Conference Coverage

Cisplatin and Etoposide vs Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Concurrent Radiation for Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Analysis of VHA Data

Santana-Davila R, Devisetty K, Szabo A, Sparapani R, Arce-Lara C, Gore E, Moran A, Williams C, Kelley MJ, Whittle J.

Abstract 49: 2014 AVAHO Meeting


 

Purpose: For the definitive treatment of stage III NSCLC, the optimal chemotherapy regimen to use with radiation is not clearly defined. Using a large cohort of patients treated across VHAs, we compare the outcome of patents treated with cisplatin and etoposide (EP) vs those treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP).

Methods: Using the VA Central Cancer Registry, patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) diagnosed between 2001 and 2010 were identified. For analysis, patients were included if concurrent chemoradiotherapy was initiated within 4 months of diagnosis and excluded if treated with surgery or sequential chemoradiotherapy (ie, chemotherapy was not started within 7 days of the start of radiotherapy).

Results: Out of 17,010 patients identified, 1,856 patients were eligible for analysis of which 28% (n = 565) received EP. In multivariable analysis, the use of EP was not associated with any survival advantage (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.99; P = .0254). In a propensity score analysis that matched 382 patients treated with EP with the same number of patients treated with CP, there was no survival advantage for EP (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.83-1.11; P = .5572). Subsequently, a multivariate model weighted on the inverse propensity for being treated with EP was fitted and similarly showed no survival advantage for EP (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.84-1.08; P = .4525). Finally, an instrumental variable analysis was used to compare matched patients between 8 VHAs that were “EP-encouraged” (ie, > 50% received EP, mean 71.1%) with 11 VHAs that were “EP-discouraged” (ie, < 10% received EP, mean 2.8%). This analysis found no survival advantage for EP (HR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.26; P = .4766). When adverse events were compared with CP, patients treated with EP had increased hospitalization (2.4 vs 1.7, P < .01), outpatient visits (17.6 vs 12.6, P <.01), infectious complications (47.6% vs 39.6%, P < .0001), acute renal failure (30.3 vs 21.3%, P <.0001), and mucositis/esophagitis (18.7 vs 14.5%, P = 0.0251).

Conclusions: After accounting for various prognostic variables, matched cohorts, and regional differences, there were no differences in survival between patients treated with EP and CP; however, EP was associated with increased morbidity.

Recommended Reading

Let's Get Serious About Lung Cancer Prevention
AVAHO
Lung Cancer Gender Gap
AVAHO
New Drug for Lung Cancer
AVAHO
Asymptomatic Pituitary Metastases
AVAHO
Treating Metastatic Lung Cancer
AVAHO
Extra Pulmonary Small Cell Carcinoma: A Single Center Experience
AVAHO