FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2006230590> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2006230590 endingPage "1101" @default.
• W2006230590 startingPage "1099" @default.
• W2006230590 abstract "Although small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) once constituted 20%–25% of all newly diagnosed lung cancers in North America, in recent years the incidence has decreased to less than 15% (1,2). Nonetheless, deaths resulting from SCLC remain substantial and represent a major public health concern both in the United States and abroad. Fortunately, SCLC is a moderately chemo-sensitive neoplasm and, over the past three decades, considerable progress has been made in the management of this disease (3,4). In fact, even though cure remains elusive for most patients, median survival now approaches 2 years for patients with limited-stage disease and averages 9–10 months for patients with extensive-stage disease (5). In North America, SCLC is most commonly treated with a two-drug chemotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin (or carboplatin) and etoposide (PE). Patients with limited-stage disease also receive thoracic radiotherapy, usually administered concurrently with the first or second cycle of chemotherapy (6). In Europe, the situation is somewhat different. Induction chemotherapy regimens tend to be more varied, with a higher percentage of oncologists using anthracycline-based drug combinations (7). However, this practice pattern may change in light of a recently reported randomized trial demonstrating the superiority of platinum-based therapy compared with a standard anthracycline-based regimen (8). Although these improvements in SCLC treatment are gratifying, there is clearly more work to do. Over the last decade, several new drugs have been identified with excellent activity against SCLC in the firstand second-line settings, including irinotecan, topotecan, and paclitaxel (9–12). Given the biology of SCLC, with its proclivity toward early relapse and subsequent refractoriness to therapy, the desire to incorporate these newer agents into front-line therapy is obvious. In this issue of the Journal, Reck et al. (13) report the results of a randomized phase III trial comparison of carboplatin, etoposide, and vincristine (CEV)—the standard arm—versus carboplatin, etoposide, and paclitaxel (TEC)—the experimental arm. Their attempt to improve upon an existing chemotherapy regimen followed a time-honored and traditional strategy of adding (or substituting) an active drug to an active regimen. Their choice of paclitaxel as a substitute for vincristine is logical on the basis of its novel mechanism of action and the extant phase II data (9,12). Their study included patients with both limitedand extensive-stage disease. Notably, patients with limited-stage disease were treated with sequential thoracic radiotherapy upon completion of induction chemotherapy, which some experts believe is not the optimal method of delivering radiotherapy (6,14). Patients who progressed or failed to respond to treatment after the initial two cycles of induction therapy were switched to cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine. A total of 614 patients were enrolled over a 2-year period. Median survival for patients in the TEC arm was superior to that achieved by patients in the CEV arm (12.7 versus 11.7 months), and the hazard ratio of death was statistically significantly higher for patients in the CEV arm (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.45; P .024). When analyzed by stage, the apparent survival advantage was seemingly confined to limited-stage patients (17.6 versus 16.6 months) and was not apparent for those with extensive-stage disease (9.8 versus 10.0 months), a pattern reminiscent of the European trial in which less-than-optimal thoracic radiotherapy was used (8). Myelosuppression was the principal toxicity in both treatment groups (13). Grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity and thrombocytopenia, however, were more common for patients in the CEV arm. The authors concluded that TEC is preferable to CEV in the treatment of patients with SCLC. What can we make of these data? Should TEC supplant PE as the regimen of choice in SCLC? The U.S. Intergroup recently reported the results of a randomized study in which cisplatin, etoposide, and paclitaxel (TEP) were compared with PE alone (15). The study enrolled nearly 600 patients, all of whom had extensive-stage disease. Although failure-free survival favored patients in the TEP arm, similar to the study by Reck et al. (13), median survival was not statistically significantly different between the two arms (10.35 versus 9.86 months; P .27) in contrast to median survival in the German study (13). There were more treatment-related deaths in the TEP-treated group (15). The Greek Lung Cancer Cooperative Group also conducted a prospective randomized trial of TEP versus PE (16). However, the trial enrolled only 133 patients with limitedand extensivestage disease and was closed before meeting the intended accrual goal because of excessive toxicity and mortality in the TEP arm. There were no differences in objective response rates or median survival times between the two regimens (16). However, eight patients in the TEP arm died from toxicity whereas none of the patients in the EP arm died (P .001). Moreover, the TEP regimen was associated with statistically significantly more grade 4 neutropenia, grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, grade 3–4 diarrhea, grade 3–4 asthenia, and grade 3 neurotoxicity. Similar high levels of toxicity have been reported in various phase I/II trials using this three-drug regimen (17,18). Reck et al. (13) do not report such excessive toxicities in their trial, possibly because carboplatin was substituted for cisplatin." @default.
• W2006230590 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2006230590 creator A5052461112 @default.
• W2006230590 creator A5078389632 @default.
• W2006230590 creator A5088331751 @default.
• W2006230590 date "2003-08-05" @default.
• W2006230590 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W2006230590 title "An Advance in Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treatment--More or Less" @default.
• W2006230590 cites W1481967818 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W1849826284 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W1898563448 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W1903188031 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W1951799876 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W1970930097 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W1985849470 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2023389550 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2033290173 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2036743666 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2038701184 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2041808533 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2073683299 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2091163157 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2105847144 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2127776375 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2135578643 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2141783551 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2150878803 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2158514255 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2165132221 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2168980896 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2180665179 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2230155084 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2260360964 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2323020638 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W2329673293 @default.
• W2006230590 cites W4240577843 @default.
• W2006230590 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djg013" @default.
• W2006230590 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12902431" @default.
• W2006230590 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W2006230590 type Work @default.
• W2006230590 sameAs 2006230590 @default.
• W2006230590 citedByCount "14" @default.
• W2006230590 countsByYear W20062305902012 @default.
• W2006230590 countsByYear W20062305902014 @default.
• W2006230590 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2006230590 hasAuthorship W2006230590A5052461112 @default.
• W2006230590 hasAuthorship W2006230590A5078389632 @default.
• W2006230590 hasAuthorship W2006230590A5088331751 @default.
• W2006230590 hasBestOaLocation W20062305901 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConcept C2776256026 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConceptScore W2006230590C126322002 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConceptScore W2006230590C143998085 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConceptScore W2006230590C177713679 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConceptScore W2006230590C2776256026 @default.
• W2006230590 hasConceptScore W2006230590C71924100 @default.
• W2006230590 hasIssue "15" @default.
• W2006230590 hasLocation W20062305901 @default.
• W2006230590 hasLocation W20062305902 @default.
• W2006230590 hasOpenAccess W2006230590 @default.
• W2006230590 hasPrimaryLocation W20062305901 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W1967103478 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W2032912323 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W2148097028 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W2365632055 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W2372561159 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W2375344515 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W2375392632 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W2380382254 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W2390152934 @default.
• W2006230590 hasRelatedWork W2412727163 @default.
• W2006230590 hasVolume "95" @default.
• W2006230590 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2006230590 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2006230590 magId "2006230590" @default.
• W2006230590 workType "article" @default.