Comparison of the efficacy of cisplatin and carboplatin in combination with etoposide in firstline treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in real-world practice in the Czech Republic - a retrospective analysis of patients from the LUCAS project.

carboplatin cisplatin extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

Journal

Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia
ISSN: 1804-7521
Titre abrégé: Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub
Pays: Czech Republic
ID NLM: 101140142

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Jun 2024
Historique:
medline: 1 7 2024
pubmed: 1 7 2024
entrez: 1 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) have a poor prognosis. The standard palliative treatment for four decades has been chemotherapy as a combination of etoposide with carboplatin or cisplatin, and in recent years, immunotherapy in addition. To determine whether there is a difference in the efficacy of palliative chemotherapy as cisplatin or carboplatin in combination with etoposide in patients with ES-SCLC in real-world practice in the Czech Republic. This was a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 348 patients from the LUCAS project with ES-SCLC. 79 were treated with etoposide plus cisplatin and 265 were treated with etoposide plus carboplatin. Kaplan-Meier curves and the Cox regression model were used for analysis. No statistically significant difference in median overall survival (mOS) or median progression free survival (mPFS) was found between groups or between patients grouped according to age and performance status (PS) in mOS. The Cox regression result was similar. This study shows that cisplatin and carboplatin do not differ in efficacy in a given indication, thus when choosing a treatment, the physician should consider the expected toxicity in a particular patient, assessing the patient's general condition and comorbidities.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) have a poor prognosis. The standard palliative treatment for four decades has been chemotherapy as a combination of etoposide with carboplatin or cisplatin, and in recent years, immunotherapy in addition.
AIMS OBJECTIVE
To determine whether there is a difference in the efficacy of palliative chemotherapy as cisplatin or carboplatin in combination with etoposide in patients with ES-SCLC in real-world practice in the Czech Republic.
METHODS METHODS
This was a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 348 patients from the LUCAS project with ES-SCLC. 79 were treated with etoposide plus cisplatin and 265 were treated with etoposide plus carboplatin. Kaplan-Meier curves and the Cox regression model were used for analysis.
RESULTS RESULTS
No statistically significant difference in median overall survival (mOS) or median progression free survival (mPFS) was found between groups or between patients grouped according to age and performance status (PS) in mOS. The Cox regression result was similar.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that cisplatin and carboplatin do not differ in efficacy in a given indication, thus when choosing a treatment, the physician should consider the expected toxicity in a particular patient, assessing the patient's general condition and comorbidities.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38949235
doi: 10.5507/bp.2024.019
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Auteurs

Alzbeta Bejckova (A)

Department of Pulmonology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic.

Miloslav Marel (M)

Department of Pulmonology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic.

Zdenka Chladkova (Z)

Department of Pulmonology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic.

Libor Fila (L)

Department of Pulmonology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic.

Luis Fernando Casas-Mendez (LF)

Department of Pulmonology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic.

Ondrej Venclicek (O)

Department of Respiratory Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic.

Petr Jakubec (P)

Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Olomouc and Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic.

Marketa Cernovska (M)

Department of Respiratory Medicine, Thomayer Hospital and 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Michal Hrnciarik (M)

Pulmonary Department, University Hospital Hradec Kralove and Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Charles University, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.

Jana Krejci (J)

Department of Pneumology, Bulovka University Hospital and 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Petr Domecky (P)

OAKS Consulting Praha, Prague, Czech Republic.

Martin Svaton (M)

Department of Pneumology and Phthiseology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.

Classifications MeSH