Suppr超能文献

粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)联合放化疗用于局限期小细胞肺癌的安全性——随机3期CONVERT试验的二次分析

Safety of G-CSF with concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in limited-stage small cell lung cancer - Secondary analysis of the randomised phase 3 CONVERT trial.

作者信息

Gomes Fabio, Faivre-Finn Corinne, Mistry Hitesh, Bezjak Andrea, Pourel Nicolas, Fournel Pierre, Van Meerbeeck Jan, Blackhall Fiona

机构信息

Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Radiotherapy-related Research, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

出版信息

Lung Cancer. 2021 Mar;153:165-170. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.01.025. Epub 2021 Jan 30.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) during concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (cCTRT) for small cell lung cancer is not recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology due to safety concerns. This secondary analysis explored the safety and the role of prophylactic G-CSF (proG-CSF) in the delivery of cCTRT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Secondary analysis of 487 patients treated as per protocol on the phase 3 CONVERT trial which randomized patients between once-daily RT or twice-daily.

RESULTS

180 of 487 eligible patients (37 %) received proG-CSF, 60 (33 %) as primary prophylaxis and 120 (67 %) as secondary prophylaxis following myelotoxic events. The regimen incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) was 22 %. Its incidence in the proG-CSF group reduced significantly when proG-CSF was administered (22 % vs 10 %; OR 0.4; 95 %CI 0.2-0.7; p = 0.002). The rate of blood transfusion was higher in the proG-CSF group (51 % vs 31 %; OR 2.4; 95 %CI 1.6-3.5; p < 0.001). The incidence of severe thrombocytopenia was also higher is this group (28 % vs 15 %; OR 2.2; 95 %CI 1.4-3.5; p = 0.001). But this was significantly higher in those on secondary vs primary prophylaxis (34 % vs 15 %; OR 2.9; 95 %CI 1.3-7.4 p = 0.009) No differences observed in RT-related toxicity, treatment-related mortality or any survival outcomes. The optimal dose intensity (85 % or higher) of cisplatin was achieved in more patients within the proG-CSF group (75 % vs 67 %; OR 1.5; 95 %CI 0.9-2.3; p = 0.056).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence that G-CSF directly caused myelotoxicity, instead most patients started G-CSF due to higher myelotoxicity risk. G-CSF maintained the planned dose intensity and there was no detrimental effect on survival. G-CSF may be considered as a supportive measure in this setting.

摘要

目的

出于安全考虑,美国临床肿瘤学会不建议在小细胞肺癌同步放化疗(cCTRT)期间使用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)。本二次分析探讨了预防性G-CSF(proG-CSF)在cCTRT中的安全性及作用。

材料与方法

对487例按照3期CONVERT试验方案进行治疗的患者进行二次分析,该试验将患者随机分为每日一次放疗组或每日两次放疗组。

结果

487例符合条件的患者中有180例(37%)接受了proG-CSF,其中60例(占33%)作为一级预防,120例(占67%)在发生骨髓毒性事件后作为二级预防。发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)的方案发生率为22%。在使用proG-CSF时,proG-CSF组中其发生率显著降低(22%对10%;比值比0.4;95%置信区间0.2 - 0.7;p = 0.002)。proG-CSF组的输血率更高(51%对31%;比值比2.4;95%置信区间1.6 - 3.5;p < 0.001)。该组严重血小板减少症的发生率也更高(28%对其15%;比值比2.2;95%置信区间1.4 - 3.5;p = 0.001)。但二级预防者的发生率显著高于一级预防者(34%对15%;比值比2.9;95%置信区间1.3 - 7.4;p = 0.009)。在放疗相关毒性、治疗相关死亡率或任何生存结局方面未观察到差异。proG-CSF组中更多患者达到了顺铂的最佳剂量强度(85%或更高)(75%对67%;比值比1.5;95%置信区间0.9 - 2.3;p = 0.056)。

结论

没有证据表明G-CSF直接导致骨髓毒性,相反,大多数患者因骨髓毒性风险较高而开始使用G-CSF。G-CSF维持了计划的剂量强度,且对生存没有不利影响。在这种情况下,G-CSF可被视为一种支持性措施。

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