4.7 Article

Chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin and streptozocin for neuroendocrine tumours

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 102, Issue 7, Pages 1106-1112

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605618

Keywords

chemotherapy; NETs; Ki-67; mitotic index

Categories

Funding

  1. UCLH/UCL Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centres

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The role of chemotherapy for neuroendocrine tumours remains controversial and there is no standard regimen. METHODS: We report the outcome for a consecutive series of chemonaive patients with metastatic or locally advanced neuroendocrine tumours treated with a combination of 5-fluorouracil (500 mgm(-2)), cisplatin (70 mgm(-2)) and streptozocin (1000 mgm(-2)) (FCiSt) administered three weekly for up to six cycles. Patients were assessed for radiological response, toxicity and survival. RESULTS: In the 79 patients assessable for response, treatment with FCiSt was associated with an overall response rate of 33% (38% for pancreatic primary sites and 25% for non-pancreatic primary sites). Stable disease occurred in a further 51%, with progression in 16%. The median time to progression was 9.1 months and median overall survival was 31.5 months. The most common grade 3-4 toxicity was neutropaenia (28% patients) but grade 3-4 infection was rare (7%). The most frequent non-haematological grade 3-4 toxicity was nausea and vomiting (17%). Prognostic factors included Ki-67, mitotic index, grade and chromogranin A, whereas response to chemotherapy was predicted by mitotic index, grade and a-fetoprotein. CONCLUSION: FCiSt is an effective regimen for neuroendocrine tumours with an acceptable toxicity profile. Grade and mitotic index are the best predictors of response. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 1106-1112. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605618 www.bjcancer.com Published online 16 March 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

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