Search

Background and objective Subsequent chemotherapy were needed in patients with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma experiencing disease progression after epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) treatment. The study is to explore factors potentially influencing efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy. Methods One hundred and ninety-one patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, who were resistant from EGFR-TKIs and then received subsequent chemotherapy, were identified. Data of patient’s characteristics, responses to chemotherapy and survival time were analyzed retrospectively. Results The overall response rate of the pemetrexed-based chemotherapy (9.3%) was higher than non-pemetrexed-based regimen (1.1%), P=0.011. Furthermore, the response in the second-line was more obvisous [objective response rate (ORR) 14.3% vs 3.7%, P=0.041]. The patients who achieved response of partial response (PR) showed longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those who achieved non-PR (PFS 10.1 months and 2.3 months, P=0.012). The patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy had longer PFS and OS than those with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, therefore platinum-based regimen was independent prognosis factors for PFS and OS (PFS: RR=0.634, 95%CI: 0.466-0.832, P=0.004; OS: RR=0.666, 95%CI: 0.460-0.960, P=0.030), especially the pateients who were aquired EGFR-TKIs resistance and who got drmatic progression from EGFR-TKIs treatment might got more benefits from platinum-based chemotherapy. However there was no significant difference in ORR, PFS or OS between patients with TKIs primary resistance and acquired resistance, or between dramtic progression and gradual/local progression. Conclusion The patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma might get benefits from pemetrexed-based or platinum-based chemotherapy after they were EGFR-TKIs resistace.

Background and objective At present no standard second-line combination has been established for recurrent small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Therefore we evaluate the efficacy and safety of irinotecan in combination with nedaplatin/cisplatin against refractory or relapsed small cell lung cancer. Methods In this retrospective study, we analyzed the data of 1,140 patients who diagnosed small cell lung cancer at our hospital from April 2009 to April 2012. Of all the patients, 34 patients were treated with irinotecan and nedaplatin (irinotecan 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 nedaplatin 85 mg/m2 day 1, every 3 weeks) , and 20 patients were treated with irinotecan and cisplatin (irinotecan 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, every 3 weeks) as the second-line treatment. Prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox's Regression-proportional hazards model. Results Of all the 54 eligible patients, median progression free survival (PFS) was 4.9 months, and median OS was 13.3 months. Median PFS was 5.4 months for irinotecan plus nedaplatin (IN) and 4.9 months for irinotecan plus cisplatin (IC), respectively (P=0.465). Median OS was 14.3 months and 13.3 months, respectively (P=0.704). In multivariate analysis, ECOG PS, number of metastases and cycles of chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors. The toxicities were mild, while toxicity profile was slightly different for each of the arms: hematologic toxicity was higher in IN group, and diarrhea was higher in IC group. Conclusion Irinotecan plus platinum is effective and tolerable for refractory and relapsed small cell lung cancer. Irinotecan plus nedaplatin is non-inferior to irinotecan plus cisplatin in terms of efficacy and safety.

Background and objective Platinum-based chemotherapy doublets reached an efficacy plateau in nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This randomized controlled study prospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of cisplatin plus gemcitabine with either Sorafenib or placebo as first-line therapy for NSCLC. Methods Thirty patients, which were confirmed advanced NSCLC histologically or cytologically, were randomly assigned to receive up to six cycles of cisplatin plus gemcitabine with sorafenib or placebo. The maintenance of sorafenib or placebo after chemotherapy will continued in patients with response or stable disease until disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. Results Overall demographics were balanced between experimental group (sorafenib+chemotherapy) and controlled group (chemotherapy only). Overall response (OS) rate was 55.6% and 41.7% in experimental arm and controlled arm, respectively (P=0.905). Median progressivefree survival (PFS) and median overall survial were similar (5 months vs 4 months, P=0.75; 18 months vs 18 months, P=0.68). Adverse events were tolerable, though the risk of hypertension and diarrhea was increase in experimental arm. Since patients with ECOG PS 0, stage IIIb, no liver metastasis and tyrasine kinasis inhibitor treatment after study had longer survive, these factors seemed to be predictive factors favor of survival in Cox regression analyses. Conclusion No additional benefit of response rate, PFS or OS were observed from adding targeted agent-sorafenib to regular cisplatin plus gemcitabine chemotherapy. Selecting aproper patients is needed in further study.