吉非替尼对比培美曲塞二线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床研究

目的：观察吉非替尼与培美曲塞二线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌（non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC）情况,比较二者对晚期NSCLC患者的治疗效果、安全性的影响。方法将一线化疗治疗失败后的105例晚期NSCLC患者,随机分为吉非替尼组和培美曲塞组,分别接受吉非替尼与培美曲塞二线治疗,比较两组患者的治疗效果和安全性。结果近期疗效比较结果显示,吉非替尼组和培美曲塞组客观有效率（ORR）分别为24.0%和29.1%（P=0.987）,疾病控制率（DCR）分别为64.0%和70.9%（P=0.776）;吉非替尼组和培美曲塞组中位无进展生存时间（PFS）分别为5.2个月和4.1个月（P=0.026）,中位总生存期（OS）分别为7.9个月和6.7个月（P=0.031）,吉非替尼组PFS和OS均优于培美曲塞组。吉非替尼组的不良反应主要为非血液学毒性,培美曲塞组的主要不良反应为血液学毒性。结论吉非替尼及培美曲塞均可用于晚期NSCLC患者的二线治疗,疗效相当,但二者的不良反应各异,可根据患者的个体差异择优选用。     

吉非替尼一线与二线治疗EGFR突变型晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效比较

目的：观察吉非替尼用于表皮生长因子受体（epidermal growth factor receptor,EGFR）突变型晚期非小细胞肺癌（non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC）一线或二线治疗对患者近期疗效及生存期的影响,分析吉非替尼的最佳治疗时机。方法：回顾性分析6l例EGFR突变型（外显子19或2l突变）晚期NSCLC患者的病历和随访资料,其中3l例患者接受吉非替尼一线治疗,30例患者接受吉非替尼二线治疗;应用Kaplan-meier法进行生存分析。结果：两组患者的性别（P=0．717）、年龄（P=0．849）、吸烟史（P=0．173）、病理类型（P=0．573）和临床分期（P=0．668）的差异无统计学意义。吉非替尼一线较二线治疗EGFR突变型NSCLC的近期有效率及疾病控制率明显提高（RR：64．5％VS23．3％,P=0．001;DCR：87．1％VS60．0％,P=0．016）。吉非替尼一线和二线治疗的中位无进展生存期分别为7．6和6．4个月（P=0．392）,中位总生存期分别为16．0和17．6个月（P=0．606）。另外,在最终获得疾病控制的患者中,吉非替尼一线治疗组为27例,二线治疗组为18例,2组中位无进展生存期及总生存期也无明显差异（PFS：8．0VS9．7个月,P=0．777;OS：17．0VS20．0个月,P=0．196）。结论：吉非替尼用于EGFR突变型晚期NSCLC患者,一线较二线治疗的近期疗效明显提高,但生存获益无明显差异。     

吉非替尼一线与二线治疗E GF R突变型晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效比较

目的：观察吉非替尼用于表皮生长因子受体（epidermal growth factor receptor,EGFR）突变型晚期非小细胞肺癌（non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC）一线或二线治疗对患者近期疗效及生存期的影响,分析吉非替尼的最佳治疗时机。方法：回顾性分析61例EGFR突变型（外显子19或21突变）晚期NSCLC患者的病历和随访资料,其中31例患者接受吉非替尼一线治疗,30例患者接受吉非替尼二线治疗;应用Kaplan-meier法进行生存分析。结果：两组患者的性别（P＝0．717）、年龄（P＝0．849）、吸烟史（P＝0．173）、病理类型（P＝0．573）和临床分期（P＝0．668）的差异无统计学意义。吉非替尼一线较二线治疗EGFR突变型NSCLC的近期有效率及疾病控制率明显提高（RR：64．5％ vs 23．3％,P＝0．001;DCR：87．1％ vs 60．0％,P＝0．016）。吉非替尼一线和二线治疗的中位无进展生存期分别为7．6和6．4个月（P＝0．392）,中位总生存期分别为16．0和17．6个月（P＝0．606）。另外,在最终获得疾病控制的患者中,吉非替尼一线治疗组为27例,二线治疗组为18例,2组中位无进展生存期及总生存期也无明显差异（PFS：8．0 vs 9．7个月,P＝0．777;OS：17．0 vs 20．0个月,P＝0．196）。结论：吉非替尼用于EGFR突变型晚期NSCLC患者,一线较二线治疗的近期疗效明显提高,但生存获益无明显差异。     

二线吉非替尼对不同表皮生长因子受体突变点位晚期非小细胞肺癌患者疗效及生存情况的影响

目的 探讨二线吉非替尼对不同表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)突变点位晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者疗效及生存情况的影响.方法 选取72例晚期NSCLC患者,按照不同EGFR突变点位分为两组,EGFR19外显子缺失35例为观察组,EGFR21外显子缺失37例为对照组,比较两组患者二线吉非替尼治疗的临床疗效、不良反应及生存情况.结果 观察组患者疾病控制率(DCR)、客观缓解率(ORR)分别为62.86％(22/35)、60.00％(21/35),均高于对照组的37.84％(14/37)、35.14％(13/37),差异均有统计学意义(χ2=4.504、4.462,P=0.034、0.035).两组患者不良反应发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).观察组患者中位无进展生存期(PFS)为28.00个月(95％CI:17.60～38.40),优于对照组的13.00个月(95％CI:8.25～17.75),差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.033,P=0.045);观察组患者的中位总生存期(OS)为28.00个月(95％CI:20.55～35.45),优于对照组的15.00个月(95％CI:10.23～19.77),差异有统计学意义(χ2=4.419,P=0.036).结论 二线吉非替尼治疗晚期NSCLC的疗效显著,与EG-FR21外显子缺失相比,EGFR19外显子缺失治疗表现出更高的敏感性,OS、PFS更优.EGFR突变状态有助于预测晚期NSCLC接受吉非替尼治疗的效果及生存情况.     

阿帕替尼用于一线治疗进展后晚期非鳞非小细胞肺癌的疗效和生存分析

背景与目的 晚期非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)的二线、三线化疗有效率较低,靶向药物的应用为部分患者带来生存获益.阿帕替尼是一种新型小分子抗血管生成药物,在多种恶性肿瘤治疗中展现出令人满意的抗癌活性.本研究旨在评价阿帕替尼用于一线治疗进展后晚期非鳞NSCLC的安全性和疗效.方法 回顾性分析128例晚期非鳞NSCLC不同治疗组患者的疗效和生存情况,用Kaplan-Meier法和Cox模型进行分析.结果 以单纯化疗组为对照,阿帕替尼单药组、单纯化疗组和阿帕替尼联合化疗组的中位无进展生存期(progression free survival,PFS)分别为3.0个月(P=0.381)、3.7个月和6.0个月(P<0.001),中位总生存期(overall survival,OS)分别为6.0个月(P=0.494)、6.5个月和9.0个月(P=0.001).3级-4级不良反应发生率分别为18.5%、15.8%和16.0%(P=0.947).治疗方案(P=0.018)及体能状态(performance status,PS)(P<0.001)是PFS的独立影响因素,吸烟史(P=0.014)、治疗方案(P=0.002)和PS(P<0.001)是OS的独立影响因素.结论 阿帕替尼安全性高,肺癌一线治疗失败后,二线或三线化疗联合阿帕替尼,与单纯化疗相比,患者有PFS和OS获益,阿帕替尼单药与单纯化疗组间PFS和OS无明显差异;无吸烟史、PS 0分-1分和联合治疗的患者预后更好.     

非小细胞肺癌脑转移厄洛替尼和吉非替尼治疗临床比较

目的比较和评价厄洛替尼和吉非替尼靶向治疗非小细胞肺癌脑转移的疗效。方法回顾性分析2009-01-01-2012-11-25广州医科大学附属第一医院81例晚期NSCLC初诊有脑转移患者和111例晚期NSCLC初诊无脑转移患者,192例患者均为肺腺癌合并EGFR基因突变,分为吉非替尼和厄洛替尼治疗组,生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier法统计,组间生存率比较采用Log-rank检验。结果初诊有脑转移患者颅内病灶,客观有效率为45.68%(37/81),疾病控制率为90.12%(73/81)。吉非替尼、厄洛替尼治疗的无进展生存期(progression-free survival,PFS)分别为9.5和9.0个月,P=0.344;不同EGFR突变类型(19外显子序列缺失突变、21外显子突变)PFS比较分别为10.4和8.6个月,P=0.408。初诊无脑转移患者PFS分别为14.0和15.0个月,P=0.369;不同EGFR突变类型的PFS分别为14.0和15.0个月,P=0.408。结论厄洛替尼和吉非替尼一线治疗肺癌EGFR突变脑转移效果无显著性差异。     

晚期非小细胞肺癌吉非替尼治疗性别与疗效相关性分析

目的:探讨吉非替尼对不同性别晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者的疗效和安全性。方法:选择化疗失败的晚期NSCLC患者74例,分为女性组(36例)和男性组(38例),应用吉非替尼进行单药治疗,口服剂量为250 mg/d。分析两组治疗疗效和安全性。结果:女性组和男性组的总有效率(47.2%vs 26.3%,P=0.062)以及中位无进展生存期(7.9个月vs 5.7个月,P=0.093)差异均无统计学意义;而其中女性腺癌患者的有效率(53.8%)与以及中位无进展生存期(10.1个月)明显优于男性鳞癌患者,差异均有统计学意义,P值均<0.05。两组的不良反应相似主要为皮疹和腹泻。结论:对于晚期NSCLC患者,在无检测表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)情况下,合理选择优势人群,应用分子靶向药物吉非替尼治疗,疗效较高,能有助于提高NSCLC临床个体化治疗水平。     

吉非替尼治疗老年晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床分析

目的:探讨吉非替尼单药治疗老年晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的疗效和不良反应.方法: 回顾性分析了38例既往化疗失败的老年晚期NSCLC患者,接受吉非替尼单药治疗,250mg/d直至进展或严重毒性,随访获得患者的临床资料,评价其有效率、临床获益率、无进展生存期、总生存期及不良反应.结果: 38例患者中CR 0例,PR 14例(36.8%),SD 10例(26.3%),PD 14例(36.8%),客观缓解率为36.8%,疾病控制率为63.2%.患者中位无进展生存期为8.5个月、中位总生存期为14个月.腺癌患者的有效率和临床获益率均优于鳞癌.主要不良反应为皮疹和腹泻,多为Ⅰ-Ⅱ级.结论: 吉非替尼治疗老年晚期NSCLC的疗效较好,副作用少.     

吉非替尼单药维持治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的疗效和安全性分析

目的 评价吉非替尼维持治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的疗效和安全性.方法 173例晚期NSCLC患者化疗后给予吉非替尼治疗,其中62例为诱导化疗后维持治疗,111例为复发后治疗.中位生存期采用Kaplan-Meier方法计算,不同因素分层生存期比较采用多因素Cox回归分析.结果 维持治疗组中位生存期为25.0个月,95%可信区间(CI)为19.3～30.7个月;复发后治疗组中位生存期为12.5个月,95%CI为9.3～15.7个月,两组差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).维持治疗组中位无疾病进展生存期(PFS)为16.5个月,95%CI为8.7～24.3个月;复发后治疗组PFS为9.2个月,95%CI为7.5～10.9个月,两组差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).维持治疗组生存的影响因素包括吸烟状况、病理类型、是否有肝脏转移和吉非替尼治疗的客观疗效.结论 晚期NSCLC患者化疗后给予吉非替尼维持治疗,其生存期和PFS明显长于复发后治疗的患者.     

吉非替尼或多西他赛治疗一线化疗失败的非小细胞肺癌的临床分析

目的 探讨既往一线化疗失败的晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者接受吉非替尼或多西他赛治疗的疗效和安全性.方法 222例NSCLC患者随机分为吉非替尼组和多西他赛组,两组患者在性别、年龄、病理类型、分期等方面大致平衡.采用Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析和比较,采用生活质量量表法评价患者治疗后生存质量的改善情况.结果 吉非替尼组和多西他赛组的中位生存时间分别为11.0个月和14.0个月(P=0.783),中位无疾病进展生存时间(PFS)分别为3.4个月和3.8个月,6个月的PFS率分别为35.1%和18.5%,客观有效率分别为21.9%和9.1%(P=0.016).吉非替尼组中,有3例(2.8%)患者因不良反应调整药物剂量;而多西他赛组中,有36例(33.3%)患者因不良反应调整药物剂量.多西他赛组中,3～4级不良反应的发生率为61.1%;吉非替尼组中,3～4级不良反应的发生率为13.1%.吉非替尼组患者在生活质量和耐受性方面也明显优于多西他赛组.结论 在既往治疗失败的晚期NSCLC患者中,吉非替尼与多西他赛的总体疗效相似,但吉非替尼的耐受性更好,患者的生活质量有所改善,是替代多西他赛治疗的重要药物之一.     

Gefitinib in the treatment of advanced, refractory non-small-cell lung cancer: results in 124 patients

To evaluate the feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of oral gefitinib (ZD1839, Iressa) in patients with refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated in a community-based setting. One hundred twenty-four patients with advanced, refractory NSCLC received treatment with gefitinib 250 mg orally each day. Ninety-six percent of patients had received >or= 1 previous chemotherapy regimens and 79% had received previous platinum and taxane therapy. Patients were evaluated for response after 6-12 weeks of daily gefitinib therapy; patients with objective response or stable disease continued gefitinib until disease progression occurred. Gefitinib was well-tolerated in these patients with advanced, refractory NSCLC. There were no grade 4 toxicities, and grade 3 skin toxicity and diarrhea were observed in only 4% and 2% of patients, respectively. Nine of 120 evaluable patients (8%) had partial responses to treatment; however, 54 patients (45%) had no evidence of progression at first reevaluation, and a total of 35 patients (29%) reported improvement in lung cancer-related symptoms while receiving gefitinib. Median survival for the entire group was 6.5 months, with a 1-year survival rate of 35%. Gefitinib is active and very well-tolerated in patients with advanced, refractory NSCLC. Although the major response rate was low, nearly 50% of patients derived substantial palliative benefit from gefitinib therapy. The median survival of 6.5 months achieved in this large group of relatively unselected patients is unprecedented in the third-line treatment setting, and compares favorably to other available second-line treatment including docetaxel. A therapeutic trial of gefitinib should be considered in all patients with refractory NSCLC.     

Third-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients: feasible drugs for feasible patients

The proven benefit of third-line treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still unclear. We retrospectively evaluated the outcome of advanced NSCLC patients treated with third-line therapies in our institution, especially focusing on efficacy and toxicity between mono-therapy and doublets chemotherapy, aiming to assess the value of third-line treatment and evaluate the efficacy of different regimens in third-line treatment. Three hundred and seventeen patients received a second-line treatment among 620 advanced NSCLC after failure of first-line chemotherapy. One hundred and twenty-six patients from this group were offered third-line or further-line treatments. Survival analysis was conducted based on Kaplan-Meier method, and Chi-square was used to compare data between second-line and third-line group. There were significant differences in overall survival between second-line and third-line treatments (17.70 months vs. 24.03 months, P < 0.0001). Twenty-four patients received single chemotherapy, epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) were used to treat thirty-three patients and sixty-nine patients received doublet chemotherapy in third-line treatment. The progression-free survival (PFS) after third-line therapy was 2.37 months in all patients and 2.30 months, 2.80 months, 2.97 months, in the doublet chemotherapy, single-agent chemotherapy, and EGFR-TKIs arms, respectively (P = 0.033). Cancer-related symptom relief improvement was confirmed in 78.9% patients (60/78). Forty-eight patients had no symptoms as confirmed by imaging examination. Patients with advanced NSCLC could get benefits from third-line treatments. Those patients could obtain a moderate progression-free survival and conspicuous improvement in the cancer-related symptom. Mono-therapy was recommended in third-line treatment.     

Erlotinib, docetaxel, and gefitinib in sequential cohorts with relapsed non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Both docetaxel and erlotinib improve overall survival over best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We assessed the effectiveness of erlotinib (E) and gefitinib (G) in patients with relapsed NSCLC in both second- and third-line settings, and compared this with that of docetaxel (D), in our clinical practice. METHODS: Sequential cohorts of patients with relapsed advanced stage NSCLC who had been treated with erlotinib (150 mg), gefitinib (250 mg), or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) were retrospectively identified from our database. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were response rate and progression-free survival. RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the three drugs in both second-line (median E=24; G=25; D=43 weeks, p=0.17), and third-line (median E=31; G=24; D=29 weeks, p=0.61) settings. Response rates were also not statistically significant between the three drugs across both lines of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib, gefitinib, and docetaxel have similar effectiveness in this non-trial setting.     

Advances in the treatment of second-line non-small-cell lung cancer

Treatment with third-generation chemotherapy agents improves survival and quality of life of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Despite these favorable outcomes, most patients receiving front-line therapy experience disease progression. The availability of many new novel agents with activity in NSCLC has prompted investigators to explore second-line chemotherapy options. For many years, docetaxel was the only approved agent for the second-line treatment of NSCLC. More recently, the multi-targeted antifolate pemetrexed has demonstrated activity in patients previously treated with chemotherapy with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. The findings of a phase III trial comparing pemetrexed to docetaxel led to the regulatory approval of pemetrexed as monotherapy for the second-line treatment of NSCLC. Several other novel therapies, including molecular targeting agents such as erlotinib, are under development in clinical trials in patients with NSCLC. One of these trials has subsequently led to the approval of erlotinib as second- or third-line therapy in advanced NSCLC.     

Management of Italian Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Second-Line Treatment: Results of the Longitudinal Phase of the LIFE Observational Study

Introduction/BackgroundPatients with advanced NSCLC who experience disease progression after second-line therapy might receive further active treatment. LIFE was an Italian cohort multicenter observational study composed of a cross-sectional and a longitudinal phase.Patients and MethodsIn the longitudinal phase, described here, the primary aim was to determine the proportion of patients receiving third-line therapy among those who received second-line active treatment according to clinical practice. The proportion of patients receiving further treatment lines was also estimated.ResultsThe longitudinal phase was conducted between January and August 2012. Of 464 patients who began second-line therapy outside of clinical trials within the baseline evaluation, 56 (12.1%) were still receiving second-line therapy at the end of the observation period and 17 (3.7%) withdrew during or after second-line therapy. Of the remaining 391 patients, 158 (40.4%) received third-line treatment outside of clinical trials: 93 received a third-line chemotherapy and 65 a targeted agent. The main reason for interrupting third-line treatment was disease progression or death. During the same observation period, 25 of 113 patients who completed a third-line therapy received a fourth line of treatment. From diagnosis of NSCLC to the end of observation, biomarkers were tested in 323 patients (59.7%): epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in 315 (58.2%), Kirsten rat sarcoma 2 viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutations in 83 (15.3%) and Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation in 84 (15.5%).ConclusionIn Italian clinical practice, the proportion of patients with advanced NSCLC receiving more than 2 treatment lines of therapy is not negligible.     

Experience of first- and subsequent-line systemic therapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Introduction: The treatment of advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC) has changed with multiple new treatment algorithms proposed based on histological and molecular subtyping but low mutation rates will ensure the dominance of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Accordingly, we undertook a detailed review of our practice delivering multiple lines of systemic therapy.Method: We undertook a retrospective review of consecutive patients presenting with advanced (stage IIIb/IV) NSCLC treated with systemic therapy at two UK hospitals during a 2-year period, January 2007 to December 2008.Results: A total of 130 patients were identified, treated with predominantly carboplatin/gemcitabine (20 initially radically). Fifty of 110 patients (45%) treated with first-line systemic therapy subsequently received second-line therapy, of which 10 patients received third-line and two patients fourth-line therapy. Sixty three of 110 first-line patients (58%) achieved clinical benefit, 19 out of 50 (38%) in the second-line, 6 out of 10 (60%) in third-line but both patients progressed at fourth-line. Median overall survival for 110 patients was 10 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.6-11.4); but 16 months (95% CI 14-17.9) in those receiving multiple lines. Median survival from the first cycle of last-line treatment to death in the multiple therapy lines was 5 months (95% CI 2.6-7.3) and the majority of patients spent more time off treatment.Conclusion: Overall our outcomes are consistent with published data and show good survival times can be achieved. The future of advanced NSCLC is in selecting the best treatment approach on a histological and genotypic basis.     

培美曲塞在晚期非小细胞肺癌二线及以上治疗中的疗效分析

背景与目的培美曲塞是晚期非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)推荐的标准二线治疗方案之一。目前二线治疗之后如何选择化疗药物尚无标准。本研究旨在观察培美曲塞治疗既往接受过多程治疗的晚期NSCLC的疗效和安全性。方法回顾性分析2005年2月-2009年9月在中国协和医科大学肿瘤医院内科肺癌中心接受培美曲塞单药治疗,且既往接受过1个及以上方案治疗的37例晚期NSCLC的病例资料。结果 37例患者中二线治疗者13例(35.1%),三线及以上治疗者24例(64.9%)。疾病控制率为54.1%,其中1例(2.7%)完全缓解(双肺转移瘤消失),2例(5.4%)部分缓解,17例(45.9%)稳定,12例(32.4%)进展。中位无进展生存期为8.05个月,中位生存时间为19.29个月。毒副反应轻微。结论培美曲塞用于晚期NSCLC二线及以上治疗耐受性较好,并且有生存获益,可推荐作为二线及以上晚期NSCLC患者治疗的选择。     

吉非替尼治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌

目的评价吉非替尼作为二线和二线以上方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的临床价值。方法符合入组条件的156例患者采用吉非替尼治疗,口服,每天1次,每次250mg,持续服用直到疾病进展或出现不可耐受的毒副反应。结果154例患者可评价疗效,总有效率(RR)为28.6%(44/154),95% CI为21.6%～31.6%;临床受益率为89.6%(138/154),95% CI为84.8%～94.4%。有效患者的中位缓解时间为7.5个月(95% CI为3.9～12.1个月),中位肿瘤进展时间(TTP)为5.1个月(95% CI为3.4～6.6个月),中位总生存期(OS)为10个月(95% CI为7.9～12.1个月),1年生存率为41.0%(95% CI为33.3%～48.7%)。腺癌患者的有效率显著高于鳞癌患者(P=0.026)。其中,鳞癌患者肿瘤进展的风险是腺癌的1.7倍(95% CI为1.1～2.6,P=0.011);男性死亡的风险是女性的2.0倍(95% CI为1.0～2.6,P=0.002)。154例患者中,63例(40.9%)患者至少出现了一种药物相关毒副反应,但多数较轻,且可逆,发生率最高的是皮疹(26.3%),多伴发皮肤干燥和瘙痒。结论吉非替尼作为二线及二线以上方案治疗晚期NSCLC有较好的疗效和安全性。     

Efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed as a third-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer

Objective: Pemetrexed has been approved for second-line treatment in non-smallcell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the role of third-line pemetrexedtherapy in NSCLC has not yet been generally accepted. We attemptedto validate third-line pemetrexed therapy and evaluate predictivefactors for pemetrexed therapy for NSCLC. Methods: Medical records of NSCLC patients who received pemetrexed therapythat progressed after systemic therapy were reviewed retrospectively.We stratified patients according to clinicopathologic characteristicsto find predictive factors for pemetrexed therapy. Results: A total of 100 patients were eligible for analysis, and overallprogression-free survival (PFS) was 3.03 months. The objectiveresponse rate was 12%, and the toxicity profile was favorable.Pemetrexed was used as a second-line treatment in 30% of patients,and as third- or further-line treatment in 70%. Comparing theefficacy of pemetrexed in these two settings (second-line versusthird- or further-line), there was no significant differencein terms of PFS (3.07 versus 2.83 months, P = 0.86). When weevaluated predictive factors by multivariate analysis, performancestatus significantly influenced PFS. Conclusions: Pemetrexed is a suitable third-line treatment option with goodefficacy and tolerable toxicity profile for NSCLC.     

晚期非小细胞肺癌三线治疗疗效及生存分析

背景与目的随着高效低毒药物的出现,越来越多的晚期非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)患者有机会接受三线治疗,但目前三线的标准治疗除厄洛替尼外尚无其它选择方案。本研究旨在比较单药化疗、靶向药物与双药联合化疗在晚期NSCLC患者三线治疗中的疗效与安全性。方法回顾分析115例IIIb期/IV期接受三线治疗的NSCLC患者的疗效及生存状况。采用Kaplan-Meier曲线、Cox多因素生存分析模型进行单因素和多因素分析。结果单药组、靶向治疗组与双药联合组中位无进展生存时间(progression free survival,PFS)分别为2.30个月、3.17个月和2.37个月(P=0.045),三线治疗后的中位生存时间(overall survival,OS)分别为8.00个月、10.40个月和7.87个月(P=0.110),III度-IV度毒性反应发生率分别为33.3%、18.2%和68.8%(P<0.001)。多因素分析显示体能状况(per-formance status,PS)评分(P<0.001)是PFS的独立预后因素,既往无吸烟史(P=0.011)、PS评分0分-1分(P<0.001)和一二线治疗疗效获得疾病控制(P=0.044)是三线治疗OS的独立预后因素。结论 PS评分较好、既往不吸烟和一二线治疗疗效疾病控制的患者在三线治疗中更能获益,与化疗单药或双药相比靶向药物组PFS显示出优势。