Impact of empirically eliminating 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus and leucovorin (LV) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line treatment with mFOLFOX6.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4022-4022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexa Basilio ◽  
Anand Shah ◽  
Katelyn Sommerer ◽  
Sarah Chehab ◽  
Salvatore Michael Bottiglieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factor ◽  
Palliative Therapy ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Line Treatment

4022 Background: Systemic chemotherapy with a 5-FU-based regimen, such as mFOLFOX6, is the preferred first line treatment option for mCRC. Due to hematologic toxicities associated with the 5-FU bolus component, providers may choose to eliminate it empirically in patients receiving palliative therapy. This study aimed to assess the impact of empirically eliminating the 5-FU bolus and LV from first line treatment with mFOLFOX6 in mCRC. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of patients ≥ 18 years old with mCRC receiving palliative first line mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy with (bolus) or without (non-bolus) the 5-FU bolus and LV components from January 1, 2015 through August 31, 2019 at Moffitt Cancer Center. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) defined as partial response and stable disease at first scan, utilization of growth factor support and safety. Results: Data analysis cutoff was December 31, 2019, with 61 patients included in the bolus arm and 72 in the non-bolus arm. Median follow-up time was 21.8 months. No difference was found in median PFS (8.12 vs. 6.64 months, p=0.787) or OS (29.36 vs. 21.6 months, p=0.395) between the bolus and non-bolus arms, respectively. Observed DCR at first scan was similar between both arms (47.3% vs. 52.7%, p=0.44). Utilization of growth factor support was significantly higher in the bolus arm (73.7% vs. 26.3%, p=0.012). Fewer grade ≥ 3 treatment-related hematologic adverse events (AE) were seen in the non-bolus arm (37.7% vs. 22.2%, p=0.058) (table). Conclusions: This is the only study to date that analyzed the impact of empirically eliminating 5-FU bolus and LV from first line palliative therapy with mFOLFOX6 in mCRC. Results showed no significant difference in median PFS or OS. Despite reduced growth factor utilization, the non-bolus arm demonstrated a favorable safety profile with less treatment-related hematologic grade ≥ 3 AE. The results of this study warrant consideration of empirically eliminating 5-FU bolus and LV from the mFOLFOX6 regimen to avoid additive toxicities without negatively impacting efficacy. [Table: see text]

Subanalysis of the StiL NHL 1–2003 Study: Achievement of Complete Response with Bendamustine-Rituximab (B-R) and CHOP-R in the First-Line Treatment of Indolent and Mantle Cell Lymphomas Results in Superior Survival Compared to Partial Response.

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 2724-2724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias J. Rummel ◽  
Norbert Niederle ◽  
Georg Maschmeyer ◽  
G.-Andre Banat ◽  
Ulrich von Grünhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Response ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Female Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Abstract 2724 Background: The NHL 1 study, a prospective, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study which compared B-R and CHOP-R as first-line treatment in indolent lymphomas and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), demonstrated a significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) as well as improved tolerability for B-R compared with CHOP-R. Here we present an analysis of the impact of response quality on outcome. Methods: 514 patients (pts) with indolent or MCL were randomized to receive B-R or CHOP-R for a maximum of 6 cycles. Results: The overall response rate in the 514 pts (261 B-R; 253 CHOP-R) was 92.7% and 91.3% in the B-R and CHOP-R arms, respectively (as presented at the last ASCO meeting, J Clin Oncol 30, 2012 (suppl; abstr 3). A complete response (CR) was observed in 39.8% in the B-R arm and in 30% in the CHOP-R arm (p=0.021). The achievement of CR was associated with a significantly prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS) (Table 1). Analysis by treatment arm revealed a trend for superior PFS and a significantly improved OS for patients achieving CR following treatment with B-R. In the CHOP-R arm, patients in CR had a significantly superior PFS compared to those in PR with a trend to superior OS. Regardless of the quality of response, PFS was superior with B-R versus CHOP-R: For patients in CR, the median PFS was not reached with B-R, whereas for CHOP-R it was 53.7 months (p=0.0204). In patients achieving PR, treatment with B-R resulted in a median PFS of 57.2 months, and this was 30.9 months with CHOP-R (p=0.0002). We noted a statistically significant difference in CR rates between male (n=272, median age 63 years) and female (n=242, median age 64 years) patients. The CR rate was 28.6% in male patients and 42.1% in female patients (p=0.0016). Female patients had a longer median PFS (51.4 months) compared to male patients (38.6 months), however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.0866). Conclusions: Patients in CR following first-line treatment in our study had a significantly longer PFS and OS compared to those achieving a PR. Therefore, our results strongly suggest an association between quality of response and outcome. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

The impact of cetuximab on the capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) combination in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC): A randomized phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3551-3551 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Borner ◽  
W. Mingrone ◽  
D. Koeberle ◽  
R. Von Moos ◽  
D. Rauch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
High Response ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Clinical Cancer Research ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Line Treatment

3551 Background: XELOX is a valuable alternative to continuous infusion FOLFOX type regimens in the treatment of MCC (Borner et al, JCO 2002, 1759). Cetuximab is an EGFR antibody, which has been shown to improve the efficacy of chemotherapy. A phase II study in first-line treatment of MCC has demonstrated a high response rate combining cetuximab with FOLFOX (Tabernero et al, Proc ASCO 2004, 3512). Methods: Multicenter, randomized two-arm phase II trial: OXA 130 mg/m2 day 1 and oral CAP 1000 mg/m2 bid days 1–14 every 21 days alone or in combination with cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly after a loading dose of 400 mg/m2. Treatment was limited to a maximum of 6 cycles. With 37 patients in each arm, the power was 90% to select the truly better arm if the true between-arm difference in response rate (RECIST) is at least 15%. The study was open for accrual until October 2005. Results: We present here the results of 74 patients included in the study. In 67 patients the first response data are available (investigators’ assessment after 3 cycles). The two arms are well balanced for relevant patient, disease and treatment characteristics. The study treatment was well tolerated with grade 3/4 toxicities in < 10% of the cycles in each arm. The frequency of side effects was balanced, but with more frequent skin toxicity in the cetuximab arm (6% versus 0% grade 3/4). Conclusions: Cetuximab seems to positively interact with XELOX in terms of efficacy but not toxicity. The cetuximab/XELOX combination appears to be a valuable option in first-line treatment of MCC especially if high response rates are a primary objective. This trial was supported in part by Merck KGaA and Sanofi-Aventis Switzerland. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Comparison of quality-adjusted survival in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving first-line treatment with temsirolimus (TEMSR) or interferon-α (IFN) or the combination of IFN+TEMSR

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5049-5049 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Parasuraman ◽  
G. Hudes ◽  
D. Levy ◽  
A. Strahs ◽  
L. Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Health State ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
First Line Treatment

5049 Background: In a phase 3, randomized, 3-arm study of TEMSR or IFN or the combination of TEMSR + IFN in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and poor-prognostic features, TEMSR improved overall survival (p=0.0069) and progression-free survival (p=0.0001) vs. IFN (Hudes et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:LBA4). Quality-adjusted survival was a pre-defined endpoint and is reported. Methods: Quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity (QTWiST) was estimated by partitioning overall survival into 3 distinct health states: time with serious toxicity, time with progression, and time without symptoms and toxicity (TWiST). Survival was value-weighted when patients completed quality of life questionnaires (EQ-5D) at weeks 12 and 32, when a grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE) was reported, upon relapse or progression, or upon withdrawal from the study. Treatment group comparisons used restricted means analyses estimated from censored survival data. Restricted means were computed for duration of each health state by truncating data at median follow-up (17.9 months). Variance and covariance were estimated using bootstrap methods. Results: All 626 randomized patients in the study were included in computation of health state durations. EQ-5D questionnaires were obtained from 260/300 (87%) upon progression and 230/570 (40%) after a grade 3/4 AE. Patients receiving TEMSR alone had 38% greater TWiST than those receiving IFN alone (TEMSR=6.5 months vs. IFN=4.7 months, p=0.00048). There was no significant difference in TWiST between the combination arm and IFN alone (IFN+TEMSR=5.4 months vs. IFN=4.7 months, p=0.1288). Patients receiving TEMSR alone had 23% greater Q-TWiST than those receiving IFN alone (TEMSR=7.0 months vs. IFN=5.7 months; p=0.0015). There was no significant difference in Q-TWiST for the combination arm compared with IFN alone (IFN+TEMSR=6.1 months vs. IFN=5.7 months, p=0.3469). Conclusions: Patients with advanced RCC receiving TEMSR alone had significantly greater quality-adjusted survival than those receiving IFN alone. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Second-line systemic treatment for advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 371-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Elizabeth Rogers ◽  
Lindsey Law ◽  
D. Van Nguyen ◽  
Wei Qiao ◽  
Milind M. Javle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Control ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Disease Control Rate ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
First Line Treatment

371 Background: Five-year survival for advanced cholangiocarcinoma (aCC) is reported at 5-10%. For advanced, unresectable patients, gemcitabine plus platinum (GEM-P) combination chemotherapy is common practice as first-line treatment with progression free survival (PFS) of 8 months and overall survival (OS) of 11.7 months. Data regarding chemotherapy treatment after first-line progression is limited. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with aCC from 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2012 who received second-line chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC). Median PFS was the primary endpoint. Secondary objectives included disease control rate (complete response + partial response + stable disease) and OS. Inclusion criteria: aCC diagnosis, progression on first-line therapy, and reimaging studies at MDACC. Exclusion criteria: patients who received localized treatment for aCC prior to second-line therapy or consolidative chemoradiation, mixed histology tumors, and those with a history of another malignancy. Results: 56 patients were identified, with the majority having intrahepatic aCC (95%). 80% of patients received gemcitabine based first-line treatment (GEM-P +/- erlotinib, GEM monotherapy). Second-line systemic treatment included GEM-P (19.6%), GEM + fluoropyrmidine (GEM-FU) (28.6%), fluoropyrmidine combination (FU-combo) (37.5%), and other consisting of chemotherapy or biotherapy monotherapy or combination (14.3%). Total median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI = 2.3 to 3.8). Disease control rate was 50% with a median OS of 13.8 months (95% CI = 12 to19.3). No significant difference in PFS or OS was identified between the four second line treatment groups. A higher CA 19-9 at the start of second line treatment correlated with a worse survival (p= <0.01). Conclusions: This retrospective study revealed a 50% disease control rate, median PFS of 2.7 months, and a potential for improvement in OS in patients who received second line systemic treatment. Agents that may be considered include GEM + FU, FU-combination therapy, or GEM-P if not given first line.

Efficacy of platinum-based regimens as the first-line therapy in Chinese patients with advanced TNBC and deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12565-e12565
Author(s):  
Nan Wang ◽  
Kun Li ◽  
Wei-Yao Kong ◽  
Xiao-Ran Liu ◽  
Meng-Yao Tan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Peking University ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
First Line Treatment

e12565 Background: Platinum-based therapy remains an effective treatment for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), however, the usage is largely limited due to its side effect and rapidly developed drug resistance. High prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations are reported in TNBC. Here we explored efficacy of platinum-based regimens as the first-line treatment for Chinese patients (pts) with advanced TNBC, and analyzed its association with mutations of germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA). Methods: We retrospectively analyze 220 patients diagnosed as advanced TNBC who were treated at the Dept. of Breast Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital in 2013-2018, and routinely evaluated by RECIST 1.1. Statistical analysis is performed in R 3.5.1. Cox proportional-hazard models are used for survival analysis. Results: 129 pts received non-platinum chemotherapy (NPCT) as the first-line therapy, and 91 pts received platinum-based chemotherapy (PBCT). The clinical benefit rate (CBR) and median PFS were not statistically different between NPCT and PBCT groups The median OS was 30.0 and 22.5 months for PBCT and NPCT group respectively (P = 0.09, HR = 0.70). Among them, 114 pts had BRCA gene tested, of which 14 had deleterious gBRCA mutations, 7 in each group. In PBCT group, the CBR was 85.7% and 35.1% for pts with and without deleterious gBRCA mutations respectively (P = 0.04). The median PFS, OS were 14.9 months and 5.3months (P = 0.001), 26.5 and 15.5 months (P = 0.16) for pts with and without the gBRCA mutations. No significant difference was observed between NPCT pts with and without gBRCA mutations as regards the CBR, PFS and OS. PBCT Pts had significantly more grade 3-4 anaemia (5.5% vs 0%) and thrombocytopenia (8.8% vs 0%) while higher percentage of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) (12.4% vs 0%) and peripheral neuropathy (8.6% vs 1.1%) were observed in NPCT pts. Conclusions: The efficacy of platinum-based regimens as the first-line treatment of advanced TNBC insignificantly differs from that of non-platinum therapy. However, they are more effective for patients with deleterious gBRCA mutations, suggesting a BRCA1/2 genetic testing may be warranted for such patients.

Management of skin toxicity and cetuximab-based regimen compliance in first-line chemotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts): Results of observer study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14557-e14557
Author(s):  
Carmine Pinto ◽  
Francesca Di Fabio ◽  
Gerardo Rosati ◽  
Ivan Lolli ◽  
Enzo Ruggeri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Metastasis ◽  
Skin Toxicity ◽  
Efficacy Rate ◽  
Vitamin K1 ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Observer Study ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Line Treatment

e14557 Background: Cetuximab significantly improves efficacy when added to chemotherapy in mCRC pts. The ObservEr Study evaluated quality of life (QoL), skin toxicity management and treatment compliance of cetuximab-based regimens in first-line treatment of mCRC pts. Methods: ObservEr is a non-interventional, multicenter, prospective study. Primary endpoint is change in QoL during first-line treatment, with focus on the impact of dermatological toxicity. QoL (Dermatology Life Quality Index/DLQI and EORTC QLQ C30) is assessed at baseline and weekly for the first 8 weeks of treatment, then at every evaluation visit until PD or withdrawal. Secondary endpoints are efficacy, rate of liver metastasis resections, incidence of serious adverse events. Results: Between Apr 2011 and Nov 2012, 29 Italian centers enrolled 233 pts, with 226 evaluable pts. Pt characteristics: 152(67.3%) males, 74(32.7%) females; median age 65 (39-81) years; PS ECOG 0-1 95.5%; potentially resectable liver metastasis 59(27.1%); irinotecan regimens 129(57.1%), oxaliplatin regimens 60(26.5%), other regimens 37(16.4%). Median interval between request and result of KRAS test was 10 (6-15) days. Prophylactic skin treatment with vitamin K1 cream was used in 159(70.4%) pts, reactive treatment included vitamin K1 in 59(26.1%). Grade (gr) 1-2 skin toxicity was observed in 128(56.6%) pts, gr 3 in 28(12.4%); no gr 4 was detected. No significant difference in gr 3 skin toxicity was observed between males vs females (13.8 vs 9.5%; p=0.351), age <60 vs ≥60 years (18.1 vs 9.7%; p=0.077), irinotecan vs oxaliplatin regimens (12.4 vs 18.3%; p=0.278), prophylactic vs reactive treatment (15.1 vs 6.8%; p=0.339). Dose reduction, temporary and permanent discontinuation of cetuximab due to skin toxicity was required in 9(4.0%), 32(14.2%) and 7(3.1%) pts respectively; cetuximab compliance ≥70% of dose was reached in 208(92.0%) pts. Conclusions: These results suggest that appropriate skin toxicity management and prophylactic or reactive treatment with Vitamin K1 cream can improve the gr 3 skin toxicity control and the cetuximab compliance. QoL results will be shown at the 2013 ASCO Meeting. Clinical trial information: ID239.

Prognostic importance of primary tumor resection and synchronous metastasis on overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: Data from the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4070-4070
Author(s):  
Jobst C. von Einem ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal ◽  
Thomas Decker ◽  
Alexander Kiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Tumor Resection ◽  
Primary Tumor Resection ◽  
P Value ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Line Treatment

4070 Background: The FIRE-3 study (AIO KRK-0306) was designed as a randomized multicenter trial to compare the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (cet) to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (bev) as first-line treatment in KRAS WT mCRC patients. FOLFIRI plus cet as first-line treatment of KRAS WT mCRC patients resulted in comparable overall response rates (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) when compared to FOLFIRI plus bev. Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the FOLFIRI plus cet arm. Methods: In the present analysis of the FIRE-3 trial we explored the impact of primary tumor resection on outcome in relation to anti-EGFR vs. anti-VEGF treatment. Furthermore, we investigated the prognostic value of synchronous versus metachronous metastases. Results: In patients with synchronous disease no significant difference in OS was detected when comparing resected (n=339) vs. non-resected (n=97) patients (p-value: 0.29, HR: 1.17, 95%-CI: 0.88 – 1.55). In the cetuximab arm, resection (n=167) showed no significant benefit in OS when compared to non-resection (n=52) (p-value: 0.51, HR: 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.77 – 1.71). Treated with bevacizumab, similar results were present, when comparing resection (n=172) vs. non-resection (n=45); (p-value: 0.29, HR: 1.25, 95%-CI: 0.83 – 1.9). A strong trend was seen when comparing OS in treatment arms cet. (n=219) vs. bev. (n=217)) for patients with synchronous disease; (p-value: 0.05, HR: 1,26, 95%-CI: 1.0 - 1.59). 436/592 pts suffered from synchronous, 153/592 from metachronous disease (in 3/592 pts the information was not given). Median OS in pts with synchronous disease was 24.5 months and 29.5 in pts with metachronous disease (p-value: 0.02, HR: 0.76, 95%-CI: 0.6 - 0.96). In pts treated in the cetuximab arm metachronous disease (n=77) was associated with a trend towards longer OS when compared to synchronous disease (n= 219) (p-value: 0.13, HR: 0.76, 95%-CI: 0.54 – 1.1). The same effect was present in the bevacizumab arm (p-value: 0.05, HR: 0.73, 95%-CI 0.53 – 1.0) when comparing pts with synchronous disease (n=217) vs. pts. with metachronous disease (n=76). Conclusions: In the FIRE-3 study, metachronous disease was associated with superior OS compared to synchronous disease. This finding was accentuated in the bevacizumab arm. The role of resection of the primary tumor had no impact on survival. Clinical trial information: NCT00433927 .

Updated overall survival results of WJTOG 3405, a randomized phase III trial comparing gefitinib (G) with cisplatin plus docetaxel (CD) as the first-line treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7521-7521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetsuya Mitsudomi ◽  
Satoshi Morita ◽  
Yasushi Yatabe ◽  
Shunichi Negoro ◽  
Isamu Okamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Egfr Tki ◽  
First Line Treatment ◽  
Platinum Doublet

7521 Background: WJTOG3405 met its primary endpoint of progression free survival (PFS) (9.2 months (mo.) for G vs. 6.3 mo. for CD, hazard ratio (HR) 0.489, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.336-0.710). (Mitsudomi et al., Lancet Oncol., 2010). However, the impact on overall survival (OS) was not clear then because of relatively short follow-up period. Methods: Overall survival (OS) was re-evaluated using updated data (data cutoff, 31 July, 2011, median follow-up, 34 months) for 172 patients. Results: Eighty-two events had occurred (48%). Median survival time (MST) for G arm was 36 mo. (95% CI: 26.3 -) which was not significantly different from 39 mo. (95% CI: 31.2 -) for CD arm (HR 1.185, 95% CI 0.767-1.829). Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards model revealed that none of covariates (treatment arm, smoking status, sex, age, postoperative recurrence or IIIB/IV, and mutation type) significantly affected OS. In the G arm, MST of patients with exon 19 deletion (36 mo.) was comparable to that of patients with L858R (35 mo.). In the CD arm, 78 patients (91%) received EGFR-TKI as the 2nd or later line treatment, whereas in the G arm, 52 patients (61%) received platinum doublet. Accordingly, 130 patients received both platinum doublet and EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and 34 patients received EGFR-TKI without platinum doublet in their whole courses of therapy. MST for the former and the latter group were 36 months (95% CI: 31.2-45.7) and 45 months (95% CI: 25.6-), without significant difference. Conclusions: This update OS analysis revealed that G for advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutation offers distinct survival benefit of 3 years. There was no difference in OS whether the first-line treatment was G or CD, in accordance with the precedent studies. The reason why PFS difference was not translated into OS difference is probably due to high cross over rate to EGFR-TKI. However, it was noteworthy that 40% of patients in the G arm could be managed without platinum doublet and yet had similar outcome.

Real life data from Turkey regarding the impact of first-line sunitinib and pazopanib in metastatic renal cell cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16075-e16075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulas Isik ◽  
Osman Kostek ◽  
Gokcen Demiray ◽  
Ahmet Dirican ◽  
Melih Simsek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
The Other ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Treatment Approaches ◽  
Common Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Line Treatment

e16075 Background: Although the distribution in the world varies widely, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the ninth most common cancer, especially in males. It’s the seventh most common cancer in Turkey. In this study, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) who were treated at 13 centers in our country were evaluated and the efficacy of first-line treatment approaches was compared. Methods: Data of mRCC patients admitted to 13 outpatient clinics in Turkey between 2008 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic characteristics, pre-treatment clinical evaluations, information about treatment approaches and survival outcomes of the patients were collected. All medical records were collected by a detailed review of the patients’ charts. The median and percentage values were frequently signified for defining of central trends. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for OS analyzes and log-rank test with Cox-regression models were applied for the evaluation of prognostic factors. Results: Data from files of 262 patients were reviewed. Twelve of these patients were excluded from the study because they could not receive treatment due to comorbidities and other reasons at metastatic stage of the disease. Of the patients, 100 (40%) were female and 150 (60%) were male. Median age was 60 (range 21-83). For the entire group, the median PFS (mPFS) was 27.6 months and the median overall survival (mOS) was 46.1 months. In terms of first-line treatment of metastatic disease, 41.3% of the patients received sunitinib, 48.8% of the patients received pazopanib, 15.8% of the patients received other treatments. PFS of the patients receiving sunitinib, pazopanib and the other treatments were 26.3 months, 34.2 months and 14.2 months, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between PFS of the patients receiving sunitinib and pazopanib (p = 0.05). mOS was 54 months in sunitinib arm, 54.9 months in pazopanib arm and 23.3 months in the other treatment arm. There was no statistically significant difference between two treatment agents in terms of mOS (p = 0.43). Conclusions: Pazopanib was more commonly prescribed in Turkey. There were no statistically significant differences between mPFS and mOS of the patients who received sunitinib and pazopanib for the first-line treatment of mRCC. With increased use of immunotherapeutic agents for the first-line treatment of mRCC in our country, improvement in mOS could be expected.

scholarly journals Postinfectious Olfactory Dysfunction: Oral Steroids and Olfactory Training versus Olfactory Training Alone: Is There any Benefit from Steroids?

ORL ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Sotiria Genetzaki ◽  
Evangelia Tsakiropoulou ◽  
Vasilios Nikolaidis ◽  
Konstantinos Markou ◽  
Iordanis Konstantinidis
Keyword(s):  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Olfactory Function ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Olfactory Testing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oral Steroids ◽  
Group A ◽  
Olfactory Training ◽  
First Line Treatment

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> There are limited treatment options for postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD). Olfactory training has recently been used in clinical practice, but no medical treatment is widely accepted. Although there is weak evidence for their value, some physicians use oral corticosteroids as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to compare combined oral methylprednisolone and olfactory training with olfactory training alone in the management of PIOD. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This prospective cohort study included 131 patients with PIOD over a 2-year period before the COVID-19 pandemic. Seventy-eight patients who were treated with oral methylprednisolone and olfactory training (group A) were compared with 53 patients who were treated with olfactory training only (group B). Olfactory function was evaluated with “Sniffin’ Sticks” at baseline and 2, 8, and 16 weeks after initial assessment. Patients who improved after steroid treatment underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the paranasal sinuses, skin prick tests, lung spirometry, and sputum eosinophil assessment. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Oral steroids improved 19.23% of patients (<i>n</i> = 15) of group A. History, clinical evaluation, imaging, and laboratory tests identified an inflammatory background in half of them (<i>n</i> = 8). The remaining 7 had no findings of nasal inflammation, and all had a short history of olfactory dysfunction. Both groups significantly improved in olfactory testing results at the end of the olfactory training scheme without significant difference between them. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The percentage of improved patients after oral methylprednisolone was relatively low to suggest it as first-line treatment. Half of the improved patients had an underlying upper airway inflammatory condition not related to the infection that caused the acute loss of olfactory function.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document