Open AccessFirst‐line pemetrexed/carboplatin or cisplatin/bevacizumab compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab in patients with advanced non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer with wild‐type driver genes: A real‐world study in China
Author(s) -
Chang Qing,
Zhang Yanwei,
Xu Jianlin,
Zhong Runbo,
Qiang Huiping,
Zhang Bo,
Han Baohui,
Qian Jialin,
Chu Tianqing
Publication year - 2019
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 - 10.1111/1759-7714.13025
Subject(s) - medicine , pemetrexed , carboplatin , bevacizumab , hazard ratio , lung cancer , oncology , paclitaxel , cisplatin , chemotherapy , confidence interval
Background The study was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of pemetrexed/carboplatin or cisplatin/bevacizumab (PemPBev) and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab (PacCBev) as first‐line therapy for advanced non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer (NS‐NSCLC) patients with wild‐type driver genes in a real‐world setting. Methods We retrospectively collected the medical records of advanced NS‐NSCLC patients with wild‐type driver genes administered first‐line PemPBev or PacCBev therapy at Shanghai Chest Hospital between January 2014 and June 2016, and analyzed the differences in survival outcomes, efficacy, and safety between PemPBev and PacCBev treatment. Results A total of 390 patients were included in our analysis: 249 in the PemPBev group and 141 in the PacCBev group. Patients administered PemPBev experienced significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to those administered PacCBev (PFS 7.5 vs. 6.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53–0.84, P < 0.001; OS:18.6 vs. 16.0 months, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52–0.90, P = 0.002). The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were similar between the groups (ORR 21.7% vs. 30.5%, P = 0.053; DCR 69.1% vs. 67.4%, P = 0.728). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the groups (64.7% vs. 68.8%; P = 0.407), but the incidence of peripheral neuropathy in the PacCBev group was higher than in the PemPBev group (7.8% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.012). Conclusion Our study shows that for advanced NS‐NSCLC patients with wild‐type driver genes, first‐line PemPBev might be a better treatment option compared to PacCBev.