4.7 Article

Cetuximab with irinotecan, folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil as first-line treatment in advanced gastroesophageal cancer: a prospective multi-center biomarker-oriented phase II study

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 1358-1366

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq591

关键词

biomarkers; cetuximab; EGFR-1; gastric cancer; irinotecan; PTEN

类别

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [FKN 01KN0703]
  2. Hector Foundation
  3. Weinheim the University of Mainz
  4. Merck KGaA Darmstadt, Germany
  5. Pfizer Germany
  6. medac Germany
  7. Merck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cetuximab plus irinotecan/folinic acid/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (IF) was evaluated as first-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction tumors. Preplanned analyses of the influence of tumor biomarkers on treatment outcome were carried out. Patients and methods: Patients received weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1, subsequently 250 mg/m(2)) plus irinotecan (80 mg/m(2)) and a 24-hour continuous infusion of folinic acid (200 mg/m(2)) and 5-FU (1500 mg/m(2)) on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and 36 of a 50-day cycle, until progressive disease (PD). Results: The most common grade 3/4 toxic effects in 49 patients were diarrhea (15%) and skin toxic effects (14%). In 48 assessable patients, the overall response rate was 46% and disease control rate was 79%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 9.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1-15.6] and 16.5 months (95% CI 11.7-30.1), respectively. Tumor response was more common than nonresponse in epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing tumors (P = 0.041). Tumor PTEN expression was associated with longer PFS (P = 0.035) and OS (P = 0.0127) than no PTEN expression. Conclusion: Cetuximab plus IF was well tolerated and efficacy data were encouraging. This treatment combination and the role of selected biomarkers are under investigation in the ongoing phase III EXPAND trial.

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