Suppr超能文献

发音:一项随机、开放标签的III期研究,比较一线培美曲塞+卡铂序贯培美曲塞维持治疗与紫杉醇+卡铂+贝伐单抗序贯贝伐单抗维持治疗在晚期非鳞状非小细胞肺癌患者中的疗效。 (注:原文中“ith”应改为“with”)

PRONOUNCE: randomized, open-label, phase III study of first-line pemetrexed + carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients ith advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

作者信息

Zinner Ralph G, Obasaju Coleman K, Spigel David R, Weaver Robert W, Beck J Thaddeus, Waterhouse David M, Modiano Manuel R, Hrinczenko Borys, Nikolinakos Petros G, Liu Jingyi, Koustenis Andrew G, Winfree Katherine B, Melemed Symantha A, Guba Susan C, Ortuzar Waldo I, Desaiah Durisala, Treat Joseph A, Govindan Ramaswamy, Ross Helen J

机构信息

*Department of Investigational Cancer therapeutics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; †Global Diversity/Med Affairs, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana; ‡Medical Oncology, Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, Tennessee; §Hematology/Oncology, Florida Cancer Specialists, Fort Myers, Florida; •Medical Oncology, Highlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, Arkansas; ¶Hematology-Medical Oncology, Oncology Heamatology Care Inc., Blue Ash, Ohio; #Hematology & Oncology, Internal Medicine, ACRC/Arizona Clinical Research Center, Arizona Oncology, Tucson, Arizona; **Hematology and Oncology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; ††Northeast Georgia Cancer Care, University of Georgia Health Sciences University, Athens, Georgia; ‡‡Statistics Oncology, §§CDK4/6 Product Team, GPORWE-Oncology, ¶¶Oncology-Global Strategic Plan, ##Oncology-Early Phase, ***US Med Affairs and Late Phase Prod Dev, †††Global Medical Communications-Oncology, and ‡‡‡Global Med Affairs & Late Phase Prod Dev, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana; §§§Department of Medicine, Oncology Division, Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, Missouri; and ••Hematology/Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona.

出版信息

J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Jan;10(1):134-42. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000366.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

摘要

引言

PRONOUNCE研究比较了培美曲塞+卡铂序贯培美曲塞(Pem+Cb)与紫杉醇+卡铂+贝伐单抗序贯贝伐单抗(Pac+Cb+Bev)在晚期非鳞状非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者中的疗效和安全性。

方法

年龄≥18岁、美国癌症联合委员会第7版分期为IV期的非鳞状NSCLC患者,东部肿瘤协作组体能状态为0/1,随机(1:1)接受4个周期的诱导治疗,Pem+Cb组(培美曲塞,500mg/m²,卡铂,曲线下面积=6)序贯培美曲塞维持治疗,或Pac+Cb+Bev组(紫杉醇,200mg/m²,卡铂,曲线下面积=6,贝伐单抗,15mg/kg)序贯贝伐单抗维持治疗,若无疾病进展或停药。主要终点是无4级毒性的无进展生存期(PFS)(G4PFS)。次要终点包括PFS、总生存期(OS)、总缓解率(ORR)、疾病控制率(DCR)和安全性。还评估了资源利用情况。

结果

随机分配至Pem+Cb组(N=182)和Pac+Cb+Bev组(N=179)的患者基线特征在两组间均衡良好。Pem+Cb组的G4PFS中位数(月)为3.91,Pac+Cb+Bev组为2.86(风险比=0.85,90%置信区间,0.7-1.04;p=0.176);两组间的PFS、OS、ORR或DCR无显著差异。Pem+Cb组报告的与药物相关的3/4级贫血(18.7%对5.4%)和血小板减少症(24.0%对9.6%)明显更多。Pac+Cb+Bev组报告的3/4级中性粒细胞减少症(48.8%对24.6%)、1/2级脱发(28.3%对8.2%)和1/2级感觉神经病变明显更多。两组间的住院次数和总住院时间无显著差异。

结论

与Pac+Cb+Bev相比,Pem+Cb并未产生显著更好的G4PFS。与Pac+Cb+Bev相比,Pem+Cb在PFS、OS、ORR或DCR方面并不优越。两种方案耐受性均良好,尽管毒性特征有所不同。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/212f/4276572/06d46ececf8c/jto-10-134-g001.jpg

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