A randomised study of bolus vs continuous pump infusion of ifosfamide and doxorubicin with oral etoposide for small cell lung cancer
1993

Comparing Bolus and Continuous Infusion Chemotherapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer

Sample size: 159 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): H. Anderson, P. Hopwood, J. Prendiville, J.A. Radford, N. Thatcher, L. Ashcroft

Primary Institution: Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK

Hypothesis

Is continuous infusion chemotherapy as effective as bolus therapy for small cell lung cancer?

Conclusion

Continuous infusion chemotherapy is as effective as bolus therapy and is better tolerated by patients.

Supporting Evidence

  • The overall response rate was 64% for bolus therapy and 69% for continuous infusion therapy.
  • The median survival was 25 weeks for bolus therapy and 30 weeks for continuous infusion therapy.
  • Patients on continuous infusion experienced less haematological toxicity.
  • Quality of life assessments showed reduced anxiety and depression for both treatment groups.

Takeaway

This study looked at two ways to give chemotherapy to patients with lung cancer. It found that using a pump to give the medicine slowly over time works just as well as giving it all at once.

Methodology

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either bolus or continuous infusion chemotherapy for six weeks, and their responses and side effects were monitored.

Potential Biases

There were protocol violations and potential biases in patient selection.

Limitations

The study had a small sample size and only included patients who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy.

Participant Demographics

Patients were previously untreated adults aged 18-75 with small cell lung cancer.

Statistical Information

P-Value

P = 0.45

Confidence Interval

95% CI 7-22% for bolus therapy and 95% CI 11-30% for continuous infusion therapy

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication