4.7 Article

Optimisation of irinotecan dose in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after 5-FU failure: results from a multinational, randomised phase II study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 92, Issue 6, Pages 1055-1062

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602462

Keywords

colorectal cancer; CPT-11; dose optimisation; irinotecan

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although irinotecan 350 mg m(-2) is a standard option for relapsed/refractory advanced colorectal cancer, there is some evidence that suggests that a higher dose may be more effective, with acceptable tolerability, following 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). This study assessed the optimal dosing strategy for irinotecan, along with treatment efficacy and safety. A total of 164 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer progressing after failure on 5-FU or raltitrexed received either 350 mg m(-2) irinotecan (Group A; n = 36) or 250, 350 or 500 mg m(-2), according to individual patient tolerance (Group B; n = 62) or based on risk factor optimisation (Group C; n = 66). There were no complete responses. There was a trend towards a higher overall response rate in Group B (13%) than in Groups A (8%) and C (9%). Tumour control growth rate was high in all three groups: 58% in group A, 60% in Group B and 50% in Group C. A total of 34% of patients in Group B and 9% in Group C were able to receive a dose of 500 mg m(-2). Median duration of response and time to progression were significantly longer in Groups A and B compared with Group C. No significant between-group differences for any adverse events were seen, although there was a small trend towards better tolerability in Group B. Individual dose escalation based on patient tolerance may allow more patients to receive a higher irinotecan dose without causing additional toxicity and can be an appropriate patient management strategy.

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