• Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. · Apr 1997

    Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial

    Randomized study of chemotherapy/radiation therapy combinations for favorable patients with locally advanced inoperable nonsmall cell lung cancer: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 92-04.

    • R Komaki, C Scott, D Ettinger, J S Lee, F V Fossella, W Curran, R F Evans, P Rubin, and R W Byhardt.
    • The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Radiotherapy, Houston 77030, USA.
    • Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1997 Apr 1; 38 (1): 149-55.

    PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the severity and distribution of the toxicities associated with the two different combinations of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.Methods And MaterialsThis prospective randomized trial studied toxicities associated with induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent treatment (Arm 1) vs. immediate concurrent chemotherapy/radiotherapy (CT/RT) (Arm 2). Arm 1 consisted of vinblastine (VB), 5 mg/M2 I.V. bolus weekly, weeks 1-5 and cisplatin (DDP), 100 mg/M2 days 1 and 29, DDP 75 mg/M2, days 50, 71, and 92. Daily RT started on day 50; a total dose of 63 Gy was given in 34 fractions in 7 weeks. In Arm 2 RT started day 1; a total dose of 69.6 Gy was given in 58 fractions of 1.2 Gy bid, 5 days per week for 6 weeks with DDP 50 mg/M2 i.v. days 1 and 8, and oral VP-16 50 mg b.i.d. during the first 10 days of RT. DDP/VP-16 were repeated beginning day 29. Survival was used as the Phase II endpoint.ResultsBetween July 1992 and February 1994, 168 patients were randomized; 162 evaluable patients had minimum follow-up of 20 months. Eighty patients were registered to Arm 1 and 82 to Arm 2. Pretreatment characteristics were distributed evenly. Arm 1 had significantly more Grade 4 hematologic toxicity (62%) than Arm 2 (33%) (p = 0.021). Acute nonhematologic Grade 3+ toxicity was also greater (p = 0.018) in Arm 2 than Arm 1 due mainly to esophagitis (38 vs. 6%; p < 0.0001). Grade 3+ late esophageal toxicity was 12% on Arm 2 compared to 3% on Arm 1 (p = 0.006). There were no differences between the two arms in compliance with protocol specifications for either RT or CT. At 1 year, 31.7% of patients had in-field progression on Arm 1 compared to 19.8% on Arm 2 (p = 0.042), but overall progression-free survival rates were nearly identical; 50 and 49% for Arms I and II, respectively, at 12 months. One-year and median survivals were 65% and 15.5 months on Arm 1 compared to 58% and 14.4 months on Arm 2.ConclusionWhereas hematologic toxicity was greater in Arm 1, esophageal toxicity, both acute and late, was greater in Arm 2. Infield progression was lower in Arm 2, but overall progression rates were similar and there were no significant differences in survival between the two arms. A 3-arm randomized Phase III study is underway in the RTOG to compare sequential and concurrent CT/RT.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…