논문검색
Author Nam Su Lee, Hee Sook Park, Jong Ho Won, Dae Sik Hong, Su Taek Uh, Sang Jae Lee, Joo Hang Kim, Se Kyu Kim, Myung Ju Ahn, Jung Hye Choi, Suk Chul Yang, Jung Ae Lee, Keun Seok Lee, Chang Yeol Yim, Yong Chul Lee, Chul Soo Kim, Moon Hee Lee, Kab Do Jung, Hanlim Moon, Yl Sub Lee
Place of duty Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Soon Chun Hyang University, Seoul, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chungang University, Seoul, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Seoul, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Seoul, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon, Aventis Pharma Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Title Randomized, Multi-center Phase II Trial of Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin Versus Etoposide Plus Cisplatin as the First-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Publicationinfo Cancer Res Treat. 2005 Dec; 037(06): 332-338.
Key_word Docetaxel,Etoposide,Cisplatin,Non-small- cell lung carcinoma
Full-Text
Abstract Purpose: We prospectively conducted a multi-center, open-label, randomized phase II trial to compare the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) and etoposide plus cisplatin (EC) for treating advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Seventy-eight previously untreated patients with locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC were enrolled in this study. The patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and either docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 or etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3 in the DC or EC arm, respectively, every 3 weeks. Results: The objective response rate was 39.4% (15/38) and 18.4% (7/38) (p=0.023) in the DC and EC arms, respectively. The median time to progression (TTP) was 5.9 and 2.7 months (p=0.119), and the overall survival was 12.1 and 8.7 months (p=0.168) in the DC and EC arms, respectively. The prognostic factors for longer survival were an earlier disease stage (stage III, p=0.0095), the responders to DC (p=0.0174) and the adenocarcinoma histology (p=0.0454). The grades 3 and 4 toxicities were similar in both arms, with more febrile neutropenia (7.9% vs. 0%) and fatigue (7.9% vs. 0%) being noted in the DC arm. Conclusion: DC offered a superior overall response rate than does EC, along with tolerable toxicity profiles, although the DC drug combination did not show significantly improved survival and TTP. (Cancer Res Treat. 2005;37:332-338)