scholarly journals Protocol for a phase III randomized trial of chemoradiation and systemic chemotherapy vs. systemic chemotherapy alone in patients with unresectable nonmetastatic cholangiocarcinoma

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Supriya Chopra ◽  
Reena Engineer ◽  
Ashwathy Susan Mathew ◽  
Shaesta Mehta ◽  
Vikas Ostwal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Systemic Chemotherapy ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Doublet Chemotherapy

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Systemic doublet chemotherapy constitutes the current standard of care for patients with unresectable non-metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. The use of doublet chemotherapy is associated with median survival of 11.7 months. Concurrent chemo-radiation in this cohort is associated with similar overall survival however the impact of combination of chemoradiation and systemic chemotherapy on overall survival has not been investigated.  The present phase III randomized study investigates the impact of chemoradiation in addition to systemic chemotherapy on overall survival.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Patients older than 18 years of age with diagnosis of unresectable non-metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with performance status 0-2and preserved liver function (Child Pugh score up to B7) will be eligible for study participation. The trial is designed such that patients will undergo stratified randomization (extra-hepatic vs. intrahepatic) either into systemic chemotherapy (standard arm) or chemo-radiation and systemic chemotherapy arm (experimental arm). The primary aim of the study is to compare difference in overall survival. The secondary aims of the study will focus on loco regional progression free survival and cause specific survival. The study will also report on the acute and late toxicity, quality of life and resectability rates in both the study arms. To demonstrate 7-month improvement in overall survival from 11 to 18 months a sample size of 142 is needed. Accounting for attrition a total of 155 patients will be accrued. All study subjects will be accrued after written informed consent. The trial is approved by the institutional ethics review board.</p><p>This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02773485</p>

A randomized phase III study of gemcitabine (G) versus GV1001 in sequential combination with G in patients with unresectable and metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4601-4601 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Buanes ◽  
J. Maurel ◽  
W. Liauw ◽  
M. Hebbar ◽  
J. Nemunaitis
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Peptide Vaccine ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Delayed Treatment ◽  
Sequential Combination ◽  
The Impact

4601 Background: A phase I/II study with GV1001, a telomerase peptide vaccine, showed a median overall survival (OS) of 8.6 months in non-resectable PC (Bernhardt SL et al, Br J Cancer. 2006;95:1474–1482). This phase III trial was conducted to determine the impact on overall survival of G monotherapy vs. GV1001 in sequential combination with G in unresectable and metastatic PC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had chemotherapy-naive, advanced PC and ECOG performance status 0–1. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive arm A: G (1,000 mg/m2 30 min i.v.) weekly for 7 weeks (w), 1w off and then 3w during 4-weekly cycles, or arm B: GV1001 0.56 mg s.c. plus GM-CSF as immune adjuvant on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 22, 36, then every 4 weeks. Patients who progressed clinically or radiologically during GV1001 continued on GV1001 and concomitant gemcitabine. CT scans were performed every 8 weeks. The primary end-point was OS. A sample size of 520 patients allowed the detection of a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73 (B/A), with 2α = 0.05 and 90% power. Results: Between June 2006 and May 2008, 365 pts were enrolled (A / B; 182 / 183). The study was stopped prematurely due to a preliminary analysis with 178 events showing no survival benefit of GV1001. Pts were well balanced for baseline characteristics: male 59.3% / 62.8%; median age 61y / 61y; ECOG PS 0 34.3% / 36.7%; locally advanced 22.4% / 20.7%. As of August 2008, 238 pts (A / B : 114 / 124) had died. Median OS was 7.3 / 5.9 months (HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.6–1.0). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 / 1.9 months (HR 0.5; 95%CI 0.4–0.7). Grade 3–4 AEs: gastrointestinal 6% / 8%, infection 5% / 5%, vascular disorders 2% / 3%, neutropenia 6% / 3%. Conclusions: GV1001 did not show efficacy in sequential combination with G in advanced PC. The advantage of G monotherapy over the sequential combination may be due to the delayed treatment with G in arm B. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Mukai ◽  
Yuichiro Hayashi ◽  
Izumi Koike ◽  
Toshiyuki Koizumi ◽  
Madoka Sugiura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Background: We compared outcomes and toxicities between concurrent retrograde super-selective intra-arterial chemoradiotherapy (IACRT) and concurrent systemic chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) for gingival carcinoma (GC).　Methods: We included 84 consecutive patients who were treated for non-metastatic GC ≥ stage III, from 2006 to 2018, in this retrospective analysis (IACRT group: n=66; SCRT group: n=18).Results: The median follow-up time was 24 (range: 1–124) months. The median prescribed dose was 60 (6–70.2) Gy (IACRT: 60 Gy; SCRT: 69 Gy). There were significant differences between the two groups in terms of 3-year overall survival (OS; IACRT: 78.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.0–87.6; SCRT: 50.4%, 95% CI: 27.6–73.0; P = 0.039), progression-free survival (PFS; IACRT: 75.6%, 95% CI: 62.7–85.2; SCRT: 42.0%, 95% CI: 17.7–70.9; P = 0.028) and local control rates (LC; IACRT: 77.2%, 95% CI: 64.2–86.4; SCRT: 42.0%, 95% CI: 17.7–70.9; P = 0.015). In univariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, decreased performance status (PS) and SCRT were significantly associated with worse outcomes (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, clinical stage IV, and SCRT were significantly correlated with a poor OS rate (P < 0.05). Patients with poorer PS had a significantly worse PFS rate. Regarding acute toxicity, 22 IACRT patients had grade 4 lymphopenia, and osteoradionecrosis was the most common late toxicity in both groups.Conclusions: This is the first report to compare outcomes from IACRT and SCRT among patients with GC. ALL therapy related toxicities were manageable. IACRT is an effective and safe treatment for GC.

scholarly journals Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Mukai ◽  
Yuichiro Hayashi ◽  
Izumi Koike ◽  
Toshiyuki Koizumi ◽  
Madoka Sugiura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Background We compared outcomes and toxicities between concurrent retrograde super-selective intra-arterial chemoradiotherapy (IACRT) and concurrent systemic chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) for gingival carcinoma (GC). Methods We included 84 consecutive patients who were treated for non-metastatic GC ≥ stage III, from 2006 to 2018, in this retrospective analysis (IACRT group: n = 66; SCRT group: n = 18). Results The median follow-up time was 24 (range: 1–124) months. The median prescribed dose was 60 (6–70.2) Gy (IACRT: 60 Gy; SCRT: 69 Gy). There were significant differences between the two groups in terms of 3-year overall survival (OS; IACRT: 78.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.0–87.6; SCRT: 50.4, 95% CI: 27.6–73.0; P = 0.039), progression-free survival (PFS; IACRT: 75.6, 95% CI: 62.7–85.2; SCRT: 42.0, 95% CI: 17.7–70.9; P = 0.028) and local control rates (LC; IACRT: 77.2, 95% CI: 64.2–86.4; SCRT: 42.0, 95% CI: 17.7–70.9; P = 0.015). In univariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, decreased performance status (PS) and SCRT were significantly associated with worse outcomes (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, clinical stage IV, and SCRT were significantly correlated with a poor OS rate (P < 0.05). Patients with poorer PS had a significantly worse PFS rate. Regarding acute toxicity, 22 IACRT patients had grade 4 lymphopenia, and osteoradionecrosis was the most common late toxicity in both groups. Conclusions This is the first report to compare outcomes from IACRT and SCRT among patients with GC. ALL therapy related toxicities were manageable. IACRT is an effective and safe treatment for GC.

Cetuximab in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R&M SCCHN) (EXTREME)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5537-5537 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Vermorken ◽  
R. Mesia ◽  
M. E. Vega-Villegas ◽  
E. Remenar ◽  
R. Hitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Data Safety Monitoring Board ◽  
Phase Iii

5537 Background: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is expressed in nearly all SCCHN and carries a strong prognostic significance, providing the rationale for using EGFR-targeted agents, such as cetuximab, in this indication. This study assesses the efficacy and safety of cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy commonly used in the treatment of R&M SCCHN. Methods: Patients (pts) were enrolled into this phase III trial from December 2004 to December 2005 and randomized either to Group A: cetuximab (first dose 400 mg/m2 then 250 mg/m2 weekly) plus a maximum of 6 three-weekly cycles of cisplatin (100 mg/m2 IV on day 1) or carboplatin (AUC 5, day 1) and 5-FU (1000 mg/m2/day continuous infusion for the first 4 days of each cycle) or to Group B: cisplatin or carboplatin with 5-FU as before. Cetuximab was administered until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint is overall survival time; secondary endpoints are progression-free-survival, response rate, disease control rate, safety, and Quality of Life. It was planned to randomize a total number of 420 pts in order to detect a difference in improvement in overall survival of 2.5 months. Results: At the end of the recruitment,440 pts have been randomized, to date 320 pts are under treatment, 21 have withdrawn from the study and 99 have completed the study. The Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) has performed an independent preplanned safety analysis from the first 140 pts, 138 pts of whom were treated. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 weeks: M/F122/16, median age57 years [range, 38–79],median Karnofsky performance status (KPS) 80 [range, 70–100]. In this safety analysis, there were 14 deaths, none of which were treatment related. The most frequent drug related grade 3–4 toxicity was mainly represented by neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia. Conclusions: The DSMB evaluated baseline and safety data, found no reason to stop the trial and recommended continuation of the study. [Table: see text]

Hepatic arterial embolization adopting polyvinyl alcohol microspheres preloaded with irinotecan versus systemic chemotherapy for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: A phase III clinical research trial of activity and quality of life.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 587-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giammaria Fiorentini ◽  
Camillo Aliberti ◽  
Massimo Tilli ◽  
Paolo Coschiera ◽  
Andrea Mambrini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Hepatic Metastases ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Arterial Embolization ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Radical Resection ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Research Trial

587 Background: Patients with liver metastases (LM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) have a severe prognosis with the 5-year survival of 25% after radical resection; for not operable metastases the survival is poor. Embolization using polyvinil alcohol microspheres loaded with IRI 200 mgr (D) is a feasible procedure. FOLFIRI (CT) is active for the treatment of CRC. We planned this phase III study to assess survival as primary endpoint to increase median survival (MS) by 40% at 2-y (HR=0.72). QoL, responses, progression-free survival (PFS) and safety are secondary endpoints. Methods: Between December 2006 and December 2008, 74 pts were randomized, 37 patients to D and 37 to CT. Two D patients had early progression and two CT patients refused. 70 cycles of D were administered in 35 pts, with a dose intensity (DI) of 99%, and 292 CT cycles were delivered to 35 pts with a DI of 90%. Results: At a median follow up of 30 months ( 18-42) we reported (D vs CT): MS 48% vs 28%, Response Rate 70% vs 20%, Acute Toxicity 70% vs 20%, Late Toxicity 20% vs 80%, QoL improvement 65% vs 25%, Costs for each pt: 7,000 vs 24,000 euro. Conclusions: D increased the 30-Months MS difference of 20% compared to CT. D improved responses, Performance Status and reduced costs. D reported higher immediate toxicity, mainly fever and abdominal pain, than CT. Late toxicity, mainly haematological, diarrhoea, asthenia and alopecia, was more common in CT. We conclude that D compared to CT increases survival and palliative results in patients with LM from CRC.

An updated overall survival analysis with correction for protocol-planned crossover of the international, phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of regorafenib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors after failure of imatinib and sunitinib (GRID).

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 110-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
George D. Demetri ◽  
Peter Reichardt ◽  
Yoon-Koo Kang ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Heikki Joensuu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Failure Time ◽  
Cox Model ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

110 Background: The GRID study showed that regorafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo in patients with advanced GIST after failure of at least imatinib and sunitinib (HR 0.27; 1-sided p<0.0001; Demetri 2013). At the time of the primary analysis, no significant difference in the secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) was observed (HR 0.77; p=0.199), but this result may have been confounded by the high rate of crossover to regorafenib (85%) of placebo patients at progression. We conducted exploratory analyses of updated OS data to assess the effect of correcting for this protocol-planned crossover. Methods: The data cut-off for this updated OS analysis was 31 January 2014 (2 years after the primary analysis). OS was corrected using two randomization-based methods: rank preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) and iterative parameter estimation (IPE); both methods are considered as best choice among all correction analytics. Hazard ratios and 95% CI were derived using the Cox model. Results: A total of 139 deaths had occurred at the time of data cut-off: 91 events (68.4% of patients) in the regorafenib group and 48 (72.7%) in the placebo group. A total of 22 patients remained on regorafenib treatment (median duration 2.1 years, range 0.9–2.4). The updated hazard ratio for OS favored regorafenib (0.85, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.21; p=0.18). Median OS was estimated as 17.4 months in both groups, with crossover from placebo. The corrected HRs for OS are less than the uncorrected HR (Table). Conclusions: The updated analysis of OS in the GRID trial is consistent with the primary analysis. An exploratory analysis correcting for the impact of cross-over on OS suggests a survival benefit for regorafenib in GIST. Clinical trial information: NCT01271712. [Table: see text]

Phase III randomized study of sorafenib plus doxorubicin versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): CALGB 80802 (Alliance).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 192-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa ◽  
Donna Niedzwieski ◽  
Jennifer J. Knox ◽  
Andreas Kaubisch ◽  
James Posey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Hepatic Failure ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Secondary Malignancy ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy

192 Background: An exploratory analysis of a randomized phase II study in HCC comparing doxorubicin (D) alone to doxorubicin plus sorafenib (D+S) showed a significant improvement in overall survival favoring D+S (JAMA, 2011). The results appeared promising compared to the historic outcomes seen in the pivotal sorafenib (S) trials. CALGB 80802 was designed to determine if D+S improved survival compared to S alone. Methods: Patients with histologically proven advanced HCC, no prior systemic therapy and Child-Pugh A were randomized to receive D 60 mg/m2 every 21 days plus S 400 mg PO twice daily (D+S) or S alone. For bilirubin ≥ 1.3x normal, D and S doses were halved. D was maxed out at 360 mg/m2. The study was stratified by extent of disease (locally advanced; metastatic), the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); and secondary endpoint progression-free survival (PFS). The final analysis was to occur when 364 events were observed among 480 total patients, with 90% power to detect a 37% increase in median OS (10.7 to 14.7 months; 1-sided α = 0.05). Results: The Alliance DSMB halted the study after accrual of 346 patients (173 on each of D+S and S) when a futility boundary was crossed at a planned interim analysis. With 107 events in each arm, median OS was 9.3 months (95%CI 7.1-12.9) for D+S, and 10.5 months (95% CI 7.4-14.3) for S with a hazard ratio (HR) 1.06 (95% CI 0.8-1.4) for D+S vs. S. Median PFS was 3.6 (95% CI 2.8-4.6) and 3.2 months (95% CI 2.3-4.1), respectively (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.72-1.2). There were 38 deaths on treatment: 18 on D+S and 20 on S. Among these 8 [sepsis (1), dysphagia (1), pneumonia (1), cardiac (2), hepatic failure (2), and not otherwise specified (1)] on D+S, and 3 [fatigue (1), hepatic failure (1), and a secondary malignancy (1)] on S, were at least possibly related to treatment. A maximum grade 3 or 4 only hematologic adverse events (AE) occurred in 37.8% of patients on D+S and 8.1% of patients on S. Non-hematologic AEs were comparable, in 63.6% and 61.5% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of D to S resulted in higher toxicity and did not improve OS or PFS. The S median OS of about 10 months is consistent with previous reports. NCI Grant U10CA180821 Clinical trial information: NCT01015833.

PROSPER: A phase III randomized study comparing perioperative nivolumab (nivo) versus observation in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) undergoing nephrectomy (ECOG-ACRIN 8143).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS684-TPS684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Christine Harshman ◽  
Maneka Puligandla ◽  
Naomi B. Haas ◽  
Mohamad Allaf ◽  
Charles G. Drake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Immune System ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Metastatic Rcc

TPS684 Background: The anti-PD-1 antibody nivo improves overall survival in metastatic RCC and is well tolerated. There is no standard adjuvant systemic therapy that increases overall survival (OS) over surgery alone for non-metastatic RCC. Priming the immune system prior to surgery with anti-PD-1 has shown an OS benefit compared to a pure adjuvant approach in mouse solid tumor models. The PROSPER RCC trial aims to improve clinical outcomes by priming the immune system prior to nephrectomy with neoadjuvant nivo and continued engagement with adjuvant blockade in patients with high risk M0 RCC compared to surgery alone. Methods: This global, unblinded, phase 3 National Clinical Trials Network study is currently accruing patients with clinical stage ≥T2 or node positive M0 RCC of any histology. Tumor biopsy prior to randomization is mandatory to ensure RCC and permits in depth correlative science. The investigational arm will receive two doses of nivo 240mg prior to surgery followed by adjuvant nivo for 9 months (q2 wks x 3 mo followed by 480mg q4 wks x 6 mo). The control arm will undergo standard nephrectomy followed by observation. Randomized patients are stratified by clinical T stage, node positivity, and histology. To enhance accrual and patient quality of life, key upcoming amendments are being instituted. These include biopsy only in the nivo arm, allowance of oligometastatic disease and bilateral renal masses that can be fully resected/ablated, and change of nivo dosing to q4 wks (1 neoadj; 9 adj). With accrual of 766 patients, there is 84.2% power to detect a 14.4% absolute benefit in recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 5 years assuming the ASSURE historical control of ~56% to 70% (HR = 0.70). The study is also powered to evaluate a significant increase in overall survival (HR 0.67). Safety, feasibility, and quality of life endpoints critical to adjuvant therapy considerations are incorporated. PROSPER RCC embeds a wealth of translational work aimed at investigating the impact of the baseline immune milieu, the changes induced by neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 priming, and how both correlate with clinical outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03055013.

Analysis of prognostic factors in patients with advanced relapsed/refractory NSCLC: Cox regression analysis of a randomized phase III trial comparing docetaxel and paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7040-7040 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Bonomi ◽  
C. Langer ◽  
M. O’Brien ◽  
K. O’Byrne ◽  
B. Bandstra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Tumor Stage ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
The Impact

7040 Background: A phase III trial compared PPX to docetaxel as 2nd-line treatment in pts with relapsed/refractory advanced NSCLC (STELLAR 2). While overall survival was similar between arms, the need for supportive measures to manage the effects of myelosuppression was significantly reduced in the PPX arm. The current analysis was performed to evaluate determinants of survival in the 2nd-line treatment of NSCLC. Methods: STELLAR 2 enrolled 849 pts, 427 on PPX and 422 on docetaxel; all patients were included in the analysis. Randomization between the study arms was stratified by tumor stage, performance status (PS), start of frontline chemotherapy (< 4 mo vs more than 4 mo), gender, and prior taxane therapy. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of baseline characteristics on overall survival (OS). Results: At randomization, 29% of pts had received prior taxane, 14% were PS2, 80% had stage IV disease, and 31% had started frontline therapy within the prior 4 months. Risk factors significantly affecting survival as determined by multivariate analysis are listed in the table . These factors were consistent when treatment was added to the model. Prior exposure to taxane was not predictive of survival; tumor stage was a significant univariate predictor (p=0.0349), but had relatively less impact in the multivariate model. Conclusion: These analyses identified several factors associated with reduced survival benefit from standard second line therapy. Consequently, alternative treatment strategies may be necessary in patients with poor prognosis. For example, more tolerable agents may enhance the benefit/toxicity ratio in these patients. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document