BACKGROUND: Both cisplatin/capecitabine (CX) and epirubicin plus CX (ECX) have clearly demonstrated efficacy against advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS:Chemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically confirmed, measurable AGC were randomised to receive CX (cisplatin 75mg/m(2) iv on day 1 and capecitabine 1000mg/m(2) bid po on days 1-14) or ECX (epirubicin 50mg/m(2) plus CX) every 3weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of the 91 registered patients, 45 patients were treated with CX and 44 with ECX. A total of 241 CX (median, 6; range, 1-12) and 201 ECX (median, 5; range, 1-11) cycles were delivered. Treatment duration was similar for both arms (4.4 for CX versus 4.2months for ECX). There was no relevant difference in the occurrence of overall grade 3 or 4 toxicities between the CX and ECX arms (80% versus 78%, respectively; P=0.516). However, none in the CX and 12% in the ECX arm discontinued treatment because of toxicity. There were no significant differences in therapeutic efficacy between CX and ECX with respect to the response rate (38% versus 37%, respectively) and PFS (6.4 versus 6.5months). CONCLUSION: Both CX and ECX appear to be active as first-line chemotherapy for AGC, and the safety profiles are acceptable. Given the comparable efficacy results, CX could be a reasonable standard chemotherapy for untreated AGC patients. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Both cisplatin/capecitabine (CX) and epirubicin plus CX (ECX) have clearly demonstrated efficacy against advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically confirmed, measurable AGC were randomised to receive CX (cisplatin 75mg/m(2) iv on day 1 and capecitabine 1000mg/m(2) bid po on days 1-14) or ECX (epirubicin 50mg/m(2) plus CX) every 3weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of the 91 registered patients, 45 patients were treated with CX and 44 with ECX. A total of 241 CX (median, 6; range, 1-12) and 201 ECX (median, 5; range, 1-11) cycles were delivered. Treatment duration was similar for both arms (4.4 for CX versus 4.2months for ECX). There was no relevant difference in the occurrence of overall grade 3 or 4 toxicities between the CX and ECX arms (80% versus 78%, respectively; P=0.516). However, none in the CX and 12% in the ECX arm discontinued treatment because of toxicity. There were no significant differences in therapeutic efficacy between CX and ECX with respect to the response rate (38% versus 37%, respectively) and PFS (6.4 versus 6.5months). CONCLUSION: Both CX and ECX appear to be active as first-line chemotherapy for AGC, and the safety profiles are acceptable. Given the comparable efficacy results, CX could be a reasonable standard chemotherapy for untreated AGC patients. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Vincent T Janmaat; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast; Ron Hj Mathijssen; Marco J Bruno; Maikel P Peppelenbosch; Ernst J Kuipers; Manon Cw Spaander Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-11-28
Authors: Jina Yun; Kyoung-Mee Kim; Seung Tae Kim; Jung-Hoon Kim; Jung A Kim; Jee Hyun Kong; Soo Hyeon Lee; Young-Woong Won; Jong-Mu Sun; Jeeyun Lee; Se Hoon Park; Joon Oh Park; Young Suk Park; Ho Yeong Lim; Won Ki Kang Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: A Carmona-Bayonas; P Jiménez-Fonseca; A Custodio; M Sánchez Cánovas; R Hernández; C Pericay; I Echavarria; A Lacalle; L Visa; A Rodríguez Palomo; M Mangas; J M Cano; E Buxo; F Álvarez-Manceñido; T García; J E Lorenzo; M Ferrer-Cardona; A Viudez; A Azkarate; A Ramchandani; D Arias; F Longo; C López; R Sánchez Bayona; M L Limón; A Díaz-Serrano; A Fernández Montes; P Sala; P Cerdá; F Rivera; J Gallego Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2017-04-09 Impact factor: 7.370