0
Poster Presentations: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 |

Comparative Effectiveness of Amrubicin Monotherapy for Small and Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Second-Line and Later Treatments FREE TO VIEW

Chiyoe Kitagawa, PhD; Hideo Saka, MD; Kazumi Hori, MD; Yoriko Funahashi, MD; Saori Oka, MD; Rie Tsuboi, MD; Takashi Adachi, MD; Misaki Ryuge, MD; Naohiko Murata, MD; Yoshihito Kogure, MD; Masahide Oki, PhD
Chest. 2011;140(4_MeetingAbstracts):309A. doi:10.1378/chest.1117271
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Abstract

PURPOSE: The treatment of choice for recurrent lung cancer has not been established. Amrubicin (AMR) is reportedly a potent topoisomerase II inhibitor, and promising agent for both small cell and non-small cell lung cancer. We surveyed the clinical effectiveness of AMR as a 2nd-line chemotherapy and after that the treatment used for both these types of lung cancer in our institution.

METHODS: Using medical records, we retrospectively investigated patients who had received AMR treatment for both types of lung cancer from January 1 to December 31, 2010 in our hospital.

RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients received AMR treatment in this period. Twenty-three had small cell cancer (Small), and 5 had non-small cell cancer (Nsmall). The median age was 66 (range 42 to 79) in Small, and 61 (range, 46 to 71) in Nsmall. In Small, 19 were 2nd-line chemotherapy, 2 were 3rd-line, 1 was 4th-line, and 1 was 5th-line. In Nsmall, 2 were 2nd-line chemotherapy, and 3 were 3rd-line. Best responses were 1 complete response (Small 2nd-line), 6 partial responses (5: Small 2nd-line, 1: Small 4th-line), 12 stable disease (8: Small 2nd-line, 1: Small 3rd-line, 1: Small 5th-line, 1 Nsmall 2nd-line, 1 Nsmall 3rd-line), 6 progressive disease (3: Small 2nd-line, 1: Nsmall 2nd-line, 1: Nsmall 3rd-line, 1 Nsmall 4th-line), and 3 not evaluable. Thirteen patients (11: Small 2nd-line, 1: Small 3rd-line, 1: Nsmall 2nd-line) received 40 mg/m2 on days1-3, 8 patients (6: Small 2nd-line, 1: Small 3rd-line, 1: Small 4th-line) received 35 mg/m2 on days 1-3, and 1 2nd-line Small patient received 30 mg/m2 on days 1-3. One 2nd-line and 1 5th-line Small patient received 40 mg/m2 on days 1-2. Four Nsmall patients received 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 as a clinical study.

CONCLUSIONS: AMR showed a good response in small cell cancer, but was almost completely ineffective in non-small cell cancer patients.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There were only 5 non-small cell cancers in this survey, but AMR proved ineffective for non-small cell cancer compared to small cell cancer.

DISCLOSURE: The following authors have nothing to disclose: Chiyoe Kitagawa, Hideo Saka, Kazumi Hori, Yoriko Funahashi, Saori Oka, Rie Tsuboi, Takashi Adachi, Misaki Ryuge, Naohiko Murata, Yoshihito Kogure, Masahide Oki

No Product/Research Disclosure Information

09:00 AM - 10:00 AM


Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543