Nonstandard first-line therapy and survival in patients (pts) with recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer (RMHNSCC): Experience of 194 pts in a single institution.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16036-e16036
Author(s):  
Jerome Fayette ◽  
Valentine Polivka ◽  
Sylvie Chabaud ◽  
Bertrand Favier ◽  
Severine Racadot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Alternative Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Studies ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

e16036 Background: With the standard first line association platinum 5FU and cetuximab, median overall survival (OS) for RMHNSCC was 10.1 months (95% CI [8.6 – 11.2]) (N Engl J Med. 359:1116). Due to the toxicity of this treatment we often offer alternative therapy to our pts. This work aimed to evaluate impact of different 1st line treatment on OS. Methods: With the standard first line association platinum 5FU and cetuximab, median overall survival (OS) for RMHNSCC was 10.1 months (95% CI [8.6 – 11.2]) (N Engl J Med. 359:1116). Due to the toxicity of this treatment we often offer alternative therapy to our pts. This work aimed to evaluate impact of different 1st line treatment on OS. Results: At initiation of palliative chemotherapy, median age was 62 [29-87]; PS was 0, 1, 2, 3 in 13%, 59%, 16% and 11% of pts, respectively. First line chemotherapy consists in combination cisplatin+taxanes (CIST) 24%, caboplatin+taxanes (CART) 33%, cisplatin or carboplatin without taxanes (NOT) 15% or others (OTH) 28%. Median OS was estimated to 9.6 months CI95%=[8.1-11.4], with 39% of pts; CI95%=[32-47] still alive at 1-year. Second line of treatment has been initiated in 61% of pts. Some of them have even been able to have up to 3, 4 or more than 4 lines of treatment in 19%, 11% and 4% of pts, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, which represents a population similar to those included in [ref1], first line chemotherapy was CIST, CART, NOT or OTH in 30%, 30%, 18% and 22%, respectively. Median OS was 13.0 months, CI95%=[11.2-17.7] reaching up to 15.3 months for CIST subgroup. Second line of treatment was initiated in 73% of pts, with 20%, 15% and 5% of pts having a third, a fourth, and a fifth line, respectively. Conclusions: We can reach for unselected pts the best OS published in phase III studies. The use in first line of combination of platinum and taxanes, followed by monotherapies with cetuximab, capecitabine and methotrexate allows reaching OS of 13 months.

Oxaliplatin Plus Irinotecan Compared With Irinotecan Alone as Second-Line Treatment After Single-Agent Fluoropyrimidine Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (28) ◽  
pp. 4544-4550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G. Haller ◽  
Mace L. Rothenberg ◽  
Alfred O. Wong ◽  
Piotr M. Koralewski ◽  
Wilson H. Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Sensory Disturbances ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose To determine whether irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (IROX) is superior to irinotecan alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) previously treated with single-agent fluoropyrimidines. Patients and Methods A phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of patients with metastatic or recurrent CRC that had progressed or recurred during or after adjuvant or first-line fluoropyrimidines (fluorouracil/leucovorin or capecitabine, the latter only for metastatic CRC). Patients received IROX (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2) or irinotecan alone (350 mg/m2) every 3 weeks. Results At the data cutoff (when 447 of 628 randomly assigned patients had died), median overall survival was 13.4 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 14.7 months) and 11.1 month (95% CI, 10.0 to 12.7 months) in the IROX and irinotecan groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; P = .0072). Overall response rate (22% v 7%, respectively; P < .0001), median time to progression (5.3 v 2.8 months, respectively; P < .0001), and improvement in tumor-related symptoms (32% v 19%, respectively; P = .0072) were also improved with IROX as compared with irinotecan. With the exception of granulocytopenia (25% v 13%), diarrhea (28% v 23%), and sensory disturbances (5% v 0%), grade 3 to 4 toxicities were comparable between the IROX and irinotecan groups, respectively. Conclusion IROX is an effective treatment for metastatic CRC that has progressed after first-line fluoropyrimidine therapy. IROX improves efficacy compared with irinotecan alone, providing an additional option in the postadjuvant or second-line treatment setting for patients who experience treatment failure with single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy.

Irinotecan in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Clinical Overview

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1501-1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Vanhoefer ◽  
Andreas Harstrick ◽  
Wolf Achterrath ◽  
Shousong Cao ◽  
Siegfried Seeber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

PURPOSE AND METHODS: For more than three decades, the therapeutic options for patients with advanced colorectal cancer have almost exclusively been based on fluoropyrimidines. With the recognition that topoisomerase-I (TOP-I) is an important therapeutic target in cancer therapy, irinotecan, a semisynthetic TOP-I–interactive camptothecin derivative, has been clinically established in the treatment of colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Irinotecan was investigated as second-line chemotherapy after prior treatment with fluorouracil (FU)-based regimens in two large randomized phase III trials comparing irinotecan with either best supportive care or an infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) regimen. The outcomes of these trials established irinotecan as the standard therapy in the second-line treatment of colorectal cancer. The therapeutic value of irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer was investigated in two large randomized phase III trials comparing the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV with FU/LV alone. Both trials demonstrated significant superior efficacy for the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV in terms of response rate, median time to disease progression, and median survival time. Consequently, the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV has been approved as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and constitutes the reference therapy against which other treatment options must be tested in the future. CONCLUSION: In this review, the clinical rationale and update of the present clinical status of irinotecan in the treatment of colorectal cancer and future prospects of irinotecan-based combinations are discussed.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treatment to progression or Not?

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13511-13511
Author(s):  
B. Melosky ◽  
C. Lohrisch ◽  
C. Kollmansberger ◽  
S. Gill ◽  
H. Kennecke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

13511 Background: Treatment until progression or planned interruption of first line chemotherapy is common in the therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer and are upon the discretion of the oncologist. A retrospective analysis was performed to determine the impact of these differing therapeutic strategies on overall survival. Methods: Eligible patients were treated between 2002 to 2004 in British Columbia. All patients received chemotherapy with both FOLFOX and FOLFIRI, either first or second line. Records were retrospectively reviewed for treatment interruption, efficacy and toxicity. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Results: 101 patients were identified. Twenty-three patients who progressed before receiving 8 cycles of chemotherapy and 9 patients who stopped their chemotherapy due to toxicity were excluded. The remaining patients were analyzed for survival. Twenty-three patients were treated to progression of whom 6 received first line FOLFIRI and 17 received first line FOLFOX. The mean number of cycles of first line therapy was was 11.5. Forty six patients received a planned break. Of these, 21pateints received first line FOLFIRI and 25 patients received first line FOLFOX. Mean number of cycles of first line therapy was 9.7. Median survival of patients treated to progression was 16 months compared to 22 months for patients with planned break of therapy (p=0.003). The Hazard ratio was 2.3 (p=0.01) in favor of patients who had a planned break. Uni-variate and multivariate analysis showed no significance of sex, age, site (colon versus rectal), sequence and ECOG status as predictive factors. Conclusion: In this study, patients who were treated until progression with first line chemotherapy with either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI had an inferior survival. Possible explanations for the detrimental hazard ratio for patients treated to progression are decreasing reserve for second line therapy when first line therapy is prolonged and increasing resistance to 5-FU based therapy with prolonged exposure. As this is a retrospective, observational study, other variables not captured by the modeled covariates that may have influenced results. This data suggests that treating to best response and then allowing a break does not detrimentally affect survival. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Role of immunotherapy in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: current standards and future directions

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (S3) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Weinmann ◽  
P.R. Galle
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Promising Therapeutic Approach

 The multikinase inhibitor sorafenib was the only approved systemic therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) for about a decade. In recent years, the number of approved agents has increased significantly as a result of a number of positive phase iii clinical trials. Lenvatinib as a first-line treatment, and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab in the second-line setting are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (fda) and the European Medicines Agency. In phase ii studies, immunotherapy with nivolumab and monotherapy using pembrolizumab yielded impressive results for overall survival in therapy-naïve and pretreated patients, leading to the accelerated approval by the fda of nivolumab and pembrolizumab for second-line treatment. However, phase iii trials of nivolumab in the first line and pembrolizumab in the second line as single agents failed to reach statistical significance, although clinical benefit for a subset of patients with long durations of response could be demonstrated. Despite that setback, immunotherapy for hcc is a promising therapeutic approach, and the combination of immunotherapy with other treatment modal­ities such as monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or local therapies has the potential to increase the overall response rate and survival. Recently, the results of a phase iii trial of combination atezolizumab–bevacizumab compared with sorafenib showed a highly significant survival benefit and median overall survival that was not reached in the immunotherapy arm, making the combination the preferred standard of care in first-line therapy. Despite the impressive results and generally good toxicity profile of immunotherapy, patients who respond to therapy constitute only a subset of the overall population, and response rates are still limited. This review focuses on the currently reported results and ongoing clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitor–based immunotherapy in hcc.

Prostate-specific antigen decline (PSA) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who failed first-line chemotherapy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4515-4515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Halabi ◽  
Andrew J. Armstrong ◽  
A. Oliver Sartor ◽  
Johann Sebastian De Bono ◽  
Ellen B Kaplan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Surrogate Endpoints ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Psa Kinetics ◽  
Psa Velocity ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

4515 Background: PSA kinetics, and more specifically a 30% decline in PSA following initiation of first-line chemotherapy with docetaxel, has been reported to be a surrogate endpoint for OS in mCRPC pts. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate PSA kinetics as surrogate endpoints for overall survival (OS) in patients who were receiving second line chemotherapy following progression after docetaxel front line therapy. Methods: Data from a phase III trial of 755 mCRPC pts randomized to treatment with cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone (C+P) every 3 weeks or mitoxantrone in combination with prednisone (M+P) were used. All pts were previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. PSA decline (≥30% and ≥50% ) and PSA velocity within the first three months of treatment were evaluated as potential surrogate endpoints for OS. The proportional hazards (PH) model was used to test for Prentice’s criteria and the proportion of treatment explained (PTE) was computed as a second test of surrogacy. PTE was defined as one minus the ratio of the treatment coefficient in the adjusted PH model (includes PSA decline or velocity) to the treatment coefficient in the unadjusted PH model. Results: Of 755 men, 654 had sufficient PSA data to be included in the analysis. Treatment arm (C+P vs. M+P) was prognostic of OS with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 (95% CI=0.54-0.79, p<0.001). A 30% PSA decline within three months of treatment was associated with a HR of 0.46 (95% CI 0.37-0.57, p-value<0.001) for OS. After adjusting for treatment effect, the HR for 30% PSA decline was 0.50 (95% CI= 0.40-0.62, p<0.001) but treatment arm remained statistically significant thus failing Prentice’s third criterion. The PTE for ≥30% decline in PSA within three months was 0.39 (95% CI= 0.36-0.42) indicating a lack of surrogacy for OS. Similar results were observed for pts who experienced ≥50% decline in PSA and PSA velocity. Conclusions: Neither PSA decline (≥30% and ≥50%) nor PSA velocity within the first three months of therapy are surrogate endpoints for OS in pts receiving second line chemotherapy.

Efficacy of S-1 compared to modified FOLFIRINOX as second-line chemotherapy regimens after gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 449-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gen Kimura ◽  
Hideaki Takahashi ◽  
Kumiko Umemoto ◽  
Kazuo Watanabe ◽  
Mitsuhito Sasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Chemotherapy Regimen ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Clinical Records ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

449 Background: Recently, gemcitabine (GEM) plus nab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX) has been frequently used as a first-line chemotherapy regimen for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) in Japan. Nanoliposomal irinotecan combined with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (MM-398 plus 5FU/LV) has not yet been approved in Japan. Under these circumstances, a modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) regimen or S-1 is commonly used as a second-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with mPC after GEM plus nab-PTX has failed. Methods: Between December 2014 and March 2016, 45 patients with mPC received second-line chemotherapy after the failure of GEM plus nab-PTX (standard dose regimen) at the National Cancer Center Hospital East. Twenty-two patients received mFFX (irinotecan, 150 mg/m2; bolus of 5FU was eliminated), 19 received S-1 (80 mg/m2/d; d1-28, q6w or d1-14, q3w), and 4 received other chemotherapy regimens. The clinical records of the patients were reviewed retrospectively. Results: At baseline, S-1 group had a more severe disease status than the mFFX group (performance status of 0: 21% vs. 68%, P = 0.003; median CA19-9 level: 1832 vs. 577 U/mL, P = 0.30). No significant difference in the response rate (S-1, 5.3% vs. mFFX, 9.1%, P = 0.56) or the disease control rate (S-1, 42% vs. mFFX, 36%, P = 0.71) was seen between the two groups. The progression free survival (PFS) (median: S-1 vs. mFFX: 2.7 vs. 2.4 months (m), P = 0.77), the overall survival (OS) from the second-line treatment (median: 6.1 vs. 6.4m, P = 0.87) and the OS from the first-line treatment (median: 10.9 vs. 12.4m, P = 0.77) were not significantly different between the two groups. These results were similar to those observed for MM-398 plus 5FU/LV (PFS, 3.1m; OS, 6.1m) in a pivotal Phase III study (NAPOLI-1). The incidences of peripheral neuropathy (5.3% vs. 32%, P = 0.04), fatigue (11% vs. 50%, P = 0.007), and neutropenia (11% vs. 64%, P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the S-1 group. Conclusions: S-1 was less toxic than mFFX and exerted a similar anti-tumor effect in the present study. S-1 could be a treatment option for patients with mPC refractory to GEM plus nab-PTX.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document