4.7 Article

The Multicenter, Phase II Prospective Study of Paclitaxel Plus Capecitabine as First-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Carcinoma

Journal

ONCOLOGIST
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 173-174

Publisher

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0137

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172110]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program [2006AA 02A 402-B02, 2012AA 02A 504]
  3. Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission Program [Z11110706730000]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The efficacy and toxicity of paclitaxel plus capecitabine (PX) as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) was evaluated. Methods. Patients with previously untreated AGC were included. PX was given every 3 weeks until a maximum of six cycles or progression. Capecitabine monotherapy was continued for patients without disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints were objective response rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results. Overall, 194 patients were treated per protocol and one patient was excluded because of allergy to paclitaxel. Response was evaluated in 175 patients, with an objective response rate of 34.8%. After a median follow-up of 33.2 months, disease progression was observed in 141 patients, 137 died, and 16 were lost to follow-up, with progression-free survival of 188 days and OS of 354 days. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, no factor remained an independent predictor of OS. Forty-five patients who received capecitabine monotherapy after PX had longer OS (531 days). Adverse events were mild (Fig. 1), and the most common grade 3-4 toxicities were leucopenia and neutropenia. Conclusion. PX as a first-line treatment has promising efficacy in AGC. Based on these data, a phase III study has been launched for further investigation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available