Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBleehen, N M
dc.contributor.authorGirling, D J
dc.contributor.authorGregor, A
dc.contributor.authorLeonard, R C
dc.contributor.authorMachin, D
dc.contributor.authorMcKenzie, C G
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, D A
dc.contributor.authorSmyth, J F
dc.contributor.authorSpittle, M F
dc.contributor.authorStephens, R J
dc.contributor.authorThatcher, Nick
dc.date.accessioned2010-07-30T13:21:14Z
dc.date.available2010-07-30T13:21:14Z
dc.date.issued1994-07
dc.identifier.citationCan long-term survival be improved in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and good performance status? Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party. 1994, 70 (1):142-4 Br. J. Canceren
dc.identifier.issn0007-0920
dc.identifier.pmid8018526
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/108699
dc.description.abstractResults from a long-term follow-up suggest that in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and normal performance status intensive alternating chemotherapy and radiotherapy improve long-term survival rates. In a non-randomised study, 22 patients with SCLC of limited extent and good performance status were prescribed six cycles of etoposide, doxorubicin, cisplatin and cyclophosphamide at 4 week intervals with doses of thoracic radiotherapy following the second, third and fourth cycles. Although only six patients received all their prescribed treatment, nine (41%) were alive at 1 year, seven (32%) at 2 years, six (27%) at 3 years, and four are still alive at, respectively, 42, 47, 50, and 61 months, all four being in the subgroup of eight patients with WHO performance status grade 0 at the start of treatment. In a comparison with similar patients receiving conventionally scheduled chemotherapy and radiotherapy in a concurrent trial, no difference in survival was seen in the patients with performance status grade 1 or 2, but a large difference in favour of the alternating schedule in those with grade 0 status was seen. We encourage other investigators to report the results achieved with intensive treatment in patients with WHO grade 0 performance status at the start of treatment.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectLung Canceren
dc.subject.meshAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma, Small Cell
dc.subject.meshCisplatin
dc.subject.meshCombined Modality Therapy
dc.subject.meshCyclophosphamide
dc.subject.meshDoxorubicin
dc.subject.meshDrug Administration Schedule
dc.subject.meshEtoposide
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshLung Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshProportional Hazards Models
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy Dosage
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy, High-Energy
dc.subject.meshSurvival Analysis
dc.subject.meshSurvival Rate
dc.titleCan long-term survival be improved in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and good performance status? Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentMRC Clinical Oncology and Radiotherapeutics Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalBritish Journal of Canceren
html.description.abstractResults from a long-term follow-up suggest that in patients with limited small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and normal performance status intensive alternating chemotherapy and radiotherapy improve long-term survival rates. In a non-randomised study, 22 patients with SCLC of limited extent and good performance status were prescribed six cycles of etoposide, doxorubicin, cisplatin and cyclophosphamide at 4 week intervals with doses of thoracic radiotherapy following the second, third and fourth cycles. Although only six patients received all their prescribed treatment, nine (41%) were alive at 1 year, seven (32%) at 2 years, six (27%) at 3 years, and four are still alive at, respectively, 42, 47, 50, and 61 months, all four being in the subgroup of eight patients with WHO performance status grade 0 at the start of treatment. In a comparison with similar patients receiving conventionally scheduled chemotherapy and radiotherapy in a concurrent trial, no difference in survival was seen in the patients with performance status grade 1 or 2, but a large difference in favour of the alternating schedule in those with grade 0 status was seen. We encourage other investigators to report the results achieved with intensive treatment in patients with WHO grade 0 performance status at the start of treatment.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record