European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2021
A randomised phase II study of oxaliplatin/5-FU (mFOLFOX) versus irinotecan/5-FU (mFOLFIRI) chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer refractory to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy.
Клиническое исследование II фазыСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Choi In Sil, Kim Ki Hwan, Lee Ju Hyun, Suh Koung Jin, Kim Ji-Won, Park Jin Hyun, Kim Yu Jung, Kim Jin-Soo, Kim Jee Hyun, Kim Jin Won
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (BTC), second-line chemotherapy is challenging after progression from first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin. This study evaluated whether irinotecan/5-fluorouracil (5-FU; mFOLFIRI) was superior to oxaliplatin/5-FU (mFOLFOX) as a second-line treatment in BTC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with BTC with disease progression after prior gemcitabine/cisplatin were randomised (1:1) to either mFOLFOX (control arm) or mFOLFIRI (experimental arm). Randomisation was stratified by tumour location (intrahepatic versus extrahepatic versus gallbladder versus ampulla of Vater) and ECOG performance status (0, 1 versus 2). The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) rate at 6 months.
RESULTS: In total, 120 patients were enrolled and 118 patients were randomised (mFOLFOX n = 59, mFOLFIRI n = 59). The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. The tumour location was intrahepatic bile duct in 48 patients (40.7%), extrahepatic bile duct in 29 patients (24.6%), gallbladder in 35 patients (29.7%) and ampulla of Vater in 6 patients (5.1%). At a median follow-up duration of 25.8 months, the 6-month OS rate was 54.1% in mFOLFOX and 44.1% in mFOLFIRI (p = 0.677). The median OS was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.2) in mFOLFOX and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.7-6.7) in mFOLFIRI (p = 0.677). The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.3-3.3) in mFOLFOX and 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.1-3.1) in mFOLFIRI (p = 0.974). Of the 101 evaluable patients, the objective response rate and disease control rate were 5.9% and 66.7% in mFOLFOX and 4.0% and 64.0% in mFOLFIRI (p = 0.663 and p = 0.778, respectively). Peripheral neuropathy (37.5% versus 5.2%) and thrombocytopenia (35.7% versus 15.5%) in mFOLFOX and vomiting (19.0% versus 1.8%) and cholangitis (10.3% versus 0.0%) in mFOLFIRI occurred more frequently. No chemotherapy-related death was reported.
CONCLUSION: In the second-line treatment of BTC, mFOLFIRI was not superior to mFOLFOX. However, mFOLFIRI was tolerable and showed comparable efficacy to mFOLFOX. Adverse events were different between the two arms. CLINICALTRIALS.
GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03464968.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with BTC with disease progression after prior gemcitabine/cisplatin were randomised (1:1) to either mFOLFOX (control arm) or mFOLFIRI (experimental arm). Randomisation was stratified by tumour location (intrahepatic versus extrahepatic versus gallbladder versus ampulla of Vater) and ECOG performance status (0, 1 versus 2). The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) rate at 6 months.
RESULTS: In total, 120 patients were enrolled and 118 patients were randomised (mFOLFOX n = 59, mFOLFIRI n = 59). The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. The tumour location was intrahepatic bile duct in 48 patients (40.7%), extrahepatic bile duct in 29 patients (24.6%), gallbladder in 35 patients (29.7%) and ampulla of Vater in 6 patients (5.1%). At a median follow-up duration of 25.8 months, the 6-month OS rate was 54.1% in mFOLFOX and 44.1% in mFOLFIRI (p = 0.677). The median OS was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.2) in mFOLFOX and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.7-6.7) in mFOLFIRI (p = 0.677). The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.3-3.3) in mFOLFOX and 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.1-3.1) in mFOLFIRI (p = 0.974). Of the 101 evaluable patients, the objective response rate and disease control rate were 5.9% and 66.7% in mFOLFOX and 4.0% and 64.0% in mFOLFIRI (p = 0.663 and p = 0.778, respectively). Peripheral neuropathy (37.5% versus 5.2%) and thrombocytopenia (35.7% versus 15.5%) in mFOLFOX and vomiting (19.0% versus 1.8%) and cholangitis (10.3% versus 0.0%) in mFOLFIRI occurred more frequently. No chemotherapy-related death was reported.
CONCLUSION: In the second-line treatment of BTC, mFOLFIRI was not superior to mFOLFOX. However, mFOLFIRI was tolerable and showed comparable efficacy to mFOLFOX. Adverse events were different between the two arms. CLINICALTRIALS.
GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03464968.