Cargando…

Belotecan/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma: a multi-center randomized phase III trial

BACKGROUND: No novel chemotherapeutic combinations have demonstrated superior efficacy to etoposide/cisplatin (EP), a standard treatment regimen for extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma (ES-SCLC) over the past decade. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of belotecan/cisplatin (BP) and E...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oh, In-Jae, Kim, Kyu-Sik, Park, Cheol-Kyu, Kim, Young-Chul, Lee, Kwan-Ho, Jeong, Jin-Hong, Kim, Sun-Young, Lee, Jeong-Eun, Shin, Kye-Chul, Jang, Tae-Won, Lee, Hyun-Kyung, Lee, Kye-Young, Lee, Sung-Yong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5002146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27566413
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2741-z
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: No novel chemotherapeutic combinations have demonstrated superior efficacy to etoposide/cisplatin (EP), a standard treatment regimen for extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma (ES-SCLC) over the past decade. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of belotecan/cisplatin (BP) and EP regimens in chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-naïve patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase III clinical study. A total of 157 patients were recruited at 14 centers with 147 patients meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria and randomized to either BP (n = 71) or EP (n = 76) treatment arms. A non-inferior response rate (RR) in the BP arm, analyzed by intent-to-treat analysis according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0 criteria, was used as the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In the BP arm, one patient had a complete response, 41 had a partial response (PR), and 17 had stable disease (SD). In the EP arm, 35 patients had PR and 28 had SD. The RR in the BP arm was non-inferior to the EP regimen in patients with ES-SCLC (BP: 59.2 %, EP: 46.1 %, difference: 13.1 %, 90 % two-sided confidence interval: -0.3–26.5, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion of -15.0 %). No significant differences in OS or PFS were observed between the treatment arms. Hematologic toxicities, including grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia, were significantly more prevalent in the BP arm than the EP arm. CONCLUSIONS: The RR to the BP regimen was non-inferior to the EP regimen in chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-naïve patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC. Hematologic toxicities were significantly more prevalent in the BP group, indicating that BP should be used with care, particularly in patients with a poor performance status. Further studies assessing PFS and OS are required to validate the superiority of the BP regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00826644. Date of Registration: January 21, 2009.