Combination procarbazine and temozolomide for temozolomide-resistant adult gliomas

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11503-11503
Author(s):  
P. Kavan ◽  
F. Huang ◽  
D. Roberge
Keyword(s):  
Glioblastoma Multiforme ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Clinical Progression ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade Ii ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Palliative Setting

11503 Background: As Temozolomide has become incorporated in the first line treatment of glioblastoma multiforme as well as the salvage therapy of many low-grade gliomas, we are increasingly faced with Temozolomide failures. There is currently no standard second-line chemotherapy for Temozolomide-resistant tumors. In what is usually a palliative setting, toxicity and convenience are important considerations in the choice of a second-line regimen. Methods: We reviewed our experience with a combination oral regimen for Temozolomide failure. The regimen consisted of a 28-day cycle with Procarbazine given at 100–150mg/m2/d on days 1–5, and Temozolomide at 150mg/m2/d on days 1–5. This was initiated at the time of radiological and/or clinical progression while on Temozolomide, and continued until further progression or toxicity was documented. Results: 12 patients, median age 52 (range 38–68), were treated with concomitant Procarbazine and Temozolomide at our institution since November 2004. All patients had histologically confirmed gliomas (glioblastoma multiforme (10), grade II oligodendroglioma (1), grade II oligoastrocytoma (1)), and all had undergone prior maximal safe resection and external beam radiotherapy. All patients were receiving Temozolomide, either in the adjuvant setting (after concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in 6 of 12), or as salvage monotherapy for recurrence. No patient met the RECIST criteria for PR. Patients progressed after a median of 2 cycles (range: 1–10) but the 6-month actuarial progression-free survival was 40% (80% of patients with SD had glioblastoma multiforme). No Grade 3 or 4 toxicity was seen. No patient discontinued treatment because of toxicity. The Procarbazine dose was prophylactically reduced (75mg/m2/d) in one patient with poor hematological tolerance to prior chemotherapy. Conclusions: The combination of Procarbazine and Temozolomide given in a 28-day cycle is a well-tolerated oral second-line regimen for glioma patients failing Temozolomide. The activity of this regimen is modest but prolonged progression-free survival can be seen. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals RTID-05. INDIGO: A GLOBAL, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PHASE 3 STUDY OF VORASIDENIB (AG-881) VS PLACEBO IN PATIENTS WITH RESIDUAL/RECURRENT GRADE II GLIOMA WITH AN ISOCITRATE DEHYDROGENASE 1/2 (IDH1/2) MUTATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii194-ii194
Author(s):  
Ingo Mellinghoff ◽  
Martin van den Bent ◽  
Jennifer Clarke ◽  
Elizabeth Maher ◽  
Katherine Peters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Who Grade ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade Ii

Abstract BACKGROUND Low-grade gliomas (LGGs; WHO grade II) are incurable and ultimately progress to high-grade gliomas. The current treatment options are surgery followed by observation (“watch and wait”) for patients with lower risk for disease progression or postoperative chemoradiotherapy (high-risk population). There are no approved targeted therapies. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations (mIDH1/2) occur in approximately 80% and 4% of LGGs, respectively, and promote tumorigenesis via neomorphic production of D-2-hydroxyglutarate. Vorasidenib, an oral, potent, reversible, brain-penetrant pan-inhibitor of mIDH1/2, was evaluated in 76 patients with glioma in two phase 1 studies (dose escalation and perioperative) and was associated with a favorable safety profile at daily doses below 100 mg. Preliminary clinical activity was observed in non-enhancing glioma patients in both studies, with an objective response rate (ORR) of 18.2% and median progression-free survival of 31.4 months in the dose escalation study. METHODS Approximately 366 patients will be randomized 1:1 to vorasidenib (50 mg QD) or matched placebo and stratified by 1p19q status (intact vs co-deleted). Key eligibility criteria: age ≥ 12 years; grade II oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma (per WHO 2016 criteria) not in need of immediate treatment and without high-risk features; centrally confirmed mIDH1/2 status; ≥ 1 surgery for glioma with most recent ≥ 1 year but ≤ 5 years before randomization, and no other anticancer therapy; Karnofsky performance status ≥ 80%; and centrally confirmed measurable, non-enhancing disease evaluable by magnetic resonance imaging. Crossover from placebo to the vorasidenib arm is permitted upon centrally confirmed radiographic progression per RANO-LGG criteria. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival assessed by independent review. Secondary endpoints: safety and tolerability, tumor growth rate assessed by volume, ORR, overall survival, and quality of life. Clinical data will be reviewed regularly by an independent data monitoring committee. The study is currently enrolling patients in the US, with additional countries planned (NCT04164901).

Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel as Second-Line Chemotherapy following FOLFIRINOX in Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Single-Institution, Retrospective Analysis

Chemotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Kotone Hayuka ◽  
Hiroyuki Okuyama ◽  
Akitsu Murakami ◽  
Yoshihiro Okita ◽  
Takamasa Nishiuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis. FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been established as first-line treatment, but they have not been confirmed as second-line treatment after FFX. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GnP as second-line therapy after FFX in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twenty-five patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were enrolled. The patients were treated with GnP after FFX between September 2015 and September 2019. Tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of adverse events were evaluated. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The response rate, disease control rate, median PFS, and median OS were 12%, 96%, 5.3 months, and 15.6 months, respectively. The common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (76%) and anemia (16%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> GnP after FOLFIRINOX is expected to be one of the second-line recommendations for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Biweekly Raltitrexed in Combination with Irinotecan (RIR) as Second-Line Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Non-Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Trial.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Cheng ◽  
Yu-Wen Zhou ◽  
Ye Chen ◽  
Zhi-Ping Li ◽  
Meng Qiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background Irinotecan-based doublet chemotherapy strategy was standard second-line backbone treatment for patients with oxaliplatin‑refractory metastatic colorectal cancer(mCRC). The aim of this study was to evaluate tolerability and efficacy of raltitrexed combined with irinotecan biweekly administered as the second-line therapy for mCRC patients.Methods The study was a single-center, non-randomized, open-label phase II trial. Patients with mCRC after failure with first-line treatment of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine or its derivatives were enrolled. Irinotecan (180 mg/m2) and raltitrexed (2.5 mg/m2) were given intravenously on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoints included overall response rate, disease control rate, overall survival and treatment related adverse events. Results Between December 2012 and October 2016, 35 patients were enrolled. 33 and 35 patients were assessed for response and safety, respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) was 8.6 %, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 71.4%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months (95% CI 3.8–5.2). The median overall survival was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.5–15.5). Four patients received conversion therapy to no evidence of disease (NED), and 2 patients were still alive with beyond 24 months survival. The most common grade 3/4 hematological adverse events were leukopenia (8.6%), neutropenia (5.7%). The most common grade 3/4 nonhematological adverse events were anorexia (14.3%), vomiting (14.3%), nausea (11.4%) and fatigue (8.6%). Two patients discontinued the protocol treatment because of treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events. No one died from treatment-related events. The incidence and severity of toxicity was irrelevant to UGT1A1 status.Conclusions The combination of irinotecan with raltitrexed is an active, convenient and acceptable toxic regimen for second-line treatment for mCRC patients, which needs further study as a chemotherapy backbone to be combined with targeted agents in mCRC.Trial registration No. ChiCTR-ONC-12002767. The study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry at 29 Octorber 2012, http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx.

Patient Outcomes with Proteosome Inhibitor Bortezomib in Multiple Myeloma at an English District General Hospital

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 5745-5745
Author(s):  
Anil Vaikunth Kamat ◽  
Tariq Shafi ◽  
Raphael A. Ezekwesili
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Second Primary Malignancies

Abstract Bortezomib is a targeted proteosome inhibitor licensed & approved for in multiple myeloma both as first line and in relapsed setting. This is a retrospective non experimental cross sectional quantitative comparative group study using clinical case notes, laboratory & pharmacy records for patients treated with Bortezomib in 2011 & 2012. Outcomes studied included remission status, adverse events, progression free survival and overall survival at follow up. The study also looked at the comparative responses of cohort of patients administered Bortezomib through intravenous & subcutaneous route. The cohort consisted of 33 patients, 21 male, 11 female, median age 71 years, first line 10 patients, second line 23 , median number of cycles in 2011 & 2012 – first line 3 & 8 , second line 5 & 4, respectively. In 2011, 8 received intravenous treatment, 9 were switched from intravenous to subcutaneous route whilst all patients from 2012 received subcutaneous Bortezomib. The most frequently used regimen was Bortezomib Dexamethasone ( VD). The overall response rate ( ORR >/= Minor Response) was: First line 70% (7/10) ; Second line 47.8% ( 11/23); median PFS ( Figure 1) 6 months ( First line: 7 months ; Second line : 6 months) and median overall survival ( Figure 2) at follow up: 9 months ; 39.4 % ( 13/33) First line 8.5 months, Second line 11 months. Subcutaneous Bortezomib was equivalent to intravenous Bortezomib in terms of efficacy & tolerance. Of 33 patients, there were 12 dose reductions. Adverse events reported included: peripheral Neuropathy - grade 3 - 6% ( all grades 27.3%); Diarrhoea - grade 3 - 3% (all grades 6%); Nausea / Vomiting - grade 3 - 3% ( all grades 6%) and Second Primary Malignancies - 12% ( 4 of 33). Mortality at follow up was 20 patients from cohort of 33 ; causes included disease progression in 11, second primary malignancy with disease progression in 4, COPD 2, Systemic Amyloidosis 2, Tuberculosis 1 , Multiple co morbidities 1 and Asthma with mechanical failure in single patient. Second primary malignancies ( 4/33) included Prostate carcinoma ( 1), Renal Cell Carcinoma (1), Neuroendocrine tumour ( 1 ) and Unknown Primary in single patient. Beyond second line treatment, majority (14 of 23 patients; 60.9 %) did not have further active treatment. These data indicate that patient outcomes were modest compared to published data from VISTA and APEX trials. Majority of patients did not have further active treatment beyond second line which suggests the most effective treatment strategy should be used upfront as patients may not be fit to have further lines of therapy despite availability of recently introduced novel targeted agents. A higher percentage of second primary malignancies were noticed in this cohort which should be an area of further clinical research. Figure 1: Progression free survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 1:. Progression free survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 2: Overall survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 2:. Overall survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of second-line palliative chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus raltitrexed and paclitaxel alone in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma: A randomized phase II trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4054-4054 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoying Zhao ◽  
Weijian Guo ◽  
Zhiyu Chen ◽  
Xiaowei Zhang ◽  
Xiaodong Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Peripheral Neurotoxicity ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
P 75 ◽  
Grade 3

4054 Background: Paclitaxel is a microtubule stabilizing agent that has been the standard second line chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. This study was designed to find out the clinical outcome of paclitaxel plus raltitrexed regimen as second line treatment in MGC patients. Methods: In an open, randomized, multi centers phase II clinical trial , 148 patients were randomly assigned and treated with either RP (raltitrexed 3 mg/m2 d1 and paclitaxel 135mg/m2 d1,3w) or P (paclitaxel 135mg/m2 d1,3w) as second-line palliative chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is PFS, secondary endpoint is ORR, OS and safety. Results: In 148 randomly assigned and treated patients (RP = 73; P = 75), the majority of patients were males (94 vs. 54). Progression free survival has a tendency to be prolonged with RP versus P (2.7m vs. 1.7m, p = 0.148). Overall survival also has a tendency to be prolonged with RP versus P (10.2m vs. 6.1m, p = 0.140). Overall response rate was equal with RP versus P (6.8% vs.4.0%, p = 0.72). DCR in the RP group was 56.2%, P group was 36.0%. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 36.2% (RP) v 28.2% (P) of patients. Frequent grade 3 to 4 toxicities for RP v P were: neutropenia (11.0% v 4.0%), anemia (1.4% v 4.0%), thrombocytopenia (1.4% v 5.3%), and all grade peripheral neurotoxicity (12.3% v 17.3%),all grade elevated aminotransferase (27.4% v 14.1%). Subgroup analysis shows if the disease combined with ascites or peritoneal involved , OS of RP regimen is more longer (p = 0.05). Conclusions: Second-line palliative chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus raltitrexed provides a tendency to prolong PFS and OS, and the patients with ascites or peritoneal involved may get benifits from combined chemotherapy, which needs to be confirmed by larger sample studies. Clinical trial information: NCT02072317.

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 A comparison of FOLFIRI (Folinic Acid, Fluorouracil and Irinotecan) Plus Bevacizumab and FLOLFIRI Plus Aflibercept as Second-Line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-Sang Lee ◽  
Yong-Pyo Lee ◽  
Hongsik Kim ◽  
Jung Yong Hong ◽  
Jeeyun Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients

Abstract Background: To date, there are few clinical studies comparing the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab or aflibercept in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (mCRC) pretreated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Methods: We analyzed the treatment outcomes of patients receiving FOLFIRI in combination with bevacizumab or aflibercept as second-line treatment for mCRC between October 2017 and March 2020. This analysis included 67 patients receiving FOLFIRI plus aflibercept and 83 receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. Results: The overall response rate (ORR) was 13.6% (95% CI: 4.85-22.34) in the FOLFIRI-aflibercept group and 14.7% (95% CI: 6.68-22.71) in the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab group. This difference in ORR was not statistically significant. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 8.6 months in the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab group and 8.5 months in the FOLFIRI-aflibercept group (P = 0.752) (Fig. 1). Patients in the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab group showed a median overall survival (OS) of 12.4 months, while patients in the FOLFIRI-aflibercept group had a median OS of 13.7 months (P = 0.276). There were no significant differences in survival between the two treatment groups. The adverse events were also largely similar between the two groups. However, hypertension of grade 3 or more was more frequent in the FOLFIRI-aflibercept group. Conclusion: FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and FOLFIRI plus aflibercept had similar anti-tumor activities and toxicity profiles when used as second-line therapy in mCRC patients. Based on these data, both aflibercept and bevacizumab are suitable anti-angiogenic agents when used in combination with FOLFIRI for mCRC.

scholarly journals Impact of Early Switching to Nilotinib As Second Line TKI in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Who Were Intolerant to, Suboptimal to and Failed Imatinib: The Thai Multi-Centered Study

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4267-4267
Author(s):  
Pongtep Viboonjuntra ◽  
Arnuparp Lekhakula ◽  
Kanchana Chansung ◽  
Chittima Sirijerachai ◽  
Pimjai Niparuck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction : To date, the ELN recommendation and NCCN guidelines are the principle mile stones to follow up the treatment response and to make the decision of TKIs switching. However, in real life practice, many factors influence changing the real switching date from the date had an indication. This study aims to analyze the impact of early switching to second line TKI, nilotinib, in real life practice, for the CML patients who failed, had sub-optimal response or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods : This prospective study was conducted through 7 medical centers in Thailand between 1st of September 2009 and 31st of August 2011. Adult CML patients of age ≥ 18 years old, in chronic and accelerated phase, who had failure, suboptimal response or intolerance to imatinib, based on ELN 2009 guideline, were included and were eligible with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. Prospective data collection for 24 months of each patient was performed. The main objective was to identify the impact of early switching to nilotinib on major molecular response (MMR). The other objectives were to observe the efficacy of nilotinib including overall survival, progression free survival and the safety. The survival results were presented as Kaplan-Meier survival curves. For the comparison of the treatment groups, the Kaplan-Meier estimator with the corresponding log-rank test for equality of survivor functions across treatment group was applied. Results : The final 108 cases were analysed. The median age was 47 (17-79) years with the proportion of male to female of 1.4:1 respectively. The median duration of the prior imatinib treatment was 18 months (2-142 months). The median duration between the date of indication and the date of real switching was 3.1 months (0-62.8 months) with 50% changing less than 3 months, 26.9% between 3 months and 12 months, and 23.1% changing longer than 12 months. The indication of switching included 63.6% failure to imatinib, 29% intolerance to imatinib and 7.4% suboptimal to imatinib. On the nilotinib switching, 70.4% completed 24 months follow-up, and 29.6% discontinued treatment mostly because of unsatisfactory results or adverse events. Evaluation was made every 3 months based on 2009 ELN recommendation. At 3 months, 57%, 20%, and 8% of the patients achieved CHR, CCyR and MMR, respectively. Those who did not achieve CHR at 3 months never achieved MMR, while 86 % of those who achieved CCyR at 3 months achieved MMR. All CML achieving MMR at 3 months had sustained MMR throughout the study period (24 months). Imatinib suboptimal response had better outcome than imatinib failure and imatinib intolerance groups. A preliminary analysis of BCR-ABL mutation was performed on 90 cases, and mutations were found on 21 cases. Two of them were T315I which were excluded from the study. The cases with mutation had poorer response to treatment than those without mutation. There was one case with initial G250E mutation developing T315I mutation after treatment with nilotinib. At 24 months, one case progressed to accelerated phase and 3 cases progressed to blastic transformation. The 2-year overall survival and 2-year progression-free survival and were 98.9% and 96.9% (figure 1 and 2), respectively. The interquatile analysis was done to identify the groups of cumulative MMR according to the duration between the date of indication and the date of real switching to nilotinib. The patients who switched to nilotinib within 12 months after date of indication could have a greater chance to achieved MMR than those who switched treatment later than 12 months (p(log-rank) = 0.002) (figure 3). Skin rash, musculoskeletal pain, and infection were the three most common non-hematologic adverse events, However, most of them were grade 1-2, except for 4 cases with grade 3-4 infections. Grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events included thrombocytopenia (12%), neutropenia (11%), anemia (5%) and leucopenia (4%), and most of them were manageable. Although biochemical abnormalities were commonly found, most of them were mild. Conclusions : Nilotinib, as a second line treatment showed excellent efficacy and tolerability. Indication for nilotinib treatment, initial mutation status and depth of response at 3 months after treatment can predict outcomes of the patients. However, the patients will have a greater chance to achieve MMR if they switched to nilotinib within 12 months after the date of indication for changing. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of second-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine after progression on FOLFIRINOX for unresectable or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: multicenter retrospective analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592092342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heejung Chae ◽  
Hyehyun Jeong ◽  
Jaekyung Cheon ◽  
Hong Jae Chon ◽  
Hyewon Ryu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Treatment Option ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3

Background: FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan plus oxaliplatin) is an effective standard first-line treatment option for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). There is no clear consensus on the second-line treatment following progression on FOLFIRINOX. In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of second-line nab-P/Gem (nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine) after progression on FOLFIRNOX in PDAC. Methods: Patients with unresectable or metastatic PDAC who received nab-P/Gem after progression on FOLFIRINOX between February 2016 and February 2019 were identified from five referral cancer centers in South Korea. Baseline characteristics, treatment history, survival outcomes, and toxicity profile were obtained retrospectively from medical records. Results: A total of 102 patients treated with second-line nab-P/Gem for advanced PDAC after progression on FOLFIRINOX were included. At the time of nab-P/Gem, the median age was 60 years, with males comprising 49.0%, and most (75.5%) had metastatic disease. Patients received a median of three cycles (range 1–12) of nab-P/Gem. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of second-line nab-P/Gem therapy were 9.8 (95% CI, 8.9–10.6) and 4.6 months (3.7–5.5), respectively. A partial response was achieved in 8.5%, and the disease control rate was 73.6%. From the start of first-line FOLFIRIOX, the OS1+2 and PFS1+2 were 20.9 (15.7–26.1) and 13.9 (10.8–17.0) months, respectively, with a 2-year survival rate of 45.1%. There was no treatment-related mortality and grade ⩾3 toxicity was observed in 60.2%. Conclusion: Our results showed that nab-P/Gem was an effective and tolerable second-line treatment option in medically fit patients with advanced PDAC who progressed on first-line FOLFIRNOX. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04133155

Second-line pemetrexed–oxaliplatin combination for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15597-e15597
Author(s):  
M. Mazzer ◽  
E. Zanon ◽  
L. Foltran ◽  
F. De Pauli ◽  
G. Cardellino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Full Sample ◽  
Ca 19.9 ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Α Level ◽  
Vitamin B12 Supplementation

e15597 Background: Few regimens showed efficacy in advanced pancreatic cancer patients (pts) who had failed a first-line gemcitabine-based therapy. However, there is growing evidence suggesting that second-line treatment may provide further disease control in selected pts. Both pemetrexed and oxaliplatin demonstrated activity in this setting, and their combination resulted safe and tolerable.Methods: Pancreatic cancer pts with advanced disease, PS>60, age>18 years, who progressed after a gemcitabine-based therapy were enrolled in a phase II trial, and treated with pemetrexed 500 mg/mq followed by oxaliplatin 120 mg/mq, day 1 every 3 weeks, together with adequate oral folinic acid and intramuscular vitamin B12 supplementation. Accordingly to the Simon Minimax two-stage study design, an accrual of 31 patients was planned, with a minimum response rate considered of interest of 25%, α level 0.10 and β level 0.10. Results: To date, 16 patients have been treated. Of them, 12 progressed during or shortly after gemcitabine (13) or gemcitabine-cisplatin combination (3), with a median time to progression of 186 days. 62 cycles were delivered, with a median of 4 cycles per patient (range 2–8). Overall, the regimen was well tolerated: most common adverse events were mild-to-moderate sensory neurotoxicity and gastrointestinal disturbances. We reported grade 3 anemia, grade 3 thrombocytopenia, and grade 3 fatigue in 1 patient each. Three among the treated patients died within 30 days from last delivered cycle due to progressive disease. Confirmed partial (3) or minor responses (6) were observed in 9 out of 15 evaluable pts, with a median decrease in the Ca 19.9 value of 43% among those who responded. Median progression-free survival was 99 days. At the time of analysis, 3 out of 16 patients are still on treatment.Conclusions: The preliminary results suggest that second-line pemetrexed-oxaliplatin combination is well tolerated and reasonably active, and allow the continuation of the study until the full sample of 31 pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document