BackgroundSystemic inflammation has been linked with cancer development, cancer cachexia and poor outcome. Advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI) was developed to assess degree of systemic inflammation at the time of diagnosis in metastatic non-small cell lung (NSCLC) cancer patients.MethodsIn a single institution retrospective review 173 patients with metastatic NSCLC diagnosed between Jan 1 2000 and June 30 2011 were included. ALI was calculated as (BMI x Alb / NLR) where BMI = body mass index, Alb = serum albumin, NLR (neutrophil lymphocyte ratio, a marker of systemic inflammation). Patients were divided into low inflammation (ALI ≥ 18) and high inflammation (ALI < 18) groups. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression free survival and overall survival. Log-rank test were used to compare the survivals among various factors. Multivariate Cox regression was used to perform survival analysis in order to estimate the hazards ratio for various factors.ResultsAmong 173 patients median age was 57 years, 67% were male, 52% had adenocarcinoma. Patients with an ALI score of < 18 suggesting high systemic inflammation were significantly more likely to have more than 2 sites of metastatic disease, have poor performance status and less likely to receive any chemotherapy. Their median progression free survival and overall survival was 2.4 months and 3.4 months as opposed to 5.1 months and 8.3 months in patients with ALI >18 (P < 0.001). On multi-variate analysis ALI score of <18 (1.42, 95% CI 1.003-2.01) remained significantly associated with worse outcome.ConclusionALI (<18) at diagnosis is an independent marker of poor outcome in patients with advanced NSCLC.
Background The efficacy of autologous stem-cell transplantation during the first remission in patients with diffuse, aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma classified as high-intermediate risk or high risk on the International Prognostic Index remains controversial and is untested in the rituximab era. Methods We treated 397 patients who had disease with an age-adjusted classification of high risk or high-intermediate risk with five cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP plus rituximab. Patients with a response were randomly assigned to receive three additional cycles of induction chemotherapy (control group) or one additional cycle of induction chemotherapy followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (transplantation group). The primary efficacy end points were 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival. Results Of 370 induction-eligible patients, 253 were randomly assigned to the transplantation group (125) or the control group (128). Forty-six patients in the transplantation group and 68 in the control group had disease progression or died, with 2-year progression-free survival rates of 69 and 55%, respectively (hazard ratio in the control group vs. the transplantation group, 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 to 2.51; P = 0.005). Thirty-seven patients in the transplantation group and 47 in the control group died, with 2-year overall survival rates of 74 and 71%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.94; P = 0.30). Exploratory analyses showed a differential treatment effect according to risk level for both progression-free survival (P = 0.04 for interaction) and overall survival (P = 0.01 for interaction). Among high-risk patients, the 2-year overall survival rate was 82% in the transplantation group and 64% in the control group. Conclusions Early autologous stem-cell transplantation improved progression-free survival among patients with high-intermediate-risk or high-risk disease who had a response to induction therapy. Overall survival after transplantation was not improved, probably because of the effectiveness of salvage transplantation.
Arm 1, paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks with carboplatin (AUC = 6) administered on day 1, demonstrates the most favorable therapeutic index in patients with advanced NSCLC.
The role of maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma is controversial. Recent studies have shown an improvement in both progression-free and overall survival for patients receiving maintenance treatment with a combination of interferon and glucocorticoids, compared with interferon alone. The role of glucocorticoids alone as maintenance therapy has not been previously addressed. We compared alternate-day, oral prednisone at 2 different dose levels (10 mg versus 50 mg) for remission maintenance among previously untreated myeloma patients following a response to induction with standard-dose vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone with prednisone (VAD-P) or VAD-P plus quinine (VAD-P/Q). There were 250 eligible patients registered on Southwest Oncology Group study 9210 and randomized to receive VAD-P or VAD-P/Q. There were 125 patients achieving at least a 25% tumor reduction following induction therapy who were randomized to either physiologic (10 mg) or pharmacologic (50 mg) doses of alternate-day, oral prednisone until disease progression. At the time of study entry, patient characteristics were similar in VAD-P and VAD-P/Q patients and in the 2 arms randomized to maintenance therapy. After a median follow-up of 53 months, there was no difference in either progression-free or overall survival between the 2 induction regimens. However, from the time of maintenance randomization, both progression-free (14 versus 5 months; P ؍ .003) and overall survival (37 versus 26 months; P ؍ .05) were significantly improved in patients receiving 50 mg as compared with 10 mg alternate-day prednisone. There was no difference in treatment-related adverse events between the groups. Thus, 50 mg, oral, alternateday prednisone is effective maintenance treatment for multiple myeloma patients who achieve a response to induction chemotherapy. (Blood. 2002;99:3163-3168)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.