The impact of age on toxicity, response rate, quality of life, and survival in patients with advanced, Stage IIIB or IV nonsmall cell lung carcinoma treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel
- 20 June 2003
- Vol. 98 (4) , 779-788
- https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11548
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal treatment strategy for elderly patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma has not been defined to date. The authors performed a retrospective analysis of a Phase III trial that treated patients who had Stage IIIB or IV nonsmall cell lung carcinoma with carboplatin and paclitaxel and analyzed the impact of age on response rate, survival, toxicity, and quality of life. METHODS Patients with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to receive either 4 cycles of carboplatin at an area under the curve (AUC) of 6 and paclitaxel at a dose of 200 mg/m2 every 21 days or treatment with carboplatin and paclitaxel (C/P) until they developed disease progression. At the time of disease progression, all patients on both arms were to receive second‐line weekly paclitaxel at a dose of 80 mg/m2 per week. In this analysis, patients age 70 years and older were compared with patients younger than age 70 years. In addition, a minimum log rank P value analysis was performed in an attempt to identify other potential age splits that may have been significant. RESULTS Two hundred thirty patients were randomized. Sixty‐seven patients were age 70 years or older (29%). The median number of cycles delivered for both age groups was 4 cycles (range, 0–19 cycles). No statistically significant differences in any of the most common toxicities (Grade ≥ 2) associated with C/P were identified (data from Cycles 1–4) for patients younger than age 70 years compared with patients age 70 years and older, respectively, including neutropenia (38% vs. 35%), neuropathy (13% vs. 16%), leukopenia (7% vs. 13%), myalgia/arthralgia (15% vs. 9%), malaise (8% vs. 15%), anemia (9% vs. 4%), thrombocytopenia (7% vs. 9%), anorexia (8% vs. 4%), and nausea/emesis (14% vs. 15%). In addition, no potential age splits that may have been significant were found using a minimum log rank P value analysis. CONCLUSIONS The current analysis demonstrated that C/P exhibited similar toxicity profiles in patients age 70 years and older compared with patients younger than age 70 years. The survival rates were not different between the two age groups, and there was no difference in progression of quality‐of‐life outcomes. In fit, elderly patients, C/P represented a reasonable standard regimen. Cancer 2003;98:779–88. © 2003 American Cancer Society.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Second‐line, low‐dose, weekly paclitaxel in patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsmall cell lung carcinoma who fail first‐line chemotherapy with carboplatin plus paclitaxelCancer, 2002
- Phase III Trial Comparing a Defined Duration of Therapy Versus Continuous Therapy Followed by Second-Line Therapy in Advanced-Stage IIIB/IV Non-Small-Cell Lung CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2002
- Comparison of Four Chemotherapy Regimens for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Activity and toxicity of gemcitabine and gemcitabine+vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer elderly patientsLung Cancer, 2001
- Retrospective comparison of toxicity and efficacy in phase II trials of 3-h infusions of paclitaxel for patients 70 years of age or older and patients under 70 years of ageCancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 2000
- Underrepresentation of Patients 65 Years of Age or Older in Cancer-Treatment TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Differences in initial treatment patterns and outcomes of lung cancer in the elderlyLung Cancer, 1995
- Prospective Evaluation of the Feasibility of Cisplatin‐based Chemotherapy for Elderly Lung Cancer Patients with Normal Organ FunctionsJapanese Journal of Cancer Research, 1995
- Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trialsBMJ, 1995
- Dangers of Using "Optimal" Cutpoints in the Evaluation of Prognostic FactorsJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1994