A Multicenter Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Paclitaxel-Cisplatin-Etoposide (TEP) Versus Cisplatin-Etoposide (EP) as Front - Line Treatment in Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC)
Diana Stripp, MD
OncoLink Assistant Editor
Last Modified: May 22, 2000
Presenter: Dimitrios Mavroudis
Affiliation: The Greek Lung Cancer Cooperative Group
The combination of etoposide (E) and cisplatin
(P) is standard first line treatment for small
cell lung cancer (SLSC). A complete response
(CR) rate of 30-40% is seen in limited stage (LS)
and 10-20% in extensive stage (ES). Paclitaxel
(T) is an active agent in SCLC with 34 % partial
response rate (J Clin Oncol 1995 13:1430).
Previous Phase I (Semin Oncol 1997 Aug; 24 (4
Suppl 12): S12-144-S12-148) and Phase II (J Clin
Oncol 1999 17: 2309) studies have shown that the
combination of Paclitaxel-Cisplatin-Etoposide
(TEP) was active in SCLC. This multicenter Phase
III trial was designed to compare the activity
and toxicity of TEP versus EP in untreated
patients with SCLC.
Materials and Methods:
- Eligibility: Pts with a histologically
confirmed SCLC, age between 18-78, performance
status 0-2, no previous treatment, if CNS
metastasis present ? either stable or s/p
radiation (XRT) and with a life expectancy ³ 3
- Cycles were repeated every 28 days.
- Responding limited stage (LS) pts proceed to
thoracic XRT after completion of chemotherapy and
then prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI)
- The study was stopped prematurely due to
excessive toxicity of TEP regimen.
- 133 chemotherapy-naïve SCLC patients were
randomized to receive either:
- TEP - T 175 mg/m2 IV-3hrs D-1, E 80mg/m2/d IV
D2-4, P 80mg/m2 IV D2, plus prophylactic G-CSF 5
mcg/kg/d SC D5-15 for all patients, or
- EP - E 120mg/m2/d IV D1-3, P 80mg/m2 IV D1,
with G-CSF only for pts developing severe
- 62 pts received TEP and 71 EP with 49/62 and
69/71 evaluable for response/toxicity
- Limited Stage (LS) was present in 29/62 (47%)
pts on TEP and 30/71 (41%) on EP.
- Responses CR +PR: 3(5%) + 28(45%) for TEP and 3
(4%) + 30(42%) for EP (p=0.7).
- Duration of response, median survival and 1-yr
survival were 7 and 10.5 mos and 43% for TEP vs.
6 and 11.5 mos and 45% for EP (p=NS).
- In the subgroup analysis, TEP was more active
than EP in pts with extensive disease (p=0.03)
but without any survival benefit.
- A total of 547 cycles of treatment have been
administered (241 TEP/306 EP) with a median of 4
and 5 cycles/pts respectively.
- Toxicity (WHO) was (TEP/EP): Grade 3
neutropenia 44%/39%, grade 3 thrombocytopenia
18%/6% (p+0.02), grade 3 diarrhea 8%/0 (p=0.01),
grade 3 neurotoxicity 8%/1.4% (p=0.06), grade 3
asthenia 11%/3% (p=0.05), Febrile neutropenia
- There were 8 toxic deaths (4 neutropenic
sepsis, 1 grade 4 diarrhea, 1 CVA, 1 pneumonia
and 1 sudden death) with TEP vs none with EP.
- TEP and EP regimens have comparable activity as
first line treatment in SCLC.
- TEP is significantly more toxic than EP
- Though TEP has similar activity as EP in SCLC
and shows more activity in the LS SCLC, but due to
its toxicity, EP remains the standard treatment
in SCLC due to its better toxicity profile.
I Wish You Knew
How cancer patients have changed my life
Blogs and Web Chats
OncoLink Blogs give our readers a chance to react to and comment on key cancer news topics and provides a forum for OncoLink Experts and readers to share opinions and learn from each other.
Facing a new cancer diagnosis or changing the course of your current treatment? Let our cancer nurses help you through!