-
1.
Relative efficacy of 5-fluorouracil compared with other treatments among patients with actinic keratosis: A network meta-analysis.
Wu, Y, Tang, N, Cai, L, Li, Q
Dermatologic therapy. 2019;(3):e12822
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with that of other treatments of actinic keratosis (AK). METHODS A systematic literature review of five databases (including Medline and EMBASE) was first performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) based on a random-effects Bayesian model was then performed on the outcomes for patients with total clearance and lesions reduced from baseline. Five treatments (viz., 0.5% 5-FU with 10% salicylic acid [5-FU/SA], 5% 5-FU cream, 3% diclofenac sodium, cryosurgery, and vehicle) were evaluated. RESULTS A total of 11 studies involving 2,256 patients with AK were included in this NMA. The overall risk of bias among the included studies was low. All treatments were significantly better than the vehicle both for patients with total clearance and for lesions reduced from baseline. Among patients with total clearance, 5% 5-FU cream (56.8%) and 5-FU/SA (35.7%) were likely to be more effective than the other treatments, whereas 5% 5-FU cream (98.6%) was likely the most effective in the group of lesions reduced from baseline. CONCLUSION 5-FU, diclofenac sodium, and cryosurgery are all useful for AK treatment, with 5-FU being the most effective.
-
2.
Subgroup analysis of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the second-line setting from a phase 3, open-label, randomized study of eribulin mesilate versus capecitabine.
Pivot, X, Im, SA, Guo, M, Marmé, F
Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan). 2018;(3):370-374
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
This post hoc subgroup analysis of a large phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of eribulin versus capecitabine in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer who received second-line treatment. In the phase 3 study, women with advanced/metastatic breast cancer and ≤ 3 prior chemotherapies were randomized 1:1 to eribulin mesilate 1.4 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8, or twice-daily oral capecitabine 1.25 g/m2 on days 1-14 (21-day cycles). This analysis included 392 patients. Median overall survival was longer in patients receiving eribulin compared with capecitabine (16.1 vs 13.5 months, respectively; HR 0.77, P = 0.026). Median progression-free survival and response rates were similar between arms. Both treatments had manageable safety profiles.
-
3.
Combination of 125I brachytherapy and chemotherapy for unresectable recurrent breast cancer: A retrospective control study.
Tan, Q, Qin, Q, Yang, W, Lian, B, Mo, Q, Wei, C
Medicine. 2016;(44):e5302
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Recurrent breast cancer remains an incurable malignancy and cannot be removed by surgery in the majority of cases. This study aimed to explore the feasibility and efficacy of the combination of I brachytherapy and chemotherapy for the treatment of unresectable recurrent breast cancer. Patients with unresectable recurrent breast cancer treated between January 2011 and December 2014 with a combination of I brachytherapy and capecitabine or gemcitabine were evaluated and outcomes were compared with those of women treated with capecitabine or gemcitabine in conventional dose as a monotherapy. Of 61 patients evaluated, 28 received the combination treatment and 33 received capecitabine or gemcitabine monotherapy. The combination of I brachytherapy and chemotherapy resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival versus capecitabine or gemcitabine monotherapy (median, 17.8 vs 11.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.84; P = 0.013). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher with the combination (82.1%) than with monotherapy (54.5%; P = 0.022), and the rate of pain relief was higher in the combination arm (100% vs 73.6%; P = 0.038). There was no significant improvement for overall survival (median, 30.1 vs 27.2 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.47-1.44; P = 0.496). There were no serious complications detected during the follow-up period, any grade toxicities were comparable between treatment arms. In conclusion, the combination of I brachytherapy and second-line chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone and is an effective and safe therapy for unresectable recurrent breast cancer. However, further investigation and much larger scale randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed.
-
4.
Consistent efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a retrospective comparison of East Asian and global studies.
Xu, B, Zhang, XQ, Chi, HD, Liu, Z, Quinlivan, M, Orlando, M
Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology. 2014;(4):330-9
Abstract
AIMS: The incidence of breast cancer in China is increasing at a rate greater than the global average. For treatment of metastatic breast cancer, a phase 3 trial of 529 patients (study JHQG) found that the combination of gemcitabine, a cytotoxic nucleoside analog, and paclitaxel, a taxane, significantly improved both overall and progression-free survival compared with paclitaxel monotherapy. As ethnic differences in the safety and efficacy of some anticancer therapies have been reported, this review provides oncologists treating East Asian patients with an evidence base to extrapolate results of the predominately Caucasian phase 3 JHQG study to their patients. METHODS Three phase 2 studies in Chinese or Japanese patients with metastatic breast cancer are reviewed with reference to the global study JHQG. The results of pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety analyses are descriptively compared between the global and Asian studies. RESULTS Peak and total drug exposure values differed by less than 10% across the studies. Response rate, overall and progression-free survival values were similar, although values from the Asian studies for each of these parameters were slightly higher. Asian patients had higher rates of hematologic toxicities but lower rates of other adverse events. CONCLUSION Examination of the data from three studies of the gemcitabine-paclitaxel combination reveals no clinically significant ethnic differences in efficacy and safety between East Asian patients and their global counterparts. Given its demonstrated efficacy and safety profile, the gemcitabine-paclitaxel regimen should be one of the standard treatments for East Asian patients with metastatic breast cancer.
-
5.
Pancreatic cancer hENT1 expression and survival from gemcitabine in patients from the ESPAC-3 trial.
Greenhalf, W, Ghaneh, P, Neoptolemos, JP, Palmer, DH, Cox, TF, Lamb, RF, Garner, E, Campbell, F, Mackey, JR, Costello, E, et al
Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2014;(1):djt347
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) levels in pancreatic adenocarcinoma may predict survival in patients who receive adjuvant gemcitabine after resection. METHODS Microarrays from 434 patients randomized to chemotherapy in the ESPAC-3 trial (plus controls from ESPAC-1/3) were stained with the 10D7G2 anti-hENT1 antibody. Patients were classified as having high hENT1 expression if the mean H score for their cores was above the overall median H score (48). High and low hENT1-expressing groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Three hundred eighty patients (87.6%) and 1808 cores were suitable and included in the final analysis. Median overall survival for gemcitabine-treated patients (n = 176) was 23.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.3 to 26.0) months vs 23.5 (95% CI = 19.8 to 27.3) months for 176 patients treated with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (χ(2) 1=0.24; P = .62). Median survival for patients treated with gemcitabine was 17.1 (95% CI = 14.3 to 23.8) months for those with low hENT1 expression vs 26.2 (95% CI = 21.2 to 31.4) months for those with high hENT1 expression (χ(2)₁= 9.87; P = .002). For the 5-fluorouracil group, median survival was 25.6 (95% CI = 20.1 to 27.9) and 21.9 (95% CI = 16.0 to 28.3) months for those with low and high hENT1 expression, respectively (χ(2)₁ = 0.83; P = .36). hENT1 levels were not predictive of survival for the 28 patients of the observation group (χ(2)₁ = 0.37; P = .54). Multivariable analysis confirmed hENT1 expression as a predictive marker in gemcitabine-treated (Wald χ(2) = 9.16; P = .003) but not 5-fluorouracil-treated (Wald χ(2) = 1.22; P = .27) patients. CONCLUSIONS Subject to prospective validation, gemcitabine should not be used for patients with low tumor hENT1 expression.
-
6.
Fixed-dose rate gemcitabine alone or alternating with FOLFIRI.3 (irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil) in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an AGEO randomised phase II study (FIRGEM).
Trouilloud, I, Dupont-Gossard, AC, Malka, D, Artru, P, Gauthier, M, Lecomte, T, Aparicio, T, Thirot-Bidault, A, Lobry, C, Asnacios, A, et al
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2014;(18):3116-24
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fluorouracil and irinotecan-based, and gemcitabine-based regimens, are the standard of care in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. New approaches are needed to improve survival and quality of life. Whether a sequential approach alternating irinotecan, fluorouracil and gemcitabine may be effective and tolerable in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer is unknown. METHODS In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial, patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, World Health Organisation (WHO) performance status 0-1, and bilirubin levels <1.5 upper limit of normal values (ULN) were randomised 1:1 to receive as first-line treatment either FOLFIRI.3 (irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil) alternating with fixed-dose rate gemcitabine as 2-month periods (FIRGEM, arm A), or fixed-dose rate gemcitabine alone (arm B). Treatment was continued until disease progression or limiting toxicity. The primary end-point was the crude progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months. The study is registered with EudraCT (N° 2006-005703-34). RESULTS Between October 2007 and March 2011, 98 patients were enroled. The observed 6-month PFS rate was 43.5% (95% confidence interval (CI), [28.6-58.4%]) in arm A reaching the Fleming decision rules criteria to reject H0 and 26.1% (95% CI [12.9-39.3%]) in arm B. Objective response rates were 37% (23-51%) in arm A and 10% (1-19%) in arm B. Median PFS (5.0 versus 3.4 months, hazard ratio (HR)=0.59 [0.38-0.90]) and overall survival (11.0 versus 8.2 months, HR=0.71 [0.46-1.10]) were higher in arm A compared to arm B. The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (49%/24%; febrile neutropenia, 4%/0% in arms A/B), diarrhoea (arm A, 12% and arm B, 0%), and nausea/vomiting (8%/4%). No toxic deaths occurred. CONCLUSION The FIRGEM strategy appears to be effective and feasible in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.
-
7.
Impact of FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine on quality of life in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: results from the PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11 randomized trial.
Gourgou-Bourgade, S, Bascoul-Mollevi, C, Desseigne, F, Ychou, M, Bouché, O, Guimbaud, R, Bécouarn, Y, Adenis, A, Raoul, JL, Boige, V, et al
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2013;(1):23-9
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the quality of life (QoL) of patients receiving oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy and to assess whether pretreatment QoL predicts survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred forty-two patients with performance status 0 or 1 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m(2); irinotecan, 180 mg/m(2); leucovorin, 400 mg/m(2); and fluorouracil, 400 mg/m(2) bolus followed by 2,400 mg/m(2) 46-hour continuous infusion, once every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 every 2 weeks. RESULTS Improvement in global health status (GHS; P < .001) was observed in the FOLFIRINOX arm and improvement in emotional functioning (P < .001) was observed in both arms, along with a decrease in pain, insomnia, anorexia, and constipation in both arms. A significant increase in diarrhea was observed in the FOLFIRINOX arm during the first 2 months of chemotherapy. Time until definitive deterioration ≥ 20 points was significantly longer for FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine for GHS, physical, role, cognitive, and social functioning, and six symptom domains (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, anorexia, and constipation). Physical functioning, constipation, and dyspnea were independent significant prognostic factors for survival with treatment arm, age older than 65 years, and low serum albumin. CONCLUSION FOLFIRINOX significantly reduces QoL impairment compared with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, baseline QoL scores improved estimation of survival probability when added to baseline clinical and demographic variables.
-
8.
A phase II, open-label, randomized study to assess the efficacy and safety of AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) versus pemetrexed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have failed one or two prior chemotherapeutic regimens.
Hainsworth, JD, Cebotaru, CL, Kanarev, V, Ciuleanu, TE, Damyanov, D, Stella, P, Ganchev, H, Pover, G, Morris, C, Tzekova, V
Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. 2010;(10):1630-6
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) is a potent, selective MEK inhibitor. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AZD6244 versus pemetrexed as second- or third-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS In this randomized phase II study, patients received either 100 mg oral AZD6244 free-base suspension twice daily or 500 mg/m(2) intravenous pemetrexed once every 3 weeks after pretreatment with a corticosteroid, folic acid, and vitamin B12. The primary end point of the study was the disease progression event count. RESULTS Eighty-four patients were randomized. Disease progression events were experienced by 28 (70%) and 26 (59%) patients in the AZD6244 and pemetrexed groups, respectively. Median progression-free survival was not statistically significantly different between the AZD6244 and pemetrexed groups (67 versus 90 days, respectively; hazard ratio 1.08, two-sided 80% confidence interval = 0.75-1.54; p = 0.79). Two patients in the AZD6244 group had a best response to treatment of partial response. In the pemetrexed group, one patient achieved a complete response and one patient a partial response. Dermatitis acneiform, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting were the most frequently reported adverse events with AZD6244, compared with fatigue, anemia, nausea, anorexia, and dermatitis acneiform with pemetrexed. CONCLUSIONS Oral AZD6244 showed clinical activity as second- or third-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. In an unselected NSCLC population, there is no suggestion that AZD6244 monotherapy offers any advantage over standard treatment with pemetrexed. Based on preclinical data and recent clinical observations, further development of AZD6244 in NSCLC should focus on BRAF or RAS mutation-positive patients and/or AZD6244-based combination regimens.
-
9.
Prognostic factors influencing the survival of patients with colon cancer receiving adjuvant 5-FU treatment.
Kornmann, M, Formentini, A, Ette, C, Henne-Bruns, D, Kron, M, Sander, S, Baumann, W, Kreuser, ED, Staib, L, Link, KH
European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology. 2008;(12):1316-21
Abstract
AIM: Adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for stage III colon cancer. The aim of this study was to identify important prognostic factors among patients with colon cancer receiving adjuvant 5-FU-based treatment. METHODS Data sets of 855 colon cancer patients treated between 1992 and 1999 within a multicenter adjuvant trial comparing 5-FU modulation with folinic acid or interfereron-alpha were examined. Backward elimination in a proportional hazards model was used to identify prognostically relevant clinical and pathological factors. RESULTS Tumor recurrence (p<0.001), duration of adjuvant treatment (p<0.001), tumor substage (p=0.004), age (p=0.005), grading (p=0.016), treatment-related toxicity (p=0.021), and treatment (p=0.031) were identified in descending order of importance as prognostic factors for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS Adjuvant 5-FU-based treatment should be performed for at least 6months with a stepwise adjustment of 5-FU doses until toxicity >WHO II. Substages should be reported separately and used for stratification in future trials due to their broad variation in outcome. In the future, this may result in adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer adjusted for the risk of substages.
-
10.
A randomized phase II selection trial in patients with advanced/recurrent gastric cancer: Trial for Advanced Stomach Cancer (TASC).
Morita, S, Baba, H, Tsuburaya, A, Takiuchi, H, Matsui, T, Maehara, Y, Sakamoto, J
Japanese journal of clinical oncology. 2007;(6):469-72
Abstract
A randomized phase II clinical trial is being conducted for patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer, in order to select the most promising treatment for subsequent evaluation in a large-scale phase III trial. We compare four chemotherapeutic treatments, which include two sequential and two combination regimens using paclitaxel with 5-fluorouracil or S-1, an oral fluorouracil derivative. The primary endpoint is 10-month overall survival rate, while the secondary endpoints are adverse events, time to treatment failure and progression-free survival. A Bayesian method is used to provide a statistical rule for monitoring the trial. Forty patients per treatment regimen (160 in total) were randomized into one of the four regimens using a centralized dynamic method.