NCCN: Continuing Education
Target Audience: This activity is designed to meet the educational needs of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists involved in the management of patients with cancer.
Accreditation Statement NCCN
Physicians: National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
NCCN designates this journal-based CE activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Nurses: National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center‘s Commission on Accreditation.
NCCN designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1.0 contact hour.
Pharmacists: National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education.
NCCN designates this knowledge-based continuing education activity for 1.0 contact hour (0.1 CEUs) of continuing education credit. UAN: 0836-0000-18-010-H01-P
All clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CE activity: 1) review the educational content; 2) take the posttest with a 66% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at http://education.nccn.org/node/84150; and 3) view/print certificate.
Pharmacists: You must complete the posttest and evaluation within 30 days of the activity. Continuing pharmacy education credit is reported to the CPE Monitor once you have completed the posttest and evaluation and claimed your credits. Before completing these requirements, be sure your NCCN profile has been updated with your NAPB e-profile ID and date of birth. Your credit cannot be reported without this information. If you have any questions, please e-mail education@nccn.org.
Release date: October 10, 2018; Expiration date: October 10, 2019
Learning Objectives:
Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:
Integrate into professional practice the updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Small Cell Lung Cancer
Describe the rationale behind the decision-making process for developing the NCCN Guidelines for Small Cell Lung Cancer
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2018
Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0079
Disclosure of Relevant Financial Relationships
The NCCN staff listed below discloses no relevant financial relationships:
Kerrin M. Rosenthal, MA; Kimberly Callan, MS; Genevieve Emberger Hartzman, MA; Erin Hesler; Kristina M. Gregory, RN, MSN, OCN; Rashmi Kumar, PhD; Karen Kanefield; and Kathy Smith.
Individuals Who Provided Content Development and/or Authorship Assistance:
Gregory P. Kalemkerian, MD, Panel Chair, has disclosed that he receives grant/research support from AbbVie, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Co., Inc.; and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. He also serves as a scientific advisor for Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc., and has received consulting fees/honoraria from BioMed Valley Discoveries, Inc. and Unum Therapeutics.
Billy W. Loo Jr, MD, PhD, Panel Vice Chair, has disclosed that he receives grant/research support from RaySearch Laboratories and Varian Medical Systems, Inc, and that he is an Officer/Director/other fiduciary role at TibaRay, Inc.
Karin G. Hoffmann, RN, CCM, Guidelines Coordinator, NCCN, has disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships [employed by NCCN until 6/1/18].
Miranda Hughes, PhD, Oncology Scientist/Senior Medical Writer, NCCN, has disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships.
This activity is supported by educational grants from AstraZeneca, Celldex Therapeutics, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Seattle Genetics, Inc. This activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, Merck & Co., Inc. and NOVOCURE.
Overview
Neuroendocrine tumors account for approximately 20% of lung cancers; most (14%) are small cell lung cancer (SCLC).1,2 In 2018, an estimated 29,501 new cases of SCLC will occur in the United States.1,3 Nearly all cases of SCLC are attributable to cigarette smoking.4 Smoking cessation should be strongly promoted in patients with SCLC (see NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology [NCCN Guidelines] for Smoking Cessation, available at NCCN.org).5 SCLC is characterized by a rapid doubling time, high growth fraction, and early development of widespread metastases. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in immunotherapy, systemic therapy, and radiation therapy (RT) for patients with SCLC. For a full list of the 2018 updates, see the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines (available at NCCN.org). The NCCN Guidelines for SCLC address all aspects of disease management.
NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus
Category 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate.
All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.
Clinical trials: NCCN believes that the best management for any patient with cancer is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.
Patients with SCLC typically present with a large hilar mass and bulky mediastinal lymphadenopathy
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2018
Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0079
For the 2018 update, the NCCN panel added a new section on pathology to the Guidelines (see SCL-B 1 of 2, page 1176). The WHO classification system is currently used to classify lung tumors.12–14 SCLC is a poorly differentiated tumor that is categorized as a high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma. SCLC is a malignant epithelial tumor consisting of small cells with scant cytoplasm, ill-defined cell borders, finely granular nuclear chromatin, and absent or inconspicuous nucleoli.15,16 The cells are round, oval, or spindle-shaped, and nuclear molding is prominent.17 The classic and distinctive histology on hematoxylin and eosin may be sufficient for identifying SCLC in good-quality histologic samples.15
Editor's Note: Additional updates were made to the NCCN Guidelines for SCLC (Version 1.2019) after the final review/approval of these NCCN
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2018
Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0079
Radiation Therapy
Thoracic RT
The addition of thoracic RT to chemotherapy has improved survival for patients with limited-stage SCLC. A meta-analysis of >2,000 patients (individual data) showed that chemotherapy/RT for limited-stage SCLC yields a 14% reduction in the mortality rate (relative risk of death, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78–0.94; P=.001) and a corresponding absolute difference of 5.4% (±1.4%) in the 3-year survival rate compared with chemotherapy alone.18 The 3-year survival rates were 14.3% (±1.1%) for chemotherapy/RT versus 8.9% (±0.9%) for chemotherapy alone. Another meta-analysis in >1,900 patients with limited-stage SCLC showed an absolute difference of 5.4% (95% CI, 1.1%–9.7%) in the 2-year survival rate for chemotherapy/RT versus chemotherapy alone.19 Local control improved by 25.3% (95% CI, 16.5%–34.1%) for chemotherapy/RT versus chemotherapy alone. However, achieving long-term local control using conventional chemoradiotherapy for patients with limited-stage SCLC remains a challenge.
ECOG/RTOG compared once-daily versus twice-daily RT with etoposide and cisplatin.20 In this trial, 412 patients with limited-stage SCLC were treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy using a total thoracic RT dose of 45 Gy delivered either twice daily for 3 weeks or once daily for 5 weeks. The 3-week regimen produced a survival advantage, but a higher incidence of grade 3 to 4 esophagitis was observed compared with the 5-week regimen. Median overall survival (OS) rates were 23 versus 19 months (P=.04), and 5-year OS rates were 26% versus 16% in the 3-week and 5-week RT arms, respectively, thus demonstrating the higher biological
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2018
Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0079
A randomized phase III trial (CONVERT) assessed once versus twice daily thoracic RT at doses that were biologically similar, 45 Gy twice daily for 3 weeks versus 66 Gy once daily for 6.5 weeks, in patients with limited-stage SCLC.21 Median OS was similar between the 2 arms (30 vs 25 months; hazard ratio [HR] for death in the once-daily group, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95–1.45; P=.14). Although toxicity was generally similar between the arms, patients receiving 45 Gy of accelerated RT had more grade 4 neutropenia than those receiving 66 Gy of conventional RT (49% [129/266] vs 38% [101/263]; P=.05). Based on data from randomized trials, the optimal dose and fractionation of thoracic RT for SCLC remain unresolved. The NCCN panel recommends 2 options depending on individual patient characteristics: (1) 45 Gy with twice-daily fractionation for 3 weeks, or (2) 60 to 70 Gy with once-daily fractionation for 6 to 7 weeks (see SCL-F 1 of 3, page 1178). Twice-daily thoracic RT is technically challenging for patients with bilateral mediastinal adenopathy and logistically challenging for many patients and RT centers.
Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation
Intracranial metastases occur in >50% of patients with SCLC. Randomized studies have shown that PCI is effective in decreasing the incidence of cerebral metastases, but most individual studies did not have sufficient power to show a meaningful survival advantage.22 A 1999 meta-analysis of 7 randomized PCI trials (using data from individual patients) reported an absolute 25% decrease in the 3-year incidence of brain metastases, from 58.6% in the control group to 33.3% in the PCI-treated group.23 This
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2018
Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0079
In a randomized EORTC trial that assessed PCI versus observation in 286 patients with extensive-stage SCLC whose disease had responded to initial chemotherapy, use of PCI decreased symptomatic brain metastases (14.6% vs 40.4%) and increased the 1-year OS rate (27.1% vs 13.3%) compared with observation.24 However, the trial did not require brain imaging prior to PCI or at follow-up and allowed several PCI doses and fractionation schemes. The survival advantage of PCI was recently challenged by a randomized phase III Japanese trial of 224 patients with extensive-stage SCLC.25 Patients were required to have an MRI before PCI to confirm the absence of brain metastases and to undergo surveillance MRI every 3 months during year 1 and every 6 months during year 2 to allow for early treatment of asymptomatic metastases. In addition, this trial used a single PCI regimen of 25 Gy in 10 fractions. Median OS was not improved in patients receiving PCI (11.6 months; 95% CI, 9.5–13.3) versus observation (13.7 months; 95% CI, 10.2–16.4) (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.96–1.68; P=.094).25
Synthesizing these trial results, for the 2018 update the panel softened the recommendation for PCI in patients with extensive-stage disease to consider PCI. The panel also added detailed imaging recommendations for patients who do not undergo PCI (see SCL-5, page 1173). For patients with extensive-stage SCLC and good response to initial chemotherapy, reasonable options (depending on individual patient factors) include either PCI or close surveillance of the brain with MRI (preferred)
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2018
Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0079
Second-Line and Beyond (Subsequent) Systemic Therapy
Although SCLC is very responsive to initial treatment, most patients experience relapse with relatively resistant disease.26–28 Randomized phase III trials have demonstrated the benefit of single-agent topotecan orally or intravenously in patients with recurrent SCLC.29–31 Based on phase II trials, a number of other agents have been recommended as options for subsequent systemic therapy in patients with relapsed disease, including irinotecan, paclitaxel, docetaxel, temozolomide, nivolumab ± ipilimumab, vinorelbine, oral etoposide, gemcitabine, cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine (CAV), and bendamustine (category 2A for all agents except bendamustine, which is category 2B) (see SCL-E 1 of 3, page 1177).32–41 These agents are listed in order of preference in the NCCN Guidelines. Data suggest that temozolomide may be useful for patients with SCLC, especially those with brain metastases and methylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT).42–44 Bendamustine has modest activity based on 2 small phase II trials (response rate of 17% for chemoresistant disease and 33% for chemosensitive disease).45,46 Therefore, bendamustine has a category 2B recommendation in the NCCN Guidelines. Ifosfamide was recently deleted from the NCCN Guidelines because panel members no longer use this agent. A phase III trial (JCOG0605) in Japanese patients with sensitive relapsed SCLC reported that the combination of cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan improved survival (median, 18.2 months; 95% CI, 15.7–20.6) compared with topotecan (12.5 months; 95% CI, 10.8–14.9) (HR, 0.67; 90% CI, 0.51–0.88; P=.0079). However, this combination regimen had significant toxicity, and is not recommended as subsequent therapy in the NCCN Guidelines.47
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2018
Version 2.2018 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2018, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16, 10; 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0079
Nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that stimulate the immune system and thus have different mechanisms of action than standard cytotoxic chemotherapy.48 The NCCN panel recently added recommendations for nivolumab and nivolumab + ipilimumab (both are category 2A) as subsequent therapy options for patients who have experienced disease relapse ≤6 months after primary therapy.49 These recommendations are based on a phase I/II trial of patients who received either nivolumab alone or various doses of nivolumab + ipilimumab for relapsed SCLC.50 Response rates were 10% (10/98) for nivolumab at 3 mg/kg; 23% (14/61) for nivolumab at 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg; and 19% (10/54) for nivolumab at 3 mg/kg + ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg. Responses did not correlate with PD-L1 expression; SCLC has a lower rate of PD-L1 expression than non–small cell lung cancer.50 Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE). Overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 AEs was approximately 20%, and <10% of patients discontinued treatment due to treatment-related AEs. Updated preliminary data from an expansion cohort of this trial reported a 1-year OS rate of 42% in patients receiving nivolumab + ipilimumab and 30% in those receiving nivolumab alone.51 Preliminary data showed a 2-year survival rate of 26% with nivolumab + ipilimumab and 14% with nivolumab alone.51,52 Recent data suggest that high tumor mutational burden (TMB) correlates with efficacy of nivolumab ± ipilimumab in SCLC.52 In patients with high TMB, the 1-year OS rate was 62% for nivolumab + ipilimumab and 35% for nivolumab alone. A phase IB study assessed pembrolizumab in 24 patients with pretreated, PD-L1–expressing (≥1%), extensive-stage SCLC.53 The overall response rate (ORR) was 33% (95% CI, 16%–55%). A broader phase II study evaluated pembrolizumab in 107 patients with relapsed SCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression and reported an ORR of 18.7% (35.7% in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors and 6% in those with PD-L1–negative tumors).54 Note that pembrolizumab was not recommended in the NCCN Guidelines for SCLC, Version 2.2018 (see SCL-E 1 of 3, page 1177).
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ie, nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab) are associated with unique immune-mediated AEs not seen with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy; therefore, healthcare providers need to be aware of the spectrum of potential immune-mediated AEs, know how to manage them, and educate their patients about possible AEs (see the NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities, available at NCCN.org).55,56 For patients with immune-mediated AEs, high-dose corticosteroids are generally recommended based on the severity of the reaction. Nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab should be withheld or discontinued for severe or life-threatening immune-mediated AEs when indicated (see prescribing information).
Rovalpituzumab tesirine is a novel antibody-drug conjugate that targets delta-like protein 3 (DLL3) tumor expression, expressed in >80% of SCLCs. A phase I study of rovalpituzumab tesirine (74 patients with recurrent SCLC) showed an objective response rate of 18%.57 Recent data are available from a phase II study (TRINITY) of rovalpituzumab tesirine as third-line or higher treatment in patients with DLL3-expressing recurrent SCLC (N=177). The objective response rate was 18% and median OS was 6.7 months.58 Phase III trials are ongoing for treatment with rovalpituzumab tesirine in the first- and second-line setting. Note that rovalpituzumab tesirine is not currently available outside of a clinical trial and is not recommended in the NCCN Guidelines (see SCL-E 1 of 3, page 1177).
Summary
These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to immunotherapy, systemic therapy, and RT in the 2018 NCCN Guidelines for SCLC; major revisions are shown in the algorithm (see blue font). For patients with limited-stage SCLC, the optimal RT dose and schedule have not been established. However, a recent trial (CONVERT) reported that OS and toxicity are comparable when using either 45 Gy twice daily or 66 Gy once daily.21 Based on results of a recent Japanese trial, NCCN panel softened the recommendation for adjuvant PCI in patients with extensive-stage disease to consider PCI.25 For patients with extensive-stage disease who have not undergone adjuvant PCI, the NCCN panel added detailed brain imaging recommendations for surveillance based on this trial.
References
- 1.↑
Noone A, Howlader N, Krapcho M et al.. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2015, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, based on November 2017 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2018. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/.
- 2.↑
Govindan R, Page N, Morgensztern D et al.. Changing epidemiology of small-cell lung cancer in the United States over the last 30 years: analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiologic, and End Results database. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4539–4544.
- 4.↑
Pesch B, Kendzia B, Gustavsson P et al.. Cigarette smoking and lung cancer—relative risk estimates for the major histological types from a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Int J Cancer 2012;131:1210–1219.
- 5.↑
Leone FT, Evers-Casey S, Toll BA, Vachani A. Treatment of tobacco use in lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:e61S–77S.
- 6.↑
Rivera MP, Mehta AC, Wahidi MM. Establishing the diagnosis of lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:e142S–165S.
- 7.↑
Jett JR, Schild SE, Kesler KA, Kalemkerian GP. Treatment of small cell lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:e400S–419S.
- 8.↑
Yu JB, Decker RH, Detterbeck FC, Wilson LD. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results evaluation of the role of surgery for stage I small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:215–219.
- 9.↑
Kalemkerian GP. Advances in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2011;32:94–101.
- 10.↑
Amini A, Byers LA, Welsh JW, Komaki RU. Progress in the management of limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Cancer 2014;120:790–798.
- 11.↑
Demedts IK, Vermaelen KY, van Meerbeeck JP. Treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma: current status and future prospects. Eur Respir J 2010;35:202–215.
- 12.↑
Travis W, Brambilla E, Burke A et al.. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus and Heart, 4th edition. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.
- 13.
Travis WD, Brambilla E, Burke AP et al.. Introduction to the 2015 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus, and Heart. J Thorac Oncol 2015;10:1240–1242.
- 14.↑
Travis WD, Brambilla E, Nicholson AG et al.. The 2015 World Health Organization classification of lung tumors: impact of genetic, clinical and radiologic advances since the 2004 classification. J Thorac Oncol 2015;10:1243–1260.
- 17.↑
Nicholson SA, Beasley MB, Brambilla E et al.. Small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC): a clinicopathologic study of 100 cases with surgical specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:1184–1197.
- 18.↑
Pignon JP, Arriagada R, Ihde DC et al.. A meta-analysis of thoracic radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1618–1624.
- 19.↑
Warde P, Payne D. Does thoracic irradiation improve survival and local control in limited-stage small-cell carcinoma of the lung? A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:890–895.
- 20.↑
Turrisi AT III, Kim K, Blum R et al.. Twice-daily compared with once-daily thoracic radiotherapy in limited small-cell lung cancer treated concurrently with cisplatin and etoposide. N Engl J Med 1999;340:265–271.
- 21.↑
Faivre-Finn C, Snee M, Ashcroft L et al.. Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1116–1125.
- 22.↑
Arriagada R, Le Chevalier T, Borie F et al.. Prophylactic cranial irradiation for patients with small-cell lung cancer in complete remission. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:183–190.
- 23.↑
Auperin A, Arriagada R, Pignon JP et al.. Prophylactic cranial irradiation for patients with small-cell lung cancer in complete remission. Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Overview Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med 1999;341:476–484.
- 24.↑
Slotman B, Faivre-Finn C, Kramer G et al.. Prophylactic cranial irradiation in extensive small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:664–672.
- 25.↑
Takahashi T, Yamanaka T, Seto T et al.. Prophylactic cranial irradiation versus observation in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:663–671.
- 26.↑
Hurwitz JL, McCoy F, Scullin P, Fennell DA. New advances in the second-line treatment of small cell lung cancer. Oncologist 2009;14:986–994.
- 27.
Schneider BJ. Management of recurrent small cell lung cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2008;6:323–331.
- 28.↑
Owonikoko TK, Behera M, Chen Z et al.. A systematic analysis of efficacy of second-line chemotherapy in sensitive and refractory small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2012;7:866–872.
- 29.↑
von Pawel J, Schiller JH, Shepherd FA et al.. Topotecan versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine for the treatment of recurrent small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:658–667.
- 30.
Eckardt JR, von Pawel J, Pujol JL et al.. Phase III study of oral compared with intravenous topotecan as second-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2086–2092.
- 31.↑
O'Brien ME, Ciuleanu TE, Tsekov H et al.. Phase III trial comparing supportive care alone with supportive care with oral topotecan in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5441–5447.
- 32.↑
Masters GA, Declerck L, Blanke C et al.. Phase II trial of gemcitabine in refractory or relapsed small-cell lung cancer: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial 1597. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1550–1555.
- 33.
Hoang T, Kim K, Jaslowski A et al.. Phase II study of second-line gemcitabine in sensitive or refractory small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2003;42:97–102.
- 34.
van der Lee I, Smit EF, van Putten JW et al.. Single-agent gemcitabine in patients with resistant small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2001;12:557–561.
- 35.
Johnson DH, Greco FA, Strupp J et al.. Prolonged administration of oral etoposide in patients with relapsed or refractory small-cell lung cancer: a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1613–1617.
- 36.
Masuda N, Fukuoka M, Kusunoki Y et al.. CPT-11: a new derivative of camptothecin for the treatment of refractory or relapsed small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1225–1229.
- 37.
Smit EF, Fokkema E, Biesma B et al.. A phase II study of paclitaxel in heavily pretreated patients with small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 1998;77:347–351.
- 38.
Yamamoto N, Tsurutani J, Yoshimura N et al.. Phase II study of weekly paclitaxel for relapsed and refractory small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res 2006;26:777–781.
- 39.
Smyth JF, Smith IE, Sessa C et al.. Activity of docetaxel (Taxotere) in small cell lung cancer. The Early Clinical Trials Group of the EORTC. Eur J Cancer 1994;30A:1058–1060.
- 40.
Jassem J, Karnicka-Mlodkowska H, van Pottelsberghe C et al.. Phase II study of vinorelbine (Navelbine) in previously treated small cell lung cancer patients. EORTC Lung Cancer Cooperative Group. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A:1720–1722.
- 41.↑
Furuse K, Kubota K, Kawahara M et al.. Phase II study of vinorelbine in heavily previously treated small cell lung cancer. Japan Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Study Group. Oncology 1996;53:169–172.
- 42.↑
Pietanza MC, Kadota K, Huberman K et al.. Phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with relapsed sensitive or refractory small cell lung cancer, with assessment of methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase as a potential biomarker. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:1138–1145.
- 43.
Zauderer MG, Drilon A, Kadota K et al.. Trial of a 5-day dosing regimen of temozolomide in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancers with assessment of methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase. Lung Cancer 2014;86:237–240.
- 44.↑
Hiddinga BI, Pauwels P, Janssens A, van Meerbeeck JP. O(6)-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT): a drugable target in lung cancer? Lung Cancer 2017;107:91–99.
- 45.↑
Lammers PE, Shyr Y, Li CI et al.. Phase II study of bendamustine in relapsed chemotherapy sensitive or resistant small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9:559–562.
- 46.↑
Schmittel A, Knodler M, Hortig P et al.. Phase II trial of second-line bendamustine chemotherapy in relapsed small cell lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer 2007;55:109–113.
- 47.↑
Goto K, Ohe Y, Shibata T et al.. Combined chemotherapy with cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan versus topotecan alone as second-line treatment for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer (JCOG0605): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1147–1157.
- 48.↑
Horn L, Reck M, Spigel DR. The future of immunotherapy in the treatment of small cell lung cancer. Oncologist 2016;21:910–921.
- 49.↑
Cooper MR, Alrajhi AM, Durand CR. Role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in small cell lung cancer. Am J Ther 2018;25:e349–356.
- 50.↑
Antonia SJ, Lopez-Martin JA, Bendell J et al.. Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:883–895.
- 51.↑
Hellmann MD, Ott PA, Zugazagoitia J et al.. Nivolumab (nivo) ± ipilimumab (ipi) in advanced small-cell lung cancer (SCLC): first report of a randomized expansion cohort from CheckMate 032 [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2017;35(Suppl):Abstract 8503.
- 52.↑
Hellmann MD, Callahan MK, Awad MM et al.. Tumor mutational burden and efficacy of nivolumab monotherapy and in combination with ipilimumab in small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Cell 2018;33:853–861.e854.
- 53.↑
Ott PA, Elez E, Hiret S et al.. Pembrolizumab in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: results from the phase Ib KEYNOTE-028 study. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:3823–3829.
- 54.↑
Chung HC, Lopez-Martin JA, Kao SC et al.. Phase 2 study of pembrolizumab in advanced small-cell lung cancer: KEYNOTE-158 [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(Suppl):Abstract 8506.
- 55.↑
Davies M, Duffield EA. Safety of checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment: strategies for patient monitoring and management of immune-mediated adverse events. Immunotargets Ther 2017;6:51–71.
- 56.↑
Khunger M, Rakshit S, Pasupuleti V et al.. Incidence of pneumonitis with use of programmed death 1 and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials. Chest 2017;152:271–281.
- 57.↑
Rudin CM, Pietanza MC, Bauer TM et al.. Rovalpituzumab tesirine, a DLL3-targeted antibody-drug conjugate, in recurrent small-cell lung cancer: a first-in-human, first-in-class, open-label, phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:42–51.
- 58.↑
Carbone DP, Morgensztern D, Le Moulec S et al.. Efficacy and safety of rovalpituzumab tesirine in patients with DLL3-expressing, ≥ 3rd line small cell lung cancer: results from the phase 2 TRINITY study [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(Suppl):Abstract 8507.
