Original article Annals of Oncology 14: 709 714, 2003 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdg213 Randomized phase II study of cisplatin, irinotecan and etoposide combinations administered weekly or every 4 weeks for extensive small-cell lung cancer (JCOG9902-DI) I. Sekine 1 *, Y. Nishiwaki 2, K. Noda 3, S. Kudoh 4, M. Fukuoka 5, K. Mori 6, S. Negoro 7, A. Yokoyama 8, K. Matsui 9, Y. Ohsaki 10, T. Nakano 11 & N. Saijo 11 On behalf of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) Lung Cancer Study Group 1 Department of Internal Medicine, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo; 2 Division of Thoracic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa; 3 Division of Internal Medicine, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama; 4 First Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka City University Medical School, Osaka; 5 Department of Internal Medicine, Kinki University School of Medicine, Osaka; 6 Division of Internal Medicine, Tochigi Prefectural Cancer Center, Utsunomiya; 7 Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka; 8 Division of Internal Medicine, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata; 9 Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka Prefectural Habikino Hospital, Osaka; 10 First Department of Medicine, Asahikawa Medical College, Asahikawa; 11 Third Department of Internal Medicine, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan Received 7 October 2002; revised 9 December 2002; accepted 23 January 2003 Introduction Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the toxicity and antitumor effect of cisplatin, irinotecan and etoposide combinations on two schedules, arms A and B, for previously untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer (E-SCLC), and to select the right arm for phase III trials. Patients and methods: Sixty patients were randomized to receive either arm A (cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 day 1, weekly for 9 weeks, irinotecan 90 mg/m 2 day 1, on weeks 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, and etoposide 60 mg/m 2 days 1 3, on weeks 2, 4, 6, 8), or arm B (cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 day 1, irinotecan 60 mg/m 2 days 1, 8, 15, and etoposide 50 mg/m 2 days 1 3, every 4 weeks for four cycles). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support was provided in both arms. Results: Full cycles were delivered to 73% and 70% of patients in arms A and B, respectively. Incidences of grade 3 4 neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, infection and diarrhea were 57, 43, 27, 7 and 7%, respectively, in arm A, and 87, 47, 10, 13 and 10%, respectively, in arm B. A treatment-related death developed in one patient in arm A. Complete and partial response rates were 7% and 77%, respectively, in arm A, and 17% and 60%, respectively, in arm B. Median survival time was 8.9 months in arm A, and 12.9 months in arm B. Conclusions: Arm B showed a promising complete response rate and median survival with acceptable toxicity in patients with E-SCLC, and should be selected for the investigational arm in phase III trials. Key words: cisplatin, etoposide, irinotecan, randomized phase II, small-cell lung cancer Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), which accounts for approximately 12% of all malignant pulmonary tumors in Japan [1], pursues an aggressive clinical course with rapid growth and early widespread metastases. Whereas chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy yields a high response rate and significant prolongation of survival in patients with limited disease, treatment of extensive disease remains palliative, and long-term survivors beyond 2 years are extremely rare [2]. A combination of cisplatin and etoposide (PE) has been the standard treatment, with response rates ranging from 60% to 90% and median *Correspondence to: Dr I. Sekine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan. Tel: +81-3-3542-2511; Fax: +81-3-3542-3815; E-mail: isekine@ ncc.go.jp survival times (MSTs) from 8 to 11 months in this patient population [3 5]. Irinotecan, a water-soluble camptothecin derivative, has been shown to exhibit excellent antitumor activity against SCLC in monotherapy and in combination with cisplatin [6, 7]. A previous phase III trial of the PE regimen versus a combination of cisplatin and irinotecan (PI) in patients with extensive SCLC showed that the PI regimen produced an MST of 12.8 months and a 2-year survival of 21%, which were significantly better than the results with the PE regimen [8]. However, since etoposide is still considered one of the key drugs for the treatment of SCLC, a combination of these three drugs, cisplatin, irinotecan and etoposide (PIE), seemed to be a promising strategy for advanced SCLC. We previously determined the recommended doses of the PIE regimens for two schedules, weekly and every 4 weeks, independently [9, 10]. In this phase II study, we evaluated the two PIE regimens. 2003 European Society for Medical Oncology
710 Patients and methods Protocol objectives The objectives of this study were: (i) to evaluate the toxicity and antitumor effect of PIE combination regimens administered weekly (arm A) and every 4 weeks (arm B) to patients with extensive stage SCLC; and (ii) to select the right arm for subsequent phase III trials. The primary endpoint was the response rate, with MST and toxicity profiles as the secondary endpoints. Patient selection Patients were enrolled in this study if they met the following criteria: (i) a histological or cytological diagnosis of SCLC; (ii) no prior treatment; (iii) measurable disease; (iv) extensive disease, defined as having distant metastasis or contralateral hilar lymph node metastasis; (v) performance status of 0 to 2 on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale; (vi) predicted life expectancy of 3 months; (vii) age between 20 and 70 years; (viii) adequate organ function as documented by a WBC count 4.0 10 9 /l, neutrophil count 2.0 10 9 /l, hemoglobin 9.5 g/dl, platelet count 100 10 9 /l, total serum bilirubin 1.5 mg/dl, hepatic transaminases 100 IU/l, serum creatinine 1.2 mg/dl, creatinine clearance 60 ml/min, and PaO 2 60 Torr; and (ix) written informed consent. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had any of the following: (i) uncontrollable pleural, pericardial effusion or ascites; (ii) symptomatic brain metastasis; (iii) active infection; (iv) contraindications for the use of irinotecan, including diarrhea, ileus, interstitial pneumonitis and lung fibrosis; (v) synchronous active malignancies; (vi) serious concomitant medical illness, including severe heart disease, uncontrollable diabetes mellitus or hypertension; or (vii) pregnancy or breast feeding. Pretreatment evaluation Pretreatment assessment included a medical history, physical examination, complete blood cell count, differential counts, routine chemistry measurements, creatinine clearance, blood gas analysis, electrocardiogram, chest X-ray, chest computed tomography (CT) scan, brain CT scan or magnetic resonance imaging, abdominal CT scan or ultrasound sonography, and if patients complained of symptoms suggesting bone metastasis, a radionuclide bone scan. Treatment schedule In arm A, cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 was administered intravenously (i.v.) over 60 min on day 1 and at 1-week intervals for 9 weeks; irinotecan 90 mg/m 2 was administered i.v. over 90 min on day 1 on weeks 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9; and etoposide 60 mg/m 2 was administered i.v. over 60 min on days 1 3 of weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8. Hydration (2000 ml) and 5HT 3 -antagonist were given on day 1, followed by an additional infusion if indicated. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered prophylactically on days when the cytotoxic drugs were not given, unless the WBC count exceeded 10.0 10 9 /l (Figure 1). In arm B, cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 was administered i.v. over 60 min on day 1; irinotecan 60 mg/m 2 was administered i.v. over 90 min on days 1, 8 and 15; and etoposide 50 mg/m 2 was administered i.v. over 60 min on days 1 3. Hydration (2500 ml) and 5HT 3 -antagonist were given on day 1, followed by an additional infusion if indicated. G-CSF was subcutaneously injected from day 5 to the day when the WBC count exceeded 10.0 10 9 /l. This treatment was repeated every 4 weeks for a total of four cycles (Figure 1). Toxicity assessment and treatment modification During the course of treatment, complete blood cell counts and differential counts were analyzed twice a week, and routine chemistry measurements and Figure 1. Treatment schema of arm A (weekly regimen) and arm B (4-week based regimen). a chest X-ray were performed once a week. Toxicity was graded according to the toxicity criteria of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG), a modified version of the National Cancer Institutes-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) issued in 1991 [11]. In arm A, subsequent cycles of chemotherapy were delayed for 1 week if one of the following toxicities was noted on day 1: WBC count <2.0 10 9 /l, platelet count <75 10 9 /l, serum creatinine level 2.0 mg/dl, elevated hepatic transaminase level or total serum bilirubin grade 2, fever 38 C, diarrhea grade 1 3, presence of ileus, massive pleural effusion or ascites, or a performance status of three or greater. The dose of irinotecan was reduced by 25% in all subsequent cycles if grade 2 3 diarrhea was noted. In arm B, irinotecan administration was omitted if one of the following toxicities was noted on day 8 or 15: WBC count <2.0 10 9 /l, platelet count <75 10 9 /l, elevated hepatic transaminase level or total serum bilirubin grade 2, fever 38 C, grade 1 3 diarrhea, presence of ileus, massive pleural effusion or ascites, or a performance status of three or greater. The subsequent cycle of chemotherapy was delayed if one of the following toxicities was noted on day 1: a WBC count <3.0 10 9 /l, a platelet count <100 10 9 /l, a serum creatinine level 1.6 mg/dl, an elevated hepatic transaminase level or total serum bilirubin grade 2, fever 38 C, diarrhea of grade 1 3, presence of ileus, massive pleural effusion or ascites, or a performance status of three or greater. If grade 4 leukopenia, grade 4 neutropenia lasting over 7 days, neutropenic fever or grade 4 thrombocytopenia was noted, the doses of irinotecan and etoposide were reduced by 25% in all subsequent cycles, and if grade 2 3 diarrhea was noted, the dose of irinotecan was reduced by 25% in all subsequent cycles. In both arms, treatment was terminated if grade 4 diarrhea, drug-induced interstitial pneumonitis or grade 3 4 peripheral neuropathy was noted. Response evaluation Objective tumor response was evaluated according to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria issued in 1979 [12]. Study design, data management and statistical considerations This study was designed as a multi-institutional, prospective, randomized phase II trial by 20 institutions in the Lung Cancer Study Group of JCOG. The protocol and consent form were approved by the Clinical Trial Review Committee of JCOG and the Institutional Review Board of each institution. Registration and randomization was conducted at the Registration Center. Data management, periodical monitoring and the final analysis were performed by the Study Coordinator. Simon s randomized phase II selection design was used to determine the sample size. Assuming response rates of a
poor and better arm of 70% and 85%, respectively, and a correct selection probability of 90%, the estimated required number of patients was 26 for each arm [13]. Accordingly, 30 patients for each arm and their accrual period of 24 months were planned for this study. The dose intensity of each drug was calculated for each patient who received at least two cycles of chemotherapy by using the following formula: Dose intensity (mg/m 2 /week) = Total milligrams of a drug in all cycles per body surface area/[(total days of therapy)/7] where total days of therapy is the number of days from day 1 of cycle 1 to day 1 of the last cycle plus 7 days for arm A or 28 days for arm B [14]. The median dose intensity was then calculated. The survival distribution was estimated by the Kaplan Meier method [15]. The final analysis was planned 15 months after the last patient accrual. The investigational arm in a phase III trial was proposed based on the response rate, survival, toxicity and compliance data in the final analysis. Results Patient characteristics From August 1999 to October 2000, 30 patients each were entered in arms A and B, and the last follow-up was performed in February 2002. All enrolled patients were included in the analyses of toxicity, tumor response and patient survival. The demographic details are listed in Table 1. Information on weight loss during the 6-month period before study entry was available for all patients. There were no differences between the two arms in any characteristics listed. Treatment delivery Treatment with respect to the number of cycles delivered was well tolerated in both arms. Of the 30 patients in arm, 22 (73%) in arm A and 21 (70%) in arm B received full cycles of chemotherapy, i.e. nine cycles in arm A and four cycles in arm B (Table 2). Therapy was stopped because of toxicity in four (13%) Table 1. Patient characteristics Characteristics Arm A (n = 30) Arm B (n = 30) n (%) n (%) Sex Female 3 (10) 3 (10) Male 27 (90) 27 (90) Age Median 64 63 Range (47 70) (46 68) Performance status 0 2 (7) 3 (10) 1 25 (83) 25 (83) 2 3 (10) 2 (7) Body weight loss <5% 23 (77) 21 (70) 5 10% 6 (20) 8 (27) >10% 1 (3) 1 (3) 711 patients in arm A and in six (20%) patients in arm B, and because of tumor progression in three (10%) patients each in both arms. The treatment delays in arm A and skipping in arm B, however, were significant (Table 2). Only eight (27%) patients in arm A completed the treatment without delay, and only seven (23%) patients in arm B received all doses planned in the protocol. A total of 105 chemotherapy cycles were administered to 30 patients in arm B, but eight (8%) doses of irinotecan on day 8, and 33 (31%) doses of irinotecan on day 15 were omitted because of toxicity according to the criteria in the protocol. The median total doses of cisplatin and etoposide administered per patient were maintained at the planned dose levels in both arms (Table 3). The median total dose of irinotecan as a percent- Table 2. Treatment delivery No. of cycles n (%) Arm A (n = 30) 9 22 (73) 8 4 (13) 5 1 (3) 4 1 (3) 2 1 (3) 1 1 (3) Delay (weeks) 0 8 (27) 1 7 (23) 2 6 (20) 3 4 (13) 4 3 (10) 7 1 (3) NE 1 (3) Arm B (n = 30) 4 21 (70) 3 5 (17) 2 2 (7) 1 2 (7) Delay (weeks) 0 22 (73) 1 3 (10) 2 2 (7) 3 1 (3) NE 2 (7) No. of missed cycles 0 7 (23) 1 11 (37) 2 4 (13) 3 6 (20) 4 2 (7) NE, not evaluable.
712 Table 3. Actual total dose and dose intensity delivered age of the scheduled dose (the relative total dose) was 100% in arm A, but only 78% in arm B, reflecting the skips of irinotecan on days 8 and 15. The dose intensity was evaluable in 29 patients in arm A and 28 patients in arm B (Table 3). Median relative dose intensity was well maintained at a level of 80% or higher except that of irinotecan in arm B (77%). The median actual dose intensity of etoposide was 70 mg/m 2 /week in arm A and 37 mg/m 2 / week in arm B. Toxicity Median (range) total dose or dose intensity administered per patient Arm A Arm B Actual Relative (%) a Actual Relative (%) a Total dose (mg/m 2 ) Cisplatin 225 (25 225) 100 (11 100) 240 (60 240) 100 (25 100) Irinotecan 450 (90 450) 100 (20 100) 563 (60 720) 78 (8 100) Etoposide 720 (0 720) 100 (0 100) 600 (150 600) 100 (25 100) Dose intensity (mg/m 2 /week) Cisplatin 21 (13 25) 82 (52 100) 15 (12 15) 100 (80 100) Irinotecan 40 (21 50) 80 (41 100) 35 (19 45) 77 (42 100) Etoposide 70 (47 80) 88 (59 100) 37 (28 38) 99 (75 100) a Relative (%): actual/planned 100. Table 4. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity Toxicity Arm A (n = 30) Arm B (n = 30) Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 3 Grade 4 n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Leukocytopenia 9 (30) 6 (20) 12 (40) 4 (13) Neutropenia 5 (17) 12 (40) 14 (47) 12 (40) Anemia 12 (40) 5 (17) 12 (40) 2 (7) Thrombocytopenia 8 (27) 0 (0) 3 (10) 0 (0) Elevated creatinine 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) Hyponatremia 4 (13) 0 (0) 6 (20) 0 (0) Hypokalemia 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (7) 0 (0) Infection 1 (3) 1 (3) 2 (7) 2 (7) Nausea/vomiting 1 (3) 0 (0) 2 (7) 0 (0) Stomatitis 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) Diarrhea 2 (7) 0 (0) 1 (3) 2 (7) Arrhythmia 2 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) Dyspnea 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) Toxicity was evaluated in all patients. The major toxicity was neutropenia in both arms: grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was noted in 17 (57%) patients in arm A and in 26 (87%) patients in arm B (Table 4). The median duration of G-CSF administration was 33 days (range 0 59) in arm A and 27 days (range 3 65) in arm B. One patient in arm A developed grade 4 septic shock, grade 3 diarrhea, arrhythmia, dyspnea and elevated serum creatinine, and died 16 days after the start of the treatment. There was a protocol violation in this case because the patient was given the second cycle of chemotherapy despite the presence of grade 1 diarrhea and decreased performance status of three. Two patients in arm B also developed grade 4 septic shock in the first and third chemotherapy cycle, respectively, but recovered completely from the toxicity. There were three episodes of grade 3 infection consisting of neutropenic fever, pneumonia and phlegmon. In all, grade 3 or 4 infection developed in two (7%) patients in arm A and four (13%) patients in arm B. The percentage of patients who developed grade 3 or 4 anemia was almost the same in both arms: 43% in arm A and 47% in arm B. Red blood cell transfusion, however, was required in 13 (43%) patients in arm A and four (13%) patients in arm B. Thrombocytopenia was mild in both arms. Diarrhea was mild in most patients, and grade 3 or 4
713 Table 5. Clinical responses Response Arm A Arm B n (%) n (%) Complete response 2 (7) 5 (17) Partial response 23 (77) 18 (60) No change 1 (3) 0 (0) Progressive disease 3 (10) 4 (13) Not evaluable 1 3 diarrhea was noted in two (7%) patients in arm A and three (10%) patients in arm B. Grade 3 arrhythmia in one patient in arm A resolved shortly after treatment with an antiarrhythmic agent. The other two episodes of grade 3 or 4 arrhythmia were associated with septic shock. Three episodes of grade 3 or 4 dyspnea were associated with pneumonia and septic shock. All episodes of grade 3 hyponatremia and hypokalemia not associated with infection were asymptomatic and transient. Response and survival Two complete responses (CRs) and 23 partial responses (PRs) were obtained in arm A, resulting in the overall clinical response rate of 83% with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 65 94%, whereas five CRs and 18 PRs were obtained in arm B, and the overall response rate was 77% (95% CI 58% to 90%) (Table 5). The MST and 1-year survival rate were 8.9 months and 40%, respectively, in arm A, and 12.9 months and 57%, respectively, in arm B (Figure 2). Discussion This is the first study to evaluate PIE combinations in patients with extensive SCLC. Myelosuppression was the major toxicity observed frequently, and was comparable in both arms. We observed one (3%) treatment-related death in arm A, but it was associated with a protocol violation, and there were two (7%) and four (13%) grade 3 or 4 infections in arms A and B, respectively. Diarrhea and other non-hematological toxicities were not significant. Thus, toxicity was acceptable in both arms, and the recommended doses determined in our previous combination phase I studies proved reasonable [9, 10]. The clinical response and survival in both arms were comparable with those reported in the literature [3 8]. The results of this study suggested that the PIE combinations in both schedules have significant activity against extensive SCLC with acceptable toxicity. Randomized phase II trials are a useful method of selecting one arm for subsequent phase III trials [13]. It is not always easy, however, to determine the right arm on the basis of the results of this kind of study, because the sample size is not large enough to detect statistically significant differences between the arms. The response rate, the primary endpoint of this study, was slightly higher in arm A (83% in arm A and 77% in arm B), but the CR rate and MST were both higher in arm B (7% and 8.9 months in arm A, and 17% and 12.9 months in arm B, respectively). Since Figure 2. Survival by treatment arm. Arm A, thin line with closed circle; arm B, thick line with closed triangle. patients with various characteristics were equally distributed in the two arms, it seems reasonable to attribute the difference in survival to the difference in treatment arms. We therefore concluded that arm B should be selected for future phase III studies. The CR rate and MST in arm B were more promising than the historical control data [3 8]. The reasons for the difference in survival between the arms are unknown. The proportion of patients who discontinued treatment because of severe toxicity did not differ between the arms. The cumulative total doses of cisplatin, irinotecan and etoposide were comparable in both arms. Since the dose intensity of the three agents in arm A was higher than in arm B, the dose intensity did not contribute to the better survival in arm B. Because of the negative results of recent phase III studies comparing dose intensive versus standard chemotherapy [16 18], increasing dose intensity is not considered a major strategy for the treatment of extensive SCLC. Although compliance with the treatment cycles appeared good in arm B, irinotecan administration often needed to be skipped, especially on day 15. Thus, a 3-week schedule in which irinotecan is administered only on days 1 and 8 and the chemotherapy cycle is repeated every 3 weeks may improve treatment delivery and antitumor efficacy. A recent randomized phase II study of cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer showed that a 3-week schedule was better than a 4-week schedule [19]. In conclusion, combinations of cisplatin, irinotecan and etoposide on two schedules were effective against extensive SCLC with acceptable toxicity. Arm B, in which these agents were administered on a 4-week basis, was considered to be more appropriate as the investigational arm in phase III trials. Acknowledgements This work was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Cancer Research from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan.
714 References 1. Sekine I, Kodama T, Yokose T et al. Rare pulmonary tumors a review of 32 cases. Oncology 1998; 55: 431 434. 2. Sekine I, Nishiwaki Y, Kakinuma R et al. Late recurrence of small-cell lung cancer: treatment and outcome. Oncology 1996; 53: 318 321. 3. Evans WK, Shepherd FA, Feld R et al. VP-16 and cisplatin as first-line therapy for small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1985; 3: 1471 1477. 4. Fukuoka M, Furuse K, Saijo N et al. Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus cisplatin and etoposide versus alternation of these regimens in small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1991; 83: 855 861. 5. 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 Oncol 1992; 10: 282 291. 6. 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. 7. Kudoh S, Fujiwara Y, Takada Y et al. Phase II study of irinotecan combined with cisplatin in patients with previously untreated small-cell lung cancer. West Japan Lung Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 1068 1074. 8. Noda K, Nishiwaki Y, Kawahara M et al. Irinotecan plus cisplatin compared with etoposide plus cisplatin for extensive disease small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 85 91. 9. Sekine I, Nishiwaki Y, Kakinuma R et al. Phase I/II trial of weekly cisplatin, etoposide and irinotecan for metastatic lung cancer (JCOG STUDY 9507). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998; 17: 1926a (Abstr). 10. Tsukada H, Yokoyama A, Kurita Y et al. Phase I/II trial of cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19: 517a (Abstr). 11. Tobinai K, Kohno A, Shimada Y et al. Toxicity grading criteria of Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1993; 23: 250 257. 12. World Health Organization. Handbook for Reporting Results of Cancer Treatment. WHO Offset Publication No. 48. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO 1979. 13. Simon R, Wittes RE, Ellenberg SS. Ransomized phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 1985; 69: 1375 1381. 14. Longo DL, Duffey PL, DeVita VT Jr et al. The calculation of actual or received dose intensity: a comparison of published methods. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 2042 2051. 15. Armitage P, Berry G. Survival analysis. In Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 3rd edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications 1994; 469 492. 16. Souhami RL, Rudd R, de Elvira MCR et al. Randomized trial comparing weekly versus 3-week chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer: a Cancer Research Campaign trial. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 1806 1813. 17. Furuse K, Fukuoka M, Nishiwaki Y et al. Phase III study of intensive weekly chemotherapy with recombinant human granulocyte colonystimulating factor versus standard chemotherapy in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. The Japan Clinical Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2126 2132. 18. Murray N, Livingston R, Shepherd F et al. Randomized study of CODE versus alternating CAV/EP for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: an intergroup study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trial Group and Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 2300 2308. 19. Soto Parra HJ, Cavina R, Antonelli G et al. Superiority of three-week vs. four-week schedule of cisplatin (CDDP) and gemcitabine (GEM): results of a randomized phase II study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19: 546a (Abstr).