Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) using concurrent S-1 and irinotecan in rectal cancer: Impact on long-term clinical outcomes and prognostic factors.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3556-3556
Author(s):  
Atsuko Tsutsui ◽  
Takatoshi Nakamura ◽  
Keishi Yamashita ◽  
Takeo Sato ◽  
Masahiko Watanabe

3556 Background: To assess long-term clinical outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) of rectal cancer using concurrent irinotecan and S-1. Methods: One hundred and fifteen patients without distant metastases entered this phase II trial in cT3/T4 rectal cancer (n=104/11). Pelvic radiotherapy was given to 45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks with concurrent oral S-1 at 80 mg/m2 and intravenous irinotecan at 80 mg/m2 once weekly. Median follow-up term was 60 months (ranged from 20 to 96 months). Results: Adverse effect of Grade 3 was recognized in 7 patients (6%), and completion rate of this NCRT regimen was 87 %. All 115 patients (100%) could undergo R0 surgical resection. Twenty-eight patients (24%) demonstrated a pathologic complete response (ypCR). Local recurrence-free survival was 93%, disease-free survival (DFS) was 79%, and overall survival (OS) was 80%. By the multivariate proportional hazard model for DFS and OS, ypN2 was only remnant independent prognostic factor (P=0.0019 and P=0.0064, respectively). ypN2 was recognized in 9 patients (8%), and prognosis was extremely dismal (8 patients were recurred within 2 years). We again performed the multivariate analysis for 106 cases restricted to ypN0/1, which exhibited 85% of DFS, and both ypT and tumor portion were independent predictors (P=0.0065 and P=0.003, respectively). Combination of them could greatly enrich high risk patients for recurrence (P<0.0001), and dominant recurrences were uniquely found in lung. Conclusions: Novel NCRT regimen using S1/irinotecan demonstrated high response rates and excellent long-term survival, with acceptable adverse effects. ypN2 is a definitive indicator of dismal prognosis, and combination of ypT and tumor portion can identify high risk patients among the ypN0/1 patients.

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Konrad STEPIEN ◽  
Patrycja FURCZYNSKA ◽  
Magdalena ZALEWSKA ◽  
Karol NOWAK ◽  
Aleksandra WLODARCZYK ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1565-1565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Mondello ◽  
Irene Dogliotti ◽  
Jan-Paul Bohn ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Simone Ferrero ◽  
...  

Purpose: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease even in advanced-stage, with &gt;90% of long-term survivors. Currently, the standard of care is ABVD (doxorubicin, etoposide, vinblastine and dacarbazine), as it is less toxic and as effective as other more intensive chemotherapy regimens. Alternatively, BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone) has been proposed as front-line intensified regimen with a better initial disease control and prolonged time to relapse when compared to ABVD. However, this advantage is associated with higher rates of severe hematologic toxicity, treatment-related deaths, secondary neoplasms and infertility. To date, the debate regarding which regimen should be preferred as first line for advanced-stage HL is still ongoing. To shed some light on this open question we compared efficacy and safety of both regimens in clinical practice. Patients and Methods: From October 2009 to October 2018, patients with HL stage III-IV treated with either ABVD or BEACOPP escalated (BEACOPPesc) were retrospectively assessed in 7 European cancer centers. Results: A total of 372 consecutive patients were included in the study. One-hundred and ten patients were treated with BEACOPPesc and 262 with ABVD. The baseline characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly, except for a higher rate of high-risk patients in the BEACOPPesc group in contrast to the ABVD one (47% vs 18%; p= 0.003). Complete response rate (CR) assessed by PET imaging at the end of the second cycle was 67% and 78% for the ABVD and BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.003), respectively. Thirteen patients of the ABVD group achieved stable disease (SD) and 6 had a progression disease (PD). On the other hand, 4 of the patients in the BEACOPPesc group progressed, another 2 interrupted therapy because life-threatening toxicity. At the end of the therapy, CR was 76% in the ABVD group and 85% in the BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.01). A total of 20% patients in the ABVD group and 14% patients in the BEACOPPesc group received consolidation radiotherapy on the mediastinal mass at the dose of 30Gy. After radiotherapy, the number of patients with CR increased to 79% and 87% in the two groups (p= 0.041), respectively. Thirty-nine patients (35%) in the BEACOPPesc group required dose reduction of chemotherapy due to toxicity compared to 12 patients (5%; p= &lt;0.001) in the ABVD group. Overall, the rate of severe toxicities was higher in the BEACOPPesc group in comparison with the ABVD cohort. In particular, there was a significant increased frequency of acute grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events (neutropenia 61% vs 24%; anemia 29% vs 4%; thrombocytopenia 29% vs 3%), febrile neutropenia (29% vs 3%), severe infections (18% vs 3%). Myeloid growth factors were administered to 85% and 59% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD group. Blood transfusions were required in 51% and 6% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD cohort. Progression during or shortly after treatment occurred in 5 patients in the BEACOPPesc group (4%) and in 16 patients in the ABVD group (6%; p= 0.62). Among the 96 patients who achieved a CR after BEACOPPesc and radiotherapy, 8 relapsed (8%), compared to 29 of 208 patients in the ABVD group (14%; p= 0.04). At a median follow-up period of 5 years, no statistical difference in progression free survival (PFS; p=0.11) and event-free survival (EFS; p=0.22) was observed between the BEACOPPesc and ABVD cohorts. Similarly, overall survival (OS) did not differ between the two groups (p=0.14). The baseline international prognostic score (IPS &lt;3 vs ≥ 3) significantly influenced the EFS with an advantage for the high-risk group treated with BEACOPPesc (Figure 1A; p=0.03), but not the PFS (Figure 1B; p=0.06) and OS (Figure 1C; p=0.14). During the follow-up period, in the BEACOPPesc group one patient developed myelodysplasia and one acute leukemia. Second solid tumors developed in one patient in the ABVD group (lung cancer) and one in BEACOPPesc group (breast cancer). Conclusion: We confirm that the ABVD regimen is an effective and less toxic therapeutic option for advanced-stage HL. Although BEACOPP results in better initial tumor control especially in high-risk patients, the long-term outcome remains similar between the two regimens. Disclosures Ferrero: EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Martinelli:BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Willenbacher:European Commission: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Myelom- und Lymphomselbsthilfe Österreich: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; IQVIA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; oncotyrol: Employment, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Fujimoto: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tirol Program: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 765-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uwe Platzbecker ◽  
Ulrich Schuler ◽  
Martin Bornhäuser ◽  
Michael Kramer ◽  
Markus Schaich ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 765 Background: The combination of ATRA and idarubicin (AIDA) for induction therapy of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) yields complete remission (CR) rates of > 90%. If this is followed by intensive consolidation treatment, about 85% of patients are disease free and alive after 6 years. In fact, three cycles of consolidation treatment are considered the therapeutic standard; however, it is unclear how much treatment intensity is necessary for long-term survival. In order to address this question, we analyzed the clinical course of patients enrolled into the APL study of the German Study Alliance Leukemia (SAL), which contained only two courses of consolidation. Patients and Methods: All patients ≥ 18 years diagnosed with cytogenetically confirmed APL were eligible for inclusion in the risk-adapted SAL-AIDA-2000 trial. Enrolled patients received standard induction treatment with ATRA (45 mg/m2/d until CR) and idarubicin (12 mg/m2 for 4 doses every other day). After CR, non-high-risk patients (WBC ≤ 10,000/μL) received daunorubicin (45/60 mg/m2 days 1–3, dose depending on age) as first consolidation and mitoxantrone (10 mg/m2 days 2–4) as second consolidation. High-risk patients received additional cytarabine in both consolidation cycles (100/200 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 7 days in 1st consolidation and 1000/3000 mg/m2 twice daily on 4 days in 2nd consolidation, dose depending on age). After 2 cycles of consolidation, all patients were scheduled for 24 months of maintenance with 6-mercaptopurin (90 mg/m2 daily), methotrexate (15 mg/m2 weekly), and ATRA (45 mg/m2 for 15 days every 3 months). The following outcomes were analyzed: CR rate, induction deaths, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Between January 1999 and October 2010, 141 patients were enrolled in the trial. The median age at diagnosis was 51 years (range, 19–82), and 41 (29%) patients had a WBC >10,000/μL (high risk). The CR rate was 92% in the entire cohort; 95% in patients ≤ 60 and 86% in patients > 60 years (p=0.082). No significant differences in CR rates were seen between high-risk and non-high-risk patients (88% vs 94%, p=0.213). Three patients died during induction treatment (2%). After a median follow up of 55 months, the median DFS and OS were not reached. The estimated 6-year DFS was 80% (95%–CI 72%–88%) in all patients; 84% in patients ≤ 60 and 72% in patients > 60 years (p=0.140). The estimated 6-year OS was 77% in all patients; 84% (95%–CI 76%–92%) in the younger and 62% (95%–CI 47%–78%) in the elderly group (p=0.004). No significant survival differences between the high-risk and the non-high-risk patients were observed, neither for DFS (6-year DFS 78% (95%–CI 64–93%) vs 81% (95%–CI 72%–91%), p=0.625) nor for OS (6-year OS 71% (95%–CI 57%–86%) vs 79% (95%–CI 70–89), p=0.207). Conclusions: Our results confirm the efficacy of a risk-adapted approach both in high-risk and non-high-risk APL patients. The similarity for DFS and OS times between these two groups demonstrate the efficacy of cytarabine added to anthracyclines during consolidation in high-risk patients. Both CR rates and survival outcomes are comparable to the results obtained in the AIDA0493 and AIDA2000 trials by the GIMEMA group, which used three cycles of higher-dosed consolidation. In light of the data, modification in number and intensity of consolidation cycles may result in a less toxic but equally effective option for the treatment of APL and should be considered for further evaluation in a randomized clinical trial. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Olli Helminen ◽  
Johanna Mrena ◽  
Eero Sihvo

Background. Whether we can increase the resection rate of esophageal cancer by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is unknown. The aim was to report the number and results of MIE in high-risk patients considered unsuitable for open surgery and compare these results to other operated patients and to high-risk patients not undergoing surgery. Methods. At Central Finland Central Hospital, between September 2012 and July 2018, the number of operated MIEs was 100. Of these, 10 patients were prospectively considered unfit for open approach. Nineteen additional high-risk patients with operable disease were ruled out of surgery. The short- and long-term outcomes of these 3 groups were compared. Results. In patients eligible for any approach (n=90), MIE only (n=10), and no surgery (n=19), WHO performance status Grade 0 was observed in 66.7%, 20.0%, and 5.3%, respectively; stair climbing with ≥4 stairs was successfully completed in 77.8%, 50%, and 36.8%, respectively. Between any approach and MIE only groups, rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a) was 6.7% vs. 50.0% (p<0.001) without a difference in median hospital stay (9 vs. 10 days, p=0.542). Readmission rates were 4.4% vs. 30.0% (p=0.003). Survival rates were 100% vs. 80% (p<0.001) at 90-days, 91.5% vs. 66.7% (p=0.005) at 1-year, and 68.9% vs. 53.3% (p=0.024) at 3-years, respectively. In comparison between MIE only and no surgery groups, these survival rates from day of diagnosis were 80% vs. 100%, 68.6% vs. 67.1%, and 45.7% vs. 32.0% (p=0.290), respectively. Conclusions. By operating patients unsuitable for open approach with MIE, the resection rate increased 11.1%. These high-risk patients had, however, higher early morbidity and reduced long-term survival compared to other operated patients. Though there seems to be long-term benefit of surgery compared to nonsurgical patients, we have to be cautious when offering surgery to those considered unfit for open surgery.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alix Marhic ◽  
Bassel Dakhil ◽  
Gaëtan Plantefeve ◽  
Rym Zaimi ◽  
Viorel Oltean ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document