Impact of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Background Exon 19 deletion and L858R point mutation in exon 21 of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are the most commonly encountered mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and predict better clinical outcomes following treatment with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The inflammatory indicator neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in peripheral blood serves as a predictive factor for NSCLC patients treated with chemotherapy. Here, we aimed to evaluate the correlation between NLR and clinical efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations. Methods We retrospectively collected information of 205 patients with advanced NSCLC harboring exon 19 deletion or L858R point mutation and receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. The clinical outcomes in the NSCLC patients were evaluated based on NLR level before EGFR-TKI therapy. Results The optimal cut-off value for NLR was 3.55. The response rates in the low-NLR and high-NLR groups were 69.2% and 51.5%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the low-NLR and high-NLR groups were 15.7 months and 6.7 months, respectively. The median overall survival (OS) in the low-NLR and high-NLR groups were 37.6 months and 19.2 months, respectively. The multivariate analysis identified performance status (PS), NLR, stage, and smoking status as independent predictors of PFS. Moreover, the PS and NLR were identified as independent predictors of OS. Conclusions NLR was a significant predictor of clinical efficacy and OS in NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations treated with gefitinib or erlotinib.

Efficacy of Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer after Amrubicin Monotherapy in Elderly Patients and Patients with Poor Performance Status.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown amrubicin to be an effective first- or second-line treatment option for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, there have been few studies reporting the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy after amrubicin therapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy as second-line treatment for elderly patients and those with SCLC with poor performance status (PS) previously treated with amrubicin monotherapy. METHODS: The records of SCLC patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy as a second-line chemotherapy after first-line treatment with amrubicin monotherapy were retrospectively reviewed and the treatment outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients were enrolled in this study. Forty-one patients (85%) received carboplatin plus etoposide. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.7 and 7.6 months, respectively. The efficacy of the platinum-based regimen did not differ with the type of relapse after amrubicin monotherapy. The most common adverse events were hematological toxicities, including grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (38%), leukopenia (33%), and thrombocytopenia (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Platinum-based chemotherapy is potentially a valid treatment option for elderly patients or those with extensive-stage SCLC with poor PS as second-line chemotherapy, who progressed after first-line treatment with amrubicin monotherapy.

Comparison of carboplatin plus etoposide with amrubicin monotherapy for extensive-disease small cell lung cancer in the elderly and patients with poor performance status.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin plus etoposide (CE) is a standard treatment for elderly patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). However, amrubicin monotherapy (AMR) may be a feasible alternative. We compared the efficacies and safety profiles of CE and AMR for ED-SCLC in elderly patients and chemotherapy-naive patients with poor performance status (PS). METHODS: The records of SCLC patients who received CE or AMR as first-line chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed and their treatment outcomes evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients (median age 72 years; 42 each received CR and AMR) were analyzed; 34 patients had a PS score of 2. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the treatment groups. The median progression-free survival rates of patients in the CE and AMR groups were 5.8 and 4.8 months, respectively (P = 0.04); overall survival was 14.0 and 8.5 months, respectively (P = 0.089). Twenty-three CE group patients received AMR as second-line chemotherapy; their median overall survival from first-line chemotherapy was 18.5 months. Grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred more frequently in patients treated with AMR (64% vs. 40%; P = 0.02), as did febrile neutropenia (14% vs. 7%). CONCLUSIONS: CE remains a suitable first-line treatment for ED-SCLC in elderly patients or those with poor PS in comparison with AMR.