Search

Purpose: Approximately 60% of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) develop brain metastases. Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) gives symptomatic improvement in more than 50% of these patients. Because brain metastases are a sign of systemic progression, and chemotherapy was found to be effective as well, it becomes questionable whether WBRT is the only appropriate therapy in this situation., Patients and Methods: In a phase III study, SCLC patients with brain metastases were randomized to receive teniposide with or without WBRT. Teniposide 120 mg/m(2) was given intravenously three times a week, every 3 weeks. WBRT (10 fractions of 3 Gy) had to start within 3 weeks from the start of chemotherapy. Response was measured clinically and by computed tomography of the brain., Results: One hundred twenty eligible patients were randomized. A 57% response rate was seen in the combined-modality arm (95% confidence interval [CI], 43% to 69%), and a 22% response rate was seen in the teniposide-alone arm (95% CI, 12% to 34%) (P<.001). Time to progression in the brain was longer in the combined-modality group (P=.005). Clinical response and response outside the brain were not different. The median survival time was 3.5 months in the combined-modality arm and 3.2 months in the teniposide-alone arm. Overall survival in both groups was not different (P=.087)., Conclusion: Adding WBRT to teniposide results in a much higher response rate of brain metastases and in a longer time to progression of brain metastases than teniposide alone. Survival was poor in both groups and not significantly different.

Purpose: To compare two cisplatin based chemotherapy schedules in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: A total of 332 patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 either in combination with teniposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 3, and 5 (arm A) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 by 3-hour infusion on day 1 (arm B); cycles were repeated every 3 weeks., Results: Fifteen patients were ineligible; patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms: 71% were male, 71% had less than 5% weight loss, 89% had a World Health Organization (WHO) performance status of 0 to 1, 51% had adenocarcinoma, and 61% had stage IV disease. Hematologic toxicity was significantly more severe in arm A (leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia grade 3 or 4: 66% v 19%, 83% v 55%, 36% v 2% in arms A and B, respectively), which resulted in more febrile neutropenia (27% v 3% in arms A and B, respectively), dose reductions, and treatment delays. There were a total of nine toxic deaths, six due to neutropenic sepsis: five in arm A and one in arm B. In contrast, arthralgia/myalgia (grade 2 or 3, 4% v 17%), peripheral neurotoxicity (grade 2 or 3, 6% v 29%), and hypersensitivity reactions (1% v 7%, all grades) were significantly more frequent in arm B. The frequency and severity of other toxicities were comparable between the two arms. Responses were one complete and 44 partial on arm A (28%) and two complete and 61 partial (41%) on arm B (P = .018). There was no significant difference in survival, with median and 1-year survivals 9.9 versus 9.7 months and 41% versus 43%, respectively in arm A and B. Progression-free survival was 4.9 and 5.4 months in arm A and B, respectively. Selected centers participated in a quality-of-life (QoL) assessment, which was performed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and LC-13 administered at baseline and every 6 weeks thereafter. Arm B achieved a better score at week 6 for emotional, cognitive and social functioning, global health status, fatigue, and appetite loss, which was lost at 12 weeks. In conclusion, arm B appears superior to arm A with regard to response rate, side effects, and QoL., Conclusion: Although survival was not improved, arm B offers a better palliation for advanced NSCLC patients than arm A.

Background and Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of WBRT as a single treatment modality in patients with brain metastases of small cell lung cancer., Patients and Methods: The patients had brain metastases of small cell lung cancer without any sign of tumour outside the brain and were treated with 10 x 3.0 Gy WBRT. Response and neurological functions were evaluated after 6, 18 and 36 weeks., Results: Twenty of 22 eligible patients were evaluable for response. In six patients a complete response was seen and in five patients a partial response was seen giving a response rate of 50% (95% CI 28-72%). Response duration was 5.4 months (range 63-260 days) and median survival was 4.7 months (range 14-743 days). In the majority of patients the first site of progression after WBRT was in the central nervous system. Twelve of the patients had stabilization or improvement of the neurological function., Conclusion: WBRT for brain metastases of small cell lung cancer gives a 50% response rate with stabilization or improvement of neurological function. Response duration and survival are short.

This study was undertaken to determine if recombinant interferon-gamma (rIFN-gamma) given every other day as maintenance therapy could prolong the survival of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) who achieved a complete or nearly-complete response to induction therapy. A secondary endpoint was to assess the toxicity of alternate day doses of this treatment. One hundred and seventy seven patients in complete or nearly-complete response following chemotherapy with or without thoracic radiotherapy were studied. Patients were randomised to receive either rIFN-gamma 4 million units (0.2 mg) subcutaneously every other day for 4 months or observation. One hundred and twenty of the 127 registered patients were eligible; 59 patients received IFN and 61 patients without maintenance therapy were followed. Alternate day IFN was reasonably well tolerated by the majority of patients, but in 12% substantial non-haematological toxicity (including flu-like syndrome) occurred. One of 3 patients with pneumonitis died after having received 3.6 mg IFN. The median survival time from the date of randomisation was 8.9 months for the IFN arm and 9.9 months for the observation arm. rIFN-gamma at the dose and schedule used in this study failed to prolong response duration and survival in SCLC patients in complete or nearly-complete response. The toxicity seen with every other day doses of IFN was less than that reported with daily dosing. The hypothesis that this agent may increase the deleterious effects of radiation on normal lung tissue was supported by the development of pneumonitis in 3 cases of whom 1 had a fatal outcome. The results do not warrant further studies with rIFN-gamma on maintaining response in SCLC.

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of alternating or sequential schedules of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE) chemotherapy and irradiation in patients with previously untreated small-cell lung cancer (SCLC)., Materials and Methods: A total of 335 eligible patients were randomized between five courses of CDE chemotherapy followed by thoracic irradiation 50 Gy in 20 daily fractions (S) and the same total dose of chemotherapy and irradiation split into four courses of five daily fractions delivered on days 14 to 21 of the second and subsequent chemotherapy courses (A). Patients had a median age of 61 years (range, 33 to 75); 224 (66%) were male; the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) was 0 or 1 in 311; and 254 had weight loss less than 10%., Results: The overall median survival duration was 15 months, with 62% (95% confidence interval [CI], 57% to 67%) 1-year, 25% (95% CI, 20% to 30%) 2-year, and 14% (95% CI, 10% to 18%) 3-year survival rates. There was no significant difference between the arms. The median survival time was 14 months in A and 15 months in S. One-year survival was 60% in A (95% CI, 53% to 67%) and 64% in S (95% CI, 57% to 71%); 2-year survival was 26% in A (95% CI, 19% to 33%) and 23% in S (95% CI, 16% to 30%); and 3-year survival was 12% in A (95% CI, 6% to 18%) and 15% in S (95% CI, 9% to 21%). World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in 90% of A and 77% of S patients (P < .001) and WHO grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 33% of A and 20% of S patients (P < .001). Rates of other acute and late toxicities were similar in both arms. Hematologic toxicity compromised treatment dose delivery; less than 50% of A patients received greater than 95% of prescribed chemotherapy and 77% their full radiation course, compared with 60% and 93% for arm S (P < .009). Local relapse was the site of first failure in 60% of all patients and 75% of these suffered an in-field relapse; no difference could be seen between the two arms., Conclusion: This trial failed to confirm the superiority of an alternating schedule of delivery. For this combination of chemotherapy and irradiation, hematologic toxicity compromised treatment delivery and could have contributed to the overall result. The poor rates of local control are disappointing and require intensification of the radiation therapy strategy.

Toxicity and response rates are evaluated in a randomized phase II study comparing paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ)/cisplatin with teniposide/cisplatin in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer to decide whether this study should continue as a phase III trial. A response was seen in 26% (10 of 38) of the patients receiving teniposide/cisplatin and in 40% (14 of 35) of those receiving paclitaxel/cisplatin. Overall, evidence of toxicity was more severe in the cisplatin/teniposide group, especially with regard to myelotoxicity. Grade 4 neutropenia was seen in 66% of patients receiving teniposide compared with 29% of those treated with paclitaxel/cisplatin. The study is to continue as a phase III trial, with 150 patients expected to participate in each treatment group.

Alternating chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer has been tested in several studies. Some have shown positive results that have not been confirmed in other studies. In all of the studies, however, the degree of non-cross-resistance in the regimens was questionable. The EORTC Lung Cancer Study Group developed two equipotent regimens: (i) standard (CDE)-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, etoposide; (ii) (VIMP)-vincristine, carboplatin, ifosfamide, mesna, both non-cross-resistance. These two combinations were alternated and compared with the standard chemotherapy regimen in a group of 143 patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. Median survival was 7.6 months in the standard arm and 8.7 in the alternating arm (P = 0.243). Median time to progression was 5.8 and 6.4 months, respectively (P = 0.166). Median response duration was 7.0 and 6.8 months (P = 0.221). The use of two alternating regimens with a proven degree of non-cross-resistance did not result in any improvement in survival in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer.

Purpose: We conducted a randomized trial to investigate the value of the addition of cisplatin to teniposide (VM26) and to investigate the schedule dependence of the topoisomerase II inhibitor VM26, in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients., Patients and Methods: Two hundred twenty-five NSCLC patients were randomized to receive VM26 120 mg/m2 on days 1, 3, and 5 or 360 mg/m2 on day 1 only, either as a single drug or in combination with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Response rates, side effects, and survival were compared according to the 2 x 2 factorial design of this study., Results: The response rate of the two cisplatin-containing arms was superior to that of the two arms that contained VM26 only (22% v 6%, P < .001); progression-free survival and survival times were also longer in the cisplatin-containing arms (median, 4.3 v 2.2 months, P = .003; median 7.2 v 5.9 months, P = .008, respectively). Toxicity was significantly higher in the cisplatin-containing arms; the most frequent side effects were leukopenia, nausea and vomiting, and alopecia. The schedule of VM26 did not significantly influence the response rate, progression-free survival interval, or survival duration. However, the response rate of the 1-day administration was significantly lower than that of the 3-day administration when given as single drugs., Conclusion: The addition of cisplatin to VM26 improves the response rate, progression-free survival interval, and survival duration over VM26 alone, although at the cost of a significant increase in toxicity. Cisplatin should be considered as the basis for combination chemotherapies in advanced NSCLC.

Purpose: Here we report the results of a phase II study of teniposide, one of the most active drugs against small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), in patients with brain metastases., Patients and Methods: Patients with SCLC who presented with brain metastases at diagnosis (n = 11) or during follow-up evaluation after treatment (n = 69) were treated with teniposide at a dose of 150 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 3, and 5 at 3-week intervals in an outpatient setting. Response in the brain was evaluated by brain computed tomography (CT) after two, six, and 12 courses., Results: In 26 of 80 assessable patients, an intracranial response was seen, with a response rate of 33% (95% confidence interval, 22% to 44%). The median response duration was 5.4 months for patients with a complete response (CR) and 4.2 months for patients with a partial response (PR). Patients who required corticosteroids for peritumoral edema had a significantly lower response rate than patients who did not receive corticosteroids. Neurologic function at the start of treatment had a significant influence (neurologic function 1 better than 2, respectively, better than 3 and 4; P < .001), as did the number of cycles of previous chemotherapy (0 better than 1 to 5 cycles, respectively, better than > 5 cycles; P = .043). Grade 3/4 leukocytopenia and thrombocytopenia were seen in 3% and 39%, respectively, of 80 patients. Toxicity-related death was seen in eight patients, seven of whom were previously treated with chemotherapy., Conclusion: Teniposide is active against brain metastases of SCLC. It is a suitable drug for palliation, especially of patients without extensive pretreatment and with a good neurologic function and performance status. Patients previously treated with cranial radiotherapy are also candidates for this therapy. If systemic chemotherapy is considered for tumor progression outside the brain, radiotherapy of brain metastases might be omitted or delayed pending the effect of chemotherapy. The use of corticosteroids in patients with brain metastases treated with chemotherapy might influence the efficacy of the chemotherapy.