Cargando…

Comparison of carboplatin plus etoposide with amrubicin monotherapy for extensive‐disease small cell lung cancer in the elderly and patients with poor performance status

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin plus etoposide (CE) is a standard treatment for elderly patients with extensive‐disease small cell lung cancer (ED‐SCLC). However, amrubicin monotherapy (AMR) may be a feasible alternative. We compared the efficacies and safety profiles of CE and AMR for ED‐SCLC in elderly pa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Igawa, Satoshi, Shirasawa, Masayuki, Ozawa, Takahiro, Nishinarita, Noriko, Okuma, Yuriko, Ono, Taihei, Sugimoto, Ai, Kurahayashi, Shintaro, Sugita, Keisuke, Sone, Hideyuki, Fukui, Tomoya, Mitsufuji, Hisashi, Kubota, Masaru, Katagiri, Masato, Sasaki, Jiichiro, Naoki, Katsuhiko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6068456/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29870153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.12772
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Carboplatin plus etoposide (CE) is a standard treatment for elderly patients with extensive‐disease small cell lung cancer (ED‐SCLC). However, amrubicin monotherapy (AMR) may be a feasible alternative. We compared the efficacies and safety profiles of CE and AMR for ED‐SCLC in elderly patients and chemotherapy‐naive patients with poor performance status (PS). METHODS: The records of SCLC patients who received CE or AMR as first‐line chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed and their treatment outcomes evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty‐four patients (median age 72 years; 42 each received CR and AMR) were analyzed; 34 patients had a PS score of 2. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the treatment groups. The median progression‐free survival rates of patients in the CE and AMR groups were 5.8 and 4.8 months, respectively (P = 0.04); overall survival was 14.0 and 8.5 months, respectively (P = 0.089). Twenty‐three CE group patients received AMR as second‐line chemotherapy; their median overall survival from first‐line chemotherapy was 18.5 months. Grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with AMR (64% vs. 40%; P = 0.02), as did febrile neutropenia (14% vs. 7%). CONCLUSIONS: CE remains a suitable first‐line treatment for ED‐SCLC in elderly patients or those with poor PS in comparison with AMR.