Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/12029
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLiew, Mun Semen
dc.contributor.authorSia, Josephen
dc.contributor.authorStarmans, Maud H Wen
dc.contributor.authorTafreshi, Alien
dc.contributor.authorHarris, Samen
dc.contributor.authorFeigen, Malcolmen
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Shane Cen
dc.contributor.authorZimet, Allanen
dc.contributor.authorLambin, Philippeen
dc.contributor.authorBoutros, Paul Cen
dc.contributor.authorMitchell, Paul L Ren
dc.contributor.authorJohn, Thomasen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-16T01:39:55Z
dc.date.available2015-05-16T01:39:55Z
dc.date.issued2013-10-16en
dc.identifier.citationCancer Medicine 2013; 2(6): 916-24en
dc.identifier.govdoc24403265en
dc.identifier.otherPUBMEDen
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/12029en
dc.description.abstractConcurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has become the standard of care for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The comparative merits of two widely used regimens: carboplatin/paclitaxel (PC) and cisplatin/etoposide (PE), each with concurrent radiotherapy, remain largely undefined. Records for consecutive patients with stage III NSCLC treated with PC or PE and ≥60 Gy chest radiotherapy between 2000 and 2011 were reviewed for outcomes and toxicity. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox modeling with the Wald test. Comparison across groups was done using the student's t and chi-squared tests. Seventy-five (PC: 44, PE: 31) patients were analyzed. PC patients were older (median 71 vs. 63 years; P = 0.0006). Other characteristics were comparable between groups. With PE, there was significantly increased grade ≥3 neutropenia (39% vs. 14%, P = 0.024) and thrombocytopenia (10% vs. 0%, P = 0.039). Radiation pneumonitis was more common with PC (66% vs. 38%, P = 0.033). Five treatment-related deaths occurred (PC: 3 vs. PE: 2, P = 1.000). With a median follow-up of 51.6 months, there were no significant differences in relapse-free survival (median PC 12.0 vs. PE 11.5 months, P = 0.700) or overall survival (median PC 20.7 vs. PE 13.7 months; P = 0.989). In multivariate analyses, no factors predicted for improved survival for either regimen. PC was more likely to be used in elderly patients. Despite this, PC resulted in significantly less hematological toxicity but achieved similar survival outcomes as PE. PC is an acceptable CCRT regimen, especially in older patients with multiple comorbidities.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.otherCarboplatin/paclitaxelen
dc.subject.othercisplatin/etoposideen
dc.subject.otherconcurrent chemoradiotherapyen
dc.subject.otherlocally advanceden
dc.subject.othernon-small cell lung canceren
dc.subject.otherstage IIIen
dc.subject.otherAdulten
dc.subject.otherAgeden
dc.subject.otherAged, 80 and overen
dc.subject.otherAntineoplastic Agents.administration & dosage.adverse effectsen
dc.subject.otherAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols.administration & dosage.adverse effectsen
dc.subject.otherCarboplatin.administration & dosage.adverse effectsen
dc.subject.otherCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung.drug therapy.pathology.radiotherapyen
dc.subject.otherCisplatin.administration & dosage.adverse effectsen
dc.subject.otherCombined Modality Therapyen
dc.subject.otherEtoposide.administration & dosage.adverse effectsen
dc.subject.otherFemaleen
dc.subject.otherHumansen
dc.subject.otherKaplan-Meier Estimateen
dc.subject.otherLung Neoplasms.drug therapy.pathology.radiotherapyen
dc.subject.otherMaleen
dc.subject.otherMiddle Ageden
dc.subject.otherNeoplasm Stagingen
dc.subject.otherPaclitaxel.administration & dosage.adverse effectsen
dc.titleComparison of toxicity and outcomes of concurrent radiotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel or cisplatin/etoposide in stage III non-small cell lung cancer.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleCancer medicineen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medicine, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAustin-Ludwig Oncology Unit, Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationLudwig Institute for Cancer Research, Olivia Newton-John Cancer & Wellness Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cam4.142en
dc.description.pages916-24en
dc.relation.urlhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24403265en
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen
local.name.researcherJohn, Thomas
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.deptMedical Oncology-
crisitem.author.deptOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre-
crisitem.author.deptOlivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute-
crisitem.author.deptMedical Oncology-
crisitem.author.deptOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

22
checked on Oct 3, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.