A Randomized, Multicenter Phase III Study of Lobaplatin/etoposide Versus Cisplatin/etoposide As First-Line Therapy in Patients with Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Circulating Tumor Cells (ctcs) As an Exploratory Biomarker.
Ying Cheng,Yun Fan,Xiaoqing Liu,Yunpeng Liu,Jiwei Liu,Dong Wang,Yan Yu,Shukui Qin,Wei Liu,Cheng Huang,Helong Zhang,Jun Liang,Jianhua Shi,Lijun Sheng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.7595
IF: 45.3
2014-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:7595 Background: Cisplatin plus etoposide (EP) is conventional regimen to treat small cell lung cancer (SCLC), however the toxicities of cisplatin limited its efficacy. Here, we showed the results of a phase III clinical trial using lobaplatin, a third-generation platinum compounds, in combination with etoposide (EL) in comparison to EP for extensive SCLC (ES-SCLC). Methods: A total 234 Chinese patients with newly diagnosed ES-SCLC were randomized into two groups: (1) the EL Group (n=122): 6 cycles of lobaplatin (30 mg/m2/day on day 1) and etoposide (100 mg/m2/day on days 1-3, every 21 days) and (2) EP Group (n=112): 6 cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m2/day on day 1) and etoposide. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included toxicity, QOL and overall survival (OS). Eighty five ES-SCLC patients were tested for circulating tumor cells (CTCs) (CELLSEARCHÒ) prior to treatment, at 2 cycles after therapy and disease progression. Results: For EL and EP group, the median PFS and the disease control rate (DCR) was 5.37 versus 5.99 months (P=0.1638), and 82.64% versus 83.78% (P=0.8618), respectively. In terms of toxicities, the incidence of nephrotoxicity in the EL group was significantly lower than that in the EP group (2.48% vs 11.71%, P=0.0079), as well as incidences of nausea and vomiting (22.31% vs 36.04%, P=0.0292, and 14.05% vs 25.23%, P=0.0453, respectively). At baseline as well as 2 cycles after chemotherapy, the median OS was significantly lower in patients with ≥5 CTCs than those with <5 CTCs (baseline: 23 months vs >26 months, P <0.0028 and 2 cycles: 23 months vs >26 months, P <0.0124). Conclusions: EL regimen is not inferiority to EP regimen in terms of PFS. The tolerance and QOL with EL regimen are better than that with EP regimen. Thus EL regimen provides an alternatively new choice for first-line ES-SCLC treatment in China. The study is the first worldwidely prospective clinical study using CTCs as a biomarker monitoring SCLC therapeutic effects. Clinical trial information: ChiCTR-TRC-10001047.