Search

Recent advancements in treating extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) have been significantly marked by incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to modest yet notable improvements in patient outcomes, which become more evident with longer follow-up. However, critical challenges persist, such as identifying effective biomarkers for accurate patient selection or finding more effective drugs. This review delves into the current and evolving treatment landscape for ES-SCLC, focusing on the most promising therapeutic strategies under investigation. We discuss the latest developments in the use of newer ICIs, antiangiogenic agents, PARP inhibitors (PARPi), lurbinectedin, and anti-DLL3 agents, offering insights into potential future directions in the management of this aggressive cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Stephen Liu reports grants or contracts from Alkermes, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Elevation Oncology, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Merus, Pfizer, Rain Therapeutics, RAPT, Turning Point Therapeutics;. consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Elevation Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Guardant Health, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Merck/Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point Therapeutics; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board for Candel Therapeutics. Raffaele Califano reports grants paid to institution from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Lilly Oncology, MSD, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, Novartis, consulting fees received from AstraZeneca, Boeringher Ingelheim, Lilly Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, MSD, BMS, Takeda, Janssen, Bayer, Novartis, and holds stock or stock options of The Christie Private Care. Igor Gomez-Randulfe, Rita Leporati and Brinda Gupta declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Therapeutic options for patients with relapsed SCLC are limited, and the prognosis in this setting remains poor. While clinical outcomes for frontline treatment have modestly improved with the introduction of immunotherapy, treatment in the second-line setting persists almost unchanged. In this review, current treatment options and recent advances in molecular biology are described. Emerging therapeutic options in this setting, and potential strategies to improve clinical outcomes of these patients are also addressed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest AA reports research grants from Celgene, BMS, Ipsen, Roche; honoraria for advisory board participation from BMS, MSD, ROCHE, AstraZeneca, Eli-Lilly. LB received research funding from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals; served as an advisor/consultant for Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, BeiGene, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Genentech. RC reports honoraria, consulting or advisory role from AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Bayer, Sanofi, Pharmamar, Lilly Oncology, Janssen, Amgen and Novartis. LM, BZ and GL declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The current standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The prognosis remains poor due to the aggressiveness and high risk of progression or relapse of SCLC even if an initial response is achieved. Therefore, there is an urgent unmet clinical need in this population. The multicenter, phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind KEYLYNK-013 study evaluates the addition of pembrolizumab to CCRT followed by pembrolizumab with or without olaparib in participants with previously untreated limited-stage SCLC. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04624204)., Methods: Eligible participants aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed, limited-stage (ie, stage I-III) SCLC will be randomized 1:1:1 to CCRT (ie, etoposide plus carboplatin or cisplatin for 4 cycles and standard thoracic radiotherapy) plus pembrolizumab (Groups A and B) or CCRT plus placebo (Group C). In the absence of disease progression, participants will receive pembrolizumab plus placebo (Group A), pembrolizumab plus olaparib (Group B), or placebo (Group C). Dual primary endpoints are progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival., Results: Enrollment began in December 2020 and is ongoing at approximately 150 sites., Conclusions: KEYLYNK-013 will provide valuable information on the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus CCRT and pembrolizumab with or without olaparib post CCRT in participants with limited-stage SCLC., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported., Patients and Methods: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m 2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted., Results: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status., Conclusion: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive and rapidly growing disease with poor prognosis. Despite intense efforts to improve clinical outcomes, platinum/etoposide chemotherapy has remained the most effective regimen for first-line extensive disease SCLC for decades. The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and specifically programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors, to standard platinum/etoposide, significantly improves survival and represents a promising advance in this field. However, identification of a predictive biomarker to refine patient selection is an area of unmet need. Further understanding of tumour immunity and mechanism of resistance is required to design novel strategies that improve survival. In this review, we describe recent developments and future directions on first-line immune checkpoint blockade for extensive disease-SCLC., Competing Interests: Disclosure LP-A has received honoraria for consultancy and advisory board from Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Novartis, Celgene, Sysmex, Amgen, Incyte, Genomica and ltum Sequencing (founding partner and member of the board), RC has received honoraria for consultancy, speaker's bureau and advisory board from Roche, BMS, MSD and Astrazeneca/Medimmune. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Brain metastases (BM) are common in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). In recent years, the role of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases in lung cancer is being reevaluated, especially in the context of new systemic treatments available for SCLC. With this analysis, we investigate decision-making in SCLC patients with BM among European experts in medical oncology and radiation oncology., Methods: We analyzed decision-making from 13 medical oncologists (selected by IASLC) and 13 radiation oncologists (selected by ESTRO) specialized in SCLC. Management strategies of individual experts were converted into decision trees and analyzed for consensus., Results and Conclusion: In asymptomatic patients, chemotherapy alone is the most commonly recommended first line treatment. In asymptomatic patients with limited volume of brain metastases, a higher preference for chemotherapy without WBRT among medical oncologists compared to radiation oncologists was observed. For symptomatic patients, WBRT followed by chemotherapy was recommended most commonly. For limited extent of BM in symptomatic patients, some experts chose stereotactic radiotherapy as an alternative to WBRT. Significant variation in clinical decision-making was observed among European SCLC experts for the first line treatment of patients with SCLC and BM., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: Stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with short survival and progression after first-line systemic therapy frequently occurs within months. Although topotecan is approved for second-line treatment, its efficacy is limited, and treatment heterogeneity exists., Material and Methods: The decision-making patterns for second line treatment of 13 European medical oncologists with expertise in SCLC were analyzed., Results: The two criteria most relevant to decision-making were the performance status and the interval of recurrence since first-line treatment. With an interval of less than 3 months since the end of first-line chemotherapy, 62 % of the experts recommended cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine (CAV) for fit patients and 54 % recommended topotecan for unfit patients. For an interval of more than 6 months, a clear consensus for a re-challenge with a platinum doublet was achieved (92 %). However, there was no consensus on the second-line therapy with an interval of 3-6 months since the end of first-line therapy., Conclusion: Real world practice may differ from recommendations in general guidelines and cannot always be directly derived from trial results as other factor such as habits, patient's preference, convenience or costs have to be factored in., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MF reports advisor fees (paid to institution) from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda and institutional research grants from BMS and AstraZeneca CP: none MR reports honoraria for lectures and consultancy from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZenece, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung. FB: none RC reports honoraria and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Lilly Oncology, Roche, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda and Novartis; institutional grands for conduct of clinical trials or contracted research from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Lilly Oncology, MSD, BMS, Abbvie, Takeda and Novartis; stock ownership of The Christie Private Care. FC reports consultation and participation in advisory boards and lectures for Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS, Takeda, Lilly, MSD, Bayer. BB reports institutional grants from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Inivata, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, OSE immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma, Tolero Pharmaceuticals. PG reports speaker and/or advisory fees for Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Gilead, Rovi, Abbvie, Lilly, Takeda, Sysmex, Blueprint Medicines, and Bayer. EF reports personal fees from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Blue Print Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Jannsen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Samsung, Takeda, Touchtime, GSK, Bayer; grants from Grant for Oncology Innovation (GOI), Fundacion Merck Salud, outside the submitted work; and Grifols: Independent Member of the Board. MOB reports advisory board work for MSD, BMS, BI and Pierre Fabre. LP-A is a board member of Genomica and Altum Sequencing, and has received honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Pharmamar, Novartis, Celgene, Sysmex, Amgen, Blueprint and Incyte; and travel, accommodations or expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, AstraZeneca Spain, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Pfizer. FdM reports fees as consultant/advisor role for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Genentech, Pfizer and MSD VW reports personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees and other from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Takeda, other from Pfizer, personal fees and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work. DDR reports outside of this project advisor fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck/Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seattle genetics; institutional research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Philips, Olink. PMP reports speaker fees from Janssen and institutional educational grants from AstraZeneca and Celgene., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Despite the highly immunogenic potential of small cell lung cancer (SCLC), progress in evaluating the therapeutic value of immune checkpoint agents has lagged behind that of non-small cell lung cancer. Results from a number of phase I-III clinical trials that specifically address the use of anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 agents in SCLC have now been reported. This review will focus on the available evidence for immune checkpoint blockade in SCLC and review current biomarker strategies with the aim of providing perspective and interpretation of this data for clinical practice., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of consolidative thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) in stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is not uniformly accepted., Methods: We obtained a list of 13 European medical oncologists from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) and 13 European radiation oncologists from the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO). The strategies in decision making for TRT in stage IV SCLC were collected. Decision trees were created representing these strategies. Frequencies of recommending TRT were analysed for various parameter combinations based on the objective consensus methodology., Results: The factors associated with the recommendation for TRT included fitness of the patient, limited extrathoracic tumour burden, initial bulky thoracic disease and response to chemotherapy. The highest consensus for TRT was in fit patients with limited extrathoracic tumour burden and initial bulky disease with either a complete extrathoracic response or partial thoracic response (92% recommend TRT). For these patients the recommendations were the same for medical and radiation oncologists. In the setting of partial response (intra- and extra-thoracically) without initial bulky thoracic disease radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend TRT than medical oncologists. For unfit patients or for patients with poor overall response to chemotherapy, the majority did not recommend TRT., Conclusion: European radiation and medical oncologists specializing in lung cancer recommend TRT in selected patients with stage IV SCLC and restrict its use primarily to fit patients who responded to chemotherapy with limited extrathoracic tumour burden., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Due to conflicting results between major trials the role of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is controversial., Methods: We obtained a list of 13 European experts from both the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). The strategies in decision making for PCI in stage IV SCLC were collected. Decision trees were created representing these strategies. Analysis of consensus was performed with the objective consensus methodology., Results: The factors associated with the recommendation for the use of PCI included the fitness of the patient, young age and good response to chemotherapy. PCI was recommended by the majority of experts for non-elderly fit patients who had at least a partial response (PR) to chemotherapy (for complete remission (CR) 85% of radiation oncologists and 69% of medical oncologists, for PR: 85% of radiation oncologists and 54% of medical oncologists). For patients with stable disease after chemotherapy, PCI was recommended by 6 out of 13 (46%) radiation oncologists and only 3 out of 13 medical oncologists (23%). For elderly fit patients with CR, a majority recommended PCI (62%) and no consensus was reached for patients with PR., Conclusion: European radiation and medical oncologists specializing in lung cancer recommend PCI in selected patients and restrict its use primarily to fit, non-elderly patients who responded to chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a very aggressive disease characterized by a high response rate to first-line chemotherapy, but most patients relapse within 1 year with disappointing results to second-line treatments. Chemotherapy has reached a plateau of effectiveness and new therapeutic strategies are needed to change the natural history of SCLC. Areas covered: This review will focus on the current results and the future development of the therapeutic approaches for the treatment of SCLC. Expert commentary: Immunotherapy is becoming a new frontier for the management of SCLC with preliminary interesting results. To date, no targeted drugs have been approved for clinical practice but several novel agents are in an advanced stage of clinical development in SCLC.

Introduction or Background: Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents ~15% of all cases of lung cancer and is characterized by a rapid tumour doubling time, early onset disease dissemination and high sensitivity to chemotherapy., Sources of Data: We searched MEDLINE and OVID databases for articles in English published from January 1980 to February 2015., Areas of Agreement: Platinum-based chemotherapy, thoracic radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation are standard of care. Benefit from second-line chemotherapy is limited., Areas of Controversy: The role of platinum/irinotecan chemotherapy in the Western population and the role of maintenance therapies remain to be established., Growing Points: Knowledge of the biology of SCLC has expanded exponentially and many potential therapeutic targets have been identified., Areas Timely for Developing Research: The use of circulating tumour cells can help investigating molecular alterations occurring within tumour cells, understanding drug resistance mechanisms and evaluating new treatments., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Unlabelled: Small-cell lung cancer has a high chemotherapeutic sensitivity but with disappointing outcome results. Patients with “sensitive disease” are those who respond to treatment with a long relapse-free interval (RFI): in these cases rechallenge with first-line chemotherapy might represent a therapeutic opportunity. Our largest retrospective experience confirmed that rechallenge is feasible with interesting outcome results; there are no statistical differences between RFI and outcome., Introduction: Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) that progresses after first-line (FL) chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and second-line (SL) chemotherapy has limited efficacy. Patients whose disease relapses/progresses > 90 days after FL platinum-based treatment are considered platinum-sensitive and could be rechallenged with a similar regimen. We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis to evaluate outcomes of SCLC patients rechallenged with platinum/etoposide., Patients and Methods: Records of all SCLC patients treated in 7 institutions between January 2007 and December 2011 were reviewed. The primary end point was overall survival from the time of rechallenge (OS-R); secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival from the time of diagnosis (OS-D). Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Of the 2000 SCLC patients identified, 112 (5.6%) had sensitive disease treated with rechallenge platinum/etoposide; 65% were men with a median age of 64 years. At the time of diagnosis, 44% of patients had limited disease, 82% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. A median of 4 cycles of rechallenge was administered. Tumor response was 3% for complete response and 42% for partial response, 19% of patients maintained stable disease, 27% progressive disease, and 9% were not evaluable. Median PFS from the time of rechallenge was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-6.3). Median OS-R and OS-D were 7.9 months (95% CI, 6.9-9.7) and 21.4 months (95% CI, 19.8-24.1), respectively. Subgroup analysis according to relapse-free interval (90-119 vs. 120-149 vs. > 150 days) did not show any statistically significant difference in PFS or OS-R., Conclusion: The outcome for SL chemotherapy for SCLC is poor. Rechallenge platinum/etoposide is a reasonable option with potentially better outcomes than standard chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Reliable pathologic sampling methods are pivotal in the management of lung cancer patients who have undergone either curative intent or palliative treatment previously. Early diagnosis of localized disease recurrence may facilitate further curative treatment and rebiopsy at the point of disease progression during palliative treatment can inform further management. This study assessed the performance of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) lymph node sampling in a cohort of such patients., Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of EBUS-TBNA procedures at the University Hospital of South Manchester from August 2010 to August 2013. All patients with previously treated lung cancer and suspected nodal metastases (defined as nodal enlargement on CT>10 mm in the short axis or abnormal FDG avidity on PET-CT) were included., Results: The sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA, on a per patient and per lymph node basis, was 91.4% and 91.8%, respectively (CI, 80.8%-96.5%). The corresponding NPV was 87.5% and 89.7%, respectively (CI, 76.4%-95.9%). There were no major complications and 3 (5.4%) minor complications. From the malignant EBUS-TBNA samples, the NSCLC-NOS rate was 3.2% and adequate tissue for molecular testing was provided in 100% of the cases (16/16)., Conclusions: EBUS-TBNA is a safe and highly effective diagnostic procedure in suspected nodal metastases after previous treatment for lung cancer. The sensitivity and NPV are equivalent to EBUS-TBNA in the diagnosis of "new" lung cancer.

Introduction: Small-cell lung cancer is an aggressive disease for which the mainstay of treatment is chemotherapy. Despite good initial responses most patients will relapse. Some will receive second-line therapy with clinical benefit, but for third-line chemotherapy there is little evidence to guide treatment decisions and the benefits of treatment are unknown. This study investigated the treatment of SCLC in the third-line setting., Patients and Methods: An international, multicenter retrospective analysis of patients who received at least 3 lines of chemotherapy for their SCLC was performed., Results: From 2000 to 2010, 120 patients were identified from 5 centers: median age 61, 40% (n = 72) limited stage, and 79% (n = 95) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Only 22% of these patients received 3 distinct lines of chemotherapy. The remainder were rechallenged with a chemotherapy regimen used at least once previously. Six percent received platinum-based chemotherapy in all 3 lines. In third-line, response rate was 18% and median overall survival was 4.7 months. Factors associated with longer survival included normal baseline LDH levels and response to second-line chemotherapy. On multivariate analysis only normal baseline LDH retained statistical significance. Thirty-five patients went on to receive chemotherapy beyond the third line., Conclusion: Few SCLC patients receive 3 chemotherapy lines. Most patients were rechallenged with a similar regimen at least once. Response and survival in the third-line setting are modest. Lack of response to second-line chemotherapy and elevated baseline LDH level might predict lack of benefit from third-line treatment. This data set does not include patients receiving fewer lines for comparison., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Omitting elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in limited-stage disease small cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC) is expected to result in smaller radiation fields. We report on data from a randomised phase II trial that omitted ENI in patients receiving concurrent chemo-radiotherapy for LD-SCLC. 38 patients with LD-SCLC were randomised to receive once-daily (66 Gy in 33 fractions) or twice-daily (45 Gy in 30 fractions) radiotherapy (RT). 3D-conformal RT was given concurrently with cisplatin and etoposide starting with the second cycle of a total of four cycles. The gross tumour volume was defined as primary tumour with involved lymph nodes (nodes ≥1 cm in short axis) identifiable with CT imaging. ENI was not used. Six recurrence patterns were identified: recurrence within planning target volume (PTV) only, recurrence within PTV+regional nodal recurrence and/or distant recurrence, isolated nodal recurrence outside PTV, nodal recurrence outside PTV+distant recurrence, distant metastases only and no recurrence. At median follow-up 16.9 months, 31/38 patients were evaluable and 14/31 patients had relapsed. There were no isolated nodal recurrences. Eight patients relapsed with intra-thoracic disease: 2 within PTV only, 4 within PTV and distantly and 2 with nodal recurrence outside PTV plus distant metastases. Rates of grade 3+ acute oesophagitis and pneumonitis in the 31 evaluable patients were 23 and 3% respectively. In our study of LD-SCLC, omitting ENI based on CT imaging was not associated with a high risk of isolated nodal recurrence, although further prospective studies are needed to confirm this. Routine ENI omission will be further evaluated prospectively in the ongoing phase III CONVERT trial (NCT00433563)., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents approximately 13% of all lung cancer diagnoses and the incidence has reduced over the last 20 years. Treatment of SCLC remains challenging because of its rapid growth, early dissemination and development of drug resistance during the course of the disease. Chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for limited (LD) and extensive disease (ED), with concurrent chemotherapy and radical thoracic radiotherapy representing the best treatment option for fit patients with LD. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the treatment of choice in fit patients with good organ function, and the radiosensitizing effect of cisplatin is critically important for concurrent chemoradiotherapy in LD. Anthracycline-containing regimens represent a viable alternative for patients where platinum-based chemotherapy is contraindicated. Patients who relapse or progress after first-line chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis. Second-line therapy may produce a modest clinical benefit. Maintenance chemotherapy has not been shown to convincingly improve outcomes for SCLC. A number of targeted agents have been investigated in LD and ED, mostly in unselected populations, with disappointing results. Prophylactic cranial irradiation has been shown to reduce the incidence of brain metastases and prolong survival for both LD and ED without negative impact on quality of life (QOL) and cognitive function. Ongoing trials will shed some light on the impact of thoracic radiotherapy on QOL, symptom control and survival in ED SCLC patients who benefitted from first-line chemotherapy.

There is paucity of data in the literature regarding the safety of combining granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) during chemo-radiotherapy (CTRT) in lung cancer patients. The ASCO 2006 recommendations advise against use of CSFs during concomitant mediastinal CTRT. The only randomised study evaluating CSFs in this context showed significant increase in grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and an excess of pulmonary toxic deaths. In the context of a phase II trial, 38 patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer were randomised to receive once-daily (66 Gy in 33 fractions) or twice-daily (45 Gy in 30 fractions) radiotherapy. Radiotherapy (RT) was given concurrently with cisplatin and etoposide. G-CSF was given as primary or secondary prophylaxis or as a therapeutic measure during an episode of febrile neutropenia according to local protocols. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) v3.0 was used to record toxicity. Thirteen (34%) of 38 patients received G-CSF concurrently with RT. With a median follow-up of 16.9 months, there were no treatment related deaths reported. Seven (54%) patients experienced grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and 5 (38%) experienced grade 3/4 anaemia. Thirty-one percent required platelet transfusions. No episodes of bleeding were observed. There were no cases of grade 3/4 acute pneumonitis. These data suggests that with modern three-dimensional (3D) conformal RT, G-CSF administration concurrently with CTRT does not result in the increase risk of pulmonary toxicity, but does increase the risk of thrombocytopenia. Whether the risks of thrombocytopenia are outweighed by the outcome of timely early concurrent CTRT is being evaluated prospectively in the ongoing phase III CONVERT trial (NCT00433563) in which G-CSF is permitted during thoracic irradiation., (Crown Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) that progress after first-line chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and the evidence of a benefit from second-line (SL) chemotherapy is limited. Patients relapsing or progressing more than 90 days after completion of first-line treatment are considered platinum sensitive and may be rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. Topotecan is approved as SL treatment independent of time to progression. This retrospective analysis evaluates the clinical outcomes of SCLC patients who received SL chemotherapy after platinum-etoposide chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 161 patients who received SL chemotherapy for SCLC. Patients were divided into four subgroups by type of SL treatment: (1) platinum-based rechallenge; (2) anthracycline-based regimens; (3) topotecan; (4) other single agents. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR). Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for multivariate analysis to investigate factors influencing survival., Results: The median age was 63. There were 125 males and 36 females. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) was 0, 1 and 2 in 12.5%, 62.5% and 25% of patients, respectively. Platinum sensitive/platinum resistant/platinum refractory/unknown=121/29/3/8 patients. Median time to SL chemotherapy was 6.9 months. The median PFS from starting second-line treatment was 4.3 months and median OS was 5.8 months. The overall RR was 22.9%. There was a trend toward higher RR (34.5% vs 17.5%, p for trend: 0.06) and OS (9.2 months vs 5.8 months, p=0.08) for patients with sensitive disease who were rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for the time to SL treatment showed that a platinum-containing regimen achieves better RR, PFS and OS independently of the time to SL chemotherapy and that response to first-line treatment and PS at SL are the only independent prognostic factors., Conclusions: The outcome for second-line therapy for SCLC was poor and benefit appeared to be limited to those patients with good PS and rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. Platinum-based rechallenge should be considered as a standard comparator in future randomized controlled trials of SL chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)