Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Oncol. Jun 24, 2022; 13(6): 429-447
Published online Jun 24, 2022. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v13.i6.429
Published online Jun 24, 2022. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v13.i6.429
Ref. | Study type & time period. LoE | Inclusion criteria | Number of patients | Neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatments | PCI | Survival data |
Jin et al[9], 2018 | RS; SEER 2004-2013; 3A | cI-II | n = 2129; S: 387; RT 1032; S + RT: 154; No S or RT: 556 | - | 5-yr OS T1N0: 46.0% S vs 23.8% RT; 5-yr OS T2N0: 42.6% S vs 24.7% RT; T3N0 or T1-2N1 (stage IIB) patients treated with S did not have higher 5-yr OS rates than those treated with RT | |
Yang et al[10], 2018 | RS; NCDB 2003-2011; Propensity score match S + AC vs CRT; 3A | cT1-2N0M0 | S + AC: 501; CRT: 501 | S + AC: 501 | - | 5-yr OS: 47.6% S + AC vs 29.8% CRT (P < 0.01) |
Ahmed et al[11], 2017 | RS; SEER 2007-2013; 3A | Stage I SCLC | n = 1902; S: 427; S + RT: 115 | - | - | MST: 50 mo (S); MST: 60 + mo (S + RT) |
Wakeam et al[12], 2017 | RS; NCDB 2004-2013; 3A | cT1-2N0M0 | n = 5079 | - | MST: 25.3 mo | |
Wakeam et al[13], 2017 | RS; NCDB 2004-2013; Stage-specific propensity score match S vs NST; 3A | cI-III | n = 2619 | No AD treatment 24% NC or NR 4%; AC 27%; AR 1%; ACR 32%; NC or NR and AC or AR 2%; Other 10% | - | MST cI 38.6 vs 22.9 mo S vs NST; MST cII 23.4 vs 20.7 mo S vs NST; MST cIIIA 21.7 vs 16.0 mo S vs NST |
Combs et al[14], 2015 | RS; NCDB 1998-2011; 3A | cT1-3N0-2 SCLC | n = 2476; S 841 cIA, 168 cIB | All; S: 68% | - | 5-yr OS: 54% (cIA); 36% (cIB) |
Ogawa et al[15], 2012 | RS; Institutional 1995-2008; 4 | cI-III; pI-III SCLC | n = 28 (23 SCLC before S); S 21 cI, 5 cII, 7 cIII2 | NC 8; AC 19, ACR 2 | - | 5-yr OS 47% |
Ju et al[16], 2012 | RS; Institutional 1990-2009; 4 | pI-III | n = 34 | NC 3; AC 1, AR 19, 10 CRT | - | 5-yr OS 66% |
Vallières et al[6], 2009 | RS; IASLC 1990-2000; 3A | Resected SCLC | n = 349 (68 pIA, 91 pIB) | - | - | 5-yr OS: 53% (pIA); 44% (pIB) |
Lim et al[17], 2008 | RS; Institutional 1980-2007; 4 | cI-cIIIB | n = 59 | AC 13; AR 2; ACR 1 | - | 5-yr OS for all patients 52%; No difference in 5-yr survival across; cT and cN categories; No difference in 5-yr survival across; cI to cIII stages |
Wang et al[18], 2007 | RS; Institutional; 4 | pI-III | n = 122 | QT & CRT (not specified) | - | MST 50 mo; 5-yr OS 66% |
Veronesi et al[19], 2007 | RS; Institutional; 4 | cI-IIIA | n = 23 | AC all | - | MST 24 mo |
Tsuchiya et al[20], 2005 | Prospective phase II trial; 1991-1996; 2B | cI-IIIA | n = 62 | AC 42 (69%) | - | MST not reached in pI; MST 449 d for pII; MST 712 d for pIIIA; 3-yr OS 61%; 3-yr survival rate cI, cII, cIIIA 68%, 56% and 13% respectively |
Brock et al[21], 2005 | RS; Institutional 1976-2002; 4 | Resected SCLC | n = 82 (24 stage I, S + AC) | AC 55% | 23% | 5-yr OS: 86% (platinum AC); 42% (non-platinum AC) |
Nakamura et al[22], 2004 | RS; Institutional; 4 | cI-III SCLC | n = 69 | S 37, NC 32, AC 41, ACR 7 | - | 5-yr survival 48.9 % cI, 33.3 % cII, 20.2 % cIIIA, 0 % cIIIB |
Badzio et al[23], 2004 | Comparative RS; Institutional 1984-1996; 4 | cI-III balanced in both, S and NST groups | n = 134 | S 67 (all AC); NST 67 (all QT) | 34% only S group | MST 22 mo (S); MST 11 mo (NST); 5-yr OS S 27%, NST 4% |
Lewiński et al[24], 2001 | R; Institutional 1976-2002; 4 | cI-IIIA SCLC | n = 75 | NC all | If CR to NC | MST N0+1 25 mo; MST N2 14 mo; MST resected 18 mo; 5-yr OS resected 29% |
Cataldo et al[25], 2000 | RS; Institutional 1982-1992; 4 | cI-III SCLC | n = 60 | AC 88%; pII AR (11%); pIII AR (21%) | 41% | 5-yr survival rate 40% pI, 36% pII and 15% pIII |
Inoue et al[26], 2000 | RS; Institutional 1975-1994; 4 | Resected SCLC | n = 91 (32 cIA, 30 cIB) | All 78% | 5.5% | MST 53 mo, 5-yr OS 49% (cIA); MST 25 mo, 5-yr OS 47% (cIB) |
Kobayashi et al[27], 2000 | RS; Institutional 1982-1992; 4 | cI-III SCLC | n = 59 | NC 71% | - | 5-yr survival rate 55% pI, 33% pII, 23% pIII |
Eberhardt et al[28], 1999 | Prospective phase II trial; Institutional 1991-1995; 2B | cIB-cIIIB | n = 46 | IB/IIA had NC + S; IIB/IIIA had NCR + S | - | MST all patients 36 mo; MST R0 patients 68 mo; 5-yr survival rate all patients 46%; 5-yr survival rate R0 patients 63% |
Ref. | Sample size | Fractionation | QT | Prophylactic cranial irradiation | Local control | Overall survival | Disease-free survival |
Videtic et al[76], 2013 | n = 6 | 60 Gy (3 fx); 50 Gy (5 fx); 30 Gy (1 fx) | 4/6 | 4/6 | 100% (1 yr) | 63% (1 yr) | 75% (1 yr) |
Shioyama et al[77], 2015 | n = 64 | 48 Gy (4 fx) | 36/64 | 10/64 | 89% (2 yr) | 76% (2 yr) | |
Stahl et al[79], 2017 | n = 285 | 48-60 Gy (3-5 fx) | 130/285 | 35% (3 yr). 21.5% (5 yr) | |||
Verma et al[75], 2017 | n = 74 | 50 Gy (5 fx) | 45/74 | 17/74 | 96% (3 yr) | ||
Shioyama et al[78], 2018 | n = 43 | 36-60 Gy (3-10 fx) | 8/43 | 8/43 | 80.2% (2 yr) | 72.3% (2 yr) | 44.6% (2 yr) |
Verma et al[74], 2019 | n = 149 | 45-60 Gy (3-8 fx) | 149/149 | 83.8% (29.2 mo) | |||
Newman et al[81], 2019 | n = 239 | BED > 100 Gy (max 8 fx) | 84/239 | 27% (5 yr); 36% (5 yr, with QT) | |||
Singh et al[80], 2019 | n = 21 | BED 105.6 Gy (3-5 fx) | 4/21 | 100% (1, 2, 3 yr) | 73.1% (1 yr); 36.6% (2 yr) | 85.7% (1 yr); 42.9% (2 yr) |
Study | n | Design | Treatment | RR | PFS | OS |
NCT01450761 | 1132 | Phase III; Randomized, double-blind; Drug: Ipilimumab | Arm A: PE × 4C + ipilimumab × 4C; Control: PE × 4C + placebo × 4C | PR 62% vs 62%; SD 26% vs 27%; PD 6% vs 9% | 4.6 vs 4.4 mo; HR = 0.85, P = 0.0161 | 11.0 vs 10.9 mo; HR = 0.94, P = 0.3775 |
Impower 133 | 403 | Phase III. Randomized, double-blind; Drug: Atezolizumab | Arm A: PE + atezolizumab × 4C/atezolizumab; Control: PE + placebo × 4C/placebo | 60% vs 64% | 5.2 vs 4.3 mo; HR = 0.77, P = 0.02 | 12.3 vs 10.3 mo; HR = 0.70, P = 0.007 |
CASPIAN | 805 | Phase III. Randomized, open-label; Drug: Durvalumab | Arm B (n = 268): Durvalumab + PE × 4C/durvalumab; Control: PE × 4C | 68% vs 58% | 5.1 vs 5.4 mo; HR = 0.78, P not tested | 13.0 vs 10.3 mo; HR = 0.73, P = 0.0047 |
CASPIAN | 805 | Phase III. Randomized, open-label; Drug: Durvalumab + tremelimumab | Arm A (n = 268): Durvalumab + tremelimumab + PE × 4C/durvalumab + tremelimumab. Control: PE × 4C | 58% both arms | 4.9 vs 5.4 mo; HR = 0.84 | 10.4 vs 10.5 mo; HR = 0.82, P = 0.045 |
KEYNOTE 604 | 453 | Phase III; Randomized, double-blind; Drug: Pembrolizumab | Arm A: Pembrolizumab + PE; Control: | 71% vs 62% | 4.5 vs 4.3 mo; HR = 0.75, P = 0.0023 | 10.8 vs 9.7 mo; HR = 0.80, P = 0.0164 |
ECOG-ACRIN | 160 | Phase I. Randomized, open-label; Drug: Nivolumab | Arm A: PE + nivolumab × 4C/nivolumab; Control: PE × 4C | 52.29% vs 47.71% | 5.5 vs 4.6 mo; HR = 0.65, P = 0.012 | 11.3 vs 8.5 mo; HR = 0.67, P = 0.038 |
- Citation: Pangua C, Rogado J, Serrano-Montero G, Belda-Sanchís J, Álvarez Rodríguez B, Torrado L, Rodríguez De Dios N, Mielgo-Rubio X, Trujillo JC, Couñago F. New perspectives in the management of small cell lung cancer. World J Clin Oncol 2022; 13(6): 429-447
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-4333/full/v13/i6/429.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v13.i6.429