This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Glisson, B. S. Articles by Hong, W. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Glisson, B. S. Articles by Hong, W. K. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Cisplatin, Etoposide, and Paclitaxel in the Treatment of Patients With Extensive Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma

From the The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and OnCare Texas, Inc, d/b/a Texas Cancer Care, Arlington, TX, and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center–Orlando, Orlando, FL.

Address reprint requests to Bonnie S. Glisson, MD, Box 80, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030; email bglisson{at}mdanderson.org

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
PURPOSE: The combination of cisplatin, etoposide, and paclitaxel was studied in patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer in a phase I component followed by a phase II trial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), characterize toxicity, and estimate response and median survival rates.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients were treated between October 1993 and April 1997. Doses for the initial cohort were cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 1, etoposide 80 mg/m²/d on days 1 to 3, and paclitaxel 130 mg/m² on day 1 over 3 hours. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The MTD was reached in the first six patients. In these six patients and in the next 35 patients, who were entered onto the phase II trial, response and survival were estimated.

RESULTS: At the initial dose level, one of six patients developed febrile neutropenia, and five of six achieved targeted neutropenia (nadir absolute granulocyte count, 100 to 1,000/µL) without any other dose-limiting toxicity, defining this level as the MTD. Grade 4 neutropenia was observed in 88 (47%) of 188 total courses administered at or less than the MTD. Neutropenia was associated with fever in only 17 (9%) of 188 courses, but two patients experienced neutropenic sepsis that was fatal. Nonhematologic toxicity greater than grade 2 was observed in 10 (5%) of 188 total courses, with fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, and nausea/vomiting most common. The overall objective response rate was 90% of 38 assessable patients: six complete responses (16%) and 28 partial responses(74%). Median progression-free and overall survival durations were 31 and 47 weeks, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The combination of cisplatin, etoposide, and paclitaxel produced response and survival rates similar to those of other combinations and was well tolerated.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
SMALL-CELL LUNG cancer (SCLC) represents 20% to 25% of total lung cancer cases diagnosed in the United States, with the number of cases in 1998 estimated at 34,300.¹ Sixty-five percent to 70% of patients with SCLC present with extensive disease, ie, metastasis beyond the ipsilateral lung and regional lymph nodes. Combination chemotherapy forms the cornerstone of treatment for extensive SCLC and significantly improves the quality and duration of survival. However, despite more than two decades of intense investigation with various combination regimens with or without irradiation of multiple sites, survival at 5 years and thus apparent cure remains rare (1% to 5%) in patients who have clinically evident metastatic disease at presentation.^2,3

Paclitaxel has been studied intensively over the past 5 years and has shown promising activity in a diverse array of malignancies. Two phase II trials of paclitaxel in patients with previously untreated small-cell lung cancer produced response rates of 34%⁴ and 41%.⁵ In view of its unique mechanism of action, and in some cases of resistance, paclitaxel is an attractive drug to add to current combinations.

The combination of etoposide and cisplatin has become a common first-line regimen in the treatment of SCLC because it offers both lowered toxicity and at least equal efficacy compared with cyclophosphamide- or doxorubicin-based combinations.^6-8 One randomized trial of patients with extensive SCLC demonstrated no differences in response rate or survival in patients who received etoposide 80 mg/m² intravenously (IV) on days 1 to 3 and cisplatin 80 mg/m² IV on day 1 and those who received a 67% increased dose of both drugs during the first two cycles of chemotherapy. Because the former regimen was very well tolerated, we elected to add paclitaxel to etoposide and cisplatin at those doses. We performed an initial dose-finding phase to define a safe dose of paclitaxel in the regimen and then estimated response and survival in a formal phase II trial.

	PATIENTS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Patients
Eligibility criteria included histologically or cytologically documented SCLC and extensive disease, defined as disease beyond the hemithorax of origin and regional lymph nodes and demonstrated by staging that included chest x-ray, computed tomography of chest, abdomen, and brain, and bone scan. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy were performed only if all other tests were negative for metastasis. Patients with a cytologically positive pleural effusion as the only evidence of extensive disease were eligible, as were patients with clinically silent brain metastasis. Adequate organ function was required, including absolute granulocyte count 1,500/µL, platelet count 100,000/µL, bilirubin level 1.5 mg/dL, creatinine level 1.5 mg/dL, and creatinine clearance 60 mL/min. Patients with serious intercurrent medical illness and those with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (partial pressure of oxygen, 50 and/or partial pressure of carbon dioxide, 50 on room air) were excluded. A performance status of 0 to 2 (Zubrod scale), no previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy, no recent (< 5 years) history of malignancy other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, and ability to provide informed consent were also required. The protocol was approved by the institutional review boards of The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and other participating affiliated institutions. Four of the 41 patients accrued were treated at Harris Methodist Hospital (member of the Texas Community Oncology Network; Fort Worth, TX), and three of the 41 were treated at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center–Orlando (Orlando, FL). The remaining patients were treated at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Therapy
Chemotherapy was repeated every 21 days for a planned total of six cycles. The treatment plan and dose levels are summarized in Table 1. Premedication for paclitaxel consisted of dexamethasone 20 mg orally 14 and 7 hours before treatment and cimetidine 300 mg IV and diphenhydramine 50 mg IV 30 minutes before treatment. Paclitaxel was administered IV over 3 hours. Dose reduction was required for infection, bleeding, nadir platelet count less than 25,000/µL, and grade 2 irreversible or grade 3 reversible nonhematologic toxicity. Irreversible grade 3 and any grade 4 nonmyelosuppressive toxicity required discontinuation of treatment, except in the case of reversible grade 4 nausea/vomiting. Growth factor use was permitted only for treatment of neutropenic fever with pneumonia or other severe infection. Growth factors were not used in subsequent cycles for prophylaxis. Intrapatient dose escalation was permitted in the absence of myelosuppressive toxicity greater than grade 2 and nonmyelosuppressive toxicity greater than grade 1. A complete blood count with differential and platelet counts was obtained weekly and immediately before a new cycle. Serum chemical assays were obtained before each cycle. Recovery of absolute granulocyte count to 1,500/µL and platelet count to 100,000/µL and resolution of nonhematologic toxicity to grade 1 was required before initiation of a new cycle of treatment.

Patients with brain metastasis who developed progressive disease at any time or who did not have a complete or partial response in the brain after three cycles were removed from the study and referred for whole-brain radiotherapy. Patients with a major response in the brain were referred for radiation after they completed six cycles of chemotherapy.

Study Design
Guiding the phase I part of the study were the end points of targeted myelosuppression, defined as nadir absolute granulocyte count of100 to 1,000/µL and nadir platelet count of 25,000 to 100,000/µL, and dose-limiting toxicity, defined as febrile neutropenia, grade 4 thrombocytopenia, or bleeding or other grades 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicity in more than one of three or more than two of six patients in a cohort was deemed above the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). Alternatively, achievement of targeted myelosuppression in fewer than two of three or fewer than four of six patients in a cohort was deemed below the MTD. If two of three patients achieved targeted myelosuppression and one of three patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity in a given cohort, this led to the accrual of three additional patients at that dose level. The dose level was defined as the MTD if targeted myelosuppression was achieved in at least four of six patients, and if two of six patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity. Patients were accrued in cohorts of three beginning at dose level 0, with dose increase and reduction as indicated in subsequent cohorts (Table 1). A minimum of six patients was to be studied at the MTD before proceeding to phase II.

Responses were assessed by chest x-ray before each course and by reimaging all involved sites after three and six courses were completed. Designation of complete or partial response, no change, or progressive disease were based on standard World Health Organization criteria.⁹ Response duration was measured from the first day of documentation of response until the date of disease progression or death if recurrent disease was not evident. Because metastatic disease was not evaluated until completion of three cycles, at least three cycles of treatment were required before a patient's response was deemed assessable. After completing therapy, patients were evaluated every 3 months or more frequently as clinically indicated.

Statistical Methods
Survival was measured from the first day of treatment and estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.¹⁰

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Patients
Between October 1993 and April 1997, 41 patients were entered onto the study. Their characteristics are listed in Table 2. Sex distribution was essentially equal, and the median age was 59 years. Thirty-one patients (75%) had a Zubrod performance status of 0 to 1, and 13 (32%) had only one site of metastasis. Three patients were not assessable for response. One patient received two courses and refused further therapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. One patient was found retrospectively to have limited disease based on magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of an adrenal mass after three courses. This patient was taken off the study to receive thoracic irradiation and continued chemotherapy; he was excluded from the survival analysis. One patient was taken off study on the second day of course 1 after experiencing hypersensitive reactions to both paclitaxel and etoposide. These three patients are included in toxicity assessments but not response analysis. Two patients who died of treatment-related neutropenic sepsis during the first cycle were included in the nonresponding group.

Determination of MTD
Of the first three patients entered at dose level 0, one experienced neutropenic fever and two of three achieved targeted myelosuppression. Three patients were added, and five of the six patients achieved targeted myelosuppression without any additional dose-limiting toxicity. Thus, dose level 0 was defined as the MTD for phase II. Myelosuppressive toxicity in cycle 1 for patients in the phase I segment is summarized in Table 3.

Response
The first six patients who were accrued in phase I were all treated at the MTD and were included in the overall response analysis. A total of 188 cycles was given with a median of six cycles per patient (range, one to eight cycles). Twenty-eight patients (68%) completed the planned six cycles of therapy. Chemotherapy was continued in one patient who achieved a CR after six cycles and received a total of eight cycles and in one patient with partial response who received seven cycles. Chemotherapy was repeated at 21- to 24-day intervals in 65% of courses. Reasons for delay of treatment more than 24 days included delayed recovery of granulocytes (38% of courses), delay after hospitalization for neutropenic fever (23%), fever without neutropenia (10%), persistent mucositis (5%), and personal reasons of the patient (16%). No reason was documented in 10% of courses delayed.

The overall response rate was 90% (34 of 38 patients), with six patients (16%) achieving a complete response, and 28 (74%) achieving a partial response. The 10 patients with a performance status of 2 at presentation had an equivalent response rate of 90% (nine of 10 patients), with one (10%) of 10 achieving a complete response. Of two patients with brain metastases, one had progression in the brain after four cycles and one had treatment-related mortality in the first cycle.

Survival
Seven patients remained alive at the time of analysis, with a median follow-up time of 54 weeks in the survivors. Actuarial estimation of median failure-free and overall survival durations for the entire population was 31 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI]), 24 to 36 weeks) and 47 weeks (95% CI, 38 to 76 weeks), respectively (Figs 1 and 2). The 30 patients with a performance status of 0 to 1, compared with the 10 with a status of 2, experienced a nonsignificant trend to improved overall survival: 59 weeks (95% CI, 38 to 78 weeks) versus 39 weeks (95% CI, 21 to not reached; P = .15). Progression-free survival was identical in these two groups. The 2-year overall survival rate was 10% for the entire group.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 1. Kaplan-Meier estimate of progression-free survival.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival.

Toxicity
Dose escalation/reduction and myelosuppressive toxicity for all courses in the 41 patients (phase I and II combined) are described in Table 4. Of 16 patients who required dose reduction less than the MTD at any point, 14 were reduced to dose level 1 and maintained at that level. Only two patients required eventual reduction to dose level 2. Notably, 70% of the total courses delivered were at or greater than the MTD. As expected, neutropenia and anemia were most common; however, febrile neutropenia was uncommon, occurring in only 9% of total courses, despite grade 4 neutropenia in 47% of courses. Two episodes of fatal sepsis syndrome were observed, both in the first cycle. Nonhematologic toxicity is summarized in Table 5. Fatigue was most common, followed by gastrointestinal toxicity. Neuropathy was uncommon.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Paclitaxel added to the base regimen of etoposide and cisplatin was feasible and reasonably well tolerated. Predictably, the major toxicity was grade 4 neutropenia, which occurred in nearly half of the courses. However, neutropenic fever was uncommon. Despite this, two patients died from neutropenic sepsis. The combination was associated with a high response rate and survival similar to other combinations for extensive SCLC.

The MTD we defined in this study for paclitaxel (130 mg/m² over 3 hours) is only 52% of the dose used in the phase II trials documenting the single-agent activity of paclitaxel in SCLC (250 mg/m² over 24 hours).^4,5 One might argue that the paclitaxel dose we used in the combination regimen was not "optimal" and that higher doses (with growth factor support) would have resulted in improved efficacy. There are no randomized trials in SCLC that directly address this question; there are only suggestive data from sequential cohorts in a phase II trial reported by Hainsworth et al¹¹ (see below). Randomized trials with paclitaxel as a single agent in recurrent ovarian cancer and in combination with cisplatin in recurrent squamous cancer of the head and neck have not shown a dose response or survival benefit for higher doses.^12,13 Furthermore, other drugs such as etoposide are frequently administered in combination regimens for SCLC at less than 50% of the single-agent MTD (eg, 80 mg/m² IV on days 1 to 3 v 100 mg/m² IV on days 1 to 5), and one trial has shown no response or survival benefit for a 67% dose escalation above this level in patients with extensive disease.⁷ Clearly, a randomized trial would be required to define a dose response for paclitaxel as a single agent or in combination for SCLC. Certainly, a dose response for paclitaxel in the combination we used will be difficult to demonstrate given the 90% overall response rate we observed with a relatively low dose.

Other investigators have reported on the use of regimens similar to ours in SCLC (Table 6).^11,14-16 Three of these trials have had dose finding as a major end point, have therefore involved relatively small numbers of patients, and at this time have been reported only in abstract or monograph form. Survival data from these three trials have not been reported.^14-16 The article by Hainsworth et al¹¹ reports data from a phase II trial with two sequential cohorts, as previously noted. Paclitaxel was added to carboplatin and 10-day oral etoposide and studied at two different dose levels. A total of 61 patients with extensive disease were treated, 23 with the lower dose and 38 with the higher dose. The second dose level studied included an increase in carboplatin from an area under the concentration-time curve of 5 to 6 and in paclitaxel from 135 mg/m² to 200 mg/m² in 1 hour. Etoposide was kept constant at 50 mg, alternating with 100 mg orally on days 1 to 10. Growth factor support was not used. Experience with the low-dose regimen was disappointing, with an overall response rate of 65% and a median survival duration of only 7 months. In the second cohort, the high-dose regimen seemed more effective, with a response rate of 84% and median survival duration of 10 months. Despite their use of a higher dose of paclitaxel, these results are nearly identical to ours. In addition, toxic effects of the two regimens were similar, especially concerning the incidence of neutropenic fever and grade 4 neutropenia.

The data of Hainsworth et al¹¹ suggest a dose response for paclitaxel in SCLC, and they also imply that paclitaxel adds efficacy to the base regimen of carboplatin and etoposide. We obtained similar results with a lower dose of paclitaxel in an equitoxic combination regimen, albeit with a minor difference in schedule (3-hour v 1-hour infusion time). Furthermore, in terms of efficacy, we observed similar high response rates and equivalent or better median survival durations in previous phase II trials with a similar patient population at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, all with etoposide/cisplatin as a base (Table 7). ^17,18 A randomized trial will be necessary to elucidate the contribution of paclitaxel to the outcome of treatment with etoposide and cisplatin or carboplatin for patients with extensive SCLC. Two such trials are under way.

Hainsworth et al are continuing to explore their regimen in a study being run through the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network. The standard arm, consisting of etoposide 120 mg/m² IV on days 1 to 3 and a carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve of 6 on day 1, is being compared with the high-dose regimen from their phase II trial in patients with both extensive and limited SCLC, both regimens being administered without growth factor support. Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9732, which is being run through the intergroup mechanism, compares standard etoposide (80 mg/m² IV on days 1 to 3) and cisplatin (80 mg/m² IV on day 1) with the addition of paclitaxel (175 mg/ m² IV over 3 hours on day 1) to the same doses of etoposide and cisplatin in patients with extensive disease. Routine use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is included in the experimental arm. The results of these two trials hopefully will clarify the role of paclitaxel in the initial treatment of SCLC and may also shed light on the contribution of routine growth factor support in this setting.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
Supported by a grant from Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, and The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center core grant no. CA-16672 (National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD).

	NOTES

 
Part of the research described in this article was published in abstract form (Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16:455a, 1997 [abstr 1635]) and was presented as a poster at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Denver, CO, May 17-20, 1997.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION PATIENTS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
1. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, et al: Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin48:6-29, 1998[Abstract]

2. Johnson BE, Grayson J, Makuch RW, et al: Ten-year survival of patients with small-cell lung cancer treated with combination chemotherapy with or without irradiation. J Clin Oncol8:396-401, 1990[Abstract]

3. Crown JPA, Chahinian AP, Jaffrey IS, et al: Predictors of 5-year survival and curability in small cell lung cancer. Cancer66:382-386, 1992

4. Ettinger DS, Finkelstein DM, Sarma RP, et al: Phase II study of paclitaxel in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol13:1430-1435, 1995[Abstract]

5. Kirschling RJ, Jung SH, Jett JR: A phase II trial of Taxol and G-CSF in previously untreated patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol13:326, 1994 (abstr 1076)

6. Roth BJ, Johnson DH, Einhorn LH, et al: Randomized study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus etoposide and cisplatin versus alternation of these two regimens in extensive small cell lung cancer: A phase III trial of the Southeastern Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol10:282-291, 1992[Abstract]

7. Ihde DC, Mulshine JL, Kramer BS, et al: Prospective randomized comparison of high-dose and standard-dose etoposide and cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol12:2022-2034, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]

8. Johnson DH, Hainsworth JD, Hande KR, et al: Current status of etoposide in the management of small cell lung cancer. Cancer67:231-244, 1991[Medline]

9. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M: Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer47:207-214, 1981[Medline]

10. Kaplan EL, Meier P: Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc53:457-481, 1958

11. Hainsworth JD, Gray JR, Stroup SL, et al: Paclitaxel, carboplatin, and extended-schedule etoposide in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer: Comparison of sequential phase II trials using different dose schedules. J Clin Oncol15:3464-3470, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]

12. Eisenhauer EA, ten Bokkel Huinink WW Swenerton KD, et al: European-Canadian randomized trial of paclitaxel in relapsed ovarian cancer: High dose vs. low dose and long versus short infusion. J Clin Oncol12:2654-2666, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13. Forastiere A, Leong T, Murphy E, et al: A phase III trial of high-dose paclitaxel + cisplatin + G-CSF versus low-dose paclitaxel + cisplatin in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 16:384a, 1997 (abstr 1367)

14. Levitan N, McKenney J, Tahsildar H, et al: Results of a phase I dose escalation trial of paclitaxel, etoposide, and cisplatin followed by filgrastim in the treatment of patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol14:379, 1995 (abstr 1177)

15. Kelly K, Wood ME, Bunn PA: A phase I study of cisplatin, etoposide and paclitaxel in extensive stage small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol15:400, 1996 (abstr 1214)

16. Hainsworth JD , Niell HB: Taxol (Paclitaxel) Injection, Carboplatin, and Etoposide in the Management of Small Cell Lung Cancer: Clinical Update. Princeton, NJ, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 1999

17. Glisson B, Lee JS, Palmer J, et al: Cisplatin, ifosfamide, and prolonged oral etoposide in the treatment of patients with extensive small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer82:301-308, 1998[Medline]

18. Khuri FR, Fossella FV, Lee JS, et al: Phase II trial of recombinant IFN-alfa 2a with etoposide/cisplatin induction and interferon/megestrol acetate maintenance in extensive small cell lung cancer. J Interferon Cytokine Res18:241-245, 1998[Medline]

Submitted November 23, 1998; accepted April 12, 1999.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. R. Simon and A. Turrisi Management of Small Cell Lung Cancer: ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition) Chest, September 1, 2007; 132(3_suppl): 324S - 339S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. B. Niell, J. E. Herndon II, A. A. Miller, D. M. Watson, A. B. Sandler, K. Kelly, R. S. Marks, M. C. Perry, R. H. Ansari, G. Otterson, et al. Randomized Phase III Intergroup Trial of Etoposide and Cisplatin With or Without Paclitaxel and Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9732 J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2005; 23(16): 3752 - 3759. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. S. Warshamana-Greene, J. Litz, E. Buchdunger, C. Garcia-Echeverria, F. Hofmann, and G. W. Krystal The Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I Receptor Kinase Inhibitor, NVP-ADW742, Sensitizes Small Cell Lung Cancer Cell Lines to the Effects of Chemotherapy Clin. Cancer Res., February 15, 2005; 11(4): 1563 - 1571. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Neubauer, J. Schwartz, J. Caracandas, P. Conkling, D. Ilegbodu, T. Tuttle, and L. Asmar Results of a Phase II Study of Weekly Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin in Patients With Extensive Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 2, or Age >= 70 Years J. Clin. Oncol., May 15, 2004; 22(10): 1872 - 1877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Laskin, A. Sandler, and D. H. Johnson An Advance in Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treatment--More or Less J Natl Cancer Inst, August 6, 2003; 95(15): 1099 - 1101. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Lu, R. Komaki, J. S. Lee, D. M. Shin, J. L. Palmer, B. J. Coldman, K. M. Pisters, J. M. Kurie, F. V. Fossella, and B. S. Glisson A Phase I Study of Topotecan/Paclitaxel Alternating with Etoposide/Cisplatin and Thoracic Irradiation in Patients with Limited Small Cell Lung Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2003; 9(6): 2085 - 2091. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. West, R. Birch, F. Schnell, J. Hainsworth, J. Tongol, and L. Campos Phase I Study of Paclitaxel and Topotecan for the First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Oncologist, February 1, 2003; 8(1): 76 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. R. Simon and H. Wagner Small Cell Lung Cancer Chest, January 1, 2003; 123 (2009): 259S - 271S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Osterlind Chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer Eur. Respir. J., December 1, 2001; 18(6): 1026 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Kelly, L. Lovato, P. A. Bunn Jr., R. B. Livingston, J. Zangmeister, S. A. Taylor, D. Roychowdhury, J. J. Crowley, and D. R. Gandara Cisplatin, Etoposide, and Paclitaxel with Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Untreated Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Trial of the Southwest Oncology Group Clin. Cancer Res., August 1, 2001; 7(8): 2325 - 2329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Glisson, B. S. Articles by Hong, W. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Glisson, B. S. Articles by Hong, W. K. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?