4.7 Article

A randomized phase II study of PEP02 (MM-398), irinotecan or docetaxel as a second-line therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 1567-1573

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt002

关键词

docetaxel; irinotecan; liposomal irinotecan; oesophago-gastric cancer; phase II; second line

类别

资金

  1. PharmaEngine
  2. NHS
  3. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
  4. Peter Stebbings Memorial Charity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: PEP02 is a novel highly stable liposomal nanocarrier formulation of irinotecan. This randomized phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of single agent PEP02 compared with irinotecan or docetaxel in the second-line treatment of advanced oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer. Patients and methods: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic disease who had failed one prior chemotherapy regimen were randomly assigned to PEP02 120 mg/m(2), irinotecan 300 mg/m(2) or docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (OAR). Simon's two-stage design was used and the ORR of interest was 20% (alpha = 0.05, type II error beta = 0.10, null hypothesis of ORR was 5%). Results: Forty-four patients per arm received treatment, and 124 were assessable for response. The OAR statistical threshold for the first stage was reached in all arms. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, ORRs were 13.6% (6/44), 6.8% (3/44) and 15.9% (7/44) in the PEP02, irinotecan and docetaxel arms, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were similar between the trial arms. Commonest grade 3-4 adverse event reported was diarrhoea in the PEP02 and irinotecan groups (27.3% versus 18.2%). Conclusion: The ORR associated with PEP02 was comparable with docetaxel and numerically greater than that of irinotecan. PEP02 warrants further evaluation in the advanced gastric cancer setting.

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