Trial reportThoracic cancer2021
Randomized phase 2 study comparing irinotecan versus amrubicin as maintenance therapy after first-line induction therapy for extensive disease small cell lung cancer (HOT1401/NJLCG1401).
Trial report in Thoracic cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized phase 2 study comparing irinotecan versus amrubicin as maintenance therapy after first-line induction therapy for extensive disease small cell lung cancer (HOT1401/NJLCG1401).Thoracic cancer · 2021Trial
- Review
- Creation of an Integrated Clinical Trial Database and Data Sharing for Conducting New Research by the Japan Lung Cancer Society.JTO clinical and research reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 17 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA cisplatin plus irinotecan (CPT-11) regimen is used for patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Amrubicin (AMR) is primarily used for relapsed SCLC. The HOT1401/NJLCG1401 trial, an open-label randomized phase II trial, was designed to assess the benefit of maintenance therapy in patients with ED-SCLC who responded to induction therapy.
methodsPatients with histologically- or cytologically-confirmed ED-SCLC were included and were treated with an induction therapy of four cycles of cisplatin (60 mg/m
resultsA total of 34 patients were enrolled; 20 patients had progressive disease or received incomplete induction chemotherapy. Finally, 14 patients were randomly assigned to receive CPT-11 (n = 7) or AMR (n = 7). This study was terminated prematurely because of low patient accrual. The overall objective response rate was 73%, the median PFS was 5.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6-11.8), and the median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI: 13.7-not reached). No statistically significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) were noted between patients treated with CPT-11 and those treated with AMR. There were no treatment-related deaths in this study.
conclusionsMaintenance therapy with CPT-11 or AMR after induction therapy might be effective in some patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.