TY - JOUR
T1 - Randomized study of CODE versus alternating CAV/EP for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer
T2 - An intergroup study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Southwest Oncology Group
AU - Murray, Nevin
AU - Livingston, Robert B.
AU - Shepherd, Frances A.
AU - James, Keith
AU - Zee, Benny
AU - Langleben, A.
AU - Kraut, Michael
AU - Bearden, James
AU - Wendall Goodwin, J.
AU - Grafton, Clive
AU - Turrisi, Andrew
AU - Walde, David
AU - Croft, Herbert
AU - Osoba, David
AU - Ottaway, Jon
AU - Gandara, David
PY - 1999/8
Y1 - 1999/8
N2 - Purpose: To determine whether an intensive weekly chemotherapy regimen plus thoracic irradiation is superior to standard chemotherapy in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ESCLC). Patients and Methods: Patients with ESCLC were considered eligible for the study if they were younger than 68 years, had a performance status of 0 to 2, and were free of brain metastases. Patients were randomized to receive cisplatin, vincristine, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CODE) or alternating cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine/etoposide and cisplatin (CAV/EP). Consolidative thoracic irradiation and prophylactic cranial irradiation were given to patients responding to CODE and according to investigator discretion on the CAV/EP arm. Results: The fidelity of drug delivery on both drug regimens was equal, and more than 70% of all patients received the intended protocol chemotherapy. Although rates of neutropenic fever were similar, nine (8.2%) of 110 patients on the CODE arm died during chemotherapy, whereas one (0.9%) of 109 patients died on the CAV/EP arm. Response rates after chemotherapy were higher (P = .006) with CODE (87%) than with CAV/EP (70%). However, progression-free survival (median of 0.66 years on both arms) and overall survival (median, 0.98 years for CODE and 0.91 years for CAV/EP) were not statistically different. Conclusion: The CODE regimen increased two-fold the received dose-intensity of four of the most active drugs in small-cell lung cancer compared with the standard CAV/EP regimen while maintaining an approximately equal total dose. Despite supportive care (but not routine prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor), there was excessive toxic mortality with the CODE regimen. The response rate with CODE was higher than that of CAV/EP, but progression-free and overall survival were not significantly improved. In view of increased toxicity and similar efficacy, the CODE chemotherapy regimen is not recommended for treatment of ESCLC.
AB - Purpose: To determine whether an intensive weekly chemotherapy regimen plus thoracic irradiation is superior to standard chemotherapy in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ESCLC). Patients and Methods: Patients with ESCLC were considered eligible for the study if they were younger than 68 years, had a performance status of 0 to 2, and were free of brain metastases. Patients were randomized to receive cisplatin, vincristine, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CODE) or alternating cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine/etoposide and cisplatin (CAV/EP). Consolidative thoracic irradiation and prophylactic cranial irradiation were given to patients responding to CODE and according to investigator discretion on the CAV/EP arm. Results: The fidelity of drug delivery on both drug regimens was equal, and more than 70% of all patients received the intended protocol chemotherapy. Although rates of neutropenic fever were similar, nine (8.2%) of 110 patients on the CODE arm died during chemotherapy, whereas one (0.9%) of 109 patients died on the CAV/EP arm. Response rates after chemotherapy were higher (P = .006) with CODE (87%) than with CAV/EP (70%). However, progression-free survival (median of 0.66 years on both arms) and overall survival (median, 0.98 years for CODE and 0.91 years for CAV/EP) were not statistically different. Conclusion: The CODE regimen increased two-fold the received dose-intensity of four of the most active drugs in small-cell lung cancer compared with the standard CAV/EP regimen while maintaining an approximately equal total dose. Despite supportive care (but not routine prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor), there was excessive toxic mortality with the CODE regimen. The response rate with CODE was higher than that of CAV/EP, but progression-free and overall survival were not significantly improved. In view of increased toxicity and similar efficacy, the CODE chemotherapy regimen is not recommended for treatment of ESCLC.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032793437&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032793437&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/jco.1999.17.8.2300
DO - 10.1200/jco.1999.17.8.2300
M3 - Article
C2 - 10561291
AN - SCOPUS:0032793437
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 17
SP - 2300
EP - 2308
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 8
ER -