scholarly journals Randomized Phase III Study of Gemcitabine Plus S-1, S-1 Alone, or Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Locally Advanced and Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer in Japan and Taiwan: GEST Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (13) ◽  
pp. 1640-1648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideki Ueno ◽  
Tatsuya Ioka ◽  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Shinichi Ohkawa ◽  
Hiroaki Yanagimoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii Study

Purpose The present phase III study was designed to investigate the noninferiority of S-1 alone and superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 compared with gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival. Patients and Methods The participants were chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive only gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle), only S-1 (80, 100, or 120 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 28 of a 42-day cycle), or gemcitabine plus S-1 (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus S-1 60, 80, or 100 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle). Results In the total of 834 enrolled patients, median overall survival was 8.8 months in the gemcitabine group, 9.7 months in the S-1 group, and 10.1 months in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group. The noninferiority of S-1 to gemcitabine was demonstrated (hazard ratio, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.78 to 1.18; P < .001 for noninferiority), whereas the superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 was not (hazard ratio, 0.88; 97.5% CI, 0.71 to 1.08; P = .15). All treatments were generally well tolerated, although hematologic and GI toxicities were more severe in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group than in the gemcitabine group. Conclusion Monotherapy with S-1 demonstrated noninferiority to gemcitabine in overall survival with good tolerability and presents a convenient oral alternative for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Irinotecan Plus Gemcitabine Results in No Survival Advantage Compared With Gemcitabine Monotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Despite Increased Tumor Response Rate

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (18) ◽  
pp. 3776-3783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caio M. Rocha Lima ◽  
Mark R. Green ◽  
Robert Rotche ◽  
Wilson H. Miller ◽  
G. Mark Jeffrey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Tumor Progression ◽  
Tumor Response ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Tumor Response Rate ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose This phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study compared the overall survival associated with irinotecan plus gemcitabine (IRINOGEM) versus gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in patients with chemotherapy-naive, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods IRINOGEM patients received starting doses of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and irinotecan 100 mg/m2 given weekly for 2 weeks every 3-week cycle. GEM patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (induction) and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was survival. Secondary end points included tumor response, time to tumor progression (TTP), changes in CA 19-9, and safety. Results In each arm, 180 randomly assigned patients comprised the intent-to-treat population evaluated for efficacy; 173 IRINOGEM and 169 GEM patients were treated. Median survival times were 6.3 months for IRINOGEM (95% CI, 4.7 to 7.5 months) and 6.6 months for GEM (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.8 months; log-rank P = .789). Tumor response rates were 16.1% (95% CI, 11.1% to 22.3%) for IRINOGEM and 4.4% (95% CI, 1.9% to 8.6%) for GEM (χ2 P < .001). Median TTP was 3.5 months for IRINOGEM versus 3.0 months for GEM (log-rank P = .352). However, subset analyses in patients with locally advanced disease suggested a TTP advantage with IRINOGEM versus GEM (median, 7.7 v 3.9 months). CA 19-9 progression was positively correlated with tumor progression. The incidence of grade 3 diarrhea was higher in the IRINOGEM group but grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities and quality-of-life outcomes were similar. Conclusion IRINOGEM safely improved the tumor response rate compared with GEM but did not alter overall survival.

scholarly journals Maternal Cardiac Assessment at 35 to 37 Weeks Improves Prediction of Development of Preeclampsia

Hypertension ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 514-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Coral Garcia-Gonzalez ◽  
Georgios Georgiopoulos ◽  
Samira Abdel Azim ◽  
Fernando Macaya ◽  
Nikos Kametas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Area ◽  
Left Ventricular Mass ◽  
Body Surface Area ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Body Surface ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Ventricular Mass ◽  
Cardiac Indices

Preeclampsia at term accounts for half of maternal deaths from hypertensive disorders. We aimed to assess differences in maternal cardiac indices at 35 +0 to 36 +6 weeks’ gestation between women who subsequently developed preeclampsia at term compared with those with uncomplicated pregnancy and to evaluate whether cardiac indices offer incremental prognostic value to the available screening algorithm for preeclampsia. We recruited 1602 women with singleton pregnancies who attended for a routine hospital visit at 35 +0 to 36 +6 weeks’ gestation between April and November 2018. We recorded maternal characteristics and preeclampsia-risk-score derived from a competing risks model and measured cardiac indices. Preeclampsia developed in 3.12% (50/1602) of participants. Women with preeclampsia, compared with those without, had increased mean arterial pressure (97.6, SD, 5.53 versus 87.9, SD, 6.82 mm Hg), systemic vascular resistance (1500, interquartile range, 1393–1831 versus 1400, interquartile range, 1202–1630 PRU) and preeclampsia-risk-score (23.4, interquartile range, 9.13–40 versus 0.9, interquartile range, 0.32–3.25). Multivariable analysis demonstrated independent association between the incidence of preeclampsia and E/e′ (hazard ratio, 1.19/unit [95% CI, 1.03–1.37]; P =0.018) as well as left ventricular mass indexed for body surface area (hazard ratio, 1.03/[g·m 2 ] [95% CI, 1.003–1.051]; P =0.029). Women with E/e′ ≥7.3 and left ventricular mass indexed for body surface area ≥63.2 g/m 2 had an increased risk for developing preeclampsia, despite low preeclampsia-risk-score <5% (hazard ratio, 20.1 [95% CI, 10.5–38.7], P <0.001). Increased left ventricular mass and E/e′ offer incremental information to available scoring systems and better stratify women at risk of developing preeclampsia at term.

Irinotecan versus best supportive care (BSC) as second-line therapy in gastric cancer: A randomized phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4540-4540 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. C. Thuss-Patience ◽  
A. Kretzschmar ◽  
T. Deist ◽  
A. Hinke ◽  
D. Bichev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Logrank Test ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

4540 Background: Up to now the value of 2nd-line therapy for metastatic gastric cancer is unclear. So far there are no randomized phase III data comparing 2nd-line chemotherapy to BSC. Irinotecan has proven activity in 1st-line therapy. In this randomized phase III study we compared irinotecan to BSC to evaluate the value of 2nd- line chemotherapy for gastric cancer. Methods: Prospective multicenter randomized phase III study, open label. Eligibility: Metastatic or locally advanced gastro-esophageal junction or gastric adenocarcinoma. Objective tumor progession (PD) within 6 months after 1st- line chemotherapy. ECOG PS 0–2. Statistics: Primary endpoint: Overall survival (OS). Hypothesis: H1: OS(Irinotecan)>OS(BSC). Calculated number of pts needed (power 80%, alpha error 5%): 60 pts per arm. Stratification for a) PD less versus (vs) more than 3 months after 1st line chemotherapy, b) ECOG PS 0/1 vs 2. Treatment: Arm A: Irinotecan 250mg/m2 q3w (1st cycle) to be increased to 350 mg/m2, depending on toxicity. Arm B: BSC Results: Between Oct 2002 and Dec 2006 40 pts were randomized. The study was closed prematurely due to poor accrual. Arm A:21 pts, arm B 19 pts. Median age A: 58 yrs (43–73), B: 55 yrs (35–72); PD less vs more than 3 months after 1st-line chemotherapy: A: 18 / 3, B: 17 / 2pts. ECOG PS 0/1 vs 2: A: 17/ 4, B: 14/ 5pts. Pre-treatment with cisplatin: A: 21, B:19 pts. Arm A: 68 cycles administered in 21 pts. Toxicity: (main CTC grade 3/ 4): Nausea 1 pt, vomiting 1 pt, diarrhoea: 5 pts, neutropenic fever: 2 pts, data incomplete 6 pts. In 37% of 19 evaluable pts irinotecan dose was escalated to 350mg/m2. Response (19 pts evaluable): No objective responses, SD 58%, PD 42%. Improvement of tumor related symptoms: 44% of pts in arm A, 5% in arm B. Survival: (evaluable pts arm A 21, arm B 18): median survival arm A: 123 days (95%CI 95–216), arm B 72.5 days (95%CI 41–106); OS: HR=2.85 (95%CI 1.41–5.79), Logrank test (two-sided): p=0.0027. Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the first randomized phase III study investigating 2nd- line chemotherapy in gastric cancer. Irinotecan as 2nd-line chemotherapy significantly prolongs overall survival compared to BSC. 2nd-line chemotherapy can now be considered as a proven option in gastric cancer. [Table: see text]

Updated results of the GEST study: Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) versus S-1 versus gemcitabine (GEM) in unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4035-4035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Fukutomi ◽  
Takuji Okusaka ◽  
Kazuya Sugimori ◽  
Hideki Ueno ◽  
Tatsuya Ioka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Advanced Disease ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Locally Advanced Disease ◽  
Phase Iii Study

4035 Background: The GEST study (Ioka et al. ASCO 2011, Abstract 4007) demonstrated the non-inferiority of S-1 to GEM with respect to the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). We now report the updated results of this study. Methods: The GEST study was a randomized, 3-arm, phase III study. Chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable advanced PC, an ECOG Performance status (PS) of 0-1, and adequate organ functions were randomly assigned to receive GEM (1000 mg/m2, iv, d1, 8 and 15, q4w), S-1 (80/100/120 mg/day based on BSA, po, d1-28, q6w), or GS (GEM 1000 mg/m2, iv, d1 and 8 plus S-1 60/80/100 mg/day based on BSA po, d1-14, q3w). The primary endpoint was OS, used to assess the non-inferiority of S-1 and the superiority of GS to GEM. Patient information was updated in July 2011. Results: At the time of this follow-up analysis, median follow-up was 29.8 months with 795 OS events, compared with 18.4 months with 710 OS events out of 832 patients at the previous analysis. Median OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 8.0–9.7) in the GEM group and 9.7 months (95% CI: 7.6-10.8) in the S-1 group (HR=0.96, 97.5% CI: 0.79-1.17, p<0.001 for non-inferiority), which is consistent with prior results (HR=0.96, 97.5% CI: 0.78-1.18, p<0.001). In the GS group, median OS was 9.9 months (95% CI: 9.0-11.2). The HR was 0.91 (97.5%CI: 0.75-1.11, p=0.28 for superiority versus the GEM group). On subgroup analysis, GS was associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward better OS compared with GEM among patients with locally advanced disease and those with a PS of 1. Median OS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.7–14.9) in the GEM group and 15.9 months (95% CI: 13.0-19.7) in the GS group (HR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.51-1.03) among patients with locally advanced disease, and 6.2 months (95% CI: 4.9–8.3) in the GEM group and 9.6 months (95% CI: 8.0-10.9) in the GS group (HR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.46-0.83) among patients with a PS of 1. Conclusions: The non-inferiority of S-1 to Gem in terms of the primary endpoint of OS was reconfirmed. Monotherapy with S-1 can be used as one of the standard treatments for advanced PC. As for GS therapy, there is room for further investigation.

FOLFIRINOX in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 313-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Edward Faris ◽  
Theodore S. Hong ◽  
Shaunagh McDermott ◽  
Alexander R Guimaraes ◽  
Dushyant Sahani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Advanced Disease ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial Setting ◽  
Locally Advanced Disease ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Trial Setting

313 Background: The recently published Phase III trial of 5-FU, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) demonstrated improved survival compared to gemcitabine in good performance status (PS) patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (Conroy et al, NEJM 2011). Less is known about the efficacy and tolerability with FOLFIRINOX in the non-clinical trial setting. In this retrospective analysis, we report our institutional experience with FOLFIRINOX. Methods: 29 patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX between July 2010 and April 2011 were used for this analysis. Clinical characteristics, and gradeable toxicities were tabulated, and formal radiographic review performed to determine best overall response rates (ORR). Results: 17 patients received FOLFIRINOX for metastatic disease and 12 patients for locally advanced disease. The median age of patients was 60 (range 39-76). 22/29 patients were men. 18/29 patients had received no prior chemotherapy. There was one patient with PS 2; all others had PS 0 or 1. 8/29 patients had biliary stents. Overall, 11 partial responses (PR) were observed (ORR 38%); 10/11 partial responses were in chemo-naïve patients, who had an ORR of 56%. In the metastatic setting, there were 6 PR, for an ORR of 35%, and 7 patients with stable disease (SD). In the locally advanced setting, there were 5 PR (ORR 42%), and 7 patients with SD. Following treatment with FOLFIRINOX, one patient with locally advanced disease has subsequently undergone R0 resection. The median number of cycles performed was 8 in both the locally advanced and metastatic settings. 12/29 patients required an ED visit or hospitalization during treatment. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in 10 patients; 7/10 had not received prophylactic growth factor treatment from the start of FOLFIRINOX. 4 patients developed febrile neutropenia, 4 patients developed grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, and 1 patient developed grade 4 anemia. Conclusions: In a non-clinical trial setting, FOLFIRINOX demonstrated activity in both the metastatic and locally-advanced settings. FOLFIRINOX appears to be associated with manageable, but significant toxicities, with over 40% of patients requiring hospitalization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document