Second-line Chemotherapy and Its Survival Analysis of 181 Patients with Extensive-stage Small Cell Lung Cancer in a Single Institute
10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2013.11.02
- VernacularTitle:单中心181例广泛期小细胞肺癌的二线化疗及生存分析
- Author:
MA MANJIAO
1
;
WANG MENGZHAO
;
XU YAN
;
HU KE
;
LIU HUIHUI
;
LI LONGYUN
;
ZHONG WEI
;
ZHANG LI
;
ZHAO JING
;
WANG HUAZHU
Author Information
1. 中国医学科学院北京协和医院呼吸内科
- Keywords:
Extensive-stage small cell lung cancer;
Second-line chemotherapy;
Survival;
Prognostic factors
- From:
Chinese Journal of Lung Cancer
2013;(11):572-578
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Background and objective Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is the most malignant neuroendocrine tu-mor and sensitive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. However, most patients who receive ifrst-line chemotherapy will relapse within one to two years. Once recurrent, it indicates poor prognosis. Currently, the standard ifrst-line chemotherapy regimen of extensive-stage SCLC is platinum combined etoposide regimen while the standard second-line chemotherapy regimen is open to debate. hTe aim of this study is to analysis the prognostic factors of second-line chemotherapy in extensive-stage SCLC and to compare the differences of objective response rate, side effects and survival among different second-line chemotherapy regimens. Methods 181 patients who were diagnosed as extensive-stage SCLC and received second-line chemotherapy were collected.χ2 test was used to analysis the differences of enumeration data and between different groups. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate analysis and Cox regression analysis were used to detect the prognostic factors. Objective response rate was evaluated by RECIST criteria and side effects were evaluated by WHO criteria. Results hTe patients who received second-line chemotherapy can be divided into 6 groups, namly group A (CE/EP regimen) 27 cases, group B (regimens containing TPT) 44 cases, group C (regimens containing CPT-11) 33 cases, group D (regimens containing TAX/DXL) 20 cases, group E (regimens containing IFO) 28 cases and group F (other regimens) 29 cases. hTe median OS in second-line chemotherapy as 7.0 months and was relevant with smoking his-tory (P=0.004), ECOG PS (P<0.001), liver metastasis (P=0.019) and bone metastasis (P=0.028) independently. hTe median PFS in second-line chemotherapy as 3.0 months and was relevant with smoking history (P=0.034), ECOG PS (P=0.011) and bone metastasis (P=0.005). hTe response rate among six regimens was signiifcantly different (P=0.017);hTere was not statistical signiifcance between each group. As to side effects, the incidence of gastrointestinal reaction in group C was higher than any other group. hTe differences of OS and PFS between six regimens in second-line therapy were not statistically differ-ent (P=0.914, P=0.293). Conclusion hTe most signiifcant prognostic factor of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer patients who received second-line chemotherapy was ECOG PS. hTe most optimal second-line chemotherapy regimen with deifnite curatice effect was controversial.
