BACKGROUND: The therapeutic equivalence of different third-generation agents in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has long been accepted, although recent studies seem to suggest some superiority of gemcitabine- or docetaxel-containing regimens over other third-generation doublets. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative impact of different third-generation drugs on the activity of first-line chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer by considering both response and progressive disease (PD) rates as outcome measures. METHODS: Published and unpublished data were collected from randomized trials comparing a gemcitabine-, docetaxel-, vinorelbine- or paclitaxel-containing regimen with one or more gemcitabine-, docetaxel-, vinorelbine- or paclitaxel-free combinations. For each study, 2 x 2 tables were constructed for both response and immediate progression. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using a general variance-based method. RESULTS: Forty-five trials (11,867 patients) were eligible. The odds of obtaining an objective response to treatment were similar across different regimens. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy was associated with a 14% lower risk for immediate progression, whereas patients receiving paclitaxel showed a 22% higher risk for having PD as the best response. Docetaxel treatment provided a nonsignificant 9% lower odds for progression. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that different third-generation regimens have comparable activity in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy provides better disease control, whereas the risk for immediate progression is significantly higher when paclitaxel-containing regimens are used.
BACKGROUND: The therapeutic equivalence of different third-generation agents in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has long been accepted, although recent studies seem to suggest some superiority of gemcitabine- or docetaxel-containing regimens over other third-generation doublets. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative impact of different third-generation drugs on the activity of first-line chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer by considering both response and progressive disease (PD) rates as outcome measures. METHODS: Published and unpublished data were collected from randomized trials comparing a gemcitabine-, docetaxel-, vinorelbine- or paclitaxel-containing regimen with one or more gemcitabine-, docetaxel-, vinorelbine- or paclitaxel-free combinations. For each study, 2 x 2 tables were constructed for both response and immediate progression. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using a general variance-based method. RESULTS: Forty-five trials (11,867 patients) were eligible. The odds of obtaining an objective response to treatment were similar across different regimens. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy was associated with a 14% lower risk for immediate progression, whereas patients receiving paclitaxel showed a 22% higher risk for having PD as the best response. Docetaxel treatment provided a nonsignificant 9% lower odds for progression. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that different third-generation regimens have comparable activity in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy provides better disease control, whereas the risk for immediate progression is significantly higher when paclitaxel-containing regimens are used.
Authors: Murry W Wynes; Krzysztof Konopa; Shalini Singh; Bernadette Reyna-Asuncion; James Ranger-Moore; Adam Sternau; Daniel C Christoph; Rafal Dziadziuszko; Jacek Jassem; Fred R Hirsch Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Ming Li; Qian Zhang; Peifang Fu; Ping Li; Aimei Peng; Guoliang Zhang; Xiaolian Song; Min Tan; Xuan Li; Yang Liu; Yueping Wu; Suyun Fan; Changhui Wang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Timothy R Holzer; Angie D Fulford; Drew M Nedderman; Tara S Umberger; Rebecca R Hozak; Adarsh Joshi; Symantha A Melemed; Laura E Benjamin; Gregory D Plowman; Andrew E Schade; Bradley L Ackermann; Robert J Konrad; Aejaz Nasir Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240