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 |
_version_ | 1783324553908322304 |
---|---|
author | Khosravi, Adnan Esfahani-Monfared, Zahra Seifi, Sharareh Khodadad, Kian |
author_facet | Khosravi, Adnan Esfahani-Monfared, Zahra Seifi, Sharareh Khodadad, Kian |
author_sort | Khosravi, Adnan |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5960225 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59602252018-05-30 Prospective Randomized Phase II Parallel Study of Vinorelbine Maintenance Therapy versus Best Supportive Care in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Khosravi, Adnan Esfahani-Monfared, Zahra Seifi, Sharareh Khodadad, Kian Tanaffos Original Article 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. National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5960225/ /pubmed/29849674 Text en Copyright© 2017 National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Khosravi, Adnan Esfahani-Monfared, Zahra Seifi, Sharareh Khodadad, Kian Prospective Randomized Phase II Parallel Study of Vinorelbine Maintenance Therapy versus Best Supportive Care in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer |
title | Prospective Randomized Phase II Parallel Study of Vinorelbine Maintenance Therapy versus Best Supportive Care in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer |
title_full | Prospective Randomized Phase II Parallel Study of Vinorelbine Maintenance Therapy versus Best Supportive Care in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer |
title_fullStr | Prospective Randomized Phase II Parallel Study of Vinorelbine Maintenance Therapy versus Best Supportive Care in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Prospective Randomized Phase II Parallel Study of Vinorelbine Maintenance Therapy versus Best Supportive Care in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer |
title_short | Prospective Randomized Phase II Parallel Study of Vinorelbine Maintenance Therapy versus Best Supportive Care in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer |
title_sort | prospective randomized phase ii parallel study of vinorelbine maintenance therapy versus best supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5960225/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29849674 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT khosraviadnan prospectiverandomizedphaseiiparallelstudyofvinorelbinemaintenancetherapyversusbestsupportivecareinadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer AT esfahanimonfaredzahra prospectiverandomizedphaseiiparallelstudyofvinorelbinemaintenancetherapyversusbestsupportivecareinadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer AT seifisharareh prospectiverandomizedphaseiiparallelstudyofvinorelbinemaintenancetherapyversusbestsupportivecareinadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer AT khodadadkian prospectiverandomizedphaseiiparallelstudyofvinorelbinemaintenancetherapyversusbestsupportivecareinadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer |