[Second-line chemotherapy and its survival analysis of 181 patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in a single institute].
OBJECTIVE
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is the most malignant neuroendocrine tumor and sensitive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. However, most patients who receive first-line chemotherapy will relapse within one to two years. Once recurrent, it indicates poor prognosis. Currently, the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen of extensive-stage SCLC is platinum combined etoposide regimen while the standard second-line chemotherapy regimen is open to debate. The aim of this study is to analysis the prognostic factors of second-line chemotherapy in extensive-stage SCLC and to compare the differences of objective response rate, side effects and survival among different second-line chemotherapy regimens.


METHODS
181 patients who were diagnosed as extensive-stage SCLC and received second-line chemotherapy were collected. χ(2) test was used to analysis the differences of enumeration data and between different groups. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate analysis and Cox regression analysis were used to detect the prognostic factors. Objective response rate was evaluated by RECIST criteria and side effects were evaluated by WHO criteria.


RESULTS
The patients who received second-line chemotherapy can be divided into 6 groups, namly group A (CE/EP regimen) 27 cases, group B (regimens containing TPT) 44 cases, group C (regimens containing CPT-11) 33 cases, group D (regimens containing TAX/DXL) 20 cases, group E (regimens containing IFO) 28 cases and group F (other regimens) 29 cases. The median OS in second-line chemotherapy as 7.0 months and was relevant with smoking history (P=0.004), ECOG PS (P<0.001), liver metastasis (P=0.019) and bone metastasis (P=0.028) independently. The median PFS in second-line chemotherapy as 3.0 months and was relevant with smoking history (P=0.034), ECOG PS (P=0.011) and bone metastasis (P=0.005). The response rate among six regimens was significantly different (P=0.017); There was not statistical significance between each group. As to side effects, the incidence of gastrointestinal reaction in group C was higher than any other group. The differences of OS and PFS between six regimens in second-line therapy were not statistically different (P=0.914, P=0.293).


CONCLUSIONS
The most significant prognostic factor of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer patients who received second-line chemotherapy was ECOG PS. The most optimal second-line chemotherapy regimen with definite curatice effect was controversial.
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100730, China.
Manjiao
M
Ma
Mengzhao
M
Wang
Yan
Y
Xu
Ke
K
Hu
Huihui
H
Liu
Longyun
L
Li
Wei
W
Zhong
Li
L
Zhang
Jing
J
Zhao
Huazhu
H
Wang
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000972:Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005047:Etoposide / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000473:pathology; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009364:Neoplasm Recurrence, Local / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000473:pathology; D055752:Small Cell Lung Carcinoma / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000473:pathology
D000972:Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; D005047:Etoposide