Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is usually classified using the limited and extensive definition. The tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) classification should also be applicable to SCLC, but it has only been reported in small surgical series. The current analysis looks to the impact of the TNM system on the clinical staging of SCLC and of the new International Association for the study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) proposals.
METHODS: Using the IASLC database, survival analyses were performed for clinically staged patients. Prognostic groups were compared, and the new IASLC TNM proposals were applied to this population and to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.
RESULTS: The IASLC database contained 12,620 eligible cases of small cell histology. TNM staging was available for 8088 patients. Survival was directly correlated to both T and N category. Differences were more pronounced in patients without mediastinal or supraclavicular nodal involvement. Stage grouping using the sixth edition of TNM also differentiates survival except between IA and IB. Patients with pleural effusion regardless of the cytology have an intermediate prognosis between limited and extensive disease. The IASLC proposals for the seventh edition of the TNM classification also apply to this series of SCLC and to the SEER database.
CONCLUSION: TNM staging is recommended for SCLC, and stratification by stage I-III should be incorporated in clinical trials of early-stage disease. Further studies are needed to clarify the impact of pleural effusion and the extent of N3 disease.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Irinotecan hydrochloride, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, is effective against small-cell lung cancer. In a phase 2 study of irinotecan plus cisplatin in patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer, there was a high response rate and a promising median survival time.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study in which we compared irinotecan plus cisplatin with etoposide plus cisplatin in patients with extensive (metastatic) small-cell lung cancer.
RESULTS: The planned size of the study population was 230 patients, but enrollment was terminated early because an interim analysis found a statistically significant difference in survival between the patients assigned to receive irinotecan and cisplatin and those assigned to receive etoposide and cisplatin; as a result, only 154 patients were enrolled. The median survival was 12.8 months in the irinotecan-plus-cisplatin group and 9.4 months in the etoposide-plus-cisplatin group (P=0.002 by the unadjusted log-rank test). At two years, the proportion of patients surviving was 19.5 percent in the irinotecan-plus-cisplatin group and 5.2 percent in the etoposide-plus-cisplatin group. Severe or life-threatening myelosuppression was more frequent in the etoposide-plus-cisplatin group than in the irinotecan-plus-cisplatin group, and severe or life-threatening diarrhea was more frequent in the irinotecan-plus-cisplatin group than in the etoposide-plus-cisplatin group.
CONCLUSIONS: Irinotecan plus cisplatin is an effective treatment for metastatic small-cell lung cancer.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Irinotecan hydrochloride, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, is effective against small-cell lung cancer. In a phase 2 study of irinotecan plus cisplatin in patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer, there was a high response rate and a promising median survival time.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study in which we compared irinotecan plus cisplatin with etoposide plus cisplatin in patients with extensive (metastatic) small-cell lung cancer.
RESULTS: The planned size of the study population was 230 patients, but enrollment was terminated early because an interim analysis found a statistically significant difference in survival between the patients assigned to receive irinotecan and cisplatin and those assigned to receive etoposide and cisplatin; as a result, only 154 patients were enrolled. The median survival was 12.8 months in the irinotecan-plus-cisplatin group and 9.4 months in the etoposide-plus-cisplatin group (P=0.002 by the unadjusted log-rank test). At two years, the proportion of patients surviving was 19.5 percent in the irinotecan-plus-cisplatin group and 5.2 percent in the etoposide-plus-cisplatin group. Severe or life-threatening myelosuppression was more frequent in the etoposide-plus-cisplatin group than in the irinotecan-plus-cisplatin group, and severe or life-threatening diarrhea was more frequent in the irinotecan-plus-cisplatin group than in the etoposide-plus-cisplatin group.
CONCLUSIONS: Irinotecan plus cisplatin is an effective treatment for metastatic small-cell lung cancer.

Abstract/Text: We compared the efficacy and the safety of a carboplatin plus etoposide regimen (CE) vs split doses of cisplatin plus etoposide (SPE) in elderly or poor-risk patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Eligibility criteria included: untreated ED-SCLC; age >/=70 and performance status 0-2, or age <70 and PS 3. The CE arm received carboplatin area under the curve of five intravenously (IV) on day 1 and etoposide 80 mg m(-2) IV on days 1-3. The SPE arm received cisplatin 25 mg m(-2) IV on days 1-3 and etoposide 80 mg m(-2) IV on days 1-3. Both regimens were given with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support in a 21-28 day cycle for four courses. A total of 220 patients were randomised. Median age was 74 years and 74% had a PS of 0 or 1. Major grade 3-4 toxicities were (%CE/%SPE): leucopenia 54/51, neutropenia 95/90, thrombocytopenia 56/16, infection 7/6. There was no significant difference (CE/SPE) in the response rate (73/73%) and overall survival (median 10.6/9.9 mo; P=0.54). Palliation scores were very similar between the arms. Although the SPE regimen is still considered to be the standard treatment in elderly or poor-risk patients with ED-SCLC, the CE regimen can be an alternative for this population considering the risk-benefit balance.

Abstract/Text: We compared the efficacy and the safety of a carboplatin plus etoposide regimen (CE) vs split doses of cisplatin plus etoposide (SPE) in elderly or poor-risk patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Eligibility criteria included: untreated ED-SCLC; age >/=70 and performance status 0-2, or age <70 and PS 3. The CE arm received carboplatin area under the curve of five intravenously (IV) on day 1 and etoposide 80 mg m(-2) IV on days 1-3. The SPE arm received cisplatin 25 mg m(-2) IV on days 1-3 and etoposide 80 mg m(-2) IV on days 1-3. Both regimens were given with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support in a 21-28 day cycle for four courses. A total of 220 patients were randomised. Median age was 74 years and 74% had a PS of 0 or 1. Major grade 3-4 toxicities were (%CE/%SPE): leucopenia 54/51, neutropenia 95/90, thrombocytopenia 56/16, infection 7/6. There was no significant difference (CE/SPE) in the response rate (73/73%) and overall survival (median 10.6/9.9 mo; P=0.54). Palliation scores were very similar between the arms. Although the SPE regimen is still considered to be the standard treatment in elderly or poor-risk patients with ED-SCLC, the CE regimen can be an alternative for this population considering the risk-benefit balance.