A randomised phase II trial and feasibility study of palliative chemotherapy in frail or elderly patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer (321GO).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Elderly patients are commonly under-represented in cancer clinical trials. The 321GO was undertaken in preparation for a definitive phase three trial assessing different chemotherapy regimens in a frail and/or elderly population with advanced gastroesophageal (GO) cancer.Methods
Patients with advanced GO cancer considered unfit for conventional dose chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to: epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine (EOX); oxaliplatin and capecitabine (OX); and capecitabine alone (X) (all 80% of full dose and unblinded). The primary end point was patient recruitment over an 18-month period. A registration study recorded treatment choice for all patients with advanced GO cancer at trial centres.Results
A total of 313 patients were considered for palliative chemotherapy for GO cancer over the 18-month period: 115 received full dose treatment, 89 less than standard treatment or entered 321GO and 111 no treatment. Within 321GO, 55 patients were randomly assigned (19 to OX and X; 17 to EOX). Progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients was 4.4 months and by arm 5.4, 5.6 and 3.0 months for EOX, OX and X, respectively. The number of patients with a good overall treatment utility (OTU), a novel patient-centred endpoint, at 12 weeks was 3 (18%), 6 (32%) and 1 (6%) for EOX, OX and X, respectively. At 6 weeks, 22 patients (41%) had experienced a non-haematologic toxicity ⩾grade 3, most commonly lethargy or diarrhoea. The OTU was prognostic for overall survival in patients alive at week 12 (logrank test P=0.0001).Conclusions
It is feasible to recruit elderly and/or frail patients with advanced GO cancer to a randomised clinical trial. The OX is the preferred regimen for further study. Overall treatment utility shows promise as a comparator between treatment regimens for feasibility and randomised trials in the elderly and/or frail GO cancer population.
SUBMITTER: Hall PS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5318975 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing recognition of the delicate balance between the modest benefits of palliative chemotherapy and the burden of treatment. Decision aids (DAs) can potentially help patients with advanced cancer with these difficult treatment decisions, but providing detailed information could have an adverse impact on patients' well-being. The objective of this randomised phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DAs for patients with advanced cancer considering second-line chemotherapy.MethodsPatients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer considering second-line treatment were randomly assigned to usual care (control group) or usual care plus a DA (intervention group) in a 1:2 ratio. A nurse offered a DA with information on adverse events, tumour response and survival. Outcome measures included patient-reported well-being (primary outcome: anxiety) and quality of the decision-making process and the resulting choice.ResultsOf 128 patients randomised, 45 were assigned to the control group and 83 to the intervention group. Median age was 62 years (range 32-81), 63% were female, and 73% had colorectal cancer. The large majority of patients preferred treatment with chemotherapy (87%) and subsequently commenced treatment with chemotherapy (86%). No adverse impact on patients' well-being was found and nurses reported that consultations in which the DAs were offered went well. Being offered the DA was associated with stronger treatment preferences (3.0 vs. 2.5; p=0.030) and increased subjective knowledge (6.7 vs. 6.3; p=0.022). Objective knowledge, risk perception and perceived involvement were comparable between the groups.ConclusionsDAs containing detailed risk information on second-line palliative treatment could be delivered to patients with advanced cancer without having an adverse impact on patient well-being. Surprisingly, the DAs only marginally improved the quality of the decision-making process. The effectiveness of DAs for palliative treatment decisions needs further exploration.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry (NTR): NTR1113 (registered on 2 November 2007).
| S-EPMC5580234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreoperative (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy and radiotherapy are more effective than similar postoperative treatment for oesophageal, gastric, and rectal cancers, perhaps because of more effective micrometastasis eradication and reduced risk of incomplete excision and tumour cell shedding during surgery. The FOxTROT trial aims to investigate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy for colon cancer.MethodsIn the pilot stage of this randomised controlled trial, 150 patients with radiologically staged locally advanced (T3 with ≥5 mm invasion beyond the muscularis propria or T4) tumours from 35 UK centres were randomly assigned (2:1) to preoperative (three cycles of OxMdG [oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), l-folinic acid 175 mg, fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus, then 2400 mg/m(2) by 46 h infusion] repeated at 2-weekly intervals followed by surgery and a further nine cycles of OxMdG) or standard postoperative chemotherapy (12 cycles of OxMdG). Patients with KRAS wild-type tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive panitumumab (6 mg/kg; every 2 weeks with the first 6 weeks of chemotherapy) or not. Treatment allocation was through a central randomisation service using a minimised randomisation procedure including age, radiological T and N stage, site of tumour, and presence of defunctioning colostomy as stratification variables. Primary outcome measures of the pilot phase were feasibility, safety, and tolerance of preoperative therapy, and accuracy of radiological staging. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN 87163246.Findings96% (95 of 99) of patients started and 89% (85 of 95) completed preoperative chemotherapy with grade 3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity in 7% (seven of 94) of patients. All 99 tumours in the preoperative group were resected, with no significant differences in postoperative morbidity between the preoperative and control groups: 14% (14 of 99) versus 12% (six of 51) had complications prolonging hospital stay (p=0·81). 98% (50 of 51) of postoperative chemotherapy patients had T3 or more advanced tumours confirmed at post-resection pathology compared with 91% (90 of 99) of patients following preoperative chemotherapy (p=0·10). Preoperative therapy resulted in significant downstaging of TNM5 compared with the postoperative group (p=0·04), including two pathological complete responses, apical node involvement (1% [one of 98] vs 20% [ten of 50], p<0·0001), resection margin involvement (4% [four of 99] vs 20% [ten of 50], p=0·002), and blinded centrally scored tumour regression grading: 31% (29 of 94) vs 2% (one of 46) moderate or greater regression (p=0·0001).InterpretationPreoperative chemotherapy for radiologically staged, locally advanced operable primary colon cancer is feasible with acceptable toxicity and perioperative morbidity. Proceeding to the phase 3 trial, to establish whether the encouraging pathological responses seen with preoperative therapy translates into improved long-term oncological outcome, is appropriate.FundingCancer Research UK.
| S-EPMC3488188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate the response and quality of life of palliative gastric radiotherapy in patients with symptomatic locally advanced gastric cancer. Patients with bleeding, pain or obstruction and were treated with palliative gastric radiotherapy to a dose of 36 Gy in 12 daily fractions. The primary outcomes were symptom response rates. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, adverse events and proportion of patients with ≥10-point absolute improvement in the fatigue, nausea/vomiting and pain subscales in the EORTC Qualify of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and dysphagia/pain subscales in the gastric specific module (STO22) at the end of RT and 1 month after the completion of radiotherapy. Fifty patients were accrued. Median survival duration was 85 days. 40/50 patients (80%) with bleeding, 2/2 (100%) patients with obstruction and 1/1 (100%) patient with pain responded to radiotherapy. Improvements fatigue, nausea/vomiting and pain subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 was seen in 50%, 28% and 44% of patients at the end of RT and in 63%, 31% and 50% of patients 1 month after RT. Improvements in dysphagia/pain subscales of the STO22 was seen in 42% and 28% of patients at then end of RT and 44% and 19% of patients 1 month after RT. Two patients (5%) had grade 3 anorexia and gastritis. Palliative gastric radiotherapy was effective, well tolerated and resulted in improvement in fatigue, dysphagia and pain at the end of radiotherapy and 1 month after the completion of radiotherapy in a significant proportion of patients.
| S-EPMC6488108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElderly and frail patients with cancer, although often treated with chemotherapy, are under-represented in clinical trials. We designed FOCUS2 to investigate reduced-dose chemotherapy options and to seek objective predictors of outcome in frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer.MethodsWe undertook an open, 2 × 2 factorial trial in 61 UK centres for patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer who were considered unfit for full-dose chemotherapy. After comprehensive health assessment (CHA), patients were randomly assigned by minimisation to: 48-h intravenous fluorouracil with levofolinate (group A); oxaliplatin and fluorouracil (group B); capecitabine (group C); or oxaliplatin and capecitabine (group D). Treatment allocation was not masked. Starting doses were 80% of standard doses, with discretionary escalation to full dose after 6 weeks. The two primary outcome measures were: addition of oxaliplatin ([A vs B] + [C vs D]), assessed with progression-free survival (PFS); and substitution of fluorouracil with capecitabine ([A vs C] + [B vs D]), assessed by change from baseline to 12 weeks in global quality of life (QoL). Analysis was by intention to treat. Baseline clinical and CHA data were modelled against outcomes with a novel composite measure, overall treatment utility (OTU). This study is registered, number ISRCTN21221452.Findings459 patients were randomly assigned (115 to each of groups A-C, 114 to group D). Factorial comparison of addition of oxaliplatin versus no addition suggested some improvement in PFS, but the finding was not significant (median 5·8 months [IQR 3·3-7·5] vs 4·5 months [2·8-6·4]; hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·01, p=0·07). Replacement of fluorouracil with capecitabine did not improve global QoL: 69 of 124 (56%) patients receiving fluorouracil reported improvement in global QoL compared with 69 of 123 (56%) receiving capecitabine. The risk of having any grade 3 or worse toxic effect was not significantly increased with oxaliplatin (83/219 [38%] vs 70/221 [32%]; p=0·17), but was higher with capecitabine than with fluorouracil (88/222 [40%] vs 65/218 [30%]; p=0·03). In multivariable analysis, fewer baseline symptoms (odds ratio 1·32, 95% CI 1·14-1·52), less widespread disease (1·51, 1·05-2·19), and use of oxaliplatin (0·57, 0·39-0·82) were predictive of better OTU.InterpretationFOCUS2 shows that with an appropriate design, including reduced starting doses of chemotherapy, frail and elderly patients can participate in a randomised controlled trial. On balance, a combination including oxaliplatin was preferable to single-agent fluoropyrimidines, although the primary endpoint of PFS was not met. Capecitabine did not improve QoL compared with fluorouracil. Comprehensive baseline assessment holds promise as an objective predictor of treatment benefit.FundingCancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.
| S-EPMC3109515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe prognosis of patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer remains poor. Given the robust development of immunotherapy and targeted therapy during the last decades, we aimed to investigate if the combination of traditional second-line chemotherapy with sintilimab and apatinib could bring survival benefits for these patients.MethodsIn this single-center, single-arm, phase II trial, patients with previously treated advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma received specific dose level of intravenous paclitaxel or irinotecan (investigator's choice), 200 mg intravenous sintilimab on day 1, and 250 mg oral apatinib once daily continuously in each cycle until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoints were objective response rate and progression-free survival. The secondary endpoints were mainly overall survival and safety.ResultsFrom May 2019 to May 2021, 30 patients were enrolled. At the data cutoff date (March 19, 2022), the median follow-up duration was 12.3 months and 53.6% (95% CI, 33.9-72.5%) patients achieved objective response. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 8.5 months (95% CI, 5.4-11.5) and 12.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-21.3), respectively. Grade 3-4 adverse events included hematological toxicities, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, elevated alkaline phosphatase, elevated gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, hyperbilirubinemia and proteinuria. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (13.3%). No serious treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred.ConclusionSintilimab plus apatinib and chemotherapy demonstrates promising anti-tumor activity with manageable safety profile in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or GEJ cancer.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05025033, 27/08/2021.
| S-EPMC9985926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Chemoradiation (CRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) are standard treatments for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We evaluated the efficacy/safety of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) regimens as an alternative prior to total mesorectal excision (TME). Methods/design:This multi-centre, phase II trial in patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) defined high-risk LARC (>cT3b, cN2+ or extramural venous invasion) randomised patients (1:1) to FOLFOX + Bevacizumab (Arm 1) or FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab (Arm 2) every 14 days for 6 cycles prior to surgery. Patients were withdrawn if positron emission tomography (PET) standardised uptake value (SUV) after 3 cycles failed to decrease by >30% or increased compared to baseline. Primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate (pCR). Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AE) and toxicity. Neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) scores based on "T" and "N" downstaging were calculated. Findings:Twenty patients aged 18-75 years were randomised. The trial stopped early because of poor accrual. Seventeen patients completed all 6 cycles of NACT. One stopped due to myocardial infarction, 1 poor response on PET (both received CRT) and 1 committed suicide. 11 patients had G3 AE, 1 G4 AE (neutropenia), and 1 G5 (suicide). pCR (the primary endpoint) was 0/10 for Arm 1 and 2/10 for Arm 2 i.e. 2/20 (10%) overall. Median NAR score was 14·9 with 5 (28%), 7 (39%), and 6 (33%) having low, intermediate, or high scores. Surgical morbidity was acceptable (1/18 wound infection, no anastomotic leak/pelvic sepsis/fistulae). The 24-month progression-free survival rate was 75% (95% CI: 60%-85%). Interpretation:The primary endpoint (pCR rate) was not met. However, FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab achieved promising pCR rates, low NAR scores and was well-tolerated. This regimen is suitable for testing as the novel arm against current standards of SCRT and/or CRT in a future trial.
| S-EPMC6151852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCurrent guidelines recommend open gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy as the standard treatment for advanced gastric cancer. However, the prognosis is not satisfactory. Perioperative chemotherapy has been proposed to improve survival. Although still in debate, the efficacy of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer has been demonstrated in a few trials. Therefore, LDG after neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be a candidate for future standard treatment on advanced distal gastric cancer. We propose a randomised phase II trial to compare LDG and open distal gastrectomy (ODG) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer.Methods and analysisTo test the efficacy and safety, a randomised, open-label, single-centre, phase II trial was designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of LDG compared with ODG after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with 3-year recurrence-free survival as the primary endpoint. The chosen critical value of a non-inferiority margin was an increase of <8%. The study started in 2015 and enrolled 96 patients according to a prior sample size calculation. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol approach will be used for efficacy analysis, and as-treated analysis will be applied for safety analysis. The survival curves will be constructed as time-to-event plots using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model. All statistical analyses will be conducted in standard statistical software with a significance level of 0.05.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Peking University Cancer Hospital Ethics Committee. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT02404753; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6089315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOlder and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap.ObjectiveThe GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty.InterventionsThere were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care.Main outcomes and measuresFirst, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival.ResultsA total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceThis phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.
| S-EPMC8120440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR2) directed therapies result in a modest survival benefit for patients with advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal (GE) junction cancer. Platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) may contribute to escape from VEGFR2 inhibition. We evaluated the efficacy of sorafenib, a broad spectrum tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR2 and PDGFR as well as RET and RAF1, in patients with metastatic chemotherapy refractory esophageal and GE junction cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS:This phase II trial of sorafenib 400 mg twice daily enrolled chemotherapy refractory patients with metastatic esophageal and GE junction cancer with primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) rate at two months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate and toxicity. RESULTS:Among 34 patients, 8 week Kaplan-Meier estimated PFS was 61% (90%CI 45 to 73%). Median PFS is 3.6 months (95% CI 1.8 to 3.9 months), with median overall survival OS 9.7 months (95% CI 5.9 to 11.6 months). Grade 3 toxicities were uncommon and included hand foot skin reaction, rash, dehydration and fatigue. One patient (3%) with ongoing complete response and remains on trial for over 5 years. Whole exome sequencing of this tumor revealed mutations in many cancer-associated genes including ARID1A, PIK3CA, and TP53, and focal amplifications of HMGA2 and MET. CONCLUSION:Sorafenib therapy results in disease stabilization and encouraging PFS in patients with refractory esophageal and GE junction cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00917462.
| S-EPMC4537304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMajor depressive disorder (MDD) in people with advanced life-limiting illnesses can have significant impact on the quality-of-life of those affected. The management of MDD in the palliative care setting can be challenging as typical antidepressants may not work in time nor be tolerated due to coexisting organ dysfunctions, symptom burden and frailty. Parenteral ketamine was found to exhibit effective and rapid-onset antidepressant effect even against treatment-resistant depression in the psychiatric population. However, there is currently neither feasibility study nor available prospective study available to inform of the safety, tolerability and efficacy of such for MDD in the palliative setting.Methods and analysisThis is an open-labelled, single arm, phase II pilot feasibility study involving adult patients with advanced life-limiting illnesses and MDD across four palliative care services in Australia. It has an individual dose-titration design (0.1-0.4 mg/kg) with weekly treatments of subcutaneous ketamine infusion over 2 hours. The primary outcome is feasibility. The secondary outcomes are related to the safety, tolerability and antidepressant efficacy of ketamine, participants' satisfaction in relation to the trial process and the reasons for not completing the study at various stages. The feasibility data will be reported using descriptive statistics. Meanwhile, side effects, tolerability and efficacy data will be analysed using change of assessment scores from baseline.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was acquired (South Western Sydney Local Health District: HREC/18/LPOOL/466). The results of this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Number: ACTRN12618001586202; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC8240583 | biostudies-literature