Suppr超能文献

卡铂联合依托泊苷与氨柔比星单药治疗老年广泛期小细胞肺癌及体能状态差患者的比较。

Comparison of carboplatin plus etoposide with amrubicin monotherapy for extensive-disease small cell lung cancer in the elderly and patients with poor performance status.

机构信息

Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, Japan.

Kitasato University School of Nursing, Sagamihara, Japan.

出版信息

Thorac Cancer. 2018 Aug;9(8):967-973. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.12772. Epub 2018 Jun 5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Carboplatin plus etoposide (CE) is a standard treatment for elderly patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). However, amrubicin monotherapy (AMR) may be a feasible alternative. We compared the efficacies and safety profiles of CE and AMR for ED-SCLC in elderly patients and chemotherapy-naive patients with poor performance status (PS).

METHODS

The records of SCLC patients who received CE or AMR as first-line chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed and their treatment outcomes evaluated.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients (median age 72 years; 42 each received CR and AMR) were analyzed; 34 patients had a PS score of 2. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the treatment groups. The median progression-free survival rates of patients in the CE and AMR groups were 5.8 and 4.8 months, respectively (P = 0.04); overall survival was 14.0 and 8.5 months, respectively (P = 0.089). Twenty-three CE group patients received AMR as second-line chemotherapy; their median overall survival from first-line chemotherapy was 18.5 months. Grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with AMR (64% vs. 40%; P = 0.02), as did febrile neutropenia (14% vs. 7%).

CONCLUSIONS

CE remains a suitable first-line treatment for ED-SCLC in elderly patients or those with poor PS in comparison with AMR.

摘要

背景

卡铂联合依托泊苷(CE)是广泛期小细胞肺癌(ED-SCLC)老年患者的标准治疗方法。然而,氨柔比星单药治疗(AMR)可能是一种可行的替代方法。我们比较了 CE 和 AMR 治疗 ED-SCLC 老年患者和体能状态(PS)较差的化疗初治患者的疗效和安全性。

方法

回顾性分析接受 CE 或 AMR 作为一线化疗的 SCLC 患者的记录,并评估其治疗结果。

结果

共分析了 84 例患者(中位年龄 72 岁;42 例分别接受 CR 和 AMR);34 例 PS 评分为 2 分。两组患者的特征无显著差异。CE 组和 AMR 组患者的中位无进展生存期分别为 5.8 和 4.8 个月(P = 0.04);总生存期分别为 14.0 和 8.5 个月(P = 0.089)。23 例 CE 组患者接受 AMR 二线化疗;他们从一线化疗开始的中位总生存期为 18.5 个月。AMR 组患者更常发生 3 级或更高级别的中性粒细胞减少症(64% vs. 40%;P = 0.02)和发热性中性粒细胞减少症(14% vs. 7%)。

结论

与 AMR 相比,CE 仍然是 ED-SCLC 老年患者或 PS 较差患者的合适一线治疗选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0dca/6068456/5b54217f7857/TCA-9-967-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