Which chemotherapy regimen might be the best for the second-line treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorYildiz, Oguzhan
dc.contributor.authorKaraagac, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorEryilmaz, Melek Karakurt
dc.contributor.authorArtac, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T14:41:50Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T14:41:50Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction. Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive disease. Despite the first-line (1L) chemotherapy, almost all patients need the second-line (2L) treatment within a year. However, there is no general agreement on standard 2L treatment. This study aimed to determine outcomes obtained with different treatment regimens, factors affecting the results, and standard approach in the 2L treatment of SCLC. Material and methods. This was a singlecenter, retrospective, cross-sectional, cohort study. The inclusion criteria were age >= 18, histologically or cytologically proven SCLC, progressive disease after 1L treatment, and receiving 2L chemotherapy. Results. A total of 89 patients were assessed in this study. The patients were classified into three groups: 35 patients received the combination of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and vincristine (CAV), 24 patients received single-agent topotecan (TPT), and 30 patients received numerous different treatment schemes. The overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free survival (PFS), and median overall survival (OS) were 19.1%, 46.1%, 3.5 months, and 6.4 months, respectively. Although no statistically significant difference was found between the three groups in PFS (p = 0.195) and OS (p = 0.286), there were numerically better outcomes with CAV. In univariate analyses, the comorbidity was related to decreased PFS (p = 0.044). However, this relationship could not maintain its statistical significance in multivariate analysis (p = 0.224). Conclusions. It is still impossible to make a standard recommendation for the 2L treatment of patients with SCLC. However, the numerical difference in favor of CAV may be clinically meaningful.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5603/OCP.2021.0041
dc.identifier.endpage252en_US
dc.identifier.issn2450-1654
dc.identifier.issn2450-6478
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85124668074en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage244en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5603/OCP.2021.0041
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/17031
dc.identifier.volume17en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000749757900001en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherVia Medicaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofOncology In Clinical Practiceen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectSmall-Cell Lung Canceren_US
dc.subjectSecond-Lineen_US
dc.subjectChemotherapyen_US
dc.subjectCaven_US
dc.subjectTopotecanen_US
dc.titleWhich chemotherapy regimen might be the best for the second-line treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu