Correlation between the efficacy of amrubicin and the previous chemotherapy regimen for relapsed small cell lung cancer

  • Authors:
    • Masashi Kasajima
    • Satoshi Igawa
    • Mikiko Ishihara
    • Sakiko Otani
    • Akira Takakura
    • Masanori Yokoba
    • Masaru Kubota
    • Jiichiro Sasaki
    • Masato Katagiri
    • Noriyuki Masuda
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: February 1, 2017     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.5662
  • Pages: 1719-1724
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Amrubicin has been demonstrated to be beneficial in the treatment of patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether there is a significant difference in the efficacy of amrubicin between patients with relapsed SCLC who were previously treated with a platinum agent in combination with a topoisomerase I inhibitor, and those patients previously treated with a platinum agent in combination with a topoisomerase II inhibitor. The medical records of patients with SCLC, who were diagnosed as having relapsed following treatment with a platinum‑based regimen and subsequently received amrubicin monotherapy, were retrospectively reviewed. Of a total of 48 patients with SCLC who were treated with amrubicin, the overall response rate, median progression‑free survival (PFS) time and median survival time (MST) were determined to be 31.3%, 7.1 and 17.0 months, respectively. The response rate, PFS time and MST did not differ significantly between the patients treated previously with a platinum agent in combination with irinotecan, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, (36.4%, 5.7 and 11.4 months, respectively) and those treated previously with a platinum agent in combination with etoposide, a topoisomerase II inhibitor (30.0%, 4.7 and 14.8 months, respectively). The results indicate that amrubicin may be effective as a second-line chemotherapeutic agent for patients with SCLC, irrespective of which platinum agent and topoisomerase inhibitor‑based chemotherapy regimen was previously administered.

Introduction

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is the most aggressive type of lung cancer and has a poor prognosis (1). The standard therapy for extensive SCLC is chemotherapy with a platinum compound (carboplatin or cisplatin) administered in combination with etoposide, a topoisomerase II inhibitor (2). A Japanese phase III study [Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 9511] investigated the clinical outcomes patients who were administered cisplatin and etoposide, compared with those who received cisplatin and irinotecan, a topoisomerase I inhibitor (3). Irrespective of the regimen selected, the majority of patients experience relapse or disease progression following an initial response to chemotherapy, and second-line therapy is subsequently required (4,5).

Amrubicin is a synthetic 9-aminoanthracycline that is converted to its active metabolite, amrubicinol, through the reduction of its C-13 ketone group to a hydroxy group (6). Amrubicin and amrubicinol are topoisomerase II inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to exert antitumor activities in various human tumor xenograft models (7). The drug has been evaluated in a number of Japanese studies and reported to yield a response rate of 36–52% and a median survival time of 7–12 months when administered as a second-line treatment (813). The results of previous studies have indicated that amrubicin is useful for the treatment of relapsed SCLC (813).

Few previous studies have evaluated the efficacy of amrubicin as a second-line treatment in patients with SCLC with consideration of the previous chemotherapy regimen. The present study aimed to evaluate whether there is a significant difference in the efficacy of amrubicin in patients with SCLC when treated previously with a platinum agent combined with either the topoisomerase II inhibitor etoposide or the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan.

Materials and methods

Patient selection

A retrospective study was conducted using the data of a cohort of 48 consecutive Japanese patients with SCLC that had relapsed following treatment with a platinum-based regimen combined with etoposide or irinotecan, and subsequently received amrubicin monotherapy at Kitasato University Hospital (Tokyo, Japan) between January 2009 and November 2014. The study reviewed the medical records of the patients and excluded those who did not have at least one measurable lesion, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1) (14). The patient characteristics were identified by a retrospective chart review, including age at diagnosis, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) at the time of amrubicin treatment initiation, smoking status, brain metastasis status, type of relapse (sensitive or refractory) following prior therapy and the previously administered chemotherapy regimen (platinum agent plus etoposide, or cisplatin plus irinotecan). The platinum agent was cisplatin or carboplatin. With regard to their smoking status, the patients were classified as current smokers, former light smokers (history of smoking a total of ≤10 pack-year plus smoking cessation ≥15 years previously), and non-smokers (a lifetime history of smoking <100 cigarettes). Refractory relapse was defined as the absence of response to a previous chemotherapy regimen, disease progression during chemotherapy or disease progression within 90 days of completing chemotherapy following the initial confirmation of an objective response. Sensitive relapse was defined as the absence of response to a previous chemotherapy regimen, disease progression during chemotherapy or disease progression ≥90 days after completing chemotherapy following the initial confirmation of an objective response.

Treatment

The patients received infusion of amrubicin at 40 mg/m2/day for 3 consecutive days every 21 days; the treatment was repeated until the appearance of disease progression, intolerable toxicity or the patient's refusal to continue the treatment. Prior to the start of treatment, patients were required to have an absolute neutrophil count of ≥1,500/mm3, a platelet count of ≥100,000/mm3, serum aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels <3-times the maximum normal value, and serum total bilirubin and creatinine levels of <1.5-times the maximum normal values. The doses of amrubicin were modified as required on the basis of hematological and non-hematological toxicities.

Evaluation of response and toxicities

Tumor response to treatment was classified according to the RECIST (version 1.1). Patients were evaluated for progression or regression of the disease by a physical examination and complete medical history, chest radiography, computed tomography of the chest and abdomen, magnetic resonance imaging of the head and positron emission tomography. Patient medical records were reviewed to identify toxicities, which were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4) grading system (http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm#ctc_40).

Statistical analysis

The distributions of the categorical characteristics between patient groups, divided according to the previous chemotherapy regimen, were analyzed using the χ2 test. Progression-free survival (PFS) time was measured as the duration from the start of amrubicin therapy to the determination of treatment failure (mortality or documentation of disease progression) or the date of censoring at the final follow-up examination. Overall survival (OS) time was defined as the duration from the start of amrubicin therapy to patient mortality, or the date of censoring at the final follow-up examination. The survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and variations in survival were analyzed by the log-rank test. The variables of age, gender, PS, prior chemotherapy regimen, status of brain metastasis and type of relapse were fitted into a Cox proportional-hazards model to predict the hazard ratios for the PFS and OS. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software, version 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) for Windows. The data are presented as the median and range, unless otherwise stated. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant result.

Results

Patient characteristics

The clinical characteristics of the patients are presented in Table I. A total of 48 patients treated with amrubicin were included in the final analysis. The median age of the patients was 67 years; 36 patients (75%) had a PS of 0 or 1 (a PS of 1 or 2 was considered to be good) and 8 patients (17%) had brain metastasis. Of the 48 patients, 37 (77%) had been previously treated with platinum, including cisplatin or carboplatin, and etoposide, and 11 patients (23%) had been treated with cisplatin and irinotecan. A total of 33 patients (69%) presented with sensitive relapse and 15 patients (31%) with refractory relapse. There were no significant differences observed in the clinical characteristics between those patients who had received platinum and etoposide, compared with patients who had received cisplatin and irinotecan.

Table I.

Characteristics of the patients involved in the present study.

Table I.

Characteristics of the patients involved in the present study.

CategoryTotal (n=48)EP (n=37)IP (n=11)P-valuea
Age, median (range)67 (34–82)67 (34–82)67 (56–75)
Gender, n 0.52
  Male4233  9
  Female  6  4  2
Smoking status, n
  Current483711
  Non or former light  0  0  0
ECOG performance status, n 0.84
  0–13628  8
  2–312  9  3
Clinical stage prior to receiving the previous therapy, n 0.15
  LD  6  6  0
  ED423111
Brain metastasis, n 0.05
  Positive  8  4  4
  Negative4033  7
Type of relapse, n 0.68
  Sensitive3326  7
  Refractory1511  4

a χ2 test. IP, irinotecan plus platinum group; EP, etoposide plus platinum group; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; LD, limited disease; ED, extensive disease.

Tumor response

Of a total of 48 patients, an objective response (as determined using RECIST version 1.1) to a first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy regimen had been identified in 35 patients, corresponding to an overall response rate of 72.9%. The response rates following treatment with platinum plus etoposide or cisplatin plus irinotecan were 73.0 and 72.7%, respectively (P=0.99). An objective response to the subsequent amrubicin therapy was identified in 15 patients, equating to a response rate of 31.3%. The response rate was 36.4% for patients previously treated with cisplatin and irinotecan, and 30.0% for patients previously treated with a platinum agent and etoposide; no significant differences were observed between the two groups (P=0.68). The tumor responses are presented in Table II.

Table II.

Clinical response in patients treated previously with cisplatin and irinotecan, and patients treated previously with a platinum agent and etoposide.

Table II.

Clinical response in patients treated previously with cisplatin and irinotecan, and patients treated previously with a platinum agent and etoposide.

GroupsTotal, nNumber of respondersRR, %P-value
Platinum agent+etoposide371130.00.68a
Cisplatin+irinotecan11  436.4
Total481531.3

a χ2 test (platinum agent + etoposide vs. cisplatin+irinotecan). RR, response rate.

Toxicities of amrubicin

A comparison of toxicities between the patients who had received platinum and etoposide and patients who had received cisplatin and irinotecan is presented in Table III. There were no significant differences identified in the frequencies of each type of toxicity between the two groups.

Table III.

Toxicities of amrubicin in patients who had received platinum and etoposide and patients who had received cisplatin and irinotecan.

Table III.

Toxicities of amrubicin in patients who had received platinum and etoposide and patients who had received cisplatin and irinotecan.

All toxicity grades, n (%)Toxicity grade ≥3, n (%)


ToxicityIPEPaP-valueIPEPaP-value
Nausea2 (18.2)5 (13.5)NS0 (0)0 (0)
Fatigue3 (27.3)5 (13.5)NS0 (0)0 (0)
Anorexia3 (27.3)8 (21.6)NS0 (0)1 (2.7)NS
Constipation3 (27.3)3 (8.1)NS0 (0)0 (0)NS
Anemia3 (27.3)9 (24.3)NS0 (0)3 (8.1)NS
Thrombocytopenia7 (63.6)17 (45.9)NS1 (9.1)5 (13.5)NS
Leukopenia10 (90.9)33 (89.2)NS3 (27.3)16 (43.2)NS
Neutropenia10 (90.9)32 (86.5)NS3 (27.3)16 (43.2)NS
Neutropenic fever0 (0)4 (10.8)NS0 (0)4 (10.8)NS
AST1 (9.1)4 (10.8)NS1 (9.1)1 (2.7)NS
ALT1 (9.1)4 (10.8)NS0 (0)0 (0)
Creatinine increased2 (18.2)1 (2.7)NS1 (9.1)1 (2.7)NS
Pneumonitis0 (0)1 (2.7)NS0 (0)1 (2.7)NS

a χ2 test. NS, not significant; IP, irinotecan platinum group; EP, etoposide platinum group; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase.

PFS and OS

The survival data update was completed by January 2015 and the median follow-up period was determined to be 12.7 months. The amrubicin treatment results for all patients indicated that the median PFS and OS times were 7.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.6–9.5 months; Fig. 1A] and 17.0 months (95% CI, 11.5–22.5 months; Fig. 1B), respectively.

With regard to the previous chemotherapy regimen, the median PFS times were 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.5–5.9 months) in the cisplatin and irinotecan group, and 4.7 months (95% CI, 2.7–8.7 months) in the platinum and etoposide group (P=0.43; Fig. 2A). The median OS times were 11.4 months (95% CI, 3.4–19.4 months) in the cisplatin and irinotecan group, and 14.8 months (95% CI, 6.9–22.7 months) in the platinum agent and etoposide group (P=0.23; Fig. 2B).

Multivariate analysis identified the PS, status of brain metastasis and type of relapse following the previous regimen as significant predictors of PFS. The PS and type of relapse following previous chemotherapy were also determined to be significant predictors of OS (Table IV).

Table IV.

Progression-free survival and overall survival analysis by the Cox regression model.

Table IV.

Progression-free survival and overall survival analysis by the Cox regression model.

Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis


VariableHR (95% CI)P-valueHR (95% CI)P-value
PFS
  Age (<75 vs. >75)0.99 (0.44–2.24)0.980.97 (0.34–2.54)0.96
  Gender0.73 (0.30–1.75)0.480.61 (0.24–1.58)0.31
  Performance status (0–1 vs. 2–3)3.27 (1.63–6.55)0.00094.21 (1.86–9.57)0.001
  Clinical stage (LD vs. ED)0.77 (0.32–1.82)0.550.91 (0.32–2.54)0.85
  Previous regimen (EP vs. IP)1.32 (0.66–2.64)0.441.43 (0.63–3.24)0.40
  Brain metastasis0.72 (0.32–1.62)0.430.35 (0.13–0.95)0.04
  Type of relapse (sensitive vs. refractory)2.59 (1.33–5.07)0.0053.19 (1.54–6.61)0.002
OS
  Age (<75 vs. >75)0.86 (0.33–2.23)0.761.09 (0.35–3.39)0.88
  Gender0.52 (0.20–1.38)0.190.43 (0.15–1.21)0.11
  Performance status (0–1 vs. 2–3)4.10 (1.93–8.73)0.00034.49 (1.88–10.73)0.001
  Clinical stage (LD vs. ED)0.73 (0.26–2.06)0.550.97 (0.28–3.40)0.97
  Previous regimen (EP vs. IP)1.21 (0.56–2.58)0.630.90 (0.35–2.30)0.83
  Brain metastasis1.35 (0.55–3.32)0.511.14 (0.37–3.47)0.82
  Type of relapse (sensitive vs. refractory)3.55 (1.58–8.00)0.0024.00 (1.66–9.60)0.002

[i] HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; LD, limited disease; ED, extensive disease; IP, irinotecan plus platinum group; EP, etoposide plus platinum group.

Discussion

Few previous studies have evaluated the efficacy of amrubicin monotherapy in patients with SCLC with regard to the previously administered chemotherapy regimen. Following the evaluation of the objective response, PFS and OS, the present study revealed no significant differences in the clinical efficacy of amrubicin monotherapy in patients treated with cisplatin and irinotecan (a topoisomerase I inhibitor) compared with patients treated with a platinum agent and etoposide (a topoisomerase II inhibitor).

However, preclinical studies (1518) have indicated that treatment with topoisomerase I inhibitors induces downregulation of topoisomerase I and upregulation of topoisomerase II, increasing cell sensitivity to topoisomerase II inhibitors. Similarly, treatment with topoisomerase II inhibitors has been reported to induce the downregulation of topoisomerase II and upregulation of topoisomerase I. A phase II study conducted by Murakami et al (19) reported that amrubicin monotherapy is effective against refractory SCLC; a subset analysis of this study revealed that the response to amrubicin was less pronounced and the survival rate was lower in patients who were previously treated with etoposide, a topoisomerase II inhibitor, compared with patients previously treated with irinotecan. By contrast, the results of a phase II study that evaluated the efficacy of amrubicin monotherapy for relapsed SCLC suggested that the absence of any significant difference in the PFS following amrubicin therapy was dependent on the previous platinum and topoisomerase inhibitor-based therapy (11). Furthermore, two retrospective studies also demonstrated an equivalent amrubicin efficacy against relapsed SCLC, irrespective of the prior platinum and topoisomerase inhibitor therapy (20,21).

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of amrubicin in terms of the response rate, PFS and OS with respect to the type of chemotherapy previously administered, and to subsequently demonstrate the equivalent efficacy of the drug, regardless of the first-line chemotherapy regimen used. There were a number of limitations in the current study; as it was retrospective the results cannot be regarded as definitive. Additionally, the small sample size may not have been sufficient to be fully representative, and no pharmacokinetic validation of the efficacy of amrubicin was conducted.

In conclusion, amrubicin may be a valid choice as a second-line chemotherapeutic agent for patients with SCLC, irrespective of the type of platinum agent and topoisomerase inhibitor-based chemotherapy regimen previously administered.

References

1 

Jackman DM and Johnson BE: Small-cell lung cancer. Lancet. 366:1385–1396. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Davies AM, Lara PN, Lau DH and Gandara DR: Treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 18:373–385. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Noda K, Nishiwaki Y, Kawahara M, Negoro S, Sugiura T, Yokoyama A, Fukuoka M, Mori K, Watanabe K, Tamura T, et al: Irinotecan plus cisplatin compared with etoposide plus cisplatin for extensive small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 346:85–91. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Schiller JH, Adak S, Cella D, DeVore RF III and Johnson DH: Topotecan versus observation after cisplatin plus etoposide in extensive stage small cell lung cancer: E7593-A phase III trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 19:2114–2122. 2001.PubMed/NCBI

5 

Stupp R, Monnerat C, Turrisi AT III, Perry MC and Leyvraz S: Small cell lung cancer: State of the art and future perspectives. Lung Cancer. 45:105–117. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Ishizumi K, Ohashi N and Tanno N: Stereospecific total synthesis of 9-aminoanthracyclines: (+)-9-amino-9-deoxydaunomycin and related compounds. J Org Chem. 52:4477–4485. 1987. View Article : Google Scholar

7 

Noda T, Watanabe T, Kohda A, Hosokawa S and Suzuki T: Chronic effects of a novel synthetic anthracycline derivative (SM-5887) on normal heart and doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy in beagle dogs. Invest New Drugs. 16:121–128. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Nogami N, Kiura K, Takigawa N, Harita S, Chikamori K, Shibayama T, Tabata M, Hotta K, Shinkai T and Tanimoto M: A phase II trial of combination chemotherapy with topotecan and amrubicin in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). J Clin Oncol. 28:(Suppl). 70542010.

9 

Inoue A, Sugawara S, Yamazaki K, Maemondo M, Suzuki T, Gomi K, Takanashi S, Inoue C, Inage M, Yokouchi H, et al: Randomized phase II trial comparing amrubicin with topotecan in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer: North Japan Lung Cancer Study Group Trial 0402. J Clin Oncol. 26:5401–5406. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Kaira K, Sunaga N, Tomizawa Y, Yanagitani N, Shimizu K, Imai H, Utsugi M, Iwasaki Y, Iijima H, Tsurumaki H, et al: A phase II study of amrubicin, a synthetic 9-aminoanthracycline, in patients with previously treated lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 69:99–104. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Onoda S, Masuda N, Seto T, Eguchi K, Takiguchi Y, Isobe H, Okamoto H, Ogura T, Yokoyama A, Seki N, et al: Phase II trial of amrubicin for treatment of refractory or relapsed small-cell lung cancer: Thoracic Oncology Research Group Study 0301. J Clin Oncol. 24:5448–5453. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Hasegawa Y, Takeda K and Kashii T: Clinical experience of amrubicin hydrochloride (Calsed) monotherapy in previously treated patients with small-cell lung cancer. Jpn J Lung Cancer. 45:811–815. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar

13 

Hirose T, Shirai T, Kusukoto S, Sugiyama T, Yamaoka T, Okuda K, Ohmori T, Ohnishi T and Adachi M: Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan: Phase II study of amrubicin and carboplatin in patients with the refractory or relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). J Clin Oncol. 28:S152010.

14 

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, et al: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 45:228–247. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Gupta RS, Gupta R, Eng B, Lock RB, Ross WE, Hertzberg RP, Caranfa MJ and Johnson RK: Camptothecin-resistant mutants of Chinese hamster ovary cells containing a resistant form of topoisomerase I. Cancer Res. 48:6404–6410. 1988.PubMed/NCBI

16 

Sugimoto Y, Tsukahara S, Oh-hara T, Isoe T and Tsuruo T: Decreased expression of DNA topoisomerase I in camptothecin-resistant tumor cell lines as determined by a monoclonal antibody. Cancer Res. 50:6925–6930. 1990.PubMed/NCBI

17 

Sugimoto Y, Tsukahara S, Oh-hara T, Liu LF and Tsuruo T: Elevated expression of DNA topoisomerase II in camptothecin-resistant human tumor cell lines. Cancer Res. 50:7962–7965. 1990.PubMed/NCBI

18 

Tan KB, Mattern MR, Eng WK, McCabe FL and Johnson RK: Nonproductive rearrangement of DNA topoisomerase I and II genes: Correlation with resistance to topoisomerase inhibitors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 81:1732–1735. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Murakami H, Yamamoto N, Shibata T, Takeda K, Ichinose Y, Ohe Y, Yamamoto N, Takeda Y, Kudoh S, Atagi S, et al: A single-arm confirmatory study of amrubicin therapy in patients with refractory small-cell lung cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG0901). Lung Cancer. 84:67–72. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Hirukawa I, Yokoyama T, Hirata A, Takata S, Ishii H and Takizawa H: A retrospective study of amrubicin treatment in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Jpn J Lung Cancer. 5:3812014.

21 

Sudo J, Tsuzuki H, Takahashi S, Yamane Y, Kurimoto F and Sakai H: Second-line chemotherapy for relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Nihon Kokyuki Gakkai Zasshi. 3:2332014.

Related Articles

Journal Cover

March-2017
Volume 13 Issue 3

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Kasajima M, Igawa S, Ishihara M, Otani S, Takakura A, Yokoba M, Kubota M, Sasaki J, Katagiri M, Masuda N, Masuda N, et al: Correlation between the efficacy of amrubicin and the previous chemotherapy regimen for relapsed small cell lung cancer. Oncol Lett 13: 1719-1724, 2017.
APA
Kasajima, M., Igawa, S., Ishihara, M., Otani, S., Takakura, A., Yokoba, M. ... Masuda, N. (2017). Correlation between the efficacy of amrubicin and the previous chemotherapy regimen for relapsed small cell lung cancer. Oncology Letters, 13, 1719-1724. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.5662
MLA
Kasajima, M., Igawa, S., Ishihara, M., Otani, S., Takakura, A., Yokoba, M., Kubota, M., Sasaki, J., Katagiri, M., Masuda, N."Correlation between the efficacy of amrubicin and the previous chemotherapy regimen for relapsed small cell lung cancer". Oncology Letters 13.3 (2017): 1719-1724.
Chicago
Kasajima, M., Igawa, S., Ishihara, M., Otani, S., Takakura, A., Yokoba, M., Kubota, M., Sasaki, J., Katagiri, M., Masuda, N."Correlation between the efficacy of amrubicin and the previous chemotherapy regimen for relapsed small cell lung cancer". Oncology Letters 13, no. 3 (2017): 1719-1724. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.5662