scholarly journals Survival, Chemotherapy and Chemosensitivity Predicted by CTC Cultured In Vitro of SCLC Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lixia Ju ◽  
Juan Yang ◽  
Changyun Zhai ◽  
Shuizhen Chai ◽  
Zhiyi Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Therapy Response ◽  
Drug Susceptibility ◽  
Susceptibility Test ◽  
Therapeutic Regimen ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Drug Susceptibility Test ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Potential Marker

PurposeThe prognosis for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients receiving later-line treatment is very poor and there is still no standard treatments after the second-line setting. Analyzing the susceptibility of chemotherapeutic drugs with circulating tumor cells (CTCs) cultured in vitro may contribute to optimize the therapeutic regimen. However, so far CTCs have been barely used for studying their chemosensitivity due to the lack of technology to obtain wholly intact and viable CTCs.MethodsBased on a retrospective study of the therapeutic response of 99 patients with unresectable SCLC, the CTC count in 14 SCLC patients was detected before and after chemotherapy to evaluate its role as a potential marker of response. Furthermore, the drug susceptibility of CTCs cultured in vitro obtained from ClearCell FX® System was tested and the therapy response was evaluated.ResultsAll of the 99 patients received the first-line chemotherapy and the objective response rate (ORR) was 74.7%. A total of 36 patients received the second-line therapy and the average duration was 2.6 months, and only 11 cases out of them received the third-line therapy but no one responded. The change of CTC counts was identified to be correlated with therapy response. However all the five SCLC patients who were administered with the drugs according to the drug susceptibility test of CTCs for two cycles underwent progression of disease.ConclusionThe results showed that the responses of chemotherapy are very poor in later lines and the drug susceptibility test using CTCs primary cultured in vitro may not benefit the improvement of therapeutic regimen of SCLC patients.

scholarly journals A PILOT FIELD TRIAL OF AN IN VITRO DRUG SUSCEPTIBILITY TEST USING THE ANAEROPACK MALARIA CULTURE SYSTEM ON THE THAI-MYANMAR BORDER

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
TOSHIMITSU HATABU ◽  
SHIN-ICHIRO KAWAZU ◽  
SOMEI KOJIMA ◽  
PRATAP SINGHASIVANON ◽  
SRIVICHA KRUDSOOD ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Field Trial ◽  
Culture System ◽  
Drug Susceptibility ◽  
Susceptibility Test ◽  
Drug Susceptibility Test ◽  
In Vitro Drug Susceptibility

Phase (Ph) 1b/2 evaluation of olaratumab in combination with gemcitabine and docetaxel in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11517-11517
Author(s):  
Steven Attia ◽  
Victor Manuel Villalobos ◽  
Nadia Hindi ◽  
Brian Andrew Van Tine ◽  
Andrew J. Wagner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Parameter Estimates ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ecog Ps

11517 Background: Doxorubicin (doxo) remains standard first-line therapy for advanced STS. Doxo in combination with olaratumab (O) demonstrated superior clinical activity compared to doxo alone in a Ph 2 trial (NCT01185964), although this was not confirmed in the subsequent Ph 3 trial (NCT02451943). Gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) is a second line therapy for advanced STS. Here, we report a concurrent Ph 2 study that explored a second-line addition of O to G and D for advanced STS (ANNOUNCE 2 NCT02659020). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic STS, ≤ 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0-1 were eligible. Pts were enrolled from 2 cohorts: O-naïve and O-pretreated. In both cohorts, pts were randomized 1:1 to either O, G plus D or placebo (PBO), G plus D. Pts received 21-day cycles of O (20 mg/ kg cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, day (d) 1 and d8), G (900 mg/m2, d1 and d8) and D (75 mg/m2, d8). Pts continued treatment until progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by histology (leiomyosarcoma [LMS] vs non-LMS), prior systemic therapy, ECOG PS, and prior pelvic radiation. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population using an alpha level of 0.20. Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated) and other efficacy parameters, as well as safety and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: 167 pts were enrolled in the O-naïve cohort and 89 pts in the O-pretreated cohort. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. OS for O-naïve pts was 16.8 vs 18.0 months (m) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.64-1.40; p = 0.78) for the investigational vs control arm, respectively. Other efficacy outcomes are presented in the table. Safety was manageable across treatment arms. PK parameter estimates for O were consistent with previous studies. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population. However, while not statistically significant, the combination of O, G and D demonstrated favorable OS in the O-pretreated cohort, and PFS and objective response rate (ORR) in both cohorts. For O-naïve pts, a clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) improvement was observed. Further investigations in specific histological subtypes are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02659020. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Modified FOLFIRINOX as a second-line therapy following gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel therapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masashi Sawada ◽  
Akiyoshi Kasuga ◽  
Takafumi Mie ◽  
Takaaki Furukawa ◽  
Takanobu Taniguchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Model ◽  
Prognostic Score ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background There is no established second-line treatment after failure of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) as a second-line therapy for MPC and investigate prognostic factors for survival. Methods From 2015–2019, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients receiving mFFX for MPC after failure of GnP therapy. Patients were treated every 2 weeks with mFFX (intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 , intravenous irinotecan 150 mg/m 2 , and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2,400 mg/m 2 for 46 hours without bolus infusion) until disease progression, patient refusal, or unacceptable toxicity. Results In total, 104 patients received mFFX. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2-9.8) and the progression-free survival (PFS) 3.9 months (95% CI 2.8-5.0). The objective response rate was 10.6% and the disease control rate 56.7%. The median relative dose intensities of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and infusional 5-FU were 80.0% (range 21.5-100%), 77.2% (range 38.1-100%), and 85.9% (range 36.9-100%), respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities were reported in 57 patients (54.8%), including neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Glasgow prognostic score and carcinoembryonic antigen level were independently associated with survival. Our prognostic model using these parameters could classify the patients into good (n = 38), intermediate (n = 47), and poor (n = 19) prognostic groups. The median OS and PFS time was 14.7 (95% CI 7.6-16.3) and 7.6 months (95% CI 4.1-10.5) for the good prognostic factors, 6.5 (95% CI 5.5-10.0) and 3.6 months (95% CI 2.7-4.8) for the intermediate prognostic factors and 5.0 (95% CI 2.9-6.6) and 1.7 months (95% CI 0.9-4.3) for the poor prognostic factors, respectively. Conclusions The mFFX showed to be a tolerable second-line treatment for MPC after GnP failure. Our prognostic model might be useful for deciding whether mFFX is indicated in this setting.

Intravenous vinorelbine as first-line and second-line therapy in advanced breast cancer.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2722-2730 ◽  
Author(s):  
B L Weber ◽  
C Vogel ◽  
S Jones ◽  
H Harvey ◽  
L Hutchins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

PURPOSE We evaluated single-agent intravenous (IV) vinorelbine as first- and second-line treatment for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients who were not resistant to anthracyclines. Objective tumor response (TR) and toxicity were assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 107 women were enrolled onto this multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label phase II study. Patients were stratified into first- and second-line treatment groups, based on prior treatment history. Vinorelbine was initially given at 30 mg/m2/wk, with dose modification for toxicity as indicated. Therapy was continued until disease progression or severe toxicity mandated withdrawal or until the patient asked to be removed from the study. RESULTS The objective response rate for all patients was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25% to 44%): 35% (95% CI, 23% to 48%) for first-line patients and 32% (95% CI, 20% to 47%) for second-line patients. Nine first-line and three second-line patients obtained a complete response (CR). The median duration of objective response was 34 weeks in both groups. The overall survival durations of first- and second-line patients were 67 weeks and 62 weeks, respectively. Granulocytopenia was the predominant dose-limiting toxicity. Two patients died on study as a result of granulocytopenic sepsis. CONCLUSION Single-agent vinorelbine is an effective and well-tolerated agent for first- and second-line therapy of ABC. The results of this study confirm the findings of similar international trials and suggest vinorelbine should be considered a valid treatment option for patients with ABC and a potential component in future combination regimens for this disease.

Slide drug susceptibility test for the detection of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Bangladesh

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 818-824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashed Noor ◽  
Akter Hossain ◽  
Saurab Kishore Munshi ◽  
Farjana Rahman ◽  
S.M.Mostofa Kamal
Keyword(s):  
Drug Susceptibility ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Susceptibility Test ◽  
Drug Susceptibility Test ◽  
Resistant Tuberculosis ◽  
Multidrug Resistant Tuberculosis

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of regorafenib as beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: an adjusted indirect meta-analysis and systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592094093
Author(s):  
Yinying Wu ◽  
Yangwei Fan ◽  
Danfeng Dong ◽  
Xuyuan Dong ◽  
Yuan Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

Background: The evidence base for optimum third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is not conclusive. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of regorafenib as third-line therapy in mCRC. This indirect meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of regorafenib with other available third-line therapies for mCRC. Methods: A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, regorafenib, TAS-102, and nintedanib as third-line therapies in patients with mCRC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes, while objective response rate (ORR) and safety were the secondary outcomes. Hazard ratio (HR) and relative risk (RR) with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for analysis of survival, clinical response, and safety data. An adjusted indirect meta-analysis with placebo as the common comparator was performed. Results: We identified eight RCTs comparing regorafenib (two studies), fruquintinib (two studies), TAS-102 (three studies), and nintedanib (one study) against placebo. The OS with regorafenib was significantly better when compared with nintedanib (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.95, p = 0.02) but was similar to that of fruquintinib (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.52, p = 0.94) and TAS-102 (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.38, p = 0.88). The PFS and ORR for regorafenib were slightly better than those of TAS-102 (PFS: HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.37, p = 0.5; ORR: RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.11, 11.05, p = 0.92) and nintedanib (PFS: HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42, 1.10, p = 0.12; ORR: not reported) but were lower than those for fruquintinib (PFS: HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.93, 2.52, p = 0.08; ORR: RR = 0.68269, 95% CI: 0.045, 10.32, p = 0.79). Safety analysis showed that the RR of adverse events (AEs) was lesser in patients treated with regorafenib in comparison with that in patients treated with fruquintinib, but was similar to that in patients treated with nintedanib and TAS-102. Conclusion: Regorafenib has efficacy similar to that of TAS-102 and better safety when compared with fruquintinib. Considering the mechanism of action of regorafenib, which targets multiple factors in the angiogenic pathway, it could be an ideal option for treatment in the beyond second-line setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document