Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the therapeutic significance of cisplatin, vincristine, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CODE) plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) compared with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine, alternating with cisplatin and etoposide (CAV/PE) for extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred twenty-seven patients were randomized. CODE consisted of cisplatin 25 mg/m2 weekly for 9 weeks; vincristine 1 mg/m2 on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6; and doxorubicin 40 mg/m2 and etoposide 80 mg/m2 for 3 days on weeks 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. G-CSF 50 micrograms/m2 was administered on the days when chemotherapy was not administered. CAV/PE consisted of cyclophosphamide 800 mg/m2; doxorubicin 50 mg/m2; and vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 on day 1, which alternated every 3 weeks with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 to 3. RESULTS: Overall response rates were 77% for the CAV/PE arm and 84% for the CODE arm respectively (15% complete response in both arms). The median survival times were 10.9 months in the CAV/PE arm and 11.6 months in the CODE arm (P = .1034). The achieved dose-intensity for CODE was approximately twice that for CAV/PE for those drugs common to both arms. The incidence of leukopenia did not differ between the two arms, but anemia and thrombocytopenia had a significantly higher incidence in the CODE arm. Four treatment-related deaths from neutropenic fever occurred in the CODE arm. CONCLUSION: The CODE group had a similar median survival to the CAV/PE group. It does not appear that CODE is a useful approach to improve survival in ED SCLC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Furuse et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: