4.7 Article

Preoperative chemotherapy prior to primary tumour resection for asymptomatic synchronous unresectable colorectal liver-limited metastases: The RECUT multicenter randomised controlled trial

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 191, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.112961

关键词

Unresectable; colorectal liver

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study suggests that pre-PTR chemotherapy can improve progression-free survival for patients with asymptomatic synchronous unresectable CRLMs, while also improving disease control rate.
chemotherapy could improve progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with asymptomatic Patients and methods: Patients with asymptomatic synchronous unresectable CRLMs were randomly assigned to receive pre-PTR chemotherapy (arm A) or upfront PTR (arm B). Chemotherapy regimens of mFOLFOX6 plus cetuximab, mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab or mFOLFOX6 alone were chosen according to the RAS genotype. The primary end-point was PFS; secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), tumour response, disease control rate (DCR), liver metastases resection rate, surgical complications and chemotherapy toxicity. Results: Three hundred and twenty patients were randomly assigned to arm A (160 patients) and arm B (160 patients). Patients in arm A had significantly improved the median PFS compared with arm B (10.5 versus 9.1 months; P = 0.013). Patients in arm A also had significantly better DCR (84.4% versus 75.0%; P = 0.037). The median OS (29.4 versus 27.2 months; P = 0.058), objective response rate (ORR) (53.1% versus 45.0%; P = 0.146) and liver metastases resection rate (21.9% versus 18.1%; P = 0.402) were not significantly different. The Clavien-Dindo 3-4 complications post PTR (4.5% versus 3.8%, P = 0.759) and the incidence of grade 3/4 chemotherapy events (42.2% versus 40.4%, P = 0.744) reached no statistical significance. Conclusions: For asymptomatic synchronous unresectable CRLMs, Pre-PTR chemotherapy & COPY; 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据