PURPOSE To compare pemetrexed/carboplatin with a standard regimen as first-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) = 5 (Calvert's formula) on day 1 or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin AUC = 5 on day 1 every 3 weeks for up to four cycles. The primary end point was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) defined as global quality of life, nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, and fatigue reported on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and the lung cancer-specific module LC13 during the first 20 weeks. Secondary end points were overall survival and toxicity. Results Four hundred thirty-six eligible patients were enrolled from April 2005 to July 2006. Patients who completed the baseline questionnaire were analyzed for HRQoL (n = 427), and those who received > or = one cycle of chemotherapy were analyzed for toxicity (n = 423). Compliance of HRQoL questionnaires was 87%. There were no significant differences for the primary HRQoL end points or in overall survival between the two treatment arms (pemetrexed/carboplatin, 7.3 months; gemcitabine/carboplatin, 7.0 months; P = .63). The patients who received gemcitabine/carboplatin had more grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity than patients who received pemetrexed/carboplatin, including leukopenia (46% v 23%, respectively; P < .001), neutropenia (51% v 40%, respectively; P = .024), and thrombocytopenia (56% v 24%, respectively; P < .001). More patients on the gemcitabine/carboplatin arm received transfusions of RBCs and platelets, whereas the frequencies of neutropenic infections and thrombocytopenic bleedings were similar on both arms. CONCLUSION Pemetrexed/carboplatin provides similar HRQoL and survival when compared with gemcitabine/carboplatin with less hematologic toxicity and less need for supportive care.
Almost half of the patients had stable or increased muscle mass during chemotherapy without receiving any cachexia treatment. Nearly all of these patients responded to the chemotherapy. Increase in muscle mass, but not sarcopenia at baseline, was a significant prognostic factor.
This randomised phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was conducted to compare vinorelbine/ carboplatin (VC) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) regarding efficacy, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity. Chemonaive patients with NSCLC stage IIIB/IV and WHO performance status 0 -2 were eligible. No upper age limit was defined. Patients received vinorelbine 25 mg m À2 or gemcitabine 1000 mg m À2 on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin AUC4 on day 1 and three courses with 3-week cycles. HRQOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, before chemotherapy and every 8 weeks until 49 weeks. During 14 months, 432 patients were included (VC, n ¼ 218; GC, n ¼ 214). Median survival was 7.3 vs 6.4 months, 1-year survival 28 vs 30% and 2-year survival 7 vs 7% in the VC and GC arm, respectively (P ¼ 0.89). HRQOL, represented by global QOL, nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea and pain, showed no significant differences. More grade 3 -4 anaemia (Po0.01), thrombocytopenia (Po0.01) and transfusions of blood (Po0.01) or platelets (Po0.01) were observed in the GC arm. There was more grade 3 -4 leucopoenia (Po0.01) in the VC arm, but the rate of neutropenic infections was the same (P ¼ 0.87). In conclusion, overall survival and HRQOL are similar, while grade 3 -4 toxicity requiring interventions are less frequent when VC is compared to GC in advanced NSCLC.
There was a clinically relevant variation of HRQoL during chemotherapy cycles, with increased symptom burden the first week following treatment. Our results suggest that timing of HRQoL assessment can influence the chances of detecting differences between the treatment regimens.
After an initial run-in period with declining results, the overall diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA increased and reached acceptable levels. These results underline the importance of continuously evaluation of our own results when new methods are implemented in clinical practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.