Skip to main content
. 2014 Aug 22;141(2):323–331. doi: 10.1007/s00432-014-1800-6

Table 1.

Unified response rates of advanced thymoma patients treated with anthracycline-based or non-anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimens

Regimen Author, year Study design Stage No. of patients Responders RR PFS OS
Anthracycline-containing regimens
ADOC Fornasiero et al. (1991) S III/IVa/IVb 37 34 91.8 % 12 mos 15 mos
PAC Loehrer et al. (1994) G IV 29 15 51.7 % 11.8 mos 37.7 mos
PAC (+XRT) Loehrer et al. (1997) G III 23 16 69.6 % 93 mos
ADOC Rea et al. (1993) S III/IVa 16 12 75.0 % 66 mos
ADOC Berruti et al. (1999) S III/IVa 16 13 81.3 % 33.2 mos 47.5 mos
PAC Kim et al. (2004) G III/IVa/IVb 22 17 77.3 %
PAE (+XRT) Lucchi et al. (2006) S III/IVA 30 22 73.3 %
CAMP Yokoi et al. (2007) S IVa/IVb 14 13 92.9 %
Dose-dense CODE Kunitoh et al. (2009) G IVa/IVb 27 16 59.3 % 0.79 year 6.1 year
CarboAMR Kawashima et al. (2013) G Invasive 18 3 16.7 % 7.6 mos Not reached
Total 232 161 69.4 %
Non-anthracycline-containing regimens
PE Giaccone et al. (1996) G III/IV/rec 16 9 56 % 2.2 year 4.3 year
VIP Loehrer et al. (2001) G III/IVa/IVb 20 7 35 % 11.9 mos 31.6 mos
VIP Grassin et al. (2011) G IIIB/IVA/IVB 16a 4a 25 %a 13.1 mos Not reached
CarboPTX Takeda et al. (2013) G III/IVa/IVb 21 6 42.9 % 16.7 mos Not reached
CDDP/DTX Park et al. (2013) G III/IVa/IVb 9 5 55.6 %
Total 82 31 37.8 %

G prospective multicenter group phase II trial, S single-center experience, mos months, RR objective response rate, ADOC adriamycin, cisplatin, vincristine and cyclophosphamide, PAC cisplatin, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide, PAE cisplatin, adriamycin and etoposide, CAMP PAC = cisplatin, adriamycin, methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide, CODE adriamycin, cisplatin, vincristine and etoposide, PE cisplatin and etoposide, VIP vincristine, ifosfamide and cisplatin, CarboPTX carboplatin and paclitaxel

aIncluding four patients with thymic carcinoma in the VIP trial