Cargando…
Prospective Randomized Phase II Parallel Study of Vinorelbine Maintenance Therapy versus Best Supportive Care in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
BACKGROUND: Maintenance strategy has been used to improve survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether switch maintenance therapy with vinorelbine improved progression free survival (PFS) after first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus carboplatin. MATERIALS AND METHOD...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5960225/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29849674 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Maintenance strategy has been used to improve survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether switch maintenance therapy with vinorelbine improved progression free survival (PFS) after first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus carboplatin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single blind, parallel, phase 2, randomized trial, patients with NSCLC pathology, age >18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 0–2, and advanced stage (IIIB and IV) were treated with up to 6 cycles of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) (day 1 and 8) plus carboplatin AUC 5 (day 1) every 3 weeks. Patients who did not show progression after first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive switch maintenance with vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2), day 1, 15) or the best supportive care until disease progression. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were registered, of whom 34 had a non-progressive response to first-line chemotherapy and randomly received maintenance vinorelbine (n=19) or best supportive care (n=15). The hazard ratio of PFS in the vinorelbine group relative to the best supportive care group was 1.097 (95% confidence interval = 0.479–2.510; P-value =0.827). There was no significant difference between the overall survival for the two groups (P=0.068). CONCLUSION: Switch maintenance strategies are beneficial, but defining the right candidates for treatment is a problem. Moreover, the trial designs do not always reflect the real-world considerations. Switch maintenance therapy with vinorelbine, though had tolerable toxicity, did not improve PFS in patients with NSCLC. Therefore, other agents should be considered in this setting. |
---|