Defining “cisplatin ineligible” patients with metastatic bladder cancer.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 238-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. D. Galsky ◽  
N. M. Hahn ◽  
J. E. Rosenberg ◽  
G. Sonpavde ◽  
W. K. Oh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Consensus Definition ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
First Line Treatment

238 Background: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is standard first-line treatment for patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). However, a large proportion of pts with UC are considered “unfit” for cisplatin, leading to clinical trials designed specifically for cisplatin-ineligible pts, with substantial variability in eligibility criteria. A clear and consistent definition of pts “unfit” for cisplatin-based therapy will aid in the development of standard eligibility criteria. Methods: We assembled a panel of GU medical oncologists and followed a three-fold approach. First, we surveyed 120 international GU medical oncologists. Subsequently, we reviewed the literature regarding ‘cisplatin ineligibility‘ in solid tumors. Finally, the panel reconciled the survey results and available literature and generated a consensus definition. Results: Responses were received from 65/120 (54%) of those surveyed. The survey results are shown in the Table . Reconciling the survey results with the available literature, the panel recommended the following be used to consistently define pts with metastatic UC “unfit” for cisplatin-based chemotherapy for clinical trial purposes: (1) ECOG performance status of 2 and/or (2) creatinine-clearance < 60 ml/min and/or (3) CTCAE Gr ≥ 2 hearing loss and/or (4) CTCAE Gr ≥ 2 neuropathy. Conclusions: Substantial variability exists in investigators' definitions of pts with metastatic UC “unfit” for cisplatin. A consensus definition is proposed for standardization of eligibility criteria. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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.

Randomized phase III study of irinotecan and 5-FU/FA with or without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): The CRYSTAL trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4000-4000 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Van Cutsem ◽  
M. Nowacki ◽  
I. Lang ◽  
S. Cascinu ◽  
I. Shchepotin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Skin Reactions ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
First Line Treatment

4000 Background: Cetuximab in combination with irinotecan-based regimens has proven activity in previously-treated patients (pts) with mCRC. The present trial investigated the effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with standard FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone in the first-line treatment of pts with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-expressing mCRC. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive either cetuximab (400 mg/m2 initial dose then 250 mg/m2/week [w]) plus FOLFIRI q 2 w (irinotecan 180 mg/m2, FA 400 mg/m2, 5-FU bolus 400 mg/m2, 5-FU infusion 2,400 mg/m2 over 46 hours) (Group A) or FOLFIRI alone (Group B). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), disease control rate and safety. 633 events were required to statistically differentiate PFS between groups with 80% power. Results: Between August 2004 and October 2005, 1,217 pts were randomized, 608 to Group A and 609 to Group B (60% male, median age 61 [19–84], ECOG performance status: 0=54%; 1=43.5%; 2=3.5%). Median PFS was significantly longer for Group A compared to Group B (8,9 months [8 - 9,5] for Group A vs. 8 months [7.6 - 9] for Group B, p=0.036). Response Rate was also significantly increased by cetuximab (46.9% vs. 38.7%, p=0.005). Treatment was generally well tolerated with neutropenia (26.7% Group A, 23.3% Group B), diarrhea (15.2% and 10.5% respectively) and skin reactions (18.7% and 0.2% respectively) being the most common grade 3/4 adverse events. Conclusions: Cetuximab in combination with FOLFIRI significantly increases response rate and significantly prolongs PFS in the first-line treatment of pts with mCRC, reducing the relative risk of progression by approximately 15%. Treatment-related side effects of cetuximab in combination with FOLFIRI were as expected, with diarrhea being moderately and skin reactions significantly more frequent as compared to FOLFIRI alone. [Table: see text]

Secondary resection in a general mCRC population with cetuximab-based first-line treatment: Interim analysis of the German noninterventional study ERBITAG.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14532-e14532
Author(s):  
Ulf P Neumann ◽  
Thomas Goehler ◽  
Gernot Reich ◽  
Michael Schwerdtfeger ◽  
Patrick Stuebs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Noninterventional Study ◽  
First Line Treatment

e14532 Background: Resection of liver and/or lung metastases (LM) are a potentially curative option for patients with mCRC. Cetuximab in combination with irinotecan- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy has shown to increase the resection rate of primarily unresectable LM in mCRC patients. After approval of cetuximab in Germany for first-line treatment of pts with unresectable mCRC, this noninterventional study was initiated to evaluate safety and efficacy of cetuximab in combination with various first-line chemotherapy regimens in patients with unresectable mCRC. Methods: We conducted an interim analysis of the first 124 fully documented pts to evaluate the response rate (RR) and resection rate of LM. Enrolment was restricted to pts with mCRC with proven KRAS wildtype mutation status without prior systemic treatment in the metastatic stage. Predefined endpoints were amongst others RR, LM resection rate, TTF, PFS, OS, and safety. Results: From May 2010 to May 2012 360 eligible pts were enrolled at 109 sites (75% office-based physicians), documentation for 124 was finalised (data cut-off for this analysis 03 May 2012) and evaluated. The median age was 68 [range 34-84] years, ECOG performance status was 0, 1, 2 in 29%, 60%, and 9% of pts, respectively, in 2% of pts ECOG performance status was missing. Resection rate was 18.5% (n=23) performed at 18 sites with 16.9% R0 resections (n=21). 42% of pts (n=52) had liver-limited disease (LLD). Resection rate in pts with LLD was 34.6% (n=18) with a 30.6% R0-resection rate (n=16). Median treatment duration from start of cetuximab-based therapy to resection of LM was 3.7 months [0.7-12.0]. Objective response rate was 46.8% (CR 4.8%, PR 41.9%) and 59.6% (CR 5.8%, PR 53.8%) for pts with LLD. Conclusions: In a clinical practice setting cetuximab-based first-line treatment of an unselected population with KRAS wildtype mCRC resulted in an R0-resection rate of 16.9% overall, and 30.6% for LLD pts. These data compare fairly well with data from clinical trials: CRYSTAL, OPUS, and CELIM.

Eligibility of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) patients for first-line palliative intent nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NG) versus FOLFIRINOX (FIO).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 259-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata D'Alpino Peixoto ◽  
Daniel John Renouf ◽  
Howard John Lim ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Palliative Intent ◽  
Practice Methods ◽  
Ecog Ps

259 Background: The ACCORD 11 and the MPACT trials recently showed superiority of FIO and NG over gemcitabine alone, respectively. However, both trials had strict inclusion criteria. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients (pts) with MPA who would be potentially eligible for first-line palliative intent chemotherapy with FIO and NG in routine clinical practice. Methods: 473 consecutive pts who presented with MPA and initiated palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine from 2000 to 2011 at the BC Cancer Agency were identified using the provincial pharmacy database. Clinicopathological variables and treatment outcomes were retrospectively collected and compared among groups. Eligibility criteria for each regimen were in accordance with the criteria as described in the respective pivotal phase III trials. Results: In total, median age was 66 years (range 34–89) and 258 (55%) were men. Only 24.7% of the pts would be eligible for FIO as compared to 45.2% for NG. The main reasons for ineligibility for FIO were ECOG performance status (PS) ≥ 2 (56.5%), age > 76 years (19.0%), and bilirubin > 1.5 times the upper limit of the normal range (ULN) (18.6%). The main reasons for ineligibility for NG were bilirubin > ULN (24.5%), ECOG PS ≥ 3 (14.6%), and cardiac dysfunction (13.8%). Median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort treated with gemcitabine was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.4-6.2). On univariate analyses, eligible pts for FIO had longer median OS than ineligible pts (8.6 vs 4.7 months, p<0.001). Eligible pts for NG also had longer median OS than those deemed ineligible (6.7 vs 4.9 months, p=0.008). After accounting for ECOG PS in the multivariate model, eligibility for either FIO or NG no longered predicted for better OS. Conclusions: In ourpopulation-based analysis, almost twice as many pts would be eligible for NG when compared to FIO, mostly due to ECOG PS. The longer OS observed in the FIO-eligible population likely reflects the exclusion of ECOG PS 2 pts.

Safety and efficacy of capecitabine (C) plus bevacizumab (B) as first-line in metastatic breast cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1013-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Sledge ◽  
K. Miller ◽  
C. Moisa ◽  
W. Gradishar
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Grade 3

1013 Background: C alone has good activity and tolerability in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and when combined with docetaxel improves response and survival. C combined with B in heavily pretreated MBC improved the response rate but not PFS. In untreated MBC, the addition of B to chemotherapy significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) which suggests that B, is most effective in early disease. Methods: Primary objective of this single-arm, 2-phase study, is to evaluate PFS in MBC patients receiving first-line treatment with C 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–15 (28 doses) and B 15 mg/kg on day 1. Treatment was repeated every 21 days until progression. Eligibility criteria included HER2-negative MBC previously untreated for metastatic disease; ECOG performance status =1; no prior anti-angiogenic or oral fluoropyrimidine therapy. A sample size of 109 patients (including dropouts) was required to give 90% power to test an improvement from 4 months median PFS to 5.6 months with the two-sided test (a 5%) Results: At data cut-off, 103 patients had received study medication. Present results are based on 103 patients (ITT population), except tumor response which is based on 91 patients who had response evaluation. The average # of cycles received in first phase is 6.8. 84 pts.are alive at this time. 38.5% (35/91) pts. have had a response: complete response 5.5%; partial response 33.0%. Stable disease is 42.9% with 81.4% clinical benefit. Planned dose received is 77.7 % for C and 99.0 % for B. The majority of adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate. The most common grade 3 AEs were hand-foot syndrome (13%) and pain (10%); grade 4 pulmonary embolism occurred in 2% in the first phase of the study. Conclusions: Updated results with longer follow-up including toxicity, TTP and PFS will be presented at the meeting. It appears that in first-line C+B is active for MBC and is well tolerated, with few grade 3/4 toxicities. [Table: see text]

Prognostic impact of human epidermal growth factor-2 (HER2) status on overall survival (OS) of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients (pts) treated with standard chemotherapy without trastuzumab as a first-line treatment: A Japanese multicenter collaborative retrospective study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4075-4075
Author(s):  
Tomohiro Nishina ◽  
Nozomu Fuse ◽  
Takeshi Kuwata ◽  
Shigenori Kadowaki ◽  
Eiji Shinozaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Her2 Status ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Standard Chemotherapy ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
First Line Treatment

4075 Background: The prognostic impact of HER2 status on OS of AGC pts treated with standard chemotherapy without trastuzumab for first-line treatment remains controversial. This study investigated whether HER2 status is an independent prognostic factor for AGC pts. Methods: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples from 293 eligible pts were examined for HER2 by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Eligible criteria included: 1) histologically confirmed gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, 2) unresectable or recurrent cancer, 3) treated with S-1 plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy, 4) age: ≥20, 5) ECOG performance status score: 0-2 and 6) with archived tumor sample. HER2+ was defined as IHC 3+ or IHC 2+/FISH+. Results: Of 293 pts, 43 (15%) were HER2+. Baseline pt characteristics between HER2+ and HER2- pts were significantly different by histology (intestinal/diffuse, 65%/35% vs. 39%/61%; p=0.001), measurable disease by RECIST v1.0 (91% vs. 69%; p=0.003), No. of metastatic sites (≥2, 72% vs. 46%; p=0.003) and presence of liver metastasis (56% vs. 31%; p=0.003). After median follow-up time of 48.9 months with 270 (92%) death events, there was no significant difference in OS between HER2+ and HER2- pts (median, 11.7 vs. 13.7 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.11, 95% CI 0.79–1.55; log rank p=0.550). After adjusting other prognostic factors with Cox hazard model, HER2+ was still not prognostic for OS (HR 0.890, 95% CI 0.627–1.262, p=0.513). Conclusions: HER2 status has no significant prognostic impact on OS of AGC pts treated with S-1 plus cisplatin without trastuzumab as a first-line treatment.

Secondary resection in a general mCRC population with cetuximab-based first-line treatment: Interim analysis of the German noninterventional study ERBITAG.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 590-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friedrich Overkamp ◽  
Thomas Goehler ◽  
Gernot Reich ◽  
Michael Schwerdtfeger ◽  
Patrick Stuebs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Noninterventional Study ◽  
First Line Treatment

590 Background: Resection of liver and/or lung metastases (LM) are a potentially curative option for patients with mCRC. Cetuximab in combination with irinotecan- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy has shown to increase the resection rate of primarily unresectable LM in mCRC patients. After approval of cetuximab in Germany for first-line treatment of pts with unresectable mCRC, this noninterventional study was initiated to evaluate safety and efficacy of cetuximab in combination with various first-line chemotherapy regimens in patients with unresectable mCRC. Methods: We conducted an interim analysis of the first 124 fully documented pts to evaluate the response rate (RR) and resection rate of LM. Enrolment was restricted to pts with mCRC with proven KRAS wildtype mutation status without prior systemic treatment in the metastatic stage. Predefined endpoints were amongst others RR, LM resection rate, TTF, PFS, OS, and safety. Results: From May 2010 to May 2012 360 eligible pts were enrolled at 109 sites (75% office-based physicians), documentation for 124 was finalised (data cut-off for this analysis 03 May 2012) and evaluated. The median age was 68 [range 34-84] years, ECOG performance status was 0, 1, 2 in 29%, 60%, and 9% of pts, respectively, in 2% of pts ECOG performance status was missing. Resection rate was 18.5% (n=23) performed at 18 sites with 16.9% R0 resections (n=21). 42% of pts (n=52) had liver-limited disease (LLD). Resection rate in pts with LLD was 34.6% (n=18) with a 30.6% R0-resection rate (n=16). Median treatment duration from start of cetuximab-based therapy to resection of LM was 3.7 months [0.7-12.0]. Objective response rate was 46.8% (CR 4.8%, PR 41.9%) and 59.6% (CR 5.8%, PR 53.8%) for pts with LLD. Conclusions: In a clinical practice setting cetuximab-based first-line treatment of an unselected population with KRAS wildtype mCRC resulted in an R0-resection rate of 16.9% overall, and 30.6% for LLD pts. These data compare fairly well with data from clinical trials: CRYSTAL, OPUS, and CELIM.

scholarly journals Real-World Data for Lenvatinib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (ELEVATOR): A retrospective multicenter study

Liver Cancer ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Welland ◽  
Catherine Leyh ◽  
Fabian Finkelmeier ◽  
André Jefremow ◽  
Kateryna Shmanko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background Lenvatinib is approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy of lenvatinib in Caucasian real-world patients is insufficiently defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib in a multi-center cohort (ELEVATOR) from Germany and Austria. Methods A retrospective data analysis of 205 patients treated with first-line systemic lenvatinib at 14 different sites was conducted. Overall survival, progression free survival, overall response rate and adverse event rates were assessed and analyzed. Results Patients receiving lenvatinib in the real-world setting reached a median overall survival of 12.8 months, which was comparable to the results reported from the REFLECT study. Median overall survival (mOS) and progression free survival (mPFS) was superior in those patients who met the inclusion criteria of the REFLECT study compared to patients who failed to meet the inclusion criteria (mOS 15.6 vs 10.2 months, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81, p=0.002; mPFS 8.1 vs 4.8 months HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.91, p=0.0015). For patients with an impaired liver function according to the Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade, or reduced ECOG performance status ≥2, survival was significantly shorter compared to patients with sustained liver function (ALBI grade 1) and good performance status (ECOG performance status 0), respectively (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07-2.66, p=0.023; HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.19-4.23, p=0.012). Additionally, macrovascular invasion (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.37, p=0.041) and an AFP ≥200 ng/mL (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.34, p=0.034) were confirmed as independent negative prognostic factors in our cohort of patients with advanced HCC. Conclusion Overall, our data confirm the efficacy of lenvatinib as first-line treatment and did not reveal new or unexpected side effects in a large retrospective Caucasian real-world cohort, supporting the use of lenvatinib as meaningful alternative for patients that cannot be treated with IO-based combinations in first-line HCC.

Efficacy and tolerability of FOLFOX6 as first-line treatment for advanced gastric and esophagogastric junction cancers (AGC): A single-center experience.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14705-e14705
Author(s):  
Rozana Abdul Rahman ◽  
MinYuen Teo ◽  
Felicity McDonnell ◽  
Raymond S. McDermott
Keyword(s):  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

e14705 Background: There are a number of options for first line treatment for AGC. We sought to review the efficacy and tolerability of FOLFOX (F) in AGC, and compare outcomes with anthracycline-based (A) ctx-treated patients (pts). Methods: Pts with AGC treated with F and A (EOX and ECF) were identified from institutional database. Pt. demographics, disease characteristics and treatment details were extracted from medical charts and pharmacy database. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from commencement of ctx to radiographic evidence of progression and death, respectively, estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons were made via log-rank method. Other descriptive statistics calculated via t-test or chi-square methods as appropriate. Results: Between July 05 and December 11, 27 pts were treated with F. Twenty-one (77.8%) were male and median age was 68yrs (range: 42 – 77). ECOG performance status was 0 -1 in 24 pts (88.9%) and 2 in 3 (11.1%). Median Charlson score prior to metastatic disease was 2 (range: 0 – 3). Three had relapsed disease and another three had locally-advanced disease. Sites of metastatic disease were liver (12), peritoneum (12), non-regional nodes (2) and lungs (2). Median number of cycles of F was 5 (range: 1 - 12), 51.8% of pts completed ≥10 cycles, while the rest discontinued treatment due to disease progression (33%) and toxicities (14.8%). 21 pts (77.8%) required dose reduction and 17 (63%) experienced treatment delay. Fourteen (51.8%), 6 and 2 pts had 2nd, 3rd and 4th line of ctx, respectively. Median PFS was 7.2 mos and median OS is 9.7 mos. Sixteen pts were treated with A. Pts were significantly younger (p=0.002) but other characteristics were similar. Median PFS with A was 6.6 mos and median OS was 9.2 mos. The hazard ratio (F vs A) for PFS was 1.11 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.18, p = 0.77) and for OS was 0.73 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.51, p = 0.40). Conclusions: Despite an older pts cohort with co-morbidities, high percentage of treatment delays and dose reductions, our data suggest that significant percentage of pts were able to complete ≥10 cycles of F and subsequent therapies. Outcomes are comparable to our A cohort and published data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document