Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session

706P - Comparison of irinotecan/carboplatin versus etoposide/carboplatin for extended disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC): A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Date

07 Dec 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Zeeshan Afzal

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 35 (suppl_4): S1632-S1678. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1698

Authors

Z. Afzal1, S. Hira2, N. Wang1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Oncology Dept., Shanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital, 030013 - Taiyuan/CN
  • 2 Oncology Dept., Fatima Jinnah Medical University, 56540 - Lahore/PK

Resources

This content is available to ESMO members and event participants.

Abstract 706P

Background

Platinum-based chemotherapy in addition to the non-platinum agent Etoposide is the standard of care for ES-SCLC. However, the front-line chemotherapy regimen is not known. Therefore, we aimed to perform this review comparing irinotecan/carboplatin and etoposide/carboplatin in the patients of ED-SCLC.

Methods

We searched three databases i.e. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. We evaluated the outcomes for complete response, median overall survival, and progression free survival. In addition to that adverse events such as leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, diarrhea, and infections were also assessed. RevMan 5.4.1 was used to perform the statistical analysis.

Results

Three RCTs with 676 patients were included. There was a significant difference among IC and EC arms in terms of complete response (RR 2.52; 95% CI 1.20-5.32; p=0.02, I2= 0%), Leukopenia (RR=0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97; P=0.04; I2=90%), Anemia (RR=0.55; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78; P=0.0008; I2=0%), Thrombocytopenia (RR=0.51; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.68; P=0.00001; I2=0%); and Diarrhea (RR=4.88; 95%CI 1.64 to 14.49; P=0.004; I2=33%). There was no statistically significant difference among IC and EC arms in terms of Median Overall survival (HR=1.16; 95%CI 0.84 to 1.62; P=0.37; I2=74%), Progression-free survival (HR=1.04; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.56; P=0.85; I2=77%), Nausea (RR=1.70; 95%CI 0.76 to 3.81; P=0.19; I2=0%), Infection (RR=0.97; 95%CI 0.64 to 1.48; P=0.89; I2=0%) and Treatment-related Deaths (RR=0.58; 95%CI 0.24 to 1.42; P=0.23; I2=0%).

Conclusions

In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides valuable evidence supporting the superiority of IC regimens over EC regimens in terms of complete response and toxicity profile for ED-SCLC.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.