Randomized, phase II study of topotecan/paclitaxel versus cisplatin/etoposide in patients with untreated, extensive disease, small cell lung cancer (SCLC)

Léna, H.; Breton, Jean Luc; Yu, Wenbin; Steppert, K.; Lightcap, K.; Ross, Graham; Lymboura, Margarita

doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(01)80709-7

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Lena at al. [16] reported on a randomized phase II comparison of paclitaxel plus topotecan in 76 patients versus the standard of cisplatin plus etoposide in 75 patients. The overall response rate favored the cisplatin-etoposide regimen (52% versus 41%) but was not significantly different between the two treatments; however, the TTP was significantly longer (p = .005) for cisplatin plus etoposide (25 weeks versus 18 weeks).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paclitaxel/Carboplatin/Etoposide Versus Paclitaxel/Topotecan for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network Randomized, Prospective Phase II Trial

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results. The paclitaxel-carboplatin-etoposide combination produced a significantly higher overall response rate (78% versus 48%), longer median time to progression (7.6 months versus 5.5 months), and greater number of patients free from progression at 1 year (14% versus 8%) compared with paclitaxel plus topotecan. There was no difference in overall survival. Toxicities were similar in the two treatment arms.Conclusions. The paclitaxel-carboplatin-etoposide combination produced a superior overall response rate and time to progression in patients with extensivestage small cell lung cancer compared with paclitaxel plus topotecan. The platinum compounds continue to be a necessary component of the initial therapy for these patients. The Oncologist 2005;10:728-733

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%