Anticancer research · 2006
Safety of cisplatin combined with continuous 5-FU versus bolus 5-FU and leucovorin, in metastatic gastrointestinal cancer (FFCD 9404 randomised trial).
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Duffour Jacqueline, Bouché Olivier, Rougier Philippe, Milan Chantal, Bedenne Laurent, Seitz Jean-François, Buecher Bruno, Legoux Jean-Louis, Ducreux Michel, Vetter Denis, Raoul Jean-Luc, François Eric, Ychou Marc
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The objective of this phase III study was to compare the safety and efficacy of FLP (modulation of 5-FU (Fluorouracil) by folinic acid or leucovorin (LV) and cisplatin vs. FP (5-FU combined with Cisplatin) as a first line chemotherapy in advanced oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 232 patients with measurable lesions were randomised to receive at the first cycle either FP (arm A: 5-FU 800 mg/m2/d in continuous infusion 5 days and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 or 2), or FLP (arm B: LV, 100 mg/m2/d in bolus 5 days, followed by 5-FU 350 mg/m2/d in 1 h infusion 5 days and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 or 2). In case of no grade 3-4 haematological and diarrhoea toxicity, the dose of 5-FU was increased to 1000 mg/m2/d and 400 mg/m2/d in the two arms respectively, for the subsequent cycles until disease progression.
RESULTS: The distribution of primary tumours was: 19 squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus, 19 oesophageal adenocarcinoma, 91 gastric and 97 pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Safety remained acceptable and comparable in the two arms except for the severe grade 3-4 mucositis, which was lower in arm B (4.5 vs. 16.4%, p < 0.009). Efficacy in terms of tumour response and survival was similar in the two arms, showing an objective response rate (after external review) of 18.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.4-25.8%) in arm A vs. 15% (95% CI 8.5-21.6%) in arm B, an overall median survival of 24 weeks in arm A vs. 24.7 in arm B (p = 0.83) and a progression-free median survival of 12.4 weeks vs. 12.1 in arms A and B, respectively (p = 0.91).
CONCLUSION: The FLP regimen is substantially equivalent to FP in terms of safety and quality of life, as well as for antitumour efficacy in these carcinomas; the only slight advantage of FLP in this study concerns mucositis. Based on these results, FLP could be used as an alternative to FP when appropriate.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 232 patients with measurable lesions were randomised to receive at the first cycle either FP (arm A: 5-FU 800 mg/m2/d in continuous infusion 5 days and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 or 2), or FLP (arm B: LV, 100 mg/m2/d in bolus 5 days, followed by 5-FU 350 mg/m2/d in 1 h infusion 5 days and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 or 2). In case of no grade 3-4 haematological and diarrhoea toxicity, the dose of 5-FU was increased to 1000 mg/m2/d and 400 mg/m2/d in the two arms respectively, for the subsequent cycles until disease progression.
RESULTS: The distribution of primary tumours was: 19 squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus, 19 oesophageal adenocarcinoma, 91 gastric and 97 pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Safety remained acceptable and comparable in the two arms except for the severe grade 3-4 mucositis, which was lower in arm B (4.5 vs. 16.4%, p < 0.009). Efficacy in terms of tumour response and survival was similar in the two arms, showing an objective response rate (after external review) of 18.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.4-25.8%) in arm A vs. 15% (95% CI 8.5-21.6%) in arm B, an overall median survival of 24 weeks in arm A vs. 24.7 in arm B (p = 0.83) and a progression-free median survival of 12.4 weeks vs. 12.1 in arms A and B, respectively (p = 0.91).
CONCLUSION: The FLP regimen is substantially equivalent to FP in terms of safety and quality of life, as well as for antitumour efficacy in these carcinomas; the only slight advantage of FLP in this study concerns mucositis. Based on these results, FLP could be used as an alternative to FP when appropriate.