The LCCG meta-analysis did show a significant trend (p = 0.002) against the adoption of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with a worsening performance status (PS) [23] In this regard, LACE subgroup

analysis showed increasing benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy with better PS (0 vs 1), with a detrimental effect for PS 2 (test for trend p = .009 for OS) [18]. These results suggest no differential effect of adjuvant chemotherapy when age is the only variable [47], at least when learn more interpreting data from the available randomized clinical trials; whether the daily elderly patient might derive the same benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy should be weighted in the context of comorbidities and other prognostic factors. Cisplatinum-based chemotherapy: is there a ‘winning’ doublet? Clear and definitive evidence with regard to which would be the best partner to be associated with adjuvant cisplatinum is still awaited. The current

opinion, this website generally shared by ASCO, NCCN, ACCP, and ESMO, is that any cisplatinum-combination (according to the approved dose and schedules for advanced setting) may be administered to patients who have undergone radical resection and who are (at least apparently) disease-free after surgery [1–5]. In addition, doses and schedules should be tailored according to the patients’ compliance and the physicians’ attitude (“”practitioners adopt one cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen to use consistently to ensure familiarity and optimize CA3 purchase patient safety”") [2]. This ‘opened-minded’ instead of ‘rigorous’ interpretation of available scientific evidence represents a matter of discussion, although it should be recognized that clear recommendations ADAMTS5 with modern regimens for the daily practice are lacking and are

still far to be produced. With regard to the available evidences to date, the combination cisplatinum plus vinorelbine should be considered to have a ‘groundless supremacy’. Indeed, in the prospectively planned subgroup analysis from LACE, cisplatinum and vinorelbine trended toward a major benefit (HR = 0.80; 95% CI. = 0.7-0.91; p < .001) if compared to other regimens (interaction test p = .004) [18], and this benefit was stage dependent (interaction p = .02). Currently, two issues should be considered: a) patients receiving > 300 mg/m2 of cisplatinum performed better than those receiving < 300 mg/m2. This featured patient subgroup overlaps for almost 65% with that of patients receiving vinorelbine, in comparison with half of those receiving other regimens. Whether the benefit of cisplatinum and vinorelbine depends on the combination of the 2 drugs or from higher cisplatinum dose cannot be easy established [18]; b) the planned schedule of cisplatinum was 50 mg/m2 day 1 and 8 in JBR10 and 100 mg/m2 day 1 in ANITA; vinorelbine in both trials was meant to be delivered 25-30 mg/m2 weekly for 4 cycles (16 doses).