Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2026

Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Intratumoral Injection of Cisplatin for the Treatment of Isolated Mediastinal Recurrence of Lung Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2017
Oral second- and third-line lomustine-etoposide-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer
Bernard Lebeau1, Christos Chouaïd, Mariette Baud
1Department of Lung Diseases, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Pierre et Marie Curie Paris VI, France. bernard.lebeau@sat.aphp.fr
Purpose:
There is no standard therapy for progressive or recurrent small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Lomustine, etoposide and cyclophosphamide oral chemotherapy were evaluated in a feasibility study of efficacy survival and toxicity.
Patients And Methods:
71 patients were included in this study, 36 in second-line and 35 in third-line chemotherapy. They received lomustine (CCNU) 80 or 120mg on D1 only, etoposide 100mg from D1 until D6 up to D14 and cyclophosphamide 100mg from D1 until D6 up to D14 every 4 weeks. The dosages of CCNU and duration of administration of the other two drugs were adapted to an original therapeutic risk level table on D1 and throughout treatment. Evaluation based on clinical status, response and weekly blood counts was performed before each cycle until progression.
Results:
70 patients were evaluable. They received between 1 and 20 cycles of treatment (mean=3.7 for second-line and 3.0 for third-line treatment). Complete responses were observed for 3 patients in each line, and partial responses were noted in 13 patients in second-line and 8 patients in third-line, resulting in a total response rate of 27/70=38%. Median-survival time estimated from the start of second- or third-line treatment was the same in the two subgroups: 4.4 months, but the patients in two subgroups presented different clinical characteristics. Haematological toxicity was severe with three toxic deaths as frequently observed in this setting, but hospitalisations were uncommon during this fully oral treatment that provided a very good quality of life for these out-patients. Consumption of health care resources for this low-cost and ambulatory treatment was limited.
Conclusion:
The similar efficacy with acceptable safety, the ease of administration in out-patients and the economical advantages justify comparison of this oral chemotherapy with conventional intravenous chemotherapy. A randomised phase II trial is on-going in France for second-line SCLC patients on this theme.
Related Concept Videos
Treatment Resistent Cancers
Treatment Resistant Cancers
Cancer Therapies
However, cancer treatments can pose several challenges, as therapies used to kill cancer cells are generally also toxic to normal cells. Moreover, cancer cells mutate rapidly and can develop resistance to chemical agents or radiation therapy. Besides, all types of cancer cells may not respond to the same therapy. Some cancer cells respond to one...