Thomas E Stinchcombe1, Wen Fan2, Steven E Schild3, Everett E Vokes4, Jeff Bogart5, Quynh-Thu Le6, Charles R Thomas7, Martin J Edelman8, Leora Horn9, Ritsuko Komaki10, Harvey J Cohen1, Apar Kishor Ganti11, Herbert Pang12, Xiaofei Wang2,13. 1. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona. 4. University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 7. Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 8. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 11. Veteran's Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska. 12. Li Ka Shing, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 13. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platinum and etoposide with thoracic radiation followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation constitute the standard treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). Many patients with LS-SCLC are elderly with comorbidities. METHODS: Individual patient data were collected from 11 phase 2 or 3 trials for LS-SCLC conducted by the National Clinical Trials Network and activated from 1990 to 2010. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), the rate of severe adverse events, and off-treatment reasons. The outcomes were compared for patients 70 years old or older (elderly patients) and patients younger than 70 years (younger patients). RESULTS: Individual patient data from 1049 younger patients (81%) and 254 elderly patients (19%) were analyzed. In the multivariate model, elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.63; median OS for elderly patients, 17.8 months; OS for younger patients, 23.5 months) and worse PFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39; median PFS for elderly patients, 10.6 months; median PFS for younger patients, 12.3 months). Elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, experienced more grade 5 adverse events (8% vs 3%; P < .01) and more grade 3 or higher dyspnea (11% vs 7%; P = .03) but less grade 3 or higher esophagitis/dysphagia (14% vs 19%; P = .04) and less grade 3 or higher vomiting (11% vs 17%; P = .01). Elderly patients completed treatment less often, discontinued treatment because of adverse events and patient refusal more frequently, and died during treatment more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with LS-SCLC have worse PFS and OS and more difficulty in tolerating therapy. Future trials should incorporate assessments of elderly patients, novel monitoring of adverse events, and more tolerable radiation and systemic therapies.
BACKGROUND:Platinum and etoposide with thoracic radiation followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation constitute the standard treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). Many patients with LS-SCLC are elderly with comorbidities. METHODS: Individual patient data were collected from 11 phase 2 or 3 trials for LS-SCLC conducted by the National Clinical Trials Network and activated from 1990 to 2010. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), the rate of severe adverse events, and off-treatment reasons. The outcomes were compared for patients 70 years old or older (elderly patients) and patients younger than 70 years (younger patients). RESULTS: Individual patient data from 1049 younger patients (81%) and 254 elderly patients (19%) were analyzed. In the multivariate model, elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.63; median OS for elderly patients, 17.8 months; OS for younger patients, 23.5 months) and worse PFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39; median PFS for elderly patients, 10.6 months; median PFS for younger patients, 12.3 months). Elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, experienced more grade 5 adverse events (8% vs 3%; P < .01) and more grade 3 or higher dyspnea (11% vs 7%; P = .03) but less grade 3 or higher esophagitis/dysphagia (14% vs 19%; P = .04) and less grade 3 or higher vomiting (11% vs 17%; P = .01). Elderly patients completed treatment less often, discontinued treatment because of adverse events and patient refusal more frequently, and died during treatment more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with LS-SCLC have worse PFS and OS and more difficulty in tolerating therapy. Future trials should incorporate assessments of elderly patients, novel monitoring of adverse events, and more tolerable radiation and systemic therapies.
Authors: Jeffrey A Bogart; James E Herndon; Alan P Lyss; Dorothy Watson; Antonius A Miller; Michael E Lee; Andrew T Turrisi; Mark R Green Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Edward F McClay; Jeff Bogart; James E Herndon; Dee Watson; Lisa Evans; Steven L Seagren; Mark R Green Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Joseph K Salama; Lydia Hodgson; Herbert Pang; James J Urbanic; A William Blackstock; Steven E Schild; Jeffrey Crawford; Jeffrey A Bogart; Everett E Vokes Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: J-M Sun; Y C Ahn; E K Choi; M-J Ahn; J S Ahn; S-H Lee; D H Lee; H Pyo; S Y Song; S-H Jung; J S Jo; J Jo; H J Sohn; C Suh; J S Lee; S-W Kim; K Park Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M A Socinski; C Zhang; J E Herndon; R O Dillman; G Clamon; E Vokes; W Akerley; J Crawford; M C Perry; S L Seagren; M R Green Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Steven E Schild; James A Bonner; Thomas G Shanahan; Burke J Brooks; Randolph S Marks; Susan M Geyer; Shauna L Hillman; Gist H Farr; Henry D Tazelaar; James E Krook; Francois J Geoffroy; Muhammad Salim; Robert M Arusell; James A Mailliard; Paul L Schaefer; James R Jett Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Martin J Edelman; Kari Chansky; Laurie E Gaspar; Bryan Leigh; Geoffrey R Weiss; Sarah A Taylor; John Crowley; Robert Livingston; David R Gandara Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ritsuko Komaki; Rebecca Paulus; David S Ettinger; Gregory M M Videtic; Jeffrey D Bradley; Bonnie S Glisson; Corey J Langer; William T Sause; Walter J Curran; Hak Choy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-05-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Aamir Khakwani; Anna L Rich; Laila J Tata; Helen A Powell; Rosamund A Stanley; David R Baldwin; Richard B Hubbard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240