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
National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2300-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2300.
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 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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
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。