Dataset Information

Efficacy of Capecitabine Plus Irinotecan vs Irinotecan Monotherapy as Second-line Treatment in Patients With Advanced Gallbladder Cancer: A Multicenter Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial (GB-SELECT).

ABSTRACT:

Importance

There is therapeutic uncertainty regarding use of combination or single-agent chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with gallbladder cancer who experience disease progression after first-line chemotherapy.

Objective

To compare the efficacy of capecitabine plus irinotecan (CAPIRI) vs irinotecan (IRI) alone in patients with advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC) who have disease progression after gemcitabine-based first-line treatment.

Design, setting, and participants

The GB-SELECT trial was a multicenter, open-label, phase 2, randomized clinical trial of CAPIRI vs IRI alone for treatment of gallbladder cancer in patients who had disease progression after prior gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.The study was carried out in 2 tertiary care institutions in India. Patients aged between 18 and 70 years with histopathologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma gallbladder, advanced or metastatic disease, previous treatment with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, adequate hematologic, liver, and renal functions, and ECOG performance status of 1 or less were included in the study between August 2018 and January 2020. The data were analyzed for this report with cutoff on May 19, 2020.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive capecitabine, 1700 mg/m2 per day, on days 1 to 14 plus intravenous irinotecan, 200 mg/m2, on day 1 or intravenous irinotecan, 240 mg/m2, on day 1, in 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was overall survival (OS) at 6 months. The secondary end points were progression-free survival and quality of life.

Results

A total of 98 patients were randomized, 49 in each arm, with median (range) age of 51 (29-70) years, with 60 (61%) being women. In the CAPIRI vs IRI arms, the number of deaths at 6 months, 6-month OS, and median OS were 35, 34, 38.4% (95% CI, 24.2%-52.6%) and 5.16 (95% CI, 4.26-6.06) months vs 34, 29, 54.2% (95% CI, 39.4%-69.0%) and 6.28 (95% CI, 4.25-8.30) months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.64-1.49, P = .93). There were no chemotherapy-related deaths but more patients required dose modification in CAPIRI compared with the IRI arm (13 [27%] vs 4 [9%], respectively, P = .03).

Conclusions and relevance

There was no significant difference in OS between treatment with capecitabine plus irinotecan or irinotecan alone among previously treated patients with gallbladder cancer. Single-agent irinotecan should be the preferred treatment option for such patients.

Trial registration

CTRI/2017/10/010112.

SUBMITTER: Ramaswamy A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7716253 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Everolimus plus exemestane and capecitabine are approved second-line therapies for advanced breast cancer. Objective:A postapproval commitment to health authorities to estimate the clinical benefit of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus or capecitabine monotherapy for estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Design:Open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial of treatment effects in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that had progressed during treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. Interventions:Patients were randomized to 3 treatment regimens: (1) everolimus (10 mg/d) plus exemestane (25 mg/d); (2) everolimus alone (10 mg/d); and (3) capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily). Main Outcomes and Measures:Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone (primary objective) or capecitabine alone (key secondary objective). Safety was a secondary objective. No formal statistical comparisons were planned. Results:A total of 309 postmenopausal women were enrolled, median age, 61 years (range, 32-88 years). Of these, 104 received everolimus plus exemestane; 103, everolimus alone; and 102, capecitabine alone. Median follow-up from randomization to the analysis cutoff (June 1, 2017) was 37.6 months. Estimated HR of PFS was 0.74 (90% CI, 0.57-0.97) for the primary objective of everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus alone and 1.26 (90% CI, 0.96-1.66) for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine alone. Between treatment arms, potential informative censoring was noted, and a stratified multivariate Cox regression model was used to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics; a consistent HR was observed for everolimus plus exemestane vs everolimus (0.73; 90% CI, 0.56-0.97), but the HR was closer to 1 for everolimus plus exemestane vs capecitabine (1.15; 90% CI, 0.86-1.52). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine (74%; n?=?75) vs everolimus plus exemestane (70%; n?=?73) or everolimus alone (59%; n?=?61). Serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus plus exemestane (36%; n?=?37) vs everolimus alone (29%; n?=?30) or capecitabine (29%; n?=?30). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that everolimus plus exemestane combination therapy offers a PFS benefit vs everolimus alone, and they support continued use of this therapy in this setting. A numerical PFS difference with capecitabine vs everolimus plus exemestane should be interpreted cautiously owing to imbalances among baseline characteristics and potential informative censoring. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01783444.

Project description:BackgroundCombining an antiangiogenic agent with an anti-PD-1 agent is a promising strategy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).AimsTo explore the effectiveness and tolerability of lenvatinib plus camrelizumab vs. lenvatinib monotherapy as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC.MethodsThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study included patients with unresectable HCC treated with oral lenvatinib 8 mg daily and intravenous camrelizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (L+C group) or lenvatinib 12 mg or 8 mg daily (L group) in four Chinese centers between September 2018 and February 2020. Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. The outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), 1-year OS rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.ResultsBy March 31, 2021, 92 patients were finally included, with 48 and 44 in the L+C and L groups, respectively. ORR was significantly higher in the L+C group than in the L group (RECIST 1.1: 37.5% vs. 13.6%, P=0.009; mRECIST: 41.7% vs. 20.5%, P=0.029). Median OS and 95% confidence interval (CI) was 13.9 (13.3-18.3) months in the L group and not reached in the L+C group (P=0.015). The 1-year survival rate was 79.2% and 56.8% in the L+C and L groups, respectively. Median PFS was 10.3 (6.6-14.0) months and 7.5 (5.7-9.3) months in the L+C and L groups, respectively (P=0.0098). Combined therapy vs. monotherapy was independently associated with a prolonged OS (hazard ratio=0.380, 95% CI=: 0.196-0.739, P=0.004) and a prolonged PFS (hazard ratio=0.454, 95%CI=0.282-0.731, P=0.001). The safety profile was comparable between the two groups. The most common adverse event in the L+C and L groups was loss of appetite (41.7% vs. 40.9%, P=0.941). Three patients in the L+C group and two in the L group terminated treatment owing to adverse events.ConclusionFirst-line lenvatinib plus camrelizumab showed better effectiveness than lenvatinib alone in patients with unresectable HCC.

Project description:Several randomized trials have indicated that combination chemotherapy applied in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) does not significantly improve overall survival when compared to the sequential use of cytotoxic agents (CAIRO, MRC Focus, FFCD 2000-05). The present study investigates the question whether this statement holds true also for bevacizumab-based first-line treatment including escalation- and de-escalation strategies.The AIO KRK 0110/ML22011 trial is a two-arm, multicenter, open-label randomized phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1, will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) bid for 14d (d1-14) plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm A) or capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) BID for 14d (d1-14), irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) (d1) and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm B). Patients included into this trial are required to consent to the analysis of tumour tissue and blood for translational investigations. In Arm A, treatment escalation from Cape-Bev to CAPIRI-Bev is recommended in case of progressive disease (PD). In Arm B, de-escalation from CAPIRI-Bev to Cape-Bev is possible after 6 months of treatment or in case of irinotecan-associated toxicity. Re-escalation to CAPIRI-Bev after PD is possible. The primary endpoint is time to failure of strategy (TFS). Secondary endpoints are overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, progression-free survival, safety and quality of life.The AIO KRK 0110 trial is designed for patients with disseminated, but asymptomatic mCRC who are not potential candidates for surgical resection of metastasis. Two bevacizumab-based strategies are compared: one starting as single-agent chemotherapy (Cape-Bev) allowing escalation to CAPIRI-Bev and another starting with combination chemotherapy (CAPIRI-Bev) and allowing de-escalation to Cape-Bev and subsequent re-escalation if necessary.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01249638 EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38.