| 1. |
- Bernhard, Jürg, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone : a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 26:22, s. 3695-3701
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.
|
|
| 2. |
- Birgisson, Helgi, et al.
(författare)
-
Adverse effects of preoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer : long-term follow-up of the Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial.
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - : American Scoiety of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 23:34, s. 8697-8705
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: To analyze the occurrence of subacute and late adverse effects in patients treated with preoperative irradiation for rectal cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population included 1,147 patients randomly assigned to preoperative radiation therapy or surgery alone in the Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial conducted 1987 through 1990. Patient data were matched against the Swedish Hospital Discharge Register to identify patients admitted to hospital after the primary treatment of the rectal cancer. Patients with known residual disease were excluded, and patients with a recurrence were censored 3 months before the date of recurrence. Relative risks (RR) with 95% CIs were calculated.RESULTS: Irradiated patients were at increased risk of admissions during the first 6 months from the primary treatment (RR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.22); these were mainly for gastrointestinal diagnoses. Overall, the two groups showed no difference in the risk of admissions more than 6 months from the primary treatment (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12). Regarding specific diagnoses, however, RRs were increased for admissions later than 6 months from the primary treatment in irradiated patients for unspecified infections, bowel obstruction, abdominal pain, and nausea.CONCLUSION: Gastrointestinal disorders, resulting in hospital admissions, seem to be the most common adverse effect of short-course preoperative radiation therapy in patients with rectal cancer. Bowel obstruction was the diagnosis of potentially greatest importance, which was more frequent in irradiated than in nonirradiated patients.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Braendengen, Morten, et al.
(författare)
-
Randomized phase III study comparing preoperative radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy in nonresectable rectal cancer
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 26:22, s. 3687-3694
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is considered standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for the chemotherapy addition is limited. This trial investigated whether chemotherapy as part of a multidisciplinary treatment approach would improve downstaging, survival, and relapse rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The randomized study included 207 patients with locally nonresectable T4 primary rectal carcinoma or local recurrence from rectal carcinoma in the period 1996 to 2003. The patients received either chemotherapy (fluorouracil/leucovorin) administered concurrently with radiotherapy (50 Gy) and adjuvant for 16 weeks after surgery (CRT group, n = 98) or radiotherapy alone (50 Gy; RT group, n = 109). RESULTS: The two groups were well balanced according to pretreatment characteristics. An R0 resection was performed in 82 patients (84%) in the CRT group and in 74 patients (68%) in the RT group (P = .009). Pathologic complete response was seen in 16% and 7%, respectively. After an R0 + R1 resection, local recurrence was found in 5% and 7%, and distant metastases in 26% and 39%, respectively. Local control (82% v 67% at 5 years; log-rank P = .03), time to treatment failure (63% v 44%; P = .003), cancer-specific survival (72% v 55%; P = .02), and overall survival (66% v 53%; P = .09) all favored the CRT group. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity, mainly GI, was seen in 28 (29%) of 98 and six (6%) of 109, respectively (P = .001). There was no difference in late toxicity. CONCLUSION: CRT improved local control, time to treatment failure, and cancer-specific survival compared with RT alone in patients with nonresectable rectal cancer. The treatments were well tolerated.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Carde, Patrice, et al.
(författare)
-
Eight Cycles of ABVD Versus Four Cycles of BEACOPP(escalated) Plus Four Cycles of BEACOPP(baseline) in Stage III to IV, International Prognostic Score >= 3, High-Risk Hodgkin Lymphoma : First Results of the Phase III EORTC 20012 Intergroup Trial
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 34:17, s. 2028-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose To compare patients with high-risk stage III to IV Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the phase III European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 20012 Intergroup trial (Comparison of Two Combination Chemotherapy Regimens in Treating Patients With Stage III or Stage IV Hodgkin's Lymphoma) who were randomly assigned to either doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) or to bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP). Patients and Methods Patients with clinical stage III or IV HL, International Prognostic Score of 3 or higher, and age 60 years or younger received ABVD for eight cycles (ABVD(8)) or escalated-dose BEACOPP (BEACOPP(escalated)) for four cycles followed by baseline BEACOPP (BEACOPP(baseline)) for four cycles (BEACOPP(4+4)) without radiotherapy. Primary end points were event-free survival (EFS), treatment discontinuation, no complete response (CR) or unconfirmed complete response (CRu) after eight cycles, progression, relapse, or death. Secondary end points were CR rate, overall survival (OS), quality of life, secondary malignancies, and disease-free survival in CR/CRu patients. Results Between 2002 and 2010, 549 patients were randomly assigned to ABVD(8) (n = 275) or BEACOPP(4+4) (n = 274). Other characteristics included median age, 35 years; male, 75%; stage IV, 74%; "B" symptoms, 81%; and International Prognostic Score >= 4, 59%. WHO performance status was 0 (34%), 1 (48%), or 2 (17%). Median follow-upwas 3.6 years. CR/CRu was 82.5% in both arms. At 4 years, EFS was 63.7% for ABVD(8) versus 69.3% for BEACOPP(4+4) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.15; P = .312); disease-free survival was 85.8% versus 91.0% (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.06; P = .076), and OS was 86.7% versus 90.3% (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.21; P = .208). Death as a result of toxicity occurred in six and five patients, early discontinuation (before cycle 5) in 12 and 26 patients, treatment crossovers in five and 10 patients, and secondary malignancies in eight and 10 patients in the ABVD(8) and BEACOPP(4+4) arms, respectively. Conclusion ABVD(8) and BEACOPP(4+4) resulted in similar EFS and OS in patients with high-risk advanced-stage HL. Because BEACOPP(4+4) did not demonstrate a favorable effectiveness or toxicity ratio compared with ABVD(8), treatment burden, immediate and late toxicities, and associated costs must be considered before selecting one of these regimens on which to build future treatment strategies.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Dewdney, Alice, et al.
(författare)
-
Multicenter Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial Comparing Neoadjuvant Oxaliplatin, Capecitabine, and Preoperative Radiotherapy With or Without Cetuximab Followed by Total Mesorectal Excision in Patients With High-Risk Rectal Cancer (EXPERT-C)
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 30:14, s. 1620-1627
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX + C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. Results One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX + C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [ HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX + C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX + C arm. Conclusion Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
