a phase iii randomized study comparing a chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide to a etoposide regimen without cisplatin for patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer
Clicks: 189
ID: 209976
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
189 views
38 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #190 of 207 articles by views in international journal of heat and technology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 207 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
IntroductionIn a literature meta-analysis, we showed survival benefits for regimens including cisplatin [hazard ratio (HR) 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57–0.66] and for those including etoposide (HR 0.65; 0.61–0.69). That benefit was mainly observed when etoposide alone or in combination with cisplatin was included in the chemotherapy regimens. Our objective was to determine if chemotherapy with both drugs improves survival in comparison to a non-platinum regimen with etoposide.MethodsExtensive small-cell lung cancer patients were randomized between cisplatin–etoposide (CE) and ifosfamide + etoposide + epirubicin regimen (IVE) between 2000 and 2013.Results176 and 170 eligible patients were allocated to CE and IVE (315 deaths were required before analysis), respectively. Objective response rates were not significantly different: 60% with CE and 59% with IVE. No statistically significant difference in median survival and 1-year and 2-year was observed with rates of 9.6 months, 31 and 5% for CE and 10 months, 39 and 9% for IVE, respectively. HR was 0.84 (95% CI 0.68–1.05, p = 0.16). Only two prognostic factors for survival were retained in multivariate analysis: sex with HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.49–0.97, p = 0.03) and performance status with HR = 0.53 (95% CI 0.49–0.97, p < 0.0001). After adjustment for these prognostic factors, HR for survival was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65–1.08, p = 0.17). There was more thrombopenia in the CE regimen and more leukopenia with IVE.ConclusionCombination of CE failed to improve survival in comparison to an etoposide-containing regimen without cisplatin.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00658580?term=ELCWP+01994&rank=1, identifier NCT00658580.
| Reference Key |
berghmans2017frontiersa
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Thierry Berghmans;Thierry Berghmans;Thierry Berghmans;Arnaud Scherpereel;Anne-Pascale Meert;Anne-Pascale Meert;Anne-Pascale Meert;Vicente Giner;Jacques Lecomte;Jean-Jacques Lafitte;Nathalie Leclercq;Nathalie Leclercq;Nathalie Leclercq;Marianne Paesmans;Jean-Paul Sculier;Jean-Paul Sculier;Jean-Paul Sculier;for the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) |
| Journal | international journal of heat and technology |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fonc.2017.00217
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.