Cargando…
Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients
The aim of this study was to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine (GEM) with either paclitaxel (PTX) or vinorelbine (VNR) could be more effective than GEM or PTX alone in elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. A total of 264 NSCLC patients aged >70 years wit...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2004
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409832/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15266334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602011 |
_version_ | 1782155875199221760 |
---|---|
author | Comella, P Frasci, G Carnicelli, P Massidda, B Buzzi, F Filippelli, G Maiorino, L Guida, M Panza, N Mancarella, S Cioffi, R |
author_facet | Comella, P Frasci, G Carnicelli, P Massidda, B Buzzi, F Filippelli, G Maiorino, L Guida, M Panza, N Mancarella, S Cioffi, R |
author_sort | Comella, P |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of this study was to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine (GEM) with either paclitaxel (PTX) or vinorelbine (VNR) could be more effective than GEM or PTX alone in elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. A total of 264 NSCLC patients aged >70 years with ECOG performance status (PS)⩽2, or younger with PS=2, were randomly treated with: GEM 1200 mg m(−2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days; PTX 100 mg m(−2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days; GEM 1000 mg m(−2) plus PTX 80 mg m(−2) (GT) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days; GEM 1000 mg m(−2) plus VNR 25 mg m(−2) (GV) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. In all arms, an intra-patients dose escalation was applied over the first three courses, provided that no toxicity of WHO grade ⩾2 had previously occurred. At present time, 217 (82%) patients had died. The median (months) and 1-year survival probability were 5.1 and 29% for GEM, 6.4 and 25% for PTX, 9.2 and 44% for GT, and 9.7 and 32% for GV. Multivariate analysis showed that PS⩽1 (hazard ratio (HR)=0.67; 95% CI 0.51–0.90), and doublet treatments (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.59–0.99) were significantly associated with longer survival. Doublets produced no more toxicity than single agents. GT should be considered a reference regimen for elderly NSCLC patients with PS⩽1. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2409832 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2004 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-24098322009-09-10 Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients Comella, P Frasci, G Carnicelli, P Massidda, B Buzzi, F Filippelli, G Maiorino, L Guida, M Panza, N Mancarella, S Cioffi, R Br J Cancer Clinical The aim of this study was to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine (GEM) with either paclitaxel (PTX) or vinorelbine (VNR) could be more effective than GEM or PTX alone in elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. A total of 264 NSCLC patients aged >70 years with ECOG performance status (PS)⩽2, or younger with PS=2, were randomly treated with: GEM 1200 mg m(−2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days; PTX 100 mg m(−2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days; GEM 1000 mg m(−2) plus PTX 80 mg m(−2) (GT) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days; GEM 1000 mg m(−2) plus VNR 25 mg m(−2) (GV) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. In all arms, an intra-patients dose escalation was applied over the first three courses, provided that no toxicity of WHO grade ⩾2 had previously occurred. At present time, 217 (82%) patients had died. The median (months) and 1-year survival probability were 5.1 and 29% for GEM, 6.4 and 25% for PTX, 9.2 and 44% for GT, and 9.7 and 32% for GV. Multivariate analysis showed that PS⩽1 (hazard ratio (HR)=0.67; 95% CI 0.51–0.90), and doublet treatments (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.59–0.99) were significantly associated with longer survival. Doublets produced no more toxicity than single agents. GT should be considered a reference regimen for elderly NSCLC patients with PS⩽1. Nature Publishing Group 2004-08-02 2004-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC2409832/ /pubmed/15266334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602011 Text en Copyright © 2004 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Comella, P Frasci, G Carnicelli, P Massidda, B Buzzi, F Filippelli, G Maiorino, L Guida, M Panza, N Mancarella, S Cioffi, R Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients |
title | Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients |
title_full | Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients |
title_fullStr | Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients |
title_short | Gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients |
title_sort | gemcitabine with either paclitaxel or vinorelbine vs paclitaxel or gemcitabine alone for elderly or unfit advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients |
topic | Clinical |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409832/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15266334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602011 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT comellap gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT frascig gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT carnicellip gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT massiddab gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT buzzif gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT filippellig gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT maiorinol gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT guidam gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT panzan gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT mancarellas gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients AT cioffir gemcitabinewitheitherpaclitaxelorvinorelbinevspaclitaxelorgemcitabinealoneforelderlyorunfitadvancednonsmallcelllungcancerpatients |