RESUMO
PURPOSE: The impact of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in the management of radically resected stage IB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is highly debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of this category of patients treated at our institution. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the survival data of patients with pathologic stage IB NSCLC, who received at least 1 cycle of adjuvant CT. CT was planned to be platinum based and to be delivered for 6 cycles. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve consecutively treated patients were evaluated. PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS: median age 60 years, median tumor diameter 4 cm, 87% underwent lobectomy and 13% pneumonectomy, 58% had visceral pleural involvement (VPI). After a median follow up of 46 months, the estimated 5-year disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 68% and 77%, respectively. The mean number of CT cycles was 5.2 (range 3-6), with 82% of patients receiving ≥ 5 cycles. The median cisplatin dose intensity (DI) was 22 mg/m(2)/week, and the relative DI was 85%. Median total cisplatin (CDDP) dose/patient was 416 mg/m(2). A total of 31 (27.6%) relapses were recorded, of which 81% were distant. Multivariate analysis showed no significant interaction between overall survival and the following variables: gender, type of surgery, histology, tumor volume, VPI. CONCLUSION: Our results compare favorably with the historical data evaluating the outcome of stage IB patients treated by surgery alone in a customary medical setting. Overall, our data support the use of adjuvant CT in stage IB NSCLC patients.
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma/tratamento farmacológico , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Células Grandes/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/tratamento farmacológico , Cisplatino/uso terapêutico , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/tratamento farmacológico , Adenocarcinoma/mortalidade , Adulto , Idoso , Carcinoma de Células Grandes/mortalidade , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/mortalidade , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/mortalidade , Quimioterapia Adjuvante , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidade , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Invasividade Neoplásica , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/mortalidade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Prognóstico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Taxa de SobrevidaRESUMO
First line combination chemotherapy (CT) using platinum-based doublets is established as a standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, no significant advances have been recorded during the last years in this field. Therefore, there is a wide consensus among physicians that a plateau has already been reached with this strategy. Targeted therapy using tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and monoclonal antibodies emerged as a new field of development in the NSCLC therapeutics. Recently, the results of the phase III trials testing antibodies against vascular endothelial growth factor-VEGF (bevacizumab) and epidermal growth factor receptor-EGFR (cetuximab) challenged the paradigm of the platinum doublets as a gold standard in advanced NSCLC. Their appearance was enthusiastically commended both by patients and the oncological community. However, all medical oncologists have the responsibility to carefully analyze the real benefits of these new agents, to balance the advantages against the implicit risks of therapy and to make the decision having in mind the best interest of their patients. Last but not least, the associated health economic burden should also be considered. This paper addresses some issues related to the use of cetuximab and bevacizumab in advanced NSCLC. The main controversial aspects regarding patient selection, the real benefit of therapy, the molecular and clinical predictors, and the impact of other independent variables are carefully examined and presented. Due to many unsolved questions, no definite conclusions can be supported. The final decision about the optimal use of these agents is left to the clinical judgment of each treating physician.