Irinotecan monotherapy offers advantage over combination therapy with irinotecan plus cisplatin in second-line setting for treatment of advanced gastric cancer following failure of fluoropyrimidine-based regimens

The optimal regimen of chemotherapy for gastric cancer in a second-line setting remains to be clarified. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of second-line irinotecan treatment. A total of 134 patients with gastric cancer who had received prior chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine-based regimens were treated with irinotecan (150 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15) alone every 4 weeks (Arm I) or irinotecan (70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15) plus cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) on day 1) every 4 weeks (Arm IP) between April, 2004 and March, 2009. Patient characteristics, response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety were investigated. Of 134 patients with recurrent or unresectable gastric cancer, 92 were treated in Arm I and 42 patients in Arm IP. Overall response rate in Arm I was 8.1%, compared with 20.0% in Arm IP (P=0.65). Median progression-free survival (Arm I vs. IP; 2.6 vs. 2.7 months, P=0.73) and median overall survival (Arm I vs. IP; 9.8 vs. 8.0 months, P=0.67) did not differ between the two treatment groups. Neutropenia, leukopenia and anorexia were the most common grade 3/4 adverse events, occurring significantly more frequently in Arm IP than in Arm I (P<0.05). Irinotecan may be a key agent, and serial irinotecan monotherapy is more beneficial as compared to irinotecan plus cisplatin in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in second-line settings. Irinotecan monotherapy is beneficial compared to irinotecan plus cisplatin in second-line settings for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer refractory to fluoropyrimidine-based regimens.     

Alternating irinotecan with oxaliplatin combined with UFT plus leucovorin (SCOUT) in metastatic colorectal cancer

Tegafur-uracil (UFT) plus leucovorin (LV, folinic acid) with alternating irinotecan and oxaliplatin were effective and well tolerated in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a phase I study. This study expanded the maximum tolerated dose group. Patients aged >or=18 years had histologically confirmed, inoperable, previously untreated, measurable mCRC. Patients received irinotecan 180 mg m(-2) on day 1, oxaliplatin 100 mg m(-2) on day 15 and UFT 250 mg m(-2) plus LV 90 mg on days 1-21 every 28 days. The phase I/II study comprised 45 patients, 29 at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The response rate in 38 evaluable patients was 63% (95% confidence interval (CI): 49-80). Median time to progression and overall survival were 8.7 months (95% CI: 7.9-10.4) and 16.8 months (95% CI: 9.6-25.3), respectively. In the MTD group, one patient had grade 3 leucopenia; one had grade 3 neutropaenia; three had grade 3 diarrhoea; and one had grade 3 neurotoxicity. No hand-foot syndrome grade >1 was seen. In total, 67% of eligible patients received second-line therapy. UFT plus LV with alternating irinotecan and oxaliplatin is an efficacious first-line treatment for mCRC, with minimal neurotoxicity and hand-foot syndrome.     

A randomised phase II study of irinotecan in combination with 5-FU/FA compared with irinotecan alone as second-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomised phase II study to compare irinotecan monotherapy with irinotecan in combination with infusional 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/FA) regarding efficacy and safety of these regimens in second-line therapy after failed fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 55 patients with mCRC after failure of a first-line therapy were randomised to receive either irinotecan 80 mg/m2 followed by FA 500 mg/m2 and 5-FU 2,000 mg/m2 24 h weekly for 6 weeks, with courses repeated on day 50 (arm A), or irinotecan 125 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks, with cycles repeated on day 43 (Arm B). RESULTS: Both regimens yielded a partial response rate of 11% with identical progression-free survival (3.7 months for both regimens) and similar overall survival (9.5 months for the combination therapy vs. 10.7 months for the monotherapy). Both regimens were very well tolerated, and the combination of irinotecan with 5-FU/FA did not result in increased toxicity. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that irinotecan alone or in combination with infusional 5-FU/FA is an effective and safe regimen for CRC patients who failed first-line therapies. However, the role of 5-FU in addition to irinotecan for fluoropyrimidine failures remains unclear. Due to the small sample size, a decision cannot be made which therapy should be preferred, and a significant contribution to the efficacy of single-agent irinotecan is not obvious from this small randomised phase II trial.     

A phase II study of cisplatin and vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of cisplatin and vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8) were administrated every 3 weeks to 52 patients (mean age 57 years; range 35-75 years) with metastatic breast cancer. Thirty-two patients were previously untreated for metastatic disease. Treatment was repeated for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Objective responses were obtained in 27 patients (52.9%; complete response 9.8%). The response rate was similar in pretreated and untreated patients (50% and 54.7%, respectively; P = 0.7). ECOG performance status was good (grade 0 or 1) in 55.7% of patients at baseline assessment and in 90.3% at the end of treatment (P = 0.0001). Median time to progression was 8.5 months (8.5 months in first-line and 8.7 months in second-line patients). Median survival was 16.6 months (21.2 months in first-line and 16.1 months in second-line patients). Grade 3/4 toxicity included neutropenia (44% in first-line, 60% in second-line patients), nausea (17.3%), anemia (17%), asthenia (3.8%) and thrombocytopenia (1.9%). There were no cases of febrile neutropenia or treatment-related deaths. Alopecia did not develop in any of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin plus vinorelbine is active and tolerable in metastatic breast cancer, in untreated and pretreated patients.     

Randomized multicenter phase II trial of oxaliplatin plus irinotecan versus raltitrexed as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Irinotecan and oxaliplatin are two new agents with promising activity in advanced colorectal cancer. Based on preclinical and clinical evidence that both drugs act synergistically, a randomized phase II study was initiated to investigate the therapeutic potential and tolerance of this combination in the front-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-two patients with previously untreated, measurable disease were randomized to receive biweekly oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) plus irinotecan 175 mg/m(2) or raltitrexed 3 mg/m(2) given on day 1 every 3 weeks. Upon development of progressive disease, second-line treatment with the opposite arm was effected. RESULTS: Patients allocated to oxaliplatin/irinotecan had a significantly better radiologically confirmed response rate (43.5% v 19.6%; P =.0025) and longer progression-free survival (median, 7.1 v 5.0 months; P =.0033). Improvement in overall survival, however, did not reach the level of significance (median, 16.0 v 16.5 months; P =.3943). The response rate after cross-over was 33.3% (eight of 24) for assessable patients treated with oxaliplatin/irinotecan compared with 14.2% (three of 21) for those treated with second-line raltitrexed. Oxaliplatin/irinotecan caused more hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities, necessitating dose reductions in 10 of the first 20 patients. After adjustment of the irinotecan starting dose from 175 to 150 mg/m(2), tolerance of treatment was acceptable; the most commonly encountered events (all grades) were neutropenia (81%), alopecia (65%), nausea/emesis (62%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (62%), and diarrhea (46%). CONCLUSION: Oxaliplatin/irinotecan seems beneficial as first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer, with an acceptable toxicity profile at the reduced irinotecan dose level. Its promising therapeutic potential is supported by the high response activity noted in the raltitrexed control arm after cross-over, which may also explain the lack of a difference in overall survival.     

Availability of irinotecan in a second-line setting confers survival benefit to patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to fluoropyrimidine-based regimens

Optimal second-line chemotherapy may contribute to favorable survival in patients who receive first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare a second-line setting using irinotecan with paclitaxel in terms of survival benefit and safety. A total of 179 patients with recurrent or unresectable gastric cancer who had received prior chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine-based regimen were treated with irinotecan alone at 150 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15 every 4 weeks (Cohort I) or weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks (Cohort P) between April, 2004 and March, 2009. Patient characteristics, overall response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival and safety were investigated. Of the 179 patients, 92 received irinotecan and 87 patients who were contraindicated for irinotecan received weekly paclitaxel. The overall response and disease control rates in Cohort I were 6.5 and 43.5%, respectively, as compared with 9.8 and 54.9%, respectively, in Cohort P. No variation was noted in median progression-free survival (Cohort I vs. P, 2.6 vs. 2.8 months; P=0.812), whereas median overall survival (Cohort I vs. P, 9.8 vs. 4.9 months; P<0.0001) differed significantly between the two cohorts. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia and anorexia, which were tolerable in each treatment cohort. Availability of irinotecan in a second-line setting confers a survival benefit to advanced gastric cancer patients in whom fluoropyrimidine-based first-line chemotherapy was unsuccessful.     

Randomized multicenter Phase II trial of two different schedules of irinotecan combined with capecitabine as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current randomized Phase II study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine combined with irinotecan as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC). METHODS: A total of 140 patients received capecitabine at a dose of 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily on Days 2-15 and irinotecan at a dose of either 300 mg/m(2) on Day 1 (Arm A) or 150 mg/m(2) on Days 1 and 8 (Arm B) every 3 weeks. During the course of the study, enrollment was continued using lower doses of capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily) and irinotecan (Arm A: 240 mg/m(2); Arm B: 120 mg/m(2)) to improve the safety profile of the combinations. RESULTS: Efficacy was evaluable in 134 patients (68 in Arm A, 66 in Arm B). Objective responses were observed in 46% of the patients (8% complete response [CR]), including 47% in Arm A (9% CR; 38% partial response [PR]) and 44% in Arm B (8% CR; 36% PR). The median progression-free survival was 8.3 months in Arm A and 7.6 months in Arm B. Among the first 52 patients treated with the higher doses, the most frequent Grade 3-4 adverse event was diarrhea (27%). The lower doses adopted in the subsequent 88 patients led to better diarrhea control, particularly in Arm A, and significant reductions in the incidence of all-grade hand-foot syndrome and abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: The capecitabine and irinotecan combination was a highly active first-line therapy in metastatic CRC. An acceptable safety profile was observed after dose reduction, particularly when irinotecan was administered on 1 day.     

Sequential two-line strategy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: docetaxel-cisplatin versus vinorelbine-cisplatin followed by cross-over to single-agent docetaxel or vinorelbine at progression: final results of a randomised phase II study.

BACKGROUND: This phase II trial compared docetaxel-cisplatin (DC) with vinorelbine-cisplatin (VC), both as first-line therapy followed by cross-over at progression to single-agent vinorelbine or docetaxel in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Overall, 115 patients received DC (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) both on day 1, every 3 weeks, arm A1) and 118 VC (vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2)/week on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 3 weeks, arm B1) for six cycles, and subsequently maintained by monotherapy with docetaxel (A1) or vinorelbine (B1) with cross-over on disease progression to vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 (A2), or docetaxel 100 mg/m(2), day 1, both every 3 weeks (B2). The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Patient characteristics were balanced; median follow-up was 8.8 months. First-line response rate was 33.9% with DC and 26.3% with VC (P=0.20). In arms A1 and B1, respectively: duration of response was similar (8.2 versus 8.4 months); median time to progression was 5 months in both; median survival was 8 versus 9 months (P=0.38); 1-, 2- and 3-year survival was 36% versus 35%, 17% versus 10% and 13% versus 6% (P not significant). However, with a low number of long-term survivors, statistical significance was not reached. Overall, almost half of the patients crossed over to second-line therapy; there were no response with vinorelbine and 6 (11.2%) partial responses with docetaxel. Considering the safety profile, the occurrence of febrile neutropenia was 9.6% with DC and 26.3% with VC. Treatment-related mortality was 2.5% with DC and 8.5% with VC. CONCLUSIONS: The trend in favour of the DC arm in ORR, even though statistical significance was not reached, is consistent with previous reports. This study suggests an activity of first-line DC in advanced NSCLC, and that second-line vinorelbine does not provide additional clinical benefit. As already shown in other studies, the use of DC in first-line should provide a better percentage of long-term survivors, despite the absence of efficacy of the second-line in our study.     

Elderly patients with fluoropyrimidine and thymidylate synthase inhibitor-resistant advanced colorectal cancer derive similar benefit without excessive toxicity when treated with irinotecan monotherapy

Elderly patients are recommended to have a reduced starting dose (300 mg m(-2) once every 3 weeks) of irinotecan monotherapy. The aims of this analysis are to compare toxicity and survival according to age, performance status (PS), gender and prior radical pelvic radiotherapy (RT). The primary end points were overall survival and an irinotecan-specific toxicity composite end point (TCE) defined as the occurrence of grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fever, infection or nausea and vomiting. Between 1997 and 2003, 339 eligible patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) progressing on or within 24 weeks of completing fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy were prospectively registered in a multicentre randomised trial. All patients commenced irinotecan at 350 mg m(-2) once every 3 weeks. There were no differences in proportions of patients developing TCE by age (<70 vs > or =70 : 37.8 vs 45.8%; P=0.218), PS (0-1 vs 2 : 39.3 vs 41.5%; P=0.793) or prior RT (RT vs no RT : 45.1 vs 38.5%; P=0.377). Males experienced more toxicity than females (44.3 vs 32.6%; P=0.031), but this was not significant after controlling for other co-variates (P=0.06). Patients aged > or =70 had similar objective responses (11.1 vs 9%; P=0.585) and survival (median 9.4 vs 9 months; log rank P=0.74) compared to younger patients. Elderly patients derive the same benefit without experiencing more toxicity with second-line irinotecan treatment for advanced CRC. Our data do not support the recommendation to reduce the starting dose for the elderly patients.     

培美曲塞联合顺铂与长春瑞滨联合顺铂一线治疗晚期NSCLC的对比研究

目的 比较培美曲塞或长春瑞滨联合顺铂一线治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）的疗效及毒副反应。方法 回顾性分析我院2008年1月至2010年12月收治的68例晚期NSCLC患者,分别接受培美曲塞联合顺铂（PC方案组,32例）或长春瑞滨联合顺铂（NP方案组,36例）一线治疗。PC方案组：培美曲塞500mg／m2,d1;顺铂 25mg／m²,d₁～d₃。NP方案组：长春瑞滨 25mg／m²,d₁、d₈,顺铂25mg／m²,d₁～d₃。每3周为1周期,每2个周期评价疗效。结果 所有患者均可评价近期疗效。两组均无完全缓解病例,PC方案组与NP方案组的有效率（RR）分别为40.6%（13/32）和36.1%（13/36）,疾病控制率（DCR）分别为71.9%（23/32）和61.1%（22/36）,两组RR和DCR的差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。两组中位疾病进展时间（TTP）分别为6.2和5.2个月,组间差异无统计意义（P＞0.05）。NP方案组3～4级白细胞减少、中性粒细胞减少的发生率高于PC方案组（P＜0.05）。 结论 培美曲塞联合顺铂与长春瑞滨联合顺铂一线治疗晚期NSCLC的疗效相当,但培美曲塞的毒副反应较少。     

A randomized phase II trial of irinotecan plus carboplatin versus etoposide plus carboplatin treatment in patients with extended disease small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Superiority of irinotecan/cisplatin over etoposide/cisplatin was suggested in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This trial investigated irinotecan/carboplatin (IP) versus etoposide/carboplatin (EP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The interim analysis at the phase II/phase III transition point of the multicenter trial is reported. Extensive disease SCLC patients were randomized to receive carboplatin AUC 5 mg x min/ml either in combination with 50 mg/m2 of irinotecan on days 1, 8 and 15 (IP) or with etoposide 140 mg/m2 days 1-3 (EP). The primary end point was response rate and the secondary end points were toxicity and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized. Significant differences in grade 3 and 4 thrombopenia (17% IP versus 48% EP, P = 0.01) and neutropenia (26% IP versus 51% PE, P < 0.01) were found. Grade 3 and 4 diarrhea was more frequent with IP (18%) than with EP (6%) (P = 0.133). Response rates were 67% and 59% (P = 0.24) in the IP versus EP arm, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9 months (95% CI 7.1-10.9) in the IP arm and 6 months (95% CI 4.1-7.9) in the EP arm (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: IP is active, less toxic and appears to improve PFS. Based on the phase II results the trial has been extended to phase III to assess the impact on overall survival.     

Phase II study of irinotecan plus leucovorin and bolus 5-fluorouracil as first- or second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric or esophageal-gastric junction adenocarcinoma

The aim of this study was to evaluate the activity and safety of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) and irinotecan as first- or second-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. Treatment consisted of irinotecan 80 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.), followed by LV 200 mg/m(2) (i.v.) and 5-FU 450 mg/m(2) as an i.v. bolus, administered weekly for 6 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period. Thirty-one patients (23 chemo-na?ve, 8 chemo-exposed) were enrolled. The overall response rate was 22.6% and the disease control rate was 38.7%. Among the patients who received the regimen as first-line treatment, objective response rate was 30.4% and the disease control rate was 52.1%. However, progression of the disease was recorded in all the patients receiving the combination as second-line chemotherapy. The median time to disease progression (TTP) was 4 months and the median duration of survival was 7 months. The median TTP was 6 months for patients treated with first-line chemotherapy and 2.5 for those who received study treatment as second line. Furthermore, the median survival duration was 8 months and 6 months, respectively. The most frequent grade 3 toxicity was febrile neutropenia. Grade 3 non-hematological toxicities were rare. There were no treatment-related deaths. The combination of 5-FU/LV and irinotecan as first-line treatment was found to be well tolerated and effective in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Further investigation would be worthwhile, particularly in elderly or debilitated patients who cannot tolerate aggressive chemotherapy.     

三药联合化疗和单药拓扑替康二线治疗小细胞肺癌的疗效和安全性比较

  目的  比较顺铂、依托泊苷、伊立替康联合化疗方案和单药拓扑替康二线治疗敏感复发型小细胞肺癌(smalll cell lung cancer, SCLC)的疗效和安全性。  方法  收集2014年9月至2017年9月吉林省肿瘤医院就诊78例患者资料, 筛选敏感复发型小细胞肺癌患者, 其中36例患者给予顺铂、依托泊苷、伊立替康联合化疗方案, 42例患者给予单药拓扑替康化疗。联合化疗组药物用法:顺铂25 mg/m2, 第1天、第8天静脉滴注; 依托泊苷60 mg/m2, 第1、2、3天静脉滴注; 伊立替康90 mg/m2, 第8天静脉滴注, 连续给予5个2周方案的化疗。单药拓扑替康组药物用法:拓扑替康1.5 mg/m2, 第1~5天静脉滴注, 每3周1个周期。评价两组治疗方案的无进展生存时间(progressionfree survival, PFS)、总生存时间(overall survival, OS)及安全性。  结果  联合化疗组中位无进展生存时间(mPFS)5.3个月(95% CI:4.3~ 5.8), 拓扑替康组mPFS 3.2个月(95% CI:2.7~4.0), 差异具有统计学意义(P=0.003 0);联合化疗组中位总生存时间(mOS)16.3个月(95% CI:13.8~19.1), 拓扑替康组mOS 13.1个月, 差异具有统计学意义(P=0.009 7)。联合化疗组和单药拓扑替康组常见的3/4级不良事件主要有中性粒细胞下降[31例(86.1%) vs.28例(66.7%)]、白细胞下降[29例(80.6%) vs.21例(50.0%)]、贫血[26例(72.2%) vs.10例(23.8%)]、血小板下降[13(36.1%) vs.11(26.2%)]。联合化疗组发生1例治疗相关死亡(发热性中性粒细胞下降合并肺部感染), 拓扑替康组无治疗相关的死亡发生。  结论  顺铂、依托泊苷、伊立替康联合化疗方案比单药拓扑替康疗效更好, 可考虑作为敏感复发型SCLC患者二线化疗的备选方案之一。两种化疗方案毒性均可耐受, 但联合化疗组不良事件发生率更高, 应进一步探索更为合适的化疗剂量。      

Phase II/III study of second-line chemotherapy comparing irinotecan-alone with S-1 plus irinotecan in advanced gastric cancer refractory to first-line treatment with S-1 (JACCRO GC-05)

BackgroundIn Japan, S-1 plus cisplatin has been used as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Patients with no response to first-line treatment with S-1 often receive a taxane-alone or irinotecan-alone as second-line treatment. However, second-line treatment with S-1 plus irinotecan is widely used in patients with AGC resistant to first-line S-1-based chemotherapy. The goal of this trial was to determine whether the consecutive use of S-1 plus irinotecan improves survival when compared with irinotecan-alone as second-line treatment for AGC.Patients and methodsPatients who had disease progression during first-line S-1-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive S-1 plus irinotecan or irinotecan-alone. The S-1 plus irinotecan group received oral S-1 (40–60 mg/m²) on days 1–14 and intravenous irinotecan (150 mg/m²) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The irinotecan-alone group received the same dose of irinotecan intravenously on day 1 of a 14-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival (OS).ResultsFrom February 2008 to May 2011, a total of 304 patients were enrolled. The median OS was 8.8 months in the S-1 plus irinotecan group and 9.5 months in the irinotecan-alone group. This difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.78–1.25; P = 0.92). Grade 3 or higher toxicities were more common in the S-1 plus irinotecan group than in the irinotecan-alone group.ConclusionThe consecutive use of S-1 plus irinotecan is not recommended as second-line treatment in patients who are refractory to S-1-based first-line chemotherapy.Clinical Trials.govNCT00639327.     

Irinotecan plus raltitrexed vs raltitrexed alone in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

There is no established second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine failure. In view of the urgent need for such therapy, and since preclinical and phase I clinical data suggest an encouraging, potentially synergistic activity between raltitrexed and irinotecan, the present randomised phase II study was initiated. A total of 38 patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, who progressed while receiving or within 6 months after discontinuation of palliative first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine, were enrolled in this study. They were randomised to 3-weekly courses of raltitrexed 3 mg x m(-2) on day 1 (arm A) or irinotecan 200 mg x m(-2) on day 1 plus raltitrexed 3 mg x m(-2) on day 2 (arm B). The primary study end point was objective response, secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), as well as clinical benefit response in symptomatic patients (n=28). In the combination arm, the IRC-confirmed objective response rate was 16% (three out of 19 patients had a partial remission; 95% CI, 3-40%), which was clearly superior to that in the comparator/control arm with raltitrexed alone, in which no response was obtained. Therefore, the trial was already stopped at the first stage of accrual. Also, the secondary study end points, median PFS (2.5 vs 4.0 months), OS (4.3 vs 6.5 months), and clinical benefit response (8 vs 29%) were superior in the combination arm. The objective and subjective benefits of raltitrexed+irinotecan were not negated by severe, clinically relevant treatment-related toxicities: gastrointestinal symptoms (42 vs 68%), partial alopecia (0 vs 42%), and cholinergic syndrome (0 vs 21%) were more commonly noted in arm B; however, grade 3 adverse events occurred in only three patients in both treatment groups. Our data indicate that combined raltitrexed+irinotecan seems to be an effective salvage regimen in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated pancreatic cancer. The superior response activity, PFS and OS (when compared to raltitrexed), as well as its tolerability and ease of administration suggest that future trials with this combination are warranted.     

Randomized phase III study of cisplatin plus irinotecan versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine, and cisplatin plus vinorelbine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Four-Arm Cooperative Study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of three platinum-based combination regimens against cisplatin plus irinotecan (IP) in patients with untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by a non-inferiority design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 602 patients were randomly assigned to one of four regimens: cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus irinotecan 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks (IP) carboplatin AUC 6.0 min x mg/mL (area under the concentration-time curve) on day 1 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (TC); cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 every 3 weeks (GP); and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 every 3 weeks (NP). RESULTS: The response rate, median survival time, and 1-year survival rate were 31.0%, 13.9 months, 59.2%, respectively, in IP; 32.4%, 12.3 months, 51.0% in TC; 30.1%, 14.0 months, 59.6% in GP; and 33.1%, 11.4 months, 48.3% in NP. No statistically significant differences were found in response rate or overall survival, but the non-inferiority of none of the experimental regimens could be confirmed. All the four regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The four regimens have similar efficacy and different toxicity profiles, and they can be used to treat advanced NSCLC patients.     

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III ARTIST trial

The efficacy and safety of bevacizumab with modified irinotecan, leucovorin bolus, and 5-fluorouracil intravenous infusion (mIFL) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has not been well evaluated in randomized clinical trials in Chinese patients. We conducted a phrase III trial in which patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 2:1 to the mIFL [irinotecan (125 mg/m(2)), leucovorin (20 mg/m(2)) bolus, and 5-fluorouracil intravenous infusion (500 mg/m(2)) weekly for four weeks every six weeks] plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every two weeks) group and the mIFL group, respectively. Co-primary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and 6-month PFS rate. In total, 214 patients were enrolled. Our results showed that addition of bevacizumab to mIFL significantly improved median PFS (4.2 months in the mIFL group vs. 8.3 months in the bevacizumab plus mIFL group, P < 0.001), 6-month PFS rate (25.0% vs. 62.6%, P < 0.001), median overall survival (13.4 months vs. 18.7 months, P = 0.014), and response rate (17% vs. 35%, P = 0.013). Grades 3 and 4 adverse events included diarrhea (21% in the mIFL group and 26% in the bevacizumab plus mIFL group) and neutropenia (19% in the mIFL group and 33% in the bevacizumab plus mIFL group). No wound-healing complications or congestive heart failure occurred. Our results suggested that bevacizumab plus mIFL is effective and well tolerated as first-line treatment for Chinese patients with mCRC. Clinical benefit and safety profiles were consistent with those observed in pivotal phase III trials with mainly Caucasian patients.     

SCOTROC 2B: feasibility of carboplatin followed by docetaxel or docetaxel-irinotecan as first-line therapy for ovarian cancer

The feasibility of combination irinotecan, carboplatin and docetaxel chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma was assessed. One hundred patients were randomised to receive four 3-weekly cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC) 7) followed by four 3-weekly cycles of docetaxel 100 mg m(-2) (arm A, n=51) or docetaxel 60 mg m(-2) with irinotecan 200 mg m(-2) (arm B, n=49). Neither arm met the formal feasibility criterion of an eight-cycle treatment completion rate that was statistically greater than 60% (arm A 71% (90% confidence interval (CI) 58-81%; P=0.079; arm B 67% (90% CI 55-78%; P=0.184)). Median-dose intensities were >85% of planned dose for all agents. In arms A and B, 15.6 and 12.2% of patients, respectively, withdrew owing to treatment-related toxicity. Grade 3-4 sensory neurotoxicity was more common in arm A (1.9 vs 0%) and grade 3-4 diarrhoea was more common in arm B (0.6 vs 3.5%). Of patients with radiologically evaluable disease at baseline, 50 and 48% responded to therapy in arms A and B, respectively; at median 17.1 months' follow-up, median progression-free survival was 17.1 and 15.9 months, respectively. Although both arms just failed to meet the formal statistical feasibility criteria, the observed completion rates of around 70% were reasonable. The addition of irinotecan to first-line carboplatin and docetaxel chemotherapy was generally well tolerated although associated with increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Further exploratory studies of topoisomerase-I inhibitors in this setting may be warranted.     

Second-line chemotherapy with irinotecan plus carmustine in glioblastoma recurrent or progressive after first-line temozolomide chemotherapy: a phase II study of the Gruppo Italiano Cooperativo di Neuro-Oncologia (GICNO).

PURPOSE: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), the most frequent brain tumor in adults, is not considered chemosensitive. Nevertheless, there is widespread use of first-line chemotherapy, often with temozolomide, as a therapeutic option in patients with progressive disease after surgery and radiotherapy. However, at the time of second recurrence and/or progression, active and noncross-resistant chemotherapy regimens are required. The aim of the present multicenter phase II trial, therefore, was to ascertain the efficacy of second-line carmustine (BCNU) and irinotecan chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed GBM, recurring or progressing after surgery, standard radiotherapy and a first-line temozolomide-based chemotherapy, were considered eligible. The primary end-point was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS-6), and secondary end-points included response rate, toxicity, and survival. All patients were on enzyme-inducing antiepileptic prophylaxis. Chemotherapy consisted of BCNU (100 mg/m2 on day 1) plus irinotecan (175 mg/m2/weekly for 4 weeks), every 6 weeks, for a maximum of eight cycles. In the absence of grade 2 toxicity, the irinotecan dose was increased to 200 mg/m2. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients (median age, 53.4 years; median Karnofsky performance status, 80; range, 60 to 90) were included in the study. PFS-6 was 30.3% (95% CI, 18.5% to 49.7%). Median time to progression was 17 weeks (95% CI, 11.9 to 23.9). Nine partial responses (21.4%; 95% CI, 9% to 34%) were obtained. Toxicity was manageable. CONCLUSION: The BCNU plus irinotecan regimen seems active and non-cross-resistant in patients with GBM with recurrence after temozolomide-based chemotherapy.     

对比EGFR-TKIs治疗EGFR突变状态未明晚期NSCLC疗效研究

目的探讨对比表皮生长因子受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors,EGFR-TKIs)一线、维持及二线治疗EGFR突变状态未明晚期非小细胞肺癌(non-small-cell lung cancer,NSCLC)的疗效。方法回顾性分析接受EGFR-TKIs治疗的57例EGFR突变状态未明晚期NSCLC,按照接受EGFR-TKIs治疗的时机分为EGFR-TKIs治疗一线组(19例)、维持组(18例)和二线组(20例),按照RECIST标准进行疗效评价。结果一线组、维持组和二线组客观有效率(52.6%vs 38.9%vs 35.0%,P=0.098)、中位无进展生存期(4.0月vs 7.8月vs 2.2月,P=0.417)差异无统计学意义,但一线组患者总生存期较维持组和二线组差(8.7月vs 20.0月vs 19.1月,P=0.009)。结论 EGFR突变状态未明晚期NSCLC EGFR-TKIs一线、维持和二线治疗的客观有效率和中位无进展生存期相似,但EGFR-TKIs一线治疗总生存期较短,建议EGFR-TKIs用于维持或二线治疗EGFR突变状态未明晚期NSCLC。