Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26697465›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2015

The results with the addition of metronomic cyclophosphamide to palliative radiotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung carcinoma.

Swaroop Revannasiddaiah, Subhash Chandra Joshi, Kailash Chandra Pandey, Madhup Rastogi, Mukesh Sharma, Manoj Gupta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Swaroop Revannasiddaiah1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 2 Department of Medicine, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, HealthCare Global- Bangalore Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, India ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, India.
Subhash Chandra Joshi1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 2 Department of Medicine, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, HealthCare Global- Bangalore Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, India ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, India.
Kailash Chandra Pandey1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 2 Department of Medicine, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, HealthCare Global- Bangalore Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, India ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, India.
Madhup Rastogi1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 2 Department of Medicine, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, HealthCare Global- Bangalore Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, India ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, India.
Mukesh Sharma1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 2 Department of Medicine, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, HealthCare Global- Bangalore Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, India ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, India.
Manoj Gupta1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 2 Department of Medicine, Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India ; 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, HealthCare Global- Bangalore Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, India ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA considerable proportion of non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients are ineligible for radical therapies. Many are frail not to tolerate intravenous palliative chemotherapy either. These patients often receive palliative radiotherapy (RT), or supportive care alone. We intend to compare outcomes with palliative RT alone, versus palliative RT plus oral low dose metronomic cyclophosphamide.

methodsData was mined from 139 eligible NSCLC patient records. Comparisons were made between 65 patients treated from January 2011 to March 2013 with palliative RT (20-30 Gray in 5-10 fractions) alone, versus 74 patients treated from April 2013 to December 2014 with palliative RT plus oral metronomic cyclophosphamide (50 mg once daily from day of initiation of RT until at least the day of disease progression). Response was assessed after 1-month post-RT by computed tomography. Patients with complete or partial response were recorded as responders. For the determination of progression free survival (PFS), progression would be declared in case of increase in size of lesions, development of new lesions, or development of effusions. The proportions of responders were compared with the Fisher exact test, and the PFS curves were compared with the log-rank test.

resultsDifferences in response rates were statistically insignificant. The PFS was significantly higher when metronomic chemotherapy was added to RT in comparison to treatment with RT alone (mean PFS 3.1 vs. 2.55 months; P=0.0501). Further histological sub-group analysis revealed that the enhanced outcomes with addition of metronomic cyclophosphamide to RT were limited to patients with adenocarcinoma histology (3.5 vs. 2.4 months; P=0.0053), while there was no benefit for those with squamous cell histology (2.6 vs. 2.6 months; P=1). At the dose of oral cyclophosphamide used, there was no recorded instance of any measurable hematological toxicity.

conclusionsFor pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients, the treatment with palliative RT plus oral metronomic cyclophosphamide is better than that with palliative RT alone. However, for pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma the addition of oral metronomic cyclophosphamide to palliative RT offered no benefit. Further studies with similar and different metronomic chemotherapy agents are justifiable.

Indexed as

bronchogenic carcinomaMetronomic chemotherapymetronomic chemotherapy as radiosensitizermetronomic cyclophosphamidenon-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC)pulmonary adenocarcinomasquamous cell lung carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID26697465
PMCPMC4669322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.