Superiority of cisplatin or carboplatin in combination with teniposide and vincristine in the induction chemotherapy of small-cell lung cancer. A randomized trial with 5 years follow up
Open Access
- 1 April 1996
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Elsevier in Annals of Oncology
- Vol. 7 (4) , 365-371
- https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a010603
Abstract
The introduction of platinum compounds and epipodophyllotoxins in combination with vincristine as induction chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) was investigated in order to: (1) compare the efficacy of cisplatin with that of carboplatin in combination with teniposide and vincristine as inducers of remission over three cycles; (2) compare the toxicity pattern of carboplatin and of cisplatin when given in combination regimens; and (3) compare a chemotherapeutic regimen consisting of three alternating combinations with that of regimens consisting of four alternating combinations. From November 1985 to September 1991, 484 consecutive, previously untreated patients with SCLC, performance status 0–4, entered a three armed randomized trial with three cycles of cisplatin (arm I) or carboplatin (arm II) in combination with teniposide and vincristine alternating with three treatment blocks of cyclophos phamide, etoposide, lomustine and vincristine (block A), doxorubicin and vincristine (block B) and cisplatin, hexa methylmelamine and vindesine (block C) versus alternating treatment with block A, B and C (arm III). No difference in efficacy or toxicity was found between cisplatin and carboplatin at the present dosages. Induction chemotherapy with teniposide plus cisplatin or carboplatin did not result in higher complete response rates (objective response rates 63%, 72% and 65%, respectively) or in significantly greater toxicity, but overall survival was superior compared with the arm [ (log-rank test, P = 0.02) The median survival difference was 7 weeks, and two year survival 15% versus 9%. The Cox regression analysis identified the arm III, poor performance status and elevated LDH as factors with statistically significant negative impact on survival. Cisplatin and carboplatin produced similar response and survival rates and similar toxicity. Induction with platinum and epipodophyllotoxins did not improve objective response rates, but significantly improved survival without increasing the toxicity.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Management of small-cell cancer of the lungThe Lancet, 1992
- 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.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1992
- Teniposide and etoposide in previously untreated small-cell lung cancer: a randomized study.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1991
- Longevity in small cell lung cancerBritish Journal of Cancer, 1990
- Alternating or sequential chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer?Lung Cancer, 1989
- Superiority of Alternating Non-Cross-Resistant Chemotherapy in Extensive Small Cell Lung CancerAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1987
- Carboplatin (Paraplatin; JM8) and etoposide (VP-16) as first-line combination therapy for small-cell lung cancer.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1987
- Chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus irradiation in limited small cell lung cancer. Results of a controlled trial with 5 years follow-upBritish Journal of Cancer, 1986
- Cyclic alternating 'non-cross resistant' chemotherapy in the management of small cell anaplastic carcinoma of the lungCancer Treatment Reviews, 1984
- Etoposide (VP-16) in the treatment of lung cancerCancer Treatment Reviews, 1983