4.7 Article

Docetaxel combined with irinotecan or 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: a randomised phase II study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 107, 期 3, 页码 435-441

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.286

关键词

oesophago-gastric cancer; docetaxel; irinotecan; 5-fluorouracil

类别

资金

  1. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
  2. Peter Stebbings Memorial Charity
  3. Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel and irinotecan chemotherapy have shown good efficacy in the treatment of advanced oesophago-gastric cancer. This randomised phase II study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity profile of two non-platinum docetaxel-based doublet regimens in advanced oesophago-gastric cancer. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced oesophago-gastric cancer were randomised to receive either 3-weekly DI (docetaxel 60 mg m(-2) plus irinotecan 250 mg m(-2) (Day 1)) or 3-weekly DF (docetaxel 85 mg m(-2) (Day 1) followed by 5-fluorouracil 750 mg m(-2) per day as a continuous infusion (Days 1-5)). RESULTS: A total of 85 patients received DI (n = 42) or DF (n = 43). The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). The ORR and time to progression (TTP) in the evaluable population (n = 65) were 37.5% (DI) vs 33.3% (DF), and 4.2 months vs 4.4 months, respectively. In the intent-to-treat population, the observed ORR, TTP and median overall survival were similar between the two groups. Grade 3-4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and diarrhoea were more frequent in the DI arm as compared with the DF arm (83.3% vs 69.8%, 40.5% vs 18.6%, and 42.9% vs 16.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both docetaxel-based doublet regimens show comparable efficacy; however, the DF regimen was associated with a better toxicity profile and is an alternative treatment option for patients in whom platinum-based regimens are unsuitable. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 107, 435-441. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.286 www.bjcancer.com Published online 5 July 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK

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