Table 2.
Comparison among doublet chemotherapy.
| PS ** | Median Age |
Regimen | Patients (n) |
Objective Response (CR+PR)/SD/PD; ORR (%) * | Median OS/MST *** | Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECOG PS 0–2 | 63 | Cisplatin + Paclitaxel vs. Cisplatin + Gemcitabine vs. Cisplatin + Docetaxel vs. Carboplatin + Paclitaxel |
1155 | (<1% + 21%)/18%/49%; 21% vs. 22% (1% + 21%)/18%/40%; 22% vs. (<1% + 17%)/25%/42%; 17% vs. (<1% + 16%)/23%/49%; 17% |
7.8 m (95% CI, 7.0–8.9 m) vs. 8.1 m (95% CI, 7.2–9.4 m) vs. 7.4 m (95% CI, 6.6–8.8 m) vs. 8.1 m (95% CI, 7.0–9.5 m) |
2002, Schiller et al. [34] |
| ECOG PS 0–1 | 61.1 vs. 61.0 |
Cisplatin + Pemetrexed vs. Cisplatin + Gemcitabine |
1725 | 30.6% vs. 28.2% |
10.3 m vs. 10.3 m (HR = 0.94, 95% CI, 0.84–1.05) |
2008, Scagliotti et al. [35] |
| WHO PS 0–2 | 64 vs. 66 |
Pemetrexed +Carboplatin vs. Gemcitabine + Carboplatin |
446 | NR | 7.3 m vs. 7.0 m (p = 0.63) |
2009, Grønberg et al. [36] |
| ECOG PS 0–2 | 60.1 vs. 58.9 |
Pemetrexed +Carboplatin vs. Docetaxel + Carboplatin |
260 | 34% vs. 22.9% (OR = 1.68 (95% CI: 0.91–3.10), p = 0.095) |
HR = 0.93 (95% CI: 0.66–1.32), p = 0.698 | 2011, Rodrigues-Pereira et al. [37] |
| KPS 70–100 | 63 vs. 62 |
Gemcitabine + Cisplatin vs. Gemcitabine + Carboplatin |
176 | 36 (5 + 31)/29/16; 41.4% (95% CI: 31.0–51.7%) vs. 26 (5 + 21)/39/21; 29.2% (95% CI: 19.8–38.7%) (p = 0.09) |
8.75 m (95% CI: 6.7–10.5 m) vs. 8 m (95% CI: 6.9–11.4 m) (p = 0.9024) |
2003, Zatloukal et al. [38] |
| ECOG PS 0–1 | 62 vs. 63 vs. 61 vs. 61 |
Cisplatin + Irinotecan (IP) vs. Paclitaxel + Carboplatin (TC) vs. Cisplatin + Gemcitabine (GP) vs. Cisplatin + Vinorelbine (NP) |
602 | 31% vs. 32.4% (p = 0.801 *) vs. 30.1% (p = 0.868 *) vs. 33.1% (p = 0.706 *) * Compared with IP by the x2 test. |
13.9 m vs. 12.3 m vs. 14.0 m vs. 11.4 m |
2007, Ohe et al. [39] |
| PS 0–1 | 61 vs. 62 |
Cisplatin + Vinorelbine vs. Paclitaxel + Carboplatin |
408 | 56 (0 + 56)/53/56; 28% vs. 52 (2 + 50)/67/53; 25% (p = NS) |
8.1 m (95% CI, 6.7–9.6 m) vs. 8.6 m (95% CI, 7.2–10.7 m) (p = 0.87) |
2001, Kelly et al. [40] |
| ECOG PS 0–2 | 63 vs.62 vs.63 |
Gemcitabine + Cisplatin (GC) vs. Paclitaxel + Carboplatin (PCb) vs. Vinorelbine + Cisplatin (VC) |
607 | 62 (0 + 62)/81/36; 30% (95% CI 24–37%) vs. 64 (1 + 63)/75/37; 32% (95% CI 25–38%) vs. 61 (1 + 60)/62/34; 30% (95% CI 24–36%) (GC vs. VC, p = 0.982) (PCb vs. VC, p = 0.747) |
9.8 m (95% CI, 8.6–11.2 m) vs. 10.0 m (95% CI, 9.0–12.5 m) vs. 9.5 m (95% CI, 8.3–11.0 m) * No differences between experimental arm and reference arm (VC) |
2002, Scagliotti et al. [41] |
| KPS 70–100 | 61 vs. 59 vs. 61 |
Docetaxel + Cisplatin (DC) vs. Docetaxel + Carboplatin (DCb) vs. Vinorelbine + Cisplatin (VC) |
1218 patients | 129 (8 + 121)/176/72; 31.6% (95% CI 27.1–36.4%) vs. 97 (5 + 92)/188/88; 23.9% (95% CI 19.8–28.3%) vs. 99 (8 + 91)/170/86; 24.5% (95% CI 20.4–29.0%) DC vs. VC (p = 0.029) DCb vs. VC (p = 0.870) |
DC vs. VC = 11.3 m vs. 10.1 m (HR = 1.183 (97.2% CI, 0.989–1.416)) * Not statistically significant DCb vs. VC = 9.4 m vs. 9.9 m (HR = 1.048 (97.2% CI, 0.877–1.253)) * Not statistically significant |
2003, Fossella et al. [42] |
| ECOG PS 0–1 | 64 vs. 65 |
Nedaplatin + Docetaxel vs. Cisplatin + Docetaxel |
355 | 96 (3 + 93)/50/NR); 56% vs. 89 (1 + 88)/47/NR); 53% (two-sided Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.66) |
13.6 m (95% CI 11–15.6 m) vs. 11.4 m (95% CI 10.2–12.2 m) (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65–1.02; one-sided stratified log-rank, p = 0.037) |
2015, Shukuya et al. [32] |
| NR | NR | Nedaplatin + Gemcitabine/Paclitaxel/Navelbine/Docetaxel/Cyclophosphamide + Doxorubicin vs. Cisplatin + Gemcitabine/Paclitaxel/Navelbine/Docetaxel/Cyclophosphamide + Doxorubicin |
392 | NR | 20 m (95% CI 17.0–23.0 m) vs. 15 m (95% CI 13.4–16.6 m) (p = 0.022) |
2015, Shan et al. [33] |
| NR | 56.28 vs. 55.01 |
Nedaplatin Group (NDP + Pemetrexed/Docetaxel/Gemcitabine/Vinorelbine/Paclitaxel) vs. Cisplatin Group (DDP + Pemetrexed/Docetaxel/Gemcitabine/Vinorelbine/Paclitaxel) |
619 | 143 (12 + 131)/137/14; 48.6% vs. 114 (10 + 104)/176/35; 35.1% (p < 0.01) |
(14.783 ± 1.092) m vs. (13.502 ± 2.327) m (p < 0.01) |
2014, Li et al. [43] |
| ECOG 0–2 | 58 vs. 58 |
Paclitaxel + Cisplatin vs. Paclitaxel + Carboplatin |
618 | 80 (2 + 78)/123/58; 28% (95% CI 23–34%) vs. 70 (4 + 66)/112/80; 25% (95% CI 20–31%) * Paclitaxel/Carboplatin is statistically non-inferior compared to paclitaxel/cisplatin |
9.8 m (95% CI 8.2–11 m) vs. 8.2 m (95% CI 7.4–9.6 m) (p = 0.019) |
2002, Rosell et al. [44] |
| ECOG 0–2 | 62 | Cisplatin based regimen (Cisplatin + Gemcitabine/Vinorelbine) vs. Gemcitabine + Vinorelbine |
503 | 30% vs. 25% (p = 0.30) |
38 w vs. 32 w (HR = 1.15; 90% CI 0.96–1.37; one-sided, p = 0.08) |
2003, Gridelli et al. [45] |
| WHO PS 0–2 | 61 vs. 62 |
Cisplatin + Docetaxel vs. Gemcitabine + Docetaxel |
441 | 71 (3 + 68)/71/53; 34.6% (95%CI 28.1–41.1%) vs. 67 (2 + 65)/67/58; 33.3% (95%CI 26.8–39.9%) * No statistically significant difference in both ORRs |
10 m (95%CI 0.5–37.5 m) vs. 9.5 m (95% CI 1–36 m) (p = 0.980) |
2001, Georgoulias et al. [46] |
| ECOG PS 0–2 | 63.0 vs. 63.6 |
Pemetrexed + Cisplatin vs. Docetaxel + Cisplatin |
156 | 24;35.2% vs. 24;37.5% * No statistically significant difference |
11.7 m (95% CI, 8.6–14.8 m) vs. 13.3 m (95% CI, 8.1–18.5 m) (p > 0.5) |
2017, Park et al. [47] |
| ECOG 0–2 | 56.8 vs. 57.5 |
Nedaplatin + Gemcitabine vs. Carboplatin + Gemcitabine |
49 | 9 (0 + 9)/13/2; 37.5% vs. 6 (0 + 6)/15/4; 24% (p = 0.305) |
17.5 m (95% CI 10.8–24.2 m) vs. 17 m (95% CI 12.1–21.9 m) (p = 0.961) |
2012, Yang et al. [48] |
* “Complete Response” (CR): Disappearance of all target lesions; “Partial Response” (PR): 30% or more decrease in the sum of diameter of target lesions compared to baseline diameter; “Stable Disease” (SD): Neither PR nor PD; “Progressive Disease” (PD): 20% or more increase in sum of diameter of target lesions compared to baseline diameter; “Objective response” = CR + PR [31]. ** “Performance Score” (PS): Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS, World Health Organization (WHO) PS, Karnofsky PS (KPS). *** “Overall Survival” (OS), “Median Survival Time” (MST).