Cancer · 2019
FOLFOX plus ziv-aflibercept or placebo in first-line metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 2 trial.
Клиническое исследование II фазыСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Cleary James M, Horick Nora K, McCleary Nadine Jackson, Abrams Thomas A, Yurgelun Matthew B, Azzoli Christopher G, Rubinson Douglas A, Brooks Gabriel A, Chan Jennifer A, Blaszkowsky Lawrence S, Clark Jeffrey W, Goyal Lipika, Meyerhardt Jeffrey A, Ng Kimmie, Schrag Deborah, Savarese Diane M F, Graham Christopher, Fitzpatrick Bridget, Gibb Kathryn A, Boucher Yves, Duda Dan G, Jain Rakesh K, Fuchs Charles S, Enzinger Peter C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic therapy is a proven therapeutic modality for refractory gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This trial assessed whether the addition of a high affinity angiogenesis inhibitor, ziv-aflibercept, could improve the efficacy of first-line mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and bolus plus infusional 5- fluorouracil) in metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.
METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to receive first-line mFOLFOX6 with or without ziv-aflibercept (4 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS).
RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 and ziv-aflibercept (43 patients) or mFOLFOX6 and a placebo (21 patients). There was no difference in the PFS, overall survival, or response rate. Patients treated with mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept tended to be more likely to discontinue study treatment for reasons other than progressive disease (P = .06). The relative dose intensity of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil was lower in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept arm during the first 12 and 24 weeks of the trial. There were 2 treatment-related deaths due to cerebral hemorrhage and bowel perforation in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: Ziv-aflibercept did not increase the anti-tumor activity of first-line mFOLFOX6 in metastatic esophagogastric cancer, potentially because of decreased dose intensity of FOLFOX. Further evaluation of ziv-aflibercept in unselected, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma is not warranted.
METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to receive first-line mFOLFOX6 with or without ziv-aflibercept (4 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS).
RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 and ziv-aflibercept (43 patients) or mFOLFOX6 and a placebo (21 patients). There was no difference in the PFS, overall survival, or response rate. Patients treated with mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept tended to be more likely to discontinue study treatment for reasons other than progressive disease (P = .06). The relative dose intensity of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil was lower in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept arm during the first 12 and 24 weeks of the trial. There were 2 treatment-related deaths due to cerebral hemorrhage and bowel perforation in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: Ziv-aflibercept did not increase the anti-tumor activity of first-line mFOLFOX6 in metastatic esophagogastric cancer, potentially because of decreased dose intensity of FOLFOX. Further evaluation of ziv-aflibercept in unselected, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma is not warranted.