[Chemotherapy in extended small-cell lung cancer. Retrospective analysis of two different series of patients treated with carboplatin and etoposide or ciclophosphamide-epidoxorubicin and etoposide]. / La chemioterapia del microcitoma disseminato. Confronto tra carboplatino-etoposide e ciclofosfamide-epirubicina-etoposide.

Although cisplatin and etoposide seem to represent the treatment of choice in Small-Cell Lung Cancer, a lot of data exist in literature supporting both the use of anthracycline-containing regimens and the use of alternating regimens where platinum-containing regimens and anthracycline-containing regimens are alternatively used as first line in the same patient. In our paper we review the outcomes of two different series of patients treated with ciclophosphamide-epidoxorubicin-etoposide (CEVP16) or carboplatin-etoposide (CBE) for extended Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Sixty-three patients (53.4%) were treated with CEVP16 and 55 patients (46.6%) with CBE. Response Rate (complete plus partial responses) was greater in patients treated with CEVP16 (49.2%) when compared with the response rate in patients treated with CBE (30.9%) (p=0.04 using the Chi-Square test); no differences were observed in the median time to progression (235 vs 199 days, using the Log-Rank test). Overall survival was greater in the CEVP16 group when compared with the CBE one (281 vs 208 days and 35.6% vs 16.3% of patients alive after 2 years of follow up for CEVP16 and CBE respectively, p=0.02 using the Log-Rank test). Although our data present all the methodological limits of the "case-series", it is interesting to observe how an anthracycline-containing regimen seems to be more effective than a platinum-containing one and how it could still play a role in the treatment of extended Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Carboplatin and gemcitabine in the palliative treatment of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: definitive results of a phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-containing regimens represent the gold standard in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer, but carboplatin is often preferred for its better toxic profile when palliation is the aim of the treatment. The synergistic effect and tolerability of carboplatin-gemcitabine combination are well known. In this phase II trial, we evaluated the activity and safety of a schedule with carboplatin and gemcitabine, defined in our previous phase I trial. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with measurable stage IV non-small cell lung cancer were treated with carboplatin, AUC 4.5 mg/ml/min on day 1, and gemcitabine, 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, every 21 days. All patients were treated until disease progression or intractable toxicity and were evaluated before each course of chemotherapy for toxicity and after every 3 courses for response. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of over 10 months, complete response, partial response, and stabilization of the disease were observed in 3 (8.1%), 9 (24.3%), and 15 patients (40.5%), respectively. Median time to progression was 7 months. At this writing, 27 patients have died, with a median survival of 10 months, and 29 (78.3%), 16 (43.2%), and 11 (29.7%) patients are alive after 6, 12, and 15 months of follow-up, respectively. Toxicity was mild, and mainly hematological, with a significant correlation with the number of courses of chemotherapy (P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Our results are comparable with those reported in the literature and confirm the good activity and tolerability of the carboplatin-gemcitabine combination. Up to 4 courses of chemotherapy with carboplatin and gemcitabine may represent an interesting option in the palliative treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.