İleri Evre Küçük Hücreli Dişi Akciğer Kanserinde Paklitaksel Sisplatin Kombine Kemoterapisi


Available from: Atila Ihsan Keyf, May 31, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To contribute to the current debate about the relative merits of meta-analysis of the literature (MAL) and of individual patients data (MAP). Identification of published randomized trials and extraction of essential results directly from the published reports. Chemotherapy vs supportive care in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Survival probability at 6 months after randomization, as estimated from the published survival curves, has been considered as the end-point of interest. Quality scoring of the studies has also been performed. Specific methodologic issues concerning the estimation of relevant quantities necessary for the MAL have been addressed. The estimated pooled odds ratio of death was 0.44, with 95 percent confidence interval of 0.32 to 0.59, thus significantly favoring chemotherapy, and it corresponds to an estimated increase in median survival from 3.9 months for best supportive care to 6.7 for chemotherapy. The results of our MAL, favoring chemotherapy, are in line with those of a MAP recently published. However, they have to be considered in the light of their actual clinical relevance and of the balance between quality of life, toxicity, and costs of chemotherapy and best supportive care.
    Chest 10/1994; 106(3):861-5. DOI:10.1378/chest.106.3.861 · 7.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treatment with cisplatin-based chemotherapy provides a modest survival advantage over supportive care alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To determine whether a new agent, paclitaxel, would further improve survival in NSCLC, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a randomized trial comparing paclitaxel plus cisplatin to a standard chemotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin and etoposide. The study was carried out by a multi-institutional cooperative group in chemotherapy-naive stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients randomized to receive paclitaxel plus cisplatin or etoposide plus cisplatin. Paclitaxel was administered at two different dose levels (135 mg/m(2) and 250 mg/m(2)), and etoposide was given at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) daily on days 1 to 3. Each regimen was repeated every 21 days and each included cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). The characteristics of the 599 patients were well-balanced across the three treatment groups. Superior survival was observed with the combined paclitaxel regimens (median survival time, 9.9 months; 1-year survival rate, 38.9%) compared with etoposide plus cisplatin (median survival time, 7.6 months; 1-year survival rate, 31.8%; P =. 048). Comparing survival for the two dose levels of paclitaxel revealed no significant difference. The median survival duration for the stage IIIB subgroup was 7.9 months for etoposide plus cisplatin patients versus 13.1 months for all paclitaxel patients (P =.152). For the stage IV subgroup, the median survival time for etoposide plus cisplatin was 7.6 months compared with 8.9 months for paclitaxel (P =.246). With the exceptions of increased granulocytopenia on the low-dose paclitaxel regimen and increased myalgias, neurotoxicity, and, possibly, increased treatment-related cardiac events with high-dose paclitaxel, toxicity was similar across all three arms. Quality of life (QOL) declined significantly over the 6 months. However, QOL scores were not significantly different among the regimens. As a result of these observations, paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) combined with cisplatin has replaced etoposide plus cisplatin as the reference regimen in our recently completed phase III trial.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 03/2000; 18(3):623-31. · 17.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Basic questions regarding optimal dose and schedule of anticancer drug administration frequently persist long after regulatory approval and commercial availability of a drug. For paclitaxel (TAXOL), these questions were considered early in drug development. This paper reviews the available preclinical studies that assessed different drug concentrations and durations of drug exposure. The current status of clinical trials designed to help resolve these issues is also reviewed.
    Seminars in Oncology 09/1993; 20(4 Suppl 3):31-9. · 3.94 Impact Factor