Impact of socioeconomic status on treatment outcome in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer in Northern Ireland

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20531-e20531
Author(s):  
Y. Manikyam ◽  
G. G. Hanna ◽  
R. J. Harte ◽  
P. G. Henry ◽  
R. F. Houston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Disease Extent ◽  
Esophagogastric Cancer ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The Impact

e20531 Background: The survival advantage for combination chemotherapy in advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is well documented. Epirubicin and cisplatin in combination with either 5FU (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX) result in response rates of 35–46% and a median survival of around 9 months in RCT. We report the impact of socioeconomic status on the outcome of ECF and ECX treatment in advanced gastroesophageal cancer patients in Northern Ireland between 2000 and 2007. Methods: All patients with advanced esophageal (O), gastric (G), or esophagogastric junction (OGJ) adenocarcinoma, receiving palliative chemotherapy from January 2000 to August 2007, were identified from our institutional database. Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment details, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Patients receiving chemotherapy in a clinical trial were excluded. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Deprivation was assessed using the patient's home address deprivation index (DPI) (Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2005; May 2005. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. www.nisra.gov.uk ). Results: 274 eligible patients (m=200, f=74, O=114, OGJ=19, G=141) were identified. Median age was 62 years (range 22–83). 172 (62.8%) had ECOG performance status 0 or 1. 231 patients (84.3%) had metastatic disease, 43 (15.7%) had locally advanced disease. 216 (78.8%) patients received ECF and 58 (21.2%) patients received ECX. Overall median survival was 7.3 months. Treatment response and performance status were strong predictors of survival, however disease extent did not influence survival. Median survival was significantly longer in those with DPIs in the upper two quintiles than the lower 3 quintiles (9.5 months vs. 6.8 months, p=0.032). Conclusions: Outcomes achieved with palliative ECF/ECX treatment are similar to the reference clinical trials. Socioeconomic deprivation is significantly associated with reduced survival in this group of patients and is unrelated to disease extent at presentation; however it may be related to nutritional status and comorbidity and requires further investigation. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Serum cathepsin B (CB) levels are prognostic in chemotherapy-naive patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and performance status (PS) of 2

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 18036-18036
Author(s):  
J. W. Singer ◽  
F. B. Oldham ◽  
B. Bandstra ◽  
L. Sandalic ◽  
J. Bianco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Survival ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Protein Levels ◽  
Lysosomal Cysteine Protease ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The Impact

18036 Background: CB is an estrogen-influenced lysosomal cysteine protease produced by tumor cells and tumor-associated macrophages; tumor tissue CB protein levels and proteolytic activity are prognostic in NSCLC (Anticancer Res. 2004; 24:4147–61). The prognostic value of serum CB has not previously been evaluated in NSCLC. Here we evaluate the impact of pretreatment CB levels on survival in pts from 2 phase III trials in advanced NSCLC, STELLAR 3 and 4. These trials compared paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX) against commonly used regimens. As the intratumoral metabolic pathway of PPX is characterized by the CB-mediated release of paclitaxel (P) from a polymeric backbone (Ca Chemother Pharm. 2006. Epub ahead of print), correlation of CB levels with PPX efficacy was assessed as well. Methods: Pretreatment serum samples from 450 chemo-naive pts with advanced NSCLC and PS 2 enrolled in STELLAR 3 (P + carboplatin (C) v. PPX + C) (N=315) and STELLAR 4 (vinorelbine or gemcitabine v. PPX) (N=135) were assayed for CB by ELISA (ICON Labs). Values were assessed by quartiles and there was a clear breakpoint at the median. Pts were categorized as high or low CB based on values above or below the median (64 ng/ml). The effect of CB levels on survival was evaluated by log rank for pooled pts from the studies. Results: As detailed in the table , median survival for non-PPX-treated pts was worse if CB was high; in contrast, median survival for PPX-treated pts did not differ by CB level. Pts with high CB receiving PPX showed a trend towards better survival compared to those receiving control regimens. Conclusions: The data suggest that serum CB may be prognostic biomarker for NSCLC. Retrospective analysis suggests a trend towards improved survival in patients with high CB receiving PPX; prospective studies are required to confirm this observation. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

A randomized phase III study of gemcitabine (G) versus GV1001 in sequential combination with G in patients with unresectable and metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4601-4601 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Buanes ◽  
J. Maurel ◽  
W. Liauw ◽  
M. Hebbar ◽  
J. Nemunaitis
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Peptide Vaccine ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Delayed Treatment ◽  
Sequential Combination ◽  
The Impact

4601 Background: A phase I/II study with GV1001, a telomerase peptide vaccine, showed a median overall survival (OS) of 8.6 months in non-resectable PC (Bernhardt SL et al, Br J Cancer. 2006;95:1474–1482). This phase III trial was conducted to determine the impact on overall survival of G monotherapy vs. GV1001 in sequential combination with G in unresectable and metastatic PC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had chemotherapy-naive, advanced PC and ECOG performance status 0–1. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive arm A: G (1,000 mg/m2 30 min i.v.) weekly for 7 weeks (w), 1w off and then 3w during 4-weekly cycles, or arm B: GV1001 0.56 mg s.c. plus GM-CSF as immune adjuvant on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 22, 36, then every 4 weeks. Patients who progressed clinically or radiologically during GV1001 continued on GV1001 and concomitant gemcitabine. CT scans were performed every 8 weeks. The primary end-point was OS. A sample size of 520 patients allowed the detection of a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73 (B/A), with 2α = 0.05 and 90% power. Results: Between June 2006 and May 2008, 365 pts were enrolled (A / B; 182 / 183). The study was stopped prematurely due to a preliminary analysis with 178 events showing no survival benefit of GV1001. Pts were well balanced for baseline characteristics: male 59.3% / 62.8%; median age 61y / 61y; ECOG PS 0 34.3% / 36.7%; locally advanced 22.4% / 20.7%. As of August 2008, 238 pts (A / B : 114 / 124) had died. Median OS was 7.3 / 5.9 months (HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.6–1.0). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 / 1.9 months (HR 0.5; 95%CI 0.4–0.7). Grade 3–4 AEs: gastrointestinal 6% / 8%, infection 5% / 5%, vascular disorders 2% / 3%, neutropenia 6% / 3%. Conclusions: GV1001 did not show efficacy in sequential combination with G in advanced PC. The advantage of G monotherapy over the sequential combination may be due to the delayed treatment with G in arm B. [Table: see text]

Recent Strategies for Treating Stage IV Gastric Cancer: Roles of Palliative Gastrectomy, Chemotherapy, and Radiotherapy

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunihiko Izuishi ◽  
Hirohito Mori
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Stage Iv Gastric Cancer ◽  
Palliative Gastrectomy ◽  
Advanced Tumor ◽  
Esophagogastric Cancer ◽  
Previously Treated

Recently, many strategies have been reported for the effective treatment of gastric cancer. However, the strategy for treating stage IV gastric cancer remains controversial. Conducting a prospective phase III study in stage IV cancer patients is difficult because of heterogeneous performance status, age, and degree of cancer metastasis or extension. Due to poor prognosis, the variance in physical status, and severe symptoms, it is important to determine the optimal strategy for treating each individual stage IV patient. In the past decade, many reports have addressed topics related to stage IV gastric cancer: the 7th Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM staging system has altered its stage IV classification; new chemotherapy regimens have been developed through the randomized ECF for advanced and locally advanced esophagogastric cancer (REAL)-II, S-1 plus cisplatin versus S-1 in RCT in the treatment for stomach cancer (SPIRITS), trastuzumab for gastric cancer (ToGA), ramucirumab monotherapy for previously-treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD), and ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously-treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW) trials; and the survival efficacy of palliative gastrectomy has been denied by the reductive gastrectomy for advanced tumor in three Asian countries (REGATTA) trial. Current strategies for treating stage IV patients can be roughly divided into the following five categories: palliative gastrectomy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, gastric stent, or bypass. In this article, we review recent publications and guidelines along with above categories in the light of individual symptoms and prognosis. Abbreviations: APC: argon plasma coagulation; AVAGAST: anti-angiogenic antibody bevacizumab, the avastin in gastric cancer; BSC: best supportive care; CF: cisplatin and fluorouracil; CRP: C-reactive protein; DCF: docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU; FISH: fluorescent in-situ hybridization; GJ: gastrojejunostomy; GPS: Glasgow Prognostic Score; HER: human epidermal growth factor receptor; HR: hazard ratio; NLR: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; OS: overall survival; PS: performance status; QOL: quality of life; RAINBOW: ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously-treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma; RCTs: randomized controlled trials; REAL: randomized ECF for advanced and locally advanced esophagogastric cancer; REGARD: ramucirumab monotherapy for previously-treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma; REGATTA: reductive gastrectomy for advanced tumor in three Asian countries; SEER: Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results; SEMS: self-expandable metal stents; SPIRITS: S-1 plus cisplatin versus S-1 in RCT in the treatment for stomach cancer; ToGA: trastuzumab for gastric cancer; TTP: time-to-progression; VEGFR: vascular endothelial growth factor receptor.

scholarly journals RADT-23. IMPACT OF REIRRADIATION UTILIZING STEREOTACTIC RADIOSURGERY ON RECURRENT GLIOBLASTOMA

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii186-ii186
Author(s):  
O’Dell Patrick ◽  
H Nickols ◽  
R LaRocca ◽  
K Sinicrope ◽  
D Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stereotactic Radiosurgery ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Methylation Status ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Control Group ◽  
The Impact

Abstract BACKGROUND Patients who have recurrent glioblastoma have limited treatment options. We conducted a retrospective review of patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated with standard initial radiation and temozolomide with tumor treating fields to investigate whether reirradiation using radiosurgery would be associated with improved outcomes. METHODS We reviewed the records of 54 consecutively treated patients with recurrent glioblastoma with ECOG 0 or 1 at recurrence and conducted Kaplan-Meier analysis with Log-rank testing to determine significance between groups. RESULTS We identified 24 patients who were treated without radiation therapy (control) while 30 patients underwent re-irradiation using radiosurgery (ReSRS) with a median total dose of 25Gy in five fractions. All patients had completed standard initial therapy, and there was no difference in the time to recurrence between the two groups (10 months for control, 15 months for ReSRS, [P = 0.17, HR for progression 0.65 (95% CI 0.38-1.13)]. A larger proportion of patients in the control arm (54%) had subtotal or gross total resection of the recurrence compared with the ReSRS group (44%, P < 0.05). The majority of patients had recurrence confirmed with biopsy (18/22 in control group, 25/31 in the ReSRS group). MGMT methylation status did not differ between control vs ReSRS (29% vs. 27%). ReSRS was associated with improved median survival from the time of first recurrence of 11.6 months versus 3.8 months in the control arm [P< 0.0001, HR for death 0.33 (95% CI 0.18-0.6)]. CONCLUSIONS In a group of patients with high performance status diagnosed with recurrent glioblastoma, reirradiation with stereotactic radiosurgery was associated with nearly one year median survival after recurrence. Additional analyses are warranted to determine the impact of concurrent systemic therapies with irradiation and underlying tumor or patient factors to predict outcomes.

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.

Phase II Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 1071-1077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dolores Isla ◽  
Rafael Rosell ◽  
José J. Sánchez ◽  
Alfredo Carrato ◽  
Enriqueta Felip ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
A Performance

PURPOSE: Given the cisplatin-related myelotoxicity and nonhematologic toxicities, we were prompted to undertake a study of the noncisplatin combination of paclitaxel plus gemcitabine to evaluate the efficacy, tolerance, and survival of this combination in patients with locally advanced and metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received gemcitabine 2,000 mg/m2 and paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, for a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS: Between December 1997 and June 1998, 89 untreated NSCLC patients were enrolled; 30 (34%) had stage IIIB disease (23 with malignant pleural effusion and seven without), and 59 (66%) had stage IV disease. Eighty-six percent of patients had a performance status of 0 or 1. The median number of cycles administered was four (range, one to eight cycles). The mean dose-intensity for both paclitaxel and gemcitabine was nearly 100%. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were mild. Thirty-eight patients received second-line chemotherapy after completion of the study. The overall intent-to-treat response rate was 32.2%, with a higher response rate for stage IIIB patients (43.3%) than for stage IV patients (26.3%). Overall median survival was 9.9 months, and 1-year survival was 38.8% (14.2 months for stage IIIB and 7.7 months for stage IV; P = .007). Median survival was 10.2 months for patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 and 4.8 months for patients with a performance status of 2 (P = .007). CONCLUSION: A biweekly paclitaxel/gemcitabine regimen was well tolerated, with an acceptable response rate and a reasonable median survival time, especially in patients with good performance status. It merits further exploration in future studies.

scholarly journals Factors affecting treatment strategy, completion of planned treatment and survival in older patients with glioblastoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. iv14-iv14
Author(s):  
Aimee Goel ◽  
Lillie Shahabi ◽  
Ganesalingam Narenthiran ◽  
Kevin O’Neill ◽  
David Peterson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Survival ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Extent Of Resection ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Oncological Treatment ◽  
Review Management ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
And Performance

Abstract Introduction For older patients with glioblastoma (GBM), age, extent of resection, and performance status are prognostic factors. However, an international survey conducted by our Unit found that >40% of neurosurgeons use age alone to discount surgery in older (65+) patients. The aim of this study was to review management in our Unit for 65+ GBM patients, to inform future approaches. Methods Patients 65+ with a new GBM diagnosis in our Unit, between 2014 and 2017, were identified. Demographic data, performance status (PS), comorbidity and frailty indices, together with details of surgical/oncological management and outcome were collected. Results 78 patients were identified. 78% aged 65–74 underwent maximal safe resection, compared with 45% aged 75–84, and 10% aged 85+. Resection was undertaken in 68% PS1, 73% PS2 and 23% PS3 patients. No PS3 patient completed intended radiotherapy, compared with 79% PS1 and 74% PS2 patients. There was a significant difference in frailty scores of patients who completed scheduled oncological therapy compared with those who did not (median score 2 vs 4.5, p=0.0338). Median survival was 10 months for patients 65–74, 4 months for aged 75 -84, and 40 days for 85+ (p<0.0167). Median survival was significantly lower for PS3 patients (44 days) compared with PS1 or 2 (9.5 months and 7 months respectively; p<0.0167). Conclusion There is considerable variability in performance status and frailty of 65+ GBM patients. PS3 patients at diagnosis are very unlikely to complete oncological treatment. These factors, rather than age alone, should be used to guide management decisions.

Variation in Health-Related Quality of Life by ECOG Performance Status and Fatigue Among Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 4591-4591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris L. Pashos ◽  
Christopher R Flowers ◽  
Mark Weiss ◽  
Nicole Lamanna ◽  
Charles M Farber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 4591 Introduction: Clinicians and investigators appreciate the value of measuring HRQOL for monitoring CLL and the impact of treatments, and commonly use ECOG performance status (PS) and clinician-reported patient fatigue as surrogates for HRQOL in clinical practice. However, limited data exist on the relationships between PS, fatigue, and HRQOL in CLL patients (pts) undergoing treatment in clinical practices. We examined the associations between these measures and 3 psychometrically validated, patient-reported, HRQOL instruments: the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), EQ-5D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu). Methods: Data were collected as part of Connect CLL®, a prospective observational registry initiated in March 2010 involving US practices. Data on pt demographics and clinical characteristics were provided by clinicians. HRQOL was self-reported by pts at enrollment using the BFI, EQ-5D, and FACT-Leu. Mean BFI, EQ-5D and FACT-Leu scores were analyzed by ECOG PS and clinician-reported fatigue. Differences in HRQOL scores between sub-cohorts were assessed by ANOVA. Results: HRQOL data were reported by 604 pts enrolled from 10 academic, 148 community, and 3 government centers. Pts were predominantly male (62%) and white (90%); mean age was 70 (standard deviation 11) years. BFI data (scale: 0 [no fatigue] - 10 [worst fatigue]) indicated that on average pts report that global fatigue, fatigue severity and fatigue-related interference worsen by ECOG severity (Table 1) and are statistically associated with clinician-reported fatigue (Table 2). Mean EQ-5D overall HRQOL as measured by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) worsens by ECOG severity and is significantly worse in pts with fatigue. Mean EQ-5D domain scores (scale: 1 [no problem], 2 [some problems], 3 [incapacity]) indicated that pain/discomfort, mobility and usual activities increase in severity as ECOG worsens and in pts with fatigue. FACT-Leu domains except social/family were statistically worse with worse ECOG PS and in pts with fatigue. Conclusions: Initial results from Connect CLL® indicate that HRQOL worsens with worsening ECOG PS, especially in physical / functioning domains, pain/discomfort, and mobility, and worsens across multiple domains among pts whose physicians reported fatigue. Future analyses should be conducted on how HRQOL, PS and fatigue may change over time with changes in CLL, and how they are influenced by therapies. These results may serve as baseline reference. Disclosures: Pashos: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flowers:Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Wyeth: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weiss:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lamanna:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Farber:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kipps:Igenica: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbot Industries: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Lerner:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Grinblatt:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flinn:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kozloff:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kahn:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Street:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Keating:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Oxaliplatin/CF/5-FU versus paclitaxel/CF/5-FU in patients with advanced gastric cancer: A phase II clinical trial

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14014-14014
Author(s):  
T. Lin ◽  
F. Xu ◽  
S. Wang ◽  
Y. He ◽  
W. Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Survival Time ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Median Survival Time ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
Tumor Control Rate

14014 Background: Although many randomized trials of chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer have been reported during the past two decades, no standard regimens worldwide have been established yet. Now Paclitaxel and Oxaliplatin have shown promising activity in advanced gastric cancer. We prospectively evaluated toxicity, efficacy and survival of Oxaliplatin /CF/5-FU versus Paclitaxel/CF/5-FU. Methods: Metastatic or locally advanced gastric cancer; performance status (PS) 0–2. Patients (pts) were enrolled and randomized into arm A with Oxaliplatin 100mg/m2, 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus, FA 200 mg/m2 2h, 5-FU 2500 mg/m2 46h, q2w or into arm B with Paclitaxel 80 mg/m2, 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus, FA 200 mg/m2 2h, 5-FU 2500 mg/m2 46h, q2w. Results: From 2000 to 2005, (A/B) 46/43 pts were enrolled into this study. Median age (52/50 y), gender, PS, localization and numbers of metastatic sites were comparable for both arms. Pts who were not chemotherapy naive in A/B (% of pts) were 41.3/33.3. All pts were eligible and evaluable for toxicity and response. Overall response (CR+PR) rate for A/B (% of pts): 37.0/47.2 (p<0.05), tumor control rate (CR+PR+SD) 76.1/69.4(p<0.05). Median time to progression (TTP) were for A/B: 6.0 and 3.2 months. And median survival time for A/B were 13.4 and 13.8 months. Grade 3/4 toxicities were for A/B (% of pts): neutropenia 10.9/5.6, thrombocytopenia 4.3/2.8, anemia 0/2.8, vomiting 8.7/2.8, neurotoxic 0/2. No treatment-related death occurred in A/B. Conclusions: Oxaliplatin /CF/5-FU and Paclitaxel/CF/5-FU are both effective and safe in advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Though Oxaliplatin /CF/5-FU had better tumor control rate and median TTP, there was no difference between the arms in the median survival time. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document