Clinical Impact of Upfront Dose Reduction of the First Cycle of First-Line Treatments on Safety and Survival in Elderly Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Takashi Nojiri, Akiisa Omura, Kiyotsugu Iede, Utae Katsushima, Masahiko Higashiyama
{"title":"Clinical Impact of Upfront Dose Reduction of the First Cycle of First-Line Treatments on Safety and Survival in Elderly Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.","authors":"Takashi Nojiri, Akiisa Omura, Kiyotsugu Iede, Utae Katsushima, Masahiko Higashiyama","doi":"10.1111/ajco.14203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The number of elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly increasing worldwide. Elderly patients with NSCLC are less suited to active treatment than younger patients. Upfront dose reduction (UDR) of the first cycle of first-line treatment is sometimes chosen for elderly patients due to adverse events. We investigated the clinical impact of UDR in elderly NSCLC patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From a prospective database of consecutive NSCLC patients without actionable genomic alterations who received first-line treatment between November 2018 and March 2024, we analyzed 131 patients of ≥65 years of age. Patients were treated with standard-dose chemotherapy between November 2018 and December 2021 and UDR chemotherapy between January 2022 and March 2024. We retrospectively compared the incidence of adverse events and clinical outcomes between the standard-dose and UDR groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of treatment-related death was relatively lower in the UDR group (UDR vs. standard-dose: 3.0 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.0624). There was no significant difference in the incidence of immune-related adverse events between the two groups. The objective response rate was higher in the UDR group (UDR vs. standard-dose: 61.5 vs. 48.5%; p = 0.161). The log-rank analysis showed that the UDR group had significantly longer median progression-free survival/overall survival relative to the standard-dose group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UDR as a first-line treatment was safe and could be a suitable approach for elderly patients with NSCLC. Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes in the treatment of elderly NSCLC patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":8633,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","volume":" ","pages":"e14203"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.14203","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The number of elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly increasing worldwide. Elderly patients with NSCLC are less suited to active treatment than younger patients. Upfront dose reduction (UDR) of the first cycle of first-line treatment is sometimes chosen for elderly patients due to adverse events. We investigated the clinical impact of UDR in elderly NSCLC patients.

Methods: From a prospective database of consecutive NSCLC patients without actionable genomic alterations who received first-line treatment between November 2018 and March 2024, we analyzed 131 patients of ≥65 years of age. Patients were treated with standard-dose chemotherapy between November 2018 and December 2021 and UDR chemotherapy between January 2022 and March 2024. We retrospectively compared the incidence of adverse events and clinical outcomes between the standard-dose and UDR groups.

Results: The incidence of treatment-related death was relatively lower in the UDR group (UDR vs. standard-dose: 3.0 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.0624). There was no significant difference in the incidence of immune-related adverse events between the two groups. The objective response rate was higher in the UDR group (UDR vs. standard-dose: 61.5 vs. 48.5%; p = 0.161). The log-rank analysis showed that the UDR group had significantly longer median progression-free survival/overall survival relative to the standard-dose group.

Conclusions: UDR as a first-line treatment was safe and could be a suitable approach for elderly patients with NSCLC. Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes in the treatment of elderly NSCLC patients.

减少一线治疗第一周期对老年非小细胞肺癌患者安全性和生存率的临床影响
背景:在世界范围内,老年非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者的数量正在迅速增加。老年非小细胞肺癌患者比年轻患者更不适合积极治疗。由于不良事件,老年患者有时选择一线治疗第一周期的前期剂量减少(UDR)。我们研究了UDR在老年非小细胞肺癌患者中的临床影响。方法:从2018年11月至2024年3月期间连续接受一线治疗的无可操作基因组改变的NSCLC患者的前瞻性数据库中,我们分析了131例年龄≥65岁的患者。患者在2018年11月至2021年12月期间接受标准剂量化疗,在2022年1月至2024年3月期间接受UDR化疗。我们回顾性比较了标准剂量组和UDR组的不良事件发生率和临床结果。结果:UDR组治疗相关死亡发生率相对较低(UDR vs标准剂量:3.0 vs 13.6%;p = 0.0624)。两组之间免疫相关不良事件的发生率无显著差异。UDR组的客观缓解率更高(UDR vs标准剂量:61.5 vs 48.5%;p = 0.161)。log-rank分析显示,与标准剂量组相比,UDR组的中位无进展生存期/总生存期明显更长。结论:UDR作为一线治疗是安全的,是适合老年NSCLC患者的治疗方法。对老年非小细胞肺癌患者的临床疗效评价有待进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Asia–Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal of oncology that aims to be a forum for facilitating collaboration and exchanging information on what is happening in different countries of the Asia–Pacific region in relation to cancer treatment and care. The Journal is ideally positioned to receive publications that deal with diversity in cancer behavior, management and outcome related to ethnic, cultural, economic and other differences between populations. In addition to original articles, the Journal publishes reviews, editorials, letters to the Editor and short communications. Case reports are generally not considered for publication, only exceptional papers in which Editors find extraordinary oncological value may be considered for review. The Journal encourages clinical studies, particularly prospectively designed clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信