共 50 条
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
被引:37
|作者:
Choi, In Sil
[1
]
Kim, Ki Hwan
[1
]
Lee, Ju Hyun
[2
]
Suh, Koung Jin
[2
]
Kim, Ji-Won
[2
]
Park, Jin Hyun
[1
]
Kim, Yu Jung
[2
]
Kim, Jin-Soo
[1
]
Kim, Jee Hyun
[2
]
Kim, Jin Won
[2
]
机构:
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Boramae Med Ctr, Seoul Metropolitan Govt, Dept Internal Med, 20 Boramae Ro 5 Gil, Seoul 07061, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ, Bundang Hosp, Dept Internal Med, 82,Gumi Ro 173 Beon Gil, Seongnam 13620, South Korea
关键词:
Biliary tract cancer;
mFOLFOX;
mFOLFIRI;
Second-line chemotherapy;
OPEN-LABEL;
CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA;
MULTICENTER;
D O I:
10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.019
中图分类号:
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号:
100214 ;
摘要:
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 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:288 / 295
页数:8
相关论文