An EORTC Gastrointestinal Group phase III evaluation of combinations of methyl-CCNU, 5-fluorouracil, and adriamycin in advanced gastric cancer.

1987 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 1387-1393 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Lacave ◽  
J Wils ◽  
H Bleiberg ◽  
E Diaz-Rubio ◽  
N Duez ◽  
...  

In a prospective phase III multicenter trial, 189 patients with advanced measurable and nonmeasurable gastric cancer were randomized to receive 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) combined with Adriamycin (FA) or FA plus methyl-CCNU (MeFA). The response rate in patients with measurable disease was 10% (three of 29), and 18% (five of 28), respectively. No difference in the duration of survival was detected (P = .14; log rank test). Median survivals were 21 and 32 weeks, respectively. Toxicity was moderate, but there have been two toxic deaths among the patients who received FA. Because of the low response rate and the short survival, neither regimen can be recommended for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 827-831 ◽  
Author(s):  
J A Wils ◽  
H O Klein ◽  
D J Wagener ◽  
H Bleiberg ◽  
H Reis ◽  
...  

In a prospective phase III multicenter trial, 213 patients with advanced measurable or nonmeasurable gastric cancer were randomized to receive methotrexate (MTX), fluorouracil (5-FU), and Adriamycin (doxorubicin; Farmitalia Carlo Erba, Milan, Italy) (FAMTX) or 5-FU, Adriamycin, and mitomycin (FAM). The results show a significantly superior response rate (41% v 9% [P less than .0001]), and survival (median, 42 weeks v 29 weeks [P = .004]) for FAMTX. There was a cumulative thrombocytopenia in FAM and not in FAMTX. The FAMTX protocol should be the reference treatment in future clinical trials that seek to improve the therapeutic outcome in advanced gastric cancer.


2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Ohtsu ◽  
Yasuhiro Shimada ◽  
Kuniaki Shirao ◽  
Narikazu Boku ◽  
Ichinosuke Hyodo ◽  
...  

Purpose: To compare fluorouracil (FU) alone with FU plus cisplatin (FP) and with uracil and tegafur plus mitomycin (UFTM) for patients with advanced gastric cancer in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Patients and Methods: A total of 280 patients with advanced gastric cancer were randomly allocated and analyzed for survival, response, and toxicity. The survival curves were compared between groups by log-rank test on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: At the interim analysis, the UFTM arm showed a significantly inferior survival with higher incidences of hematologic toxic effects than did control arm FU alone, and the registration to UFTM was terminated. Both investigational regimens, FP and UFTM, had a significantly higher incidence of hematologic toxic effects than FU alone, although the effects were manageable. The overall response rates of the FU-alone, FP, and UFTM arms were 11%, 34%, and 9%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 1.9 months with FU alone, 3.9 months with FP, and 2.4 months with UFTM, respectively. Although FP demonstrated a higher response rate (P < .001) and longer progression-free survival than did FU alone (P < .001), no differences in overall survival were observed between the arms. The median survival times and 1-year survival rates were 7.1 months and 28% with FU, 7.3 months and 29% with FP, and 6.0 months and 16% with UFTM, respectively. Conclusion: Neither investigational regimen, FP nor UFTM, showed a survival advantage as compared with FU alone. FU alone will remain a reference arm in our future trial for advanced gastric cancer.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4015-LBA4015 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Sasako ◽  
T. Sano ◽  
S. Yamamoto ◽  
A. Nashimoto ◽  
A. Kurita ◽  
...  

LBA4015 Background: The INT-0116 study proved the efficacy of radiochemotherapy after R0 resection for gastric cancer and thus the importance of the local control and the insufficiency of D0/1 surgery. Recently D2 surgery was for the first time proven to improve the survival compared with D1 in a Taiwanese RCT (Lancet Oncol 2006). In our study, D2+PAND was compared with D2 in a RCT. Low operative mortality has been reported (Sano et al. J Clin Oncol 2004) and we now present the survival results. Methods: Eligibility criteria included; histologically proven adenocarcinoma, cT2b-T4, cM0, no macroscopic metastasis to the PAN, negative lavage cytology, adequate organ function, and age <76. Linitis plastica was excluded. Eligible pts were randomly assigned to D2 with or without PAND during surgery. All patients were followed without adjuvant therapy until recurrence. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) to be compared by stratified log-rank test. Assuming 256 eligible pts in each arm, the study had 75% power to detect 0.73 hazard ratio for D2+PAND to D2 in OS at 0.05 one-sided alpha. Results: Between 07/1995 and 04/2001, 523 pts were randomized (263 to D2 and 260 to D2+PAND). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the arms. At the time of the final analysis on 23/03/06, 191 (96 and 95, in D2 and D2+PAND, respectively) had died. The 3- and 5-year OS were 76% and 69% in D2 and 76% and 70% in D2+PAND, respectively (p = 0.57, Hazard ratio was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.77–1.37)). Disease free survival did not show any difference between the groups as well. Median operation time was 63 minutes longer and median blood loss was 230 ml larger in D2+PAND than in D2. There was no difference in the incidence of major surgical complications and hospital mortality (0.8% in both arms). Conclusions: D2 or D2+PAND could be carried out safely and showed excellent survival for advanced gastric cancer treated with curative intent. PAND could not improve the survival achieved by D2. General use of PAND should be avoided. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4514-4514 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Narahara ◽  
W. Koizumi ◽  
T. Hara ◽  
A. Takagane ◽  
T. Akiya ◽  
...  

4514 Background: S-1 has been widely used against advanced gastric cancer (AGC) not only as monotherapy but also in combination with other cytotoxic compounds. Results of a phase I/II study combining S-1 + cisplatin (CDDP) were very encouraging with a high response rate (RR) of 76%, and the MST (Median Survival Time) of 383 days (Koizumi W et al, Br J Cancer, 2003). Based on these results, a phase III study comparing S-1 alone with S-1 + CDDP has been conducted to further evaluate the efficacy and safety for S-1 + CDDP as a standard treatment for AGC. Methods: This is a randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel, multicenter study. Patients (pts) are randomized to one of two treatment arms. Arm A: Pts receive oral S-1 (40 mg/m2) twice daily 28 days followed by 14 days rest. Arm B: Pts receive oral S-1 (40 mg/m2) twice daily 21 days followed by 14 days rest plus CDDP (60 mg/m2) iv on day 8. Eligibility criteria included unresectable/recurrent AGC, age 20–74, no prior chemotherapy for AGC. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Main secondary endpoints included RR, time to treatment failure (TTF) and toxicity. Based on planned sample size of 284 pts, the trial was designed to have 90% power to detect an improvement in median OS from 8 to 12 months (2-sided log-rank test; significance level 0.05). Results: 305 pts (Arm A/B, 152/153) were randomized between Mar 2002 and Nov 2004. The eligible pts were 299 (Arm A/B, 150/149). Median age was 62.0/61.5 yrs. At a 2 yrs follow-up since last patient in, the MST for Arm A was 335.5 days (95%CI: 292.0 - 402.0) and for Arm B was 396.0 days (95%CI: 342.0 - 471.0). The OS for Arm B was superior to Arm A (log-rank p=0.0366, hazard ratio: 0.774, 95% CI: 0.608 - 0.985). RR was 31.1% for Arm A and 54.0% for Arm B. In Arm A vs Arm B, the most common grade 3/4 toxicities were: leucopenia, 2.0% vs 11.5%; neutropenia, 10.7% vs 39.9%; anemia (decreased Hb), 4.0% vs 25.7%; nausea, 1.3% vs 11.5%; anorexia, 6.0% vs 30.4%. No treatment related death was observed. Conclusions: The combination treatment of S-1 and CDDP met primary endpoint of OS, and was found to be effective and well tolerated in pts with AGC. Accordingly, this regimen can be regarded as one of first-line standard treatment for AGC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4544-4544
Author(s):  
A. Tsuburaya ◽  
H. Narahara ◽  
H. Imamura ◽  
K. Hatake ◽  
H. Imamoto ◽  
...  

4544 Background: IRI-S had longer in median survival time (MST) than S-1 alone, and was well tolerated in previously untreated AGC, but not statistically significant. Considering 68 patients (pts) were censored, further follow-up was needed to confirm the OS with more precision (Imamura et al. ASCO-GI 2008). We now present updated results of OS and exploratory analysis with the prolonged 2.5 year follow-up data. Methods: Treatments Arm A (oral S-1 80 mg/m2/day from Day 1 to 28, q6w), or Arm B (IRI-S; oral S-1 80 mg/m2/day from Day 1 to 21 and intravenous irinotecan 80 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 15, q5w) were continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities were observed. The primary endpoint was to compare OS between groups. This updated result was regarded as exploratory position. Results: Although the MST of Arm A was 319 days (95%Cl: 286–395) and of Arm B was 389 days (95%Cl: 324–459), Arm B didn’t show statistically significant superiority to Arm A (log-rank test p=0.54; hazard ratio (HR) =0.93). The 1-year survival was 45.0% in Arm A and 52.0% in Arm B, and the 2-year survival was 22.5% and 18.0%, respectively. Response rate was significantly different (Arm A/B, 26.9%/41.5%; chi-square test p=0.04) in 187 patient evaluated by RECIST criteria. Time to treatment failure was also favored in Arm B (median=138 days) compared to Arm A (111 days; log-rank test p=0.16; HR=0.85). In subset analyses, two groups showed possibility of clinical benefit in Arm B. The HR of diffuse type group was 0.71 (95%Cl: 0.52–0.96), and of PS1, 2 group was 0.63 (95%Cl: 0.42–0.95). As post protocol treatment, 45.6% of Arm A patients received an irinotecan-based regimen, and the MST of them was 496 days (95%Cl: 395–573). Conclusions: IRI-S did not show statistically significant superiority to S-1 alone in OS with this follow-up data. Post protocol treatment, effective treatment after S-1 failure might have affected survival. According to exploratory analyses, IRI-S may have clinical benefit in early-term of treatment, group of the diffuse type and that of PS1, 2. We need more considering predictive factors, because the gastric cancer is heterogeneous adenocarcinoma. [Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 388-388
Author(s):  
Ryohei Kawabata ◽  
Yukinori Kurokawa ◽  
Takaomi Hagi ◽  
Takeshi Omori ◽  
Jin Matsuyama ◽  
...  

388 Background: Although nivolumab demonstrated survival benefit and a manageable safety profile in previously-treated advanced gastric cancer in a phase III trial (ATTRACTION-2), the efficacy of nivolumab in real-world and predictive factors of responses to nivolumab for advanced gastric cancer remain unclear. We evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab and compared clinicopathological characteristics with responses to nivolumab and long-term survivals in patients with gastric cancer. Methods: 205 patients with unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer who were treated with nivolumab as 3rd or more line treatment were enrolled from 23 institutions. Tissue specimens were collected in 199 patients. PD-L1 expression of tumor specimens defined as tumor positive score (TPS) and combined positive score (CPS) and mismatch repair (MMR) were analyzed by immunohistochemistry. Tumor responses were assessed according to RECIST version 1.1. Hyper progressive disease (HPD) was defined as ≥two folds increase in tumor growth rate. Results: 138 out of 205 enrolled patients had measurable lesions. Response rate and HPD rate were 16.7% (23/138) and 22.0% (29/132), respectively. Response rate was significantly higher in patients with performance status (PS) 0-1, non-peritoneal diseases, CPS ≥10, and MMR deficient patients. On the other hand, PS 2-3 and liver metastases were predictive factors of HPD. Patients with CPS≥10 and MMR deficiency showed significantly better progression-free (P = 0.005, P = 0.001) and overall survivals (P = 0.005, P = 0.002). TPS showed no significant association with any outcomes. Conclusions: Real-world efficacy of nivolumab was shown in previously-treated advanced gastric cancer. CPS and MMR could be the useful biomarkers for the efficacy of nivolumab treatment as well as PS and metastasis site. Clinical trial information: UMIN000032164.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3043-3043
Author(s):  
Laurent Garderet ◽  
Simona Iacobelli ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Mamoun Dib ◽  
Denis Caillot ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3043 Introduction: The Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (TD) regimen has provided encouraging results in relapsed MM. To improve results, bortezomib (Velcade) has been added to the combination in previous phase II studies, the so called VTD regimen. In January 2006, the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) initiated a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label phase III, multicenter study, comparing VTD (arm A) with TD (arm B) for MM patients progressing or relapsing after autologous transplantation. Patients and Methods: Inclusion criteria: patients in first progression or relapse after at least one autologous transplantation, including those who had received bortezomib or thalidomide before transplant. Exclusion criteria: subjects with neuropathy above grade 1 or non secretory MM. Primary study end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included safety, response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Treatment was scheduled as follows: bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 was given as an i.v bolus on Days 1, 4, 8 and 11 followed by a 10-Day rest period (days 12 to 21) for 8 cycles (6 months) and then on Days 1, 8, 15, 22 followed by a 20-Day rest period (days 23 to 42) for 4 cycles (6 months). In both arms, thalidomide was scheduled at 200 mg/Day orally for one year and dexamethasone 40 mg/Day orally four days every three weeks for one year. Patients reaching remission could proceed to a new stem cell harvest. However, transplantation, either autologous or allogeneic, could only be performed in patients who completed the planned one year treatment period. Response was assessed by EBMT criteria, with additional category of near complete remission (nCR). Adverse events were graded by the NCI-CTCAE, Version 3.0.The trial was based on a group sequential design, with 4 planned interim analyses and one final analysis that allowed stopping for efficacy as well as futility. The overall alpha and power were set equal to 0.025 and 0.90 respectively. The test for decision making was based on the comparison in terms of the ratio of the cause-specific hazards of relapse/progression, estimated in a Cox model stratified on the number of previous autologous transplantations. Relapse/progression cumulative incidence was estimated using the proper nonparametric estimator, the comparison was done by the Gray test. PFS and OS probabilities were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier curves, the comparison was performed by the Log-Rank test. An interim safety analysis was performed when the first hundred patients had been included. The safety committee recommended to continue the trial. Results: As of 1st July 2010, 269 patients had been enrolled in the study, 139 in France (IFM 2005-04 study), 21 in Italy, 38 in Germany, 19 in Switzerland (a SAKK study), 23 in Belgium, 8 in Austria, 8 in the Czech republic, 11 in Hungary, 1 in the UK and 1 in Israel. One hundred and sixty nine patients were males and 100 females; the median age was 61 yrs (range 29–76). One hundred and thirty six patients were randomized to receive VTD and 133 to receive TD. The current analysis is based on 246 patients (124 in arm A, 122 in arm B) included in the second interim analysis, carried out when 134 events were observed. Following this analysis, the trial was stopped because of significant superiority of VTD over TD. The remaining patients were too premature to contribute to the analysis. The number of previous autologous transplants was one in 63 vs 60 and two or more in 61 vs 62 patients in arm A vs B respectively. The median follow-up was 25 months. The median TTP was 20 months vs 15 months respectively in arm A and B, with cumulative incidence of relapse/progression at 2 years equal to 52% (95% CI: 42%-64%) vs 70% (95% CI: 61%-81%) (p=0.0004, Gray test). The same superiority of arm A was also observed when stratifying on the number of previous autologous transplantations. At 2 years, PFS was 39% (95% CI: 30%-51%) vs 23% (95% CI: 16%-34%) (A vs B, p=0.0006, Log-Rank test). OS in the first two years was comparable in the two groups. Conclusion: VTD resulted in significantly longer TTP and PFS in patients relapsing after ASCT. Analysis of response and safety data are on going and results will be presented at the meeting. Protocol EU-DRACT number: 2005-001628-35. Disclosures: Niederwieser: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (31) ◽  
pp. 4991-4997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Vladimir M. Moiseyenko ◽  
Sergei Tjulandin ◽  
Alejandro Majlis ◽  
Manuel Constenla ◽  
...  

Purpose In the randomized, multinational phase II/III trial (V325) of untreated advanced gastric cancer patients, the phase II part selected docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF) over docetaxel and cisplatin for comparison against cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; reference regimen) in the phase III part. Patients and Methods Advanced gastric cancer patients were randomly assigned to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (day 1) plus fluorouracil 750 mg/m2/d (days 1 to 5) every 3 weeks or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 (day 1) plus fluorouracil 1,000 mg/m2/d (days 1 to 5) every 4 weeks. The primary end point was time-to-progression (TTP). Results In 445 randomly assigned and treated patients (DCF = 221; CF = 224), TTP was longer with DCF versus CF (32% risk reduction; log-rank P < .001). Overall survival was longer with DCF versus CF (23% risk reduction; log-rank P = .02). Two-year survival rate was 18% with DCF and 9% with CF. Overall response rate was higher with DCF (χ2 P = .01). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 69% (DCF) v 59% (CF) of patients. Frequent grade 3 to 4 toxicities for DCF v CF were: neutropenia (82% v 57%), stomatitis (21% v 27%), diarrhea (19% v 8%), lethargy (19% v 14%). Complicated neutropenia was more frequent with DCF than CF (29% v 12%). Conclusion Adding docetaxel to CF significantly improved TTP, survival, and response rate in gastric cancer patients, but resulted in some increase in toxicity. Incorporation of docetaxel, as in DCF or with other active drug(s), is a new therapy option for patients with untreated advanced gastric cancer.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Dror Michaelson ◽  
Stephane Oudard ◽  
Yen-Chuan Ou ◽  
Lisa Sengeløv ◽  
Fred Saad ◽  
...  

Purpose We evaluated angiogenesis-targeted sunitinib therapy in a randomized, double-blind trial of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Patients and Methods Men with progressive mCRPC after docetaxel-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg/d continuously or placebo. Patients also received oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS). Two interim analyses were planned. Results Overall, 873 patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib (n = 584) or placebo (n = 289). The independent data monitoring committee stopped the study for futility after the second interim analysis. After a median overall follow-up of 8.7 months, median OS was 13.1 months and 11.8 months for sunitinib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.914; 95% CI, 0.762 to 1.097; stratified log-rank test, P = .168). PFS was significantly improved in the sunitinib arm (median 5.6 v 4.1 months; HR, 0.725; 95% CI, 0.591 to 0.890; stratified log-rank test, P < .001). Toxicity and rates of discontinuations because of adverse events (AEs; 27% v 7%) were greater with sunitinib than placebo. The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (9% v 1%), asthenia (8% v 2%), and hand–foot syndrome (7% v 0%). Frequent treatment-emergent grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities were lymphopenia (20% v 11%), anemia (9% v 8%), and neutropenia (6% v < 1%). Conclusion The addition of sunitinib to prednisone did not improve OS compared with placebo in docetaxel-refractory mCRPC. The role of antiangiogenic therapy in mCRPC remains investigational.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document