-
Cureus Jan 2023Current non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment consists of various combinations of surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation, depending on the tumor stage.... (Review)
Review
Current non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment consists of various combinations of surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation, depending on the tumor stage. Individuals with stage II-IIIa NSCLC undergo surgery, followed by combination chemotherapy containing cisplatin, such as vinorelbine + cisplatin. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as gefitinib, act by inhibiting any signaling pathway containing the EGFR mutation and inhibiting the growth of NSCLC. TKI is a treatment option in advanced NSCLC, resulting in more prolonged progression-free survival (PFS). This manuscript aims to evaluate the influence of utilizing gefitinib - either alone or in combination with conventional chemotherapeutic drug regimens upon NSCLC patient profile survival parameters. A systematic literature review was conducted across multiple scientific literature repositories. The review was performed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020. There were six randomized clinical trials (RCT) and five retrospective studies. The overall consensus based on the end outcome of each published journal on the effectiveness of gefitinib as a treatment option for NSCLC indicated that there was a notable difference in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) datasets. Gefitinib use correlated with increased timeframes for multiple patient survival parameters within articles shortlisted in this investigation. However, more comprehensive investigations are required to validate such correlations. Gefitinib did demonstrate the potential to provide beneficial effects and counteract NSCLC within such patients.
PubMed: 36788891
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.33691 -
BMJ Open Jun 2022This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different platinum adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early-stage resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Investigation of the optimal platinum-based regimen in the postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy setting for early-stage resected non-small lung cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different platinum adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early-stage resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
DESIGN
Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus Google Scholar were searched through 12 March 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the postoperative platinum chemotherapy regimen with the observation-controlled group or comparing two platinum chemotherapy regimens head-to-head were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The primary outcome was the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens including relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), 2-year, 3-year, 5-year RFS rate and OS rate. The secondary outcome was the rate of grade 3-4 toxicity assessments. Cochrane Handbook (V.5) was used for the risk of bias assessment. Analyses were performed using R software V.4.3.1.
RESULTS
20 RCTs with a sample size of 5483 were enrolled in meta-analysis. The chemotherapy group had a significant RFS and OS advantage compared with the observation group (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.81, p<0.0001; HR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.88, p<0.0001, respectively). Compared with the observation arm, only the 'cisplatin_vinorelbine' regimen had a significant RFS and OS advantage (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87; HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87, respectively) while the remaining chemotherapy regimens had no significant difference of efficacy compared with the observation group. In terms of the safety of adjuvant chemotherapy, the incidence of haematological toxicities and nausea/vomiting was not significantly higher in the 'cisplatin_vinorelbine' arm than in other chemotherapy group.
CONCLUSION
This study summarised the adjuvant cytotoxicity chemotherapy regimens for patients with early-stage resected NSCLC. Our analysis may provide some guiding significance for the clinicians when determining the optimal chemotherapy regimen.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Cisplatin; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Platinum; Vinorelbine
PubMed: 35697451
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057098 -
Journal of Cancer 2021Different second-line treatments of patients with trastuzumab-resistant human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer were examined in...
Efficacy of second-line treatments for patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive breast cancer after trastuzumab-based treatment: a systematic review and bayesian network analysis.
Different second-line treatments of patients with trastuzumab-resistant human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer were examined in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis is helpful to evaluate the comparative survival benefits of different options. We performed a bayesian network meta-analysis using R-4.0.0 software and fixed consistency model to compare the progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits of different second-line regimens. 13 RCTs (19 publications, 4313 patients) remained for qualitative synthesis and 12 RCTs (17 publications, 4022 patients) were deemed eligible for network meta-analysis. For PFS, we divided network analysis into two parts owing to insufficient connections among treatments. The first part involved 8 treatments in 9 studies and we referred it as PFS (#1). Amid the following 8 interventions: pyrotinib + capecitabine, T-DM1 + atezolizumab, pertuzumab + trastuzumab + capecitabine, T-DM1, trastuzumab + capecitabine, lapatinib + capecitabine, neratinib, and capecitabine, we found consistent benefits between the first three interventions; moreover, pyrotinib + capecitabine was most likely to be associated with the best benefits; capecitabine monotherapy was associated with the worst PFS. The second part included 3 treatments in 2 studies and we referred it as PFS (#2): everolimus + trastuzumab + vinorelbine had better PFS benefits versus trastuzumab + vinorelbine and afatinib + vinorelbine. For OS, we analyzed 7 treatments in 7 studies, and observed T-DM1 + atezolizumab, pertuzumab + trastuzumab + capecitabine, and T-DM1 had similar effectiveness, and the first had the highest probability to yield the longest OS; capecitabine or neratinib alone yielded the worst OS benefits. Our work comprehensively summarized and analyzed current available RCT-based evidence of the second-line treatments for trastuzumab-treated, HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer. These results provide clinicians and oncologists meaningful references for clinical drug administration and the development of novel effective therapies.
PubMed: 33613756
DOI: 10.7150/jca.51845 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Sep 2019Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of carboplatin- versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy in 1L NSCLC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A meta-analysis by the Cochrane group (2013) was updated. Systematic searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings were conducted to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2013-January 2018 which compared carboplatin and cisplatin combined with: gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel, paclitaxel, irinotecan, or pemetrexed. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), one-year OS, objective response rate (ORR), grade 3/4 drug-related toxicities, and HRQoL.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs (2,048 patients) were identified from 4,139 records for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in OS (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96, 1.21) and one-year OS (relative risk [RR]: 0.97, CI: 0.89, 1.07) between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A small effect on ORR favouring cisplatin was detected (RR = 0.88; CI: 0.78, 0.99). Differences in drug-related toxicities were observed between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy for thrombocytopenia, anaemia, neurotoxicity, and the risk of nausea/vomiting. Three RCTs comparing HRQoL between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy found no significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated evidence base corroborates findings of previous meta-analyses showing no difference in OS between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, despite a slight benefit in ORR for cisplatin. Toxicity profiles should be considered alongside patients' comorbidities in the choice of therapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cisplatin; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31446995
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.07.010 -
World Journal of Clinical Oncology Aug 2016To evaluate the current role of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor in the treatment of breast cancer.
AIM
To evaluate the current role of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor in the treatment of breast cancer.
METHODS
An extensive search of the literature until March 2016 was carried out in Medline and clinicaltrials.gov, by using the search terms "sorafenib" and "breast cancer". Papers found were checked for further relevant publications. Overall, 21 relevant studies were found, 18 in advanced breast cancer (16 in stage IV and two in stages III-IV) and three in early breast cancer.
RESULTS
Among studies in advanced breast cancer, there were two trials with sorafenib as monotherapy, four trials of sorafenib in combination with taxanes, two in combination with capecitabine, one with gemcitabine and/or capecitabine, one with vinorelbine, one with bevacizumab, one with pemetrexed and one with ixabepilone, three trials of sorafenib in combination with endocrine therapy and two trials in women with brain metastases undergoing whole brain radiotherapy. In addition, there was one trial of sorafenib added to standard chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting, and two trials in the neoadjuvant setting. In general, sorafenib was well tolerated in breast cancer patients, though its dosage had to be adjusted in some trials, and discontinuation rates were high, particularly for the combination of sorafenib with anastrozole. Sorafenib monotherapy and combinations with taxanes, bevacizumab and ixabepilone showed inadequate efficacy, while efficacy results from combinations with gemcitabine and/or capecitabine and possibly tamoxifen were more promising.
CONCLUSION
At present, sorafenib should not be used for the treatment of breast cancer outside of clinical trials and more clinical data are needed in order to support its standard use in breast cancer therapy.
PubMed: 27579253
DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v7.i4.331 -
Molecular and Clinical Oncology Sep 2015The present study aimed to compare the effects of vinorelbine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and vinorelbine-free regimens. A meta-analysis of all the relevant...
The present study aimed to compare the effects of vinorelbine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and vinorelbine-free regimens. A meta-analysis of all the relevant randomized controlled trials was performed to investigate the improvement in pathological complete response (pCR), overall response rate (ORR) and breast-conserving surgery (BCS). The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies reporting randomized controlled trials comparing vinorelbine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy with vinorelbine-free regimens until July 2013. Risk ratios/odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the association between vinorelbine in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and various efficacy outcomes. Fixed- or random-effect models were adopted to pool the data. Five eligible studies with a total of 1,495 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to vinorelbine-free chemotherapy, vinorelbine-based regimens demonstrated no significant improvement in clinical outcomes including: pCR [relative risk (RR)=1.016; 95% CI, 0.738-1.399; P=0.922], ORR (RR=1.048; 95% CI, 0.969-1.133; P=0.239) and BCS (RR=1.764; 95% CI, 0.734-4.239; P=0.205). However, vinorelbine-based regimens were associated with a lower incidence of grade 3-4 alopecia (OR, 0.617; 95% CI, 0.448-0.848; P=0.003). In a hierarchical analysis for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the proportion of subjects achieving pCR was significantly increased when HER2-amplified (RR=2.31; 95% CI, 1.20-4.43; P=0.01) and hormone receptor negative (RR=0.488; 95% CI, 0.263-0.908; P=0.023). The present review confirms that neoadjuvant chemotherapy vinorelbine-based regimens are unlikely to emerge as superior to pCR, ORR and BCS. Hierarchical analysis indicated that the HER2-amplified and hormone receptor-negative patients were significantly associated with a pathological response rate.
PubMed: 26623067
DOI: 10.3892/mco.2015.576 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jul 2013The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued multiple guidance for the first-line management of patients with lung cancer and recommends... (Review)
Review
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued multiple guidance for the first-line management of patients with lung cancer and recommends different combinations of chemotherapy treatments. This review provides a synthesis of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence supporting current guidance.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE, for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
DATA SOURCES
Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from 2001 to August 2010.
REVIEW METHODS
Trials that compared first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were included. Data on key outcomes including, but not limited to, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs) were extracted. For the assessment of cost-effectiveness, outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Analyses were performed for three NSCLC subpopulations: patients with predominantly squamous disease, patients with predominantly non-squamous disease and patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive (M+) status. Meta-analysis and mixed-treatment comparison methodology were conducted where appropriate.
RESULTS
Twenty-three trials involving > 11,000 patients in total met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the trials was poor. In the case of patients with squamous disease, there were no statistically significant differences in OS between treatment regimes. The mixed-treatment comparison demonstrated that, in patients with non-squamous disease, pemetrexed (Alimta®, Eli Lilly and Company; PEM) + platinum (PLAT) increases OS statistically significantly compared with gemcitabine (Gemzar®, Eli Lilly and Company; GEM) + PLAT [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.98] and that paclitaxel (Abraxane®, Celgene Corporation; PAX) + PLAT increases OS statistically significantly compared with docetaxel (Taxotere®, Sanofi-aventis; DOC) + PLAT (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). None of the comparisons found any statistically significant differences in OS among patients with EGFR M+ status. Direct meta-analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS with gefitinib (Iressa®, AstraZeneca; GEF) compared with DOC + PLAT and PAX + PLAT (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.73; and HR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.60, respectively). No papers related to UK decision-making were identified. A de novo economic model was developed. Using list prices (British National Formulary), cisplatin (CIS) doublets are preferable to carboplatin doublets, but this is reversed if electronic market information tool prices are used, in which case drug administration costs then become more important than drug acquisition costs. For patients with both squamous and non-squamous disease, moving from low to moderate willingness-to-pay thresholds, the preferred drugs are PAX → GEM → DOC. However, in patients with non-squamous disease, PEM + CIS resulted in increased OS and would be considered cost-effective up to £35,000 per QALY gained. For patients with EGFR M+, use of GEF compared with PAX or DOC yields very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Vinorelbine (Navelbine®, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceutical Inc.) was not shown to be cost-effective in any comparison.
LIMITATIONS
Poor trial quality and a lack of evidence for all drug comparisons complicated and limited the data analysis. Outcomes and adverse effects are not consistently combined across the trials. Few trials reported quality-of-life data despite their relevance to patients and clinicians.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this comprehensive review are unique to NSCLC and will assist clinicians to make decisions regarding the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. The design of future lung cancer trials needs to reflect the influence of factors such as histology, genetics and the new prognostic biomarkers that are currently being identified. In addition, trials will need to be adequately powered so as to be able to test for statistically significant clinical effectiveness differences within patient populations. New initiatives are in place to record detailed information on the precise chemotherapy (and targeted chemotherapy) regimens being used, together with data on age, cell type, stage of disease and performance status, allowing for very detailed observational audits of management and outcomes at a population level. It would be useful if these initiatives could be expanded to include the collection of health economics data.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Metastasis; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 23886301
DOI: 10.3310/hta17310 -
Thoracic Cancer Nov 2011To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thymosin plus cisplatin with vinorelbine (NP)/gemcitabine with cisplatin (GP) program for patients with non-small cell lung...
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of thymosin plus cisplatin with vinorelbine (NP)/gemcitabine with cisplatin (GP) program for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge, Chinese Biomedical Database and other databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing thymosin plus NP/GP with NP/GP alone for patients with NSCLC were eligible for our study. We evaluated the quality of included studies using Cochrane Handbook standards. Data analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.0 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark).
RESULTS
Ten RCT including 724 patients were eligible. The results of our study showed that: compared with an NP program alone, thymosin plus NP could increase overall response rate (odds ratio (OR) 1.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-3.20), tumor control rate (OR 3.06; 95% CI: 1.36-6.88) and 1-year survival rate (OR 3.05; 95% CI: 1.34-6.96), improve the quality of life (OR 3.39; 95% CI: 1.54-7.47), CD4 (mean difference (MD) 6.7; 95% CI: 3.52-9.88) and NK cells (MD 6.53; 95% CI: 3.6-9.47). Compared with a GP program alone, thymosin plus GP could increase overall response rate (OR 1.67; 95% CI: 1.09-2.55), tumor control rate (OR 2.38; 95% CI: 1.01-5.62), improve quality of life (OR 3.84; 95% CI: 1.97-7.48), CD4 (MD 14.82; 95% CI: 8.05-21.59) and NK (MD 16.96; 95% CI: 4.90-29.03) Conclusion: Thymosin plus NP/GP is a better choice for patients with advanced NSCLC than NP/GP alone.
PubMed: 27755854
DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-7714.2011.00057.x -
Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi = Chinese... May 2011In recent years, there has been a large number of studies and reports about the efficacy and safety of recombinant human endostatin (rh-endostatin), an anti-angiogenic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
In recent years, there has been a large number of studies and reports about the efficacy and safety of recombinant human endostatin (rh-endostatin), an anti-angiogenic drug, in treatment of advanced lung cancer. Authentic assessment of rh-endostatin treatment in lung cancer is important. The aim of this study is to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of rh-endostatin combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS
Cochrane systematic review methods were used in the data selection, and data were selected from the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, SCI, CBM, CNKI, and etc electronic database to get all clinical controlled trials. The retrieval time was March 2010. The objects of these randomized controlled trials were advanced NSCLC patients and in the experimental group was rh-endostatin combination chemotherapy, in the control group was chemotherapy alone to compare the efficacy of two groups. The quality of included trials were evaluated by two reviewers independently. The software RevMan 5.0 was used for meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials with 1,326 patients were included according to the including criterion. All trials were randomized controlled trials, and two trials were adequate in reporting randomization. Thirteen trials didn't mention the blinding methods. Meta analysis indicated that the NPE arm (Vinorelbine+cisplatin+rh-endostatin) had a different response rate compared with NP (Vinorelbine+cisplatin) arm (OR=2.16, 95%CI: 1.57-2.99). The incidences of severe leukopenia (OR=0.94, 95%CI: 0.66-1.32) and severe thrombocytopenia (OR=1.00, 95%CI: 0.64-1.57) and nausea and vomiting (OR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.61-1.20) were similar in the NPE arm compared with those in the NP arm. The NPE plus radiotherapy (RT) arm had a similar response rate compared with NP plus RT arm (OR=2.39, 95%CI: 0.99-5.79). The incidences of leukopenia (OR=0.83, 95%CI: 0.35-1.94) and thrombocytopenia (OR=0.78, 95%CI: 0.19-3.16) and radiation esophagitis (OR=1.00, 95%CI: 0.40-2.49) were similar in the NPE plus RT arm compared with those in the NP plus RT arm.
CONCLUSION
In the treatment of advanced NSCLC, rh-endostatin in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy improve the response rate without obviously raised side effects, however, when radiotherapy are added to NPE arm or NP arm, the response rates have a similar outcome. Owing to the small sample size and poor quality of included trials, more well-designed double-blinded randomized controlled trials should be performed.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Endostatins; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21569645
DOI: 10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2011.05.05 -
Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi = Chinese... Feb 2010Cisplatin (DDP) plus vinorelbine (NVB) constitute the first-line regimen (NP regimen) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Oxaliplatin (OXA) is another effective drug... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Cisplatin (DDP) plus vinorelbine (NVB) constitute the first-line regimen (NP regimen) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Oxaliplatin (OXA) is another effective drug in treatment of NSCLC with mild toxicities to gastrointestinal tract, kidney and bone marrow. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency and safety between NVB plus OXA (NO) regimen and NP regimen for advanced NSCLC.
METHODS
We searched CBM CNKI, VIP, Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, ASCO etc. conference proceedings and internet information. Randomized controlled trials of NO versus NP for advanced NSCLC were included; we evaluated the quality of the included studies and analyzed data by Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.0 software.
RESULTS
Fourteen randomized trials involving 1 270 patients were included. There were no statistical differences between NO and NP in overall response rate, disease control rate, 1-year survival rate, anemia and thrombocytopenia. Gastrointestinal toxicity, leucopenia, alopecia and kidney toxicity were more serious in NP (P < 0.05), but neuritis was more serious in NO, with significant difference (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
The clinical efficacy of NO and NP for advanced NSCLC was similar, but the side effects were different. The toxicity of NO has the tendency to be more tolerable.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cisplatin; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vinblastine; Vinorelbine
PubMed: 20673502
DOI: 10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2010.02.06