4.7 Article

Treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with ECOG performance status 2: results of an European Experts Panel

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 419-426

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdh087

关键词

advanced disease; chemotherapy; consensus; non-small-cell lung cancer; performance status 2

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Platinum-based combination chemotherapy is currently recommended as the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its benefit seems limited to fit patients with a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1. For PS2 patients, there is no consensus on standard treatment. With the aims of reviewing the evidence supporting each of these therapeutic options, possibly reaching a consensus for treatment of PS2 patients affected by advanced NSCLC in clinical practice, and suggesting the priorities for clinical research in this field, an European Experts Panel took place in Avellino, Italy in April 2003. Results and conclusions: On the basis of current evidence, chemotherapy treatment appears justified for patients with advanced NSCLC and PS2. Single-agent chemotherapy (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, taxanes) could be the preferred option, although carboplatin-based or low-dose cisplatin-based doublets may represent alternative options. Stronger evidence is expected from new clinical research specifically focused on PS2 patients. Single-agent chemotherapy should be the standard arm against which experimental treatments are tested in randomised trials dedicated to PS2 patients. High priority should be given to the evaluation of tolerability and efficacy of platinum-based combinations, and to the testing of new biological agents. Another research priority is the improvement of supportive care. Patients strongly need symptomatic improvement: end points such as symptom relief, clinical benefit and quality of life should have a central position in trials dedicated to PS2 NSCLC patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据