Dataset Information

Randomised phase II study comparing dose-escalated weekly paclitaxel vs standard-dose weekly paclitaxel for patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This randomised phase II trial compared dose-escalated weekly paclitaxel (wPTX) vs standard-dose wPTX for patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: Ninety patients were randomised to a standard dose of wPTX (80?mg?m(-2)) or an escalated dose of wPTX (80-120?mg?m(-2)) to assess the superiority of overall survival (OS) with a one-sided alpha error of 0.3 and a power of 0.8. RESULTS: The median OS showed a trend towards longer survival in the dose-escalated arm (11.8 vs 9.6 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.75; one-sided P=0.12), although it was statistically not significant. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in the dose-escalated arm (4.3 vs 2.5 months, HR, 0.55; P=0.017). Objective response rate was 30.3% with dose escalation and 17.1% with standard dose (P=0.2). The frequency of all grades of neutropenia was significantly higher with dose escalation (88.7% vs 60.0%, P=0.002); however, no significant difference was observed in the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3 or more (40.9% vs 31.1%, P=0.34). CONCLUSION: Dose-escalated wPTX in patients with pretreated AGC met our predefined threshold of primary end point, OS (P<0.3); however, it did not show a significantly longer OS. Progression-free survival was significantly better with dose escalation.

SUBMITTER: Shitara K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3899763 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomised phase II study comparing dose-escalated weekly paclitaxel vs standard-dose weekly paclitaxel for patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer.

Shitara K K Yuki S S Tahahari D D Nakamura M M Kondo C C Tsuda T T Kii T T Tsuji Y Y Utsunomiya S S Ichikawa D D Hosokawa A A Ishiguro A A Sakai D D Hironaka S S Oze I I Matsuo K K Muro K K

British journal of cancer 20131126 2

<h4>Background</h4>This randomised phase II trial compared dose-escalated weekly paclitaxel (wPTX) vs standard-dose wPTX for patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer (AGC).<h4>Methods</h4>Ninety patients were randomised to a standard dose of wPTX (80 mg m(-2)) or an escalated dose of wPTX (80-120 mg m(-2)) to assess the superiority of overall survival (OS) with a one-sided alpha error of 0.3 and a power of 0.8.<h4>Results</h4>The median OS showed a trend towards longer survival i ...[more]

PMID: 24281004

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA dose-dense weekly schedule of paclitaxel (resulting in a greater frequency of drug delivery) plus carboplatin every 3 weeks or the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel and carboplatin administered every 3 weeks has shown efficacy in ovarian cancer. We proposed to determine whether dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin would prolong progression-free survival as compared with paclitaxel and carboplatin administered every 3 weeks among patients receiving and those not receiving bevacizumab.MethodsWe prospectively stratified patients according to whether they elected to receive bevacizumab and then randomly assigned them to receive either paclitaxel, administered intravenously at a dose of 175 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks, plus carboplatin (dose equivalent to an area under the curve [AUC] of 6) for six cycles or paclitaxel, administered weekly at a dose of 80 mg per square meter, plus carboplatin (AUC, 6) for six cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival.ResultsA total of 692 patients were enrolled, 84% of whom opted to receive bevacizumab. In the intention-to-treat analysis, weekly paclitaxel was not associated with longer progression-free survival than paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks (14.7 months and 14.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.06; P=0.18). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, weekly paclitaxel was associated with progression-free survival that was 3.9 months longer than that observed with paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks (14.2 vs. 10.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.95; P=0.03). However, among patients who received bevacizumab, weekly paclitaxel did not significantly prolong progression-free survival, as compared with paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks (14.9 months and 14.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P=0.60). A test for interaction that assessed homogeneity of the treatment effect showed a significant difference between treatment with bevacizumab and without bevacizumab (P=0.047). Patients who received weekly paclitaxel had a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 anemia than did those who received paclitaxel every 3 weeks (36% vs. 16%), as well as a higher rate of grade 2 to 4 sensory neuropathy (26% vs. 18%); however, they had a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (72% vs. 83%).ConclusionsOverall, weekly paclitaxel, as compared with paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks, did not prolong progression-free survival among patients with ovarian cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Genentech; GOG-0262 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01167712.).

Project description:IntroductionThe risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsA two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.ResultsA total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).ConclusionEscalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundPaclitaxel treatment produces significant peripheral neuropathy, but the time course of neuropathy development and outcomes are unclear. Dose reduction is the only strategy to prevent neurotoxicity, however, the impact of dose-reduction on neuropathy outcomes remains unknown. This study aimed to prospectively evaluated neuropathy development from weekly paclitaxel treatment and evaluate the impact of dose-reduction on post-treatment neuropathy outcomes.Patients and methodsBreast cancer patients receiving paclitaxel (80mg/m2 ) weekly for 12-weeks were prospectively assessed using patient reported (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity; FACTGOG-Ntx), clinical (Total Neuropathy Score clinical version; TNSc) and neurophysiological measures up to 12-months post completion. The impact of dose-reduction on post-treatment (3.6 ± 0.1 months) clinical and patient reported outcomes was evaluated in 105 weekly paclitaxel-treated patients.ResultsSignificant neuropathy was present by 6-weeks across patient-reported, clinical, and objective neurophysiological assessments, increasing in prevalence and severity over the treatment course. Limited recovery occurred, with significant neuropathy being maintained up to 12 months (p < .05). Patients who received dose reduction had worse patient reported (FACT-GOG-Ntx: 40.2 ± .1.4) and clinical neuropathy outcomes (TNSc: 4.3 ± 0.4) compared to those who received the full dose (FACT-GOG-Ntx: 45.9 ± 0.9; TNSc: 3.3 ± 0.3, p < .05). Patients who ceased treatment early demonstrated the worse deficits (TNSc: 5.0 ± 0.6; FACT-GOG-Ntx: 37.3 ± 2.7) compared to those who received the complete dose (TNSc: 3.5 ± 0.3; FACT-GOG-Ntx: 45.3 ± 0.9, p < .05).ConclusionWeekly paclitaxel produces symptomatic and objective neuropathy early in the treatment course which can persist. Dose reduction does not necessarily lead to more favorable neuropathy outcomes, with individual risk factors likely important in addition to cumulative dose.Implications for practiceWeekly paclitaxel schedules are extensively used in breast cancer. Patients may develop symptomatic and objective neuropathy early in the treatment course, with these individuals requiring closer monitoring. Furthermore, neuropathy is a long-term sequela that may impact quality of life and require appropriate supportive services. Results suggest that dose reduction does not necessarily lead to better neuropathy outcomes. Understanding schedule-specific toxicity and risk factors for neuropathy will be critical to determining individualized treatment strategies and improving quality of life in breast cancer survivors.

Project description:Importance:Optimizing radiation therapy techniques for localized prostate cancer can affect patient outcomes. Dose escalation improves biochemical control, but no prior trials were powered to detect overall survival (OS) differences. Objective:To determine whether radiation dose escalation to 79.2 Gy compared with 70.2 Gy would improve OS and other outcomes in prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants:The NRG Oncology/RTOG 0126 randomized clinical trial randomized 1532 patients from 104 North American Radiation Therapy Oncology Group institutions March 2002 through August 2008. Men with stage cT1b to T2b, Gleason score 2 to 6, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 10 or greater and less than 20 or Gleason score of 7 and PSA less than 15 received 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy to 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions or 70.2 Gy in 39 fractions. Main Outcomes and Measures:Time to OS measured from randomization to death due to any cause. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO)/Phoenix definitions were used for biochemical failure. Acute (?90 days of treatment start) and late radiation therapy toxic effects (>90 days) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and the RTOG/European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Late Radiation Morbidity Scoring Scheme, respectively. Results:With a median follow-up of 8.4 (range, 0.02-13.0) years in 1499 patients (median [range] age, 71 [33-87] years; 70% had PSA <10 ng/mL, 84% Gleason score of 7, 57% T1 disease), there was no difference in OS between the 751 men in the 79.2-Gy arm and the 748 men in the 70.2-Gy arm. The 8-year rates of OS were 76% with 79.2 Gy and 75% with 70.2 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.20; P?=?.98). The 8-year cumulative rates of distant metastases were 4% for the 79.2-Gy arm and 6% for the 70.2-Gy arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P?=?.05). The ASTRO and Phoenix biochemical failure rates at 5 and 8 years were 31% and 20% with 79.2 Gy and 47% and 35% with 70.2 Gy, respectively (both P?<?.001; ASTRO: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; Phoenix: HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65). The high-dose arm had a lower rate of salvage therapy use. The 5-year rates of late grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal and/or genitourinary toxic effects were 21% and 12% with 79.2 Gy and 15% and 7% with 70.2 Gy (P?=?.006 [HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.77] and P?=?.003 [HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.17-2.16], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance:Despite improvements in biochemical failure and distant metastases, dose escalation did not improve OS. High doses caused more late toxic effects but lower rates of salvage therapy. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00033631.

Project description:BackgroundIn the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of the RAINBOW study, objective response rate (ORR) was 28% and 16% in the ramucirumab and control arms, respectively. To further characterize tumor response, we present details on timing and extent of tumor shrinkage, as well as associations with symptom palliation.Materials and methodsTumor response was assessed with RECIST v1.1, and quality of life (QoL) was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3.0. Prespecified and post hoc analyses were conducted in the ITT population, patients with measurable disease, or responders, and included best overall response (BOR), ORR, disease control rate (DCR), duration of response, time to response (TtR), change in tumor size, and associations of QoL with tumor shrinkage and BOR.ResultsIn both treatment arms, median TtR was 1.5 months. Responses were more durable in the ramucirumab versus control arm (median 4.4 vs. 2.8 months). In patients with measurable disease (78% of ITT), ORR was 36% versus 20%; DCR was 81% versus 61% in the ramucirumab versus control arms. Waterfall plots demonstrated more tumor shrinkage in the ramucirumab versus control arm. Regardless of treatment, tumor response and stable disease were associated with improved or stable QoL, with more tumor shrinkage associated with greater symptom palliation.ConclusionTreatment with ramucirumab plus paclitaxel yielded the highest ORR reported to date for patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Additional details demonstrate robustness of tumor response results. The extent of tumor shrinkage is directly associated with symptom palliation and should be considered when evaluating patient needs and treatment selection. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01170663.Implications for practiceRamucirumab plus paclitaxel is a recognized standard of care as it improves survival for patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who have been previously treated with recommended first-line therapy. These additional data on tumor response demonstrate a positive association between tumor shrinkage and symptom palliation in a patient population that is often symptomatic. These observations included patients with nonmeasurable disease, a group of patients often underrepresented in clinical trials. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions, which align individual patient characteristics and needs with demonstrated benefits.

Dataset Information

Randomised phase II study comparing dose-escalated weekly paclitaxel vs standard-dose weekly paclitaxel for patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer.

Publications

Randomised phase II study comparing dose-escalated weekly paclitaxel vs standard-dose weekly paclitaxel for patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets