Phase II study of cisplatin, maytansine, and chlorozotocin in small cell lung carcinoma (EST 2578). Randomized phase II study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine compared with single-agent carboplatin in patients with poor prognosis small cell lung carcinoma. A randomised phase II study of the efficacy and safety of intravenous topotecan in combination with either cisplatin or etoposide in patients with untreated extensive disease small-cell lung cancer. Comparison of two carboplatin-containing regimens with standard chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer in a randomised phase II study. The EORTC Lung Cancer Cooperative group. Cisplatin and etoposide versus cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and vincristine in small cell lung cancer: a randomised study. Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus cisplatin and etoposide versus alternation of these regimens in small-cell lung cancer. Cisplatin-VP16 alternating with cyclophosphamide-epirubicin versus cyclophosphamide-epirubicin-vincristine in small cell lung cancer. Paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide versus paclitaxel/topotecan for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network randomized, prospective phase II trial. Superiority of alternating non-cross-resistant chemotherapy in extensive small cell lung cancer. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial by the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Cisplatin and etoposide regimen is superior to cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and vincristine regimen in small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized phase III trial with 5 years' follow-up. Novel doublets in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II study of topotecan plus cisplatin or paclitaxel (CALGB 9430). Cisplatin/etoposide versus ifosfamide/etoposide combination chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer: a multicenter German randomized trial. A randomized trial of anticoagulation with warfarin and of alternating chemotherapy in extensive small-cell lung cancer by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Does the substitution of cisplatin in a standard four drug regimen improve survival in small cell carcinoma of the lung? A comparison of two chemotherapy regimens. Standard combination versus alternating chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer: a randomised clinical trial including 394 patients. 'Petites Cellules' Group. Randomized phase II trial of high-dose 4'-epi-doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide versus high-dose 4'-epi-doxorubicin + cisplatin in previously untreated patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. Treatment of limited small-cell lung cancer with etoposide and cisplatin alternating with vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide versus concurrent etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide and chest radiotherapy: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. An evaluation of low-dose cisplatin as part of combined modality therapy of limited small cell lung cancer. Five-day oral etoposide treatment for advanced small-cell lung cancer: randomized comparison with intravenous chemotherapy. Alternating versus sequential chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer. A randomized German multicenter trial. Alternating non-cross resistant chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer. Comparison of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with an alternating regimen of methotrexate, etoposide, and cisplatin/cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine in the treatment of extensive-disease small-cell lung carcinoma: a Mid-Atlantic Oncology Program study. Etoposide/vincristine-based chemotherapy with or without carboplatin in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a prospective randomized phase III trial. A randomized study comparing etoposide and vindesine with or without cisplatin as induction therapy for small cell lung cancer. EORTC Lung Cancer Working Party. Multiple-drug weekly chemotherapy versus standard combination regimen in small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized study conducted by the European Lung Cancer Working Party.
Seventy-three patients with small cell lung carcinoma refractory to standard chemotherapy were entered in this phase II randomized study of cisplatin, maytansine, and chlorozotocin. Of the 58 evaluable patients, only one partial response was observed among 21 patients given cisplatin, and no responses were seen among 19 given maytansine or 18 given chlorozotocin. One patient treated with chlorozotocin and two treated with cisplatin experienced life-threatening thrombocytopenia. One third of the maytansine-treated patients experienced moderate or severe neurologic toxicity. The overall median survival was 9.7 weeks. Chlorozotocin treatment was associated with inferior survival (7.7 weeks). Information on the effect of chemotherapy in a group of patients with poor prognosis, poor performance status small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) is scarce. A randomized study comparing single-agent carboplatin with combination chemotherapy in this largely unreported population of SCLC patients was undertaken.
                One hundred nineteen patients were allocated to four cycles of either cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) or single-agent carboplatin. Patients had either a Karnofsky performance score < or = 50 and/or a prognostic score indicative of a 1-year survival rate < or = 15%.
                Grade 3-4 neutropenia and intravenous antibiotic use were significantly more common with the CAV regimen (P < 0.005). Conversely, Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more common (P < 0.0009) and platelet transfusion was more frequent (P < 0.05) with carboplatin therapy. Nonhematologic toxicity was similar in both treatment arms, except for alopecia with CAV therapy (P < 0.0007). Symptom relief occurred in 48% and 41% of patients in the CAV and carboplatin treatment arms, respectively. Dyspnea was improved in 66% and 41% of patients and cough was improved in 21% and 7% of patients in the CAV and carboplatin treatment arms, respectively. CAV therapy produced a higher response rate than carboplatin (38% vs. 25%), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.15). The median overall survival for patients in the CAV and carboplatin treatment arms was 17 weeks and 15.9 weeks, respectively, with 1-year survival rates of 12% and 6%.
                Single-agent carboplatin is a feasible treatment in patients with poor prognosis SCLC and produces response rates, relief of tumor-related symptoms, and survival similar to what is seen in patients who receive CAV chemotherapy. The lower risk of life-threatening sepsis and less need for hospitalization or intravenous antibiotic courses is advantageous in this susceptible patient population.
                Copyright 2001 American Cancer Society. Topotecan (Hycamtin is active in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of topotecan in combination with either cisplatin or etoposide in untreated extensive disease SCLC (ED SCLC).
                Patients with untreated ED SCLC were randomised to treatment with T/C (topotecan 1.25mg/(m(2)day) IV days 1-5, cisplatin 50mg/m(2) IV day 5; 41 patients) or T/E (topotecan 0.75 mg/(m(2)day) IV days 1-- 5, etoposide 60 mg/(m(2)day) IV days 1-5; 41 patients) every 21 days. Response was evaluated by strict radiological criteria.
                Response rates were similar for T/C (63.4%, 95% CI: 48.7-78.2%) and T/E (61.0%, 95% CI: 46-76%) with one patient in each arm who underwent complete response. Median survival was 41.6 weeks (9.6 months) for the T/C group and 43.7 weeks (10.1 months) for the T/E group. Toxicity was primarily haematological in both groups. The proportion of patients with grades 3-4 anaemia was significantly higher in the T/C arm (46.4%) versus 20% with the T/E arm (p=0.018). The proportion of patients with grade 4 neutropenia was not significantly lower with T/C (56.1%) than with T/E (65.0%, p=0.41), as was the incidence of associated events such as sepsis (T/C: 0%; T/E: 9.8%, p=0.11). The overall deliverability of either regimen was similar. The most frequent non-haematological adverse experiences of all grades per patient were nausea (T/C: 43.9%; T/E: 36.6%), and alopecia (T/C: 39.0%; T/E: 56.1%). Topotecan did not appear to increase the frequency of adverse events specifically associated with cisplatin.
                This study showed T/C and T/E to be effective and well tolerated in patients with ED SCLC and further evaluation of topotecan in first line SCLC is warranted. The EORTC Lung Cancer Cooperative group performed a randomised phase II study in patients with small cell lung cancer comparing the standard cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/etoposide (CDE) regimen with two regimens containing the new and active cisplatin derivative, carboplatin, 400 mg/m2 in combination with ifosfamide, a drug without important myelotoxicity, at a dose of 5 g/m2 (IMP) or the non-myelotoxic drug vincristine twice 2 mg (VP). Of 178 evaluable patients, 63 received CDE [30 limited disease (LD), 33 extensive disease (ED)], 55 received IMP (22 LD, 33 ED) and 60 (26 LD, 34 ED) were treated with VP. The response duration was not statistically different: CDE 31 weeks, IMP 29 weeks and VP 21 weeks. The time to progression after CEE was 28 weeks, IMP 24 weeks and VP 17 weeks. This was significantly shorter after VP than after CDE (P = 0.017). The 60% response rate of the VP combination was low compared with CDE (83%) and IMP (77%). Toxicity of all three regimens was acceptable, and dose reduction for myelosuppression was necessary in only a minority of the patients. We conclude from this study that the combination of carboplatin, at the maximally tolerated dose of 400 mg/m2, in combination with ifosfamide 5 g/m2, is an active regimen with efficacy comparable with the standard CDE regimen. From September 1986 until December 1991, 139 patients with histologically-proven small cell lung cancer, age < 75 years, performance status > 40, absence of brain metastases and no previous treatment, were randomised to receive either CEV cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2 intravenous (i.v.), epirubicin 70 mg/m2 i.v., vincristine 1.2 mg/m2 i.v., every 3 weeks or PE (cisplatin 20 mg/m2 i.v. and etoposide 75 mg/m2 i.v. for 5 consecutive days, every 3 weeks) for six cycles. After three cycles, responding patients received radiotherapy to the chest (45 Gy/15 sessions) and to the brain (30 Gy/10 sessions--only in patients with limited disease achieving complete remission). 3 patients were ineligible. Patient characteristics included (CEV/PE) total number 66/70, median age 60/61 years, median performance status 80/80, extended disease 33/48 cases (P = 0.04). In evaluable patients, 42/62 (67.7%) responded to CEV while 42/58 (72.4%) responded to PE (P = non-significant); respective complete response rates were 16.1 and 29.3% (P = non-significant) and respective complete response rates in patients with extended disease were 9.4 and 28.9% (P = 0.03). Median survival was 10.5 months, without significant differences in the two treatment arms, even after adjustment for stage. PE was less well tolerated than CEV. Although PE is more active than CEV in certain subsets of patients, its apparent inability to improve survival in this and in other studies questions its routine use in small cell lung cancer. Between April 1985 and May 1988, we conducted a randomized study comparing two standard chemotherapy regimens with the same regimens given on an alternating basis in patients with small-cell lung cancer. The patients were randomly assigned to receive cyclophosphamide at a dose of 800 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on day 1, doxorubicin at 50 mg/m2 IV on day 1, and vincristine at 1.4 mg/m2 IV on day 1 (CAV); cisplatin at 80 mg/m2 IV on day 1 and etoposide at 100 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 3, and 5 (PE); or CAV alternating with PE (CAV/PE). Each regimen was repeated every 3-4 weeks. Three hundred patients were entered in the study, and 288 of them were eligible for analysis (97 for CAV, 97 for PE, and 94 for CAV/PE). The response rates for PE (78%) and CAV/PE (76%) were significantly higher than the rate for CAV (55%), while the complete response rates were similar (14%, 16%, and 15%, respectively). Nine (23%) of 39 patients who failed to respond to the initial CAV regimen responded to PE when they were crossed over. In contrast, only one (8%) of 13 patients responded to CAV after failing to respond to the PE regimen, suggesting that these two regimens were partially non-cross-resistant. The response duration on CAV/PE was significantly longer than that with CAV (P = .004). The survival time with CAV/PE (11.8 months) was superior to that with CAV (9.9 months) (P = .027) or that with PE (9.9 months) (P = .056). In patients with limited disease, the survival in the alternating arm was significantly superior to the survival in the CAV arm (P = .014) or the survival in the PE arm (P = .023). The toxic effects were acceptable in all three chemotherapy regimens. These results favor the alternating chemotherapy over either standard chemotherapy, such as CAV and PE, although the differences are not dramatic. In the hope of increasing the incidence of objective remissions and the survival time of patients with small cell lung cancer, we conducted a randomized study designed to compare a treatment scheme of alternating chemotherapy featuring cisplatin+etoposide followed by cyclophosphamide+epirubicin versus conventional chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide+epirubicin+vincristine, in a total of 113 patients (56 treated with the alternating regime and 57 treated conventionally). Patients receiving the alternating drug regimen showed some increase in objective remission rates, and above all increased mean survival time (297 days versus 232). The higher incidence of side effects encountered was effectively controlled by the usual medical therapy. To compare the combination of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, http://www.bms.com) and topotecan (Hycamtin; Glaxo SmithKline, Philadelphia, http://www.gsk.com) with paclitaxel, carboplatin (Paraplatin; Bristol-Myers Squibb), and etoposide (Etopophos, VePesid; Bristol-Myers Squibb) in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.
                In this phase II trial, 120 patients were randomly allocated to receive either topotecan (1.5 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1, 2, and 3) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1) every 21 days orpaclitaxe l (200 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1), carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 6 i.v. day 1), and etoposide (50 mg/100 mg alternating daily by mouth days 1-10) every 21 days, each regimen for a maximum of eight cycles. The primary end points were objective response rate and time to progression.
                The paclitaxel-carboplatin-etoposide combination produced a significantly higher overall response rate (78% versus 48%), longer median time to progression (7.6 months versus 5.5 months), and greater number of patients free from progression at 1 year (14% versus 8%) compared with paclitaxel plus topotecan. There was no difference in overall survival. Toxicities were similar in the two treatment arms.
                The paclitaxel-carboplatin-etoposide combination produced a superior overall response rate and time to progression in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer compared with paclitaxel plus topotecan. The platinum compounds continue to be a necessary component of the initial therapy for these patients. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group conducted a prospective randomized study comparing standard chemotherapy with alternating chemotherapy in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. "Standard" treatment consisted of cyclophosphamide (1000 mg/m2 body surface area); doxorubicin (50 mg/m2), and vincristine (2 mg) every 3 weeks for six courses. Alternating chemotherapy was cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine alternating with etoposide (100 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3) every 3 weeks for six treatment cycles. Two hundred eighty-nine patients were eligible and evaluable for response to therapy and survival. Best response was higher in patients on alternating chemotherapy (complete plus partial response, 80% compared with 63.2%; p less than 0.002). Progression-free survival for patients on alternating chemotherapy was superior (p less than 0.0001) as was overall survival (p = 0.03). Major toxicities were equally frequent in both treatment groups. These results show a modest superiority of alternating chemotherapy over standard therapy in extensive small cell lung cancer. To investigate whether chemotherapy with etoposide and cisplatin (EP) is superior to cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and vincristine (CEV) in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).
                A total of 436 eligible patients were randomized to chemotherapy with EP (n = 218) or CEV (n = 218). Patients were stratified according to extent of disease (limited disease [LD], n = 214; extensive disease [ED], n = 222). The EP group received five courses of etoposide 100 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) IV on day 1, followed by oral etoposide 200 mg/m(2) daily on days 2 to 4. The CEV group received five courses of epirubicin 50 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m(2), and vincristine 2 mg, all IV on day 1. In addition, LD patients received thoracic radiotherapy concurrent with chemotherapy cycle 3, and those achieving complete remission during the treatment period received prophylactic cranial irradiation.
                The treatment groups were well balanced with regard to age, sex, and prognostic factors such as weight loss, and performance status. The 2- and 5-year survival rates in the EP arm (14% and 5%, P =.0004) were significantly higher compared with those in the CEV arm (6% and 2%). Among LD patients, median survival time was 14.5 months versus 9.7 months in the EP and CEV arms, respectively (P =.001). The 2- and 5-year survival rates of 25% and 10% in the EP arm compared with 8% and 3% in the CEV arm (P =.0001). For ED patients, there was no significant survival difference between the treatment arms. Quality-of-life assessments revealed no major differences between the randomized groups.
                EP is superior to CEV in LD-SCLC patients. In ED-SCLC patients, the benefits of EP and CEV chemotherapy seem equivalent, with similar survival time and quality of life. Chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (E-SCLC) produces high response rates and improved survival but few cures. We tested three new regimens for E-SCLC that might merit further investigation in a subsequent phase III trial. Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9430 was a randomized phase II study evaluating 4 treatment arms in 57 evaluable, previously untreated E-SCLC patients. Each arm consisted of the following: Arm 1: cisplatin plus topotecan; Arm 2: cisplatin plus paclitaxel; Arm 3: paclitaxel 230 mg/m2 plus topotecan; and Arm 4: paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus topotecan. Because of an accrual time difference, Arm 2 will not be discussed in this manuscript. Arm 1 (12 patients) produced 1 complete response (CR, 8%) and an overall response rate (ORR) of 42%. Toxicity was excessive, with 3 deaths (25%). Arm 3 (13 patients) produced no CRs, 7 partial responses (PRs, 54%), median survival of 13.8 months, and failure-free survival (FFS) of 7.41 months, with 3 toxic deaths (25%). Among 32 evaluable patients on Arm 4, there were 2 CRs (6%) and 20 PRs (63%) for an ORR of 69%, median survival of 9.9 months, FFS of 5.21 months, and 1-year survival of 40%. There was 1 possible treatment-related death (3%). Topotecan plus cisplatin, in the doses and schedule employed, produced excessive toxicity and modest efficacy in E-SCLC patients. Paclitaxel (230 mg/m2 on day 1) plus topotecan (1 mg/m2 on days 1-5) produced excessive toxicity that was ameliorated with an attenuated paclitaxel dose (175 mg/m2). With the latter regimen (Arm 4) in patients with a performance status of 0/1, CR rates, FFS, overall survival, and 1-year survival were similar to standard etoposide plus cisplatin chemotherapy. Further exploration of topoisomerase inhibitors and taxanes in SCLC patients is warranted. A total of 144 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) were randomized to receive cisplatin/etoposide (PE) or ifosfamide/etoposide (IE) combination chemotherapy. PE consisted of cisplatin, 80 mg/m2, intravenously (IV) on day 1, and etoposide, 150 mg/m2, IV on days 3 through 5. IE consisted of ifosfamide, 1,500 mg/m2, IV on days 1 through 5, and etoposide, 120 mg/m2, IV on days 3 through 5. Six cycles were administered in 3-week intervals. Nonresponders were switched immediately to CAV, consisting of cyclophosphamide, 600 mg/m2, IV on days 1 and 2, Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), 50 mg/m2, IV on day 1, and vincristine, 2 mg, IV on day 1. Patients obtaining complete remission (CR) received prophylactic cranial irradiation with 30 Gy. After completion of chemotherapy, patients with limited disease received chest irradiation with 45 Gy. No maintenance therapy was given to patients in CR. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Of the 141 patients evaluable, the overall response rate was 65% in PE therapy and 68% in IE therapy. The CR rate was 32% v 20% for all patients, 50% v 24% for limited disease, and 22% v 18% for extensive disease, all in favor of PE therapy. Median survival for all patients was 11.6 months v 9.4 months, for limited disease 14.8 months v 11.0 months, and for extensive disease 8.9 months v 7.5 months, all preferring PE therapy. The 2-year survival rate was higher in PE therapy than in IE therapy for all patients (12% v 9%) and for limited disease (23% v 10%), but not for extensive disease (5% v 9%). Median progression-free survival was 7.5 months v 6.0 months for all patients, 12.2 months v 8.8 months for limited disease, and 5.9 months v 4.4 months for extensive disease, all in favor of PE. Relapse in the area of the primary tumor was found less often after PE than after IE therapy (25% v 38%). Response to second-line CAV was seen in 30% of patients with prior PE and 43% with prior IE therapy, but was usually short lasting, and only one patient achieved CR. Toxicity included three lethal complications. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin lesions occurred more often after PE than after IE therapy. These results suggest that PE is superior to IE chemotherapy in limited-stage, but not in extensive-stage SCLC, and that CAV is cross-resistant to PE, as well as to IE in the majority of patients. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) conducted a prospective randomized trial to evaluate the role of warfarin and alternating chemotherapy in extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCCL). After stratification for sex and performance status, patients were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy with methotrexate, doxorubicin (Adriamycin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), cyclophosphamide, and lomustine (CCNU) (MACC), or MACC plus warfarin (MACC + W), or mitomycin, etoposide, cisplatin, and hexamethylmelamine alternating with MACC (MEPH/MACC). Warfarin was given continuously to maintain a prothrombin time of one and one half to twice the control values. A total of 328 patients were enrolled, and 294 were evaluable. There was a statistically significant advantage in objective response rates (complete [CR] and partial responses [PR], respectively) for MACC + W (17% and 50%) as compared with MACC alone (8% and 43%) or MEPH/MACC (10% and 38%) (P = .012). Both failure-free survival (P = .054 Wilcoxon test) and overall survival (P = .098 Wilcoxon test) were higher on MACC + W (median, 6.6 months and 9.3 months, respectively), as compared with MACC (5.0 months and 7.9 months) and MEPH/MACC (5.0 months and 7.9 months). Toxicity was comparable among the three arms, except for increased hemorrhagic events on MACC + W, which were life-threatening in four patients (4%), and lethal in two others (2%). These data support the role of warfarin in the treatment of SCCL, but do not establish its mechanism of action. Warfarin deserves further studies in SCCL, particularly in patients with limited disease. Ninety five patients with small cell carcinoma of the lung were randomly assigned to one of two chemotherapy regimens (VACE or CVACE), each consisting of six cycles at three week intervals. The VACE regimen consisted of six cycles of vincristine 1.2 mg/m2, doxorubicin 40 mg/m2, and cyclophosphamide 700 mg/m2 on day 1 plus etoposide 110 mg/m2 daily for three days. The CVACE regimen was identical to the VACE regimen for cycles 3 and 4; cycles 1, 2, 4, and 6 consisted of etoposide 110 mg/m2 for three days plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 with mannitol diuresis on the second day. Forty eight patients received VACE and 47 CVACE. Side effects resulted in withdrawal of four patients receiving VACE and six receiving CVACE. Three deaths were attributed to VACE and one to CVACE. Median survival did not differ between the two treatments overall, though there was a small increase in median survival in partial responders receiving CVACE. It is concluded that replacing four of the six cycles of VACE (vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide) with etoposide and cisplatin conferred no overall advantage. to compare standard and alternating administration of chemotherapy combinations in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients.
                in a multicenter clinical trial, 394 previously untreated SCLC patients were randomised to receive, every 4 weeks, eight courses of either a standard regimen with CCNU, cyclophosphamide, adriamycin (CCA) and VP16 or an alternating regimen (CCA regimen alternating with cisplatin-vindesine-VP16).
                overall response rate was higher in the standard group (78%) than in the alternating group (64%) (P = 0.0001). Complete response rate was also higher in the standard group (32%) than in the alternating group (18%) (P = 0.004). The median survival in the overall SCLC population was 306 days in the standard group and 272 days in the alternating group (P = 0.08). In limited SCLC patients, median survival was higher in the standard group (421 days) than in the alternating group (328 days) (P = 0.01). Grade III/IV haematological toxicity was lower in patients in the alternating group (25 versus 47%) (P < 0.001).
                the standard regimen was better than the alternating regimen for patients with limited forms of SCLC. The alternating regimen, associated with better haematological safety and ensuring a fairly similar survival, may be considered in patients with extensive SCLC. Pleiomorphic resistance mechanisms to chemotherapy make it difficult to define a non-cross-resistant chemotherapy regimen. One hundred and eleven previously untreated patients with extensive small cell lung cancer were included in a prospective randomized study with the aim to assess the efficacy and tolerance of high-dose epirubicin (120 mg/m2) in combination with either cyclophosphamide (800 mg/m2; arm 1) or cisplatin (60 mg/m2; arm 2). Ninety-six patients were evaluable for response and toxicity and additional 12 patients for toxicity only. The overall response rate (CR+PR) in arm 1 and 2 were 61.4 (27/44) and 67.3% (35/52), respectively. The mean duration of remission was 4.4 months (arm 1) and 4.9 months (arm 2). The mean survival time was 6.6 months in arm 1 and 7.7 months in arm 2. WHO grade 4 toxicity was encountered in 25.5 and 15.8% of patients in arm 1 and 2, respectively. One case of cardiotoxicity resulting in the patient's death was observed in arm 1. Both combinations showed considerable antitumor activity. Toxicity was acceptable. The Goldie-Coldman model explaining the kinetics of tumor cell kill and drug resistance has a potential application in designing chemotherapy regimes. In this Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) trial we tested the alternation of two potentially noncrossresistant drug combinations with a concurrent drug combination in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer. The concurrent drug combination consisted of etoposide (VP-16), 75 mg/m2/intravenously (IV), days 1, 2, and 3; vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), 40 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (EVAC). The alternating combination consisted of VP-16, 100 mg/m2/IV, days 1, 2, and 3; and cisplatin (CDDP), 100 mg/m2/IV, day 1, alternating with vincristine, 1.0 mg/m2/IV, days 1 and 8; Adriamycin, 50 mg/m2/IV, day 1; and cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2/IV, day 1 (VP-16/CDDP-VAC). Chemotherapy was administered at 3-week intervals for six cycles both before and after chest (5,000 rads/5 weeks) and whole brain radiotherapy (3,000 rads/2 weeks). One hundred ninety-nine patients received EVAC and 201 received the alternating combination. There was no significant difference in the response rate to the initial six cycles of treatment with EVAC (CR, 40%) versus the alternating combination (CR, 38%). There was no significant difference between the best response, EVAC (CR, 48%) and VP-16/CDDP-VAC (CR, 51%). Median survival for all randomized patients on EVAC is 15.1 months versus 16.5 months on the alternating combination (P = .58). Toxicities consisted primarily of bone marrow suppression, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, peripheral neuropathies, and alopecia. As in previous trials, the chest was the most common site of relapse (33%). There were no differences in the incidence and sites of relapse between the two treatment arms. These treatments appear equally effective at inducing remission and prolonging survival in patients with small-cell lung cancer. Sixty-two patients with previously untreated limited stage small cell lung cancer were treated in a prospectively randomized trial comparing thoracic irradiation plus combination chemotherapy with VP-16-213, vincristine (Oncovin), cyclophosphamide, and Adriamycin (VOCA) or those same four drugs plus low-dose (40 mg/m2) cisplatin (VOCAP). The addition of the cisplatin in eight courses of planned chemotherapy did not significantly improve either time to tumor progression of survival or alter sites of disease progression. It did, however, worsen the degree and frequency of nausea, vomiting, and myelosuppression. We did not identify any benefit from the usage of low-dose cisplatin as employed in this study. Oral etoposide is an active single agent in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and is widely prescribed as first-line treatment as an alternative to intravenous combination chemotherapy in patients with extensive disease.
                The intention of this study was to determine if the effects of oral etoposide therapy on survival and quality of life are equivalent to those of intravenous chemotherapy.
                In a randomized trial of palliative treatment in advanced SCLC, oral etoposide (100 mg given twice daily for 5 days) was compared with intravenous chemotherapy consisting of alternating cycles of cisplatin and etoposide (PE) and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV). Six cycles of chemotherapy were administered every 21 days in both regimens. Symptom control and quality of life were measured with the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist and a daily diary card. In January 1996, after 155 patients had been randomly assigned from a projected intake of 365 patients, an independent Data Monitoring Committee examined the interim results. Survival was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the logrank test was used to compare treatments. For quality-of-life comparisons, average scores were calculated for each time point. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine any significant overall differences between treatments. For the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, separate analyses were done for each subset (psychological well-being, physical symptoms, lung cancer symptoms, treatment symptoms, activity, and quality of life). Response rates and toxicity scores were compared by using chi2. All statistical tests were two-sided.
                Survival was inferior at 1 year in the oral etoposide group compared with intravenous therapy (9.8% for oral versus 19.3% for intravenous; difference = 9.5%; 95% confidence interval of difference = 0.3%-18.7%; P<.05), and there was a trend toward inferior overall survival. Median survival was 4.8 months for oral treatment and 5.9 months for intravenous therapy. Progression-free survival was worse in the oral etoposide arm (median = 3.6 months versus 5.6 months; P<.001), as well as overall response rate (32.9% versus 46.3%; P<.01). With the exception of acute nausea and vomiting associated with intravenous chemotherapy, all aspects of symptom control and quality of life were either the same or worse in the oral etoposide group. Study closure was recommended.
                These interim results show that this schedule of oral etoposide is inferior to intravenous chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced SCLC and should not be used as first-line treatment of this disease. A total of 306 patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) were randomized to receive chemotherapy in a sequential or alternating mode. Sequential chemotherapy consisted of eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin), and vincristine (CAV) and alternating chemotherapy consisted of three cycles (1, 3, 5) of etoposide, vindesine, and ifosfamide (EVI); three cycles (2, 4, 6) of cisplatin, Adriamycin, and vincristine (PAV); and two cycles (7, 8) of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and CCNU (CMC). Responsive patients received prophylactic cranial irradiation after three cycles and chest irradiation after eight cycles of chemotherapy. No maintenance therapy was applied to patients achieving complete remission. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Of the 302 patients evaluable, overall response rate was 59% in the sequential arm and 70% in the alternating arm. Patients treated with CAV had a complete response rate of 21% in contrast to 36% for those receiving alternating therapy. The median survival for all patients was 9.8 versus 11.3 months, for limited disease 11.1 versus 13.4 months, and for extensive disease 8.9 versus 9.9 months, all in favor of the alternating treatment. Two-year survival rate for all patients was 6% versus 9%, for limited disease 11% versus 14%, and for extensive disease 3% versus 6%, all preferring the alternating treatment mode. Progression-free survival demonstrated a strong correlation to the extent of response irrespective of the treatment regimen applied. Toxicity included 11 lethal and 8 life-threatening complications with a higher frequency in the alternating treatment arm. These results suggest that alternating treatment of SCLC with different drug combinations is more effective than sequential application of CAV. After stratification for the extent of disease, previously untreated patients with small cell lung cancer randomized to receive therapy with the four-drug combination of cyclophosphamide, oncovin, nimustine hydrochloride (ACNU), and procarbazine (CONP) every four weeks (continuous regimen) or to receive CONP alternating with the three-drug combination of etoposide (VP-16), adriamycin and cisplatin (VAD) at four-week intervals (alternating regimen). Sixty-nine patients were entered in the study. Of 34 evaluable patients receiving the continuous regimen, six (17.6%) achieved complete response (CR) and 16 (47.1%) achieved partial response (PR). Of 31 evaluable patients receiving the alternating regimen, 10 (32.3%) achieved CR, and 16 (51.6%) achieved PR. There was a tendency in favor of the alternating regimen in CR and over-all response rates (0.05 less than p less than 0.1). There were no significant differences between the regimens in response duration or survival. The projected median survival times were 9.2 months and 9.4 months for the continuous and alternating regimens, respectively. One patient receiving the continuous regimen and three receiving the alternating regimen have been living for more than two years. The major toxicity was myelosuppression in both regimens. One patient died of hemorrhage due to thrombocytopenia during induction with CONP, and one patient died of cisplatin-induced renal failure. We conclude that alternating non-cross resistant chemotherapy leads to improved CR and response rates, but does not improve survival. An alternating regimen for the treatment of extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) was compared with standard treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) in 170 patients. Overall severity of toxicity was similar in both arms, with four toxic deaths in each arm (4.7%). Response results were also similar, with 54% complete and partial responses with the standard regimen and 53% complete and partial responses with the alternating regimen. Median survival time was 6.9 months with the standard regimen and 9.2 months with the alternating regimen (P = .078). The 2-year survival rate was 1.2% for the standard regimen and 4.7% for the alternating regimen. Survival benefit for treatment with the alternating regimen reached statistical significance only in those subsets of patients with poorer prognosis (male sex, performance status 3, liver metastases, bone marrow metastases, and oat cell histologic subtype). In the treatment of small cell lung cancer, carboplatin/etoposide/vincristine (CEV) is one of the most active regimens. In contrast, the etoposide/vincristine (EV) combination also has produced acceptable results in patients with extensive disease. To evaluate the efficacy and survival of patients treated with EV in comparison to those treated with more intensive CEV chemotherapy, a prospective, randomized, phase III trial was performed. The protocol for the treatment groups was as follows: treatment A (156 patients): carboplatin 300 mg/m2 day I, etoposide 140 mg/m2 days 1 through 3, and vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15; and treatment B (161 patients): etoposide 200 mg/m2 days 1 through 3 and vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 days 1 and 8. Chemotherapy cycles in each treatment arm were repeated every 4 weeks. Doses were reduced by 20% when hematologic or nonhematologic toxicity (grade 4) occurred. In all, 317 evaluable patients were treated. The overall response rate for patients treated with CEV was 79.8% compared with 59.8% for those treated with EV (P < .001). The median length of survival was 10 months for CEV-treated patients compared with 9 months for EV-treated patients (P = .19). Based on long-term survival rates, there was an advantage for the CEV-treated patients if they had good performance status, were younger than 60 years, had no distant metastases, and achieved a complete response to first-line therapy. We conclude that patients with poor prognostic factors (ie, poor performance status, multiple distant metastases, and less than partial response to the first cycle of chemotherapy) should appropriately be treated with the less aggressive two-drug combination chemotherapy. On the other hand, patients with good prognostic factors should be treated as aggressively as possible, and they will benefit from the more aggressive induction chemotherapy. We conducted a randomized trial testing etoposide (120 mg/m2 d1-3) + vindesine (3 mg/m2 d1) with or without cisplatin (60 mg/m2 d1) in patients with SCLC. A total of 8 courses were given at 3-week intervals. 221 patients were registered and 201, 95 in the CEV arm and 106 in the EV arm, were eligible for survival analysis. 183 patients were evaluable for response: 74% had an objective response (OR) with CEV versus 55% with EV (p = 0.01). Complete response rates were, respectively, 21% and 13% (NS). In patients with limited disease (LD), OR rates were 72% and 61% (NS), and 76% and 48% in extensive disease (ED) (p = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in survival between the two regimens (p = 0.745, log rank test). Median survival for EV and CEV were, respectively, 40 and 45 weeks, and two-year survivals were 11% and 9%; in patients with LD, the corresponding figures were 14% and 16% (NS) and in those with ED, 8% and 3% (NS). Disease extent (LD vs ED), Karnofsky performance status and loss of body weight were significant prognostic factors for survival; age, sex, type of treatment and type of lesion were not. The CEV regimen was not significantly more myelotoxic than EV but was associated with more severe nausea, vomiting and alopecia. In conclusion, the addition of cisplatin to the EV regimen, a combination reported to be easily manageable, was associated with a significantly higher OR rate but survival was not significantly improved. A randomized trial was conducted in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) to determine if survival can be improved by a weekly chemotherapy regimen combining various drugs.
                Two hundred twenty-three patients were randomized to receive either six courses of a multiple-drug combination (MDC) regimen (Adriamycin [ADR; doxorubicin; Farmitalia Carlo Erba, Milan, Italy] 25 mg/m2 intravenously [i.v.] on day 1; etoposide [VP16] 120 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1; cyclophosphamide [CPA] 500 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1; cisplatin 60 mg/m2 i.v. on day 8; vindesine [VDS] 3 mg/m2 i.v. on day 8; vincristine [VCR] 2 mg i.v. on day 15; methotrexate [MTX] 100 mg/m2 i.v. on day 15), or a standard chemotherapy (SC) regimen (ADR 50 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1; CPA 1 g/m2 i.v. on day 1; VP16 80 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 to 3).
                In 98 MDC-treated and 101 SC-treated assessable patients, we observed 69% and 62% objective responses rates, respectively. There was no significant difference in survival, with median durations and 2-year overall survival rates of 49 and 43 weeks and 8.5% and 7.9%, respectively. There was a significant increase in response rate in favor of MDC patients with limited disease (84% v 62%). Toxicity was tolerable, although SC was more hematotoxic, with 76% (v 59%) experiencing leukopenia and 17% (v 7%) experiencing thrombocytopenia (grades III and IV). If the cumulative doses received were nearly equal to the scheduled cumulative doses in both arms, the total relative dose-intensity (RDI) was significantly higher in the SC arm. The difference was due to increased treatment delays in the MDC arm.
                Weekly MDC failed to improve survival rates in patients with SCLC.
Platinum-based chemotherapy regimens did not offer a statistically significant benefit in survival or overall tumour response compared with non-platinum-based regimens. However, platinum-based chemotherapy regimens did increase complete response rates, at the cost of higher adverse events including nausea and vomiting, anaemia and thrombocytopenia toxicity. These data suggest non-platinum chemotherapy regimens have a more advantageous risk-benefit profile. This systematic review highlights the lack of quality of life data in trials involving chemotherapy treatment for SCLC. With poor long-term survival associated with both treatment groups, the issue of the quality of the survival period takes on even more significance. It would be beneficial for future trials in this area to include a quality of life assessment.