PURPOSE: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) in neuroendocrine tumours' (NETs) treatment. METHODS: Forty patients (pts) with advanced NETs were treated. Of these, 13 had untreated poorly differentiated NETs, 27 had well-differentiated NETs in progression after somatostatin analogues. Patients received oxaliplatin e.v. 130 mg/mq i.v. and capecitabine 2,000 mg/mq/die. The primary sites of the disease were: lung (10 pts), pancreas (15 pts), small bowel (8 pts), unknown (1 pt), others (6 pts). RESULTS: In 13 pts with poorly differentiated NETs objective responses (OR) were: 3 PR (23%), 1 SD (7%), 9 PD (70%). Biochemical responses were 11%. In 27 patients with well-differentiated NETs the OR were: 8 PR (30%), 13 SD (48%) and 6 PD (22%). Biochemical and symptomatic responses were 20 and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The XELOX regimen is effective and tolerated in well-differentiated NETs after progression following somatostatin analogues.
PURPOSE: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) in neuroendocrine tumours' (NETs) treatment. METHODS: Forty patients (pts) with advanced NETs were treated. Of these, 13 had untreated poorly differentiated NETs, 27 had well-differentiated NETs in progression after somatostatin analogues. Patients received oxaliplatin e.v. 130 mg/mq i.v. and capecitabine 2,000 mg/mq/die. The primary sites of the disease were: lung (10 pts), pancreas (15 pts), small bowel (8 pts), unknown (1 pt), others (6 pts). RESULTS: In 13 pts with poorly differentiated NETs objective responses (OR) were: 3 PR (23%), 1 SD (7%), 9 PD (70%). Biochemical responses were 11%. In 27 patients with well-differentiated NETs the OR were: 8 PR (30%), 13 SD (48%) and 6 PD (22%). Biochemical and symptomatic responses were 20 and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The XELOX regimen is effective and tolerated in well-differentiated NETs after progression following somatostatin analogues.
Authors: S Pusceddu; L Catena; M Valente; R Buzzoni; B Formisano; M Del Vecchio; M Ducceschi; L Tavecchio; A Fabbri; E Bajetta Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: L Bodei; J Mueller-Brand; R P Baum; M E Pavel; D Hörsch; M S O'Dorisio; T M O'Dorisio; T M O'Dorisiol; J R Howe; M Cremonesi; D J Kwekkeboom; John J Zaknun Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maria P Brizzi; Alfredo Berruti; Anna Ferrero; Enrica Milanesi; Marco Volante; Federico Castiglione; Nadia Birocco; Sebastiano Bombaci; Davide Perroni; Benedetta Ferretti; Oscar Alabiso; Libero Ciuffreda; Oscar Bertetto; Mauro Papotti; Luigi Dogliotti Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 4.430