Navelbine-ifosfamide-cisplatin versus etoposide-cisplatin as the first-line treatment of advanced combined small-cell lung cancer: Retrospective analysis of 167 cases
10.3781/j.issn.1000-7431.2012.03.008
- Author:
Jie LUO
1
Author Information
1. Department of Oncology
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Adverse reactions;
Antineoplastic combined chemotherapy protocols;
Combined small-cell carcinoma, lung;
Survival analysis
- From:
Tumor
2012;32(3):194-198
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: A retrospective study was performed to compare the efficacy and adverse effects between NIP regimen (navelbine + ifosfamide + cisplatin) and EP regimen (etoposide+cisplatin) as the first-line treatment of advanced combined small-cell lung cancer. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 167 patients with advanced combined small-cell lung cancer (stages III-IV) eligibly enrolled between January 2006 and December 2010. These patients received NIP regimen (n = 76) or EP regimen (n = 91) as the first-line treatment of advanced combined small-cell lung cancer. All the patients received 2-6 cycles of chemotherapy, and the response was evaluated every two cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (FPS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse effects. Results: There was no significant difference in ORR between the NIP group (28.9%, 22/76) and the EP group (40.7%, 37/91) (P = 0.115). The median PFS of the EP group was little longer than that of the NIP group (6.5 vs 5.8 months, P = 0.177). The median survival and one-year survival rates of the NIP group and the EP group were 9.8 months and 35.6% (27/76), and 10.8 months and 49.4% (45/91), respectively; the EP regimen exerted a better survival benefit than the NIP regimen, but it failed to reach a statistical difference (P = 0.883; P = 0.090). The adverse effects of the two regimens could both be well tolerated. The rates of grade I/II leucopenia and alopecia for the NIP regimen were both significantly higher than those for the EP regimen (32.9% vs 11.0%, P <0.001; 35.5% vs 13.2%, P <0.001). Conclusion: The ORR, PFS and OS for NIP regimen are little inferior to those of EP regimen as the first-line treatment of advanced combined small-cell lung cancer, but the differences are not significant. The toxicity of NIP regimen is less tolerable as compared with EP. Thus, the role of NIP regimen in the first-line treatment of advanced combined small-cell lung cancer need to be further comfirmed. Copyright© 2012 by TUMOR.
