Treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with or without etoposide: A randomized trial of the north central cancer treatment group

James R. Jett, Lloyd Everson, Terry M Therneau, James E. Krook, Robert J. Dalton, Robert F. Marschke, Michael H. Veeder, S. Fred Brunk, James A. Mailliard, Donald I. Twito, John D. Earle, Richard T. Anderson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this randomized study involving patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCC), we compared treatment with either cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) or CAV plus etoposide (CAVE). All patients received identical thoracic radiation consisting of 3,750 cGy in 15 fractions and prophylactic cranial radiation (3,000 cGy in 10 fractions). Among 231 evaluable patients, the two treatment arms were well matched with respect to sex, age, performance score, and presence or absence of heart disease. A major regression (REGR) was observed in 83% of all patients and a complete response (CR) in 60%. There was no difference in the response rate between the two treatment regimens. The median time to progression is 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 12 months) for CAVE versus 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 10.4 months) for CAV (P = .04). The median survival is 15.1 months (95% CI, 11.7 to 17.8 months) for CAVE versus 12.4 months (95% CI, 11 to 14.4 months) for CAV. This difference is not significantly different (P = .13). Toxicity was primarily myelosuppression and was significantly greater for the four-drug regimen. Fatal treatment-related toxicity was observed in two patients on the CAVE regimen and no treatment-related deaths were observed on the CAV treatment. In conclusion, the addition of etoposide to the CAV regimen resulted in increased toxicity but did not lead to a meaningful improvement in survival.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)33-38
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume8
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1990

Fingerprint

Small Cell Lung Carcinoma
Vincristine
Etoposide
Doxorubicin
Cyclophosphamide
Confidence Intervals
Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Radiation
Survival
Heart Diseases
Thorax
Pharmaceutical Preparations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with or without etoposide : A randomized trial of the north central cancer treatment group. / Jett, James R.; Everson, Lloyd; Therneau, Terry M; Krook, James E.; Dalton, Robert J.; Marschke, Robert F.; Veeder, Michael H.; Brunk, S. Fred; Mailliard, James A.; Twito, Donald I.; Earle, John D.; Anderson, Richard T.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1990, p. 33-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jett, JR, Everson, L, Therneau, TM, Krook, JE, Dalton, RJ, Marschke, RF, Veeder, MH, Brunk, SF, Mailliard, JA, Twito, DI, Earle, JD & Anderson, RT 1990, 'Treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with or without etoposide: A randomized trial of the north central cancer treatment group', Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 33-38.
Jett, James R. ; Everson, Lloyd ; Therneau, Terry M ; Krook, James E. ; Dalton, Robert J. ; Marschke, Robert F. ; Veeder, Michael H. ; Brunk, S. Fred ; Mailliard, James A. ; Twito, Donald I. ; Earle, John D. ; Anderson, Richard T. / Treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with or without etoposide : A randomized trial of the north central cancer treatment group. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1990 ; Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 33-38.
@article{5f27a455a1244822b4a7aa87020962f1,
title = "Treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with or without etoposide: A randomized trial of the north central cancer treatment group",
abstract = "In this randomized study involving patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCC), we compared treatment with either cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) or CAV plus etoposide (CAVE). All patients received identical thoracic radiation consisting of 3,750 cGy in 15 fractions and prophylactic cranial radiation (3,000 cGy in 10 fractions). Among 231 evaluable patients, the two treatment arms were well matched with respect to sex, age, performance score, and presence or absence of heart disease. A major regression (REGR) was observed in 83{\%} of all patients and a complete response (CR) in 60{\%}. There was no difference in the response rate between the two treatment regimens. The median time to progression is 10.4 months (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 12 months) for CAVE versus 8.9 months (95{\%} CI, 7.9 to 10.4 months) for CAV (P = .04). The median survival is 15.1 months (95{\%} CI, 11.7 to 17.8 months) for CAVE versus 12.4 months (95{\%} CI, 11 to 14.4 months) for CAV. This difference is not significantly different (P = .13). Toxicity was primarily myelosuppression and was significantly greater for the four-drug regimen. Fatal treatment-related toxicity was observed in two patients on the CAVE regimen and no treatment-related deaths were observed on the CAV treatment. In conclusion, the addition of etoposide to the CAV regimen resulted in increased toxicity but did not lead to a meaningful improvement in survival.",
author = "Jett, {James R.} and Lloyd Everson and Therneau, {Terry M} and Krook, {James E.} and Dalton, {Robert J.} and Marschke, {Robert F.} and Veeder, {Michael H.} and Brunk, {S. Fred} and Mailliard, {James A.} and Twito, {Donald I.} and Earle, {John D.} and Anderson, {Richard T.}",
year = "1990",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "33--38",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with or without etoposide

T2 - A randomized trial of the north central cancer treatment group

AU - Jett, James R.

AU - Everson, Lloyd

AU - Therneau, Terry M

AU - Krook, James E.

AU - Dalton, Robert J.

AU - Marschke, Robert F.

AU - Veeder, Michael H.

AU - Brunk, S. Fred

AU - Mailliard, James A.

AU - Twito, Donald I.

AU - Earle, John D.

AU - Anderson, Richard T.

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - In this randomized study involving patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCC), we compared treatment with either cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) or CAV plus etoposide (CAVE). All patients received identical thoracic radiation consisting of 3,750 cGy in 15 fractions and prophylactic cranial radiation (3,000 cGy in 10 fractions). Among 231 evaluable patients, the two treatment arms were well matched with respect to sex, age, performance score, and presence or absence of heart disease. A major regression (REGR) was observed in 83% of all patients and a complete response (CR) in 60%. There was no difference in the response rate between the two treatment regimens. The median time to progression is 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 12 months) for CAVE versus 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 10.4 months) for CAV (P = .04). The median survival is 15.1 months (95% CI, 11.7 to 17.8 months) for CAVE versus 12.4 months (95% CI, 11 to 14.4 months) for CAV. This difference is not significantly different (P = .13). Toxicity was primarily myelosuppression and was significantly greater for the four-drug regimen. Fatal treatment-related toxicity was observed in two patients on the CAVE regimen and no treatment-related deaths were observed on the CAV treatment. In conclusion, the addition of etoposide to the CAV regimen resulted in increased toxicity but did not lead to a meaningful improvement in survival.

AB - In this randomized study involving patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCC), we compared treatment with either cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) or CAV plus etoposide (CAVE). All patients received identical thoracic radiation consisting of 3,750 cGy in 15 fractions and prophylactic cranial radiation (3,000 cGy in 10 fractions). Among 231 evaluable patients, the two treatment arms were well matched with respect to sex, age, performance score, and presence or absence of heart disease. A major regression (REGR) was observed in 83% of all patients and a complete response (CR) in 60%. There was no difference in the response rate between the two treatment regimens. The median time to progression is 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 12 months) for CAVE versus 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 10.4 months) for CAV (P = .04). The median survival is 15.1 months (95% CI, 11.7 to 17.8 months) for CAVE versus 12.4 months (95% CI, 11 to 14.4 months) for CAV. This difference is not significantly different (P = .13). Toxicity was primarily myelosuppression and was significantly greater for the four-drug regimen. Fatal treatment-related toxicity was observed in two patients on the CAVE regimen and no treatment-related deaths were observed on the CAV treatment. In conclusion, the addition of etoposide to the CAV regimen resulted in increased toxicity but did not lead to a meaningful improvement in survival.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025141733&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025141733&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2153193

AN - SCOPUS:0025141733

VL - 8

SP - 33

EP - 38

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 1

ER -