首页> 外文OA文献 >A randomized, multicenter phase II study comparing efficacy, safety and tolerability of two dosing regimens of cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer
【2h】

A randomized, multicenter phase II study comparing efficacy, safety and tolerability of two dosing regimens of cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

机译:随机的多中心期II研究比较晚期或转移性非小细胞肺癌患者的二铂肽和Pemetrexed两种剂量方案的疗效,安全性和耐受性进行比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: Pemetrexed and cisplatin is a first-line standard in non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer without targetable mutations. It became the backbone of checkpoint-inhibitor–chemotherapy combinations. Single high doses of cisplatin pose toxicity risks and require hyperhydration, potentially prolonging outpatient application. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy, safety and tolerability of split-dose cisplatin with the standard schedule. Methods: Patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to up to six 21-day cycles of pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1 (arm A), or pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 (day 1) and cisplatin 40 mg/m 2 (day 1 + 8, arm B), followed by pemetrexed maintenance. Primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary objectives were overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, treatment compliance, toxicity profile, and quality of life. Results: We enrolled 130 patients (129 evaluable). Median cycle numbers in A and B were six (1–6) and five (1–6). Dose intensities were comparable between arms. More patients in A received pemetrexed maintenance (24.2% versus 11.1%). With 16 (24.2%) in A and 19 (30.2%) patients in B achieving objective responses [odds ratio 0.74 (0.34–1.62), p  = 0.55] the primary endpoint was met. Overall survival was not different between arms (median 14.4 versus 14.9 months); [HR = 1.07; (0.68–1.68), p  = 0.78]. Median progression-free survival was 7.0 months in A and 6.2 months in B [HR = 1.63; (1.17–2.38); p  = 0.01]. Adverse events of CTCAE grade ⩾3, particularly hematological, were more frequent in B. No difference in grade 4 and 5 infections between arms was noted. Treatment-related asthenia and nausea/vomiting of any grade were more frequent in A. Global health status, fatigue and constipation measured on day 1 of cycle 4 demonstrated superior scores in B. Conclusion: Pemetrexed and split-dose cisplatin is safe and effective. Advantages of split-dose cisplatin with regard to specific toxicities allow personalization of this important chemotherapy backbone. Trial Registration: European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2011-001963-37.
机译:背景:Pemetrexed和Cisplatin是非鳞状非小细胞肺癌的一线标准,没有可靶向突变。它成为检查点抑制剂 - 化疗组合的骨干。单一高剂量的顺铂姿态毒性风险,需要超水量,可能延长门诊施用。本研究的目的是将分裂剂量顺铂的功效,安全性和耐受性与标准时间表进行比较。方法:转移性非鳞状非小细胞肺癌的患者随机分配至第1天(ARM A)或PEMORTEXED的PEMORTEXED 500mg / m 2和顺铂75mg / m 2的60天循环。 500 mg / m 2(第1天)和顺铂40mg / m 2(第1 + 8天,ARM B),然后进行培养基维护。主要终点是客观响应率。次要目标是整体存活,无进展的生存,进展时间,治疗顺应性,毒性概况和生活质量。结果:我们注册了130名患者(129名可评估)。 A和B中的中位循环编号为六(1-6)和五(1-6)。剂量强度在武器之间是可比的。更多患者在接受的培养基维持中(24.2%对11.1%)。在A和19(30.2%)的B患者中,B的16(24.2%)达到客观反应[赔率比0.74(0.34-1.62),P = 0.55]达到主要终点。武器之间的整体生存率并不不同(中位数14.4与14.9个月); [HR = 1.07; (0.68-1.68),p = 0.78]。在B [HR = 1.63中,中位进展生存期为7.0个月,6.2个月; (1.17-2.38); p = 0.01]。 CTCAE级⩾3,特别是血液学的不良事件在B中更频繁。注意到4级和5级感染的差异。在A循环4第1天测量的全球健康状况,疲劳和便秘进行治疗相关的哮喘和恶心/呕吐在循环4第1天测量的疲劳和便秘展现了B的卓越评分。结论:Pemetrexed和分裂剂量顺铂是安全可有效的。分裂剂量顺铂的优点对于特异性毒性,允许个性化这一重要的化疗骨干。审判登记:欧洲临床试验数据库(EUDRACT)2011-001963-37。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号