Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2008 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 26, No 15S (May 20 Supplement), 2008: 7513
© 2008 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Heigener, D. F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Heigener, D. F.

Abstract

Topotecan/cisplatin (TP) compared to cisplatin/etoposide (PE) for patients with extensive disease-small cell lung cancer (ED- SCLC): Final results of a randomised phase III trial

Krankenhaus Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany; Lungenklinik Hemer, Hemer, Germany; Asklepios Klinik Harburg, Hamburg, Germany; Medical Klinik Innenstadt, Universität Muenchen, Munich, Germany; Klinikum Nuernberg, Nuremberg, Germany; GlaxoSmithKline, Munich, Germany; Klinikum Kassel, Kassel, Germany

7513

Background: This phase III study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TP compared to the standard first- line regimen PE. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with confirmed ED-SCLC and ECOG performance status 2 were randomised to receive topotecan (1mg/m² i.v., d1–5)/cisplatin (75 mg/m² i.v., d5) or etoposide (100mg/m² i.v., d1–3)/cisplatin (75 mg/m² i.v., d1) for a maximum of 6 cycles, q 21 d. Primary objective was to show superiority in OS of TP compared to PE using a two sided log-rank test with a 5% type I error and 80% power. If superiority was not shown, a non-inferiority test was pre-specified (non-inferiority threshold was 10 percentage points relative to the median survival time in the standard arm). Secondary endpoints were 1 year survival rate, objective response rate, time to progression and safety. Results: 795 patients were recruited (358 TP, 345 PE, 92 TE) in 84 centres in Germany and Austria. Baseline characteristics were balanced. Median number of cycles was 6, both for TP and PE. A third study arm topotecan (1mg/m² i.v., d1–5)/etoposide (80–100 mg/m² i.v., d3–5) was abandoned in April 2004 following a recommendation of an IDSMB due to an increased number of treatment related deaths. Haematologic toxicity: TP vs. PE: G3/4 neutropenia (35.7/ 35.8%), Gr 3/4 thrombocytopenia (18.7/4.8%), Gr 3/4 anaemia (11.6/6.7%), febrile neutropenia (2.0/2.7%), sepsis (1.7/1.2%), toxicity related deaths (5.2/2.7%). Transfusions of red-cell units (420/153). Non-haematological toxicity was comparable. Conclusion: Topotecan/cisplatin (TP) is non inferior to cisplatin/etoposide (PE) in OS and is superior in TTP and ORR. TP may be considered as an alternative 1^st line treatment option for patients with ED-SCLC.

Abstract presentation from the 2008 ASCO Annual Meeting