摘要
目的:本研究为比较伊立替康联合顺铂(irinotecan plus cisplatin,IP)方案与足叶乙甙联合顺铂(etoposide plus cisplatin,EP)方案一线治疗小细胞肺癌(SCLC)的近期疗效、远期生存及不良反应。方法:首都医科大学附属北京胸科医院肿瘤内科从2008年3月至2010年3月收治的60例SCLC患者,随机分为两组,分别接受IP和EP方案的治疗。主要研究终点为无进展生存期(progression-freesurvival,PFS),次要研究终点为总生存(overall survival,OS),客观反应率(response rate,RR)和不良反应。结果:60例患者中,59例可评价疗效,其中IP组RR 65.4%(19/29),中位PFS为9.6个月,中位OS为17.3个月;EP组RR 73.3%(22/30),中位PFS为9.7个月,中位OS为17.4个月,两组比较均无统计学差异(P=0.864;P=0.982;P=0.997)。两组主要不良反应均为骨髓抑制和胃肠道反应,但Ⅲ+Ⅳ度不良反应均无统计学差异(P>0.05),IP组腹泻发生率高于EP组(26.6%vs.0),两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P=0.003)。结论:IP方案一线治疗SCLC近期疗效及远期生存均与EP方案相当,且不良反应可耐受。
To compare the efficacy and toxicity of irinotecan plus etoposide ( IP ) with those of etoposide plus cisplatin ( EP ) as first-line treatments for small cell lung cancer ( SCLC ). Methods: A total of 60 patients were randomly assigned into the IP arm and the EP arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival ( PFS ). The secondary endpoints were overall survival ( OS ), response rate, and toxicity. Results: Of the 60 patients, 59 were eligible. The median PFS was 9.6 months in the IP arm and 9.7 months in the EP arm ( P = 0.982 ). The median OS was 17.3 months for the IP arm and 17.4 months for the EP arm( P = 0.997 ). No significant difference was observed. The response rate was 65.4 % in the IP arm and 73.3 % in the EP arm. No significant difference in response rate was observed between the two arms ( P 〉 0.05 ). The main common adverse reactions were myelosuppression and gastrointestinal response in both treatment arms. No significant difference in grade 3 and grade 4 toxicity was observed between the arms ( P 〉 0.05 ). Diarrhea was significantly more frequent in the IP arm than in the EP arm ( P = 0.003 ). Conclusion: The effects oflP and EP as first-line therapy for SCLC are comparable and equivalent and their adverse reactions can be tolerated.
出处
《中国肿瘤临床》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2012年第13期923-926,共4页
Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology
关键词
伊立替康
小细胞肺癌
临床研究
化疗
Irinotecan
Small cell lung cancer
Clinical trial
Chemotherapy