摘要
Objective： To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nedaplatin/gemcitabine （NG） and carboplatin/gemcitabine （CG） in the management of untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer （NSCLC）. Methods： Sixty-two patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC were recruited between June 2006 and November 2007. Subjects were randomly assigned to the NG arm （n=30） and the CG arm （n=32）. Only patients （24 and 25 in the NG and CG arms, respectively） who completed 〉2 chemotherapy cycles were included in the data analysis. The primary outcome measure was the objective response rate （ORR）. The secondary outcome measures included progression-free survival （PFS）, overall survival （OS） and adverse events. Results： There were no statistically significant differences in the efficacy measures （ORR, P=0.305; median PFS, P=0.298, median OS, P=0.961） or in the major adverse events （grade 3/4 neutropenia, P=0.666; grade 3/4 anemia, P=0.263; grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, P=0.222） between the two treatment arms. However, there was a trend towards higher ORR （37.5% vs. 24.0%）, longer PFS （6.0 vs. 5.0 months）, and less adverse events in the NG arm. Conclusion： NG regimen seems to be superior over CG regimen for advance NSCLS, but further investigation is needed to validate this superiority.
Objective： To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nedaplatin/gemcitabine （NG） and carboplatin/gemcitabine （CG） in the management of untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer （NSCLC）. Methods： Sixty-two patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC were recruited between June 2006 and November 2007. Subjects were randomly assigned to the NG arm （n=30） and the CG arm （n=32）. Only patients （24 and 25 in the NG and CG arms, respectively） who completed 〉2 chemotherapy cycles were included in the data analysis. The primary outcome measure was the objective response rate （ORR）. The secondary outcome measures included progression-free survival （PFS）, overall survival （OS） and adverse events. Results： There were no statistically significant differences in the efficacy measures （ORR, P=0.305; median PFS, P=0.298, median OS, P=0.961） or in the major adverse events （grade 3/4 neutropenia, P=0.666; grade 3/4 anemia, P=0.263; grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, P=0.222） between the two treatment arms. However, there was a trend towards higher ORR （37.5% vs. 24.0%）, longer PFS （6.0 vs. 5.0 months）, and less adverse events in the NG arm. Conclusion： NG regimen seems to be superior over CG regimen for advance NSCLS, but further investigation is needed to validate this superiority.
