scholarly journals Phase II study of an oxaliplatin-based regimen for relapsed colon cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy (INSPIRE study)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keiichiro Ishibashi ◽  
Toru Aoyama ◽  
Masahito Kotaka ◽  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
Yasushi Tsuji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Peripheral Sensory ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapy with re-introduction of oxaliplatin (OX) more than 6 months after adjuvant chemotherapy including OX. Methods Stage II/III colon cancer patients with neuropathies of grade ≤ 1 who relapsed more than 6 months after adjuvant chemotherapy including OX were considered eligible. Eligible patients were treated with 5-fluorouracil, l-leucovorin and OX plus molecularly targeted agents or capecitabine and OX plus bevacizumab (BV) or S-1 and OX plus BV. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and toxicity. Results A total of 50 patients were enrolled between September 2013 and May 2019. Twelve patients received 5-fluorouracil, l-leucovorin and OX (FOLFOX) plus BV, 21 patients received capecitabine and OX plus BV, 10 patients received S-1 and OX plus BV and 7 patients received FOLFOX plus cetuximab or panitumumab. The median PFS was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.3–16.0), the median OS was 45.4 months (95% CI 37.4–NA), and the RR was 56.0% (95% CI 42.3–68.8). Adverse events of grade ≥ 3 that occurred in ≥ 5% of cases were neutropenia in 6 patients (12%), peripheral sensory neuropathy in 5 patients (10%), diarrhea in 4 patients (8%), hypertension in 4 patients (8%), anorexia in 3 patients (6%) and allergic reactions in 3 patients (6%). Conclusions First-line chemotherapy with re-introduction of OX more than 6 months after adjuvant chemotherapy including OX can be used safely with expected efficacy for relapsed colon cancer patients.

Evaluation of the re-introducing FOLFOX or XELOX ± bevacizumab in relapsed colorectal cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin as adjuvant chemotherapy (REACT study).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 634-634
Author(s):  
Shigeyoshi Iwamoto ◽  
Masahito Kotaka ◽  
Taro Ikumoto ◽  
Daisuke Sakai ◽  
Toshihiro Kudo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Past History ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients ◽  
React Study

634 Background: Chemotherapy in relapsed colon cancer patients (pts) treated with oxaliplatin as adjuvant chemotherapy is under debate. REACT study aimed to investigate the efficacy of re-introducing FOLFOX or XELOX ± bevacizumab therapy for recurrent colorectal cancer pts after adjuvant chemotherapy including oxaliplatin. Methods: Pts with past history of adjuvant chemotherapy including oxaliplatin (FOLFOX, XELOX or SOX) with a cumulative dose of more than 400 mg/m2, and recurrence observed by imaging after more than 6 months post adjuvant chemotherapy participated in this trial. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR). Key secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: A total of 31 pts were enrolled between Oct 2012 and Oct 2016. Of 29 eligible pts, 7 received FOLFOX ± bevacizumab, and 22 received XELOX ± bevacizumab. 28 of the pts received bevacizumab. The RR was 66.7% (95% CI, 46.0-83.5) and the DCR was 88.9% (95% CI, 70.8-97.6). The RR for oxaliplatin free-interval was 100.0% (n = 4, 95% CI, 39.8-100.0) in 6 to 12 months, 60.9% (n = 25, 95% CI, 38.5-80.3%) over 12 month, respectively. Median PFS, TTF and OS were 10.9 months (95% CI, 7.0-19.0), 6.3 months (95% CI, 2.8-8.0) and 29.1 months (95% CI, 20.3-53.3). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was hypertension (19.4%). Grade 3 or worse peripheral sensory neuropathy developed only two pts (6.5%). Allergic reactions occurred in 12.9% of the pts, with one (3.2%) grade 3 episode. There were no other severe treatment-related adverse events. Conclusions: Re-introduction of oxaliplatin was feasible and achieved high RR or DCR in after more than 6 months post adjuvant chemotherapy including oxaliplatin. Clinical trial information: UMIN000006523.

scholarly journals Randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III study of eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients (pts) with leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and adipocytic sarcoma (ADI).

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA10502-LBA10502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Schöffski ◽  
Robert G. Maki ◽  
Antoine Italiano ◽  
Hans Gelderblom ◽  
Giovanni Grignani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Peripheral Sensory

LBA10502 Background: In a phase II study of pts with advanced soft tissue sarcoma, 32% and 47% of pts with LMS and ADI respectively, treated with the microtubule dynamics inhibitor eribulin achieved progression-free survival (PFS) at the 12 wk timepoint (Schöffski et al. Lancet Oncol. 2011; NCT00413192). Based on these findings, this phase III study (NCT01327885) compared overall survival (OS) in pts with advanced LMS and ADI treated with eribulin or dacarbazine. Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 yrs with advanced high/intermediate grade LMS or dedifferentiated, myxoid, round cell or pleomorphic variants of ADI incurable by surgery and/or radiotherapy were enrolled. Pts had ECOG status ≤ 2 and had received ≥ 2 standard systemic treatment regimens including an anthracycline. Pts were randomized 1:1 to eribulin (1.4 mg/m2, IV on D1 and D8) or dacarbazine (850–1200 mg/m2, IV on D1) every 21 days until disease progression. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included PFS, PFS rate at Wk 12 and safety. Results: Overall, 452 pts (67% female; 79% < 65 yrs) were randomized (228 eribulin; 224 dacarbazine). Median OS for eribulin and dacarbazine was 13.5 and 11.5 months, respectively (HR = 0.768, 95% CI 0.618–0.954; P= 0.017). PFS was 2.6 months in both arms (HR = 0.877, 95% CI 0.710–1.085; P= 0.229). PFS rate at Wk 12 was 33% and 29% for eribulin and dacarbazine, respectively. In eribulin and dacarbazine arms, respectively, 26% and 14% of pts required dose reductions and 8% and 5% discontinued due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). TEAEs were more frequent in eribulin than dacarbazine arm, including neutropenia (44% vs 24%), pyrexia (28% vs 14%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (20% vs 4%) and alopecia (35% vs. 3%); as were TEAEs of grade 3 (63% vs 53%), grade 4 (26% vs 20%), and fatal TEAEs (4% vs 1%). Thrombocytopenia was more frequent in dacarbazine than eribulin arm (28% vs 6%). Conclusions: This phase III trial of eribulin trial met its primary objective of OS benefit in pretreated pts with advanced LMS or ADI. Eribulin had a toxicity profile consistent with prior experience, with no unexpected or new safety findings. Funding Source: Eisai Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT01327885.

Mecobalamin as a Neuroprotective Effector against Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy in Colon and Rectal Cancer Patients

Care Weekly ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Li Hongyan ◽  
Lu Wanting ◽  
Li Fei
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Case Group ◽  
Colon And Rectal Cancer ◽  
Grade 3

Palliative chemotherapy prolongs survival and improves quality of life. However, a variety of chemotherapeutics including oxaliplatin can cause severe side effects during treatments, leading to painful symptoms that might result in the interruption of cancer treatment. Although adding oxaliplatin to fluorouracil and leucovorin in adjuvant chemotherapy for colon and rectal cancer may improve disease-free survival, it also increases grade 3–4 sensory neuropathy. Our study aimed to determine whether oral Mecobalamin is neuroprotective against oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy. Forty-six stage III colon and rectal cancer patients receiving adjuvant biweekly oxaliplatin were randomized to oral Mecobalamin (1,500 mg; case group) or placebo (control group). Clinical neurological and electrophysiological evaluations were performed at baseline and after 4, 8, and 12 treatment cycles. Treatment-related toxicity was evaluated based on National Cancer Institute (NCI) criteria. After four cycles of chemotherapy, 9 of 23 patients in the control group and 8 of 23 patients in case group experienced grade 1 sensory neuropathy. After eight cycles, 13 patients experienced sensory neuropathy (grade 2–4 toxicity) in the control group; however, no patients in the case group experienced sensory neuropathy (P < 0.05). After 12 cycles, grade 2–4 sensory neuropathy was observed in 20 patients in the control group, but only in 4 patients in the case group (P < 0.05). We did not observe any significant electrophysiological changes in the case group after 4, 8, or 12 cycles of chemotherapy. Thus, we demonstrated that oral Mecobalamin reduces the incidence of neuropathy in colon and rectal cancer patients receiving oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

Phase III Trial of Epirubicin Plus Paclitaxel Compared With Epirubicin Plus Cyclophosphamide As First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Trial AB01

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (33) ◽  
pp. 8322-8330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth E. Langley ◽  
James Carmichael ◽  
Alison L. Jones ◽  
David A. Cameron ◽  
Wendi Qian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Survival Time ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Purpose To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of epirubicin and paclitaxel (EP) with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods Patients previously untreated with chemotherapy (except for adjuvant therapy) were randomly assigned to receive either EP (epirubicin 75 mg/m2 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2) or EC (epirubicin 75 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) administered intravenously every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. The primary outcome was progression-free survival; secondary outcome measures were overall survival, response rates, and toxicity. Results Between 1996 and 1999, 705 patients (353 EP patients and 352 EC patients) underwent random assignment. Patient characteristics were well matched between the two groups, and 71% of patients received six cycles of treatment. Objective response rates were 65% for the EP group and 55% for the EC group (P = .015). At the time of analysis, 641 patients (91%) had died. Median progression-free survival time was 7.0 months for the EP group and 7.1 months for the EC group (hazard ratio = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.24; P = .41), and median overall survival time was 13 months for the EP group and 14 months for the EC group (hazard ratio = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.19; P = .8). EP patients, compared with EC patients, had more grade 3 and 4 mucositis (6% v 2%, respectively; P = .0006) and grade 3 and 4 neurotoxicity (5% v 1%, respectively; P < .0001). Conclusion In terms of progression-free survival and overall survival, there was no evidence of a difference between EP and EC. The data demonstrate no additional advantage to using EP instead of EC as first-line chemotherapy for MBC in taxane-naïve patients.

Phase II trial of oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Digestive Group of French Federation of Cancer Centers.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 2739-2744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Bécouarn ◽  
M Ychou ◽  
M Ducreux ◽  
C Borel ◽  
F Bertheault-Cvitkovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients ◽  
Peripheral Sensory

PURPOSE To evaluate the objective tumor response rate and safety profile of oxaliplatin when administered to patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 39 patients were entered onto this phase II trial. One patient was excluded for having had a second cancer, so the study was based on 38 patients. Patients were treated with oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion on day 1, every 21 days. Patients were assessed for response every three courses. All clinical and radiologic data were reviewed by an external panel of experts, with their assessment being considered definitive. RESULTS Nine partial responses (PRs) were observed (response rate, 24.3%; 95% confidence interval, 11.8% to 41.2%). The median duration of response was 216+ days. Fifteen patients (40.5%) had stable disease and 13 (35.2%) had progressive disease. The median progression-free survival time for all patients was 126+ days (range, 21 to 447+). The main toxicity was peripheral sensory neuropathy. Grade 3 neurotoxicity (National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria [NCI-CTC]) was reported in 13%. Hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities were mild. The incidence of grade 3 neutropenia was 5.2%, while that of grade 3 or 4 thrombopenia was 7.9%. Vomiting (grade 3 or 4) occurred in 7.9% of patients and grade 3 diarrhea in 2.6%. CONCLUSION This phase II study provides clear evidence of the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin monotherapy at this dose and schedule in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

Efficacy of chemotherapy in patients with recurrent pancreatic cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 466-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Ohba ◽  
Hideki Ueno ◽  
Yuji Inagaki ◽  
Yasunari Sakamoto ◽  
Shunsuke Kondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Lower Percentage ◽  
First Line ◽  
Recurrent Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

466 Background: Gemcitabine (GEM) plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) are standard first-line chemotherapy regimens for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) patients. GEM and S-1 are also used for these patients in Japan. However, the phase 3 trials included a small proportion of recurrent pancreatic cancer (RPC) patients, and patients who had received adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In clinical practice, RPC is treated in the same way as MPC. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy between RPC and MPC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the patients with RPC or MPC who received GnP, FFX, GEM, or S-1 as first-line chemotherapy between January 2014 and March 2016 in our institution. RPC was defined as pancreatic cancer with recurrence after R0 or R1 resection. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and disease control rate (DCR) were evaluated. Multivariate analyses of OS were performed with the use of a Cox proportional-hazard model. Results: A total of 181 patients, 40 RPC and 141 MPC, were selected in this study. RPC and MPC groups were similar with respect to age, sex, and performance status (PS). However, the RPC group had lower percentage of liver metastases (P < 0.001). The regimens were GnP/FFX/GEM/S-1: 10/3/20/7 in the RPC group and 37/34/67/3 in the MPC group, respectively. In the RPC group, 31 of 40 patients had received adjuvant chemotherapy; S-1/GEM: 24/7. The median OS was 16.6 months in the RPC group as compared with 9.7 months in the MPC group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.10, P = 0.11). The median PFS was 4.8 months in the RPC group and 4.4 months in the MPC group (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57–1.30, P = 0.47). The RR was 10% versus 14% (P = 0.79), the DCR was 50% versus 52% (P = 0.86), in the two groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed PS (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.38–3.49) and liver metastases (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.47–2.34) were independent predictors of OS. On the other hand, RPC or MPC was not found to be an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67–2.13). Conclusions: It is suggested that chemotherapy in RPC may have similar efficacy compared to MPC. The relatively longer OS in the RPC group seems to associate with the lower percentage of liver metastases.

Phase II study of sequential first-line pazopanib (PAZ) followed by everolimus (EVE) in patients (pts) with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (CATChEz Study).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 648-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul L. de Souza ◽  
Shirley Wong ◽  
Sanjeev Sewak ◽  
Dusan Kotasek ◽  
Bhumsuk Keam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Anticancer Treatment ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Metastatic Rcc

648 Background: EVE following failure of sorafenib or sunitinib for RCC was first approved by the FDA in 2009. CATChEz (NCT01545817) was designed to test the activity of EVE following first-line PAZ in pts with advanced or metastatic RCC who had not received prior systemic therapy. Methods: From 2012 to 2016, pts received first-line PAZ followed by EVE until progressive disease (PD), death, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal, or study termination. Pts with PD during or within 6 months of stopping PAZ were eligible for EVE. Pts off study treatment were evaluated for PD, survival, and updates on anticancer treatment every 8 weeks until death or end of study. The primary efficacy endpoint was median progression-free survival (mPFS) for the second-line EVE treatment period; secondary endpoints included other survival measures, and safety evaluations were for second-line EVE and grade 3/4 toxicities attributable to PAZ and EVE. Results: Of 74 pts who started first-line PAZ, 38 received ≥1 dose of second-line EVE. The primary endpoint of mPFS from the start of second-line EVE and the secondary endpoint of mPFS with first-line PAZ (Table) were consistent with previous reports; no unexpected adverse events (AEs) were reported. All pts had ≥1 treatment-emergent AE, 83.8% had grade ≥3 AEs, and 71.6% had serious AEs. Of 34 total deaths, 29 were due to PD and 5 were due to AEs (2 related to EVE [lower respiratory tract infection; pulmonary sepsis]; 3 unrelated to study treatment). Conclusions: Efficacy and safety outcomes were consistent with published phase III data. The CATChEz study supports sequential first-line use of PAZ followed by EVE for the treatment of pts with advanced or metastatic RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT01545817. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Post first-line dacarbazine or temozolomide in neuroendocrine carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 498-505
Author(s):  
Thomas Couronne ◽  
Paul Girot ◽  
Julien Hadoux ◽  
Thierry Lecomte ◽  
Alice Durand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Unknown Primary ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Morphological Response ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Morphological Responses ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Objective First-line chemotherapy in metastatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) is based on etoposide and platinum. However, there is no standard concerning second-line treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerance of dacarbazine or temozolomide in metastatic digestive NEC as post first-line treatment. Material and methods This study included patients with a metastatic NEC of digestive or unknown primary site. All patients received platinum-etoposide as first-line chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were clinical/morphological responses, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). Results Twenty-seven patients were included: 17 received dacarbazine and 10 temozolomide as post-first line treatments. Median PFS was 3.0 (95%CI (2.2;3.7)) months. There was no significant difference between dacarbazine and temozolomide on PFS. Clinical and morphological responses were found in 12 and 9 patients, respectively. Median OS was 7.2 (95%CI (2.2;12.2)) months. The toxicity profile was that expected with such treatments. Conclusion LV5FU2-dacarbazine or temozolomide-capecitabine chemotherapies allow a temporary clinical response for almost half of patients and/or a morphological response for a third of patients.

A randomized trial of capecitabine (C) given intermittently (IC) rather than continuously (CC) compared to classical CMF as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer (ABC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1031-1031 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Stockler ◽  
T. Sourjina ◽  
P. Grimison ◽  
V. Gebski ◽  
M. Byrne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Intensive Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Logrank Test ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

1031 Background: Intensive treatment is not indicated for many women having first line chemotherapy for ABC. We sought to determine for such women whether oral C was preferable to classical CMF, and whether C given continuously (CC) was preferable to the same total dose given intermittently for 14 of every 21 days (IC). Methods: 325 women were randomized between June 01 and July 05 to either IC (2,000mg/m2/d for 14 of every 21d), or CC (1,300mg/m2/d for 21 of every 21d), or CMF (cyclophosphamide 100mg/m2/d p.o. d1–14; methotrexate 40mg/m2 and 5-FU 600mg/m2, IV d1&8, every 28d). Treatment was continued until disease progression (PD), unacceptable toxicity, or intolerance. Clinical and quality of life (QOL) assessments were 3–4 wkly, and imaging was 3 monthly, both until PD. The primary endpoint was quality adjusted progression-free survival (QAPFS). Overall survival (OS), PFS, response rates (RR=CR+PR), QOL, acceptability of chemotherapy and adverse events (AE) were secondary endpoints. The analysis plan was to first compare IC v CC, and if p>0.05, then to combine the two arms (C = IC + CC) for comparisons v CMF. Primary analyses were with the logrank test. Cox’s models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and to adjust for other factors. All p-values and CI are 2-sided. Results: OS was longer with C than CMF (HR .72, CI .55 to .94, p=.02, medians 22 v 18 mo). PFS was similar for C and CMF overall (HR .86, CI .67 to 1.1, p=.2, median 7 mo), and over the first 6 mo (HR 1.15, CI .81 to 1.6), but longer on C than CMF beyond 6 mo (HR .62, CI .44 to .87). Response rates were similar on C and CMF (21% v 18%, p=.8). Febrile neutropenia, infection, and sore mouth were more common on CMF; hand-foot syndrome was more common on C. Chemotherapy was continued beyond 6 mo in 40% on C but only 21% on CMF. PFS, OS, RR and AE were similar for IC and CC (p>0.4). Cox’s models adjusting for baseline factors corroborated all results and conclusions. Analyses of QAPFS, QOL, and acceptability of chemotherapy will be available in June 07. Conclusion: C improved overall survival with less toxicity and greater tolerability than classical CMF. C is a good first line option when more intensive treatment is not indicated. [Table: see text]

Cisplatin and capecitabine with and without docetaxel as a first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic gastric carcinoma: Single clinical experience.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15194-e15194
Author(s):  
Mekhty Narimanov ◽  
Alexey Tryakin ◽  
Varlam Zarkua ◽  
Igor Bazin ◽  
August Garin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Carcinoma ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Median Number ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

e15194 Background: Cisplatin and capecitabine and docetaxel are active agents for treatment of metastatic gastric carcinoma. We underwent analysis of efficacy and toxicity of douplet (CX ) and triplet (DCX) regimens which were used in our department as a first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic gastric carcinoma. Methods: Pts with metastatic gastric carcinoma were nonrandomly allocated to DCX regimen (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, capecitabine 1650 mg/m2 per os days 1-14) or CX regimen (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, capecitabine 2000 mg/m2 per os days 1-14 ). Up to 6 cycles were provided every 3 weeks. G-CSF was not routinely used for primary prophylaxis. Results: From 2008 to 2012 81 pts were included in the study (DCX – 37 pts, CX – 44 pts). Pts characteristics were similar in both groups (table 1). Median number of cycles in both groups was 5 (range, 1-6). Grade 3-4 toxicity (per cycle) in DCX and CX groups were neutropenia 24,9% and 16,1%, deep venous thrombosis – 2% and 0%, diarrhea – 6.2% and 7,4%, stomatitis – 3.8% and 2,2%, infection – 11% and 0%, anemia 14% and 13,5% pts, respectively. No toxic deaths were observed. Median progression-free survival (PFS) in DCX and CX were 7,5 months (95% CI 6,1-8,9) and 5,4 months (95% CI 5,0-6,2; p=0.0009), median overall survival (OS) 14,5 months (95% CI 10,1-18,9) and 9,3 months (95% CI 9,2-10,2; p=0.0018), respectively. Conclusions: Addition of docetaxel to the combination of cisplatin and capecitabine associates with significant improvement of PFS and OS. Higher rate of infection requires use of G-CSF in primary prophylaxis. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document