- Email: [email protected]
Docetaxel vs. Vinorelbine in Elderly Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Letter to the Editor
Docetaxel vs. Vinorelbine in Elderly Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Koichi Kurishima, Katsunori Kagohashi, Hiroichi Ishikawa, Hiroaki Satoh Clinical Lung Cancer, Vol. 13, No. 5, 396 © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
We read with great interest the May 2011 article by Karampeazis et al1 in Clinical Lung Cancer, “Docetaxel vs. vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: a Hellenic Oncology Research Group randomized phase III study.” According to their study, the objective response rate and the median time to tumor progression was not different between the 2 treated groups of patients. However, the median overall survival tended to be longer than Division of Respiratory Medicine, Mito Medical Center, University of Tsukuba, Mitocity, Ibaraki, Japan Submitted: Nov 25, 2011; Accepted: Dec 11, 2011; Epub: Apr 6, 2012 Address for correspondence: Hiroaki Satoh, MD, Division of Respiratory Medicine, Mito Medical Center, University of Tsukuba, Mito-city, Ibaraki, 310 – 0015, Japan E-mail contact: [email protected]
396
Clinical Lung Cancer September 2012
that of the vinorelbine-treated group. We are very interested in the reasoning as to why there was a difference. When we compared the ratio of elderly patients aged 75 years or older by using the 2 test, the ratio in the vinorelbine-treated group of patients was apparently higher than that in the docetaxel-treated group (P ⫽ .0399). In addition, we would appreciate hearing from the researchers about whether there was any difference in the second-line treatment. We wonder whether these differences influenced the difference in overall survival.
Reference 1. Karampeazis A, Vamvakas L, Agelidou A, et al. Docetaxel vs. vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: a Hellenic Oncology Research Group randomized phase III study. Clin Lung Cancer 2011; 12:155-60.
1525-7304/$ - see frontmatter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2011.12.005
Docetaxel vs. Vinorelbine in Elderly Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Koichi Kurishima, Katsunori Kagohashi, Hiroichi Ishikawa, Hiroaki Satoh Clinical Lung Cancer, Vol. 13, No. 5, 396 © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
We read with great interest the May 2011 article by Karampeazis et al1 in Clinical Lung Cancer, “Docetaxel vs. vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: a Hellenic Oncology Research Group randomized phase III study.” According to their study, the objective response rate and the median time to tumor progression was not different between the 2 treated groups of patients. However, the median overall survival tended to be longer than Division of Respiratory Medicine, Mito Medical Center, University of Tsukuba, Mitocity, Ibaraki, Japan Submitted: Nov 25, 2011; Accepted: Dec 11, 2011; Epub: Apr 6, 2012 Address for correspondence: Hiroaki Satoh, MD, Division of Respiratory Medicine, Mito Medical Center, University of Tsukuba, Mito-city, Ibaraki, 310 – 0015, Japan E-mail contact: [email protected]
396
Clinical Lung Cancer September 2012
that of the vinorelbine-treated group. We are very interested in the reasoning as to why there was a difference. When we compared the ratio of elderly patients aged 75 years or older by using the 2 test, the ratio in the vinorelbine-treated group of patients was apparently higher than that in the docetaxel-treated group (P ⫽ .0399). In addition, we would appreciate hearing from the researchers about whether there was any difference in the second-line treatment. We wonder whether these differences influenced the difference in overall survival.
Reference 1. Karampeazis A, Vamvakas L, Agelidou A, et al. Docetaxel vs. vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: a Hellenic Oncology Research Group randomized phase III study. Clin Lung Cancer 2011; 12:155-60.
1525-7304/$ - see frontmatter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2011.12.005