Search

Purpose Elderly patients often have comorbidities and other characteristics that make the selection of treatment daunting. Methods We have reviewed the available evidence in the literature to gauge the results of therapy for elderly lung cancer patients. Results The beneficial results achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy in the general population with early non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cannot be automatically extrapolated to the elderly, who are at higher risk of toxicity. Retrospective analyses of combined chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced NSCLC patients suggest equivalent therapeutic benefit for younger and older patients, despite heightened toxicity. There have been no elderly-specific phase III trials for locally advanced NSCLC. For advanced NSCLC, on the basis of evidence-based data, single-agent chemotherapy remains the standard of care for nonselected elderly patients. However, retrospective analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with increased but acceptable toxicity for elderly patients. In limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), sequential chemoradiotherapy is clearly less toxic compared with a standard concurrent approach, but our assessment of treatment is hindered by the absence of prospective elderly-specific trials. Although prophylactic cranial irradiation has emerged as a standard strategy, it should be omitted in patients with cognitive impairment. In extensive SCLC, etoposide in combination with either cisplatin or carboplatin has emerged as standard treatment; hematopoietic support may be necessary. Conclusion With the exception of advanced NSCLC, prospective elderly-specific studies are lacking. Available data suggest that outcomes in the fit elderly mirror results observed in younger patients, although toxicity is generally worse.

Purpose Etoposide and cisplatin (EP) has been a standard treatment for extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). An earlier phase III trial reported improved survival for patients receiving irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) versus EP. Our trial was designed to determine if a modified weekly regimen of IP would provide superior survival with less toxicity than EP. Patients and Methods The primary objective was to compare overall survival in extensive-disease SCLC patients randomly assigned to receive IP (n = 221) or EP (n = 110). Patients were randomly assigned in 2:1 ratio to cisplatin 30 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) + irinotecan 65 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, or cisplatin 60 mg/m2 IV on day 1, and etoposide 120 mg/m2 IV on days 1 to 3 every 21 days for at least four cycles, until progressive disease, or until intolerable toxicity resulted. Results Selected grade 3/4 toxicities for IP/EP were: neutropenia (36.2% v 86.5%; P < .01), febrile neutropenia (3.7% v 10.4%; P = .06), anemia (4.8% v 11.5%; P = .02), thrombocytopenia (4.3% v 19.2%; P < .01), vomiting (12.5% v 3.8%; P = .04), and diarrhea (21.3% v 0%; P < .01). There was no significant difference in response rates (48% v 43.6%), median time to progression (4.1 v 4.6 months), or overall survival (median survival time, 9.3 months v 10.2 months; P = .74). Conclusion Treatment with this dose and schedule of IP did not result in improved survival when compared with EP. Fewer patients receiving IP had grade 3/4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia compared with patients receiving EP, but more had grade 3/4 diarrhea and vomiting.