Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of platinum-etoposide rechallenge, topotecan and CAV in sensitive relapsed (SR)-SCLC. Methods: It was a retrospective observational study. Patients with SR-SCLC from three oncology centers were included in the study. Clinical outcomes were compared. Results: Of 102 patients, 39.8% (n=41) were treated with topotecan, 43.7% (n=45) with platinum-etoposide, and 16.5% (n=17) with CAV. The mPFS was 2.5 months (95% CI 1.9-3.1) in the topotecan, 5.5 months (95% CI 4.8-6.2) in the platinum-etoposide, and 5.1 months (95% CI 3.1-7.1) in the CAV groups. The difference between the topotecan and platinum-etoposide groups was significant (p < 0.001). The mOS was 3.2 months (95% CI 0.2-6.2) in the topotecan, 11.2 months (95% CI 6.9-15.3) in the platinum-etoposide, and 7.9 months (95% CI 6.3-9.4) in the CAV groups. The difference between topotecan and platinum-etoposide groups was significant (p=0.011). The ORR was 9.8% in the topotecan, 37.8% in the platinum-etoposide, and 41.2% in the CAV groups (p=0.005). Although a trend towards increased toxicity with platinum-etoposide was observed, all three regimens showed similar safety profiles. Conclusion: It was suggested that platinum-etoposide rechallenge improved PFS, OS and ORR with a similar safety profile over topotecan in SR-SCLC. Keywords: Sensitive relapse, SCLC, rechallenge, platinum-etoposide
Corresponding Author: Fatih Gurler