Phase II study of irinotecan and ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Topotecan or other agents as second-line therapy for relapsed small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized studies

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is exceptionally responsive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In relapsed patients, particularly in resistant/refractory cases, the progression of disease occurs rapidly with second-line agents. Topotecan (TOPO), a camptothecin analog, is the only agent able to increase overall survival (OS) compared with the best supportive care alone. However, the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy rechallenge or other agents has not been systematically explored. In the present review, published articles, which evaluated outcome and toxicity associated with TOPO or non-TOPO-based chemotherapy in patients with SCLC from inception to September 2020 were systematically searched and identified by searching the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcome of interest was the risk of death (OS), and the secondary endpoints were risk of progression progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and G3-4 hematological toxicities. A total of nine studies were included in quantitative synthesis for a total of 1,689 patients. They included platinum-based rechallenge, anthracycline-based combinations or camptothecin analogs. TOPO did not improve OS with respect to other therapies [hazard ratio (HR), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.78-1.09; P=0.33]. Similarly, PFS was similar in the two arms (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.72-1.67; P=0.66). The ORR was not statistically higher with non-TOPO agents (relative risk, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.95-2.48). In subgroup analysis, combination chemotherapy was associated with an improved PFS but not OS or ORR compared with TOPO alone (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.52-2.24; P<0.01). The rates of G3-4 anemia, febrile neutropenia and neutropenia were similar. In conclusion, in patients with relapsed SCLC, TOPO was associated with a similar survival, PFS and ORR as other agents. However, polychemotherapy was associated with improved PFS.

Comparison of first-line chemotherapy based on irinotecan or other drugs to treat non-small cell lung cancer in stage IIIB/IV: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and toxicity of irinotecan-based chemotherapy (IBC) and non-irinotecan-based chemotherapy (NIBC) as first-line treatment for stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), abstracts from the annual meetings of ASCO and the ESMO up to 2014 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IBC with NIBC. Data on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were meta-analyzed to provide hazard ratios (HRs), while data on overall response rate (ORR) and frequencies of toxicity were meta-analyzed to provide relative risk ratios (RR).

RESULTS

Seven RCTs (6 RCTs from Asian population and 1 from non-Asian population) involving 1473 patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were included in the meta-analysis. IBC and NIBC were associated with similar ORR (RR: 1.08, 95%CI: 0.94 to 1.23, p=0.30), OS (HR: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.88 to 1.07, p=0.56), and PFS (HR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.97 to 1.08, p=0.38). However, the subgroups between Asian and non-Asian patients differed significantly in OS (HR: 0.94 vs 1.87, p=0.007). There was no significant difference for hematological toxicity (RR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.60 to 1.04, p=0.09) and significant worse for non-hematological toxicity (RR: 2.28, 95%CI: 1.60 to 3.24, p<0.001), when IBC compared to NIBC.

CONCLUSIONS

As the available evidence suggests that IBC and NIBC are equivalent in terms of ORR, PFS, OS, at least in Asian patients, we recommend that IBC be considered as a first-line treatment in Asian patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. However, the non-hematological toxicity of IBC must be considered.

Chemotherapy of lung cancer: A global perspective of the role of ifosfamide

The oxazaphosphorine cytostatic ifosfamide (IFO) has been successfully integrated in the treatment of various hematological and solid tumors. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence for its use in lung cancer starting from basic data of preclinical studies followed by a global summary of the phase III and seminal phase II clinical studies. Global in double respect: first covering both the small cell as well as the non-small cell indications, and, second tracing those studies performed in Europe and the United States as well as those from Asian countries.

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.

Phase II study of a combination of irinotecan and S-1 in patients with advanced gastric cancer (OGSG0002)

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To investigate the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy of irinotecan (CPT-11) plus S-1 in patients with advanced gastric cancer at the dose recommended by a previous phase I study.

METHODS

A total of 23 patients received 80 mg/m(2) of CPT-11 on days 1 and 15, and S-1 at a dose level set on the basis of the body surface area (BSA): 40 (BSA <1.25 m(2)), 50 (BSA > or =1.25 to <1.5 m(2)) or 60 mg (BSA > or =1.5 m(2)) b.i.d. was given from days 1-21.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 47.8% (11 of 23, 95% confidence interval, CI: 27.4-68.2%). The median time to progression (TTP) was 210 days (95% CI: 145-322 days) and the median survival time was 394 days (95% CI: 241-484 days). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematological and non-hematological toxicity was 17.4 and 8.7%. The most common hematological toxicity was anemia and the most common non-hematological toxicity was diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

The combination therapy of CPT-11 and S-1 provided prolonged TTP with low toxicity, and the results warrant a further phase III study to define the efficacy in improvement of survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer.