Literature DB >> 7536028

Quality versus quantity of life in the treatment of patients with advanced small-cell lung cancer? A randomized phase III comparison of weekly carboplatin and teniposide versus cisplatin, adriamycin, etoposide alternating with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, vincristine and lomustine. Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK).

R A Joss1, P Alberto, C Hürny, M Bacchi, S Leyvraz, B Thürlimann, T Cerny, G Martinelli, R Stahel, C Ludwig.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Based on a promising pilot study with weekly carboplatin and teniposide (CBDCA/VM) the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) performed a randomised phase III trial in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer aimed at the development of an effective palliative treatment with low subjective toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 1989 to September 1991 patients were randomised to a weekly regimen of CBDCA/VM or to our 'standard chemotherapy' of cisplatin, adriamycin and etoposide alternating with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, vincristine and lomustine (PAV-CyMOC).
RESULTS: The trial was closed before the planned accrual of 140 evaluable patients due to a significant survival difference shown by an interim analysis. Of the 61 patients 59 were eligible and included in the final analysis. The results achieved with the PAV-CyMOC regimen were significantly better than those observed in patients treated with weekly CBDCA/VM (remission rate of 65% vs. 29%; p = 0.006). The median survival of patients treated with the PAV-CyMOC combination was significantly longer than that of patients receiving weekly CBDCA/VM (260 days vs. 147 days; p = 0.0035). The 1-year survival rate was 30% in the PAV-CyMOC arm compared to 4% in the CBDCA/VM-treated patients. As expected, side effects including myelosuppression, alopecia and mucositis were significantly more pronounced in patients treated with the PAV-CyMOC regimen. No significant difference was found in patient-rated tumor symptoms and general quality-of-life categories.
CONCLUSION: Contrary to our initial expectation that we would achieve similar therapeutic results with less subjective toxicity, in this randomised prospective trial the results achieved by weekly carboplatin and teniposide were significantly inferior in terms of remission rate and survival to those of our 'standard regimen' of cisplatin, adriamycin and etoposide alternating with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, vincristine and lomustine. The weekly regimen was less toxic than the standard chemotherapy. Whether patients are willing to accept a significant trade-off between quantity and quality of life remains to be evaluated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7536028     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a059039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  6 in total

Review 1.  Management of lung cancer.

Authors:  A Melville; A Eastwood
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1998-09

2.  The health-related quality of life and survival of small-cell lung cancer patients: results of a companion study to CALGB 9033.

Authors:  M J Naughton; J E Herndon; S A Shumaker; A A Miller; A B Kornblith; D Chao; J Holland
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  How quality of life data contribute to our understanding of cancer patients' experiences? A study of patients with lung cancer.

Authors:  Ali Montazeri; Robert Milroy; David Hole; James McEwen; Charles R Gillis
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Initial prognostic factors in small-cell lung cancer patients predicting quality of life during chemotherapy. Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK).

Authors:  J Bernhard; C Hürny; M Bacchi; R A Joss; F Cavalli; H J Senn; S Leyvraz; R Stahel; C Ludwig; P Alberto
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  A pilot study of MVP (mitomycin-C, vinblastine and cisplatin) chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  T F Hickish; I E Smith; M C Nicolson; S Ashley; K Priest; L Spencer; A Norman; G Middleton; M E O'Brien
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 6.  Clinical considerations for the management of androgen indifferent prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jacob E Berchuck; Paul V Viscuse; Himisha Beltran; Ana Aparicio
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 5.554

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.