Trial reportCancer medicine2024
Six versus four or five cycles of first-line etoposide and platinum-based chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis of a prospective randomized trial.
Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Predictors of febrile neutropenia in small cell lung cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy with etoposide and cisplatin: a focus on nutritional status, inflammation, and performance status.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- High ASIC3 Expression Correlates with Poor Prognosis in Lung Cancer Patients and Mediates Hypercapnic Acidosis-Induced EMT in A549 Cells.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe recommended treatment for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) is a combination of thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) and etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) chemotherapy, typically administered over 4-6 cycles. Nonetheless, the optimal duration of chemotherapy is still not determined. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with LS-SCLC who received either 6 cycles or 4-5 cycles of EP chemotherapy combined with TRT. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective analysis, we utilized data from our prior prospective trial to analyze the outcomes of 265 LS-SCLC patients who received 4-6 courses of EP combined with concurrent accelerated hyperfractionated TRT between 2002 and 2017. Patients were categorized into two groups depending on their number of chemotherapy cycles: 6 or 4-5 cycles. To assess overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), we employed the Kaplan-Meier method after conducting propensity score matching (PSM).
resultsAmong the 265 LS-SCLC patients, 60 (22.6%) received 6 cycles of EP chemotherapy, while 205 (77.4%) underwent 4-5 cycles. Following PSM (53 patients for each group), the patients in the 6 cycles group exhibited a significant improvement in OS and PFS in comparison to those in the 4-5 cycles group [median OS: 29.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6-53.1 months) vs. 22.7 months (95% CI, 20.8-29.1 months), respectively, p = 0.019; median PFS: 17.9 months (95% CI, 13.7-30.5 months) vs. 12.0 months (95% CI, 9.8-14.2 months), respectively, p = 0.006]. The two-year and five-year OS rates were 60.38% and 29.87% in the 6 cycles group, whereas 47.17% and 15.72% in the 4-5 cycles group, respectively.
conclusionPatients diagnosed with LS-SCLC who were treated with EP regimen chemotherapy combined with TRT exhibited notably enhanced survival when administered 6 cycles of chemotherapy, as compared to those who underwent only 4-5 cycles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.