Cargando…

Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer

The purpose of this phase II randomised trial was to determine which of two schemes, raltitrexed-irinotecan or raltitrexed-oxaliplatin, offered better activity and less toxicity in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). A total of 94 patients with previously untreated metastatic CRC were in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Feliu, J, Castañón, C, Salud, A, Mel, J R, Escudero, P, Pelegrín, A, López-Gómez, L, Ruiz, M, González, E, Juárez, F, Lizón, J, Castro, J, González-Barón, M
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16265344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602860
_version_ 1782153230151581696
author Feliu, J
Castañón, C
Salud, A
Mel, J R
Escudero, P
Pelegrín, A
López-Gómez, L
Ruiz, M
González, E
Juárez, F
Lizón, J
Castro, J
González-Barón, M
author_facet Feliu, J
Castañón, C
Salud, A
Mel, J R
Escudero, P
Pelegrín, A
López-Gómez, L
Ruiz, M
González, E
Juárez, F
Lizón, J
Castro, J
González-Barón, M
author_sort Feliu, J
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this phase II randomised trial was to determine which of two schemes, raltitrexed-irinotecan or raltitrexed-oxaliplatin, offered better activity and less toxicity in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). A total of 94 patients with previously untreated metastatic CRC were included and randomised to receive raltitrexed 3 mg m(−2) followed by oxaliplatin 130 mg m(−2) on day 1 (arm A), or CPT-11 350 mg m(−2) followed by raltitrexed 3 mg m(−2) (arm B). In both arms treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed an overall response rate of 46% (95% CI, 29.5–57.7%) for arm A, and 34% (95% CI, 19.8–48.4%) for arm B. Median time to progression was 8.2 months for arm A and 8.8 months for arm B. After a median follow-up of 14 months, 69% of patients included in arm A were still alive, compared to 59% of those included in arm B. Overall, 31 patients (65%) experienced some episode of toxicity in arm A and 32 patients (70%) in arm B, usually grade 1–2. The most common toxicity was hepatic, with 29 patients (60%) in arm A and 24 patients (62%) in arm B, and was grade 3–4 in four (8%) and four (9%) patients, respectively. In all, 14 patients (29%) from arm A and 24 patients (52%) from arm B had some grade of diarrhoea (P<0.03). Neurologic toxicity was observed in 31 patients (64%) in arm A, and was grade 3–4 in five patients (10%), while a cholinergic syndrome was detected in nine patients (19%) in arm B. There were no differences in haematologic toxicity. One toxic death (2%) occurred in arm A and three (6.5%) in arm B. In conclusion, both schemes have high efficacy as first-line treatment in metastatic CRC and their total toxicity levels are similar. Regimens with raltitrexed seem a reasonable alternative to fluoropyrimidines.
format Text
id pubmed-2361515
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-23615152009-09-10 Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer Feliu, J Castañón, C Salud, A Mel, J R Escudero, P Pelegrín, A López-Gómez, L Ruiz, M González, E Juárez, F Lizón, J Castro, J González-Barón, M Br J Cancer Clinical Study The purpose of this phase II randomised trial was to determine which of two schemes, raltitrexed-irinotecan or raltitrexed-oxaliplatin, offered better activity and less toxicity in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). A total of 94 patients with previously untreated metastatic CRC were included and randomised to receive raltitrexed 3 mg m(−2) followed by oxaliplatin 130 mg m(−2) on day 1 (arm A), or CPT-11 350 mg m(−2) followed by raltitrexed 3 mg m(−2) (arm B). In both arms treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed an overall response rate of 46% (95% CI, 29.5–57.7%) for arm A, and 34% (95% CI, 19.8–48.4%) for arm B. Median time to progression was 8.2 months for arm A and 8.8 months for arm B. After a median follow-up of 14 months, 69% of patients included in arm A were still alive, compared to 59% of those included in arm B. Overall, 31 patients (65%) experienced some episode of toxicity in arm A and 32 patients (70%) in arm B, usually grade 1–2. The most common toxicity was hepatic, with 29 patients (60%) in arm A and 24 patients (62%) in arm B, and was grade 3–4 in four (8%) and four (9%) patients, respectively. In all, 14 patients (29%) from arm A and 24 patients (52%) from arm B had some grade of diarrhoea (P<0.03). Neurologic toxicity was observed in 31 patients (64%) in arm A, and was grade 3–4 in five patients (10%), while a cholinergic syndrome was detected in nine patients (19%) in arm B. There were no differences in haematologic toxicity. One toxic death (2%) occurred in arm A and three (6.5%) in arm B. In conclusion, both schemes have high efficacy as first-line treatment in metastatic CRC and their total toxicity levels are similar. Regimens with raltitrexed seem a reasonable alternative to fluoropyrimidines. Nature Publishing Group 2005-11-28 2005-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC2361515/ /pubmed/16265344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602860 Text en Copyright © 2005 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Feliu, J
Castañón, C
Salud, A
Mel, J R
Escudero, P
Pelegrín, A
López-Gómez, L
Ruiz, M
González, E
Juárez, F
Lizón, J
Castro, J
González-Barón, M
Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer
title Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer
title_full Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer
title_fullStr Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer
title_full_unstemmed Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer
title_short Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer
title_sort phase ii randomised trial of raltitrexed–oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed–irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16265344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602860
work_keys_str_mv AT feliuj phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT castanonc phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT saluda phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT meljr phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT escuderop phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT pelegrina phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT lopezgomezl phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT ruizm phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT gonzaleze phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT juarezf phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT lizonj phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT castroj phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer
AT gonzalezbaronm phaseiirandomisedtrialofraltitrexedoxaliplatinvsraltitrexedirinotecanasfirstlinetreatmentinadvancedcolorectalcancer