Dataset Information

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin + S-1 versus cisplatin + other third-generation agents for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of individual participant data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

For decades, concurrent chemo-radiotherapy with cisplatin-based regimen has been a standard therapy for locally advanced stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted individual-participant-data (IPD) meta-analyses to compare S-1/cisplatin versus other third-generation anti-cancer medications plus cisplatin regimens with the goal of determining whether or not S-1/cisplatin was the ideal choice for treatment accompanied by radiotherapy (RT).

Methods

A thorough search was performed using multiple electronic databases. We integrated the IPD of each trial and analyzed the resulting meta-database. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included the progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), toxicities, and treatment delivery. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on baseline characteristics. Statistical analyses were stratified by trials.

Results

Three randomized control trials (WJOG5008L study, SPECTRA study, and TORG1018 study) were found. Of the 316 patients enrolled in those studies, 159 received S-1/cisplatin (SP), and 157 were assigned to other combination chemotherapy. The median OS for the SP arm was 48.2 months, and that of the non-SP arm was 42.4 months. The combined hazard ratio (HR) for the OS was 0.895 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.638-1.256), and no heterogeneity was noted among the trials (test for heterogeneity, p = 0.87; I² = 0). The median PFS for the SP and non-SP arms was 12.8 and 14.0 months, respectively. The corresponding HR for the PFS was 1.022 (95% CI 0.776-1.347), and there was evidence of moderate heterogeneity among the trials (test for heterogeneity, p = 0.16; I² = 0.46). The ORRs were 69.7% (95% CI 62.1-76.7%) and 70.9% (95% CI 63.7-78.1%) in the SP and non-SP arms, respectively. The toxicity profile showed that SP caused significantly fewer instances of grade 3-4 leukopenia and neutropenia than non-SP regimens.

Conclusion

No marked differences were detected in the OS, PFS, or ORR between the SP and non-SP arms. SP had significantly less myelosuppression and better treatment compliance as a chemotherapy regimen for concurrent chemoradiation in locally advanced NSCLC than non-SP regimens.

SUBMITTER: Taniguchi Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8744285 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeInduction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone are both standard treatment regimens for managing locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. However, the results of comparisons between them in clinical trials vary. Therefore, we designed this meta-analysis to illustrate their advantages and disadvantages in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.MethodsWe thoroughly searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases and then merged the effect indicators of hazard ratios and risk ratios using RevMan 5.1.ResultsSeven randomized controlled trials totaling 2,319 patients were included in our research. The synthesized results showed that induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.80, P < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.53-0.80, P < 0.001) and locoregional recurrence-free survival (HR = 0.68 95%, CI: 0.54-0.86, P = 0.001) versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone. It also increased the risk of anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia during concurrent chemoradiotherapy. However, the incidence of leukopenia and mucositis was similar in induction chemotherapy and induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis showed better survival outcomes with induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy than with concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in the triweekly cisplatin subgroup (all P < 0.01), whereas induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy could only improve progression-free survival and locoregional recurrence-free survival in the weekly cisplatin subgroup (HR = 0.78, P = 0.02; and HR = 0.66, P = 0.03, respectively).ConclusionsInduction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy improved survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy. For the weekly cisplatin regimen subgroup, it did not improve remote control or overall survival versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone, warranting further clarification.

Project description:BackgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CCRT-AC) is currently recommended as the standard treatment for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NAC-CCRT) is an alternative strategy for decreasing tumor size and controlling micrometastases before main treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare survival outcomes between LA-NPC patients treated with CCRT-AC and those treated with NAC-CCRT.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included consecutive histologically confirmed LA-NPC patients that were treated with NAC-CCRT or CCRT-AC at Siriraj Hospital during the March 2010 to October 2014 study period. CCRT in both protocols consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 with concurrent radiotherapy. Either NAC or AC consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin on day 1 and fluorouracil/leucovorin on days 1-4 for a maximum three cycles. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS). Flexible parametric survival analysis was used, because the proportional hazards assumption of Cox regression was violated.ResultsOf the 266 LA-NPC patients that received treatment during the study period, 79 received NAC-CCRT and 187 received CCRT-AC. Median follow-up was 37 months. Significantly more patients with advanced clinical stage (stage IVA-IVB) received NAC-CCRT (86% in NAC-CCRT vs. 29% in CCRT-AC; p < 0.001). Compared to CCRT-AC in crude analysis, 3-year and 5-year OS of NAC-CCRT were 72% vs. 86% and 62% vs. 75% respectively (p = 0.059). Interestingly, the 3-year and 5-year post-estimation adjusted OS was 84% and 74% for NAC-CCRT and 81% and 70% for CCRT-AC, respectively (HR: 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-1.56; p = 0.571). Also, adjusted analysis of distant-metastasis survival, NAC-CCRT showed HR was 0.79 (95% CI:0.37-1.72, p = 0.557). Conversely, adjusted analysis of locoregional relapse (LLR)-free survival revealed NAC-CCRT to have a significantly higher risk of LRR (HR: 2.18, 95% CI: 0.98-4.87; p = 0.057).ConclusionsThe results suggested that prognosis in the NAC-CCRT treated patients was not superior to that of the CCRT-AC treated individuals. In patients that receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, locoregional relapse should be of concern. High-risk distant metastasis patients (N3 stage) that could achieve survival advantage from NAC-CCRT is an interesting and important topic for further study.