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.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether chemotherapy with etoposide and cisplatin (EP) is superior to cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and vincristine (CEV) in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Irinotecan plus carboplatin versus oral etoposide plus carboplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: A Japanese randomized trial showed superior survival for patients with extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) receiving irinotecan plus cisplatin compared with etoposide plus cisplatin. The present trial evaluated the efficacy of irinotecan plus carboplatin (IC) compared with oral etoposide plus carboplatin (EC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ED SCLC were randomly assigned to receive either IC, which consisted of carboplatin (area under the curve = 4; Chatelut formula) and irinotecan (175 mg/m2) intravenously both on day 1, or EC, which consisted of carboplatin as in IC and etoposide (120 mg/m(2)/d) orally on days 1 through 5. Courses were repeated every 3 weeks with four cycles planned. Doses were reduced by one third in patients with a WHO performance status (PS) of 3 to 4 and/or age older than 70 years. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were quality of life (QOL) and complete response (CR) rate. RESULTS: Of 220 randomly assigned patients, 209 were eligible for analysis (IC, n = 105; EC, n = 104). Thirty-five percent were older than 70 years, and 47% had a PS of 2 to 4. The groups were well balanced with respect to prognostic factors. OS was inferior in the EC group (hazard ratio = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.87; P = .02). Median survival time was 8.5 months for IC compared with 7.1 months for EC. One-year survival rate was 34% for IC and 24% for EC. CR was seen in 18 IC patients compared with seven EC patients (P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences in hematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea was more common in the IC group. QOL differences were small, with a trend toward prolonged palliation with the IC regimen. CONCLUSION: IC prolongs survival in ED SCLC with slightly better scores for QOL.