A randomised phase 2b study comparing the efficacy and safety of belotecan vs. topotecan as monotherapy for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer

Background This study compared the efficacy/safety of the camptothecin analogues belotecan and topotecan for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Methods One-hundred-and-sixty-four patients were randomised (1:1) to receive five consecutive daily intravenous infusions of topotecan (1.5 m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of cancer 2021-02, Vol.124 (4), p.713-720
Hauptverfasser: Kang, Jin-Hyoung, Lee, Ki-Hyeong, Kim, Dong-Wan, Kim, Sang-We, Kim, Hye Ryun, Kim, Joo-Hang, Choi, Jin-Hyuk, An, Ho Jung, Kim, Jin-Soo, Jang, Joung-Soon, Kim, Bong-Seog, Kim, Heung Tae
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background This study compared the efficacy/safety of the camptothecin analogues belotecan and topotecan for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Methods One-hundred-and-sixty-four patients were randomised (1:1) to receive five consecutive daily intravenous infusions of topotecan (1.5 mg/m 2 ) or belotecan (0.5 mg/m 2 ), every 3 weeks, for six cycles. Main outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tolerability and toxicity. The study statistical plan was non-inferiority design with ORR as the endpoint. Results In the belotecan vs. topotecan groups, ORR (primary endpoint) was 33% vs. 21% ( p  = 0.09) and DCR was 85% vs. 70% ( p  = 0.030). PFS was not different between groups. Median OS was significantly longer with belotecan than with topotecan (13.2 vs. 8.2 months, HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48–0.99), particularly in patients aged
ISSN:0007-0920
1532-1827
DOI:10.1038/s41416-020-01055-5