Doublet chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed is associated with a favorable outcome in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer who are eligible for bevacizumab and maintenance therapy

  • Authors:
    • Kazuhisa Nakashima
    • Haruyasu Murakami
    • Shota Omori
    • Kazushige Wakuda
    • Akira Ono
    • Hirotsugu Kenmotsu
    • Tateaki Naito
    • Masahiro Endo
    • Toshiaki Takahashi
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: August 24, 2016     https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.1001
  • Pages: 575-578
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The previous AVAPERL trial demonstrated that induction therapy with first‑line cisplatin (CDDP), pemetrexed (PEM) and bevacizumab (BEV), followed by continuation maintenance therapy with PEM+BEV, improved the progression‑free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with BEV alone (median PFS, 10.2 vs. 6.6 months and median OS, 19.8 vs. 15.9 months, respectively) in patients with advanced non‑squamous non‑small‑cell lung cancer (non‑Sq NSCLC). However, those findings were based on selected patients who were eligible for BEV and maintenance therapy. To assess the efficacy of CDDP+PEM as first-line therapy in selected patients depending on their eligibility for BEV and maintenance therapy, consecutive patients with non‑Sq NSCLC who received first‑line chemotherapy with CDDP+PEM at the Shizuoka Cancer Center (Shizuoka, Japan) between July, 2009 and December, 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 160 patients were assessed, including 92 who were eligible and 68 who were not eligible for BEV treatment. In the BEV‑eligible group, CDDP+PEM treatment followed by maintenance PEM exhibited significantly superior efficacy compared with that in the BEV‑ineligible group (median PFS, 5.8 vs. 4.8 months, respectively, P=0.013; and median OS, 21.3 vs. 12.6 months, respectively, P=0.0025). In the BEV‑eligible group, 60 patients were suitable for maintenance therapy with PEM (group A) and 32 patients were unsuitable (group B). In the BEV‑ineligible group, 31 patients were suitable for maintenance therapy with PEM (group C) and 37 patients were unsuitable (group D). In group A, the median PFS and OS were 6.9 and 31.8 months, respectively, compared with 2.4 and 10.5 months in group B, 6.1 and 18.5 months in group C, and 2.8 and 7.7 months in group D. The PFS and OS in group A were significantly better compared with those in the other groups. Thus, the PFS and OS with CDDP+PEM were favorable among patients with advanced non‑Sq NSCLC who were eligible for BEV and maintenance therapy.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

November 2016
Volume 5 Issue 5

Print ISSN: 2049-9450
Online ISSN:2049-9469

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Nakashima, K., Murakami, H., Omori, S., Wakuda, K., Ono, A., Kenmotsu, H. ... Takahashi, T. (2016). Doublet chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed is associated with a favorable outcome in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer who are eligible for bevacizumab and maintenance therapy. Molecular and Clinical Oncology, 5, 575-578. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.1001
MLA
Nakashima, K., Murakami, H., Omori, S., Wakuda, K., Ono, A., Kenmotsu, H., Naito, T., Endo, M., Takahashi, T."Doublet chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed is associated with a favorable outcome in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer who are eligible for bevacizumab and maintenance therapy". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 5.5 (2016): 575-578.
Chicago
Nakashima, K., Murakami, H., Omori, S., Wakuda, K., Ono, A., Kenmotsu, H., Naito, T., Endo, M., Takahashi, T."Doublet chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed is associated with a favorable outcome in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer who are eligible for bevacizumab and maintenance therapy". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 5, no. 5 (2016): 575-578. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.1001