Comparing docetaxel with gemcitabine as second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A single institute randomized phase II study

K. Adnan, Zahra Em, Karimi Shirin, E. Habib, K. Kian
{"title":"Comparing docetaxel with gemcitabine as second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A single institute randomized phase II study","authors":"K. Adnan, Zahra Em, Karimi Shirin, E. Habib, K. Kian","doi":"10.14312/2052-4994.2015-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy is the backbone of treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) however second-line treatment options are controversial particularly in patients with borderline performance status (PS) of 2. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and toxicity of weekly docetaxel versus gemcitabine in this clinical setting. Patients and methods: A total of 70 patients with advanced (stage IIIB, IV) NSCLC entered this single institute study. Cases of this study had experienced disease progression after the first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, with PS 02 in “Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group” scale. They were randomly assigned by stratified blocks to receive docetaxel 35 mg/m2 (Arm A, n34) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Arm B, n36) days 1, 8 and 15 every three weeks, for up to six cycles. Primary end point was progression free survival (PFS) and secondary end points were objective response rate, disease control rate, median overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Dose modification was permitted upon clinician’s discretion for each individual patient. Results: Median of PFS was 2.03 months in arm A and 2.63 months in arm B (HR 1.279; 95% CI: 0.710-2.304, P 0.551). Although median OS for arm A was numerically greater (9.2 months) than arm B (8.3 months) it was statistically non-significant (HR 1.384; 95% CI: 0.632 to 2.809, P 0.59). Objective response was higher in Arm B than that in Arm A (P 0.20) but disease control rates were statistically different in both arms (P 0.034). Statistically significant differences in term of leukopenia was seen in arm B (P 0.013). Conclusion: This study, with limited number of cases, indicates that in advanced NSCLC, weekly docetaxel and gemcitabine are reasonable second-line treatment options with statistically similar effectiveness in terms of PFS and median OS with manageable toxicities in patients with PS 0-2.","PeriodicalId":90205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer research & therapy","volume":"15 1","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer research & therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14312/2052-4994.2015-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy is the backbone of treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) however second-line treatment options are controversial particularly in patients with borderline performance status (PS) of 2. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and toxicity of weekly docetaxel versus gemcitabine in this clinical setting. Patients and methods: A total of 70 patients with advanced (stage IIIB, IV) NSCLC entered this single institute study. Cases of this study had experienced disease progression after the first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, with PS 02 in “Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group” scale. They were randomly assigned by stratified blocks to receive docetaxel 35 mg/m2 (Arm A, n34) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Arm B, n36) days 1, 8 and 15 every three weeks, for up to six cycles. Primary end point was progression free survival (PFS) and secondary end points were objective response rate, disease control rate, median overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Dose modification was permitted upon clinician’s discretion for each individual patient. Results: Median of PFS was 2.03 months in arm A and 2.63 months in arm B (HR 1.279; 95% CI: 0.710-2.304, P 0.551). Although median OS for arm A was numerically greater (9.2 months) than arm B (8.3 months) it was statistically non-significant (HR 1.384; 95% CI: 0.632 to 2.809, P 0.59). Objective response was higher in Arm B than that in Arm A (P 0.20) but disease control rates were statistically different in both arms (P 0.034). Statistically significant differences in term of leukopenia was seen in arm B (P 0.013). Conclusion: This study, with limited number of cases, indicates that in advanced NSCLC, weekly docetaxel and gemcitabine are reasonable second-line treatment options with statistically similar effectiveness in terms of PFS and median OS with manageable toxicities in patients with PS 0-2.
比较多西他赛和吉西他滨作为二线化疗治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌患者:一项单研究所随机II期研究
背景:以铂为基础的双重化疗是晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)治疗的支柱,但二线治疗方案存在争议,特别是在边缘性表现状态(PS)为2的患者中。本研究的目的是比较每周多西他赛与吉西他滨在这种临床环境中的疗效和毒性。患者和方法:共有70例晚期(IIIB, IV期)NSCLC患者进入了这项单机构研究。本研究病例在一线铂类双重化疗后出现疾病进展,“东部肿瘤合作组”分级ps02。他们被分层分组随机分配,每三周接受多西他赛35 mg/m2 (A组,n34)或吉西他滨1000 mg/m2 (B组,n36)第1、8和15天,最多6个周期。主要终点为无进展生存期(PFS),次要终点为客观缓解率、疾病控制率、中位总生存期(OS)和毒性。根据临床医生的判断,允许对每个病人的剂量进行调整。结果:A组PFS中位数为2.03个月,B组为2.63个月(HR1.279;95% ci: 0.710-2.304, p0.551)。虽然A组的中位生存期(9.2个月)在数值上高于B组(8.3个月),但在统计学上无显著差异(HR1.384;95% CI: 0.632 ~ 2.809, P0.59)。B组客观有效率高于A组(P0.20),但两组疾病控制率差异有统计学意义(P0.034)。B组白细胞减少率差异有统计学意义(P0.013)。结论:这项病例数量有限的研究表明,在晚期NSCLC中,每周多西他赛和吉西他滨是合理的二线治疗选择,在ps0 -2患者的PFS和中位OS方面具有统计学上相似的有效性,并且毒性可控。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信