| CONVENTIONAL CHEMOTHERAPY |
|
| YEAR |
AUTHORS |
DESIGN |
PRIMARY OUTCOME |
RESULTS |
|
| 2005 |
Westeel, et al.41
|
Mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin × 4 cycles → vinorelbine × 6 mos. (n= 573) |
OS |
PFS: 5 vs. 3 mos. (p=0.11) |
| OS: 12.3 vs. 12. 3 mos. (p=0.65) |
| 2009 |
Fidias, et al.42
|
Gemcitabine/carboplatin × 4 cycles → immediate vs. delayed docetaxel (n=566) |
OS |
PFS: 5.7 vs. 2.7 mos. (p=0.001) |
| OS: 12.3 vs. 9.7 mos. (p=0.853) |
| 2009 |
Cilueanu, et al.43
|
Platinum doublet × 4 cycles → pemetrexed vs. placebo (n=663) |
PFS |
PFS: 4.3 vs. 2.6 mos. (p< 0.0001) |
| OS: 13.4 vs. 10.6 mos. (p=0.012) |
| TARGETED CHEMOTHERAPY |
|
| YEAR |
AUTHORS |
DESIGN |
PRIMARY OUTCOME |
RESULTS |
|
| 2009 |
Miller, et al. (ATLAS)51
|
Platinum doublet + bevacizumab(bev) ×4 cycles → bev vs. bev + erlotinib (n=1160) |
PFS |
PFS: 4.8 vs. 3.7 mos. (p=0.0012) |
| OS: 15.9 vs. 13.9 mos. (p=0.27) |
| 2010 |
Cappuzzo, et al. (SATURN)45
|
Platinum doublet × 4 cycles → erlotinib vs. placebo (n=1949) |
PFS |
PFS: 12.3 vs. 11.1 wks (P<0.0001) |
| OS: 12 vs. 11 mos. (p=0.0088) |
| 2010 |
Perol, et al.22
|
Cisplatin/gemcitabine × 4 cycles → Erlotinib vs. BSC (n=464) |
PFS |
PFS: 3.7 vs. 2.1 mos. (p=0.001) |
| OS: 11.8 vs. 10.7 mos. (P> 0.05) |
| 2010 |
Takeda, et al.48
|
Platinum doublet × 3 cycles → gefitinib vs. 3 additional cycles platinum doublet (n=604) |
OS |
PFS: 4.6 vs. 4.3 mos. (p<0.001) |
| OS: 13.7 vs. 12.9 mos. (p=0.11) |
| 2011 |
Gaafar, et al.50
|
Platinum doublet × 4 cycles → gefitinib vs. placebo (n=173) |
OS |
PFS: 4.1 vs. 2.9 mos. (p=0.0015) |
| OS: 10.9 vs. 94. mos. (p=0.204) |
| 2012 |
Zhang, et al.49
|
Platinum doublet ×4 cycles → gefitinib vs. placebo (n=296) |
PFS |
PFS: 4.8 vs. 2.6 mos. (p<0.0001) |
| OS: 18.7 vs. 16.9 mos. (p=0.26) |
