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:BackgroundPaclitaxel in combination with ramucirumab is the standard of care second-line therapy in gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). As the number of taxane pretreated patients in the perioperative or first-line setting is increasing, it is unknown whether these patients benefit from re-applying a taxane in using the combination of paclitaxel and ramucirumab. Furthermore, the rates of neurotoxicity with first-line FOLFOX or FLOT range from 30%-70%, making second-line taxane-containing therapy less suitable to a meaningful portion of patients. This patient group is likely to benefit from a taxane-free second-line chemotherapy regimen, such as FOLFIRI and ramucirumab (FOLFIRI-Ram). Therefore, the RAMIRIS phase III trial evaluates the effects of the regimen of FOLFIRI-Ram in the second-line treatment after a taxane-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced GEA.MethodsThe RAMIRIS trial is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II/III study comparing treatment of FOLFIRI-Ram (arm A) with paclitaxel and ramucirumab (arm B). The Phase II is already closed with 111 enrolled patients. In the phase III, 318 taxane-pretreated patients with advanced GEA will be recruited and randomized 1:1 to FOLFIRI (5-FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h i.v., irinotecan 180 mg/m2 i.v.; 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus; leucovorin 400 mg/m2 i.v.; on day 1 and 15, q28) with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every two weeks (Arm A) or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15, q28) with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every two weeks (Arm B). The primary endpoints are overall survival (OS) and objective overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate and safety and quality of life as assessed by EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire.DiscussionThe already completed RAMIRIS phase II demonstrated feasibility and efficacy of FOLFIRI-Ram. Especially docetaxel-pretreated patients seemed to markedly benefit from FOLFIRI-Ram, with favorable response- and PFS rates and lower toxicity. This offers a rationale for the phase III trial. If the RAMIRIS III trial transfers and confirms the results, they will affect the current treatment guidelines, recommending the combination therapy of FOLFIRI-Ram for taxane-pretreated patients with advanced GEA.Trial registrationNCT03081143 Date of registration: 13.11.2015.

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