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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of cancer 2021-02, Vol.124 (4), p.713-720 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
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 |