| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
University Hospital, Parma, Italy
Correspondence: Andrea Ardizzoni, M.D., Medical Oncology, University Hospital, Via Gramsci 14, 43100 Parma, Italy. Telephone: 39-0521-702316; Fax: 39-0521-995448; e-mail: aardizzoni{at}ao.pr.it
Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 hour of AMA PRA category 1 credit at CME.TheOncologist.com
![]()
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Top
Learning Objectives
Abstract
Introduction
Topotecan in Recurrent SCLC
Oral Topotecan
Topotecan in Patients With...
Topotecan-Based Combinations
Conclusion
References
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key Words. Recurrent • Small cell lung cancer • Topoisomerase I • Topotecan
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Given the poor prognosis of patients with SCLC, first-line therapies are typically aggressive [5]. Currently recommended combinations for previously untreated SCLC patients include cisplatin (Platinol®; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Princeton, NJ) and etoposide (Etopophos®; Bristol-Myers Squibb)PE; carboplatin (Paraplatin®; Bristol-Myers Squibb) and etoposideCE; cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (Adriamycin®; Bedford Laboratories; Bedford, OH), and vincristine (Oncovin®; Eli Lilly and Company; Indianapolis, IN)CAV; cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposideCAE; and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and etoposideCAVE. These regimens have been associated with high initial objective response rates (ORRs) of 50%80% [6]. Patients with limited SCLC achieve initial response rates as high as 80%90% with standard first-line chemotherapy. A complete clinical response can be achieved in 50%60% of these patients, and 2-year survival rates for patients with limited SCLC treated with the combination of chemotherapy, thoracic irradiation, and prophylactic cranial irradiation are reportedly as high as 40% [7, 8]. In general, however, 5-year survival rates remain discouraging, ranging from 5%10% [6].
In patients with extensive SCLC, treatment is typically palliative. Despite high tumor response rates to initial chemotherapy, the duration of response is short and overall survival is dismal. Median survival times range from 3443 weeks, with a 2-year survival rate of generally
10% [6, 7, 9]. Virtually no patients are alive at the 5-year mark [7]. Clearly, high tumor response rates in previously untreated patients have not translated into a substantial increase in long-term survival rates, and there remains an urgent need for new regimens in treating extensive SCLC.
The vast majority of patients with SCLC who respond to first-line therapy experience tumor recurrence and die of their disease. In these patients, symptom palliation and quality of life are primary considerations. Chemotherapy in the second-line setting may provide symptom relief; however, many patients with relapsed SCLC have comorbidities, poor performance status (PS) scores, and often are elderly and, as a result, they may be unable to tolerate aggressive combination chemotherapy [10, 11]. In addition, many first-line chemotherapy regimens are associated with cumulative toxicities, including nephrotoxicity, neuropathy, and bone marrow suppression, and may limit the patients ability to tolerate therapy on disease recurrence [12, 13]. Therefore, the cumulative toxicity profile of first-line treatments must also be considered when selecting treatments for managing recurrent disease.
Until recently, there has been no well-established treatment available for patients with recurrent SCLC. In the U.S., CAV and single-agent etoposide have been widely used in clinical practice; however, the use of these treatment options has been based mostly on retrospective data or on data from a few small, nonrandomized studies. The use of a three-drug combination regimen, such as CAV or CAE, in the second-line setting can be limited by toxicities. Indeed, it has been suggested that triplet combination regimens should not be used in patients with recurrent SCLC [14, 15]. Single-agent etoposide can be more convenient than CAV given the availability of an oral formulation; however, the benefits from oral etoposide appear to be limited to patients with chemosensitive disease [16]. Further, second-line chemotherapy often yields poor results because of the emergence of acquired drug resistance.
Within the E.U., there are currently no registered standards of care for the treatment of relapsed SCLC. In the absence of approved regimens, clinical practice has driven the strategies used for the treatment of these patients. Both reinduction and crossover therapy strategies are used, with platinum- and taxane-based regimens being the most common. Treatment of patients with relapsed SCLC who have adequate PS scores is based on the treatment-free interval and recovery from treatment-specific toxicities experienced in the first-line setting [17]. For patients with a treatment-free interval >6 months, most oncologists use a reinduction strategy of platinum plus etoposide. The choice of treatment strategy in patients with treatment-free intervals <6 months is variable. Nonetheless, the gap between clinical practice and registered standards of care remains in the E.U.
Because of the poor prognosis and the importance of symptom palliation in patients with recurrent SCLC, there is a clear need for active agents with better toxicity profiles. Single-agent chemotherapy has been a focus in this setting due to the greater toxicities of combination regimens. Several agentsincluding paclitaxel (Taxol®; Bristol-Myers Squibb), docetaxel, vinorelbine (Navelbine®; GlaxoSmithKline; Philadelphia, PA), gemcitabine (Gemzar®; Eli Lilly and Company), irinotecan (Camptosar®; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; New York, NY), and topotecan (Hycamtin®; GlaxoSmith-Kline)have been investigated. Of these, topotecan has the best-characterized clinical profile in this patient population.
Topotecan is a water-soluble, semisynthetic derivative of camptothecin that has a nonoverlapping toxicity profile with other agents used in the treatment of SCLC. Topotecan has demonstrated antitumor activity in both chemosensitive and chemoresistant SCLC [1822]. Likewise, data from the same trials have demonstrated the tolerability profile of topotecan, which is characterized by manageable, noncumulative myelosuppression and a generally favorable nonhematologic safety profile [1822]. Additionally, topotecan has demonstrated significant symptom palliation in this patient population [2225]. Topotecan is currently approved in approximately 40 countries worldwide (including the U.S. and Switzerland) for the treatment of patients with SCLC who have failed or relapsed after first-line chemotherapy. In the U.S., topotecan is now recognized as a standard treatment for patients with relapsed SCLC. Topotecan is also currently approved in the U.S. and E.U. for patients with metastatic carcinoma of the ovary after failure of first-line or subsequent therapy. Unfortunately, topotecan has not been approved for the treatment of relapsed SCLC within the E.U., despite the significant unmet medical need. The regulatory approval of topotecan for the treatment of recurrent SCLC in some countries has provided an important treatment option for these patients. This review summarizes the evidence supporting the use of single-agent topotecan in patients with recurrent SCLC and explores the potentials of single-agent oral topotecan and novel topotecan-based combinations in these patients.
| TOPOTECAN IN RECURRENT SCLC |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Phase II Trials
The efficacy and safety of topotecan in patients with recurrent SCLC have been demonstrated in several phase II studies (Table 1
). These multicenter trials administered i.v. topotecan at a dose of 1.5 mg/m2 on days 15 of a 21-day cycle (standard regimen). Enrolled patients had PS scores
2 and a mean age of 58 years at baseline. Topotecan was efficacious in both chemosensitive (i.e., relapsed >90 days after first-line chemotherapy) and chemorefractory (i.e., relapsed <90 days after first-line chemotherapy or did not respond) patients. Among chemosensitive patients, the ORR ranged from 14%38%, with stable disease (SD) occurring in 16%31% of patients. Median survival times among all patients in these studies ranged from 2536 weeks. Among chemorefractory patients, the ORR was 2%7%, with 5%40% of patients achieving SD as a best response. The median overall survival time for patients with refractory disease was 1621 weeks [1821].
|
Phase III Trials
Results from the phase II studies were confirmed in a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of topotecan versus CAV conducted in patients with progressive or recurrent, limited or extensive SCLC [22]. Patient demographics and baseline disease characteristics were comparable at the time of randomization. Of the 107 patients treated with topotecan (1.5 mg/m2/day on days 15 of a 21-day cycle), 83% had extensive SCLC and 77% had PS scores
1. Of the 104 patients receiving CAV, 85% had extensive SCLC and 81% had PS scores
1. Patients treated with topotecan achieved an ORR of 24% (26 PRs), compared with an ORR of 18% (1 CR, 18 PRs) in the CAV group. An additional 20% of patients treated with topotecan and 12% of patients treated with CAV had SD as a best response. Other efficacy end points were comparable among the two treatment groups. The median time to progression, duration of response, and overall survival time for patients treated with topotecan were 13 weeks, 14 weeks, and 25 weeks, respectively. Similarly, the median time to progression, duration of response, and overall survival time for patients treated with CAV were 12 weeks, 15 weeks, and 25 weeks, respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 14% in both groups. Despite the greater number of survivors in the topotecan arm, there was no significant difference in the median duration of response or survival between patients treated with topotecan and those treated with CAV [22].
Hematologic toxicities were the predominant toxicity for both treatment arms, with similar proportions of patients experiencing grade 4 neutropenia (70% topotecan versus 72% CAV) and anemia (3% topotecan versus 2% CAV). Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with topotecan (29%) than in those treated with CAV (5%). Hematologic toxicities in patients in both arms were of short duration, and clinically important sequelae of neutropenia did not increase with subsequent courses of therapy in either group. Analyses of neutrophil and platelet nadirs for each course of therapy showed no evidence of cumulative toxicity for patients in the topotecan group. Nonhematologic toxicities were generally mild and were comparable between the two groups. Of note, greater improvements were seen in patients treated with topotecan for symptoms of dyspnea, anorexia, hoarseness, fatigue, and interference with daily living (p < 0.05), and time to worsening of dyspnea and anorexia were longer in topotecan patients (p < 0.05) [22].
In summary, single-agent i.v. topotecan has demonstrated efficacy in patients with relapsed SCLC in large phase II and phase III studies. Single-agent topotecan is at least as effective as CAV, while providing superior symptom palliation in this patient population [22, 26].
Lower-Dose Topotecan
Although the recommended starting dose of topotecan is 1.5 mg/m2 on days 15 of a 21-day cycle, advanced age, extensive pretreatment, prior platinum therapy, prior radiotherapy, and renal impairment are potential risk factors for increased myelosuppression during topotecan therapy [27]. These risk factors can reduce the patients ability to tolerate the standard dose level. Therefore, topotecan therapy in these patients may require dose reduction or treatment delays. Lower-dose topotecan regimens have been evaluated in an attempt to minimize hematologic toxicities and to maintain the efficacy of topotecan in patients at higher risk (Table 2
) [1820, 22, 2832]. In a phase II single-arm, multicenter study of 171 patients treated with topotecan (1.25 mg/m2/day) on days 15 of a 21-day cycle [30, 31], the ORR was 15%, including one CR and 24 PRs. An additional 28% of patients had SD. The median survival time was 22.4 weeks. Grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia were reported in 10%, 5%, and 1% of cycles, respectively. No relevant nonhematologic toxicities were observed. Similarly, Perez-Soler et al. [32] reported on 32 patients with SCLC refractory to etoposide and cisplatin who were treated with topotecan at a dose of 1.25 mg/m2/day for 5 days. Of the 28 evaluable patients, 11% achieved PRs; 7% achieved a minor response, and 17% had SD. The median overall survival time was 20 weeks. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were reported in 70% and 31% of cycles, respectively. There were no grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities. Additionally, pretreatment with platinum did not appear to affect response rates or survival following topotecan treatment. Although these studies were noncomparative, topotecan, at a dose of 1.25 mg/m2/day for 5 days, appears to be associated with a lower incidence of severe hematologic toxicities compared with those seen in historical data for the standard regimen.
|
| ORAL TOPOTECAN |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In an early phase II trial, 106 patients with chemosensitive SCLC were treated with oral topotecan (2.3 mg/m2 on days 15 of a 21-day cycle) or i.v. topotecan (standard dosing regimen). The ORR for patients treated with the oral formulation was 23%, compared with 15% in patients treated with i.v. topotecan. The median survival time for patients treated with oral topotecan was 32.3 weeks, compared with 25.1 weeks for patients treated with i.v. topotecan [23]. Topotecan was generally well tolerated in that study. The incidences of grade 3/4 neutropenia (57% for oral versus 94% for i.v.) and leukopenia (45% versus 74%) were lower in patients who received the oral formulation. The incidences of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and anemia were comparable between the two patient groups. Nonhematologic toxicities were also generally comparable. Results of this randomized, phase II study suggest that oral topotecan has a similar efficacy to that of i.v. topotecan in the treatment of relapsed SCLC and may have a superior hematologic toxicity profile to i.v. topotecan. The recently reported preliminary results from phase III testing of oral versus i.v. topotecan were consistent with the results of the phase II trials of oral topotecan in patients with relapsed SCLC [19, 36]. The apparently superior hematologic toxicity profile suggests that oral topotecan may be a favorable therapeutic modality for patients with poor PS scores and may offer greater ease of use and convenience to patients [26].
| TOPOTECAN IN PATIENTS WITH POOR PS SCORES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
1 versus 17% for PS score = 2). The incidences of grade 3/4 neutropenia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia were comparable between the two patient groups, whereas anemia was more common in the PS score = 2 group (44% versus 30% in the PS score
1 group; p = 0.009). Symptom palliation was generally comparable between the two groups, and improvements in dyspnea, cough, chest pain, anorexia, insomnia, hoarseness, fatigue, interference with daily living, and hemoptysis were consistent with the findings of other studies of topotecan in recurrent SCLC [22]. These data suggest that topotecan is an effective treatment in patients with poor PS scores and can be considered in this patient population who might otherwise not receive chemotherapy. Further studies of topotecan in this patient population are warranted. | TOPOTECAN-BASED COMBINATIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Topotecan-Based Combinations
As shown in Table 3
[4043], topotecan is undergoing clinical testing in doublet and triplet combination regimens. In a patient population with a poor prognosis and potential comorbidities, there is a clear need for noncross-resistant therapeutic options. Its reversible, nonoverlapping nonhematologic toxicities and in vitro antitumor synergy with platinum agents, taxanes, and topoisomerase II inhibitors may make topotecan an ideal candidate for use in combination with other chemotherapy agents [4446].
|
Topotecan and Cisplatin
Cisplatin has shown additive activity with topotecan in preclinical models [47, 48], and the combination was subsequently evaluated in clinical studies. Samantas et al. [41] investigated cisplatin (20 mg/m2) administered i.v. on days 13 and topotecan (0.9 mg/m2) administered i.v. on days 13 of a 21-day cycle for six cycles. Of the 27 patients with recurrent SCLC previously treated with carboplatin or cisplatin and etoposide, the ORR was 22% (2 CRs, 4 PRs) and the median duration of survival was 30.1 weeks. An additional 41% of patients had SD. The combination was generally well tolerated, with grade 3/4 neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia reported in 42%, 32%, 14%, and 18% of patients, respectively. Nonhematologic toxicities were uncommon; grade 3 mucositis was reported in 6% of patients, and grade 3 diarrhea was reported in 4% of patients.
More recently, in a phase II European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial, the activity and toxicity of topotecan in combination with cisplatin as second-line therapy were investigated in patients with refractory or sensitive SCLC [40]. Cisplatin (60 mg/m2) was i.v. administered on day 1 and topotecan (0.75 mg/m2/day) was i.v. administered on days 15 of a 21-day cycle. Approximately 40% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Of the 116 patients enrolled, 68 patients with chemosensitive and 42 patients with refractory disease were evaluable for tumor response. The ORR for chemosensitive patients was 29% (1 CR, 19 PRs), with 37% of patients achieving SD as a best response. Similarly, the combination was active in chemorefractory patients, who achieved an ORR of 24% (10 PRs). The median overall survival times were 27.5 and 26.2 weeks for patients with chemosensitive and chemorefractory disease, respectively. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included leukopenia in 79% of patients, neutropenia in 76%, thrombocytopenia in 70%, and anemia in 39%. Together, these studies suggest that the combination of topotecan and cisplatin is feasible and active. Further investigation of this combination may demonstrate greater efficacy than single-agent topotecan in the second-line setting. Furthermore, topotecan plus cisplatin may also be an option in the first-line treatment of patients with SCLC [49]. In the first-line setting, for topotecan and cisplatin combination regimens, administration of cisplatin on the final day of topotecan therapy for each cycle, instead of on day 1, appeared to decrease the need for dose reductions to manage neutropenia [50, 51], and toxicity may also be sequence dependent in the second-line setting.
Other Topotecan-Based Combinations
Platinum-free regimenssuch as topotecan plus paclitaxel, vincristine, or etoposidemay provide benefits to patients by limiting their exposure to potentially cumulative effects of platinum therapy. Jett et al. [42] recently reported the results of a phase II trial of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group in which patients were administered i.v. topotecan (1.25 mg/m2) on days 13 and i.v. paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. Of the 78 patients enrolled (median age 62 years; PS score
2), 55 were chemosensitive and 23 were chemorefractory. The ORR and median survival duration of chemosensitive patients were 26% and 28 weeks, respectively, compared with 9% and 24.5 weeks in chemorefractory patients. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (84%) and thrombocytopenia (39%); grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities occurred in 51% of patients.
Topotecan has also been investigated in combination with vincristine. Jordan et al. [43] enrolled 18 patients (range 4878 years; PS score
2) who had recurrent disease following first-line treatment with carboplatin and etoposide. Patients were administered i.v. topotecan (1.5 mg/m2) on days 13 and i.v. vincristine (1 mg) on either days 1 and 3 or days 1 and 4 of a 21-day cycle for a median of 3.5 courses per patient. The ORR in 16 evaluable patients was 19% (3 PRs); 44% of patients had SD. The median survival time was 21.5 weeks, with 25% of patients alive at 1 year. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (31%), thrombocytopenia (50%), and anemia (38%).
The sequential administration of topotecan (a topoisomerase I inhibitor) and etoposide (a topoisomerase II inhibitor) can result in synergistic antitumor activity. Preclinical studies in cell lines have indicated a potential collateral sensitivity, with increased tumor growth inhibition to topoisomerase-I inhibitors, such as topotecan, when cells have been previously exposed to topoisomerase-II inhibitors, such as etoposide [52]. Further, in preclinical studies, exposure of tumor cell lines to topotecan resulted in potentiation of the cytotoxicity of subsequent treatment with etoposide across a broad range of drug concentrations [53]. In a phase I study, Aisner et al. [54] suggested that topotecan followed by etoposide plus cisplatin is feasible with G-CSF support. For future phase II studies, a course of topotecan (0.75 mg/m2/day) on days 13 followed by etoposide (70 mg/m2/day) and cisplatin (20 mg/m2/day) on days 810 with G-CSF (5 µg/kg) support was recommended. The activity of this regimen requires further evaluation in phase II studies.
Topotecan-Based Triplets
The use of triplet regimens such as CAV or CAE may be limited by toxicity, particularly myelosuppression [14]. Indeed, triplet regimens are generally not recommended for patients with extensive SCLC, as a number of studies have demonstrated no additional benefit and greater toxicities compared with doublet regimens [14, 15]. The tolerability of topotecan in triplet regimens has been limited to the first-line setting in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin [55], with paclitaxel and cisplatin [56], and with carboplatin and etoposide [57]. These triplet regimens have resulted in overall response rates of approximately 80% in preliminary trials with patient populations of previously untreated patients. (For more discussion on the role of topotecan in the first-line treatment of SCLC, see Stewart et al. [49].) As may be expected, myelosuppression was the dose-limiting toxicity in these regimens. More recently, a phase I trial was conducted to investigate the utility of sequential topotecan, paclitaxel, and etoposide in previously treated patients with solid tumors [58]. It is hoped that sequential administration, different mechanisms of action, and lack of cross-resistance of tumor cells to these agents will lead to greater antitumor efficacy and better tolerability than those observed with three-drug combinations.
| CONCLUSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. Brooksby, B. W. Pogue, S. Jiang, H. Dehghani, S. Srinivasan, C. Kogel, T. D. Tosteson, J. Weaver, S. P. Poplack, and K. D. Paulsen Imaging breast adipose and fibroglandular tissue molecular signatures by using hybrid MRI-guided near-infrared spectral tomography PNAS, June 6, 2006; 103(23): 8828 - 8833. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Dellapasqua, M. Colleoni, R. D. Gelber, and A. Goldhirsch Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1736 - 1750. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| THE ONCOLOGIST | STEM CELLS | CME | ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS |