Phase III trial comparing supportive care alone with supportive care with oral topotecan in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Duration of chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer: a Cancer Research Campaign trial.
For patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), further chemotherapy is routinely considered at relapse after first-line therapy. However, proof of clinical benefit has not been documented.
                This study randomly assigned patients with relapsed SCLC not considered as candidates for standard intravenous therapy to best supportive care (BSC) alone (n = 70) or oral topotecan (2.3 mg/m2/d, days 1 through 5, every 21 days) plus BSC (topotecan; n = 71).
                In the intent-to-treat population, survival (primary end point) was prolonged in the topotecan group (log-rank P = .0104). Median survival with BSC was 13.9 weeks (95% CI, 11.1 to 18.6) and with topotecan, 25.9 weeks (95% CI, 18.3 to 31.6). Statistical significance for survival was maintained in a subgroup of patients with a short treatment-free interval (< or = 60 days). Response to topotecan was 7% partial and 44% stable disease. Patients on topotecan had slower quality of life deterioration and greater symptom control. Principal toxicities with topotecan were hematological: grade 4 neutropenia, 33%; grade 4 thrombocytopenia, 7%; and grade 3/4 anemia, 25%. Comparing topotecan with BSC, infection grade 2 was 14% versus 12% and sepsis 4% versus 1%; other grade 3/4 events included vomiting 3% versus 0, diarrhea 6% versus 0, dyspnea 3% versus 9%, and pain 3% versus 6%. Toxic deaths occurred in four patients (6%) in the topotecan arm. All cause mortality within 30 days of random assignment was 13% on BSC and 7% on topotecan.
                Chemotherapy with oral topotecan is associated with prolongation of survival and quality of life benefit in patients with relapsed SCLC. A total of 610 patients with small cell lung cancer were entered into a randomised trial designed to assess the effect of duration of initial chemotherapy on survival. Patients were randomised to receive either four or eight courses of cytotoxic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, vincristine and etoposide and also randomised to receive, on disease progression, either second line chemotherapy (methotrexate and doxorubicin) or symptomatic treatment only. In the whole study 196 (32.1%) had limited disease and 414 (67.9%) extensive disease. During initial chemotherapy the response rate (complete and partial responses) after four courses of treatment was 61% with no significant increase in patients receiving eight courses (63%). In those randomised to receive relapse chemotherapy the response rate was improved slightly for those who had originally received four courses of chemotherapy (25.6%) over those receiving eight (18.7%). The overall results show that of the four possible treatment randomizations, four courses of chemotherapy alone is inferior in terms of overall survival (30 weeks median survival) to the other three treatment options (39 weeks median survival, P less than 0.01). In patients responding to initial chemotherapy the disadvantage of four courses of chemotherapy alone was apparent (median survival of 40 weeks versus 49 weeks, P = 0.003) but not if drug treatment was given on relapse. The study shows that limiting treatment to four courses of chemotherapy alone is associated with inferior survival, but this is not the case if chemotherapy is given at relapse.
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.