6 research outputs found
Activity of raltitrexed and gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer
Background: Gemcitabine has evolved as standard therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer since the demonstration of a significant clinical benefit. Phase II trials have shown that gemcitabine can be successfully combined with thymidylate synthase (TS) inhibitors such as continuous-infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). However, continuous-infusion 5-FU is inconvenient because of the need for a central venous access. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine in combination with raltitrexed (Tomudex), a novel and selective TS inhibitor that has the advantage of a 3-weekly treatment interval and manageable toxicity. Patients and methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with measurable advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with raltitrexed 3 mg/m2 as a 15-min infusion on day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, every 21 days. Results: Twenty-five eligible patients (17 male, eight female) with metastatic (21 patients) or locally advanced (four patients) disease entered the study. The median number of courses per patient was four (range 1-14). One patient was not evaluable for response. There were three partial remissions [12%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6% to 31.2%] and nine stable disease situations (36%; 95% CI 18.0% to 57.5%), while the tumours of 12 patients (48%; 95% CI 27.8% to 68.7%) showed progressive disease after three treatment cycles. WHO grade 3/4 toxicity was rare and symptomatic in only one patient, who experienced grade 4 diarrhoea and grade 3 nausea and vomiting. Symptomatic benefit was seen in 12 patients. Median survival was 185 days (95% CI 129-241) with six patients still alive. Conclusions: The efficacy of raltitrexed plus gemcitabine is limited, but compares well with other chemotherapy treatment options in advanced pancreatic cancer. However, this combination is convenient and symptomatic toxicity is rare. Thus, raltitrexed and gemcitabine should be investigated further in combination with drugs interfering with specific molecular target
Adjuvant Letrozole and Tamoxifen Alone or Sequentially for Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up of the BIG 1-98 Trial.
Luminal breast cancer has a long natural history, with recurrences continuing beyond 10 years after diagnosis. We analyzed long-term follow-up (LTFU) of efficacy outcomes and adverse events in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study reported after a median follow-up of 12.6 years.
BIG 1-98 is a four-arm, phase III, double-blind, randomized trial comparing adjuvant letrozole versus tamoxifen (either treatment received for 5 years) and their sequences (2 years of one treatment plus 3 years of the other) for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. When pharmaceutical company sponsorship ended at 8.4 years of median follow-up, academic partners initiated an observational, LTFU extension collecting annual data on survival, disease status, and adverse events. Information from Denmark was from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Registry. Intention-to-treat analyses are reported.
Of 8,010 enrolled patients, 4,433 were alive and not withdrawn at an LTFU participating center, and 3,833 (86%) had at least one LTFU report. For the monotherapy comparison of letrozole versus tamoxifen, we found a 9% relative reduction in the hazard of a disease-free survival event with letrozole (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.01). HRs for other efficacy end points were similar to those for disease-free survival. Efficacy of letrozole versus tamoxifen for contralateral breast cancer varied significantly over time (0- to 5-, 5- to 10-, and > 10-year HRs, 0.62, 0.47, and 1.35, respectively; treatment-by-time interaction P = .005), perhaps reflecting a longer carryover effect of tamoxifen. Reporting of specific long-term adverse events seemed more effective with national registry than with case-record reporting of clinical follow-up.
Efficacy end points continued to show trends favoring letrozole. Letrozole reduced contralateral breast cancer frequency in the first 10 years, but this reversed beyond 10 years. This study illustrates the value of extended follow-up in trials of luminal breast cancer
Sustained Disease Control with TOMOXIRI Regimen in a Patient with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with breast cancer and sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): 10-year follow-up of a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial
Background: We previously reported the 5-year results of the phase 3 IBCSG 23-01 trial comparing disease-free survival in patients with breast cancer with one or more micrometastatic ( 642 mm) sentinel nodes randomly assigned to either axillary dissection or no axillary dissection. The results showed no difference in disease-free survival between the groups and showed non-inferiority of no axillary dissection relative to axillary dissection. The current analysis presents the results of the study after a median follow-up of 9\ub77 years (IQR 7\ub78\u201312\ub77). Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 27 hospitals and cancer centres in nine countries. Eligible women could be of any age with clinical, mammographic, ultrasonographic, or pathological diagnosis of breast cancer with largest lesion diameter of 5 cm or smaller, and one or more metastatic sentinel nodes, all of which were 2 mm or smaller and with no extracapsular extension. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) before surgery (mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery) to no axillary dissection or axillary dissection using permuted blocks generated by a web-based congruence algorithm, with stratification by centre and menopausal status. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (as randomly assigned). Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received their allocated treatment (as treated). We did a one-sided test for non-inferiority of no axillary dissection by comparing the observed hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free survival with a margin of 1\ub725. This 10-year follow-up analysis was not prespecified in the trial's protocol and thus was not adjusted for multiple, sequential testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00072293. Findings: Between April 1, 2001, and Feb 8, 2010, 6681 patients were screened and 934 randomly assigned to no axillary dissection (n=469) or axillary dissection (n=465). Three patients were ineligible and were excluded from the trial after randomisation. Disease-free survival at 10 years was 76\ub78% (95% CI 72\ub75\u201381\ub70) in the no axillary dissection group, compared with 74\ub79% (70\ub75\u201379\ub73) in the axillary dissection group (HR 0\ub785, 95% CI 0\ub765\u20131\ub711; log-rank p=0\ub724; p=0\ub70024 for non-inferiority). Long-term surgical complications included lymphoedema of any grade in 16 (4%) of 453 patients in the no axillary dissection group and 60 (13%) of 447 in the axillary dissection group, sensory neuropathy of any grade in 57 (13%) in the no axillary dissection group versus 85 (19%) in the axillary dissection group, and motor neuropathy of any grade (14 [3%] in the no axillary dissection group vs 40 [9%] in the axillary dissection group). One serious adverse event (postoperative infection and inflamed axilla requiring hospital admission) was attributed to axillary dissection; the event resolved without sequelae. Interpretation: The findings of the IBCSG 23-01 trial after a median follow-up of 9\ub77 years (IQR 7\ub78\u201312\ub77) corroborate those obtained at 5 years and are consistent with those of the 10-year follow-up analysis of the Z0011 trial. Together, these findings support the current practice of not doing an axillary dissection when the tumour burden in the sentinel nodes is minimal or moderate in patients with early breast cancer. Funding: International Breast Cancer Study Group