Comparison Between Lymphoglobuline- and Thymoglobuline-Based Immunosuppressive Therapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Aplastic Anemia.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 3194-3194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Vallejo ◽  
Pau Montesinos ◽  
Ana Rosell ◽  
Salut Brunet ◽  
Raul Córdoba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hemoglobin Level ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Therapeutic Protocol ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Spanish Study ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Abstract 3194 Poster Board III-131 Background Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) is considered to be the first-line treatment in patients with severe aplastic anemia (AA) who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Most IST schemes are based on the combination of anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) plus cyclosporine A (CsA). Differently from other countries, two ATGs have been approved in Spain for AA from 2003 to 2007: Lymphoglobuline (LG) (raised in the sera of horses) and Thymoglobuline (TG) (produced in rabbits). So, during this period of time, the standard therapeutic protocol of the Spanish study group for AA included both options, and the physicians chose LG or TG based on their own wishes. Most published studies in AA are with LG, which is no longer manufactured. Recent limited data have confirmed therapeutic efficacy of TG, but no randomized studies have been performed comparing both products' activity. The aim of this report is to communicate the outcomes of a group of patients with AA who received either a LG- or TG-based scheme as first-line treatment. Patients and methods we retrospectively investigated the outcome of 110 patients with AA treated with IST at front line between 2003 and 2008. Thirty-five patients (32%) got LG (15 mg/kg/day/x5 days), and 75 patients (68%) got TG (2.5 mg/kg/day/x5 days). All patients also received methylprednisolone and CsA. Response rate (RR) was assessed at post-IST day +90, day +180, and day +365. If complete response (CR) was not reached, patients received a second course of IST, a second-line therapy (HSCT or androgens), or no treatment. When a second course of IST was employed, it included LG at the same dose as in the first course (15 mg/kg/day/x5 days), or TG at a higher dose (3.5 mg/kg/day/x5 days). CR was defined as a neutrophil count >1.5×109/L, a platelet count >100 ×109/L, and a hemoglobin level >120 g/L. Partial response (PR) was defined as a neutrophil count >0.5×109/L, a platelet count >20 ×109/L, and a hemoglobin level >80 g/L. Subgroup analyses were conducted and differences in response were tested using the chi-square statistic test. Results After the first course of IST, CR was achieved in 31 patients (28%) (group A), and PR in 20 patients (18%). Overall response (OR) was similar for both globulins (LG: 49%, TG: 45%). Thirty-five of the patients who did not reach CR after the first IST course, received a second course of IST (6 with LG and 29 with TG) (group B), and 44 patients underwent a different approach (second-line therapy or no treatment) (group C). After the second course of IST, 14 patients achieved CR (40%) and 11 patients PR (31%). OR was similar for LG (67%) and TG (72%). If we exclude patients in group C, the RR among the remaining 66 patients (who underwent 1 or 2 courses of IST) was 85% (68% CR, and 17% PR). No major drug-related toxicities were reported in the whole group of patients. Conclusions ATG-based schemes with both LG and TG were well tolerated as treatment of patients with AA. OR after first course of IST was similar in the LG and in the TG group (49% versus 45%). RR after second course of IST was also similar when LG and TG were employed (67% versus 72%). After excluding those patients who, not having reached CR after the first course, underwent an approach different from a second course of IST, RR to IST was 85%, with 68% of CR. No statistical differences were found based on the type of ATG administered. The results of this study show that TG is, at least, as effective as LG for the treatment of AA patients. Based on these and other recently published data, the current standard therapeutic protocol of the Spanish study group for AA includes TG at the dose of 3.75 mg/kg/day/x5 days for both the first and, if necessary, second course of IST. To our knowledge, no reports are available in the medical literature comparing the outcome of patients with AA who received LG or TG as the first-line therapy for AA. So, in spite of the fact that our study is retrospective and not randomized, we think our data are unique and very useful for helping physicians in switching from LG to TG. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Determinants of first-line treatment selection in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 468-468
Author(s):  
Hui-Li Wong ◽  
Ying Wang ◽  
Yaling Yin ◽  
Hagen F. Kennecke ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Treatment Selection ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Line Treatment

468 Background: Chemotherapy options currently available for the first-line treatment of advanced PDAC include FOLFIRINOX (FX), gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GP) and single agent gemcitabine (Gem). GP was introduced most recently and funded for clinical use in British Columbia (BC) in September 2014. In this retrospective analysis, we explore the impact of GP availability on first-line treatment selection and overall survival (OS) in advanced PDAC. Methods: The BC Cancer Agency provincial pharmacy database was used to identify patients (pts) who started FX, GP or Gem between January and August 2014 (pre-GP) or January and August 2015 (post-GP). Pts were eligible for inclusion if they received at least one cycle of first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. OS was defined as time from diagnosis of advanced PDAC to death and compared by treatment era, adjusting for age, ECOG, comorbidities, disease extent and baseline CA19-9. Results: 286 pts fulfilled eligibility criteria: 88 (31%) with locally advanced and 198 (69%) with metastatic disease. 131 and 155 pts were treated in the pre- and post-GP eras respectively. Prior to GP approval, 44% and 49% of pts received Gem and FX; this decreased to 21% and 33% after GP funding, with 46% of pts receiving GP in the latter period. Nine (7%) pts received GP in the pre-GP era, either through self-pay or addition of nab-paclitaxel after approval. There were no significant differences in pt characteristics across both eras. 46% of pts who received GP post approval had ECOG ≥ 2. The proportion of pts receiving second-line therapy was lower in the post-GP era (22% vs. 38%). Median OS in the post-GP era was 8.1 vs. 10.1 months in the pre-GP era; adjusted HR 1.28 (95% CI 0.96–1.71). Pts with ECOG ≥ 2 who received GP had a median OS of 6.5 months. Conclusions: After GP was funded, it became the preferred first-line regimen for advanced PDAC. Its more frequent use instead of FX did not appear to compromise overall survival even though a substantial proportion of pts were ECOG ≥ 2 and few pts received second-line therapy.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (36) ◽  
pp. 4317-4345 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Gordan ◽  
Erin B. Kennedy ◽  
Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa ◽  
Muhammad Shaalan Beg ◽  
Steven T. Brower ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

PURPOSE To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population. RESULTS Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

MYD88 (L265P) Mutation Confers Very Poor Response and Outcome after Second-Line Therapy in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1690-1690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Salar ◽  
Francesc Garcia-Pallarols ◽  
Concepcion Fernández-Rodríguez ◽  
Blanca Sánchez-González ◽  
Mari Carmen Vela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Poor Response ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Myd88 L265p Mutation ◽  
Myd88 L265p ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract BACKGROUND Somatic mutations in the myeloid differentiation primary response gene 88 (MYD88) have been described in B-cell lymphomas, including DLBCL. Our group has confirmed the remarkable site-specific occurrence of MYD88 mutations at some immune-privileged locations and, in addition, has described that DLBCL patients are at high risk of progression and death after first-line treatment, with independence of other well-known clinical prognostic factors (Leukemia 2014). AIMS To further analyze the clinical responsiveness and outcome after second-line treatment in DLBCL patients carrying MYD88 L265P. METHODS A series of 175 patients with DLBCL diagnosed at our institution between 2000 and 2013 were included. Inclusion criteria were: full clinical data available, treatment with remission intention, enough material for DNA extraction and absence of HIV infection. The presence of MYD88 L265P mutation was assessed by allele-specific oligonucleotides (ASO)-PCR in DNA samples extracted from FFPE tissue. RESULTS In 129 patients (74%) treatment consisted on rituximab plus CHOP or CHOP-like schedules, while the remaining cases received other treatments depending on their clinical requirements. With a median follow-up time of 57 months, progression free survival (PFS) at 5 years after first-line treatment was 57%. Twelve of these patients (9.3%) had MYD88 L265P mutation, and these patients had a significantly worse PFS that patients who did not (18% vs 59%, p=0.018). Overall survival (OS) at 5 years after first line treatment was 65% (17% vs 72%, with vs without MYD88 mutation, respectively; p=0.001). We further analyzed the outcome after second-line treatment in 32 cases: 6 patients had refractory disease (0 with MYD88 mutation) and 26 patients were in first relapse. Three out of 5 patients carrying MYD88 mutation and 25 out of 27 patients without MYD88 mutation were treated with chemotherapy. Only one out of 5 cases (20%) with MYD88 mutation responded to second-line therapy whereas response was observed in 16 out of 27 cases (59%) without MYD88 mutation(p=0.106). PFS at 4 years from starting second-line therapy was 0 % in cases with MYD88 DLBCL and 34% in those without MYD88 mutation (p=0.092). Moreover, OS at 4 years from starting second-line therapy was 0 % in cases with MYD88 DLBCL and 37% in those without MYD88 mutation (p=0.019)(Figure 1). CONCLUSION Our study shows that MYD88 L265P in DLBCL patients is not only associated to worse respond after first -line therapy, but also to a very poor response to second-line therapy, and consequently to a dismal outcome. New treatments are urgently needed for these patients. Acknowledgments: This study was supported in part by 2014SGR567 Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Lenvatinib as the key component of first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-148
Author(s):  
L. V. Bolotina
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
First Line Treatment

Throughout the last 10 years, liver cancer mortality rate in the Russian Federation consistently exceeded the morbidity rate, which is related to the complexity of early diagnostics, absence of effective screening and oncological alertness of allied-profession doctors. In the situation when late disease intelligence does not frequently allow radical treatment, palliative methods remain the only option of survivability enhancement and improving the patients quality of life. Lenvatinib was approved as the first-line drug in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma based on the data of the REFLECT trial, in which the drug demonstrated achieving the patients overall survival (OS) comparable to the activity of sorafenib (13.6 months for lenvatinib vs 12.3 months for sorafenib; hazard ratio HR 0.92; 95% confidence interval CI 0.791.06). At the same time, significant inferiority of lenvatinib was observed for secondary endpoints: progression-free survival PFS (7.4 months for lenvatinib vs 3.7 months for sorafenib; HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.570.77;р0.0001), time to progression (8.9 months for lenvatinib vs 3.7 months for sorafenib; HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.530.73;р0.0001) and objective response rate ORR (24.1% for lenvatinib vs 9.2% for sorafenib). The further analysis of the results of the REFLECT study revealed the additional factors impacting patients survival, such as the level of a-fetoprotein (AFP) before treatment, treatment ORR, performance of subsequent antitumor therapy and procedures after completion of the target first-line therapy. In patients responding to lenvatinib in the first line and further receiving any second-line therapy, the mOS was 25.7 months as compared with the median overall survival (mOS) of 22.3 months in patients responding to sorafenib and receiving further second-line therapy. Additionally, in responders switching from lenvatinib to sorafenib, the mOS was 26.2 months. In the recently published comparative study of lenvatinib and transarterial chemoembolization on the BCLC B stage, inferiority of lenvatinib was demonstrated in terms of OS, PFS and ORR in certain patient categories. Considering the data obtained in the REFLECT population, where in patients achieving the RR to the first-line treatment with lenvatinib and further receiving the local antitumor procedures the mOS increased to 27.2 months (95% CI 20.729.8), prescribing target and locoregional therapy in certain cases in this very sequence is possible. The recently published data about administration of lenvatinib outside of the inclusion criteria for the REFLECT trial, have proved the efficacy and safety of this drug administration in real clinical practice, thus significantly expanding our understanding of the key role of lenvatinib in the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Eligibility for second-line therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC): A BC Cancer population-based study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 491-491
Author(s):  
Erica S. Tsang ◽  
Janine Marie Davies ◽  
Jonathan M. Loree ◽  
Howard John Lim ◽  
Daniel John Renouf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

491 Background: Evidence supporting second-line therapies has become available for aHCC, including regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, and nivolumab. The optimal second-line treatment regimen is unknown, and there remains limited real-world data about the eligibility of patients for second-line therapies in aHCC. We aimed to characterize the real-world eligibility and use of second-line therapies post sorafenib. Methods: We identified all patients with aHCC who received ≥1 cycle of first-line sorafenib between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 across 6 centers in British Columbia (BC), Canada. All patients were required to be Child-Pugh class A for initiation of sorafenib in BC. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Eligibility for second-line therapy was determined using the RESORCE and CELESTIAL study entry criteria. Results: Of 144 patients with advanced HCC who received ≥1 cycle of first-line sorafenib, median age was 65.3 years (range 32.2-83.4) and 85% were male. Median duration of sorafenib was 2.6 months. 12 patients (8%) went on to receive second-line treatment. 37 patients (26%) were deemed eligible for second-line systemic therapy. Primary reasons for ineligibility included ECOG ≥2 (58%), and deterioration to Child-Pugh status B (28%). On Cox regression, improved survival was associated with better ECOG and recurrent disease. (Table). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that eligibility for second-line treatment was associated with improved median overall survival from end of first-line treatment (8.5 vs. 5.1 months; p<0.01). Conclusions: Only a minority of real-world patients with aHCC were eligible for second-line therapies based on second-line trial criteria. Given the high-rate of attrition, improved first-line treatment options are urgently needed. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and Toxicity of Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cong Ruan ◽  
Yue-Ping Che ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Hai-Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy. Result: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.

Characteristics, treatment patterns, and economic burden of patients with metastatic cervical cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 51-51
Author(s):  
Xiaoyun Pan ◽  
Lincy S. Lal ◽  
John White ◽  
Seyed Hamidreza Mahmoudpour ◽  
Christian Valencia
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Economic Burden ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Line Therapy

51 Background: In 2021, 14,480 patients are estimated to be diagnosed with cervical cancer in the US; 16% of patients are expected to have metastatic disease for whom the 5-year survival rate is 17.6% per SEER estimates. Patients with metastatic cervical cancer (mCC) are treated mainly with systemic therapy. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics, demographics, treatment patterns, and economic burden of patients with mCC receiving systemic therapy. Methods: Eligible women had been diagnosed with cervical cancer, as evidenced by >2 outpatient or >1 inpatient claim in the Optum Research Database from January 2014 through January 2020. Patients were included if they had metastasis within 6 months before or after cervical cancer diagnosis, with evidence of systemic treatment on or after the latter of a claim date for cervical cancer disease or metastatic disease. The index date was the first-line treatment initiation date. Patients were required to have ≥6 months of pre-index continuous enrollment. The top 3 treatment regimens and median treatment duration by line of therapy were described. All-cause per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs (2019 US dollars), including plan and patient paid amounts, were reported for full follow-up period from first-line and second-line therapy initiation. Results: The study sample consisted of 778 patients (mean age, 59 years; commercial, 58%; Medicare Advantage, 42%). The mean (median) follow-up period was 14 (9) months. Top baseline comorbidities were diseases of the urinary system (71%) and diseases of the female genital organs (70%), and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7. In the first line, 80% of patients received platinum-based therapy and 23% received bevacizumab (bev). Of 778 patients, only 294 (38%) received second-line therapy, with 34% receiving bev. Top first-line treatment regimens were carboplatin + paclitaxel (27%), cisplatin (21%), and bev + carboplatin + paclitaxel (10%); the median (95% CI) duration of treatment was 3.4 (3.1-3.7) months. Top second-line treatment regimens were bev + carboplatin + paclitaxel (13%), carboplatin + paclitaxel (11%), and pembrolizumab (6%); the median duration of treatment was 3.8 (3.1-4.2) months. Mean all-cause total PPPM costs were $19,519 from first-line and $22,660 second-line therapy initiation (table). Conclusions: This study indicates that real-world mCC patients have short treatment durations and significant economic burden with first-line and second-line therapy. Novel therapies associated with greater clinical benefits in patients with mCC may provide economic benefit.[Table: see text]

Impact on second-line treatment after failure of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination chemotherapy in extensive-disease small cell lung cancer: Experience of the Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20590-e20590
Author(s):  
Yuka Kato ◽  
Taku Noumi ◽  
Kazuhiko Saeki ◽  
Kiichiro Ninomiya ◽  
Toshio Kubo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Extensive Disease ◽  
To Receive ◽  
First Line Treatment

e20590 Background: For patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC), amrubicin monotherapy is an important therapy in the treatment of recurrence, but there has been no adequate evaluation of how effective it actually is after failure of first-line chemotherapy including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). Therefore, the purposes of this study are to determine the proportion of patients who received amrubicin monotherapy in the treatment of relapse after first-line treatment with ICI (arm A) and to investigate the efficacy of amrubicin therapy after arm A compared with after chemotherapy without ICI (arm B). Methods: Consecutive 40 pts with ED-SCLC NSCLC were retrospectively assessed who underwent ICI-containing chemotherapy (n = 19) or standard cytotoxic chemotherapy (n = 21) in the 1st-line setting between 2017 and 2020. Results: In arm A, 3 of 19 patients (16%) were still on first-line ICI maintenance therapy, 2 (2/19; 11%) had ICI treatment adverse events (interstitial pneumonia, cardiopulmonary arrest), and 1 patient could not receive second-line therapy due to a decrease in performance status (PS) to 3. In arm B, 11 of 21 patients (52%) did not receive amrubicin as second-line therapy, including 1 patient with worsening PS, 1 patient with adverse events (hematologic toxicity), 1 patient refusal, and 6 patients with combination of ICI and chemotherapy. 23 patients (arm A; 13 (57%), arm B; 10 (43%)) were able to receive amrubicin monotherapy, including 7 patients (6 cases vs 1 case) were sensitive relapses, and 16 (7 vs 9 cases) were refractory relapses. There was no significant difference in either PFS or survival after first-line treatment in 16 patients with refractory relapse who received amrubicin as second-line treatment (PFS: 4.8 vs 5.2 months, p = 0.51), (median survival after first-line treatment: 9.6 vs 12.8, p = 0.75). Conclusions: Patients who received ICI in the first-line treatment were fully eligible to receive amrubicin in the second-line treatment. The recurrence pattern tended to be sensitive relapse and we found that the efficacy of amrubicin in refractory relapse was not affected by the administration of ICI in the first-line treatment.

Intravenous vinorelbine as first-line and second-line therapy in advanced breast cancer.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2722-2730 ◽  
Author(s):  
B L Weber ◽  
C Vogel ◽  
S Jones ◽  
H Harvey ◽  
L Hutchins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

PURPOSE We evaluated single-agent intravenous (IV) vinorelbine as first- and second-line treatment for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients who were not resistant to anthracyclines. Objective tumor response (TR) and toxicity were assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 107 women were enrolled onto this multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label phase II study. Patients were stratified into first- and second-line treatment groups, based on prior treatment history. Vinorelbine was initially given at 30 mg/m2/wk, with dose modification for toxicity as indicated. Therapy was continued until disease progression or severe toxicity mandated withdrawal or until the patient asked to be removed from the study. RESULTS The objective response rate for all patients was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25% to 44%): 35% (95% CI, 23% to 48%) for first-line patients and 32% (95% CI, 20% to 47%) for second-line patients. Nine first-line and three second-line patients obtained a complete response (CR). The median duration of objective response was 34 weeks in both groups. The overall survival durations of first- and second-line patients were 67 weeks and 62 weeks, respectively. Granulocytopenia was the predominant dose-limiting toxicity. Two patients died on study as a result of granulocytopenic sepsis. CONCLUSION Single-agent vinorelbine is an effective and well-tolerated agent for first- and second-line therapy of ABC. The results of this study confirm the findings of similar international trials and suggest vinorelbine should be considered a valid treatment option for patients with ABC and a potential component in future combination regimens for this disease.

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab beyond first progression in advanced colorectal cancer: CCOG-0801 study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 641-641
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Keisuke Uehara ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Akiharu Ishiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

641 Background: Bevacizumab provides survival benefit as the first-line and second-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A large observational study suggested use of bevacizumab beyond first progression (BBP) improved survival. This prompted us to conduct a multicenter phase II study of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizimab in mCRC to further explore the strategy of BBP in Japanese patients. Methods: Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab until tumor progression, followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. The primary endpoint of the study was the second progression-free survival (2nd PFS), defined as duration from enrollment until progression after the second-line therapy. If the patient failed to receive the second-line treatment due to medical reasons or refusal, the PFS during the first-line therapy was used for analysis. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: In the first-line therapy, 47 patients treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab achieved RR of 61.7%, DCR of 89.4% and median PFS of 11.7 months. Thirty patients went on to receive the second-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and achieved RR of 27.6%, DCR of 62.1%, and median PFS of 6.0 months. Median 2nd PFS was 16.2 months. Median survival time did not reach the median follow-up time of 27.4 months. Severe adverse events associated with bevacizumab during the first-line therapy were a venous thromboembolic event in one case (2%), a grade 2 bleeding event in one case (2%) and GI perforation in one case (2%). However, no critical events associated with bevacizumab were reported during the second-line therapy. Conclusions: The planned continuation of bevacizumab during the second line treatment is feasible in Japanese mCRC patients. A prospective randomized control study to confirm the efficacy has to be conducted in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document