Survival impact of switching to different topoisomerase I or II inhibitors-based regimens (topo-I or topo-II) in extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC): supplemental analysis from JCOG0509.

Authors

null

Shogo Nomura

Center for Research Administration and Support, National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Japan

Shogo Nomura , Shigeki Umemura , Kiyotaka Yoh , Tomohiro Shinozaki , Taro Shibata , Kenichi Nakamura , Miyako Satouchi , Yuichiro Ohe , Haruhiko Fukuda

Organizations

Center for Research Administration and Support, National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Japan, Division of Thoracic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan, Department of Biostatistics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, JCOG Data Center, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan, Japan Clinical Oncology Group Operations Office, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan, Hyogo Cancer Center, Akashi, Japan, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan, Japan Clinical Oncology Group Data Center, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan

Research Funding

Other

Background: The J0509 (phase III study for chemotherapy-naive ED-SCLC) demonstrated amrubicin plus cisplatin (AP) was inferior to irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP). However, median overall survival (OS) of both AP and IP (15 and 17 mo) was more favorable than those of previous trials (9-12 mo), probably because switching to different topo-I or topo-II in the second-line therapy, especially the use of topo-II in IP arm, was frequent. This analysis aimed to investigate whether observed survival benefit of IP arm can be explained by the treatment switching, and how post-protocol chemotherapy affected the result of J0509. Methods: Two analysis sets from J0509 were used: all randomized 283 pts and 250 pts who received post-protocol chemotherapy. One pt without initiation date of second-line therapy was excluded. A rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model was used to estimate “causal survival benefit” that would have been observed if all pts had been followed with the same type of regimen as randomized throughout the follow-up period. Additionally, to assess the survival impact of second-line use of topo-II, OS after initiating second-line therapy (OS2) was analyzed by multivariate Cox models. Results: %treatment switching in IP arm and AP arm was 65.2% (92/141) and 43.7% (62/142). By RPSFT model, estimated OS excluding the effect of the treatment switching was 2.7-fold longer in IP (topo-I) arm than AP (topo-II) arm. This causal survival benefit was stronger than the original report of J0509 (nearly 1.4-fold extension by Cox model), indicating that re-challenging topo-I in IP arm appeared beneficial. The multivariate Cox analysis for OS2 (n = 250) revealed second-line use of topo-II was detrimental (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95%CI, 1.1-2.1). Among sensitive relapsed pts in IP arm, OS2 was favorable in the following order: irinotecan-based regimen > the other topo-I > topo-II. Conclusions: IP remains the standard therapy. Re-challenging topo-I, especially irinotecan-based topo-I, seemed beneficial for IP-sensitive pts. This result should be confirmed in further investigations with large sample size. Clinical trial information: 000000720.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2015 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Lung Cancer—Non-Small Cell Local-Regional/Small Cell/Other Thoracic Cancers

Track

Lung Cancer

Sub Track

Small Cell Lung Cancer

Clinical Trial Registration Number

000000720

Citation

J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 (suppl; abstr 7571)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.7571

Abstract #

7571

Poster Bd #

319

Abstract Disclosures