Our study found that IP produced less grade 3/4 hematological toxicity but more grade 3/4 diarrhea than EP. The incidence of 3/4 grade neutropenia when using EP as first-line treatment was significantly higher than when using IP (56% in group B versus 29% in group B, P=0.015), and the incidence of 3/4 grade diarrhea was significantly lower when using EP than when using IP (33% in group A versus 16% in group B, P=0.012); 3/4 grade neutropenia occurred significantly more often in patients receiving IP as second-line treatment than in those receiving IP as first-line therapy, whereas the incidence of 3/4 grade hematological and non-hematological toxicity was similar in those receiving EP as first-line or second-line treatment. Although the overall PFS was similar between the two groups, group A showed a slight advantage compared with group B. Therefore, the IP regimen may be an alternative to the EP regimen in first-line treatment of E-SCLC. In terms of side effects, it is suggested that the toxicity of IP as a first-line treatment is less, and that a protocol of IP followed by EP is the preferred sequential program.

In summary, the short-term and long-term effects of these two sequential treatments for E-SCLC is similar, but the toxicity of IP as first-line treatment is less. However, considering adverse events and patient compliance, irinotecan should be used cautiously in patients carrying abnormal UGT1A1 gene polymorphism. But only consider the first-line treatment of E-SCLC IP remains an appropriate choice. Large, randomized, double-blind, prospective studies are still necessary.


Continue Reading

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.


Xiaoguang Xiao, Shujing Wang, Shu Xia, Man Zou, Yang Li, Yao Wei, Qi Mei, Yuan Chen

Department of Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China   


References

1. Govindan R, Page N, Morgensztern D, et al. Changing epidemiology of small-cell lung cancer in the United States over the last 30 years: analysis of the surveillance, epidemiologic, and end results database. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(28):4539–4544.

2. Xiao XG, Chen Y, Wang SJ, et al. Relationship between the SER treatment period and prognosis of patients with small cell lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(15):6415–6419.

3. Kim HG, Lee GW, Kang JH, et al. Combination chemotherapy with irinotecan and cisplatin in elderly patients (≥65 years) with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2008;61(2):220–226.

4. Chen G, Huynh M, Fehrenbacher L, et al. Phase II trial of irinotecan and carboplatin for extensive or relapsed small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;27(9):1401–1404.

5. Ettinger DS. New drugs for chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol. 2001;28(2):27–29.

6. Luo J, Wu FY, Li AW, et al. Comparison of vinorelbine, ifosfamide and cisplatin (NIP) and etoposide and cisplatin (EP) for treatment of advanced combined small cell lung cancer (cSCLC) patients: a retrospective study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(9):4703–4706.

7. Jiang L, Yang KH, Guan QL, et al. Cisplatin plus etoposide versus other platin-based regimens for patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials. Intern Med J. 2012;42(12):1297–1309.

8. Noda K, Nishiwaki Y, Kawahara M, et al. Irinotecan plus cisplatin compared with etoposide plus cisplatin for extensive small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(2):85–91.

9. Hermes A, Bergman B, Bremnes R, et al. Irinotecan plus carboplatin versus oral etoposide plus carboplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(26):4261–4267.

10. Schmittel A, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Sebastian M, et al. A randomized phase II trial of irinotecan plus carboplatin versus etoposide plus carboplatin treatment in patients with extended disease small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(4):663–667.

11. Schmittel A, Sebastian M, Fischer von Weikersthal L, et al. A German multicenter, randomized phase III trial comparing irinotecan-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin as first-line therapy for extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(8):1798–1804.

12. Jiang J, Liang X, Zhou X, et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing irinotecan/platinum with etoposide/platinum in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(6):867–873.

13. Di Paolo A, Bocci G, Polillo M, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic predictive markers of irinotecan activity and toxicity. Curr Drug Metab. 2011;12(10):932–943.

14. Lara PN Jr, Natale R, Crowley J, et al. Phase III trial of irinotecan/cisplatin compared with etoposide/cisplatin in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: clinical and pharmacogenomic results from SWOG S0124. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15):2530–2535.

15. Zatloukal P, Cardenal F, Szczesna A, et al. A multicenter international randomized phase III study comparing cisplatin in combination with irinotecan or etoposide in previously untreated small-cell lung cancer patients with extensive disease. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(9):1810–1816.

16. Kalemkerian GP. Advances pharmacotherapy of small-cell lung cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2014;15(16):2385–2396.

17. Pillai RN, Owonikoko TK. Small cell lung cancer: therapies and targets. Semin Oncol. 2014;41(1):133–142.

18. Ehrlich D, Wang B, Lu W, et al. Intratumoral anti-HuD immunotoxin therapy for small cell lung cancer and neuroblastoma. J Hematol Oncol. 2014;7(1):91.

19. Imai H, Mori K, Wakuda K, et al. Progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and tumor response as surrogate markers for overall survival in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Med. 2015;10(1):61–66.

20. Li M, Wang Z, Guo J, et al. Clinical significance of UGT1A1 gene polymorphisms on irinotecan-based regimens as the treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2014;23(7):1653–1661.

21. Stewart CF, Panetta JC, OShaughnessy MA, et al. UGT1A1 promoter genotype correlates with SN-38 pharmacokinetics but not severe toxicity in patients receiving low-dose irinotecan. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(18):2594–2600.

Source: OncoTargets and Therapy.