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
- 1 August 1999
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Vol. 17 (8) , 2300
- https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.8.2300
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether an intensive weekly chemotherapy regimen plus thoracic irradiation is superior to standard chemotherapy in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ESCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ESCLC were considered eligible for the study if they were younger than 68 years, had a performance status of 0 to 2, and were free of brain metastases. Patients were randomized to receive cisplatin, vincristine, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CODE) or alternating cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine/etoposide and cisplatin (CAV/EP). Consolidative thoracic irradiation and prophylactic cranial irradiation were given to patients responding to CODE and according to investigator discretion on the CAV/EP arm. RESULTS: The fidelity of drug delivery on both drug regimens was equal, and more than 70% of all patients received the intended protocol chemotherapy. Although rates of neutropenic fever were similar, nine (8.2%) of 110 patients on the CODE arm died during chemotherapy, whereas one (0.9%) of 109 patients died on the CAV/EP arm. Response rates after chemotherapy were higher (P = .006) with CODE (87%) than with CAV/EP (70%). However, progression-free survival (median of 0.66 years on both arms) and overall survival (median, 0.98 years for CODE and 0.91 years for CAV/EP) were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: The CODE regimen increased two-fold the received dose-intensity of four of the most active drugs in small-cell lung cancer compared with the standard CAV/EP regimen while maintaining an approximately equal total dose. Despite supportive care (but not routine prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor), there was excessive toxic mortality with the CODE regimen. The response rate with CODE was higher than that of CAV/EP, but progression-free and overall survival were not significantly improved. In view of increased toxicity and similar efficacy, the CODE chemotherapy regimen is not recommended for treatment of ESCLC.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Randomized trial comparing cisplatin with cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1998
- Phase III study of intensive weekly chemotherapy with recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor versus standard chemotherapy in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. The Japan Clinical Oncology Group.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1998
- Growth curve model analysis for quality of life dataStatistics in Medicine, 1998
- Weekly chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer : Nevin Murray M.D. British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada, V5Z 4E6Lung Cancer, 1994
- Initial Chemotherapeutic Doses and Survival in Patients with Limited Small-Cell Lung CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 1993
- The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-of-Life Instrument for Use in International Clinical Trials in OncologyJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1993
- Bioavailability of low-dose oral etoposide.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1993
- Chemotherapy of Lung CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 1992
- Biological basis of radiation therapy for cancerThe Lancet, 1992
- Superiority of Alternating Non-Cross-Resistant Chemotherapy in Extensive Small Cell Lung CancerAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1987