Rafael Santana-Davila1, Kiran Devisetty2, Aniko Szabo2, Rodney Sparapani2, Carlos Arce-Lara2, Elizabeth M Gore2, Amy Moran2, Christina D Williams2, Michael J Kelley2, Jeffrey Whittle2. 1. Rafael Santana-Davila, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Kiran Devisetty, Michigan State University, Flint, MI; Aniko Szabo and Rodney Sparapani, Medical College of Wisconsin; Rafael Santana-Davila, Carlos Arce-Lara, Elizabeth M. Gore, Amy Moran, and Jeffrey Whittle, Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI; and Christina D. Williams and Michael J. Kelley, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC. rafaelsd@u.washington.edu. 2. Rafael Santana-Davila, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Kiran Devisetty, Michigan State University, Flint, MI; Aniko Szabo and Rodney Sparapani, Medical College of Wisconsin; Rafael Santana-Davila, Carlos Arce-Lara, Elizabeth M. Gore, Amy Moran, and Jeffrey Whittle, Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI; and Christina D. Williams and Michael J. Kelley, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The optimal chemotherapy regimen to use with radiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer is unknown. Here, we compare the outcome of patents treated within the Veterans Health Administration with either etoposide-cisplatin (EP) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). METHODS: We identified patients treated with EP and CP with concurrent radiotherapy from 2001 to 2010. Survival rates were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression models with adjustments for confounding provided by propensity score methods and an instrumental variables analysis. Comorbidities and treatment complications were identified through administrative data. RESULTS: A total of 1,842 patients were included; EP was used in 27% (n = 499). Treatment with EP was not associated with a survival advantage in a Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.10), a propensity score matched cohort (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.24), or a propensity score adjusted model (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.10). In an instrumental variables analysis, there was no survival advantage for patients treated in centers where EP was used more than 50% of the time as compared with centers where EP was used in less than 10% of the patients (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.26). Patients treated with EP, compared with patients treated with CP, had more hospitalizations (2.4 v 1.7 hospitalizations, respectively; P < .001), outpatient visits (17.6 v 12.6 visits, respectively; P < .001), infectious complications (47.3% v 39.4%, respectively; P = .0022), acute kidney disease/dehydration (30.5% v 21.2%, respectively; P < .001), and mucositis/esophagitis (18.6% v 14.4%, respectively; P = .0246). CONCLUSION: After accounting for prognostic variables, patients treated with EP versus CP had similar overall survival, but EP was associated with increased morbidity.
PURPOSE: The optimal chemotherapy regimen to use with radiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer is unknown. Here, we compare the outcome of patents treated within the Veterans Health Administration with either etoposide-cisplatin (EP) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). METHODS: We identified patients treated with EP and CP with concurrent radiotherapy from 2001 to 2010. Survival rates were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression models with adjustments for confounding provided by propensity score methods and an instrumental variables analysis. Comorbidities and treatment complications were identified through administrative data. RESULTS: A total of 1,842 patients were included; EP was used in 27% (n = 499). Treatment with EP was not associated with a survival advantage in a Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.10), a propensity score matched cohort (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.24), or a propensity score adjusted model (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.10). In an instrumental variables analysis, there was no survival advantage for patients treated in centers where EP was used more than 50% of the time as compared with centers where EP was used in less than 10% of the patients (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.26). Patients treated with EP, compared with patients treated with CP, had more hospitalizations (2.4 v 1.7 hospitalizations, respectively; P < .001), outpatient visits (17.6 v 12.6 visits, respectively; P < .001), infectious complications (47.3% v 39.4%, respectively; P = .0022), acute kidney disease/dehydration (30.5% v 21.2%, respectively; P < .001), and mucositis/esophagitis (18.6% v 14.4%, respectively; P = .0246). CONCLUSION: After accounting for prognostic variables, patients treated with EP versus CP had similar overall survival, but EP was associated with increased morbidity.
Authors: Tien Hoang; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Joan H Schiller; Minesh P Mehta; Thomas J Fitzgerald; Steven A Belinsky; David H Johnson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Chandra P Belani; Hak Choy; Phil Bonomi; Charles Scott; Patrick Travis; John Haluschak; Walter J Curran Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Everett E Vokes; James E Herndon; Michael J Kelley; M Giulia Cicchetti; Nithya Ramnath; Harvey Neill; James N Atkins; Dorothy M Watson; Wallace Akerley; Mark R Green Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David R Gandara; Kari Chansky; Kathy S Albain; Bryan R Leigh; Laurie E Gaspar; Primo N Lara; Howard Burris; Paul Gumerlock; J Philip Kuebler; James D Bearden; John Crowley; Robert Livingston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Julie M Legler; Joan L Warren; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Deborah Schrag Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Rafael Santana-Davila; Aniko Szabo; Carlos Arce-Lara; Christina D Williams; Michael J Kelley; Jeff Whittle Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Salma K Jabbour; Abigail T Berman; Roy H Decker; Yong Lin; Steven J Feigenberg; Scott N Gettinger; Charu Aggarwal; Corey J Langer; Charles B Simone; Jeffrey D Bradley; Joseph Aisner; Jyoti Malhotra Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Jacob E Berchuck; Craig S Meyer; Ning Zhang; Caroline M Berchuck; Neil N Trivedi; Beth Cohen; Sunny Wang Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Joshua M Bauml; Ravi Vinnakota; Yeun-Hee Anna Park; Susan E Bates; Tito Fojo; Charu Aggarwal; Sewanti Limaye; Nevena Damjanov; Jessica Di Stefano; Christine Ciunci; Eric M Genden; Juan P Wisnivesky; Rocco Ferrandino; Ronac Mamtani; Corey J Langer; Roger B Cohen; Keith Sigel Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David E Gerber; James J Urbanic; Corey Langer; Chen Hu; I-Fen Chang; Bo Lu; Benjamin Movsas; Robert Jeraj; Walter J Curran; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Matthew P Deek; Sinae Kim; Inaya Ahmed; Bruno S Fang; Wei Zou; Jyoti Malhotra; Joseph Aisner; Salma K Jabbour Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Matthew P Deek; Sinae Kim; Ning Yue; Rekha Baby; Inaya Ahmed; Wei Zou; John Langenfeld; Joseph Aisner; Salma K Jabbour Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Leah L Zullig; Kellie J Sims; Rebecca McNeil; Christina D Williams; George L Jackson; Dawn Provenzale; Michael J Kelley Journal: Mil Med Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.437