Randomized study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus etoposide and cisplatin versus alternation of these two regimens in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Southeastern Cancer Study Group - PubMed (original) (raw)
Clinical Trial
Randomized study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus etoposide and cisplatin versus alternation of these two regimens in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Southeastern Cancer Study Group
B J Roth et al. J Clin Oncol. 1992 Feb.
Abstract
Purpose: The trial was undertaken to determine (1) the relative efficacy/toxicity of two commonly used combination chemotherapy regimens in patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and (2) whether the rapid alternation of these two regimens could provide superior therapeutic results compared with either regimen alone.
Patients and methods: In this phase III trial, 437 eligible patients were stratified by performance status (PS) and sex and were randomly assigned to receive either 12 weeks of cisplatin and etoposide (EP); 18 weeks of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV); or 18 weeks of alternation of these two regimens (CAV/EP).
Results: There were no significant differences in treatment outcome for EP, CAV, or CAV/EP in terms of response rate (61%, 51%, 59%, respectively), complete response rate (10%, 7%, 7%, respectively), or median survival (8.6 months, 8.3 months, 8.1 months, respectively), with a non-statistically significant trend toward a longer median time to progression with alternating therapy (4.3 months, 4.0 months, 5.2 months, respectively). Crossover second-line chemotherapy given at progression produced low response rates and short survival, regardless of the regimen used. Myelosuppression was the dose-limiting toxicity for all patients, although the pattern and severity differed among the treatment arms.
Conclusions: The combination regimens EP and CAV can be considered equivalently effective induction therapies in extensive SCLC, and these two regimens are, to some degree, crossresistant. Alternating therapy provides no therapeutic advantage compared with the use of either of these regimens alone and should not be considered as standard treatment in this clinical setting.
Similar articles
- Randomized study of CODE versus alternating CAV/EP for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: an Intergroup Study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Southwest Oncology Group.
Murray N, Livingston RB, Shepherd FA, James K, Zee B, Langleben A, Kraut M, Bearden J, Goodwin JW, Grafton C, Turrisi A, Walde D, Croft H, Osoba D, Ottaway J, Gandara D. Murray N, et al. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2300-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2300. J Clin Oncol. 1999. PMID: 10561291 Clinical Trial. - A randomized, controlled phase III study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with etoposide (CAV-E) or teniposide (CAV-T), followed by recombinant interferon-alpha maintenance therapy or observation, in small cell lung carcinoma patients with complete responses.
Tummarello D, Mari D, Graziano F, Isidori P, Cetto G, Pasini F, Santo A, Cellerino R. Tummarello D, et al. Cancer. 1997 Dec 15;80(12):2222-9. Cancer. 1997. PMID: 9404698 Clinical Trial. - Etoposide combined with cyclophosphamide plus vincristine compared with doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide plus vincristine and with high-dose cyclophosphamide plus vincristine in the treatment of small-cell carcinoma of the lung: a randomized trial of the Bristol Lung Cancer Study Group.
Hong WK, Nicaise C, Lawson R, Maroun JA, Comis R, Speer J, Luedke D, Hurtubise M, Lanzotti V, Goodlow J, et al. Hong WK, et al. J Clin Oncol. 1989 Apr;7(4):450-6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1989.7.4.450. J Clin Oncol. 1989. PMID: 2538577 Clinical Trial. - The use of VP-16 plus cisplatin during induction chemotherapy for small-cell lung cancer.
Evans WK, Feld R, Murray N, Pater J, Shelley W, Willan A, Osoba D, Levitt M, Coy P, Hodson I, et al. Evans WK, et al. Semin Oncol. 1986 Sep;13(3 Suppl 3):10-6. Semin Oncol. 1986. PMID: 3020692 Review. - [Chemotherapy of small cell lung cancer].
Fukuoka M, Negoro S, Takada M, Kusunoki Y, Matsui K, Ryu S, Sakai N, Yamamoto H, Masuda N, Takifuji N. Fukuoka M, et al. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1988 Apr;15(4 Pt 2-1):966-72. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1988. PMID: 2839116 Review. Japanese.
Cited by
- Emerging advances in defining the molecular and therapeutic landscape of small-cell lung cancer.
Sen T, Takahashi N, Chakraborty S, Takebe N, Nassar AH, Karim NA, Puri S, Naqash AR. Sen T, et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2024 Aug;21(8):610-627. doi: 10.1038/s41571-024-00914-x. Epub 2024 Jul 4. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38965396 Review. - Challenges and opportunities in the immunotherapy era: balancing expectations with hope in small-cell lung cancer.
Khan R, Coleman N. Khan R, et al. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2024 May 17;16:17588359241249627. doi: 10.1177/17588359241249627. eCollection 2024. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38765713 Free PMC article. Review. - Real-world predictors of survival in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in Manitoba, Canada: a retrospective cohort study.
Dawe DE, Rittberg R, Syed I, Shanahan MK, Moldaver D, Bucher O, Galloway K, Reynolds K, Paul JT, Harlos C, Kim JO, Banerji S. Dawe DE, et al. Front Oncol. 2023 Sep 18;13:1191855. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1191855. eCollection 2023. Front Oncol. 2023. PMID: 37795434 Free PMC article. - Drug-tolerant persister cells in cancer: the cutting edges and future directions.
Pu Y, Li L, Peng H, Liu L, Heymann D, Robert C, Vallette F, Shen S. Pu Y, et al. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023 Nov;20(11):799-813. doi: 10.1038/s41571-023-00815-5. Epub 2023 Sep 25. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023. PMID: 37749382 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Supplementary concepts
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical