Dataset Information

A Phase III Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel Versus Irinotecan in Patients with Metastatic or Recurrent Gastric Cancer Who Failed in First-line Therapy (KCSG ST10-01).

ABSTRACT: LESSONS LEARNED:Irinotecan could not be proven noninferior to paclitaxel as a second-line treatment for patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer.The failure to demonstrate noninferiority may have been a result of insufficient patient enrollment.Both agents were tolerable but showed different toxicity profiles. BACKGROUND:This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus irinotecan in patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (MRGC) who had experienced disease progression following first-line chemotherapy. METHODS:Patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel (70 mg/m2; days 1, 8, 15, every 4 weeks) or irinotecan (150 mg/m2 every other week). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS:This study was stopped early due to low accrual rate. A total of 112 patients were enrolled; 54 were allocated to paclitaxel and 58 to irinotecan. Median PFS for the paclitaxel and irinotecan groups was 3.5 and 2.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.88; p = .234). Noninferiority of irinotecan to paclitaxel was not proved because the upper boundary of the 95% CI (1.88) exceeded the predefined upper margin of noninferiority (1.32). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.6 months in the paclitaxel group and 7.0 months in the irinotecan group (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.91-2.11; p = .126). Among toxicities greater than or equal to grade 3, neutropenia (11.5%) was the most common, followed by peripheral neuropathy (7.7%) in the paclitaxel group, and neutropenia (34.5%) followed by nausea, vomiting, and anemia (8.6%, respectively) in the irinotecan group. CONCLUSION:Although paclitaxel showed numerically longer PFS and OS compared with irinotecan, this was statistically insignificant. Both irinotecan and paclitaxel are valid second-line treatment options in MRGC.

SUBMITTER: Lee KW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6324622 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Phase III Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel Versus Irinotecan in Patients with Metastatic or Recurrent Gastric Cancer Who Failed in First-line Therapy (KCSG ST10-01).

Lee Keun-Wook KW Maeng Chi Hoon CH Kim Tae-You TY Zang Dae Young DY Kim Yeul Hong YH Hwang In Gyu IG Oh Sang Cheul SC Chung Joo Seop JS Song Hong Suk HS Kim Jin Won JW Jeong Su Jin SJ Cho Jae Yong JY

The oncologist 20180820 1

<h4>Lessons learned</h4>Irinotecan could not be proven noninferior to paclitaxel as a second-line treatment for patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer.The failure to demonstrate noninferiority may have been a result of insufficient patient enrollment.Both agents were tolerable but showed different toxicity profiles.<h4>Background</h4>This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus irinotecan in patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (MRGC) w ...[more]

PMID: 30126861

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III EPIC study (EMR 062202-025) investigated cetuximab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-detectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed on first-line fluoropyrimidine- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy; we report the outcomes of patients with RAS-wild-type (wt) disease.Materials and methodsAvailable DNA samples from RAS-unselected patients (n =?1,164 of 1,298 [89.7%]) were reanalyzed for RAS mutations using beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics. Baseline characteristics, efficacy, safety, and poststudy therapy were assessed. RAS-wt status was defined as a mutated RAS allele frequency of ?5%, with all relevant alleles being analyzable.ResultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between the groups (n =?452 patients with RAS-wt mCRC; cetuximab plus irinotecan n =?231, irinotecan n =?221) and between the RAS-wt and RAS-unselected populations. In the cetuximab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan arms, median overall survival was 12.3 versus 12.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 versus 2.6 months, and objective response rate (ORR) was 29.4% versus 5.0%, respectively. Quality of life (QoL) was improved in the cetuximab plus irinotecan arm. Serious adverse events occurred in 45.4% (cetuximab plus irinotecan) and 42.4% (irinotecan) of patients. In total, 47.1% of patients in the irinotecan arm received subsequent cetuximab therapy.ConclusionPFS, ORR, and QoL were improved with cetuximab plus irinotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with RAS-wt mCRC, confirming that cetuximab-based therapy is suitable in this population. Almost half of patients in the irinotecan arm received poststudy cetuximab, masking a potential overall survival benefit of cetuximab addition.Implications for practiceCetuximab is approved for the treatment of RAS-wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In this retrospective analysis of the phase III EPIC study (cetuximab plus irinotecan vs. irinotecan alone as second-line treatment in patients with RAS-unselected mCRC), the subgroup of patients with RAS-wild-type mCRC who received cetuximab plus irinotecan had improved progression-free survival, objective response rate, and quality of life compared with the RAS-unselected population. These findings suggest that cetuximab-based therapy is a suitable second-line treatment for patients with RAS-wild-type mCRC.

Dataset Information

A Phase III Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel Versus Irinotecan in Patients with Metastatic or Recurrent Gastric Cancer Who Failed in First-line Therapy (KCSG ST10-01).

Publications

A Phase III Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel Versus Irinotecan in Patients with Metastatic or Recurrent Gastric Cancer Who Failed in First-line Therapy (KCSG ST10-01).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets