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 pat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Thoracic cancer 2018-08, Vol.9 (8), p.967-973
Main Authors: 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
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abdomen
Aged patients
Cancer
Cancer therapies
Carboplatin
Chemotherapy
Comparative analysis
Drug dosages
elderly patient
Emergency medicine
Etoposide
Lung cancer
Lung cancer, Small cell
Medical prognosis
Neutropenia
Neutrophils
NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Original
Patients
poor PS
Response rates
small cell lung cancer
Tumors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1759-7706
1759-7714
DOI:10.1111/1759-7714.12772