Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2020 May 1;126 Suppl 9(Suppl 9):2086-2092.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.32750.

Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first-line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study

Panpan Zhang  1 , Jie Li  1 , Jian Li  1 , Xiaotian Zhang  1 , Jun Zhou  1 , Xicheng Wang  1 , Zhi Peng  1 , Lin Shen  1 , Ming Lu  1
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first-line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study

Panpan Zhang et al. Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy is recommended for the treatment of advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (GEP-NEC). The objective of the current phase 2 study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity between etoposide and cisplatin (EP) and irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) as first-line treatment in patients with advanced GEP-NEC.

Methods: Patients with advanced, poorly differentiated GEP-NEC randomly were assigned to receive EP or IP. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicities.

Results: The planned size of the study population was 144 patients, but enrollment was terminated early at 66 patients because the premature analysis found similar responses in the 2 treatment arms. The ORRs of the EP and IP arms both were 42.4% (14 of 33 patients). The efficacy was similar for small cell NEC with EP or IP (63.2% and 61.5%, respectively; P = .61), whereas that of IP was slightly better in patients with non-small cell NEC (30% vs 14.3%; P = .42). The median progression-free survival was 6.4 months and 5.8 months, respectively, for the EP and IP arms (P = .81), and the median overall survival was 11.3 months and 10.2 months, respectively, for the EP and IP arms (P = .37). The incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia was significantly higher in the EP arm compared with the IP arm (45.4% vs 12.1%; P = .002). Nonhematological toxicity was relatively mild and more frequent in the IP arm compared with the EP arm (54.5% vs 18.2%; P = .001). No toxicity-related deaths were reported.

Conclusions: The results of the current study demonstrated that IP is not inferior to EP, with comparable efficacy for poorly differentiated NEC of the digestive system. In addition, both regimens appear to be well tolerated with diverse toxicity profiles.

Keywords: chemotherapy; etoposide and cisplatin (EP); gastroenteropancreatic; irinotecan and cisplatin (IP); neuroendocrine carcinoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors made no disclosures.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient selection and management flowchart. G3 indicates grade 3; HPF, high‐power fields; NEC, neuroendocrine carcinoma; NET, neuroendocrine tumor; PD, progressive disease.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Progression‐free survival (PFS) and (B) overall survival (OS) according to the treatment arm. Tick marks indicate patients whose data were censored. EP indicates etoposide and cisplatin; IP, irinotecan and cisplatin.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Scoazec JY, Couvelard A; Reseau TENpath . Classification of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: changes made in the 2017 WHO classification of tumours of endocrine organs and perspectives for the future [in French]. Ann Pathol. 2017;37:444‐456. - PubMed
    1. Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1335‐1342. - PMC - PubMed
    1. O’Toole D, Kianmanesh R, Caplin M. ENETS 2016 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Digestive Neuroendocrine Tumors: an update. Neuroendocrinology. 2016;103:117‐118. - PubMed
    1. Strosberg JR, Coppola D, Klimstra DS, et al;North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (NANETS) . The NANETS consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of poorly differentiated (high‐grade) extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas. Pancreas. 2010;39:799‐800. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Noda K, Nishiwaki Y, Kawahara M, et al. Irinotecan plus cisplatin compared with etoposide plus cisplatin for extensive small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:85‐91. - PubMed

Publication types