Fukuoka M, Furuse K, Saijo N, Nishiwaki Y, Ikegami H, Tamura T, Shimoyama M, Suemasu K
Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka Prefectural Habikino Hospital, Japan.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1991 Jun 19;83(12):855-61. doi: 10.1093/jnci/83.12.855.
Between April 1985 and May 1988, we conducted a randomized study comparing two standard chemotherapy regimens with the same regimens given on an alternating basis in patients with small-cell lung cancer. The patients were randomly assigned to receive cyclophosphamide at a dose of 800 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on day 1, doxorubicin at 50 mg/m2 IV on day 1, and vincristine at 1.4 mg/m2 IV on day 1 (CAV); cisplatin at 80 mg/m2 IV on day 1 and etoposide at 100 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 3, and 5 (PE); or CAV alternating with PE (CAV/PE). Each regimen was repeated every 3-4 weeks. Three hundred patients were entered in the study, and 288 of them were eligible for analysis (97 for CAV, 97 for PE, and 94 for CAV/PE). The response rates for PE (78%) and CAV/PE (76%) were significantly higher than the rate for CAV (55%), while the complete response rates were similar (14%, 16%, and 15%, respectively). Nine (23%) of 39 patients who failed to respond to the initial CAV regimen responded to PE when they were crossed over. In contrast, only one (8%) of 13 patients responded to CAV after failing to respond to the PE regimen, suggesting that these two regimens were partially non-cross-resistant. The response duration on CAV/PE was significantly longer than that with CAV (P = .004). The survival time with CAV/PE (11.8 months) was superior to that with CAV (9.9 months) (P = .027) or that with PE (9.9 months) (P = .056). In patients with limited disease, the survival in the alternating arm was significantly superior to the survival in the CAV arm (P = .014) or the survival in the PE arm (P = .023). The toxic effects were acceptable in all three chemotherapy regimens. These results favor the alternating chemotherapy over either standard chemotherapy, such as CAV and PE, although the differences are not dramatic.
1985年4月至1988年5月期间,我们开展了一项随机研究,比较两种标准化疗方案与小细胞肺癌患者交替使用相同方案的疗效。患者被随机分配接受以下治疗:第1天静脉注射剂量为800 mg/m²的环磷酰胺(IV)、第1天静脉注射50 mg/m²的阿霉素、第1天静脉注射1.4 mg/m²的长春新碱(CAV);第1天静脉注射80 mg/m²的顺铂以及第1、3、5天静脉注射100 mg/m²的依托泊苷(PE);或CAV与PE交替使用(CAV/PE)。每种方案每3 - 4周重复一次。300名患者进入该研究,其中288名符合分析条件(CAV组97名、PE组97名、CAV/PE组94名)。PE组(78%)和CAV/PE组(76%)的缓解率显著高于CAV组(55%),而完全缓解率相似(分别为14%、16%和15%)。39名对初始CAV方案无反应的患者中有9名(23%)换用PE后有反应。相比之下,13名对PE方案无反应的患者中只有1名(8%)对CAV有反应,这表明这两种方案部分无交叉耐药性。CAV/PE方案的缓解持续时间显著长于CAV方案(P = .004)。CAV/PE方案的生存时间(11.8个月)优于CAV方案(9.9个月)(P = .027)或PE方案(9.9个月)(P = .056)。在疾病局限的患者中,交替治疗组的生存率显著高于CAV组(P = .014)或PE组(P = .023)。所有三种化疗方案的毒性作用均可接受。这些结果表明交替化疗优于CAV和PE等标准化疗,尽管差异并不显著。