4.4 Article

A Phase II Study of Irinotecan for Patients with Previously Treated Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Journal

ONCOLOGY
Volume 94, Issue 4, Pages 223-232

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000486622

Keywords

Small-cell lung cancer; Irinotecan; Phase II study; Refractory relapse; Sensitive relapse

Categories

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09168] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Chemotherapy with irinotecan plus cisplatin has shown promise in chemo-naive small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients. However, irinotecan treatment for relapsed or refractory SCLC has not been adequately evaluated. This phase II study evaluated the appropriate treatment schedule of irinotecan as a single agent. This study was designed to determine the antitumor activity, toxicity, and survival in previously treated SCLC patients. Methods: Previously treated SCLC patients with at least one platinum-based regimen received irinotecan (100 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks, until disease progression. The assessment of the response rate was the primary endpoint. Results: Thirty patients were enrolled, with an objective response rate of 41.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.5-59.3), and a disease control rate of 69%. Median progression-free and overall survival was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.2-5.4) and 10.4 months (95% CI, 8.1-14), respectively. The grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were neutropenia (36.7%), thrombocytopenia (3.3%), anemia (13.3%), and febrile neutropenia (6.6%). There were no grade 4 nonhematological toxicities. Frequent grade 3 nonhematological toxicities included diarrhea (10%), anorexia (6.6%), and hyponatremia (6.6%). Conclusions: This phase II study showed a high objective response rate and long survival. Irinotecan monotherapy schedule used was well tolerated, and could be an active treatment option for these patients. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available