Open AccessComparison of carboplatin plus etoposide with amrubicin monotherapy for extensive‐disease small cell lung cancer in the elderly and patients with poor performance status
Author(s) -
Igawa Satoshi,
Shirasawa Masayuki,
Ozawa Takahiro,
Nishinarita Noriko,
Okuma Yuriko,
Ono Taihei,
Sugimoto Ai,
Kurahayashi Shintaro,
Sugita Keisuke,
Sone Hideyuki,
Fukui Tomoya,
Mitsufuji Hisashi,
Kubota Masaru,
Katagiri Masato,
Sasaki Jiichiro,
Naoki Katsuhiko
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
thoracic cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.823
H-Index - 28
eISSN - 1759-7714
pISSN - 1759-7706
DOI - 10.1111/1759-7714.12772
Subject(s) - medicine , carboplatin , neutropenia , etoposide , febrile neutropenia , chemotherapy , performance status , lung cancer , surgery , oncology , cisplatin
Background Carboplatin plus etoposide (CE) is a standard treatment for elderly patients with extensive‐disease small cell lung cancer (ED‐SCLC). However, amrubicin monotherapy (AMR) may be a feasible alternative. We compared the efficacies and safety profiles of CE and AMR for ED‐SCLC in elderly patients and chemotherapy‐naive patients with poor performance status (PS). Methods The records of SCLC patients who received CE or AMR as first‐line chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed and their treatment outcomes evaluated. Results Eighty‐four patients (median age 72 years; 42 each received CR and AMR) were analyzed; 34 patients had a PS score of 2. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the treatment groups. The median progression‐free survival rates of patients in the CE and AMR groups were 5.8 and 4.8 months, respectively ( P = 0.04); overall survival was 14.0 and 8.5 months, respectively ( P = 0.089). Twenty‐three CE group patients received AMR as second‐line chemotherapy; their median overall survival from first‐line chemotherapy was 18.5 months. Grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with AMR (64% vs. 40%; P = 0.02), as did febrile neutropenia (14% vs. 7%). Conclusions CE remains a suitable first‐line treatment for ED‐SCLC in elderly patients or those with poor PS in comparison with AMR.