Randomized comparison of early versus late hyperfractionated thoracic irradiation concurrently with chemotherapy in limited disease small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG).

BACKGROUND: Concurrent platinum etoposide chemotherapy given in combination with hyperfractionated thoracic radiation therapy (HTRT) in limited disease (LD) small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with a high response rate and significant prolongation of survival. Given these results, the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) performed a multicenter randomized phase II study in patients with LD SCLC to evaluate the timing of HTRT (early vs. late) when given concurrently with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To be eligible for the study, patients were required to have histologically or cytologically proven LD SCLC, confined to one hemithorax and/or ipsilateral mediastinal or supraclavicular lymphnodes and absence of pleural effusion or controlateral supraclavicular lymphnode involvement. Moreover, patients had to have a good performance status and adequate haematological, liver and renal function. Patients with LD SCLC were randomized to receive HTRT either concurrently with the first (Group A) or with the fourth (Group B) cycle of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy consisted of carboplatin administered at an AUC of six given as an i.v. 1-hour-infusion immediately followed by etoposide at a dose of 100 mg/m2 i.v. as a two-hour infusion for three consecutive days every three weeks up to a total of six cycles. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was also given to patients achieving a complete response. RESULTS: 42 and 39 patients, were eligible for efficacy evaluation in group A and B respectively. The overall response rate was 76% in group A and 92.5% in group B (P = 0.07) with a complete response rate of 40.5% and 56.5%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 35 months, time to progression was 9.5 months in group A and 10.5 in group B (NS) while overall median survival was 17.5 and 17 months respectively (NS). The 2-year survival was 36% in group A and 29% in group B (NS) and the 3-year survival 22% and 13%, respectively (NS). The distant relapse rate was 38% in group A and 61% in group B (P = 0.046). Severe grade 3 4 anemia was recorded in 19% of group A and 12.5% of group B (NS), while severe leucopenia was recorded in 35.5% and 20.5% (P = 0.09) and neutropenic fever in 5% and 2.5% (NS), respectively. Severe thrombocytopenia did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups being 21.5% and 23%, respectively. Severe grade 2-3 esophageal toxicity was 19% in group A and 23% in group B (NS), while grade 3 lung toxicity was 5% and 7.5% (NS), respectively. No toxicity-related deaths were recorded. CONCLUSION: Concurrent administration of HTRT with carboplatin etoposide is associated with a high response and survival rate. Although a trend for higher response rate was recorded in the group of patients who received late HTRT, the overall median, 2-year and 3-year survival rates did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. The toxicity of this promising therapeutic approach was acceptable. Comparative phase III studies with an adequate number of patients are recommended in order to answer this question.

Weekly alternating non-cross-resistant chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer with a good prognosis: a study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

This trial was conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group to improve the responses and survival in small cell lung cancer with a good prognosis, using a weekly intensive chemotherapy with alternated non-cross-resistant myelosuppressive agents. Patients were classified into two groups; group A consisted of those who received the initial designed regimen (29 patients), and group B consisted of those who received the more intensified regimen that increased by 25% the doses of carboplatin, epirubicin, and ifosfamide, and by 33% the doses of etoposide given on days 1, 2, and 3 with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support. Chemotherapy in group A consisted of carboplatin 150 mg/m2 in 250 ml of 5% dextrose in water as an 1-hour infusion on day 1, etoposide 75 mg/m2 in 250 ml normal saline as an 1-hour infusion on days 1 and 2 alternating with epirubicin 30 mg/m2 intravenous push on day 8, and ifosfamide 2 g/m2 in 500 ml 5% dextrose in water as a 2-hour infusion with mesna protection on day 8. Responding patients with limited disease were also treated with thoracic irradiation. Those who achieved complete response received prophylactic cranial radiotherapy. In group A, the overall response rate was 79.3%, with a 27.6% complete response rate, a median time to progression of 5.71 months, and a median survival of 8.3 months. For patients with limited disease, the response rate was 75%, with a 40% complete response rate, a median time to progression of 5.87 months, and a median survival of 10.98 months. The respective numbers for extensive disease were 89% (only partial responses), 4.82 months, and 5.67 months. The toxicity was mild and manageable. There were no dose reductions or treatment delays. In view of the excellent tolerability and the rather low efficacy of the initial regimen, we decided to administer the more intensified one with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support. In Group B, the overall response rate was 91.8%, with a 45.9% complete response rate, a median time to progression of 7.05 months, and a median survival of 10.16 months. For limited disease, the response rate was 93%, with a 52% complete response rate, a median time to progression of 7.05 months, and a median survival of 10.49 months. The respective numbers for extensive disease were 88% (25% complete response), 6.82 months, and 9.02 months. The toxicity of this more intensified regimen was more severe but acceptable. Myelosuppression was the main toxicity. However, grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization occurred only in 6% of patients. The relative dose intensity was 91%, probably the result of the prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. The differences in response rate, time to progression, and survival were not statistically significant between the two groups. There were statistically significant differences in the response rate (p = 0.019) and survival rate (p = 0.001) between limited disease and extensive disease only in group A. In conclusion, this weekly, alternated regimen, specifically the intensified regimen, appears to be very active and well tolerated in patient who have small cell lung cancer with a good prognosis. However, despite the high efficacy, this study failed to show any survival advantage as compared with that obtained with the standard treatment for small cell lung cancer.