4.6 Article

A phase II study of radical surgery followed by postoperative chemotherapy with S-1 for gastric carcinoma with free cancer cells in the peritoneal cavity (CCOG0301 study)

期刊

EJSO
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 1158-1163

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2009.03.003

关键词

Gastric cancer; S-1; Cytologic examination; Peritoneal carcinomatosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with gastric cancer who have positive cytologic results for cancer cells in peritoneal washings (CY1) have poor outcomes, oven in the absence of other distant metastases. A standard treatment for such patients remains to be established. Methods: We conducted a phase II trial with the 2-year survival rate as the primary endpoint. Patients who had gastric cancer with CY1 status but no other residual disease received postoperative chemotherapy with S-1 (1 M tegafur-0.4 M gimestat-1 M otastat potassium) at a daily dose of 80 mg/m(2) for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks of rest. This cycle was continued until disease progression or intolerable adverse events. D2 dissection was the recommended surgical procedure; splenectomy could be omitted at the discretion of the surgeon. Accrual of 50 patients was planned, and a 2-year survival rate of more than 36% was needed to exceed the historical control. Results: Forty-eight patients were enrolled, among whom 47 were assessable for survival and 46 for adverse reactions. Median overall survival was 705 days, and progression-free survival was 376 days. The 2-year survival rate was 47%. Median time to treatment failure was 288 days. Neutropenia was the commonest >= grade 3 toxicity (6 patients), and anorexia was the most frequent >= grade 2 non-hematologic toxicity (10 patients). Conclusions: Gastrectomy followed by S-1 monotherapy resulted in survival that surpassed historical data and can serve as an active control treatment for future trials in patients who have gastric cancer with CY1 status in the Far East. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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