Abstract
Little progress has been made in the treatment of small cell lung cancer over the past two decades. Superiority of combined irinotecan–cisplatin over standard etoposide–cisplatin in a Japanese phase III trial was not confirmed in two subsequent US studies. In this Practice Point we discuss a randomized, phase III trial by Hermes and colleagues, which included 220 patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer and showed superiority of carboplatin–irinotecan versus carboplatin–oral etoposide. In this trial, 47% of patients had a performance status ≥3 and 35% were older than 70 years, which represents a typical clinical practice population of patients; however, oral administration of etoposide and an arbitrary dose reduction in elderly and unfit patients represent limitations of the study. A European trial of irinotecan–carboplatin versus intravenous etoposide–carboplatin has completed accrual and results will be analyzed in 2009. Although the results of the study by Hermes et al. are of interest, substitution of etoposide by irinotecan can not be recommended.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Slotman B et al. (2007) Prophylactic cranial irradiation in extensive small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 357: 664–672
Noda K et al. (2002) Irinotecan plus cisplatin compared with etoposide plus cisplatin for extensive small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 346: 85–91
Hanna N et al. (2006) Randomized phase III trial comparing irinotecan/cisplatin with etoposide/cisplatin in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 24: 2038–2043
Natale R et al. (2008) A randomized phase III trial of irinotecan/cisplatin (IP) with etoposide/cisplatin (EP) in patients (pts) with previously untreated extensive stage small cell lung cancer (E-SCLC) [abstract]. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 26: 7512
Beutler E et al. (1998) Racial variability in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1 (UGT1A1) promoter: a balanced polymorphism for regulation of bilirubin metabolism? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 8170–8174
Schmittel A et al. (2006) A randomized phase II trial of irinotecan plus carboplatin versus etoposide plus carboplatin treatment in patients with extended disease small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 17: 663–667
Hermes A et al. (2008) Irinotecan plus carboplatin versus oral etoposide plus carboplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 26: 4261–4267
Skarlos DV et al. (1994) Randomized comparison of etoposide–cisplatin vs. etoposide–carboplatin and irradiation in small-cell lung cancer. A Hellenic Co-operative Oncology Group study. Ann Oncol 5: 601–607
Souhami RL et al. (1997) Five-day oral etoposide treatment for advanced small-cell lung cancer: randomized comparison with intravenous chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 577–580
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schmittel, A., Keilholz, U. Should irinotecan or etoposide be used in combination with carboplatin for small cell lung cancer?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6, 134–135 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1324
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1324
This article is cited by
-
Irinotecan plus carboplatin in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer
Medical Oncology (2011)