|
|
楼主 |
发表于 2012-6-8 06:46:19
|
显示全部楼层
来自： 美国
本帖最后由 行动矮人 于 2012-11-13 02:37 编辑
Duration of First-Line Chemo in Advanced NSCLC: 4 vs. 6 cycles
Published December 16, 2007 | By Dr West
Although I’ve previously written about the question about optimal duration of therapy for first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC (post here), these conclusions have been based on a limited number of trials. One study randomized patients to three or six cycles of rather old chemo and found no significant differences (abstract here). Another more recent study randomized patients to four cycles of carbo/taxol compared with treatment until progression or prohibitive toxicity, with some patients going for more than 12 cycles, also demonstrating no significant differences in survival (abstract here). Based on the rather modest data, the current guidelines of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are to treat for no more than four cycles in non-responders, and no more than six cycles in patients who demonstrate a response to first-line treatment.
Most US-based oncologists follow a practice of treating up to either four or six cycles, although a reasonable minoriity in the US, and a higher proportion in other parts of the world, still treat beyond six cycles and up to the time of progression. Our current clinical trials, developed to include current best treatment practices, incorporate either four or six cycles of chemotherapy, with no consensus. The ECOG 4599 trial that established the role of avastin with carbo/taxol gave six cycles of chemo and avastin together, followed by maintenance avastin (abstract here). On the other hand, multiple trials that have focused on the maintenance portion or timing of second-line therapy have stopped at four cycles (see prior posts here and here). What’s really the best approach?
A trial by Park and colleagues from Korea that was just reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to address this question (abstract here). As shown in the schema below, 452 patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC were treated first with two cycles of cisplatin-based chemo, and then responses were measured. One third who showed progression or toxicity problems came off the trial, leaving 314 who experienced stable disease or a response to be randomized to either four more cycles (total of 6) or two more cycles (total of 4) cycles of the same chemotherapy.
Patients were then followed, received a CT every three months after chemo ended, and in most cases received subsequent chemo (off protocol) at that point.
The results demonstrated that the patients who received a total of six cycles had a significantly longer progression-free survival, but both groups had the same overall survival.
实验结果表明，化疗6个周期的病人无进展生存期显著长于化疗４个周期的病人，但两组病人总的生存期是相同的。
Differences in side effects weren’t very different between the two arms, with a little more toxicity in the patients who received more chemo, as you’d expect. Quality of life was also measured, and while there were no overall clear differences, a few parameters favored the shorter treatment arm, and none favored the longer treatment arm.
The results are noteworthy for a number of reasons. The authors make the point that the survival is quite favorable, and if the numbers you see look especially good, that is largely because the numbers reflect survival of a group of patients who remained after the third who had progressed or otherwise done poorly came off the study — the only ones randomized were those with stable disease or better after two initial chemo cycles. Second, more than half of the patients on the trial received Iressa, and we know that Asian patients are more likely to do particularly well with EGFR inhibitors. At the same time, however, some trials that compare results in Japanese vs. North American trials that used the exact same chemo in the same setting produced more favorable results in the Japanese population. It is possible that patients in Japan do better because something about the supportive care is better, they have more responsive disease, or some combination of factors.
I don’t get a clear answer to the question of whether four cycles or six cycles is a better choice, and frankly I don’t think it matters much. I think that if patients tolerate chemo well and are still demonstrating stable disease, it’s perfectly great to continue to six cycles, but four is going to get people to pretty much the same place. I think the main reason for this is that there’s a dilution of any differences with second line and often third line treatments. An advantage of stopping after four cycles is that it may deliver more patients to later therapies with a good performance status and “bone marrow reserve” — the capacity to have the bone marrow make more blood cells quickly after subsequent chemo. Overall, I wouldn’t have any hesitation about participating in a trial that includes four cycles, nor would going to six cycles be a problem, as long as a patient continues to feel OK on chemo. With several later treatment options available now, and a real possibility (and I’d even say probability) of more new treatments emerging as 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th line options for advanced NSCLC, subtle differences in what happens in first line treatment are increasingly likely to get washed out over time.
简言之，Dr. West 认为，对于晚期非小细胞肺癌患者，一线方案做4个周期还是６个周期，分别不大。若病人能耐受且化疗有效（稳定），尽管做６个周期；否则，只做4个周期也无大碍。随着后续２线，３线，甚至４线的治疗，一线做4个或６个周期的细微差别会被冲淡的。
（Dr. West 毕业于美国普林斯顿大学，后获得＂富布赖特奖学金＂（Fulbright Scholarship）到英国剑桥大学研修。返美后，进入哈佛医学院，受聘为霍华德·休斯医学研究所研究员。后来，他在华盛顿大学的弗雷德哈钦森癌症研究中心做实习和住院医师。自那时以来，他一直从事胸和泌尿生殖系统肿瘤的临床研究，是国际公认的肿瘤学家。我看过不少他发表的有关非小细胞肺癌的文章，很相信他。） |
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
显身卡
发表于 2012-6-6 12:58:34
