4.7 Article

A randomised multicentre phase II study with cisplatin/docetaxel vs oxaliplatin/docetaxel as first-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 108, Issue 2, Pages 265-270

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.555

Keywords

chemotherapy; cisplatin; docetaxel; oxaliplatin; NSCLC; metastatic

Categories

Funding

  1. Sanofi Aventis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: This study was designed to compare cisplatin/docetaxel with oxaliplatin/docetaxel in patients with advanced and metastatic non-small lung cancer as a first-line treatment. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either cisplatin 75 mg m(-2) and docetaxel 75 mg m(-2) every 3 weeks or oxaliplatin 85 mg m(-2) and docetaxel 50 mg m(-2) every 2 weeks. The primary end point was response rate, and secondary end points were toxicity, time to progression and overall survival. Results: A total of 88 patients (median age: 65 (39-86) years; stage IV: 93%) were randomly assigned. Response rate (complete and partial response) was 47% (95% CI: 33-61%) in the cisplatin/docetaxel arm and 28% (95% CI: 17-43%) in the oxaliplatin/docetaxel arm (P = 0.118). There was no significant difference in time to progression (6.3 vs 4.9 months, P = 0.111) and median overall survival (11.6 vs 7.0 months, P = 0.102) with cisplatin/docetaxel vs oxaliplatin/docetaxel, although slight trends favouring cisplatin were seen. Oxaliplatin/docetaxel was associated with significantly less (any grade) renal toxicity (56% vs 11%), any grade fatigue (81% vs 59%), complete alopecia (76% vs 27%), any grade leukopenia (84% vs 61%) and grade 3/4 leukopenia (44% vs 14%) and neutropenia (56% vs 27%). Conclusion: Oxaliplatin/docetaxel has activity in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, but it seems to be inferior to cisplatin/docetaxel.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available