Division of Medical Oncology, S.G. Moscati Hospital, Avellino, Italy.
Medical Statistics, Second University, Napoli, Italy.
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1254-62. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70402-4. Epub 2014 Sep 14.
Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. However, the optimum number of treatment cycles remains controversial. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data to compare the efficacy of six versus fewer planned cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.
All randomised trials comparing six versus fewer planned cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, proportion of patients with an objective response, and toxicity. Statistical analyses were by intention-to-treat, stratified by trial. Overall survival and progression-free survival were compared by log-rank test. The proportion of patients with an objective response was compared with a Mantel-Haenszel test. Prespecified analyses explored effect variations by trial and patient characteristics.
Five eligible trials were identified; individual patient data could be collected from four of these trials, which included 1139 patients-568 of whom were assigned to six cycles, and 571 to three cycles (two trials) or four cycles (two trials). Patients received cisplatin (two trials) or carboplatin (two trials). No evidence indicated a benefit of six cycles of chemotherapy on overall survival (median 9·54 months [95% CI 8·98-10·69] in patients assigned to six cycles vs 8·68 months [8·03-9·54] in those assigned to fewer cycles; hazard ratio [HR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·83-1·07], p=0·33) with slight heterogeneity between trials (p=0·076; I(2)=56%). We recorded no evidence of a treatment interaction with histology, sex, performance status, or age. Median progression-free survival was 6·09 months (95% CI 5·82-6·87) in patients assigned to six cycles and 5·33 months (4·90-5·62) in those assigned to fewer cycles (HR 0·79, 95% CI 0·68-0·90; p=0·0007), and 173 (41·3%) of 419 patients assigned to six cycles and 152 (36·5%) of 416 patients assigned to three or four cycles had an objective response (p=0·16), without heterogeneity between the four trials. Anaemia at grade 3 or higher was slightly more frequent with a longer duration of treatment: 12 (2·9%) of 416 patients assigned to three-to-four cycles and 32 (7·8%) of 411 patients assigned to six cycles had severe anaemia.
Six cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not improve overall survival compared with three or four courses in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Our findings suggest that fewer than six planned cycles of chemotherapy is a valid treatment option for these patients.
None.
铂类化疗是晚期非小细胞肺癌患者的标准一线治疗方法。然而,最佳治疗周期数仍存在争议。因此,我们对个体患者数据进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较六周期与少于六周期的铂类化疗的疗效。
所有比较一线铂类化疗六周期与少于六周期治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌患者的随机试验均符合本系统评价和荟萃分析的纳入标准。主要终点是总生存期。次要终点是无进展生存期、客观缓解率和毒性。统计分析采用意向治疗,按试验分层。总生存期和无进展生存期采用对数秩检验比较。客观缓解率采用 Mantel-Haenszel 检验进行比较。预先指定的分析探讨了试验和患者特征的疗效变化。
确定了 5 项符合条件的试验;其中 4 项试验可收集个体患者数据,这些试验共纳入 1139 例患者,其中 568 例患者接受了六周期化疗,571 例患者接受了三周期(两项试验)或四周期(两项试验)化疗。患者接受顺铂(两项试验)或卡铂(两项试验)治疗。没有证据表明六周期化疗对总生存期有获益(接受六周期化疗的患者中位生存期为 9.54 个月[95%CI 8.98-10.69],接受少于六周期化疗的患者为 8.68 个月[8.03-9.54];风险比[HR]0.94[95%CI 0.83-1.07],p=0.33),试验间存在轻度异质性(p=0.076;I²=56%)。我们没有发现治疗与组织学、性别、表现状态或年龄之间存在交互作用的证据。接受六周期化疗的患者中位无进展生存期为 6.09 个月(95%CI 5.82-6.87),接受少于六周期化疗的患者为 5.33 个月(4.90-5.62)(HR 0.79,95%CI 0.68-0.90;p=0.0007),419 例接受六周期化疗的患者中有 173 例(41.3%)和 416 例接受三或四周期化疗的患者中有 152 例(36.5%)出现客观缓解(p=0.16),四个试验间无异质性。接受更长时间治疗的患者更频繁出现 3 级或更高级别的贫血:416 例接受三至四周期化疗的患者中有 12 例(2.9%)和 411 例接受六周期化疗的患者中有 32 例(7.8%)发生严重贫血。
与接受三至四周期化疗的患者相比,晚期非小细胞肺癌患者接受六周期一线铂类化疗并不能改善总生存期。我们的研究结果表明,少于六周期的化疗是这些患者的有效治疗选择。
无。