Combination chemotherapy with or without thoracic radiotherapy in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: a randomized trial of the Southeastern Cancer Study Group

Phase 1/2 Trial of Pembrolizumab and Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Limited-Stage SCLC

INTRODUCTION

Few advancements in treating limited-stage SCLC (LS-SCLC) have been made in decades. We report here a phase 1/2 trial of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and pembrolizumab.

METHODS

This single-center, open-label phase 1/2 study recruited adults with LS-SCLC or other neuroendocrine tumors and good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤ 2). The primary end point was safety, as assessed by dose-limiting toxicities. Concurrent CRT consisted of etoposide and a platin with 45 Gy radiotherapy (30 twice daily). Prophylactic cranial irradiation (25 Gy, 10 fractions) was given at the physician's discretion. Pembrolizumab was started concurrently with CRT and continued for up to 16 cycles. The phase 1 portion consisted of a 3 + 3 design. Toxicity was assessed with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, overall survival, and tumor response as measured by the immune-related response criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients were screened, and 40 were enrolled. All completed radiation therapy and received greater than or equal to one cycle of pembrolizumab. A total of 27 (61%) received percutaneous coronary intervention. One dose-limiting toxicity was observed in the phase 1 portion. There were no grade 5 toxicities, but there were three grade 4 events (two neutropenia, one respiratory failure). Pneumonitis rate was 15% (three grade 2 and three grade 3). All 17 esophagitis events (42.5%) were grades 1 to 2. At median follow-up time of 23.1 months, the median progression-free survival time was 19.7 months (95% confidence interval: 8.8‒30.5) and the median overall survival time was 39.5 months (95% confidence interval: 8.0‒71.0).

CONCLUSION

Concurrent CRT and pembrolizumab for LS-SCLC was well tolerated and yielded favorable outcomes, providing a basis for randomized studies.

Consolidation chemotherapy improves progression-free survival in stage III small-cell lung cancer following concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC). However, the efficacy of consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) in LD-SCLC remains controversial despite several studies that were performed in the early years of CCT use. The aim of this study was to reevaluate the effectiveness and toxicities associated with CCT.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluated 177 patients with stage IIIA and IIIB small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who underwent CCRT from January 2001 to December 2013 at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze patient prognosis factors.

RESULTS

Among the 177 patients, 72 (41%) received CCT and 105 (59%) did not receive CCT. PFS was significantly better for patients in the CCT group compared to that for patients in the non-CCT group (median PFS: 17.0 vs 12.9 months, respectively, P=0.031), whereas the differences in OS were not statistically significant (median OS: 31.6 vs 24.8 months, respectively, P=0.118). The 3- and 5-year OS rates were 33.3% and 20.8% for patients in the CCT group and 27.6% and 6.7% for patients in the non-CCT group, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that having a pretreatment carcinoembryonic antigen level <5 ng/mL (P=0.035), having undergone prophylactic cranial irradiation (P<0.001), and having received CCT (P=0.002) could serve as favorable independent prognostic factors for PFS. Multivariate analysis for OS also showed that having undergone PCI (P<0.001) and having received CCT (P=0.006) were independent significant prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

CCT can improve PFS for patients with stage IIIA and IIIB SCLC following CCRT without significantly increasing treatment-related toxicities.

[Research Progression of Maintenance Therapy in Small Cell Lung Cancer]

肺癌是世界上最常见的恶性肿瘤之一，其中小细胞肺癌发生率约15%。小细胞肺癌对一线化疗高度敏感，但多数患者在一线治疗缓解后很快出现复发进展，因此，自20世纪80年代起已开展不少小细胞肺癌维持治疗的相关临床研究，涉及到化疗药物、生物制剂及分子靶向药物。但其结果仍存在争论，现对该方面内容综述如下。

Small Cell Lung Cancer

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive cancer of neuroendocrine origin, which is strongly associated with cigarette smoking. Patients typically present with a short duration of symptoms and frequently (60-65 %) with metastatic disease. SCLC is a heterogeneous disease including extremely chemosensitive and chemoresistant clones. For this reason, a high percentage of patients respond to first-line chemotherapy but rapidly succumb to the disease. SCLC is generally divided into two stages, limited and extensive. Standard treatment of limited stage disease includes combination chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide for four cycles, thoracic radiation initiated early with the first cycle of chemotherapy, and consideration of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in the subset of patients with good response. Surgery may play a role in TNM stages I and II. In extensive disease, platinum agents and etoposide, used in combination, are again the first-line standard of care in the USA. However, thoracic radiation therapy is used predominately in patients where local control is important and PCI is of uncertain benefit. Despite these treatments, prognosis remains poor and novel therapies are needed to improve survival in this disease.

Therapeutic procedure in small cell lung cancer

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents 12.95% of all lung cancer diagnoses and continues to be a major clinical problem, with an aggressive clinical course and short disease-free duration after 1st line therapy. Treatment of SCLC remains challenging because of its rapid growth and development of drug resistance during the course of the disease. Chemotherapy remains the current optimal treatment and radical thoracic radiotherapy representing the best treatment option for fit patients with LD. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the treatment of choice in patients with good performance status, and the effect of cisplatin is important for concurrent chemoradiotherapy in LD cause of his radiosensitivity. Patients with progress disease after first-line chemotherapy have poor prognosis. Second-line therapy may produce a modest clinical benefit. A number of targeted agents have been investigated in LD and ED, mostly in unselected populations, with disappointing results. Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is recommended only for patients who had full response to first line chemotherapy, as target of improving overall survival and decreasing possibilities of brain metastases. New factors for target therapy are the hope for the management of this systematic disease. If we identify these targets for treatment of SCLC and overcome drug-resistance mechanisms, we will create new chemo-radiotherapy schedules for future.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing early and late concurrent thoracic radiotherapy with etoposide and cisplatin/carboplatin chemotherapy for limited-disease small-cell lung cancer

The aim of the present study was to determine the optimal time for concurrent thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) with etoposide and cisplatin/carboplatin (EP/EC) chemotherapy for the treatment of limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (LD SCLC). Randomized controlled trials comparing early and late concurrent TRT with EP/EC chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with LD SCLC were identified through searching databases such as MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase. Early thoracic radiotherapy (ERT) was defined as initiating irradiation within 30 days after chemotherapy initiation. A total of 3 eligible randomized controlled trials were identified. No significant differences in the objective response rate were detected between early and late concurrent TRT [risk ratio (RR)=1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-1.18; P=0.90]. Similar results were observed in the 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year survival rates between early and late concurrent TRT (RR=1.06, 95% CI: 0.88-1.27, P=0.56; RR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.77-1.71, P=0.49; RR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.66-1.22, P=0.49; and RR=1.18, 95% CI: 0.64-2.16, P=0.60, respectively). The total incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events, including anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea and vomiting, infection, esophageal toxicity, pulmonary toxicity, alopecia and hemorrhage with early concurrent TRT was significantly higher compared to that with late concurrent TRT (RR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.03-1.43, P=0.02). Thus, the results of our study indicated that the prognosis of LD SCLC treated with late concurrent TRT and EP/EC chemotherapy is similar to that with early concurrent TRT, although the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events was lower in LD SCLC patients treated with late concurrent TRT combined with EP/EC chemotherapy.

Efficacy of chemotherapy in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer

SUMMARY Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for approximately 13% of all lung cancers, and limited-disease SCLC is defined as a disease that can be encompassed within a tolerable radiation field. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is considered to be the standard treatment for limited-disease SCLC. In both concurrent and consolidation chemoradiotherapies, the combination of etoposide and cisplatin is considered to be a standard chemotherapy regimen. To develop novel treatment for SCLC, several clinical trials of molecular-targeted therapy or immunotherapy have been reported. However, no molecular-targeted drug has shown clinical activity in limited-disease SCLC. In future studies, understanding the molecular profile of SCLC will be necessary for the development of molecular-targeted therapies for SCLC. This review provides an overview of chemotherapy regimens for limited-disease 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.

Management of small cell lung cancer: recent developments for optimal care

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents approximately 13% of all lung cancer diagnoses and the incidence has reduced over the last 20 years. Treatment of SCLC remains challenging because of its rapid growth, early dissemination and development of drug resistance during the course of the disease. Chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for limited (LD) and extensive disease (ED), with concurrent chemotherapy and radical thoracic radiotherapy representing the best treatment option for fit patients with LD. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the treatment of choice in fit patients with good organ function, and the radiosensitizing effect of cisplatin is critically important for concurrent chemoradiotherapy in LD. Anthracycline-containing regimens represent a viable alternative for patients where platinum-based chemotherapy is contraindicated. Patients who relapse or progress after first-line chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis. Second-line therapy may produce a modest clinical benefit. Maintenance chemotherapy has not been shown to convincingly improve outcomes for SCLC. A number of targeted agents have been investigated in LD and ED, mostly in unselected populations, with disappointing results. Prophylactic cranial irradiation has been shown to reduce the incidence of brain metastases and prolong survival for both LD and ED without negative impact on quality of life (QOL) and cognitive function. Ongoing trials will shed some light on the impact of thoracic radiotherapy on QOL, symptom control and survival in ED SCLC patients who benefitted from first-line chemotherapy.

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.

Update on new drugs in small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) will account for 25,000 to 32,000 new lung cancer cases in the USA in 2010. Current treatmenta pproaches include platinum-based chemotherapy and etoposide with or without radiation therapy depending on stage and performance status. Five-year survival is approximately 25% for patients with limited stage disease and 1 -- 2% for patients with extensive stage disease and has noti mproved in almost two decades.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the results of recent clinical trials that have evaluated targeted agents and novel cytotoxic agents alone or in combination with standard chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with SCLC.

EXPERT OPINION

The lack of a targeted approach to the treatment of patients with SCLC has led investigators to evaluate a multitude of agents with overwhelmingly negative results. A more systematic approach to clinical trials in patients is needed to improve outcomes for patients with this disease.

Phase II study of tirapazamine, cisplatin, and etoposide and concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: SWOG 0222

PURPOSE

A SWOG pilot study (S0004) showed that tirapazamine (TPZ) when combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy yielded a promising median survival of 22 months in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LSCLC). We report results of the phase II study designed to confirm this result.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The concurrent phase consisted of two cycles of cisplatin, etoposide, and once-daily radiation to 61 Gy. TPZ was given at 260 mg/m(2) on days 1, 29, and at 160 mg/m(2) on days 8, 10, 12, 36, 38, and 40. Consolidation consisted of two cycles of cisplatin and etoposide. Complete responders received prophylactic cranial irradiation. Results were considered promising if the median survival time was at least 21 months and of no further interest if < or = 14 months.

RESULTS

S0222 was closed early due to a report of excess toxicity for TPZ in a head and neck cancer trial elsewhere. Of planned 85 patients, 69 were accrued. In 68 assessable patients, 17 (25%) had grade 3 to 4 esophagitis and eight (12%) had grade 3 febrile neutropenia during the concurrent phase. There were three possible treatment-related deaths, two in concurrent phase (one progressive disease not otherwise specified within 30 days, one pericardial effusion) and one in consolidation phase (esophageal hemorrhage). At a median follow-up of 35 months, median progression-free survival was 11 months (95% CI, 10 to 13 months) and median overall survival was 21 months (95% CI, 17 to 33 months).

CONCLUSION

S0222 showed acceptable levels of toxicity and similar promising median survival as S0004. Further study of hypoxia-targeted therapy is warranted in LSCLC.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials of the timing of chest radiotherapy in patients with limited-stage, small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

We undertook a systematic review and literature-based meta-analysis to determine whether the timing of chest radiotherapy may influence the survival of patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC).

MATERIALS

Eligible randomised controlled clinical trials were identified according to the Cochrane Collaboration Guidelines, comparing different timing of chest radiotherapy in patients with LS-SCLC. Early chest irradiation was defined as beginning within 30 days after the start of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Considering all seven eligible trials, the overall survival at 2 or 5 years was not significantly different between early or late chest radiotherapy. When only trials were considered that used platinum chemotherapy concurrent with chest radiotherapy, a significantly higher 5-year survival was observed when chest radiotherapy was started within 30 days after the start of chemotherapy (2-year survival: OR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.51-1.03, P = 0.07; 5-year survival: OR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.92, P = 0.02). This was even more pronounced when the overall treatment time of chest radiotherapy was less than 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

There are indications that the 5-year survival rates of patients with LS-SCLC are in favour of early chest radiotherapy, with a significant difference if the overall treatment time of chest radiation is less than 30 days.

Small cell lung cancer

Small cell lung cancer accounts for 13-15% of all lung cancer worldwide. There has been a decrease in the number of cases, with no clear explanation, except probably to changing in smoking habits in the last two decades. In the early eighties, it became clear that SCLC was an extremely sensitive tumor as to radiation as to chemotheraputic agents. With cisplatinum etoposide combinations or cyclophosphamide, anthracycline and vincristine/etyoposide regimens responses were observed in 50-70%, with 20-30% complete remissions in extensive disease. For limited stage patients chemotherapy associated with thoracic radiation was able to produce a cure rate of 10-20%. The addition of prophylactic brain irradiation to limited stage cases has reduced mortality by a factor of nearly 5%. But despite these early good results no breakthrough came later on, and in the last decade or so, we are still facing this plateau. New agents have recently been included in the therapeutic armamentarium, such as gemcitabine, irinotecan, paclitaxel. This fact has allowed many patients to receive a relatively active second line therapy, but the overall survival remains unchanged. Targeted therapies are undergoing some evaluations, but the data are too premature and so far quite discouraging. At the present time there is a urgent need to improve clinical research in this somehow forgotten disease.

Time between the first day of chemotherapy and the last day of chest radiation is the most important predictor of survival in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To identify time factors for combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy predictive for long-term survival of patients with limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC).

METHODS

A systematic overview identified suitable phase III trials. Using meta-analysis methodology to compare results within trials, the influence of the timing of chest radiation and the start of any treatment until the end of radiotherapy (SER) on local tumor control, survival, and esophagitis was analyzed. For comparison between studies, the equivalent radiation dose in 2-Gy fractions, corrected for the overall treatment time of chest radiotherapy, was analyzed.

RESULTS

The SER was the most important predictor of outcome. There was a significantly higher 5-year survival rate in the shorter SER arms (relative risk [RR] = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.80; P = .0003), which was more than 20% when the SER was less than 30 days (upper bound of 95% CI, 90 days). A low SER was associated with a higher incidence of severe esophagitis (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42 to 073; P < .0001). Each week of extension of the SER beyond that of the study arm with the shortest SER resulted in an overall absolute decrease in the 5-year survival rate of 1.83% +/- 0.18% (95% CI).

CONCLUSION

A low time between the first day of chemotherapy and the last day of chest radiotherapy is associated with improved survival in LD-SCLC patients. The novel parameter SER, which takes into account accelerated proliferation of tumor clonogens during both radiotherapy and chemotherapy, may facilitate a more rational design of combined-modality treatment in rapidly proliferating tumors.

Gefitinib in patients with chemo-sensitive and chemo-refractory relapsed small cell cancers: a Hoosier Oncology Group phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Gefitinib has demonstrated activity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Clinical trials have not demonstrated a relationship between response to gefitinib and over-expression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Although, EGFR is not over-expressed in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), we postulated that gefitinib might affect tumor growth through other mechanisms. Agents that are active in NSCLC usually are also effective in SCLC.

METHODS

The primary objective was to assess the clinical control rate: complete response (CR) partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD > 90 days), of gefitinib in patients with chemo-resistant and chemo-sensitive small cell cancers. Eligibility criteria included pathologic proof of a neuroendocrine tumor, especially small cell cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-2, prior treatment with one or two prior chemotherapy regimens and adequate end-organ function. Patients received gefitinib, 250 mg p.o. daily until disease progression or intolerable side effects.

RESULTS

From April 2003 to March 2004, 19 patients were enrolled. Small cell lung cancer accounted for 18 of the 19 patients and one patient had metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Twelve patients (63%) had chemo-sensitive disease, defined as progression greater than three months from completion of prior chemotherapy; 7 (37%) had chemo-refractory disease; 13 (68%) had one prior chemotherapy regimen. Other patient characteristics: mean age 64 years (range 52-79 years); ECOG PS 0/1/2 = 7/9/3, M:F = 9:10. Grade 3 toxicities included: fatigue in three patients (15.8%), pulmonary toxicities in three (15.8%) and one patient (5.3%) each with hyperglycemia or pain. Four patients had grade four toxicities: one patient (5.3%) with fatigue and three patients (15.8%) with dyspnea. There were no patients with grade 3 or 4 rash or diarrhea. Two patients had stable disease (<90 days) and 17 had progressive disease as their best response. This study was a two-stage design and because the continuing criterion for stage one was not met, stage 2 was not performed. Median time to progression (TTP) was 50 days (95% CI = 21-58 days). One year overall survival (OS) was 21% (95% CI = 6-45.6%).

CONCLUSION

Although gefitinib has activity in select patients with NSCLC, this study failed to demonstrate benefit in patients with small cell lung cancer.

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.

Phase I Study of Tirapazamine Plus Cisplatin/Etoposide and Concurrent Thoracic Radiotherapy in Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (S0004)

PURPOSE

To determine the feasibility and a recommended phase II dose of tirapazamine when combined with chemoradiotherapy in limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy consisted of two cycles of cisplatin, etoposide, and once-daily radiation to 61 Gy. Tirapazamine (260 mg/m2) was given 1 h before cisplatin with planned dose escalation to 330 mg/m2 in the absence of dose-limiting toxicity, defined as > or =33% esophagitis (grade 3 or above). Consolidation therapy consisted of two cycles of tirapazamine (330 mg/m2), cisplatin, and etoposide. Complete responders received prophylactic cranial irradiation.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled at the 260 mg/m2 tirapazamine dose. All had performance status of 0-1. By comparison with S9713, a predecessor Southwest Oncology Group study in LSCLC that used the same concurrent chemoradiotherapy without tirapazamine, the present trial showed a higher rate of grade 3-4 esophagitis (34% versus 22%), vomiting (34% versus 23%), and febrile neutropenia (7% versus 2%). The consolidation phase was relatively well tolerated, with grade 4 neutropenia in 44% and febrile neutropenia in 5% of patients. There were two treatment-related deaths: one from neutropenic fever and one from respiratory infection. The overall response rate was 80%, and the median survival was 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Protocol-defined dose-limiting toxicity was observed at the initial tirapazamine dose, precluding dose escalation. Compared with S9713, the addition of tirapazamine increased the incidence of vomiting, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia, although the overall toxicity profile remained acceptable. In view of the observed favorable survival, further study of tirapazamine in LSCLC is warranted.

Twenty-five years of clinical research for patients with limited-stage small cell lung carcinoma in North America

BACKGROUND

To determine the changes in clinical trials and outcomes of patients with limited-stage small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) treated on Phase III randomized trials initiated in North America between 1972 and 1992.

METHODS

Phase III trials from 1972 to 1992 for patients with limited-stage SCLC were identified. Patients with limited-stage SCLC treated during a similar time interval were also evaluated in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Trends were tested in the number of trials, in the number and gender of patients entered on trial, and in survival duration over time.

RESULTS

Thirty trials involving 6564 patients were eligible for analyses. Nineteen trials (61%) involving 3626 patients were initiated within the first half of this time period (1972-1981). The median of median survival times of all patients treated on the control arms of the Phase III trials initiated between 1972 and 1981 and between 1982 and 1992 were 12.0 months (range, 10-16 months) and 17.0 months (range, 11-20 months), respectively (P < 0.001). Of 26 studies available for survival analysis, 5 (19%) showed a statistically significant survival prolongation in the experimental arm compared with the control arm with a median prolongation of 3.4 months (range, 1-5.2 months). All five evaluated some aspect of thoracic radiation therapy. Over a similar time period, there was a 6.4-month increase in the median survival of limited-stage SCLC patients listed in the SEER database (P < 0.0001) and a more than doubling of the 5-year survival from 5.2% to 12.1% (P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of the patients with limited-stage SCLC treated on Phase III trials in North America initiated between 1972 and 1992 and those listed in the SEER database show significant improvements in median survivals. Furthermore, the 5-year survival of patients with limited-stage SCLC listed in the SEER database has more than doubled over the last 25 years. Further research will be needed to determine the relative contribution of improved therapy, supportive care, and stage migration to this prolongation in survival.

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.

Long-term results of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemotherapy and thoracic irradiation in limited small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a chemoresponsive tumor but overall survival remains poor even in limited disease (LD). With the aim of eradicating chemoresistant tumor cells and reducing toxicity, we investigated in this phase II trial the feasibility and outcome of a sequential approach of induction chemotherapy (CT) followed, in responding patients with LD-SCLC, by intensified platinum-based CT and concurrent thoracic irradiation (TI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We treated 55 consecutive LD-SCLC patients with three 21-day cycles of cyclophosphamide, epiadriamycin and vincristine (CEV) as induction CT. In 44 (80%) patients there was an objective response and they received treatment intensification consisting of TI and concomitant CT with carboplatin and etoposide plus recombinant granulocite colony stimulating factor. Twenty-five (57%) patients were submitted to twice-daily thoracic irradiation (TDTI; 1.5 Gy per fraction, to a total dose of 45 Gy) and 19 (43%) to once-daily thoracic irradiation (ODTI; 2 Gy per fraction, to a total dose of 50 Gy).

RESULTS

Median follow up was 75 months (range, 42-102). Of 44 patients submitted to intensification with TI plus CT, 32 (73%) had a complete and 12 (27%) a partial response. Median overall survival of all 55 patients was 17 months with actuarial survival probabilities of 2 and 5 years, 32 and 25%, respectively. Analysis of patient sub-groups showed a 5-month median survival in non-responders, 19 in TDTI and 17 in ODTI patients, respectively. Two and 5 year survival probabilities were 0% in non-responders, 40 and 35% in TDTI and 39 and 21% in ODTI patients, respectively. At present, 13 of 44 responders are still alive, of which nine (20%) have been progression-free from 45 to 93 months (median 60). Treatment failure was registered in 31 (70%) of 44 patients who received both induction and intensification treatment. One-half of patients had intrathoracic recurrence, eight of which only local and the remaining seven local and distant. Fourteen (32%) patients had brain metastases. Grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 24 (55%) patients with no differences between treatment groups. Grade 3 esophagitis was registered in four (9%) patients: in 3/25 (12%) and 1/19 (5%) of those who received TDTI and ODTI, respectively (P=not significant). Acute radiation pneumonitis occurred in three (12%) patients submitted to TDTI. No clinically debilitating pulmonary fibrosis, permanent esophageal stricture or toxic death was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In LD-SCLC patients late concurrent CT plus TI is feasible and effective. Our long-term results are similar to the best reported in the literature. Despite the high incidence of complete response obtained, however, one-half of the patients had intrathoracic relapse and one-third brain metastases.

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.

Long-term Results of a Phase I/II Study of High-Dose Thoracic Radiotherapy With Concomitant Cisplatin and Etoposide in Limited Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

This report presents the results from a Mayo Clinic initiated phase I/II study exploring a potentially more aggressive local and systemic approach for treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LSSCLC). Five patients with LSSCLC received three cycles of induction cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and infusion cisplatin chemotherapy. This was followed by accelerated hyperfractionated thoracic radiotherapy (AHFTRT) consisting of 30 Gy given as 1.5-Gy fractions twice daily with a 2-week break and then the AHFTRT was repeated. The AHFTRT was given concomitantly with daily oral etoposide and daily intravenous cisplatin. Prophylactic cranial radiation was delivered with the AHFTRT. After completion of the AHFTRT, patients received 4 cycles of oral etoposide maintenance chemotherapy. Follow-up of patients was continued until death or a minimum of 42 months. Three patients had severe toxic responses. No patients completed the entire protocol because of toxicity or progression during treatment. Three patients completed the majority of the protocol except for the four cycles of maintenance etoposide. Four of five patients achieved a complete response. There were two recurrences within the irradiated field, and distant metastases developed in four patients. Acute nonlymphocytic leukemia developed in one patient, who died 2 months later. No patient completed the entire protocol, because of toxicity or progression; therefore, this protocol cannot be recommended for the treatment of LSSCLC.

Serum levels of KL-6 are useful biomarkers for severe radiation pneumonitis

The antigen KL-6, a mucin-like high-molecular-weight glycoprotein, is expressed on type-2 pneumocytes and bronchiolar epithelial cells. Serum levels of KL-6 have been shown to correlate well with the activities of several different kinds of interstitial pneumonia. The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of monitoring serum KL-6 levels in patients who had received thoracic radiotherapy (TRT). In particular, the usefulness of such a protocol for the early diagnosis of severe radiation pneumonitis (RP) and the evaluation of its progress and severity was examined. Serum KL-6 levels were retrospectively monitored in 16 patients with lung cancer who had received TRT with or without chemotherapy. Eight of these patients had developed severe RP and eight had developed localized (within the irradiated field) RP. Serum KL-6 levels were measured using a modified sandwich-type enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In patients who developed severe RP, serum KL-6 levels showed a consistent tendency to increase after the clinical diagnosis of RP. In four patients, serum KL-6 levels even began to rise before a clinical diagnosis of severe RP had been made. In the patients with localized RP, on the other hand, the serum levels did not show any tendency to increase during or after TRT. Moreover, patients whose serum KL-6 levels rose more than 1.5 times higher than their pre-treatment serum KL-6 level, had a large chance of developing severe RP that was unresponsive to steroid hormones and resulted in death. Serum KL-6 levels, therefore, should be useful indicators for the early diagnosis of severe RP and for estimating its progress and severity in patients treated with TRT.

A systematic review of the role of etoposide and cisplatin in the chemotherapy of small cell lung cancer with methodology assessment and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cisplatin (CDDP) and etoposide (VP16) are considered major standard cytotoxic drugs for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). The present systematic review had as its objective the evaluation of their role, as components of chemotherapy regimens, on survival.

METHODS

Published randomised clinical trials (from 1980 to 1998) were selected comparing, in SCLC patients, chemotherapy regimens, given as first-line therapy. One arm (the experimental arm) had to include CDDP and/or VP16, while another had to omit the same drug(s). Trials quality was assessed by two published scores (Chalmers and European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP)). For each individual trial, the hazard ratio (HR) of the survival distributions was estimated on the basis of reported statistics or, if not available, by extracting, from the survival graphical representations, the data required to construct the difference between expected and observed numbers of events as calculated in the log-rank statistic. A combined hazard ratio was obtained by the Peto method (a value < 1 meaning a benefit for CDDP and/or VP16).

RESULTS

Thirty-six trials eligible for our systematic review were identified, classified into four groups (I-IV): group I, 1 trial testing a CDDP-based regimen (without VP16) against another arm not including either CDDP or VP16; group II, 17 trials testing a VP16-based regimen (without CDDP) against a regimen without VP16 and CDDP; group III, nine trials comparing a regimen including CDDP and VP16 with a regimen using neither drug; and, finally, group IV, nine trials comparing a regimen based on both drugs with a regimen based on VP16 only. Overall, Chalmers and ELCWP scores correlated well (r(S) = 0.76, P < 0. 001) and had respective median scores of 50.3 and 63.7%. The number of eligible patients did not have a significant impact on the scores as well as the trials group, the trial positivity (a positive trial defined as showing itself a statistically significant survival benefit for the experimental regimen), overall or in categories, and the year of publication. Combined hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were: 0.70 (0.41-1.21) for group I, 0.72 (0.67-0.78) for II, 0.57 (0.51-0.64) for III, and 0.74 (0.66-0.83) for IV, showing a survival benefit in favour of regimens including etoposide alone or in combination with cisplatin, justifying with high significance levels the use of each of these drugs. Overall survival benefits could also be shown for regimens including CDDP (HR = 0.61; confidence interval (CI), 0.57-0.66), as well as for those including VP16 (HR = 0. 65; CI, 0.61-0.69). Robustness of these results has to be confirmed with appropriate randomised trials.

Phase II trial of up-front accelerated thoracic radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy and optional up-front prophylactic cranial irradiation in limited small-cell lung cancer. Groupe d'Oncologie Thoracique des Régions Alpines

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility and outcome of bifractionated, up-front thoracic radiotherapy (TR) (45 Gy in 30 fractions of 1.5 Gy twice daily over 3 weeks) combined with chemotherapy (CT) (six cycles of cisplatin and etoposide) and optional low-dose, up-front prophylactic cranial irradiation (18 Gy in 10 fractions of 1.8 Gy twice daily over 5 days) in limited small-cell lung cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CT (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) for 3 days and cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) for 3 days) was started on day 8 or 15 after the first TR treatment. In the five subsequent cycles, cisplatin was given as a single 100-mg/m(2) dose on day 1 every 4 weeks. A total of 52 patients were entered (41 men and 11 women); the median age was 55 years (range, 33 to 67 years). World Health Organization performance status was 0 in 34 patients, 1 in 16 patients, and 2 in two patients. Thirty-six patients (69%) received the full planned six cycles of CT.

RESULTS

All treated patients were assessable for response. Thirty-one patients (60%) achieved a complete response, and 16 (30%) had a partial response. One-, 3-, and 4-year survival rates were 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60% to 84%), 34% (95% CI, 21% to 49%), and 32% (95 CI, 16% to 46%), respectively. The median survival time was 18 months. Event-free survival at 1 year was 45% (95% CI, 32% to 58%) and at 3 years, 30% (95% CI, 18% to 44%). The main radiation-related acute toxicity was esophageal: 38% of the patients experienced grade 3 or 4 acute toxicity. CT was well tolerated. Although grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in 86% of the patients, only 4% presented with associated fever. Grade 3/4 nausea and vomiting was seen in 35% of patients.

CONCLUSION

This trial demonstrates that up-front accelerated TR associated with CT is feasible, has acceptable toxicity, and shows considerable long-term survival potential.

Management of small cell lung cancer: current state of the art

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a common malignancy that is rapidly fatal if left untreated, with most patients surviving < 6 months. Currently, patients with SCLC are treated with chemotherapy with or without thoracic radiotherapy. Randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of multiagent regimens over single-agent therapies, with the combination of cisplatin and etoposide being the initial regimen of choice for most patients, regardless of stage at presentation. Dose escalation, weekly chemotherapy, alternating noncross-resistant chemotherapy, and maintenance chemotherapy have been evaluated in SCLC, with no convincing data to date demonstrating an advantage for these strategies over conventional treatment strategies. Second-line therapy may be effective in selected patients, depending on the interval between primary treatment and recurrence, response to primary therapy, and the agents used for initial treatment. Radiotherapy is generally accepted as an essential component of optimal management of limited-stage disease, although sequencing, timing, fractionation, dose, and field size remain less than adequately defined. Finally, the routine use of prophylactic cranial irradiation remains controversial, and currently should be reserved for patients in complete remission.

Moderate dose-escalation of combination chemotherapy with concomitant thoracic radiotherapy in limited-disease small-cell lung cancer: prolonged intrathoracic tumor control and high central nervous system relapse rate. Groupe d'Oncologie-Pneumologie Clinique de l'Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels and Liège, Belgium

BACKGROUND

The role of chemotherapy dose-intensification in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains unclear. This phase I-II study evaluates feasibility and outcome of combination chemotherapy at moderately elevated doses with concomitant thoracic radiotherapy in limited-disease SCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Moderately elevated doses of ifosfamide-epirubicin (cycles 1 and 3) and of carboplatin-etoposide (cycles 2 and 4) were given with G-CSF and peripheral blood stem-cell (PBSC) support. Thoracic radiotherapy (40 Gy) was given once daily during the first five days of each cycle.

RESULTS

Overall toxicity was acceptable; most common side-effects were myelosuppression and asthenia. All 35 eligible patients responded (23 CR, 12 PR). Median time to progression was 15 months: median overall survival was 24.6 months. Only 6 of 25 relapsing patients (24%) presented with a locoregional recurrence while 12 of 25 (48%) relapsed in the central nervous system (CNS).

CONCLUSIONS

This regimen is a feasible dose-intensification with an acceptable toxicity profile. Its efficacy was demonstrated by a 100% response rate, an excellent local tumor control rate and a median survival of 24.6 months. In the absence of PCI, CNS relapse is a major problem if adequate local control is achieved.

The effects of sequential versus concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy on survival and toxicity in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade astrocytoma

PURPOSE

To determine the effects of sequential versus concurrent administration of cranial radiotherapy and cisplatin/carmustine (BCNU) chemotherapy on survival and toxicity in newly diagnosed high-grade astrocytomas.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From 1988 to 1996, 101 patients were treated on 2 therapeutic protocols for malignant glioma that used the identical chemotherapy regimen but differed in the timing of cranial radiotherapy. The eligibility criteria for the 2 protocols were identical. In the first protocol (1988-1991, 52 patients), cisplatin 120 mg/BCNU 120 mg i.v. over 72 h, was given for 3 monthly cycles prior to cranial radiotherapy. After a response rate of 42%, with a median survival of 13 months was achieved with this sequential regimen, a successor protocol (1992-1996, 49 patients) was developed in which cranial radiotherapy began concurrently with the start of the identical chemotherapy regimen. Chemotherapy was delayed but not discontinued if prolonged grade III/IV hematologic toxicity was experienced, but protocol therapy was discontinued if disease progression or thromboembolic events occurred. Survival outcome and hematologic toxicity were compared for the patients treated on these protocols.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven percent of sequentially-treated patients and 68% of concurrently-treated patients completed all planned therapy. Kaplan-Meier survival was similar to concurrent or sequential administration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy (median 12.8 months vs. 13.8 months, respectively). Hematologic toxicity was significantly less in sequentially- versus concurrently-treated patients, with median nadir per cycle (2.9 vs. 1.8 x 10(3)/mm3) (p < 0.001), and incidence of grade 3/4 leukopenia 40% versus 77% (p = 0.002). There was also an increase in platelet transfusion requirements in concurrently-treated patients, but no significant worsening of anemia. We postulate that the worsened leukopenia results from the effects of concurrent radiotherapy on circulating stem cells.

CONCLUSION

Concurrent radiotherapy with this regimen of cisplatin and BCNU chemotherapy did not improve survival, but did increase hematologic toxicity. Therefore, we do not recommend further testing of the concurrent regimen, whereas the sequential regimen is currently under evaluation in a Phase III trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and the Southwest Oncology Group. In addition, these studies demonstrate that relatively small radiotherapy fields can deliver a dose to circulating stem cells sufficient to worsen the hematologic toxicity of concurrent myelosuppressive chemotherapy, a phenomena which should be considered in the design of combined modality protocols for other body sites.

A survey of the ethical considerations in randomised trials for lung cancer

BACKGROUND

In order to promote a more productive debate on the ethics of randomised clinical trials (RCTs), we present a survey on the ethical aspects of published RCTs for lung cancer.

METHODS

Data from 92 published reports of RCTs for lung cancer, as identified from the Cancerlit 1993-1995 database were supplemented by a questionnaire mailed to the authors of those publications. The analysis focused on respect of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice as the ethical principles applicable to society, patients in trials, patients not included in RCTs and physicians. ETHICAL ANALYSIS: The benefits to society include an objective evaluation of new treatments. The principle of autonomy was often violated for patients who were inadequately informed about the disease or about RCT. In some trials with prolonged recruitment, the principle of non-maleficence was not fully respected since patients continued to be randomised in spite of an obvious advantage of one of the treatments. When compared to those not included in a trial, patients in RCTs were reported to benefit from more precise standards, superior quality assurance of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, more attention from the physician, easier appointments and easier access to hospitalisation. However, these benefits diminish patients' autonomy and lead to injustice towards patients not included in the trials. While benefits to physicians were usually modest and in proportion to their contribution, an influence upon their autonomy cannot be excluded.

CONCLUSION

More attention to the aforementioned ethical caveats of RCTs should alleviate the ethical costs and might also bring more patients into future 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.

Integration of filgrastim into chemoradiation for limited small cell lung cancer: a Phase I study

PURPOSE

Recent studies document the value of early combined modality therapy of small cell lung cancer, but also indicate that early thoracic radiation adds to myelosuppression and can complicate further chemotherapy. Other studies indicate that simultaneous use of growth factors with thoracic radiation may be deleterious. However, temporal separation of growth factor use from cytotoxic therapy may allow dose intensity to be maintained/enhanced during combined modality treatment. We sought to integrate filgrastim into a novel chemoradiation regimen for patients with limited small cell lung cancer using an approach that separated growth factor administration from both chemotherapy and thoracic radiation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty-seven patients with limited disease small cell lung cancer were enrolled in a Phase I trial of cisplatin, ifosfamide/mesna, oral etoposide, and thoracic radiation (1.5 Gy b.i.d. x 30 fractions days 1-19 cycle 1) +/- filgrastim (5 microg/kg/day). Filgrastim was given on days 20-25 of cycle 1 after completion of radiation and following completion of oral etoposide in subsequent cycles. The primary end point was determination of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of chemotherapy. Serial cohorts were treated with and without filgrastim.

RESULTS

Because of dose-limiting thrombocytopenia, primarily, and nonhematologic toxicity, the MTDs with and without filgrastim were identical (cisplatin 20 mg/m2 i.v. and ifosfamide 1200 mg/m2 i.v., both given days 1-3, and etoposide 40 mg/m2 p.o. days 1-14). Filgrastim use shortened the duration of neutropenia at the MTD (median 4 vs. 7 days), but was not associated with a reduction in febrile neutropenia. Although growth factor administration did not allow dose escalation of this regimen, it did allow chemotherapy doses to be maintained at the MTD more frequently through four cycles of therapy. In the 24 evaluable patients, the overall response rate was 100% (71% partial and 29% complete).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite careful attention to the timing of growth factor with chemoradiation, the administration of filgrastim with this regimen did not allow dose escalation. As in many other recent studies of hematopoietic growth factors given prophylactically with chemotherapy, the duration of neutropenia at the MTD was shortened and the need for dose reduction throughout treatment was reduced in patients receiving filgrastim at the MTD.

Lung cancer

This synthesis of the literature on radiotherapy for lung cancer is based on 80 scientific articles, including 2 meta-analyses, 29 randomized studies, 19 prospective studies, and 21 retrospective studies. These studies involve 28172 patients. Basic treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), is chemotherapy. Addition of radiotherapy to the primary tumor and mediastinum reduces local recurrence, prolongs long-term survival, and is often indicated. Current, and future, studies can be expected to show successive improvements in results for SCLC by optimizing the combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Should these treatments be given simultaneously or sequentially, and in which order? Which fractionation is best? Probably, no change in resource requirements for radiotherapy will be necessary, with the possible exception of changes in fractionation. Surgery constitutes primary treatment for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages I and II. Radiotherapy may provide an alternative for patients who are inoperable for medical reasons. The value of radiotherapy following radical surgery for NSCLC remains to be shown. It is not indicated based on current knowledge. For NSCLC stage III, radiotherapy shrinks tumors and prolongs survival at 2 and 3 years. Whether it influences long-term survival after 5 years has not been shown. Considering the side effects of treatment, one must question whether limited improvements in survival motivate routine radiotherapy in these patients. Earlier attempts to add chemotherapy to radiotherapy to improve treatment results of NSCLC have not yielded convincing results. Several studies are currently on-going. Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) greatly reduces the risk for brain metastases from SCLC. However, it has little influence on survival. Many treatment centers give PCI to SCLC patients who have achieved complete remission. This practice may be questioned since PCI is associated with serious complications. PCI is not indicated in patients with NSCLC. In SCLC, where the disease is extensive, only palliative radiotherapy is appropriate. Radiotherapy is an important treatment alternative in special palliative situations involving severe cough, severe bleeding, pain, pulmonary obstructions, and vena cava superior syndrome. In these situations, good results may be achieved with few fractions.