Skip to main content

Table 3 Toxicity according to performance status and treatment

From: Efficacy and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in ECOG 2 patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a subgroup analysis of a randomized phase III trial

ToxicityECOG 2 groupECOG 0–1 grouppb
EP arm
(n = 31)
PC arm
(n = 40)
paEP arm
(n = 64)
PC arm
(n = 56)
pa
Hematological  0.663  0.7250.854
 Grade 3/410 (32.3%)11 (27.5%) 19 (29.7%)15 (26.8%)  
 Grade 1/221 (67.7%)29 (72.5%) 45 (70.3%)41 (73.2%)  
Esophagitis  0.078  0.0170.230
 Grade 38 (25.8%)4 (10.0%) 11 (17.2%)2 (3.6%)  
  < Grade 323 (74.2%)36 (90.0%) 53 (82.8%)54 (96.4%)  
Radiation pneumonitis  0.014  0.0660.428
  ≥ Grade 30 (0.0%)7 (17.5%) 7 (10.9%)1 (1.8%)  
  < Grade 331 (100.0%)33 (82.5%) 57 (89.1%)55 (98.2%)  
Gastrointestinal toxicity  0.327  0.2850.950
  ≥ Grade 33 (9.7%)8 (20.0%) 8 (12.5%)11 (19.6%)  
  < Grade 328 (90.3%)32 (80.0%) 56 (87.5%)45 (80.4%)  
Dermatological toxicity     0.5980.296
  ≥ Grade 30 (0.0%)0 (0.0%) 1 (1.6%)2 (3.6%)  
  < Grade 331 (100.0%)40 (100.0%) 63 (98.4%)54 (96.4%)  
  1. Abbreviations: EP etoposide/cisplatin, PC paclitaxel/carboplatin, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
  2. ap value for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between patients receiving EP and PC chemotherapy
  3. bp value for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between ECOG 2 group and ECOG 0–1 group