M Zhou1, Z Wang1, Y Yao1, H Zhou1, M Liu1, J Sun2. 1. Department of Hematology and Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of the People's Liberation Army General Hospital, 51 Fucheng Road, Beijing, 100048, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Hematology and Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of the People's Liberation Army General Hospital, 51 Fucheng Road, Beijing, 100048, People's Republic of China. sjunzh07@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prognostic factors for the survival of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients are still widely debated. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical features and prognostic factors in SCLC patients. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on SCLC patients who were treated in our hospital between July 2010 and July 2015. Comparison of overall survival (OS) was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors for OS were identified by multivariate Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients with complete data and ECOG 0-2 were enrolled in our study. A total of 383 patients (73.2%) were diagnosed with ES-SCLC (extensive-stage SCLC) and 140 patients (26.8%) were diagnosed with LS-SCLC (limited-stage SCLC). In all patients, early disease stage, good ECOG, normal neuron-specific enolase (NSE), thoracic radiotherapy, ≥4 cycles of chemotherapy, prophylactic cranial irradiation, good response to initial therapy were independent favorable prognostic factors for OS, along with gender, age, CEA and CA125. In LS-SCLC patients, normal NSE, normal CEA, good response to initial therapy and surgery were independent favorable prognostic factors for OS. In ES-SCLC patients, good ECOG, normal NSE, thoracic radiotherapy, ≥4 cycles of chemotherapy, prophylactic cranial irradiation and good response to initial therapy were independent favorable prognostic factors for OS. Remarkably, NSE and response to initial therapy were independent prognostic factors for OS in all SCLC patients, LS-SCLC patients and ES-SCLC patients. CONCLUSION: The normal NSE and good response to initial therapy predicted a better survival for SCLC patients, regardless of disease stage.
PURPOSE: The prognostic factors for the survival of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients are still widely debated. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical features and prognostic factors in SCLCpatients. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on SCLCpatients who were treated in our hospital between July 2010 and July 2015. Comparison of overall survival (OS) was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors for OS were identified by multivariate Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients with complete data and ECOG 0-2 were enrolled in our study. A total of 383 patients (73.2%) were diagnosed with ES-SCLC (extensive-stage SCLC) and 140 patients (26.8%) were diagnosed with LS-SCLC (limited-stage SCLC). In all patients, early disease stage, good ECOG, normal neuron-specific enolase (NSE), thoracic radiotherapy, ≥4 cycles of chemotherapy, prophylactic cranial irradiation, good response to initial therapy were independent favorable prognostic factors for OS, along with gender, age, CEA and CA125. In LS-SCLCpatients, normal NSE, normal CEA, good response to initial therapy and surgery were independent favorable prognostic factors for OS. In ES-SCLCpatients, good ECOG, normal NSE, thoracic radiotherapy, ≥4 cycles of chemotherapy, prophylactic cranial irradiation and good response to initial therapy were independent favorable prognostic factors for OS. Remarkably, NSE and response to initial therapy were independent prognostic factors for OS in all SCLCpatients, LS-SCLCpatients and ES-SCLCpatients. CONCLUSION: The normal NSE and good response to initial therapy predicted a better survival for SCLCpatients, regardless of disease stage.
Authors: A Aupérin; R Arriagada; J P Pignon; C Le Péchoux; A Gregor; R J Stephens; P E Kristjansen; B E Johnson; H Ueoka; H Wagner; J Aisner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-08-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel B Fried; David E Morris; Charles Poole; Julian G Rosenman; Jan S Halle; Frank C Detterbeck; Thomas A Hensing; Mark A Socinski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patrick Micke; Andreas Faldum; Tsegay Metz; Kai-Michael Beeh; Fernando Bittinger; Jan-Georg Hengstler; Roland Buhl Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: H Quon; F A Shepherd; D G Payne; P Coy; N Murray; R Feld; J Pater; A Sadura; B Zee Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038