BACKGROUND: The study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of pemetrexed/carboplatin or cisplatin/bevacizumab (PemPBev) and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab (PacCBev) as first-line therapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) patients with wild-type driver genes in a real-world setting. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the medical records of advanced NS-NSCLC patients with wild-type driver genes administered first-line PemPBev or PacCBev therapy at Shanghai Chest Hospital between January 2014 and June 2016, and analyzed the differences in survival outcomes, efficacy, and safety between PemPBev and PacCBev treatment. RESULTS: A total of 390 patients were included in our analysis: 249 in the PemPBev group and 141 in the PacCBev group. Patients administered PemPBev experienced significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to those administered PacCBev (PFS 7.5 vs. 6.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.84, P < 0.001; OS:18.6 vs. 16.0 months, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.90, P = 0.002). The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were similar between the groups (ORR 21.7% vs. 30.5%, P = 0.053; DCR 69.1% vs. 67.4%, P = 0.728). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the groups (64.7% vs. 68.8%; P = 0.407), but the incidence of peripheral neuropathy in the PacCBev group was higher than in the PemPBev group (7.8% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that for advanced NS-NSCLC patients with wild-type driver genes, first-line PemPBev might be a better treatment option compared to PacCBev.
BACKGROUND: The study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of pemetrexed/carboplatin or cisplatin/bevacizumab (PemPBev) and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab (PacCBev) as first-line therapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) patients with wild-type driver genes in a real-world setting. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the medical records of advanced NS-NSCLCpatients with wild-type driver genes administered first-line PemPBev or PacCBev therapy at Shanghai Chest Hospital between January 2014 and June 2016, and analyzed the differences in survival outcomes, efficacy, and safety between PemPBev and PacCBev treatment. RESULTS: A total of 390 patients were included in our analysis: 249 in the PemPBev group and 141 in the PacCBev group. Patients administered PemPBev experienced significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to those administered PacCBev (PFS 7.5 vs. 6.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.84, P < 0.001; OS:18.6 vs. 16.0 months, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.90, P = 0.002). The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were similar between the groups (ORR 21.7% vs. 30.5%, P = 0.053; DCR 69.1% vs. 67.4%, P = 0.728). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the groups (64.7% vs. 68.8%; P = 0.407), but the incidence of peripheral neuropathy in the PacCBev group was higher than in the PemPBev group (7.8% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that for advanced NS-NSCLCpatients with wild-type driver genes, first-line PemPBev might be a better treatment option compared to PacCBev.
Authors: Joan H Schiller; David Harrington; Chandra P Belani; Corey Langer; Alan Sandler; James Krook; Junming Zhu; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alan Sandler; Robert Gray; Michael C Perry; Julie Brahmer; Joan H Schiller; Afshin Dowlati; Rogerio Lilenbaum; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Y Ohe; Y Ohashi; K Kubota; T Tamura; K Nakagawa; S Negoro; Y Nishiwaki; N Saijo; Y Ariyoshi; M Fukuoka Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Martin Reck; Joachim von Pawel; Petr Zatloukal; Rodryg Ramlau; Vera Gorbounova; Vera Hirsh; Natasha Leighl; Jörg Mezger; Venice Archer; Nicola Moore; Christian Manegold Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Purvish Parikh; Joachim von Pawel; Bonne Biesma; Johan Vansteenkiste; Christian Manegold; Piotr Serwatowski; Ulrich Gatzemeier; Raghunadharao Digumarti; Mauro Zukin; Jin S Lee; Anders Mellemgaard; Keunchil Park; Shehkar Patil; Janusz Rolski; Tuncay Goksel; Filippo de Marinis; Lorinda Simms; Katherine P Sugarman; David Gandara Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea Ardizzoni; Luca Boni; Marcello Tiseo; Frank V Fossella; Joan H Schiller; Marianne Paesmans; Davorin Radosavljevic; Adriano Paccagnella; Petr Zatloukal; Paola Mazzanti; Donald Bisset; Rafael Rosell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-06-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David H Johnson; Louis Fehrenbacher; William F Novotny; Roy S Herbst; John J Nemunaitis; David M Jablons; Corey J Langer; Russell F DeVore; Jacques Gaudreault; Lisa A Damico; Eric Holmgren; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544