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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khosravi, Adnan, Esfahani-Monfared, Zahra, Seifi, Sharareh, Khodadad, Kian
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