Cargando…

Consolidation chwemotherapy after concurrent chemoradiotherapy vs. chemoradiotherapy alone for locally advanced unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has been considered to be the standard of care for locally advanced unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). Whether consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) following CCRT is able to further improve the clinical outcome remains unclear. We therefore...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chang, Xiu-Jun, Wang, Zi-Tong, Yang, Lei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: D.A. Spandidos 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4950681/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27446563
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.910
Descripción
Sumario:Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has been considered to be the standard of care for locally advanced unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). Whether consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) following CCRT is able to further improve the clinical outcome remains unclear. We therefore undertook a meta-analysis to compare the two regimens for LA-NSCLC. A literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biology Medicine, from their inception to November, 2015. Irrelevant studies were excluded using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. Our primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), which was defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause; the secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). All analyses were by intention-to-treat. Five phase III randomized controlled trials with 958 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. The results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Compared with CCRT, CCT after CCRT was not associated with statistically significant differences in OS (OR=1.24; 95% CI: 0.89–1.72; P=0.21) or PFS (OR=1.16; 95% CI: 0.74–1.83; P=0.53), but increased the risk of toxicity, including infection (P=0.02), pneumonitis (P=0.003) and treatment-related death (P=0.04). There were no significant differences in terms of benefit according to particular patient characteristics, such as age, gender, performance status, tumor histology or clinical stage. Thus, the present study failed to support the use of CCT after CCRT over CCRT alone, as there was no significant OS and PFS benefit for LA-NSCLC patients, but the use of CCT after CCRT resulted in increased toxicity.