Randomized Phase III Trial of Fluorouracil Alone Versus Fluorouracil Plus Cisplatin Versus Uracil and Tegafur Plus Mitomycin in Patients With Unresectable, Advanced Gastric Cancer: The Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG9205)

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Ohtsu ◽  
Yasuhiro Shimada ◽  
Kuniaki Shirao ◽  
Narikazu Boku ◽  
Ichinosuke Hyodo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Toxic Effects ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
Free Survival

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.

Combined analysis of three randomized phase III trials comparing S-1 monotherapy and S-1 combination therapy for first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 49-49
Author(s):  
Madoka Takeuchi ◽  
Wataru Ichikawa ◽  
Kohei Shitara ◽  
Yu Sunakawa ◽  
Koji Oba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

49 Background: S-1 is the gold standard for first line therapy of advanced gastric cancer in Asia. There have been multiple meta-analyses published researching and comparing the efficacy and safety of S-1 monotherapy versus combination1,2. However there has been no analysis using actual trial data. Methods: Actual data from three randomized Phase III trials were combined to compare the efficacy of S-1 Monotherapy and S-1 combination therapy. The START trial, comparing S-1 and combination S-1 with docetaxel, SPIRITS, comparing S-1 and combination S-1 with cisplatin and TOP-002, comparing S-1 and S-1 combination with irinotecan, were merged and combined. For this analysis, the three S-1 arms were combined (n = 642) and the different S-1 combination therapy were combined (n = 617) creating two new treatment arms. The primary efficacy outcome of overall survival, progression free survival and subset analysis of overall survival stratified by baseline characteristics were performed. Results: A total of 1248 patients, including 210 Korean patients from the START were used in the analysis. The median overall survival days for S-1 combination and monotherapy was 382 [209, 648] and 321 [177, 597] and median progression free survival days for S-1 combination and monotherapy was 153 [81, 267] and 122 [61, 204]. Both overall survival (p = 0.0088 HR = 0.85 (0.76,0.96)) and progression free survival ( p = < 0.001 HR = 0.75 (0.67,0.85)) was significantly longer in the combination therapy arm compared to the monotherapy arm. Conclusions:Although there are limitations, the analysis re-confirms that S-1 combination therapy shows to be more efficacious compared to S-1 monotherapy for advanced gastric cancer patients. It must be noted that heterogeneity of the S-1 arm was not carefully considered when combining the S-1 data for the trials. In addition, the results are limited to the Asian (Japanese and Korean) population.

Phase III Study of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Versus Radiotherapy Alone for Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Positive Effect on Overall and Progression-Free Survival

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 631-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Ching Lin ◽  
Jian-Sheng Jan ◽  
Chen-Yi Hsu ◽  
Wen-Miin Liang ◽  
Rong-San Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Concurrent Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a radiosensitive and chemosensitive tumor. This randomized phase III trial compared concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) versus radiotherapy (RT) alone in patients with advanced NPC. Patients and Methods: From December 1993 to April 1999, 284 patients with 1992 American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III to IV (M0) NPC were randomly allocated into two arms. Similar dosage and fractionation of RT was administered in both arms. The investigational arm received two cycles of concurrent chemotherapy with cisplatin 20 mg/m2/d plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m2/d by 96-hour continuous infusion during the weeks 1 and 5 of RT. Survival analysis was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were comparable in both arms. After a median follow-up of 65 months, 26.2% (37 of 141) and 46.2% (66 of 143) of patients developed tumor relapse in the CCRT and RT-alone groups, respectively. The 5-year overall survival rates were 72.3% for the CCRT arm and 54.2% for the RT-only arm (P = .0022). The 5-year progression-free survival rates were 71.6% for the CCRT group compared with 53.0% for the RT-only group (P = .0012). Although significantly more toxicity was noted in the CCRT arm, including leukopenia and emesis, compliance with the combined treatment was good. The second cycle of concurrent chemotherapy was refused by nine patients and was delayed for ≥ 1 week for another nine patients. There were no treatment-related deaths in either arm. Conclusion: We conclude that CCRT is superior to RT alone for patients with advanced NPC in endemic areas.

Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial of Sequential High-Dose Methotrexate, Fluorouracil, and Doxorubicin Versus Etoposide, Leucovorin, and Fluorouracil Versus Infusional Fluorouracil and Cisplatin in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Cooperative Group

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 2648-2657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Vanhoefer ◽  
Philippe Rougier ◽  
Hansjochen Wilke ◽  
Michel P. Ducreux ◽  
Angel J. Lacave ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Tumor Regression ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
European Organization

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of etoposide, leucovorin, and bolus fluorouracil (ELF) or infusional fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FUP) with that of the reference protocol of fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (FAMTX) in advanced gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 399 patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach were randomized and analyzed for toxicity, tumor response, and progression-free and overall survival. Only reviewed and confirmed responses were considered. The analysis of remission was based on assessable patients with documented measurable lesions. The intent-to-treat principle, log-rank test, and Cox regression model were used for the statistical analysis of time-to-event end points. RESULTS: The overall response rate for 245 eligible patients with measurable disease was 9% with ELF, 20% with FUP, and 12% with FAMTX, with no significant differences. One hundred twelve patients were eligible for efficacy in assessable, nonmeasurable disease. No change was observed in 66% of patients treated with ELF, 56% with FUP, and 55% with FAMTX. Two patients achieved a complete tumor regression (one each for ELF and FAMTX). With a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, the median survival times were 7.2 months with ELF, 7.2 months with FUP, and 6.7 months with FAMTX, respectively, with no significant differences. Nonhematologic and hematologic toxicities of ELF, FUP, and FAMTX were acceptable, with neutropenia being the major toxicity for all three regimens. Seven treatment-related deaths occurred (two with FUP and five with FAMTX). CONCLUSION: All three investigated regimens demonstrate modest clinical efficacy and should not be regarded as standard treatment for advanced gastric cancer. New strategies should be considered to achieve a better clinical efficacy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

PaFLO: Pazopanib with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FLO) as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer: A randomized phase II study of the  Arbeitsgemeinschaft internistische Onkologie (AIO).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4138-TPS4138
Author(s):  
Kirstin Breithaupt ◽  
Dmitry Bichev ◽  
Mario Lorenz ◽  
Daniela Bohnen ◽  
Yasemin Dogan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Remission Rate ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Clinicopathological Parameters ◽  
Free Survival

TPS4138 Background: VEGF inhibition in gastric cancer shows promising improvement of remission rate and progression-free survival (Ohtsu et al., JCO 2011). Pazopanib is an orally available tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) selectively inhibiting VEGFR-1, -2, -3, c-kit and PDGFR. It is approved for treating renal cell cancer. A phase-I trial showed good tolerability of pazopanib with full-dose FOLFOX in solid tumors (Brady et al., ASCO, 2009). FLO is a widely used combination for advanced gastric cancer recommended in national guidelines. Methods: 75 Patients with HER-2-negative locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or the gastro-esophageal junction will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to A: FLO (F 2600mg/m2 as 24h infusion, L 200mg/m2, O 85 mg/m2) d1 + pazopanib (800mg) d1-14 and B: FLO; repeated for 12 2-week cycles, followed by a maintenance therapy with pazopanib alone in A and an observation period in B until disease progression. Primary endpoint is progression-free survival rate (PFSR) at 6 months, secondary endpoints are PFSR at 9 and 12 months, median PFS, response rate, duration of response, toxicity, tolerability and overall survival. Additionally, we evaluate the predictive and prognostic relevance of PIGF, VEGF, and the respective soluble receptors sVEGFR1 and sVEGFR2 as biomarkers for clinicopathological parameters, clinical response to treatment and tumor volume change. Based on a phase-III trial demonstrating a 6-month PFSR of 44% with FLO (Al-Batran et al., 2008), we estimate a 6-month PFSR of 55% in the experimental group. Given an alpha error of 0.1 and a beta error of 0.2 in a Simon 2-stage minimax design, in the first stage ≥12 of 30 patients need to be progression free at 6 months to continue and after the second stage ≥25 of 50 patients should be progression free at 6 months to justify further evaluation. Randomization is performed to estimate selection bias according to pazopanib-specific exclusion criteria for comparison with historical data. Study protocol received ethics committee approval in November 2011 and is currently recruiting patients in 15 AIO centers.

Retrospective cohort analysis of real-world clinical outcomes in nonmetastatic (M0) castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) treated with novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 51-51
Author(s):  
Richard Gagnon ◽  
Nimira S. Alimohamed ◽  
Alexander Watson ◽  
Eugene Batuyong ◽  
Alyssa Chow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Real World ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
Free Survival

51 Background: The landscape of M0 CRPC has changed with the recent demonstration of metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) improvements with the use of ARPIs in clinical trial settings. However, the extrapolation of this data to clinical practice is limited by strict exclusion criteria in these trials, including prior or concurrent malignancy, cardiovascular disease, or hypertension. The purpose of this study was to assess real-world outcomes in patients with M0 CRPC treated with ARPIs compared to historical controls. Methods: We designed a retrospective cohort study with the inclusion of patients in Alberta, Canada diagnosed with M0 CRPC between 2001-2020. Via chart review, we identified baseline characteristics, potential confounders, treatment details, and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome of interest was MFS. Secondary outcomes included: second progression-free survival (PFS2) and OS. Median survival times were measured using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test was used for comparison of outcomes based on ARPI exposure. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) accounting for impact of PSA doubling time (PSADT), use of osteoclast inhibiting agents, and presence of pelvic lymphadenopathy. Results: We identified 211 patients across multiple centres in Alberta with M0 CRPC, with 54 having received apalutamide (40/54), enzalutamide (7/54), or darolutamide (7/54). Median age at M0 CRPC diagnosis was 74 years; median PSADT was 4.4 months; and 19% of patients (40/211) had pelvic lymphadenopathy at diagnosis. Median MFS in patients treated with ARPIs was 47.5 months compared to 20.6 months in those not treated with ARPIs (HR, 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.49; p < 0.001). Median PFS2 in ARPI treated patients was 66.3 months compared with 35.6 months (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.87; p = 0.022). Median OS for patients treated with ARPI was not reached. Conclusions: Given the older age of men with advanced prostate cancer, real-world outcomes that include patients with comorbidities are important adjuncts to the interpretation of clinical trials exploring the benefit of novel therapeutics. Here, we demonstrate that in a real-world, unselected population of men with M0 CRPC, apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide seem to confer similar MFS and PFS2 benefits to those demonstrated in the SPARTAN, PROSPER, and ARAMIS studies. Real-world OS data remain immature and will be an important addition to these findings.

scholarly journals Three-year outcomes of the randomized phase III SEIPLUS trial of extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage for locally advanced gastric cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Guo ◽  
Aman Xu ◽  
Xiaowei Sun ◽  
Xuhui Zhao ◽  
Yabin Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Peritoneal Lavage ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Disease Recurrence ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer

AbstractWhether extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL) after gastrectomy is beneficial to patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is not clear. This phase 3, multicenter, parallel-group, prospective randomized study (NCT02745509) recruits patients between April 2016 and November 2017. Eligible patients who had been histologically proven AGC with T3/4NxM0 stage are randomly assigned (1:1) to either surgery alone or surgery plus EIPL. The results of the two groups are analyzed in the intent-to-treat population. A total of 662 patients with AGC (329 patients in the surgery alone group, and 333 in the surgery plus EIPL group) are included in the study. The primary endpoint is 3-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints include 3-year disease free survival (DFS), 3-year peritoneal recurrence-free survival (reported in this manuscript) and 30-day postoperative complication and mortality (previously reported). The trial meets pre-specified endpoints. Estimated 3-year OS rates are 68.5% in the surgery alone group and 70.6% in the surgery plus EIPL group (log-rank p = 0.77). 3-year DFS rates are 61.2% in the surgery alone group and 66.0% in the surgery plus EIPL group (log-rank p = 0.24). The pattern of disease recurrence is similar in the two groups. In conclusion, EIPL does not improve the 3-year survival rate in AGC patients.

scholarly journals Hyperprogressive disease during nivolumab or irinotecan treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer

ESMO Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. e000488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiko Aoki ◽  
Hirokazu Shoji ◽  
Kengo Nagashima ◽  
Hiroshi Imazeki ◽  
Takahiro Miyamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Poor Prognosis ◽  
Tumour Growth ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Hyperprogressive Disease

BackgroundNivolumab showed a survival benefit for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, an acceleration of tumour growth during immunotherapy, (hyperprogressive disease, HPD) has been reported in various cancers. This study reviewed the HPD in patients with AGC treated with nivolumab or irinotecan.MethodsThe subjects of this retrospective study were patients with AGC with measurable lesions, and their tumour growth rates (TGR) during nivolumab or irinotecan were compared with those during prior therapy. HPD was defined as an increase in TGR more than twofold.Results34 and 66 patients received nivolumab and irinotecan in third or later line between June 2009 and September 2018 at our hospital; 22 patients receiving nivolumab had prior treatment with irinotecan, and one patient received irinotecan after nivolumab. Nivolumab and irinotecan showed no differences in disease control rates (38.2% and 34.8%) and in progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6, p=0.802). The incidence of HPD was slightly higher after nivolumab (29.4%) than after irinotecan (13.5%) (p=0.0656), showing no differences in background between the patients with and without HPD. Compared between HPD and PD other than HPD after nivolumab, the HRs for PFS and overall survival (OS) were 1.1 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.7; p=0.756), and 2.1 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.8; p=0.168), but such clear difference in OS was not observed after irinotecan.ConclusionsHPD was observed more frequently after nivolumab compared with irinotecan, which was associated with a poor prognosis after nivolumab but not so clearly after irinotecan.

Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Tipifarnib Compared With Gemcitabine Plus Placebo in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 1430-1438 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Van Cutsem ◽  
H. van de Velde ◽  
P. Karasek ◽  
H. Oettle ◽  
W.L. Vervenne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose To determine whether addition of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib (Zarnestra, R115777; Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Beerse, Belgium) to standard gemcitabine therapy improves overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared gemcitabine + tipifarnib versus gemcitabine + placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously untreated with systemic therapy. Tipifarnib was given at 200 mg bid orally continuously; gemcitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then weekly × 3 every 4 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points included 6-month and 1-year survival rates, progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. Results Six hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. No statistically significant differences in survival parameters were observed. The median overall survival for the experimental arm was 193 v 182 days for the control arm (P = .75); 6-month and 1-year survival rates were 53% and 27% v 49% and 24% for the control arm, respectively; median progression-free survival was 112 v 109 days for the control arm. Ten drug-related deaths were reported for the experimental arm and seven for the control arm. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia grade ≥ 3 were observed in 40% and 15% in the experimental arm versus 30% and 12% in the control arm. Incidences of nonhematologic adverse events were similar in two groups. Conclusion The combination of gemcitabine and tipifarnib has an acceptable toxicity profile but does not prolong overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer compared with single-agent gemcitabine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document