4.8 Article

An international randomised trial of celecoxib versus celecoxib plus difluoromethylornithine in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

期刊

GUT
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 286-U372

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307235

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pfizer [P30CA016672]
  2. Biostatistics Resource Group
  3. US NCI [N01-CN95040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aim Although Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce colorectal adenoma burden in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), the utility of combining chemopreventive agents in FAP is not known. We conducted a randomised trial of celecoxib (CXB) versus CXB+diflouromethylornithine (DFMO) to determine the synergistic effect, if any. Methods The primary endpoint was % change in adenoma count in a defined field. Secondary endpoints were adenoma burden (weighted by adenoma diameter) and video review of entire colon/rectal segments. Adverse event (AEs) were monitored by National Cancer Institution toxicity criteria. Results 112 subjects were randomised: 60 men and 52 women at a mean age of 38 years. For the 89 patients who had landmark-matched polyp counts available at baseline and 6 months, the mean % change in adenoma count over the 6 months of trial was -13.0% for CXB+DFMO and -1.0% for CXB (p=0.69). Mean % change in adenoma burden was -40% (CXB+DFMO) vs -27% (CXB) (p=0.13). Video-based global polyp change was -0.80 for CXB+ DFMO vs -0.33 for CXB (p=0.03). Fatigue was the only significant AE, worse on the CXB arm (p=0.02). Conclusions CXB combined with DFMO yielded moderate synergy according to a video-based global assessment. No significant difference in adenoma count, the primary endpoint, was seen between the two study arms. No evidence of DFMO-related ototoxicity was seen. There were no adverse cardiovascular outcomes in either trial arm and no significant increase in AEs in the CXB+DFMO arm of the trial. Differences in outcomes between primary and secondary endpoints may relate to sensitivity of the endpoint measures themselves.

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

4.8
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