4.6 Article

A prospective evaluation of treatment with Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIR-spheres) in patients with unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer previously treated with 5-FU based chemotherapy

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-5-132

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of selective internal radiation (SIR) spheres in patients with inoperable liver metastases from colorectal cancer who have failed 5FU based chemotherapy. Methods: Patients were prospectively enrolled at three Australian centres. All patients had previously received 5-FU based chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients were ECOG 0-2 and had liver dominant or liver only disease. Concurrent 5-FU was given at investigator discretion. Results: Thirty patients were treated between January 2002 and March 2004. As of July 2004 the median follow-up is 18.3 months. Median patient age was 61.7 years (range 36-77). Twenty-nine patients are evaluable for toxicity and response. There were 10 partial responses (33%), with the median duration of response being 8.3 months (range 2-18) and median time to progression of 5.3 mths. Response rates were lower (21%) and progression free survival shorter (3.9 mths) in patients that had received all standard chemotherapy options (n=14). No responses were seen in patients with a poor performance status (n=3) or extrahepatic disease (n=6). Overall treatment related toxicity was acceptable, however significant late toxicity included 4 cases of gastric ulceration. Conclusion: In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that have previously received treatment with 5-FU based chemotherapy, treatment with SIR-spheres has demonstrated encouraging activity. Further studies are required to better define the subsets of patients most likely to respond.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available