[Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT: Background: Extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) is characterized by rapid progression and relapse, despite high initial response rates to chemotherapy. The primary objective of this trial was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of amrubicin and cisplatin (AP) combination therapy compared with the standard first-line regimen of etoposide and cisplatin (EP) for previously untreated ED-SCLC in a Chinese population. When non-inferiority was verified, the objective was switched from non-inferiority to superiority. Methods: From June 2008 to July 2010, 300 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to AP and EP groups. AP-treated patients received cisplatin (60 mg/m2, day 1) and amrubicin (40 mg/m2, days 1-3) once every 21 days. EP-treated patients received cisplatin (80 mg/m2, day 1) and etoposide (100 mg/m2, days 1-3) once every 21 days. Treatment was continued for four to six cycles, except in cases of progressive disease or toxicity, and patient refusal. Results: Median overall survival (OS) for AP vs. EP treatment was 11.8 vs. 10.3 months (p = 0.08), respectively, demonstrating non-inferiority of AP to EP (AP group: 95 % confidence interval for hazard ratio 0.63-1.03 months). Median progression-free survival and overall response rates for AP vs. EP groups were 6.8 vs. 5.7 months (p = 0.35) and 69.8 % vs. 57.3 %, respectively. Drug-related adverse events in both groups were similar, with neutropenia being the most frequent (AP 54.4 %; EP 44.0 %). Leukopenia, pyrexia, and fatigue were more prevalent in the AP group, but all were clinically reversible and manageable. Conclusions: AP therapy demonstrated non-inferiority to EP therapy, prolonging OS for 1.5 months, but this difference was not statistically significant; thus we propose AP as a promising treatment option for ED-SCLC in China. Trial registration: This trial was registered on 10 April 2008 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00660504 ).
[Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT: Background/purpose:
To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of nemonoxacin with levofloxacin in treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in a Phase II clinical trial.
One hundred ninety-two patients with CAP were randomized to receive oral nemonoxacin (500 mg or 750 mg) or levofloxacin (500 mg) once daily for 7-10 days. Clinical and bacteriological responses were determined at the test of cure (TOC) visit in the full analysis set (FAS).
The clinical cure rate of nemonoxacin (500 mg), nemonoxacin (750 mg), and levofloxacin (500 mg) was 93.3%, 87.3%, and 88.5%, respectively, in the FAS (n = 168), and 93.0%, 93.9%, and 88.9%, respectively in the per protocol set (n = 152). At the TOC visit, nemonoxacin at 500 mg and 750 mg was proven to be noninferior to levofloxacin at 500 mg in the FAS in terms of clinical efficacy. The overall bacteriological success rate was 83.3% in both nemonoxacin groups and 80.0% in the levofloxacin 500 mg group in the bacteriological FAS. The comprehensive efficacy rate was comparable among the three groups (87.5% for the nemonoxacin 500 mg group, 93.8% for the nemonoxacin 750 mg group, and 81.3% for the levofloxacin 500 mg group). Most drug-related adverse events were mild and transient, mainly gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, transient neutropenia, and elevated liver enzymes. No drug-related serious adverse events occurred.
Either 500 mg or 750 mg of oral nemonoxacin taken once daily for 7-10 days demonstrated high clinical and bacteriological success rates in Chinese adult patients with CAP. Nemonoxacin at 500 mg once daily for 7-10 days is recommended for future Phase III clinical trials. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01537250.
Article · Dec 2015 · Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi
[Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT: Based on promising efficacy in a single-arm study, a randomized phase II trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of adding rh-endostatin (Endostar) to first-line standard etoposide and carboplatin (EC) chemotherapy for treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.
One hundred forty Chinese patients with pathologically confirmed, extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to EC alone or rh-endostatin + EC for 4-6 cycles, followed by single-agent rh-endostatin until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included overall survival, Objective response rate (ORR), and quality of life.
Median PFS was 6.4 months with rh-endostatin + EC (n = 69) and 5.9 months with EC (n = 69) (hazard ratio 0.8 [95% confidence interval 0.6-1.1]). PFS was significantly higher with rh-endostatin + EC than with EC (hazard ratio 0.4 [0.2-0.9; p = 0.020]) in female. Median overall survival was similar in both groups (12.1 versus 12.4 months, respectively [p = 0.82]). ORR was higher in the rh-endostatin + EC group (75.4%) than in the EC group (66.7%) (p = 0.348). The efficacy of rh-endostatin + EC relative to that of EC was reflected by greater improvements in patient-assessed quality of life scores after 4 and 6 weeks of treatment. There was no difference between each regimen in the incidence of nonhematological or Grade III-IV hematological toxicities.
Addition of rh-endostatin to EC for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer had an acceptable toxicity profile, but did not improve overall survival, PFS, and ORR.
Article · Feb 2015 · Journal of thoracic oncology: official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer
[Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT: Background
The treatment status of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in Mainland China has never been reported; therefore, this study is the first multicenter survey investigating the status of epidemiology and treatment options of SCLC in Mainland China.Methods
Two questionnaires were designed to obtain information in 12 medical centers in five major Chinese cities. The hospital information questionnaire was designed to outline SCLC patients' characteristics and treatment preferences in each medical institution, and the patient information questionnaire collected detailed treatment information of 298 SCLC cases in these hospitals.ResultsSCLC represented 13.7% and 18.3% of all lung cancer patients in 2005 and 2010, respectively. Clinical management of SCLC follows mainstream clinical guidelines in general. The most widely applied first-line treatment mode for limited-stage patients was combined chemoradiotherapy (66.2%), while 77.0% of the extensive-stage patients received chemotherapy alone as initial treatment. Etoposide with cisplatin or carboplatin were the most accepted first-line chemotherapy regimens. The objective response rate was 58.3% after first-line chemotherapy and 23% of the patients who responded well to first-line treatment received prophylactic cranial irradiation. As for second-line chemotherapy, single regimen topotecan or a combined regimen containing topotecan were preferred (53.0%).Conclusions
The treatment options indicated in our study are in accordance with the international clinical guidelines, which is valuable for the improvement of future guidelines, health care standard, and even the better distribution of health care resources in China.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract]ABSTRACT: Activating mutations in EGFR are important markers of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The OPTIMAL study compared efficacy and tolerability of the TKI erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.
We undertook an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 22 centres in China. Patients older than 18 years with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a confirmed activating mutation of EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R point mutation) received either oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects, or up to four cycles of gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a minimisation procedure and were stratified according to EGFR mutation type, histological subtype (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), and smoking status. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed in patients with confirmed disease who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00874419, and has completed enrolment; patients are still in follow-up.
83 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 82 to receive gemcitabine plus carboplatin; 82 in the erlotinib group and 72 in the chemotherapy group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in erlotinib-treated patients than in those on chemotherapy (13.1 [95% CI 10.58-16.53] vs 4.6 [4.21-5.42] months; hazard ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.10-0.26; p<0.0001). Chemotherapy was associated with more grade 3 or 4 toxic effects than was erlotinib (including neutropenia in 30 [42%] of 72 patients and thrombocytopenia in 29 [40%] patients on chemotherapy vs no patients with either event on erlotinib); the most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects with erlotinib were increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [4%] of 83 patients) and skin rash (two [2%] patients). Chemotherapy was also associated with increased treatment-related serious adverse events (ten [14%] of 72 patients [decreased platelet count, n=8; decreased neutrophil count, n=1; hepatic dysfunction, n=1] vs two [2%] of 83 patients [both hepatic dysfunction]).
Compared with standard chemotherapy, erlotinib conferred a significant progression-free survival benefit in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and was associated with more favourable tolerability. These findings suggest that erlotinib is important for first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (China); Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality.
Full-text Article · Aug 2011 · The Lancet Oncology