Chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer with performance status 2

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15627-e15627
Author(s):  
K. Muro ◽  
K. Shitara ◽  
T. Ura ◽  
D. Takahari ◽  
T. Yokota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Time To Treatment Failure ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

e15627 Background: S-1 plus cisplatin is considered to be the standard chemotherapy for Japanese patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) according to the results of three phase III trials (JCOG9912/SPIRITS/TOP-002). However, since few patients with poor performance status (PS2) were included in these phase III trials (27 of 1317; 2%), the standard treatment of patients with PS2 has not been established yet. In also, the characteristics and prognosis of AGC patients with PS2 has not been reported in detail. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 545 patients with AGC treated by chemotherapy during the period from January 2003 to June 2008. Patients characteristic and treatment results were compared between PS0–1 and PS2. Results: At the beginning of 1st-line chemotherapy, PS0–1/2/3–4 was 454/69/22 cases respectively. Patients with peritoneal/pleural dissemination was more common in PS2 than PS0–1 (75% vs. 43%, p<0.001). Patients with multiple metastatic places was more common in PS2 (62% vs. 43%; p=0.007). Fewer patients in PS2 were registered in clinical trial (1.4% vs. 25%, p<0.001). First-line chemotherapy using oral drug (S- 1/capecitabine) was significantly fewer in PS2 (43% vs. 75%, P<0.001). Median time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in PS2 (2.3 months vs. 4.2 months, p<0.001). Patients who could receive second-line chemotherapy were significantly fewer in PS2 (50% vs. 75%, p<0.001). With the median follow up time of 42 months, median survival time of patients with PS0–1 was 14.8 months (95% CI;13.1–16.5) and that of patients with PS2 was 6.1 months (4.3 to 7.4 months; hazard ratio for death 3.0: 95% CI2.3–4.0; p<0.001). Mortality rate within 30 days was higher in PS2 (3% vs. 0.2%; p<0.001). Conclusions: AGC patients with PS2 had not only had poor prognosis compared with PS0–1 but also had fewer chance of registration in the clinical trial, shorter time to treatment failure, and higher mortality rate within 30 days. Considering these different characteristics and treatment results of PS0–1 and PS2, clinical trial especially targeting AGC patients with PS2 is necessary to evaluate optimal chemotherapeutic regimens for PS2 patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

A multinational, randomized, phase III trial of XELIRI (+bevacizumab) versus FOLFIRI (+bevacizumab) as the second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: Asian XELIRI project (AXEPT).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS780-TPS780 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kei Muro ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Young Suk Park ◽  
Hiroyuki Uetake ◽  
Tomohiro Nishina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Clinical Trial Information ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

TPS780 Background: Life-prolonging systemic therapy such as chemotherapy (FOLFOX, XELOX, FOLFIRI, 5-FU/LV) with / without molecular targeted agents (bevacizumab, afilibercept, cetuximab, panitumumab) are important treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). On the other hand, it is required to establish an evidence of convenient therapy including oral anticancer agent which is expected lower risk of safety. XELIRI was already examined by various doses in this decade, and result of AIO 0604 was regarded as one of the most appropriate regimen. The BIX phase II study showed the tolerability and promising efficacy of the AIO regimen for Japanese mCRC patients (Hamamoto Y, et al. Oncologist 2014). Methods: Asian XELIRI Project (AXEPT) is an East Asian collaborated, open label, randomized phase III clinical trial designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of XELIRI (+bevacizumab) to the standard of care FOLFIRI (+bevacizumab) as the second-line chemotherapy in patients with mCRC. The primary endpoint is median overall survival. The secondary endpoints are progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, overall response rate, disease control rate, relative dose intensity, safety, correlation between UGT1A1 polymorphisms (*28, *6) and safety. Eligible patients were 20 years of age and older, had histologically proven CRC, ECOG performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, progression or difficult to continue after first line regimen. Patients were randomized 1:1 to standard FOLFIRI (+bevacizuamb 5mg/kg day1), repeated every 14 days (Group A) or XELIRI, Irinotecan 200mg/m2 day1, and capecitabine 1600mg/m2 day 1-14 (+bevacizumab 7.5mg/kg day1), repeated every 21 days (Group B). A Total of 464 events were needed to show non-inferiority with a two-sided α of 0·05 and a power of 80%, a target sample size of 600 patients was required. (The 95% CI upper limit of the hazard ratio was pre-specified as less than 1.3.). Enrollment has started in December 2013. As of August 2015, 98 centers in the Japan, South Korea and China are participating in this trial. Clinical trial information: NCT01996306. UMIN000012263. Clinical trial information: NCT01996306.

Phase III trial comparing XELOX regimen (oxaliplatin plus capecitabine) versus EOX regimen (epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine) as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer: EXELOX trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4014-4014
Author(s):  
Weijian Guo ◽  
Xiaodong Zhu ◽  
Mingzhu Huang ◽  
Yusheng Wang ◽  
Zhiyu Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Line Chemotherapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

4014 Background: At present, there is no standard chemotherapy regimen for advanced gastric cancer (AGC), and there is no consensus whether the three-drug combination is better than two-drug combination in first-line treatment. Both of XELOX regimen and EOX regimen are widely recommended as firs-line chemotherapy regimens for AGC. In this EXELOX trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EOX and XELOX regimens. Methods: EXELOX is an open-label, multicenter, prospective, randomized phase III trial that enrolled 448 previously untreated patients with histologically confirmed advanced gastric adenocarcinoma from 7 hospitals in China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive XELOX regimen (oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 d1; xeloda 1000mg/m2 bid d1-14) or EOX regimen (epirubicin 50mg/m2 d1; oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 d1; xeloda 1000mg/m2 bid d1-14) in this study. Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, patient death, withdrawal of informed consent, or up to eight cycles, followed by xeloda single-agent maintenance. We stratified randomization by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, extent of disease(locally advanced/metastatic) and clinical trial center. Patients and clinicians were not masked to the allocated treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) on an intention-to-treat basis with a non-inferiority upper margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio (HR). The clinical trial was a non-inferiority study that was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT02395640. The study is ongoing, but no longer recruit new participants. Results: Between Apr 10,2015 and Aug 20,2020, a total of 448 AGC patients were randomized to receive XELOX (n = 222) or EOX (n = 226). In ITT basis, the median PFS was 5.0 months (95%CI 4.5-6.0) in XELOX group and 5.5 months (95%CI 5.0-6.0) in EOX group (HR 0.989, 95%CI 0.812-1.203; Pnon-inferiority= 0.0032). In Per-protocol population (n = 428), the median PFS was 5.0 months (95%CI 5.0-6.0) in XELOX group and 5.5 months (95%CI 5.0-6.0) in EOX group (HR 0.983, 95%CI 0.807-1.198; Pnon-inferiority= 0.0028). The incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) was 42.2% (90/213) in XELOX group and 72.5(156/215) in EOX group ( p= 0.001). The most common grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (affecting 13.1% (28/213) in XELOX group and 48.4%(104/215) in EOX group ( p= 0.000). The incidence of chemotherapy dose reduction was 35% (75/213) in XELOX group and 55% (120/215) in EOX group( p= 0.009). One treatment-related death (lung infection) was observed in EOX group, and none in XELOX group. Conclusions: XELOX regimen is noninferior to EOX regimen in PFS with a better safety profile as first-line treatment for AGC patients, therefore XELOX is a more favorable choice and might be one of the standard first-line chemotherapy regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT02395640.

A prospective, randomized, open-label, phase III clinical trial of NovoTTF-100A versus best standard of care chemotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA2007-LBA2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Stupp ◽  
A. Kanner ◽  
H. Engelhard ◽  
V. Heidecke ◽  
S. Taillibert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Treatment Modality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Time To Treatment ◽  
Novel Treatment ◽  
Long Term Treatment ◽  
Time To Treatment Failure

LBA2007 Background: The NovoTTF is a portable, medical device delivering low intensity, intermediate frequency, alternating electric fields by means of noninvasive, disposable scalp electrodes. These tumor treatment fields (TTF) physically interfere with cell division and assembly of organelles. Methods: Adult pts (KPS≥70%) with recurrent GBM were randomized (stratified by surgery for recurrence and center) to either NovoTTF administered continuously (20-24h/day, 7 days/week) or the best standard chemotherapy (BSC) at each physicians’ discretion. Number of prior therapies was not limited. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The study was powered (80%) to detect a 60% increase in OS with a two tailed a of 0.05. Results: 237 pts were randomized (28 centers in the United States and Europe) to either TTF alone (120 pts) or BSC (117 pts). Patient characteristics were balanced, median age was 54 years (range 23-80), median KPS 80% (50-100). All had prior TMZ/RT, and the majority at least one prior therapy for recurrence. One-quarter had surgery for recurrence. Mean treatment duration was 4.4 mo (0-40) vs. 2.3 mo (0-15), median OS was 6.6 vs. 6.0 months for TTF and BSC, respectively (p=0.23, hazard ratio 0.84 [95% CI 0.63-1.12]), the 1-year survival rate 23.6% versus 20.8% (ns). PFS6 was 17.6% in both groups. Time to treatment failure favored the TTF group (HR 0.76 [0.57-1.02], p=0.07). Objective responses were more common in the TTF arm (12%) versus the BSC (6%). Related adverse events were mild-to-moderate skin rash beneath the electrodes in 17% of TTF treated pts. Hematological and other toxicities were observed at a significantly higher incidence in the BSC arm depending on the type of chemotherapy, no treatment-related deaths occurred. Treatment compliance with TTF was excellent with a median duration 20 hours/day. Conclusions: This is the first phase III, controlled clinical trial testing TTF, an entirely novel treatment modality. TTF had minimal toxicity, long-term treatment proved feasible. TTF as a single modality showed a higher response rate and longer time to treatment failure compared to best available chemotherapy. Overall survival also favored TTF, but did not reach statistical significance. In view of the above, TTF should be considered a valid novel treatment modality. [Table: see text]

Multicenter Phase II Trial of S-1 Plus Cisplatin in Patients With Untreated Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 663-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaffer A. Ajani ◽  
Fa-Chyi Lee ◽  
Deepti A. Singh ◽  
Daniel G. Haller ◽  
Heinz-Josef Lenz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Active ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients

Purpose S-1 plus cisplatin is considered highly active in Japanese gastric cancer patients. We conducted a phase II multi-institutional trial, in the West, in patients with untreated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma to evaluate activity and safety of this combination. Methods Patients received cisplatin intravenously at 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and S-1 orally at 25 mg/m2/dose bid (50 mg/m2/d) on days 1 to 21, repeated every 28 days. Patients with histologic proof of gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma with a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of ≥ 70% and near-normal organ function were eligible. All patients provided a written informed consent. To observe a 45% confirmed overall response rate (ORR), 41 assessable patients were needed. Results All 47 patients were assessed for safety and survival, and 41 patients were assessed for ORR. The median age was 56 years and median KPS was 80%. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was four. The confirmed ORR was 51% (95% CI, 35% to 67%) and it was 49% by an independent review. At the 6-month interval, 71% of patients were alive, with a median survival time of 10.9 months. Frequent grade 3 or 4 toxicities included fatigue (26%), neutropenia (26%), vomiting (17%), diarrhea (15%), and nausea (15%); however, stomatitis (2%) and febrile neutropenia (2%) were uncommon. There was one (2%) treatment-related death. Conclusion S-1 plus cisplatin is active against gastric cancer and has a favorable toxicity profile. A global phase III study of S-1 plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin currently is accruing patients.

scholarly journals A Review of Phase III Clinical Trials of Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
JF Thorpe ◽  
S Jain ◽  
TH Marczylo ◽  
AJ Gescher ◽  
WP Steward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Cancer Chemoprevention ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Prostate Cancer Prevention ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer is an excellent target for chemoprevention strategies; given its late age of onset, any delay in carcinogenesis would lead to a reduction in its incidence. This article reviews all the completed and on-going phase III trials in prostate cancer chemoprevention. PATIENTS AND METHODS All phase III trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention were identified within a Medline search using the keywords ‘clinical trial, prostate cancer, chemoprevention’. RESULTS In 2003, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) became the first phase III clinical trial of prostate cancer prevention. This landmark study was terminated early due to the 24.8% reduction of prostate cancer prevalence over a 7-year period in those men taking the 5α-reductase inhibitor, finasteride. This article reviews the PCPT and the interpretation of the excess high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) cases in the finasteride group. The lack of relationship between cumulative dose and the HGPC cases, and the possible sampling error of biopsies due to gland volume reduction in the finasteride group refutes the suggestion that this is a genuine increase in HGPC cases. The other on-going phase III clinical trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention – the REDUCE study using dutasteride, and the SELECT study using vitamin E and selenium – are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS At present, finasteride remains the only intervention shown in long-term prospective phase III clinical trials to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer. Until we have the results of trials using alternative agents including the on-going REDUCE and SELECT trials, the advice given to men interested in prostate cancer prevention must include discussion of the results of the PCPT. The increased rate of HGPC in the finasteride group continues to generate debate; however, finasteride may still be suitable for prostate cancer prevention, particularly in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

Update results from ALTER-C-001: Efficacy and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX regimen as first-line treatment followed by maintenance monotherapy of anlotinib for patients with mCRC-A single-arm, multicenter, phase Ⅱ clinical trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15550-e15550
Author(s):  
Jin Yan ◽  
Yunwei Han ◽  
Li Zhang ◽  
Yongdong Jin ◽  
Hao Sun
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Multicenter Phase ◽  
First Line Treatment

e15550 Background: The combination of anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR targeted drugs with chemotherapy is the standard first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and the followed maintenance treatment is an optional approach to balance the efficacy and toxicity. However, studies regarding the maintenance strategies based on antiangiogenic TKIs are limited currently. Anlotinib, a novel oral multi-target TKI which can inhibit both tumor angiogenesis and tumor cell proliferation simultaneously, substantially prolonged the PFS with manageable toxicity for refractory mCRC in the phase III ALTER0703 clinical trial. Here we report an update on the effectiveness and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX as first-line treatment followed by anlotinib monotherapy for mCRC. Methods: In this open label, single-arm, multicenter phase II clinical trial, 53 mCRC patients without prior systemic treated, aged 18-75 and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were planned to recruit. Eligible patients received capecitabine (1000 mg/m2, po, d1-14, q3w) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2, iv, d1, q3w) plus anlotinib (10mg, po, d1̃14, q3w) treatment for 6 cycles. After 6 cycles of inducing therapy, patients would receive anlotinib (12mg, po, d1̃14, q3w) as maintenance therapy until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was PFS; Secondary endpoints included ORR, DCR, DOR and safety. Results: By the data analysis cutoff date of January 22, 2021, a total of 18 patients were enrolled, of which 12 patients were available for efficacy assessment. In best overall response assessment, there were 50.0% PR (6/12), 33.3% SD (4/12) and 16.7% PD (2/12). The ORR was 50.0% (95% CI, 21.1-78.9%) and DCR was 83.3% (95% CI, 51.5-97.9%). The longest duration of treatment was 8.8 months and the response was still ongoing. The median PFS was not reached. The most common treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade (≥20%) were leukopenia, hypertension, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, hypertriglyceridemia. Grade 3/4 TRAEs included hypertension (22.2%), hypertriglyceridemia (11.1%), lipase elevated (11.1%) and neutropenia (5.6%). No grade 5 AEs occurred. Conclusions: The update results suggested that anlotinib combined with XELOX as first line regimen followed by anlotinib monotherapy showed promising anti-tumor activity and manageable safety for patients with mCRC. And the conclusions needed to be confirmed in trials continued subsequently. Clinical trial information: ChiCTR1900028417.

scholarly journals TROG 18.01 phase III randomised clinical trial of the Novel Integration of New prostate radiation schedules with adJuvant Androgen deprivation: NINJA study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarad Martin ◽  
Paul Keall ◽  
Shankar Siva ◽  
Peter Greer ◽  
David Christie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Initial Portion ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a non-invasive alternative to surgery for the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer (PC). The objectives of the Novel Integration ofNew prostate radiation schedules with adJuvant Androgen deprivation (NINJA) clinical trial are to compare two emerging SBRT regimens for efficacy with technical substudies focussing on MRI only planning and the use of knowledge-based planning (KBP) to assess radiotherapy plan quality.Methods and analysisEligible patients must have biopsy-proven unfavourable intermediate or favourable high-risk PC, have an Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 and provide written informed consent. All patients will receive 6 months in total of androgen deprivation therapy. Patients will be randomised to one of two SBRT regimens. The first will be 40 Gy in five fractions given on alternating days (SBRT monotherapy). The second will be 20 Gy in two fractions given 1 week apart followed 2 weeks later by 36 Gy in 12 fractions given five times per week (virtual high-dose rate boost (HDRB)). The primary efficacy outcome will be biochemical clinical control at 5 years. Secondary endpoints for the initial portion of NINJA look at the transition of centres towards MRI only planning and the impact of KBP on real-time (RT) plan assessment. The first 150 men will demonstrate accrual feasibility as well as addressing the KBP and MRI planning aims, prior to proceeding with total accrual to 472 patients as a phase III randomised controlled trial.Ethics and disseminationNINJA is a multicentre cooperative clinical trial comparing two SBRT regimens for men with PC. It builds on promising results from several single-armed studies, and explores radiation dose escalation in the Virtual HDRB arm. The initial component includes novel technical elements, and will form an important platform set for a definitive phase III study.Trial registration numberANZCTN 12615000223538.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document