4.4 Article

Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with tailored irinotecan and S-1 therapy versus S-1 monotherapy for advanced or recurrent gastric carcinoma (JFMC31-0301)

Journal

ANTI-CANCER DRUGS
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 576-583

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CAD.0b013e328345b509

Keywords

gastric cancer; irinotecan; S-1; tailored chemotherapy

Funding

  1. Japanese Foundation for Multidisciplinary Treatment of Cancer
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22591478] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The pharmacokinetics of irinotecan vary markedly between individuals. This study sought to compare tailored irinotecan and S-1 therapy with S-1 monotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced/recurrent gastric cancer. Patients with advanced/recurrent gastric cancer were randomized to receive tailored irinotecan and S-1 (arm A) therapy or S-1 therapy alone (arm B). Arm A received S-1 (80-120 mg/m(2)/day) for 14 days, with irinotecan on days 1 and 15. The initial irinotecan dose of 75 mg/m(2) (level 0) was adjusted for toxicity during an earlier course. In arm B, S-1 (80-120 mg/day) was administered alone for 28 days, followed by 14 days without therapy. Ninety-five patients were randomized (48 patients to arm A and 47 patients to arm B). The response rate of the primary tumor (Japanese criteria) was 25.0% in arm A (12 of 48 patients) and 14.9% in arm B (seven of 47 patients), whereas the response rates according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors were 27.8% (10 of 36) versus 21.9% (seven of 32). Hematological toxicity, anorexia, and diarrhea were significantly more common in arm A, but both arms had similar grades 3-4 toxicities. These findings suggest the usefulness of tailored irinotecan and S-1 therapy for gastric cancer. Anti-Cancer Drugs 22:576-583 (C) 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available