Oncology · 2023
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Carboplatin-Etoposide and Cisplatin-Etoposide Combination Therapy in Patients with Advanced Neuroendocrine Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Imai Hiroo, Saijo Ken, Kawamura Yoshifumi, Kodera Shuto, Komine Keigo, Iwasaki Tomoyuki, Takenaga Noriko, Kasahara Yuki, Ouchi Kota, Shirota Hidekazu, Takahashi Masanobu, Ishioka Chikashi
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is characterized by a poor prognosis and is generally treated with platinum and etoposide combination therapy as first-line chemotherapy. However, it remains uncertain whether carboplatin and etoposide combination therapy (CE) and cisplatin and etoposide combination therapy (PE) have comparable treatment efficacy. In this retrospective analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of CE and PE in patients with NEC.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the patient's clinical record from 2005 to 2022 at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tohoku University Hospital. Patients who received either CE or PE were included in the study. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were enrolled, with 73 patients assigned to the CE group and 31 patients assigned to the PE group. Statistically, the response rate, progression-free survival time and overall survival time were 42.6%, 5.1 months (95% CI: 3.5-6.3) and 13.6 months (95% CI: 8.9-17.4), respectively, in the CE groups and 44.4%, 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.1-7.0) and 12.5 months (95% CI: 11.2-14.6), respectively, in the PE groups. There was no significant difference in treatment efficacy between the CE and the PE groups. However, the number of patients with elevated creatinine (3.35 mg/dL and 3.88 mg/dL in 2 patients, respectively) was significantly higher in the PE group than in the CE group.
CONCLUSION: The efficacy of CE and PE in patients with NEC is comparable. However, the incidence of renal dysfunction was found to be significantly higher in the PE group than in the CE group.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the patient's clinical record from 2005 to 2022 at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tohoku University Hospital. Patients who received either CE or PE were included in the study. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were enrolled, with 73 patients assigned to the CE group and 31 patients assigned to the PE group. Statistically, the response rate, progression-free survival time and overall survival time were 42.6%, 5.1 months (95% CI: 3.5-6.3) and 13.6 months (95% CI: 8.9-17.4), respectively, in the CE groups and 44.4%, 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.1-7.0) and 12.5 months (95% CI: 11.2-14.6), respectively, in the PE groups. There was no significant difference in treatment efficacy between the CE and the PE groups. However, the number of patients with elevated creatinine (3.35 mg/dL and 3.88 mg/dL in 2 patients, respectively) was significantly higher in the PE group than in the CE group.
CONCLUSION: The efficacy of CE and PE in patients with NEC is comparable. However, the incidence of renal dysfunction was found to be significantly higher in the PE group than in the CE group.