Virtual Library
Start Your Search
K. Takayama
Author of
-
+
MO24 - NSCLC - Chemotherapy III (ID 110)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Mini Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Medical Oncology
- Presentations: 2
- Moderators:R. Feld, S. Peters
- Coordinates: 10/30/2013, 10:30 - 12:00, Parkside Ballroom A, Level 1
-
+
MO24.06 - Randomized Phase II study of Pemetrexed plus Carboplatin followed by Pemetrexed versus Paclitaxel plus Carboplatin followed by Pemetrexed in Advanced Non-squamous, Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (LOGIK 0904). (ID 2235)
10:30 - 12:00 | Author(s): K. Takayama
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
PARAMOUNT study confirmed the improvement of overall survival with continuation maintenance chemotherapy with pemetrexed (PEM) compared with placebo after 4 cycles of cisplatin plus PEM induction chemotherapy recently. JMEN study also showed the usefulness of switch maintenance with PEM after 4 cycles of platinum doublet without PEM. In this study, we conducted the randomized phase II study comparing switch or continuation maintenance chemotherapy with PEM after standard doublet regimen.Methods
Histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIb or IV non-squamous NSCLC patients with mesurable disease, ECOG PS 0-1, age over 20 years and adequate organ function were eligible for the study. Randomization was stratified by gender and stage of disease. Patients received 3 cycles of PEM 500mg/m2 plus CB AUC6 (Arm 1) or PAC 200mg/m2 plus CB AUC6 (Arm 2). All patients with non-PD after induction chemotherapy continued PEM 500mg/m2 until PD. Primary endopoint is progression free survival (PFS).Results
140 pts were enrolled and assigned to Arm1 or Arm2 randomly. The clinical data of 132 pts were used as full analysis set (median age 64.5 yrs (42-83), 85 male, 120 stage IV, 58 PS0, 127 adenocarcinoma, 46 never smoker). 42 pts had prior treatment including 9 sugery, 1 adjuvant chemotherapy, 24 radiotherapy and 8 others. In both arms, 50% of pts entered into the maintenance treatment with PEM after completion of 3 cycles induction chemotherapy. The median PFS was 113 days in Arm 1 and 143 days in Arm 2, respectively. Cox-proportinal Hazard ratio was1.047, and 95% HR confidential interval was 0.707-1.549. Stratified Log-Rank test showed no significant difference in both arms.Conclusion
There was no significant difference for PFS in Arm 1(PEM plus CB followed by PEM) and Arm 2 (PAC plus CB followed by PEM).Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MO24.11 - A prospective multicenter observational study of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients (ID 862)
10:30 - 12:00 | Author(s): K. Takayama
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the major causes to deteriorate patient’s quality of life. Therefore, it is important to assess the current status of CINV nationwide for the appropriate treatment method to manage CINV. For this purpose, prospective multi-center observational study was performed in Japan.Methods
Between 2011/Apr and 2012/Dec, 458 lung cancer patients who underwent systemic chemotherapy with high (HEC) or moderate emetogenic agents (MEC) were registered and the data in 429 patients were analyzed. CINV status was assessed in acute phase (within 24 hours from chemotherapy start) and late phase (after 24 hours) separately. Multivariate analysis was performed to clear the predictive factors in patient background for CINV.Results
Patient background was as follows; median age 65, 318 male and 111 female patients, 190 patients treated with HEC and 239 with MEC. In acute phase, nausea and vomiting were observed in 5.6% (HEC 6.8%, MEC 4.6%) and 1.2 % (HEC 0.5%, MEC 1.7%) of all patients, respectively. In late phase, nausea and vomiting were observed in 40.1% (HEC 46.3%, MEC 35.2%) and 9.6 % (HEC 7.9%, MEC 10.9%) of all patients, respectively. The frequency of nausea in late phase is significantly higher in HEC than that in MEC. The predictive factors for nausea were a younger age in female patients, and younger age, no drinking history, decreased hemoglobin in male patients. The prediction of CINV by physician was relatively poor in late phase vomiting.Conclusion
In this study, the current status of CINV and antiemetic therapy in lung cancer patients in Japan were elucidated. CINV was frequently observed in late phase and the appropriate management for late emesis is needed according to the guideline.Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P3.10 - Poster Session 3 - Chemotherapy (ID 210)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Poster Session
- Track: Medical Oncology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/30/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level
-
+
P3.10-011 - Which do patients prefer as a first-line therapy, EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy, if they have NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation? A Vignettes study (LOGIK0903). (ID 1106)
09:30 - 16:30 | Author(s): K. Takayama
- Abstract
Background
Treatment decision-making is associated with potential decisional conflict of patients. Aim of this study was to determine the preferences of advanced NSCLC patients for EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy as first-line therapy if they were in the situation of having a lung cancer harboring EGFR mutation, and to investigate the variables considered important to that preference.Methods
Three vignettes were designed to assess the patients’, the physicians’ or medical staff members’ preferences for treatment decision-making and the reasons classified into five category such as “evidence level”, “type of drug administration”, “therapeutic efficacy”, “adverse events”, and “influence to ordinary life” behind the decision. HADS, FACT-L and characteristics of participants including gender, age, and performance status (PS) are also investigated in this analysis.Results
Total 377 individuals containing 100 patients, 100 physicians, and 177 medical staff members were analyzed in this study, and 322 participants (85.4%) preferred to EGFR-TKI than chemotherapy as a first-line therapy. Preference rate of EGFR-TKI in patients was statistically significantly lower than those in physicians and medical staffs, 73%, 88% and 91%, respectively. Among the reasons we investigated, “therapeutic efficacy” was the only marginal significant reason for preference in patients (odds ratio: 3.88, p=0.06). In addition to “therapeutic efficacy”, “type of drug administration” and “influence to ordinary life” was the significant reasons for their preference in physicians (odds ratio: 11.57, 22.57 and 20.5, respectively). In pre-planned analysis, we found the difference of value between the patients and the physicians in “influence to ordinary life”.Conclusion
If the patients have an advanced lung cancer with EGFR mutation, they may prefer EGFR-TKI as a first-line therapy to chemotherapy as well as physicians and medical staff members. However the reasons of those preferences among them may be different. We should consider continuation of patients’ ordinary life when we discuss about treatment decision-making with patients.
