Literature DB >> 15365074

Irinotecan plus gemcitabine results in no survival advantage compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer despite increased tumor response rate.

Caio M Rocha Lima1, Mark R Green, Robert Rotche, Wilson H Miller, G Mark Jeffrey, Laura A Cisar, Adele Morganti, Nicoletta Orlando, Gabriela Gruia, Langdon L Miller.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study compared the overall survival associated with irinotecan plus gemcitabine (IRINOGEM) versus gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in patients with chemotherapy-naive, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: IRINOGEM patients received starting doses of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and irinotecan 100 mg/m2 given weekly for 2 weeks every 3-week cycle. GEM patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (induction) and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was survival. Secondary end points included tumor response, time to tumor progression (TTP), changes in CA 19-9, and safety.
RESULTS: In each arm, 180 randomly assigned patients comprised the intent-to-treat population evaluated for efficacy; 173 IRINOGEM and 169 GEM patients were treated. Median survival times were 6.3 months for IRINOGEM (95% CI, 4.7 to 7.5 months) and 6.6 months for GEM (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.8 months; log-rank P =.789). Tumor response rates were 16.1% (95% CI, 11.1% to 22.3%) for IRINOGEM and 4.4% (95% CI, 1.9% to 8.6%) for GEM (chi2 P <.001). Median TTP was 3.5 months for IRINOGEM versus 3.0 months for GEM (log-rank P =.352). However, subset analyses in patients with locally advanced disease suggested a TTP advantage with IRINOGEM versus GEM (median, 7.7 v 3.9 months). CA 19-9 progression was positively correlated with tumor progression. The incidence of grade 3 diarrhea was higher in the IRINOGEM group but grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicities and quality-of-life outcomes were similar.
CONCLUSION: IRINOGEM safely improved the tumor response rate compared with GEM but did not alter overall survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15365074     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.12.082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  180 in total

1.  Immunohistochemical and genetic evaluation of deoxycytidine kinase in pancreatic cancer: relationship to molecular mechanisms of gemcitabine resistance and survival.

Authors:  Valeria Sebastiani; Francesca Ricci; Belen Rubio-Viqueira; Belen Rubio-Viquiera; Piotr Kulesza; Charles J Yeo; Manuel Hidalgo; Alison Klein; Daniel Laheru; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2006-04-15       Impact factor: 12.531

2.  Second-line therapy for gemcitabine-pretreated advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Romain Altwegg; Marc Ychou; Vanessa Guillaumon; Simon Thezenas; Pierre Senesse; Nicolas Flori; Thibault Mazard; Ludovic Caillo; Stéphanie Faure; Emmanuelle Samalin; Eric Assenat
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Margaret A Tempero; J Pablo Arnoletti; Stephen Behrman; Edgar Ben-Josef; Al B Benson; Jordan D Berlin; John L Cameron; Ephraim S Casper; Steven J Cohen; Michelle Duff; Joshua D I Ellenhorn; William G Hawkins; John P Hoffman; Boris W Kuvshinoff; Mokenge P Malafa; Peter Muscarella; Eric K Nakakura; Aaron R Sasson; Sarah P Thayer; Douglas S Tyler; Robert S Warren; Samuel Whiting; Christopher Willett; Robert A Wolff
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 11.908

Review 4.  Preclinical Rationale for the Phase III Trials in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Is Wishful Thinking Clouding Successful Drug Development for Pancreatic Cancer?

Authors:  Ramya Thota; Anirban Maitra; Jordan D Berlin
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.327

Review 5.  The Triple-Code Model for Pancreatic Cancer: Cross Talk Among Genetics, Epigenetics, and Nuclear Structure.

Authors:  Gwen A Lomberk; Raul Urrutia
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.741

6.  Inhibition of amyloid precursor protein processing enhances gemcitabine-mediated cytotoxicity in pancreatic cancer cells.

Authors:  Neha Kabra Woods; Jaya Padmanabhan
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 5.157

7.  Treatment with gemcitabine and TRA-8 anti-death receptor-5 mAb reduces pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell viability in vitro and growth in vivo.

Authors:  Leo Christopher DeRosier; Zhi-Qiang Huang; Jeffrey C Sellers; Donald J Buchsbaum; Selwyn M Vickers
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 8.  The paradox of response and survival in cancer therapeutics.

Authors:  Carol Ann Huff; William Matsui; B Douglas Smith; Richard J Jones
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2005-09-08       Impact factor: 22.113

9.  Radical treatment of stage IV pancreatic cancer by the combination of cryosurgery and iodine-125 seed implantation.

Authors:  Ji-Bing Chen; Jia-Liang Li; Li-Hua He; Wei-Qun Liu; Fei Yao; Jian-Ying Zeng; Yi Zhang; Ke-Qiang Xu; Li-Zhi Niu; Jian-Sheng Zuo; Ke-Cheng Xu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Combination treatment with TRA-8 anti death receptor 5 antibody and CPT-11 induces tumor regression in an orthotopic model of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Leo Christopher DeRosier; Donald J Buchsbaum; Patsy G Oliver; Zhi-Qiang Huang; Jeffrey C Sellers; William E Grizzle; Wenquan Wang; Tong Zhou; Kurt R Zinn; Joshua W Long; Selwyn M Vickers
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 12.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.