1475P - Second line treatment in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients: Single center 10-years experience and feasibility of epirubicin plus paclitaxel re...

Date 29 September 2014
Event ESMO 2014
Session Poster Display session
Topics Anticancer Agents
Small Cell Lung Cancer
Biological Therapy
Presenter Giulia Pasello
Citation Annals of Oncology (2014) 25 (suppl_4): iv511-iv516. 10.1093/annonc/mdu355
Authors G. Pasello1, P. Carli2, F. Canova1, V. Polo1, L. Bonanno1, G. Zago1, P.F. Conte1, A. Favaretto1
  • 1U.o.oncologia Medica, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IRCCS, 35128 - Padova/IT
  • 2Oncologia Medica C, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico CRO, IT-33081 - Aviano/IT



This is a retrospective review of all SCLC patients prospectively evaluated for second-line treatment between 2003 and 2013 at our Institution. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of second-line treatment with Epirubicin(E) plus Paclitaxel(P) in terms of RR, DCR, PFS, OS, and safety.


When eligible, consecutive cases of SCLC diagnosed by histology or cytology between 2003 and 2013 and receiving a first-line chemotherapy with platinum plus etoposide were prospectively evaluated for inclusion in the study at the time of disease progression or relapse. Eligible patients received endovenous Epirubicin 70 mg/m2 followed by Paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles


68(69%) patients received the study regimen EP; median age was 65 years (range 44-80), male/female ratio 2:1; ECOG PS was 0 in 10(14%), 1 in 45(66%) and 2 in 13(19%) patients. 43(63%) patients showed a sensitive and 25(37%) a resistant disease. Among patients with evaluable disease (N=52), we observed partial response (PR) in 19(37%), stable disease (SD) in 22(42%) and progressive disease (PD) in 11(21%) patients. Disease control rate (DCR) was 79%. Median PFS was 21.8 weeks (range 3-47), and median OS was 26.5 weeks (range 3-137). At the multivariate analysis ECOG PS 0-1 (HR 0.331; 95% CI 0.154-0.710; p=0.005) and the administration of further chemotherapy lines after the study treatment (HR 0.193; 95% CI 0.096-0.387; p<0.001) significantly affected OS; PFS was non significantly affected by any covariate. Haematological toxicity profile by patient in those evaluable (N=58) consisted on grade (G)3 anemia, leucopenia, and neutropenia in 5(9%), 12(21%), 19(33%) patients respectively, without G3 thrombocytopenia; we observed G4 leucopenia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in 6(10%), 11(19%) and 2(3%) patients respectively. Among patients evaluable for non-haematological toxicity (N=62), G3 neurological toxicity was present in 1(2%) patient, while 2(3%) cases of cardiotoxicity were shown:one patient had a G1 systolic function reduction and a cardiac ischemia occurred in the second patient after one cycle of study treatment.


EP is an active second-line regimen both in sensitive and in resistant SCLC patients, with an acceptable toxicity profile.


All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.