Cargando…

Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first‐line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study

BACKGROUND: Platinum‐based chemotherapy is recommended for the treatment of advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (GEP‐NEC). The objective of the current phase 2 study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity between etoposide and cisplatin (EP) and irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Panpan, Li, Jie, Li, Jian, Zhang, Xiaotian, Zhou, Jun, Wang, Xicheng, Peng, Zhi, Shen, Lin, Lu, Ming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7186825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293725
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32750
_version_ 1783527038013931520
author Zhang, Panpan
Li, Jie
Li, Jian
Zhang, Xiaotian
Zhou, Jun
Wang, Xicheng
Peng, Zhi
Shen, Lin
Lu, Ming
author_facet Zhang, Panpan
Li, Jie
Li, Jian
Zhang, Xiaotian
Zhou, Jun
Wang, Xicheng
Peng, Zhi
Shen, Lin
Lu, Ming
author_sort Zhang, Panpan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Platinum‐based chemotherapy is recommended for the treatment of advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (GEP‐NEC). The objective of the current phase 2 study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity between etoposide and cisplatin (EP) and irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) as first‐line treatment in patients with advanced GEP‐NEC. METHODS: Patients with advanced, poorly differentiated GEP‐NEC randomly were assigned to receive EP or IP. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival, overall survival, and toxicities. RESULTS: The planned size of the study population was 144 patients, but enrollment was terminated early at 66 patients because the premature analysis found similar responses in the 2 treatment arms. The ORRs of the EP and IP arms both were 42.4% (14 of 33 patients). The efficacy was similar for small cell NEC with EP or IP (63.2% and 61.5%, respectively; P = .61), whereas that of IP was slightly better in patients with non–small cell NEC (30% vs 14.3%; P = .42). The median progression‐free survival was 6.4 months and 5.8 months, respectively, for the EP and IP arms (P = .81), and the median overall survival was 11.3 months and 10.2 months, respectively, for the EP and IP arms (P = .37). The incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia was significantly higher in the EP arm compared with the IP arm (45.4% vs 12.1%; P = .002). Nonhematological toxicity was relatively mild and more frequent in the IP arm compared with the EP arm (54.5% vs 18.2%; P = .001). No toxicity‐related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrated that IP is not inferior to EP, with comparable efficacy for poorly differentiated NEC of the digestive system. In addition, both regimens appear to be well tolerated with diverse toxicity profiles.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7186825
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71868252020-04-28 Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first‐line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study Zhang, Panpan Li, Jie Li, Jian Zhang, Xiaotian Zhou, Jun Wang, Xicheng Peng, Zhi Shen, Lin Lu, Ming Cancer Original Articles BACKGROUND: Platinum‐based chemotherapy is recommended for the treatment of advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (GEP‐NEC). The objective of the current phase 2 study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity between etoposide and cisplatin (EP) and irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) as first‐line treatment in patients with advanced GEP‐NEC. METHODS: Patients with advanced, poorly differentiated GEP‐NEC randomly were assigned to receive EP or IP. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival, overall survival, and toxicities. RESULTS: The planned size of the study population was 144 patients, but enrollment was terminated early at 66 patients because the premature analysis found similar responses in the 2 treatment arms. The ORRs of the EP and IP arms both were 42.4% (14 of 33 patients). The efficacy was similar for small cell NEC with EP or IP (63.2% and 61.5%, respectively; P = .61), whereas that of IP was slightly better in patients with non–small cell NEC (30% vs 14.3%; P = .42). The median progression‐free survival was 6.4 months and 5.8 months, respectively, for the EP and IP arms (P = .81), and the median overall survival was 11.3 months and 10.2 months, respectively, for the EP and IP arms (P = .37). The incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia was significantly higher in the EP arm compared with the IP arm (45.4% vs 12.1%; P = .002). Nonhematological toxicity was relatively mild and more frequent in the IP arm compared with the EP arm (54.5% vs 18.2%; P = .001). No toxicity‐related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrated that IP is not inferior to EP, with comparable efficacy for poorly differentiated NEC of the digestive system. In addition, both regimens appear to be well tolerated with diverse toxicity profiles. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-04-15 2020-05-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7186825/ /pubmed/32293725 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32750 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Zhang, Panpan
Li, Jie
Li, Jian
Zhang, Xiaotian
Zhou, Jun
Wang, Xicheng
Peng, Zhi
Shen, Lin
Lu, Ming
Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first‐line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study
title Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first‐line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study
title_full Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first‐line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study
title_fullStr Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first‐line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study
title_full_unstemmed Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first‐line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study
title_short Etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first‐line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: A randomized phase 2 study
title_sort etoposide and cisplatin versus irinotecan and cisplatin as the first‐line therapy for patients with advanced, poorly differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: a randomized phase 2 study
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7186825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293725
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32750
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangpanpan etoposideandcisplatinversusirinotecanandcisplatinasthefirstlinetherapyforpatientswithadvancedpoorlydifferentiatedgastroenteropancreaticneuroendocrinecarcinomaarandomizedphase2study
AT lijie etoposideandcisplatinversusirinotecanandcisplatinasthefirstlinetherapyforpatientswithadvancedpoorlydifferentiatedgastroenteropancreaticneuroendocrinecarcinomaarandomizedphase2study
AT lijian etoposideandcisplatinversusirinotecanandcisplatinasthefirstlinetherapyforpatientswithadvancedpoorlydifferentiatedgastroenteropancreaticneuroendocrinecarcinomaarandomizedphase2study
AT zhangxiaotian etoposideandcisplatinversusirinotecanandcisplatinasthefirstlinetherapyforpatientswithadvancedpoorlydifferentiatedgastroenteropancreaticneuroendocrinecarcinomaarandomizedphase2study
AT zhoujun etoposideandcisplatinversusirinotecanandcisplatinasthefirstlinetherapyforpatientswithadvancedpoorlydifferentiatedgastroenteropancreaticneuroendocrinecarcinomaarandomizedphase2study
AT wangxicheng etoposideandcisplatinversusirinotecanandcisplatinasthefirstlinetherapyforpatientswithadvancedpoorlydifferentiatedgastroenteropancreaticneuroendocrinecarcinomaarandomizedphase2study
AT pengzhi etoposideandcisplatinversusirinotecanandcisplatinasthefirstlinetherapyforpatientswithadvancedpoorlydifferentiatedgastroenteropancreaticneuroendocrinecarcinomaarandomizedphase2study
AT shenlin etoposideandcisplatinversusirinotecanandcisplatinasthefirstlinetherapyforpatientswithadvancedpoorlydifferentiatedgastroenteropancreaticneuroendocrinecarcinomaarandomizedphase2study
AT luming etoposideandcisplatinversusirinotecanandcisplatinasthefirstlinetherapyforpatientswithadvancedpoorlydifferentiatedgastroenteropancreaticneuroendocrinecarcinomaarandomizedphase2study