Suppr超能文献

CODE方案与交替CAV/EP方案治疗广泛期小细胞肺癌的随机研究:加拿大国立癌症研究所临床试验组与西南肿瘤学组的一项组间研究

Randomized study of CODE versus alternating CAV/EP for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: an Intergroup Study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Southwest Oncology Group.

作者信息

Murray N, Livingston R B, Shepherd F A, James K, Zee B, Langleben A, Kraut M, Bearden J, Goodwin J W, Grafton C, Turrisi A, Walde D, Croft H, Osoba D, Ottaway J, Gandara D

机构信息

National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2300-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2300.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine whether an intensive weekly chemotherapy regimen plus thoracic irradiation is superior to standard chemotherapy in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ESCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with ESCLC were considered eligible for the study if they were younger than 68 years, had a performance status of 0 to 2, and were free of brain metastases. Patients were randomized to receive cisplatin, vincristine, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CODE) or alternating cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine/etoposide and cisplatin (CAV/EP). Consolidative thoracic irradiation and prophylactic cranial irradiation were given to patients responding to CODE and according to investigator discretion on the CAV/EP arm.

RESULTS

The fidelity of drug delivery on both drug regimens was equal, and more than 70% of all patients received the intended protocol chemotherapy. Although rates of neutropenic fever were similar, nine (8.2%) of 110 patients on the CODE arm died during chemotherapy, whereas one (0.9%) of 109 patients died on the CAV/EP arm. Response rates after chemotherapy were higher (P =.006) with CODE (87%) than with CAV/EP (70%). However, progression-free survival (median of 0.66 years on both arms) and overall survival (median, 0.98 years for CODE and 0. 91 years for CAV/EP) were not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

The CODE regimen increased two-fold the received dose-intensity of four of the most active drugs in small-cell lung cancer compared with the standard CAV/EP regimen while maintaining an approximately equal total dose. Despite supportive care (but not routine prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor), there was excessive toxic mortality with the CODE regimen. The response rate with CODE was higher than that of CAV/EP, but progression-free and overall survival were not significantly improved. In view of increased toxicity and similar efficacy, the CODE chemotherapy regimen is not recommended for treatment of ESCLC.

摘要

目的

确定强化每周化疗方案联合胸部放疗在广泛期小细胞肺癌(ESCLC)治疗中是否优于标准化疗。

患者与方法

年龄小于68岁、体能状态为0至2且无脑转移的ESCLC患者被认为符合本研究条件。患者被随机分为接受顺铂、长春新碱、阿霉素和依托泊苷(CODE方案)或交替使用环磷酰胺、阿霉素、长春新碱/依托泊苷和顺铂(CAV/EP方案)。对接受CODE方案且有反应的患者以及根据研究人员判断在CAV/EP组的患者给予巩固性胸部放疗和预防性颅脑放疗。

结果

两种化疗方案的给药依从性相同,超过70%的所有患者接受了预定的方案化疗。虽然中性粒细胞减少性发热的发生率相似,但CODE组110例患者中有9例(8.2%)在化疗期间死亡,而CAV/EP组109例患者中有1例(0.9%)死亡。化疗后的缓解率CODE方案(87%)高于CAV/EP方案(70%)(P = 0.006)。然而,无进展生存期(两组中位数均为0.66年)和总生存期(CODE组中位数为0.98年,CAV/EP组为0.91年)无统计学差异。

结论

与标准CAV/EP方案相比,CODE方案使小细胞肺癌中四种最有效药物的接受剂量强度增加了两倍,同时总剂量大致相等。尽管有支持性治疗(但未常规预防性使用粒细胞集落刺激因子),但CODE方案的毒性死亡率过高。CODE方案的缓解率高于CAV/EP方案,但无进展生存期和总生存期并未显著改善。鉴于毒性增加且疗效相似,不推荐使用CODE化疗方案治疗ESCLC。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验