Literature DB >> 2153193

Treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with or without etoposide: a randomized trial of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group.

J R Jett1, L Everson, T M Therneau, J E Krook, R J Dalton, R F Marschke, M H Veeder, S F Brunk, J A Mailliard, D I Twito.   

Abstract

In this randomized study involving patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCC), we compared treatment with either cyclophosphamide; doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) or CAV plus etoposide (CAVE). All patients received identical thoracic radiation consisting of 3,750 cGy in 15 fractions and prophylactic cranial radiation (3,000 cGy in 10 fractions). Among 231 evaluable patients, the two treatment arms were well matched with respect to sex, age, performance score, and presence or absence of heart disease. A major regression (REGR) was observed in 83% of all patients and a complete response (CR) in 60%. There was no difference in the response rate between the two treatment regimens. The median time to progression is 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [Cl], 8.9 to 12 months) for CAVE versus 8.9 months (95% Cl, 7.9 to 10.4 months) for CAV (P = .04). The median survival is 15.1 months (95% Cl, 11.7 to 17.8 months) for CAVE versus 12.4 months (95% Cl, 11 to 14.4 months) for CAV. This difference is not significantly different (P = .13). Toxicity was primarily myelosuppression and was significantly greater for the four-drug regimen. Fatal treatment-related toxicity was observed in two patients on the CAVE regimen and no treatment-related deaths were observed on the CAV treatment. In conclusion, the addition of etoposide to the CAV regimen resulted in increased toxicity but did not lead to a meaningful improvement in survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2153193     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1990.8.1.33

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  7 in total

Review 1.  The lung cancer paradox: time for action.

Authors:  R C Rintoul; T Sethi
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 2.  Chemotherapy advances in small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Bryan A Chan; Jermaine I G Coward
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Tolerability and efficacy of GM-CSF [Leucomax] in patients with small cell lung cancer treated with intensive chemotherapy.

Authors:  J Walewski; J Romejko-Jarosińska; J Zwoliński; S Falkowski; P Siedlecki
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 3.064

4.  Semiparametric Bayesian survival analysis using models with log-linear median.

Authors:  Jianchang Lin; Debajyoti Sinha; Stuart Lipsitz; Adriano Polpo
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Extensive disease small cell lung cancer dose-response relationships: implications for resistance mechanisms.

Authors:  David J Stewart; Constance Johnson; Adriana Lopez; Bonnie Glisson; Jay M Rhee; B Nebiyou Bekele
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 15.609

6.  Combination of three cytotoxic agents in small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  G P Stathopoulos; D Trafalis; J Dimitroulis; Ch Kosmas; J Stathopoulos; D Tsavdaridis
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  2012-11-18       Impact factor: 3.333

7.  Progression-Free Survival and Time to Progression as Potential Surrogate Endpoints for Overall Survival in Chemoradiotherapy Trials in Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yin Yang; Jianyang Wang; Wenqing Wang; Tao Zhang; Jingjing Zhao; Yu Wang; Yexiong Li; Luhua Wang; Nan Bi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 5.738

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.