Comparison of Carboplatin With Cisplatin in Small Cell Lung Cancer in US Veterans.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 10 2022
03 10 2022
Historique:
entrez:
20
10
2022
pubmed:
21
10
2022
medline:
25
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The current standard of care for the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is concurrent chemoradiation for patients with limited-stage SCLC (LS-SCLC) and chemoimmunotherapy for extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The backbone of chemotherapy regimens in both is a platinum-etoposide doublet: cisplatin is traditionally the preferred platinum agent in the curative intent setting, whereas carboplatin is preferred in ES-SCLC because of its favorable toxicity profile. To determine whether cisplatin is associated with better survival outcomes than carboplatin in treating LS-SCLC and ES-SCLC. In this cohort study, data were compiled from the National Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry for patients with SCLC who received platinum-based multiagent chemotherapy between 2000 and 2020 for ES-SCLC and 2000 and 2021 for LS-SCLC. Only patients with pathologically confirmed cases of LS-SCLC who received concurrent chemoradiation and ES-SCLC who received chemotherapy were included. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The secondary end points included OS by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, age, and laterality. Interval-censored Weibull and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate median OS and hazard ratios (HRs), respectively. Survival curves were compared by a Wald test. A total of 4408 SCLC cases were studied. Most patients were White (3589 patients [81.4%]), male (4252 [96.5%]), and non-Hispanic (4142 [94.0%]); 2262 patients (51.3%) were 60 to 69 years old, followed by 1476 patients (33.5%) aged 70 years or older, 631 patients (14.3%) aged 50 to 59 years, and 39 patients (0.9%) aged 30 to 49 years. Among 2652 patients with ES-SCLC, 2032 were treated with carboplatin-based therapy and 660 received cisplatin; the median OS was 8.45 months (95% CI, 7.75-9.20 months) for cisplatin and 8.51 months (95% CI, 8.07-8.97 months) for carboplatin (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12; P = .90). Subset analysis showed no survival difference between the 2 agents in different age or performance status groups except for patients aged 70 years and older, for whom the median OS was 6.36 months (95% CI, 5.31-7.56 months) for cisplatin and 8.47 months (95% CI, 7.79-9.19 months) for carboplatin (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96; P = .02). Multivariable analysis of performance status and age did not show a significant difference in survival between the 2 groups (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.10; P = .54). Of 1756 patients with LS-SCLC, 801 received carboplatin, and 1018 received cisplatin. The median OS was 26.92 months (95% CI, 25.03-28.81 months) for cisplatin and 25.58 months (95% CI, 23.64-27.72 months) for carboplatin (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .46). The median OS was not significantly different between 2 agents according to cancer stage (I-III), performance status, and age groups. A multivariable analysis of factors associated with OS accounting for stage (I-III), performance status, and age did not demonstrate a significant difference in survival between carboplatin and cisplatin in patients with LS-SCLC (HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.86-1.15; P = .95). Cisplatin is not associated with a survival advantage over carboplatin among patients with either ES-SCLC or LS-SCLC, irrespective of performance status and age. The favorable toxicity profile of carboplatin and comparable OS support its use in both LS-SCLC and ES-SCLC in clinical practice and may allow more room for combination with novel treatment strategies in clinical trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36264573
pii: 2797497
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.37699
pmc: PMC9585434
doi:
Substances chimiques
Carboplatin
BG3F62OND5
Cisplatin
Q20Q21Q62J
Etoposide
6PLQ3CP4P3
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2237699Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Sci Transl Med. 2021 Jan 27;13(578):
pubmed: 33504652
Ann Oncol. 1995 Jan;6(1):41-8
pubmed: 7536028
Ann Oncol. 1994 Sep;5(7):601-7
pubmed: 7993835
Thorax. 2009 Jan;64(1):75-80
pubmed: 18786981
Radiat Res. 1995 Sep;143(3):309-15
pubmed: 7652169
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2078-2092
pubmed: 29658856
Br J Cancer. 2006 Mar 13;94(5):625-30
pubmed: 16465191
Oncology (Williston Park). 1996 Nov;10(11 Suppl):179-94
pubmed: 8953602
J Thorac Oncol. 2007 Aug;2(8):706-14
pubmed: 17762336
J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 10;30(14):1692-8
pubmed: 22473169
Acta Biochim Pol. 2002;49(3):583-96
pubmed: 12422229
J Clin Oncol. 1996 Jan;14(1):119-26
pubmed: 8558186
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 13;383(7):640-649
pubmed: 32786189
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 4;14(1):e0209709
pubmed: 30608948
Ann Oncol. 2019 Sep 1;30(9):1437-1447
pubmed: 31218365
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar 1;31(7):845-52
pubmed: 23182993
Cancer Imaging. 2012 Jan 12;11:253-8
pubmed: 22245990
J Clin Oncol. 1992 Feb;10(2):282-91
pubmed: 1310103
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Oct 1;24(28):4539-44
pubmed: 17008692
Lancet. 2019 Nov 23;394(10212):1929-1939
pubmed: 31590988
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Dec 15;20(24):4665-72
pubmed: 12488411
Br J Cancer. 2007 Jul 16;97(2):162-9
pubmed: 17579629
N Engl J Med. 1992 Dec 3;327(23):1618-24
pubmed: 1331787
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jul 20;26(21):3552-9
pubmed: 18506026
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 6;379(23):2220-2229
pubmed: 30280641
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Oct 1;95(19):1453-61
pubmed: 14519751
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 1;28(1):35-42
pubmed: 19933916
Chest. 1997 Oct;112(4 Suppl):251S-258S
pubmed: 9337299
J Clin Oncol. 1985 Nov;3(11):1471-7
pubmed: 2997406
J Thorac Oncol. 2020 Dec;15(12):1919-1927
pubmed: 32916308
N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 28;349(9):859-66
pubmed: 12944571
Eur Urol. 2005 Aug;48(2):202-5; discussion 205-6
pubmed: 15939524