BACKGROUND: The cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzyme plays a major role in tumor progression and resistance to chemotherapy. A Phase-II study was undertaken to determine the activity of a dose attenuated schedule of irinotecan, capecitabine, and the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: The eligibility criteria included a pathologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was metastatic. Patients received a combination of irinotecan 70 mg/m2 over 30 min I.V. on days 1 and 8, capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice per day orally on days 1-14, and celecoxib at a daily dose of 800 mg continuously. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were enrolled (median age 58 years; M : F 31 : 20). The objective response rate was 21/51 = 41% [95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.28-0.55]. The median time to progression was 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.6 months). Median survival time and probability of survival at 1 year were 21.2 months (95% CI, 13.8-n/a), and 75% (95% CI, 0.63-0.88), respectively. The major toxicity was Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea, seen in 24 and 10% of patients, respectively. There were no treatment related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The lower dose intensity of irinotecan appeared to maintain activity and improve tolerability when combined with capecitabine. The addition of celecoxib to irinotecan and capecitabine did not appear to significantly increase the activity of this doublet based on the RECIST criteria for objective response.
BACKGROUND: The cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzyme plays a major role in tumor progression and resistance to chemotherapy. A Phase-II study was undertaken to determine the activity of a dose attenuated schedule of irinotecan, capecitabine, and the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: The eligibility criteria included a pathologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was metastatic. Patients received a combination of irinotecan 70 mg/m2 over 30 min I.V. on days 1 and 8, capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice per day orally on days 1-14, and celecoxib at a daily dose of 800 mg continuously. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were enrolled (median age 58 years; M : F 31 : 20). The objective response rate was 21/51 = 41% [95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.28-0.55]. The median time to progression was 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.6 months). Median survival time and probability of survival at 1 year were 21.2 months (95% CI, 13.8-n/a), and 75% (95% CI, 0.63-0.88), respectively. The major toxicity was Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea, seen in 24 and 10% of patients, respectively. There were no treatment related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The lower dose intensity of irinotecan appeared to maintain activity and improve tolerability when combined with capecitabine. The addition of celecoxib to irinotecan and capecitabine did not appear to significantly increase the activity of this doublet based on the RECIST criteria for objective response.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J Y Douillard; D Cunningham; A D Roth; M Navarro; R D James; P Karasek; P Jandik; T Iveson; J Carmichael; M Alakl; G Gruia; L Awad; P Rougier Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-03-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G Steinbach; P M Lynch; R K Phillips; M H Wallace; E Hawk; G B Gordon; N Wakabayashi; B Saunders; Y Shen; T Fujimura; L K Su; B Levin; L Godio; S Patterson; M A Rodriguez-Bigas; S L Jester; K L King; M Schumacher; J Abbruzzese; R N DuBois; W N Hittelman; S Zimmerman; J W Sherman; G Kelloff Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C-H Köhne; E van Cutsem; J Wils; C Bokemeyer; M El-Serafi; M P Lutz; M Lorenz; P Reichardt; H Rückle-Lanz; N Frickhofen; R Fuchs; H-G Mergenthaler; T Langenbuch; U Vanhoefer; P Rougier; R Voigtmann; L Müller; B Genicot; O Anak; B Nordlinger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-06-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Carol Smigal; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Katherine S Garman; Chaitanya R Acharya; Elena Edelman; Marian Grade; Jochen Gaedcke; Shivani Sud; William Barry; Anna Mae Diehl; Dawn Provenzale; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; B Michael Ghadimi; Thomas Ried; Joseph R Nevins; Sayan Mukherjee; David Hsu; Anil Potti Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-12-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Emily Chan; Bonnie Lafleur; Mace L Rothenberg; Nipun Merchant; Albert Craig Lockhart; Bakula Trivedi; Christine H Chung; Robert J Coffey; Jordan D Berlin Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Mahbuba Rahman; Krithika Selvarajan; Mohammad R Hasan; Annie P Chan; Chaoyang Jin; Jieun Kim; Simon K Chan; Nhu D Le; Young-Bae Kim; Isabella T Tai Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Araceli Valverde; Jon Peñarando; Amanda Cañas; Laura M López-Sánchez; Francisco Conde; Silvia Guil-Luna; Vanessa Hernández; Carlos Villar; Cristina Morales-Estévez; Juan de la Haba-Rodríguez; Enrique Aranda; Antonio Rodríguez-Ariza Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-03-28
Authors: Amar Desai; Yongyou Zhang; Youngsoo Park; Dawn M Dawson; Gretchen A Larusch; Lakshmi Kasturi; David Wald; Joseph M Ready; Stanton L Gerson; Sanford D Markowitz Journal: Haematologica Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 9.941