Thoracic Oncology Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
J Thorac Oncol. 2010 Jun;5(6):846-51. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181db3db9.
To compare the response rates and safety profiles of two investigational chemotherapies that were delivered concurrently with whole-brain radiotherapy in a population of patients with chemonaive non-small cell lung cancer.
Eligible patients included those presenting with brain metastases belonging to the Recursive Partitioning Analysis of prognostic factors from the Radiation Therapy Oncology groups II or III, who were not able to undergo surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy. Other main eligibility criteria were age <75 years and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status = 0 to 2. The study design was as follows: all patients received whole-brain radiotherapy in three split courses of 18 gy/10 fractions. They were randomly (1:1) assigned to regimen A, consisting of a triplet cisplatin-vinorelbine-ifosfomide, or to regimen B, consisting of high-dose single-drug ifosfamide. In both groups, chemotherapy was delivered on a 4-week cycle, for three courses. Each course was delivered concurrently with radiotherapy. Brain and other tumor lesion assessments were performed in both groups at the end of the three courses (RECIST). Neurologic symptoms were evaluated quantitatively at each step of the treatment program. All analyses were carried out in an intention to treat basis, and statistical tests were two sided.
Seventy patients were randomly allocated into groups A (n = 37) and B (n = 33). With regards to the whole lesions, overall response rates did not significantly differ between the groups (group A: 45.9%; group B: 33.3%; chi(2); p = 0.28). When brain-target lesions were separately analyzed, respective response rates were 59.5% and 48.5%; (chi(2); p = 0.0.53). Febrile neutropenia was more frequently observed in the former group (n = 19, 54.29%) than in the latter (n = 12, 36.36%; p = 0.13), and a similar difference was also observed regarding documented infections. Red blood cell transfusions and readmission for antibiotic infusions significantly affected more patients in group A than in group B. The longitudinal evaluation of neurologic symptoms (by means of Generalized Estimating Equation) slightly improved during the treatment program, and there was no difference between the groups. Median overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups (months [95% confidence interval], 8.5 [6.4-10.8] and 5.7 [4.6-11.9] in groups A B, respectively; p= 0.82). In the Cox model, a high neuron-specific enolase serum level was the only significant prognostic determinant.
Both regimens were active and induced a high rate of response, particularly for brain-target lesions. Myelotoxicity jeopardizes the acceptability of both regimens. Despite such an aggressive approach, none of the regimens suggested a putative overall improvement of outcome in this poor prognosis presentation of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The search for alternative therapies to chemotherapy, such as targeted therapy, is urgently warranted in this setting.
比较两种化疗方案在全脑放疗同步治疗初治非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者中的疗效和安全性。
符合条件的患者包括符合放射治疗肿瘤组 II 或 III 期递归分区分析预后因素的脑转移患者,且这些患者不能进行手术或立体定向放疗。其他主要入选标准为年龄<75 岁,东部肿瘤协作组体力状况评分 0 至 2 分。研究设计如下:所有患者均接受 3 个分割疗程的 18 Gy/10 次分割全脑放疗。患者随机(1:1)分为 A 组(顺铂-长春瑞滨-异环磷酰胺三联化疗)或 B 组(高剂量单药异环磷酰胺)。两组患者均在 4 周周期内接受 3 个疗程的化疗。每个疗程与放疗同步进行。两组患者在 3 个疗程结束时(RECIST)进行脑和其他肿瘤病变评估。在治疗方案的每个阶段均对神经症状进行定量评估。所有分析均基于意向治疗原则进行,且采用双侧检验。
70 例患者随机分为 A 组(n=37)和 B 组(n=33)。对于全病变,两组的总缓解率无显著差异(A 组:45.9%;B 组:33.3%;卡方检验;p=0.28)。当单独分析脑靶病变时,相应的缓解率分别为 59.5%和 48.5%(卡方检验;p=0.053)。A 组发热性中性粒细胞减少症(n=19,54.29%)较 B 组(n=12,36.36%)更常见(p=0.13),且记录感染的发生率也存在类似差异。红细胞输注和因抗生素输注而再次入院的患者在 A 组显著多于 B 组。通过广义估计方程对神经症状进行的纵向评估在治疗过程中略有改善,且两组间无差异。两组患者的总生存中位数无显著差异(月[95%置信区间],A 组 8.5[6.4-10.8],B 组 5.7[4.6-11.9];p=0.82)。在 Cox 模型中,神经元特异性烯醇化酶血清水平升高是唯一的显著预后决定因素。
两种方案均具有活性并能诱导高缓解率,特别是对脑靶病变。骨髓毒性危及两种方案的可接受性。尽管采用了这种积极的方法,但在这种预后较差的转移性非小细胞肺癌患者中,仍未观察到任何方案能明显改善预后。迫切需要在这种情况下寻找替代化疗的疗法,如靶向治疗。