PURPOSE: To compare 2 treatment modalities with recombinant Interleukin-2 (rIL-2) for patients with advanced Renal Cell carcinoma (RCC): continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) alone versus subcutaneous (s/c) rIL-2 + Interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data have been collected on 425 patients with RCC, treated CIV rIL-2 alone, (225 patients), or rIL-2 by the s/c route (200 patients). Patients receiving s/c rIL-2 also received s/c IFN-alpha both drugs being administered on an outpatient basis. Patients receiving CIV rIL-2 were treated as inpatients. Patient eligibility criteria were similar on all studies, and included patients with progressive, advanced disease, but with an ambulatory performance status. RESULTS: The overall response rate for the CIV schedules was not significantly different from the s/c regimens: 15% (95% confidence limits (CL) 10-20%) vs 20% (95%CL 14-26%) with 4% CR in both approaches. Durable responses were seen in both CIV and s/c schedules and there was no evidence of a significant difference in survival in multivariate analysis. There was however an important shift in the toxicity profile. The s/c regimens do not induce a clinically detectable capillary leak syndrome, which is the dose limiting toxicity for CIV regimens. CONCLUSION: Although the introduction of CIV regimens of rIL-2 was a major step forward compared to high-dose bolus, because most patients could be treated in a normal oncology ward, the s/c schedule of rIL-2 + IFN-alpha offers the possibility of outpatient (home) therapy, with no evidence of a reduction in efficacy.
PURPOSE: To compare 2 treatment modalities with recombinant Interleukin-2 (rIL-2) for patients with advanced Renal Cell carcinoma (RCC): continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) alone versus subcutaneous (s/c) rIL-2 + Interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data have been collected on 425 patients with RCC, treated CIVrIL-2 alone, (225 patients), or rIL-2 by the s/c route (200 patients). Patients receiving s/c rIL-2 also received s/c IFN-alpha both drugs being administered on an outpatient basis. Patients receiving CIVrIL-2 were treated as inpatients. Patient eligibility criteria were similar on all studies, and included patients with progressive, advanced disease, but with an ambulatory performance status. RESULTS: The overall response rate for the CIV schedules was not significantly different from the s/c regimens: 15% (95% confidence limits (CL) 10-20%) vs 20% (95%CL 14-26%) with 4% CR in both approaches. Durable responses were seen in both CIV and s/c schedules and there was no evidence of a significant difference in survival in multivariate analysis. There was however an important shift in the toxicity profile. The s/c regimens do not induce a clinically detectable capillary leak syndrome, which is the dose limiting toxicity for CIV regimens. CONCLUSION: Although the introduction of CIV regimens of rIL-2 was a major step forward compared to high-dose bolus, because most patients could be treated in a normal oncology ward, the s/c schedule of rIL-2 + IFN-alpha offers the possibility of outpatient (home) therapy, with no evidence of a reduction in efficacy.
Authors: C M van Herpen; R L Jansen; W H Kruit; K Hoekman; G Groenewegen; S Osanto; P H De Mulder Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: A Ravaud; S Négrier; L Cany; Y Merrouche; M Le Guillou; J Y Blay; M Clavel; R Gaston; R Oskam; T Philip Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: G Facendola; M C Locatelli; G Pizzocaro; L Piva; C Pegoraro; E B Pallavicini; A Signaroldi; M Meregalli; F Lombardi; G D Beretta Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1995-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: F Donskov; K M Bennedsgaard; H Von Der Maase; N Marcussen; R Fisker; J J Jensen; P Naredi; M Hokland Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-07-15 Impact factor: 7.640