluate the trade-offs between benefits and risks of different chemotherapeutic schedules in patients with advanced SCLC.

Duration of chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Maintenance chemotherapy is widely provided to patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, the benefits of maintenance chemotherapy compared with observation are a subject of debate.

METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

To identify relevant literature, we systematically searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Eligible trials included patients with SCLC who either received maintenance chemotherapy (administered according to a continuous or switch strategy) or underwent observation. The primary outcome was 1-year mortality, and secondary outcomes were 2-year mortality, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Of the 665 studies found in our search, we identified 14 relevant trials, which together reported data on 1806 patients with SCLC. When compared with observation, maintenance chemotherapy had no effect on 1-year mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-1.19; P = 0.414), 2-year mortality (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.57-1.19; P = 0.302), OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.71-1.06; P = 0.172), or PFS (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.62-1.22; P = 0.432). However, subgroup analyses indicated that maintenance chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer PFS than observation in patients with extensive SCLC (HR, 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58-0.89; P = 0.003). Additionally, patients who were managed using the continuous strategy of maintenance chemotherapy appeared to be at a disadvantage in terms of PFS compared with patients who only underwent observation (HR, 1.27; 95% CI: 1.04-1.54; P = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Maintenance chemotherapy failed to improve survival outcomes in patients with SCLC. However, a significant advantage in terms of PFS was observed for maintenance chemotherapy in patients with extensive disease. Additionally, our results suggest that the continuous strategy is inferior to observation; its clinical value needs to be investigated in additional trials.

Chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer: a comprehensive review

Combination chemotherapy is the current strategy of choice for treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Platinum containing combination regimens are superior to non-platinum regimens in limited stage-SCLC and possibly also in extensive stage-SCLC as first and second-line treatments. The addition of ifosfamide to platinum containing regimens may improve the outcome but at the price of increased toxicity. Suboptimal doses of chemotherapy result in inferior survival. Early intensified, accelerated and high-dose chemotherapy gave conflicting results and is not considered a standard option outside of clinical trials. A number of newer agents have provided promising results when used in combination regimens, for example, gemcitabine, irinotecan and topotecan. However, more studies are required to appropriately evaluate them. There is a definitive role for radiotherapy in LD-SCLC. However, timing and schedule are subject to further research. Novel approaches are currently being investigated in the hope of improving outcome.

Chemotherapy versus best supportive care for extensive small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Combination chemotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for extensive stage small celI lung cancer (SCLC) over the last 30 years even though it only gives a short prolongation in median survival time. The main goal for these patients should be palliation with the aim of improving their quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of chemotherapy in extensive SCLC compared with best supportive care (BSC) or placebo treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE (1966 to July 2008), EMBASE (1974 to week 31, 2008), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2008). Experts in the field were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which any chemotherapy treatment was compared with placebo or BSC in patients with extensive SCLC, as first or second therapy at relapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Additional information was obtained from one study author.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies were included for first-line chemotherapy. A total of 65 patients were randomised to receive either placebo or ifosfamide. Ifosfamide gave an extra mean survival of 78.5 days compared with placebo. Partial tumour response was greater with the active treatment. Toxicity was only seen in the chemotherapy group.Two studies were included for second-line chemotherapy at relapse. A total of 531 patients were randomised to receive either methotrexate-doxorubicin or symptomatic treatment, or to receive oral topotecan versus BSC. The methotrexate-doxorubicin treatment gave a median survival of 63 days longer than in the symptomatic treatment group, and 21 days longer for patients allocated to receive four or eight cycles of first-line chemotherapy, respectively.Treatment with topotecan gave a median survival of 84 days longer than in the BSC group (log-rank P = 0.01). The adjusted hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87). Partial or complete response in the methotrexate-doxorubicin group was 22.3%. Five patients (7%, 95% CI, 2.33 to 15.67) showed a partial response with topotecan. Toxicity was worst in the chemotherapy group. Quality of life was better in the topotecan group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapeutic treatment prolongs survival in comparison with placebo in patients with advanced SCLC. Nevertheless, the impact of first-line chemotherapy on quality of life and in patients with poor prognosis is unknown. Well-designed, controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the risks and benefits of different chemotherapeutic schedules in patients with advanced SCLC.

Randomized phase II study of maintenance irinotecan therapy versus observation following induction chemotherapy with irinotecan and cisplatin in extensive disease small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

To determine whether irinotecan maintenance therapy in extensive disease-small cell lung cancer can improve survival of patients who responded to irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) induction therapy.

METHODS

A total of 120 chemo-naive patients with adequate organ functions and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were enrolled from March 2003 through April 2006. After IP induction therapy, with either schedule A (I: 60 mg/m intravenously (IV) on days 1, 8, and 15; P: 30 mg/m IV on days 1 and 8, every 4 weeks for six cycles) or schedule B (I: 60 mg/m and P: 30 mg/m IV on days 1, and 8, every 3 weeks for eight cycles), responding patients were randomized to either maintenance with irinotecan 100 mg/m IV on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks up to six cycles, or observation.

RESULTS

Overall, 100 (83%) of 120 patients achieved objective tumor responses (12 complete responses, 88 partial responses) after IP induction therapy. Of those patients who remained in remission upon completion of planned cycles of induction therapy, 45 were randomized to maintenance (n = 21) or observation (n = 24). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients were 7.2 and 14.0 months, respectively. For the maintenance arm, median PFS and OS were 12.0 and 17.6 months, respectively. For the observation arm, median PFS and OS were 9.9 and 20.5 months, respectively, which was not significantly different from the maintenance arm.

CONCLUSIONS

IP chemotherapy is very useful for the treatment of small cell lung cancer. However, maintenance irinotecan therapy did not seem to further affect the clinical outcome of patients who had responded to IP induction therapy.

Does maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy have a role in the management of small cell lung cancer (SCLC)?

BACKGROUND

The role of maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy was assessed in the management of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) via a metaanalytic approach.

METHODS

The Medline and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant randomized clinical trials that compared maintenance chemotherapy with follow-up. Quality of trials was assessed by European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) score. Odds ratios and rate differences were used as the effect size. Mantel-Haenszel tests with fixed and random effect models were conducted for 1- and 2-year overall survival (OAS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Fourteen relevant randomized clinical trials to date, encompassing 2550 patients, with trial sizes ranging from 36 to 610, were identified. Both 1- and 2-year mortality were reduced with maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy. With the fixed model, odds ratios for 1- and 2-year OAS were 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56-0.79), P < 0.001, and also 0.67 (95% CI = 0.53-0.86), P < 0.001. Likewise, 1- and 2-year PFS were better with maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy, with odds ratios of 0.49 (95% CI = 0.37-0.63), P < 0.001, and 0.64 (95% CI = 0.45-0.92), P < 0.015. The random model gave similar results. In accordance, maintenance chemotherapy improved 1- and 2-year OAS by 9% (from 30-39%) and 4% (from 10-14%), respectively. Similarly, 1- and 2-year PFS were also improved.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy improves survival in SCLC. New randomized clinical trials are needed to further refine the place of this approach in the management of SCLC.

Small-cell lung cancer

Small-cell lung carcinoma is an aggressive form of lung cancer that is strongly associated with cigarette smoking and has a tendency for early dissemination. Increasing evidence has implicated autocrine growth loops, proto-oncogenes, and tumour-suppressor genes in its development. At presentation, the vast majority of patients are symptomatic, and imaging typically reveals a hilar mass. Pathology, in most cases of samples obtained by bronchoscopic biopsy, should be undertaken by pathologists with pulmonary expertise, with the provision of additional tissue for immunohistochemical stains as needed. Staging should aim to identify any evidence of distant disease, by imaging of the chest, upper abdomen, head, and bones as appropriate. Limited-stage disease should be treated with etoposide and cisplatin and concurrent early chest irradiation. All patients who achieve complete remission should be considered for treatment with prophylactic cranial irradiation, owing to the high frequency of brain metastases in this disease. Extensive-stage disease should be managed by combination chemotherapy, with a regimen such as etoposide and cisplatin administered for four to six cycles. Thereafter, patients with progressive or recurrent disease should be treated with additional chemotherapy. For patients who survive long term, careful monitoring for development of a second primary tumour is necessary, with further investigation and treatment as appropriate.

Recent advances in management of small-cell lung cancer

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a smoking-related disease with a poor prognosis. While SCLC is usually initially sensitive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, responses are rarely long lasting. Frustratingly, most patients ultimately relapse, often with increasingly treatment resistant disease. Many strategies have been developed in an attempt to improve treatment outcomes, which have plateaued since the introduction of combination chemotherapy in the 1980s. These include trials of maintenance therapy, and dose intensification, the latter by means of increasing dose density, growth factor support and high dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue. None have been shown to improve patient survival. On the other hand, the integration of concurrent thoracic radiation and prophylactic cranial irradiation has improved the survival outcomes in patients with limited disease. In extensive disease, irinotecan combined with cisplatin has shown promise in improving survival over conventional platinum/etoposide chemotherapy schedules and a confirmatory study is awaited. The future of SCLC treatment may however lie with molecularly targeted therapies, such as antiangiogenesis agents and signal transduction inhibitors, which are being studied at present.

Lung Cancer: A Cost and Outcome Study Based on Physician Practice Patterns

Chemotherapy is now an acceptable treatment for selected patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. With the wide assortment of cytotoxic and supportive-care drugs, there are opportunities for assessing the value of various treatment approaches. This study was undertaken to assess variations in treatment patterns in a large oncology group with emphasis on costs incurred and survival. A total of 1215 patients seen in 1996 by Medical Oncologists (a community-based private practice) were identified as new lung cancer patients by review of billing data. Of these, 858 received chemotherapy and were evaluated for charges. Three hundred were evaluated for charges, hospice care, and survival. Differences in practice patterns for physicians and the causes of those differences were assessed. Differences in survival, charges, and hospice care for those patients who were seen by high-charge and low-charge physicians were measured. Clear differences emerged in practice patterns for these Medical Oncologists. Higher charges were associated with higher average number of chemotherapy cycles given, greater use of second- and third-line chemotherapy and greater use of support drugs, particularly G-CSF and erythropoietin. For stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer, there was no difference in survival or in hospice utilization for the two groups. For all patients combined, there was no significant survival difference. There may be as much as 100% difference in costs incurred for lung cancer chemotherapy based on variations in practice patterns alone without a measurable survival difference. These results suggest approaches for cost-minimization and disease management. These suggestions have been reinforced by recent clinical data and guideline development.

The Impact of Dose per Cycle of Etoposide and Cisplatin on Outcomes in Patients with Extensive Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Etoposide/cisplatin is the standard chemotherapy regimen used in the United States for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). A wide variety of dose and schedules have been employed when managing these patients. We conducted an analysis of the phase II/III trials of etoposide/cisplatin in the past 20 years to determine whether the dose and cycle of either drug affected outcomes in patients with extensive SCLC. We identified 15 phase I/II studies, which included 1419 patients. Etoposide doses per cycle ranged from 180 mg/m(2) to 510 mg/m(2) and cisplatin doses per cycle ranged from 80 mg/m2 to 280 mg/m(2). With logistic regression analysis, we found that increasing doses of etoposide resulted in increased complete response rates (P = 0.01) but had no impact on overall response rates. Cisplatin dose per cycle had no influence on complete or overall response. With linear regression analysis, we were unable to find a relationship between survival and dose per cycle of etoposide or cisplatin. Variations in the administration of this regimen had no impact on outcomes in patients with extensive SCLC.

Limited-disease small-cell lung cancer

Substantial improvements in treatment outcome for limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (LD SCLC) have been achieved in the last two decades owing to the introduction of chemotherapy (CHT) consisting of cisplatin and etoposide (PE), and the understanding that thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) is an essential component in improving treatment outcome. In addition, a recent metaanalysis confirmed the importance of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in general treatment plans for patients who show a complete response to treatment. However, numerous questions remain unanswered regarding this disease. While TRT/PE/PCI is considered to be the standard treatment in the majority of centers worldwide, the emergence of new and effective drugs (e.g., topoisomerase I inhibitors and paclitaxel) for the treatment of LD SCLC will likely affect therapy strategies in the near future. Important issues regarding optimal doses and fractionation regimens, as well as the timing of TRT, remain to be resolved. While most centers currently use b.i.d. fractionation as a result of the Intergroup findings, high-dose standard TRT may also be beneficial. TRT volumes are also considered an important issue, since they likely relate to the incidence of both local failure and toxicity. Finally, the optimization of PCI (total dose, fractionation regimen, and timing) is already under way. The value of surgery is limited to peripheral tumors and poorly responding cancer, and to confirm histology or improve local control and survival.

Treatment of lung cancer in elderly part II: small cell lung cancer

There is a general trend worldwide of an increasing incidence of elderly population. Age is the greatest risk factor for cancer; therefore, this demographic shift is a main reason for an increase of cancer incidence. Lung cancer is a typical disease of the elderly patients. Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for approximately 20% of all lung cancer cases. This review summarises the issues of treatment of SCLC in elderly. The number of randomised phase III trials concerning treatment of SCLC in elderly patients are very limited. Although currently most treatment decisions are based on lower grades of evidence, some conclusions can be drawn from the current studies. Age alone is a very uncertain prognostic criteria for outcome or tolerability of treatment. Much more important is the geriatric assessment of each individual patient. Current treatment standards for limited disease (LD)-SCLC (polychemotherapy plus local thoracic irradiation and additional prophylactic cranial irradiation in case of complete remission) seems to be also feasible for 'fit' elderly (>70 years) LD-SCLC patients with a good performance and full functional capacities. There are preliminary data indicating that a similar outcome in elderly patients can probably be achieved a with reduced number of treatment schedules (e.g. 2 instead of 4 cycles in combination with radiotherapy. Surgical resection is also feasible in selected elderly patients with very early stage SCLC, where this maybe an appropriate approach, although no phase III data are available, which demonstrated the benefit of additional surgery compared to chemotherapy alone in early stage SCLC. In patients with extensive disease-SCLC age alone does not necessarily restrict the use of multiagent regimen, although the risk of haematological toxicity seems to be higher than in the younger patients. When standard treatment is not feasible due to co-morbidity or loss of functional capacity, several alternative combination regimens are available, which appear to be slightly superior to single agent treatment, although randomised data for elderly on that issue are sparse. Carboplatin and etoposide seems currently the most appropriate two-drug combination in elderly patients, but there are a variety of active and low toxic third generation agents like taxanes, gemcitabine and vinorelbine which are active in both, non-small cell lung cancer and SCLC. For the comparison of trials in elderly patients it will be of key importance to include a comprehensive and standardised geriatric assessment in such studies.

Comparison of intermittent and continuous palliative chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Policies of UK clinicians regarding the duration of chemotherapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer are not consistent. We aimed to compare effectiveness of continuous and intermittent chemotherapy in such patients.

METHODS

Patients who responded or had stable disease after receiving 12 weeks of the regimens described by de Gramont and Lokich, or raltitrexed chemotherapy, were randomised to either intermittent (a break in chemotherapy, re-starting on the same drug on progression), or continuous chemotherapy until progression.

FINDINGS

354 patients (178 intermittent, 176 continuous) were enrolled from 42 UK centres. At randomisation, 41% of participants had part or complete response; 59% were stable. Only 66 (37%) patients allocated to intermittent treatment restarted as planned, after a median of 130 days. Median time on treatment after restarting was 84 days. Patients in the continuous group remained on treatment for a median of a further 92 days. Similar proportions of patients in both groups received second-line therapy. Patients on intermittent chemotherapy had significantly fewer toxic effects and serious adverse events than those in the continuous group. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 0.87 favouring intermittent, 95% CI 0.69-1.09, p=0.23).

INTERPRETATION

Our findings provided no clear evidence of a benefit in continuing therapy indefinitely until disease progression. They showed that it is safe to stop chemotherapy after 12 weeks and re-start the same treatment on progression in patients with chemosensitive advanced colorectal cancer.

Chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer

There were approximately 42,000 new cases of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in 2002. Despite its initial sensitivity to chemotherapy, only 10% of all SCLC patients will have significant long-term survival. Studies have yet to show significant survival advantages for maintenance chemotherapy, and it appears that four to six cycles of chemotherapy is as effective as longer durations. As yet, there is no defined role for dose escalation in the treatment of SCLC. No one chemotherapy combination has exhibited a definitive survival advantage in extensive disease, although it appears that single-agent oral etoposide may be inferior to combination intravenous chemotherapy. In limited disease, however, cisplatin plus etoposide alone or in alternation with cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine is superior to other approaches. There are several new agents with significant activity in SCLC awaiting further study.

Small-Cell Lung Cancer: State of the Art

Thirty years ago, there was a pervasive atmosphere of pessimism concerning the management of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Surgery or radiation therapy alone resulted in few cures since these techniques utilize a local therapy for a disseminated disease. Chemotherapy remains the backbone of treatment for all patients with SCLC, regardless of stage. For patients with limited-stage disease (LD), the addition of thoracic radiation to chemotherapy is standard. The optimal timing, dose, and schedule of radiation remains undefined. The majority of studies demonstrate equivalent or superior survival for early radiation when compared to delayed radiation. Approximately 50% of patients with LD will achieve a complete remission with chemoradiation and will be candidates for prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). While phase III trials have failed to demonstrate a statistically significant survival for PCI, brain relapse is clearly reduced, and a metaanalysis reports a small long-term survival advantage favoring patients receiving PCI. Unfortunately, unlike LD SCLC, advances in extensive-stage disease have been elusive, despite the testing of numerous strategies. Four courses of cisplatin (or carboplatin) plus etoposide remain standard first-line therapy. Promising results have been seen with irinotecan/cisplatin, but confirmatory trials are still needed. A plateau has been reached with chemotherapy regimens, and novel strategies are greatly needed to improve survival for patients with SCLC.

Maintenance daily oral etoposide versus no further therapy following induction chemotherapy with etoposide plus ifosfamide plus cisplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a Hoosier Oncology Group randomized study

BACKGROUND

We performed this phase III study to determine whether the addition of 3 months of oral etoposide in non-progressing patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treated with four cycles of etoposide plus ifosfamide plus cisplatin (VIP) improves progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with extensive SCLC with a Karnofsky performance score (KPS) > or =50, adequate renal function and bone marrow reserve were eligible. Patients with CNS metastasis were eligible and received concurrent whole-brain radiotherapy. All patients received etoposide 75 mg/m2, ifosfamide 1.2 g/m2 and cisplatin 20 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-4 every 3 weeks for four cycles. Non-progressing patients were randomized to oral etoposide 50 mg/m2 for 21 consecutive days every 4 weeks for three courses versus no further therapy until progression.

RESULTS

From September 1993 to June 1998, 233 patients were entered and treated with VIP with 144 non-progressing patients subsequently randomized to oral etoposide (n = 72) or observation (n = 72). Minimum follow up for all patients is 2 years. Toxicity with oral etoposide was mild. There was an improvement in median PFS favoring the maintenance arm of 8.23 versus 6.5 months (P = 0.0018). There was a trend towards an improvement in median (12.2 versus 11.2 months), 1-year (51.4% versus 40.3%), 2-year (16.7% versus 6.9%) and 3-year (9.1% versus 1.9%) survival (P = 0.0704) favoring the maintenance arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Three months of oral etoposide in non-progressing patients with extensive SCLC was associated with a significant improvement in PFS and a trend towards improved overall survival.

Chemotherapy as treatment of primary and recurrent small cell lung cancer

Chemotherapy is the treatment of choice in metastatic stage of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Radiation therapy, surgery and other forms of therapy are only included in special treatment situations, particularly for different local problems. A wide range of chemotherapeutic agents have proven to be effective in SCLC, including carboplatin, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, epirubicin, etoposide, ifosfamide, teniposide and vincristine. However, treatment results could not be improved over the last 10 years and the median survival of patients with metastatic disease is limited to 7-10 months. New agents like docetaxel, gemcitabine, irinotecan, paclitaxel, topotecan and vinorelbine have shown promising results in phase-II investigations. Yet, no evidence is provided from randomized trials to employ these drugs in first line treatment. Clearly, polychemotherapy is superior to single agent treatment. Compared to the combination of cisplatin and etoposide, no other combination has clearly shown improved results in large phase-III randomised trials, yet. The combination of cisplatin and irinotecan has also shown promising results in a single randomised trial with the need to be confirmed in larger settings. Neither extending the initial treatment beyond the median number of six cycles, nor maintenance treatment have-so far-resulted in any increase in survival results for patients with metastasised SCLC. Nor has dose-intensification, which causes significantly higher toxicities in patients, shown a clear impact on the overall survival of these patients. Brain metastases represent a high frequent complication associated with SCLC. In these cases, the combination of chemotherapy and whole brain radiation therapy is advocated. Second-line treatment should always be considered in patients with relapse or failure to first-line therapy. In addition to a rechallenging with the prior drug combination or selecting a different potentially non-cross resistant one, monotherapy with topotecan proved to be effective as well. In summary, up to now, no standard chemotherapy combination exists for metastatic SCLC. The individual therapy strategy can only be selected by considering the clinically relevant conditions of the patient.

Treatment and outcomes for elderly patients with small cell lung cancer

It is estimated that approximately half of the 500 000 people diagnosed with lung cancer worldwide every year are aged >70 years. Thus, this disease represents a major problem in the elderly and one that will indeed increase as the median age of the population increases. For small cell lung cancer (SCLC), which accounts for approximately 20% of cases of lung cancer, the primary treatment is chemotherapy and in the majority of cases the primary aim is to control the disease which generally would have spread beyond the lungs at the time of presentation. A small number of 'standard' chemotherapy regimens (combined with radiotherapy for patients with limited disease) have been shown to improve survival and quality of life and are widely used. Much of the work investigating the relationship between age and treatment outcomes has been based on clinical trial data and may itself be inherently biased due to trial eligibility criteria excluding elderly patients. However, there is no good evidence that elderly patients fare worse with treatment than their younger counterparts in terms of response rates and survival. Nevertheless with increasing age comes increasing concomitant illnesses which may account for the widely observed increases in drug toxicity, and this may be the primary consideration in selecting the treatment option. Thus for many elderly patients, carboplatin/ etoposide may be the treatment of choice because it is perhaps the least toxic of the standard regimens. Whatever regimen is chosen, the key to treatment effectiveness seems to be to deliver the first 3 or 4 cycles without delay or dosage reduction. Although palliation of symptoms remains a major goal in the treatment of all patients with SCLC there is a dearth of data on whether elderly patients are equally well palliated as their younger counterparts. There is no good evidence that age per se should be a factor in deciding whether patients should receive standard treatment rather than a more gentle approach, and more elderly patients should be included in clinical trials. The key areas where more information is required regarding the treatment and outcomes of elderly patients with SCLC are the assessment of palliation, and comprehensive reviews of all patients diagnosed with the disease, not just those included in trials.

Maintenance chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer: a critical review of the literature

Maintenance chemotherapy after induction therapy is a controversial topic in small cell lung cancer. We carried out a critical review of the literature on this topic. Since 1980, 13 randomized trials have been published. One shows a statistically significant difference in survival in favor of maintenance, five obtain some survival advantages in subgroups of patients, one shows a significantly shorter survival with maintenance and in six studies, there is no difference between both arms. A quantitative overview or meta-analysis was unpracticable because of the lack of data for calculation of the odds ratio in the publications and because of the heterogeneity of the studies' designs. A qualitative overview was carried out using two scales: the Chalmers scores and the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) score. Correlation between both scores was excellent. There was no significant difference in quality scores with both methods between negative trials and those who showed some survival advantage for survival. The overall quality of the publications was not good, with important methodological aspects missing, such as a clear definition of the primary objective or an a priori estimate of the sample size necessary to conduct the trial. We concluded that maintenance chemotherapy could have some indications and that good quality trials, as reflected by very high quality scores, need to be carried out in the future.